GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know why this is such a controversial point. Again no one is saying it is genuinely real, or that it is like real world police work (though I did once go to the Boston FBI field office to do research, and was able to ask about things like evidence collection, for one of my games and so I think it is possible to elevate some of the realism in certain ways). What we are saying is there is a difference between a game where the solution to the mystery is generated and entirely unknowable at the start of play, to one where the GM has established that fact and treats all of the facts of the investigation as objective facts that can be discovered. The aim of the former is not for the players to actually solve the mystery, the aim of the latter is for them to actually solve the mystery. None of this is commentary on the quality of either approach, both have their advantages and disadvantages, and there are also plenty of options between these two extremes).

Yeah, I'm not saying one or the other is a better game experience either, just that these kinds of clean room hypotheticals don't really produce much. Years ago there was a forum on which the rule was, no hypotheticals, only discussion of actual play.

 

[thefutilist]

GM has the choice between "following the living world requirements" versus "give credence and narrative space to the player's intent", almost without fail the "requirements of maintaining the illusion of the living world" wins out.

Because that's what "trad" GM culture teaches and espouses, and even moreso, decries any resistance to the "living world" paradigm as anathema, anti-immersion, and inherently opposed to "good RPG play."

What I've found is that if you're both playing to find out what happens. Then fiat is fine as long as it's seen as living world + choice the person is making in response to you. You need to be on the same page that this is something that can actually go either way. If the GM or Player for that matter, treats their characters as these immovable fanatics that can never be swayed. Then you're probably on different pages as to the purpose of play.

 

[soviet]

I don't understand what you're saying about RPGs vs. Collective fiction-writing. Your version of RPG play, like storytelling, has the mystery's answer created during active play. That's the part I see as incompatible with solving a mystery (as fun as it may be for you and yours).

And I think it's obvious that a person's preference is going to be considered better for them, otherwise it really be my preference.

I'm not quite sure I've understood some of the 'mystery' part of this thread, and personally I have a pre-determined answer to such things even when I play Other Worlds, but:

As I understand it, in the games that don't have a pre-determined answer, it's not that the players are creating the mystery's answer as such, it's that they are exhausting the possible solutions until only one is left, which must therefore be the logical answer. So the solution does naturally follow from the clues, it's just which of the options fits best isn't pre-determined.

This surely isn't too far from how real life crimes are investigated, where possible leads and lines of enquiry are explored and ruled out until one thing is left as the most likely answer.

Again, I haven't played this way, and don't think I would personally find it as satisfying, but I'm not sure it's as wildly different as is being portrayed. Is it any different, for example, from a game where a GM pre-determines a solution but then changes that solution mid-play because they had a better idea, or the players' speculation contained a better idea?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

However, the style of RPG play you prefer has many qualities of the latter.


Indeed, such as "words mean things." People are are not having your usual semantic obscurantism.

Gosh, if only a professional philosopher, aka a person trained in the profession of elucidating things was here!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not quite sure I've understood some of the 'mystery' part of this thread, and personally I have a pre-determined answer to such things even when I play Other Worlds, but:

As I understand it, in the games that don't have a pre-determined answer, it's not that the players are creating the mystery's answer as such, it's that they are exhausting the possible solutions until only one is left, which must therefore be the logical answer. So the solution does naturally follow from the clues, it's just which of the options fits best isn't pre-determined.

This surely isn't too far from how real life crimes are investigated, where possible leads and lines of enquiry are explored and ruled out until one thing is left as the most likely answer.

Again, I haven't played this way, and don't think I would personally find it as satisfying, but I'm not sure it's as wildly different as is being portrayed. Is it any different, for example, from a game where a GM pre-determines a solution but then changes that solution mid-play because they had a better idea, or the players' speculation contained a better idea?

Frankly, I would see changing the solution to a mystery mid-game as a real problem; whether the player's find out or not, the settings integrity has been compromised.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Frankly, I would see changing the solution to a mystery mid-game as a real problem; whether the player's find out or not, the settings integrity has been compromised.

And whether one finds that it to be a problem or not, it would definitely put it into the "not a real mystery" category too.

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand what you're saying about RPGs vs. Collective fiction-writing. Your version of RPG play, like storytelling, has the mystery's answer created during active play. That's the part I see as incompatible with solving a mystery (as fun as it may be for you and yours).

And I think it's obvious that a person's preference is going to be considered better for them, otherwise it wouldn't really be their preference.

What is real or not isn't, as far as I know, a matter of preference.

As far as the difference between RPGing and collective fiction-writing: consider how a standard D&D combat is resolved. No one pre-authors the outcome. Nor is it written via collective authorship - as, for instance, a group of script-writers sitting together deciding how an imaginary melee should unfold. It is resolved by applying the rules of the game.

EDIT: Did you, or @Crimson Longinus, read the actual play example?

 

[pemerton]

However, the style of RPG play you prefer has many qualities of the latter.

No more than yours.

 

[soviet]

Gosh, if only a professional philosopher, aka a person trained in the profession of elucidating things was here!

Or an investigator for a law enforcement agency!

 

[pemerton]

The language of calling it objective and real is not meant as an assault on other approaches. The point of taking this approach is you want to have players who really feel like they are solving a real mystery. And you have objective details about that mystery so that they are actually solving something.

I'm not confused by what you're asserting. I'm saying that it is wrong. It rests on a false premise that nothing can be solved unless it is pre-authored. Just as does @EzekielRaiden's example of an examination.