GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

So catching Grant right? If they discover that it was Grant, but he escaped half an hour ago, did they solve the mystery?

I mean the mystery has been solved, sure. Your players are probably going to feel like they didn't beat the scenario fully though. I don't see how this presents any issues. I mean there can be a lot of different split outcomes in scenarios like this

If they don't discover the truth, or they go find and imprison Sofia, did they solve the mystery?

No, but they may think they did

@Bedrockgames, do you agree? Like catching Grant but never really knowing that he did it because he discovered Harrow was planning to cut him out of the company? Did that solve the mystery?

Sure. They might find out who did it but fail to discover the person's motives. But those two things are still objective facts that could have been solved

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm building up to it. Given your continued involvement in this thread, I suspect you'll still be here for when I do.

Okay. Don't do this. Just tell us what you are getting at. I don't have any interest in this kind of exchange

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ah great! But like, that's still productive play right? Failure to solve the mystery, is still very much a welcomed outcome for this type of play? Yes?

For some people it isn't. It depends on the GM and players. This is something that is hotly discussed with these kinds of mystery sncearios because some people feel if they don't solve them, the scenario has failed. Personally I have no problem with it. But I would ask you to get directly to your point because building to one through questions like this, feels kind of condescending

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

The investigation is over when the players, through their PCs, cease investigating. What the exact circumstances are when that happens will likely be quite different, but in any case it is up to the players when the mystery is considered solved.

one can obviously partially solve mysteries. I don't quite see what you're getting at.

I mean the mystery has been solved, sure. Your players are probably going to feel like they didn't beat the scenario fully though. I don't see how this presents any issues. I mean there can be a lot of different split outcomes in scenarios like this




No, but they may think they did



Sure. They might find out who did it but fail to discover the person's motives. But those two things are still objective facts that could have been solved

Great! So it seems that all three of you agree that whether or not the mystery is “solved” does not prevent the situation from resolving. Whether the players succeed fully, succeed partially, or fail altogether at discovering some, all, or none of the details of the mystery, play can and does go on. The scenario reaches some form of resolution regardless of how much of the prewritten backstory becomes known to the players. I hope you won't be surprised to know that this is how us narrativists play too when we play with pre-written backstory.

If that’s the case, then when we go back and look at the prewritten backstory, we realize that the only purpose it’s serving is to provide a scaffolding for play, it’s situational material.

Which leads me back to what I’ve been trying to point at from the start: If the investigation can resolve meaningfully whether the players uncover the backstory or not, then the so-called "objectivity" of the mystery is structurally irrelevant to the experience of continued play. What matters is not whether the GM has a secret answer, but whether the investigation changes the fiction, the characters, and the stakes — whether the players’ actions materially shape how things turn out.

That’s why I keep pressing on what you mean by “solving” the mystery. Because from everything you've said, it seems like you’re using "solved" as a kind of metaphysical status — something that exists outside and beyond play — when what actually matters is how the investigation procedurally reshapes the situation at the table.

This puts me in a great position to argue that, what I think you all actually mean when you say that there needs to be a pre-written backstory for things to feel "real" is something actually a little different. I think what you’re pointing at is the desire you have for your players to arrive at their conclusions by navigating clues and circumstances that present themselves as objective, external facts via logical extrapolation and a little bit of guesswork. You want the players’ logical leaps, their deductions, their failures and insights to feel like they are being tested against a solid, pre-existing framework, rather than something improvised in response to their actions.

That’s a valid aesthetic preference. But it’s not the same thing as saying that the existence of that backstory is what makes the mystery “real.” What makes it real is whether the players' engagement with the investigation carries weight in how the fiction unfolds. You can structure that weight around mental struggle against pre-authored material (the puzzle solving element), sure — but as many on the other side have tried to made clear, you can also structure that weight through emergent, procedural play that makes the ongoing and developing mystery have real consequences and provoke hard choices on the go.

 

[bloodtide]

I mean, I get that there’s a story that will happen… but he also said the players can choose their own goals. I can’t really make sense of what is being said or how it fits with other things he’s said.

So this goes back to what I've said about simple vs complex games.

The Goal of your game is often a single thing, like a single adventure, and you will play the game until the end of the adventure and then stop playing the game. And quite often then play another game and quite often rotate DMs.

My game has no such goal, we plan to play "nearly forever" or at least a couple YEARS. YEARS. My record is 11, but most of my games are in the 3-5 year range.

A typical good player in my game has a lot of goals. A Life Goal of "where you want your character to be in 30 years". An "Impossible" Goal of something near impossible. A couple big arc Story Goals of telling the life of the character and a bunch of Personal Goals of things they want or need to do.

My Main "generic" Goal for each character is the Ye Old BECMI Goal of ruling a land, lead a group, command an army or such...and maybe try to become Immortal.

An adventure is an Immediate Goal, and is most often...even more so at low level...not directly connected to any one players goal or goals. Though the smart and clever players will always be piloting and planning and looking ahead to the future. And most adventures keep the land stable, so the PCs have to step in. Adventures can line up with PC goals, but not too often, unless the PC takes radical actions to do so.

Of course, not every player is a good player. So this is more where the Railroad will come in. In general, the good players will willing play the game, the other players get stuck on the railroad.

As my game play is roughly 30+ fantasy years, things need to go fast......this is the Main Railroad. I don't stand for any wasting time at all. But if a player has a goal of "I want my character to retire rich and own a small potion shop", that really has zero effect when the character is Railroaded through the Dark Nights Terror Adventure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Great! So it seems that all three of you agree that whether or not the mystery is “solved” does not prevent the situation from resolving. Whether the players succeed fully, succeed partially, or fail altogether at discovering some, all, or none of the details of the mystery, play can and does go on. The scenario reaches some form of resolution regardless of how much of the prewritten backstory becomes known to the players. I hope you won't be surprised to know that this is how us narrativists play too when we play with pre-written backstory.

If that’s the case, then when we go back and look at the prewritten backstory, we realize that the only purpose it’s serving is to provide a scaffolding for play, it’s situational material.

Which leads me back to what I’ve been trying to point at from the start: If the investigation can resolve meaningfully whether the players uncover the backstory or not, then the so-called "objectivity" of the mystery is structurally irrelevant to the experience of continued play. What matters is not whether the GM has a secret answer, but whether the investigation changes the fiction, the characters, and the stakes — whether the players’ actions materially shape how things turn out.

That’s why I keep pressing on what you mean by “solving” the mystery. Because from everything you've said, it seems like you’re using "solved" as a kind of metaphysical status — something that exists outside and beyond play — when what actually matters is how the investigation procedurally reshapes the situation at the table.

This puts me in a great position to argue that, what I think you all actually mean when you say that there needs to be a pre-written backstory for things to feel "real" is something actually a little different. I think what you’re pointing at is the desire you have for your players to arrive at their conclusions by navigating clues and circumstances that present themselves as objective, external facts via logical extrapolation and a little bit of guesswork. You want the players’ logical leaps, their deductions, their failures and insights to feel like they are being tested against a solid, pre-existing framework, rather than something improvised in response to their actions.

That’s a valid aesthetic preference. But it’s not the same thing as saying that the existence of that backstory is what makes the mystery “real.” What makes it real is whether the players' engagement with the investigation carries weight in how the fiction unfolds. You can structure that weight around mental struggle against pre-authored material (the puzzle solving element), sure — but as many on the other side have tried to made clear, you can also structure that weight through emergent, procedural play that makes the ongoing and developing mystery have real consequences and provoke hard choices.

I feel like we are talking past one another. The objectivity is still relevant. No one is saying you can’t have a meaningful scenario if they fail. I often encourage people to lean into failure. But there are serious in game consequences for the failure and there was an objective solution they missed. Just from your example, the clues point to the wrong person so they’ve potentially let the villain go and allowed the wrong person to be punished. But the point remains that the engagement in this type of scenario comes from the players understanding there are established facts the GM has created and that they are trying to discover those facts. They may well fail. They might have a fun time failing and never realized they failed. But objectively they didn’t get to the truth (and it is likely they eventually learn this)

 

[Bedrockgames]

This puts me in a great position to argue that, what I think you all actually mean when you say that there needs to be a pre-written backstory for things to feel "real" is something actually a little different. I think what you’re pointing at is the desire you have for your players to arrive at their conclusions by navigating clues and circumstances that present themselves as objective, external facts via logical extrapolation and a little bit of guesswork. You want the players’ logical leaps, their deductions, their failures and insights to feel like they are being tested against a solid, pre-existing framework, rather than something improvised in response to their actions.

That’s a valid aesthetic preference. But it’s not the same thing as saying that the existence of that backstory is what makes the mystery “real.” What makes it real is whether the players' engagement with the investigation carries weight in how the fiction unfolds. You can structure that weight around mental struggle against pre-authored material (the puzzle solving element), sure — but as many on the other side have tried to made clear, you can also structure that weight through emergent, procedural play that makes the ongoing and developing mystery have real consequences and provoke hard choices on the go.

No these are different. In our example they are actually solving the mystery. In yours they aren’t solving it. There wasn’t a mystery to solve. They are more like a writer creating the mystery through a process

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

I feel like we are talking past one another. The objectivity is still relevant. No one is saying you can’t have a meaningful scenario if they fail. I often encourage people to lean into failure. But there are serious in game consequences for the failure and there was an objective solution they missed. Just from your example, the clues point to the wrong person so they’ve potentially let the villain go and allowed the wrong person to be punished. But the point remains that the engagement in this type of scenario comes from the players understanding there are established facts the GM has created and that they are trying to discover those facts. They may well fail. They might have a fun time failing and never realized they failed. But objectively they didn’t get to the truth (and it is likely they eventually learn this)

If you as a GM is fine in allowing play to go whichever way and really commit to playing situationally, you might without issue tell your players that there is indeed an objective truth to the mystery, but secretly use procedural methods for generating the mystery and they would not be able to know the difference. The mystery would still feel tense, the decision making would still feel hard and the consequences of play would still be real.

That to me is a clear indicator that the so called "objectivity" of the backstory is a complete illusion on the side of the GM.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, no… sometimes it’s directly from your words. But like I said, if you’re okay with it, then cool!

Nawp! You imagine them through your assumptions, which generally are wrong.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you as a GM is fine in allowing play to go whichever way and really commit to playing situationally, you might without issue tell your players that there is indeed an objective truth to the mystery, but secretly use procedural methods for generating the mystery and they would not be able to know the difference. The mystery would still feel tense, the decision making would still feel hard and the consequences of play would still be real.

That to me is a clear indicator that the so called "objectivity" of the backstory is a complete illusion on the side of the GM.

This seems completely upside down. The method you are describing where the gm tells them the mystery is objective but is secretly creating it as he goes would be illusionism. Yes they might not know or discern it (though I think with mysteries unless you are a God of consistency they likely would pick up on what you are doing). But the fact remains: there isn’t a real mystery. You are manufacturing one around them as you go. And this is fine. I have done randomized mysteries because sometimes they are easier and they can be fun. But the players aren’t really solving anything in them