GM fiat - an illustration

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

No. It was not about feeling real, it was about being real. Granted, being real is great way of making things feel real too, but that was not the point.

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.

I mean again, it is not just feeling like that, it is about being that. And if it, then that is what makes it real, because there is a real objective solution that can be learned by real deduction.

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.”

It literally is.

What makes it real is whether the players' engagement with the investigation carries weight in how the fiction unfolds.

No, that is not the case. It might make it compelling gameplay, but that again is a different matter.

 

[pemerton]

But this just means we are at impasse. I don't think you are right, and you don't think I am right. To me it is pretty clear the point I am making is valid and makes sense.

Have you read my example of Cthulhu Dark play?

Have you ever played a mystery using standard scene-framing methods - the sort that have been pretty well-known since the late 90s (relevant RPGs include HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling, 4e D&D skill challenges, etc)?

You keep pointing to Hillfolk. I don't know Hillfolk all that well, but my understanding is that it has round-robin-esque aspects to how conflicts are framed and resolved, and frequently requires players to make decisions that are not in-character decisions. That's not the case for the RPGs that I'm talking about.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, because it is determining the course of current events that haven't happened yet.

A mystery scenario is also determining the course of current events that haven't happened yet - like who learns what about whom.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

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

This is almost my point!

Notice that I said use procedural methods for generating the mystery. Not fiat. I'm not saying craft the mystery behind your screen to respond to shifts in your aesthetic concerns. That would be illusionism.

I meant use procedural methods (like those in The Between or Brindlewood Bay) to generate clues and resolve the scenario according to those rules and be responsive to those rules, but continue pretending that there is an "objective" mystery and continue focusing on all the other systemic aspects that allow play to affect and transform characters as they would with a prewritten backstory.

There wouldn't be a difference in the players experience of play, because it's situational play that guarantees engagement, not the "knowledge" that there is an "objective truth".

 

[thefutilist]

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.

Then the GM isn't committed to playing situationally?

If the backstory is part of the situation (whether the players know it or not), then it is kind of real in the sense that there is a fact of the matter.

Or put another way.

Can the GM change the backstory mid way through? Like decide it was Clara rather than Lewis who killed Harrow?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The player engagement you are describing is important, but your claim that this is what makes it real is subjective. That "scaffolding" is, to me at least, just as important and necessary for a fun game that feels like you're exploring a real place through your PC (which is what I want).

In short, we're back to preference again. And for the record, this whole line of rhetoric reads to me like manipulation, as if you are trying to trick us into agreeing with your stance.

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me like less of a false premise and more of a definitional disagreement.

Here's a thing that can be solved, but is not pre-authored: what is the smallest prime number greater than 1 trillion.

So if your definition of what can be solved excludes simple mathematical examples, than your definition is a flawed one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

You can indeed use illusionism to trick players into thinking that they're solving a real mystery whilst they're not. Doesn't change the definition of "real mystery" though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is almost my point!

Notice that I said use procedural methods for generating the mystery. Not fiat. I'm not saying craft the mystery behind your screen to respond to shifts in your aesthetic concerns. That would be illusionism.

I meant use procedural methods (like those in The Between or Brindlewood Bay) to generate clues and resolve the scenario according to those rules and be responsive to those rules, but continue pretending that there is an "objective" mystery and continue focusing on all the other systemic aspects that allow play to affect and transform characters as they would with a prewritten backstory.

There wouldn't be a difference in the players experience of play, because it's situational play that guarantees engagement, not the "knowledge" that there is an "objective truth".

If you can give a quick clear and concrete example from the rule set you have in mind that clarify things. Because this still sounds like you are creating things as you go (but just using procedures not fiat) so there isn’t really an objective mystery (and I think the players aren’t likely to suspect this unless this procedure is a stunning work of genius)

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

What does, "really commit to playing situationally" mean again? I'm not familiar with that particular jargon. In any case, I don't tell my players I created an aspect of the setting before play but actually do the opposite.