GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

But they are really solving the mystery. The mystery is a real thing to be solved.

As I've posted several times now, things can be solved without being pre-authored, or known to anyone in advance of the solution. Mathematics provides the best-known example.

The way that RPGing (in a well-designed system) produces decision-making under constraints is (obviously) not identical to mathematics. The inference rules are not rules of logical deduction: they are rules of extrapolation from the fiction in accordance with a variety of principles, both global principles (eg the MC's Agenda in AW; the rule for the GM in Burning Wheel that I quoted to you upthread) and principles much more local to the moment of resolution (eg in BW, that a narration of failure must negate the player's intent for their PC's action).

But it is dogma, and dogma contradicted by actual experience, to assert that there is nothing here but collaborative authorship. If that was true, then there would be no difference between playing a RPG and multiple authors collaborating on a novel.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

But not, IMO, what actually happened to cause the mystery. Those facts are already established before the investigation begins in my playstyle, because cause precedes effect.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Guys, I'm not suggesting that you should lie to your players.

I'm saying that, when there is true situational play, there is no verifiable quality in that kind of play that would let them distinguish between a prewritten backstory or a secretly procedurally generated backstory. The nature of that kind of asymmetrical knowledge guarantees it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

This seems like complete non sequitur. I mean reality isn't authored at all (presumably.) It however has objective existence (probably.)
So that question has an objective answer that independent of the person trying to solve it. That is the same thing than GM's pre-authored facts in a context of RPGs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

100% this. That's why I've been disagreeing with @EzekielRaiden's assertion that there must be pre-authorship of the answer by the GM, or else it's either performing detection or writing a detective story.

As best I can tell, you're trying to make a point here about police procedures.

All I've said about actual police is that, to the best of my knowledge, they don't train detectives by playing CoC scenarios.

Other than that, I'm talking about RPGing.

You appear to have completely misunderstood Vincent Baker's blog.

He is contrasting "vigorous creative agreement" - ie freeform RPGing - with the role of rules in a RPG. And he points out that his very strongly preferred function for rule is to provide an alternative to vigorous creative agreement, by bringing into the fiction things that no one at the table (not even the GM) would choose to bring in.

The reason I pointed to the blog is to show that you are wrong to assume that the only two alternatives are collective authorship ("vigorous creative agreement", aka "writers' room") or else GM pre-authorship.

Okay.

What are the alternatives?

Because I genuinely don't understand how we achieve that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

In real life, everything that happened before now is pre-authored, including what is a prime number and what isn't (once the concepts of numbers and prime are determined).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Have you read my example of Cthulhu Dark play?

It was rather long so I did not

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)?

This depends on what standard scene framing means. I have played mysteries in a lot of different games since the 90s but haven’t played any of the ones you listed except 4E. It has been a long time since I played 4E and it isn’t a system I had lots of time with. But my understanding about skill challenges is those wouldn’t contradict having an objective mystery like I am talking about. I will say though I once published a module using a horse writer and it was meant to be an investigation. He tried to incorporate skill challenges into my system and it creates problems (but that might have just been how he was trying to implement them).

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.

The key thing about Hillfolk is a lot of what is said in character becomes real. It plays out kind of like a scene in a show. So it would be great if you wanted a session that really felt like I Claudius. But there are out of character elements and resources and there are both dramatic scenes (which are the ones where you want something and someone else wants something, and dialogue has power) and procedural scenes (for handling action type situations). It is worth checking out. It isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea.

 

[thefutilist]

Guys, I'm not suggesting that you should lie to your players.

I'm saying that, when there is true situational play, there is no verifiable quality in that kind of play that would let them distinguish between a prewritten backstory or a secretly procedurally generated backstory. The nature of that kind of asymmetrical knowledge guarantees it.

This is actually a really interesting conundrum for me. In theory actually I don't disagree with what @deleuzian_kernel says. In practice I think it would be hard to port procedural generation into a lot of games because backstory is so entwined with npc priorities. In those games, no npc priorities, no situation.

Also if what you care about IS solving the mystery (discovering secret GM backstory) then none of that applies anyway.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It was rather long so I did not

I did, but given that is was mostly just description of fictional events, rather than who decided what and when it was not particularly enlightening.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

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 before play but actually do the opposite.

Regardless of whether there is a prewritten backstory or the mystery is being developed procedurally during play, the key is that the situation is live, open, and responsive to the players’ actions. It’s not about whether the GM wrote something down before play or is improvising but whether the players’ engagement can genuinely reshape what’s happening at the table.

For example, imagine that during a murder investigation, the players suspect a local merchant and publicly accuse them. It turns out they’re wrong, the merchant is innocent, but because of that accusation, the merchant loses their livelihood, their family is shamed, and tensions rise in the community. Now, it doesn’t matter whether the merchant’s innocence was established in the GM’s notes before play or whether it was determined procedurally, say, by a roll or by emergent circumstances during play. Either way, the consequences of the players’ actions are real and persistent. The next time they return to that town, the fallout from their investigation, successful, failed, or partial, is still there, shaping relationships, opportunities, and obstacles.

That’s what I mean by playing situationally: the investigation isn’t just about whether the players crack the case, but about how their investigation changes the world and leaves marks on it.

The whole shebang with the merchant. His innocence. It's REAL in both instances because it has REAL consequences.