GM fiat - an illustration

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it refutes the assertion that the only way to have an answer is for someone to have already thought it up.

Prime numbers, in fact, are "pre-established" in the real world.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

Yes, like for example a person could be killed and their body dumped somewhere.....and years later someone will stumble onto the body and "solve" the murder. And that person did not even know about the murder, they just stumbled in to it. And you can do the same thing in a RPG, where the characters just do random stuff and stumble upon a solution.

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.

Except logic and common sense....

One game has clues and facts to find and put together and can be used to figure things out.

One game just has the players do random things until it is decided they figure things out.

But that second game, the mystery can never be solved as it does not exist until the players make random moves and actions. And you can sure tell.

Because it refutes the assertion that the only way to have an answer is for someone to have already thought it up.

In a RPG this answer is Yes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But I believe (though it has been awhile, so who knows) that this tangent started when it was pointed out that there is a trade-off. This is how these threads always go. A narrativist tells that their way of doing things is better. Someone points out that sure, you could do it that way, but then you lose X. And then the narrativist for some reason cannot accept this, they argue for dozens of pages how X isn't real or whatever, instead of just saying "Sure, but I don't really care about X that much, so I prefer this method."

No, it was not about talk of a trade off that started this tangent. It was the use of “real” to privilege one sort of game.

We could perhaps talk about what the pros and cons of each approach are… but if we can’t get past this idea that one is real and one is not, it may be difficult to get there.

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

Shared-storytelling? I mean, I’m not always crazy about using that term for an RPG as opposed to some subset of RPGs that would include a game like Fiasco or Microscope.

But the idea that the games you call narrative are more about shared storytelling than trad games are is pretty silly.

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

Calling your make believe real and others not real is pretty semantic, no?

I mean, I just watched my son playing Fortnite and he broke into a vault with a ton of riches in it. He did it using explosives and a laser cutter.

If some other videogame worked that he had to solve some mini-game puzzle to break into the lock, I’d be silly to describe the Fortnite method as real, wouldn’t I?

Neither is actually breaking into a vault. One may appear to have a more one to one sense of causality to it… but that doesn’t make it real. Thinking it does is… like I said way back in the thread… mistaking the illusion of cause and effect for actual cause and effect.

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.

Right, but what you’re comparing it to… your basis for analysis… seems to be detective fiction. Where an author has predetermined the facts of the story and the protagonist… and vicariously the reader/viewer… will try and figure it out.

But if we describe it that way, you balk.

I think this is at the heart of a lot of the problems we have communicating in these threads. Which is some of us use much different language and even have a completely different way of how we would describe the process of a game working.

Yes, you want to dress it up as more than it is. You try to use words that don’t apply or that obscure the fact that the GM is making stuff up, and the players want to figure out what he’s made up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, it was not about talk of a trade off that started this tangent. It was the use of “real” to privilege one sort of game.

That "realness" was the trade off. And it was a neutral but accurate description you for some reason took offence to.

We could perhaps talk about what the pros and cons of each approach are… but if we can’t get past this idea that one is real and one is not, it may be difficult to get there.

Indeed. If we cannot agree that words mean things it is hard to have a discussion.

Shared-storytelling? I mean, I’m not always crazy about using that term for an RPG as opposed to some subset of RPGs that would include a game like Fiasco or Microscope.

But the idea that the games you call narrative are more about shared storytelling than trad games are is pretty silly.

Not to me, and not in my experience. The Blades game I play in definitely has more "writers' room" happening than my D&D. It is low myth and invites participants to fill in the details.

Calling your make believe real and others not real is pretty semantic, no?

No. And it is not "make believe" that is real, it is the mystery that is real.

I mean, I just watched my son playing Fortnite and he broke into a vault with a ton of riches in it. He did it using explosives and a laser cutter.

If some other videogame worked that he had to solve some mini-game puzzle to break into the lock, I’d be silly to describe the Fortnite method as real, wouldn’t I?

Real what?

Neither is actually breaking into a vault. One may appear to have a more one to one sense of causality to it… but that doesn’t make it real. Thinking it does is… like I said way back in the thread… mistaking the illusion of cause and effect for actual cause and effect.

A real mystery is not illusory. The events are not real, the information is real, there can be real deduction. Like I've been playing this Sherlock Holmes game on computer with my partner. They're real mysteries in a sense that there is an objectively correct answer and there are clues based on which it can be concluded. So fictional events, real mystery. This cannot be this hard!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don’t see that the complexity of a game has anything to do with its length.

But aside from that… I’m not aure what makes you think you know about my game. Seems odd of you to assume things like that.

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.

Cool. My longest campaign is morel Ike 33 years. Please understand that long campaigns and very traditional play are not things with which I’m unfamiliar.

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

Like I said… cool. It just seemed to me like something that would maybe give you a moment’s pause to consider.

You seem good with it, though, so no worries!

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 totally true. This is why the experiential quality of play isn’t really relevant… it’s present in both types of games.

 

[thefutilist]

Yeah, agreed.

This was a failed thought experiment that threw most people off. My bad for introducing it!

It was meant to show that a "pre-written backstory" only gets made real through, unsurprisingly, the Lumpley Principle.

The GM pronounces it as real, the players accept it as real. That's it.

But it...itself, somehow real because its written down? Nah!

This is a conversation that breaks my brain. I am actually going to explore it in play but it's lower on my list of priorities than other stuff.

So if I'm playing say (Apocalypse World, Cyberpunk 202, Sorcerer, The pool). Then I do create backstory and that backstory acts as a constraint on what I say. I treat it as undiscovered situation (there may or may not be problems with that down the line, I'm still thinking on it and seeing how it effects play)

Then there's gmless or weird games where it doesn't matter (showdown, slay with me, the quiet year)

Then there's games with a GM where the brain break happens. Trollbabe for instance. You commit to stakes upfront and that's meant to create constraint. At some point I hope to play a long campaign and come to some conclusions, but as I said, it's low down on my list of priorities.

Anyway that might sound vague. I guess what I'm saying is there is a load of stuff I do treat as real but if I was getting technical I'd think of it as material that leads to other procedures or something (but I'm not sure I can get technical about it with where I'm at with my play)

 

[hawkeyefan]

That "realness" was the trade off. And it was a neutral but accurate description you for some reason took offence to.

So you don’t think there could be players who find a game like The Between to feel like solving a mystery? That no matter what, if they instead played GURPS, they’d find GURPS to feel more real?

Because “feeling real” is subjective.

If you said that “I and my players prefer that the illusion of cause and effect be established by the GM predetermining the details of play” then no one would disagree with you.

Indeed.



Not to me, and not in my experience. The Blades game I play in definitely has more "writers' room" happening than my D&D. It is low myth and invites participants to fill in the details.

meh having more than one person contribute to the events of play equaling a writer’s room seems pretty simplistic. I mean, I get why you’d say it… but then I’d say “can’t you contribute to the events of play in your D&D game?” And you’d say “of course, but not in the same way” and I’d say “huh” and then just disregard the writer’s room assessment.

No. And it is not "make believe" that is real, it is the mystery that is real.

If I’m playing B/X style D&D and I have my character and my loadout and navigate through the DM’s map and avoid the traps and beat the monsters and get the treasure… that’s one way to play.

Another way would be to procedurally generate the dungeon. To determine the traps and monsters and hazards as we play. This is another way to play.

If you play the first, that doesn’t make the dungeon real.

Real what?

As really breaking into a vault.

A real mystery is not illusory. The events are not real, the information is real, there can be real deduction. Like I've been playing this Sherlock Holmes game on computer with my partner. They're real mysteries in a sense that there is an objectively correct answer and there are clues based on which it can be concluded. So fictional events, real mystery. This cannot be this hard!

It’s not hard to understand your point. It’s that your point is wrong.

A real mystery would be a mystery in the real world.

A fictional mystery is absolutely illusory. There is no real mystery because there is no real Mr. Body and no real Billiard Room and no real Colonel Mustard.

 

[Maxperson]

Like I said… cool. It just seemed to me like something that would maybe give you a moment’s pause to consider.

You seem good with it, though, so no worries!

I still haven't seen you caution Pemerton to pause and consider, even though he and Bloodtide have something in common with their posts. Why the double standard?

 

[pemerton]

Prime numbers, in fact, are "pre-established" in the real world.

Really? Does everyone agree with Plato on that?

Or are they the consequences of the combination of (i) axioms and (ii) inference rules?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So you don’t think there could be players who find a game like The Between to feel like solving a mystery? That no matter what, if they instead played GURPS, they’d find GURPS to feel more real?

Because “feeling real” is subjective.

I am not talking about feeling real I'm talking about being real! Though like I said, that certainly is a good way to make things feel real as well!

If you play the first, that doesn’t make the dungeon real.

Obviously.

It’s not hard to understand your point.

Well it seems you are working really hard to not to understand it!

It’s that your point is wrong.

A real mystery would be a mystery in the real world.

A fictional mystery is absolutely illusory. There is no real mystery because there is no real Mr. Body and no real Billiard Room and no real Colonel Mustard.

Mysteries can be purely mental. It is absurd to think that one cannot have a real mystery as purely mental exercise. But Ok, that is your stance. Frankly I think it is laughable, and I cannot take what you say seriously any more, so I think we're done for now.