GM fiat - an illustration

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. But no one authored them. (As to whether they "exist" or were "created", that's an issue of discussion in philosophy of mathematics. But the point is that there are robust inference rules that permit identifying them.)

Would you argue Clue (which I believe is called Cluedo in the Commonwealth) doesn't have a killer, weapon, and location that objectively exists independent of player choice, even though no one authored that choice in the usual way the game is played? (That is, you shuffle and draw one character, one weapon, and one location and put them in the evidence envelope.)

Clue/Cluedo is a game where you, as the player, do in fact actually solve a mystery. I read your LP summary of Cthulhu Dark, and I would argue that that is very close to being the players themselves solving a mystery, but it falls short. They played people who were solving a mystery--that I do not in any way dispute. But reading your summary did not come across to me as people assembling evidence, evaluating that evidence, excluding invalid possibilities and re-evaluating previously overlooked possibilities, etc. I would certainly call what they did an adventure, and it was an adventure prompted by trying to learn why someone disappeared.

Maybe a better way of saying it, what you described was an investigation, but it wasn't a mystery-solving experience for the players. An investigation need not be a mystery, but every mystery-solving experience is necessarily an investigation (if perhaps an informal one). They certainly investigated, they looked for leads, they asked questions, etc. But the actions they took did not look to me like players solving a mystery. They looked like players portraying mystery-solvers, and enjoying the process of that portrayal.

So...I don't think the conclusion of the mystery needs to be authored by anyone, that's just one of the more convenient ways to do it. Instead, I expect that it has some kind of specific, defined answer. Ironically, the way your described situation seemed to approach a mystery was the fact that you--as the GM--had decided why the Earl was missing. That's the moment there became a defined answer, and it was one you authored, albeit not prior-to-the-start-of-play. Or at least that's how it read to me; perhaps I have badly misunderstood your process.

I will say, this has given me a lovely idea for the next time I want to deploy a mystery in my DW game. Specifically, I intend to use the Clue/Cluedo method--that way, I can't be "forcing" anything toward anything, because I don't know the truth any more than the players do, at least up to a certain point. (That is, I assume for a satisfying conclusion I will need to know what the truth was at some point, and possibly a bit before the players do.)

The general pattern that unifies mathematics and law is the existence of canonical inference rules. There are RPGs that have these too: rules and principles that direct how scenes are to be framed, and how consequences established.

That is how play can yield an outcome, including the solution of a mystery, although no single person authored it.

The three (classic) Borromean rings are not in any way linked to one another. Remove one, and the other two fall away. Yet they are still a linkage, and collectively bind even though they pairwise do not: the linkage only forms from a higher-order interaction, not from the individual interactions.

Just because it was done as a group, where no individual person nor even any pair of people could be said to have sole authorship, doesn't mean it was never established. As noted above, something can be established in such a way that nobody knows it and nobody chose/authored/picked/etc. it, but it is nonetheless established. Until there is an established truth(-within-the-fiction), there can be no mystery, because any result(-within-the-fiction) is equally valid. If we know Mrs. White and Mr. Green were both out of the manor at the time, that still means Prof. Plum and Miss Scarlet could equally be the murderer, and without an established truth(-within-the-fiction), the two accusations are of precisely equal worth and merit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. But no one authored them. (As to whether they "exist" or were "created", that's an issue of discussion in philosophy of mathematics. But the point is that there are robust inference rules that permit identifying them.)

Why you keep repeating this non sequitur? Of course no one authored the reality of the real world! But it has objective pre-existing facts that are independent of the one trying to discern them (or at least that is the common understanding.) In a RPG the pre-authored facts take the role of this objective reality.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To the extent that I can get a picture of @bloodtide's RPGing from their posts, I think it's pretty different from mine.

Except perhaps in one respect: the PCs in my Torchbearer game don't even have shoes, and so I'm hardly a buddy-GM!

Common ground finally! PCs in my D&D game don't have shoes either!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, so "just role-play it" is actually saying "just fiat it" which I'd explicitly said the games I'm playing right now look to primarily to handle this sort of thing and I'd like a little more. I also dont see honest relating as a conflict - and I'm not sure "resolution" is possible! Both sides are trying to feel each other out, draw the intangibles, establish common ground, explore possibilities. Consort is like, kinda there - but it's missing some of the vulnerability and openness context, mainly because Blades isn't interested in that sort of thing really. A different FITD I run replaces it with Connect, which is about approaching with empathy and openness and relating - but again, do I really want to slap down a big ole clock that says "She Likes You" and you keep rolling Consort to see how it goes? (edit: I guess we could add in some Threats and some fun psychological harms, but again that's a very different light on things!)

For a transactional style of relationship, absolutely! And I think most of what we explore in Blades is very transactional. For instance my Cutter tonight went to a bar to grab a hook-up to get some Stress relief (Vice), that was flirting and a quick scene (with some cool world establishment along the way from other players) but nothing significant.

Well, test, task, conflict etc doesn't mean it is against the the NPC. It is just to solve uncertainty. But I'm not sure there can be fully satisfying answer to this. Yes, building emotional connection by rolling consort and adding ticks to a lock might seem like it is missing the subtlety and nuance of the real situation. And I agree, and that's why my initial answer. But you want to mechanise it. I don't think there is way to do it that doesn't make it feel at least somewhat more cold and detached than would be ideal.

Have you checked Monster Hearts though? I have not played it, but isn't it mainly about relationships? Could it have something that is useful?

 

[AnotherGuy]

The worst in the Trad sphere is when this stuff isn't overt (either purposefully for Illusionism interests or Immersionism interests or accidentally merely because the GM doesn't understand an alternative model). The GM obscures or manipulates how the gamestate evolves. Simultaneously, that GM provides a pretty vacuous and/or nearly univariate (and often blind or nearly so) decision-space masked as "limitless" or a rudderless milieu bereft of clear stakes and not remotely sufficiently charged with conflict/action/momentum. Players are perpetually in the unfortunate state of an inconsistent orientation to play broadly, a cognitive loop that is often wrongfooted, and a suite of assets/currency that are unreliable.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I do like the overt signalling/communication advice you gave and do use it. Honestly I probably should use it a lot more, but if you will engage with some pushback on this.

This happened yesterday in my session.

EXAMPLE 1
Our paladin was being tested by a Deva in the service of the Goddess Tyr to see if he was worthy of wielding a Sunblade he had recently acquired.
I ran him through a fantasy version of Heinz Dilemma. All he had to do was preside over the case and offer his opinion as judge.
No cost of resource, he only had to score stages 4-6 on his adjudication.
The risk was, that should he fail, the Deva would demand the weapon be handed over, failing which combat would ensue.
I didn't communicate this overtly up front, I let the fiction do the talking. He knew the Deva was serious in terms of its request that he participate in the test for his worthiness, and the fiction relayed that he would not be a good fit for the blade should he prove unworthy by their (Tyr's) metric.

Spoiler: Secret Backstory of the Sunblade

Now the PC was not happy, since he was a follower of Kelemvor and he had already proven himself worthy of it by battling the dead spirit of the fallen knight (a faithful of Kelemvor) who held it prior. However, his Sunblade was part of a group of blades made from the essence of a fallen Solar who had been in the service of Tyr. So, the paladin had to prove himself worthy twice and wasn't thrilled. However this tied in with his recent quest to research the history of the weapon and I thought it would be interesting to include it this way by having an unexpected angel show-up. The night he passed the test, he was gifted (through a dream) with some of the history of the weapon.

EXAMPLE 2
There was a secondary test by the Deva, but it served a dual function (i) test and as (ii) a possibility to flesh out the paladin character. In Xanathar's Guide they list two non-mechanised roleplaying elements for a paladin: Nemesis and Temptations. This gave me some ideas.

I framed a scene whereby the paladin found himself in a tavern waiting for the rest of the party members to arrive, and which framing could see him engage with several temptations (despair, fury, greed, envy, pride, lust). The player did not know this scene was but an extended part of the test, which in my thinking would see him roleplay freely (as you say decision-space marked as limitless). So the idea was that should he wrongfoot, at the end of the encounter, the test would be revealed and his player could decide to either

• Gain the Temptation/s (Flaw/s) based on his wrong choices; or
• Eliminate each Temptation (Flaw) with the cost of an entire downtime day used to atone.

Now amazingly in our session the paladin did not once fall for ANY of the temptations and all of them were pretty subtle, I gave away nothing and the player suspected nothing. Of course afterwards I shared everything with the player.

But the idea that a roleplayer would act differently when they know it is a test and the loss conditions attached is a problem for me as it means that the character is not being played honestly at times. Your post implies this issue too.
And again, that is not to say in other roleplaying scenarios I do not elevate gamism over realism/immersion. I do, very much so. I think for me it depends on the scenario.

EXAMPLE 3
Another example from the same session.
An artificer PC got into discussion/debate with a fellow academic at the Great Library and this garnered a group of spectators, participants and agitators. At one point during the lively engagement the artificer while gesticulating, with book in hand, unbound the book from its cover (rolled a 1 on a Persuasion check) and the manuscript fell to the floor while the cover remained in the artificer's hand.
The rival made a funny retort at the expense of the artificer
"Books are a uniquely portable magic, in your hands more so than others."
Everyone laughed.

I had not communicated the risks/stakes to the player. The PC was given the choice how to proceed with his intellectual equal -
(a) Engage with the Ego - Find a point of contention and battle it out intellectually; or
(b) Rise above the Ego - Ignore the slight, build on the discussion

(a) would see a variety of opposed skill checks.
Failure would see a loss of face, news would spread around the city (roleplaying opportunities).
Character gains a Flaw - player designs it.

Success would vindicate the PC and see him earn some respect amongst peers (roleplaying opportunities).
Character gains a Bond or Flaw - player designs it.

(b) would see potential based on how well he articulated their points and to determine his influence over the crowds perception of him. A Persuasion check was asked for
Result 1-10: No benefit or loss condition.
Result 11-16: Write-up an NPC that was present and describe their attitude towards you (like, dislike, neutral)
Result 17: Write-up 2 NPCs that were present and.....
Result 18: Write-up 3 NPCs that were present and.....
etc.

At our table, the player chose that his character rose above their ego, and only before the player rolled did I inform him as to what the result of the roll entailed. He rolled a natural 20 with a modifier of +1, so he got to create 6 NPCs. He absolutely loved this idea of a reward and killed it on the design.

Apologies for the long post.

EDIT: I think as a general rule if it has to do with actions/quests requiring physicality I'm likely to be overt with the mechanisms being used, elevating gamism, whereas when it comes to actions based on character emotion and belief I tend toward elevating immersion. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, better or worse, that is just something that I do in the pursuit of truth of character (for lack of a better phrase).

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, this is the fundamental category error. There is no "new information" or "old information". There is only the construct of the in-fiction condition state.

How is there not new and old information here? One situation the information is literally older, it is created before play begins. In the other the information emerges over the course of the session. Those are two very different kinds of information

If the condition state of "the mystery" made up by the GM six months ago---the literal definition of fiat, something that happens in the game world because the GM says so---is suddenly found to have a more resonant, compelling, character driven element in the moment of play, the GM is supposed to ignore it for the "greater good of the living world"?

I would quibble about the use of fiat because we are talking about background information (this is no more fiat than mapping a dungeon is fiat). But either way, why should that matter? The GM isn't ignoring anything. The players and GM are in sync here, because they have come together to play a scenario where the purpose is to solve an objective mystery (something happened and the players actually have to figure out what it was). If they were coming together with different expectations then maybe things would be different. But why should people playing this kind of mystery shift to an approach where compelling character driven elements take precedence over the details about the mystery teh GM has created before hand. And even if one thinks they should, that doesn't change these are two very different approaches, and in one a mystery is functionally being solved by the players

The GM is somehow honor bound to keep the thing they totally made up six months ago, even though it's objectively worse for the fun of the group than simply retroactively making up something else that fits the revised narrative?

No, the GM isn't bound to anything here. But this is the game people have sat down to play. If I was under the impression that the GM was running a mystery where he created the background facts, and that we are supposed to go around investigating to discover what happened. I would be kind of annoyed if I found out he was changing those facts because something we said in play seemed more compelling to him. Now suddenly the world is changing around our characters, and that isn't the kind of scenario I was hoping to play

This is the thing I've come to reject. This attitude ingrained into trad GM culture that it's literally better to make the game worse and less fun for the players because the demands of the living world require it.

Lots of people like this style of play. We wouldn't describe it this way either (heck I wouldn't even call it trad, as I think that is a new term that is bad categorization, but whatever). But this is also not living world play. This is mystery. A mystery could be done in a living world style game. The only real requirement for the kind of mystery I am describing is there be a concrete mystery the players can discover the truth about. But there are a number of play style snd system approaches that could be doing this adventure. Still living world play is fun. But it isn't the only way.

More to the point, what are the players' true character intentions for solving the mystery? It's surely more than a pat on the back and a wink wink "Well done!" from their GM.

No, they do it for the fun of its solving the mystery

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually I think our 4e game, which is recorded here in the pbp section is somewhat germane. The game started with my PC having been kidnapped, and the other PCs showed up and rescued me. So there was an immediate question relating to who did it and why.

The 'solving' of that mystery didn't seem much like a puzzle though. It felt more like simply the unfolding of a plot.

I don't know the details of this campaign. But I think whether that is plot unfolding or puzzle being solved, or even a little bit of both, largely depends on how it is done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, this is the fundamental category error. There is no "new information" or "old information". There is only the construct of the in-fiction condition state.

If the condition state of "the mystery" made up by the GM six months ago---the literal definition of fiat, something that happens in the game world because the GM says so---is suddenly found to have a more resonant, compelling, character driven element in the moment of play, the GM is supposed to ignore it for the "greater good of the living world"?

The GM is somehow honor bound to keep the thing they totally made up six months ago, even though it's objectively worse for the fun of the group than simply retroactively making up something else that fits the revised narrative?

This is the thing I've come to reject. This attitude ingrained into trad GM culture that it's literally better to make the game worse and less fun for the players because the demands of the living world require it.

More to the point, what are the players' true character intentions for solving the mystery? It's surely more than a pat on the back and a wink wink "Well done!" from their GM.

Thank you for expressing this belief as the subjective preference that it is. We simply like our games differently.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So...I don't think the conclusion of the mystery needs to be authored by anyone, that's just one of the more convenient ways to do it. Instead, I expect that it has some kind of specific, defined answer. Ironically, the way your described situation seemed to approach a mystery was the fact that you--as the GM--had decided why the Earl was missing. That's the moment there became a defined answer, and it was one you authored, albeit not prior-to-the-start-of-play. Or at least that's how it read to me; perhaps I have badly misunderstood your process.

Yes, I agree. The central mystery cold be established before hand using random tables. You could even run it, if for example one of the players were playing the killer, where the GM and that player worked together to create the background details. The important thing is this is established prior to play, this informs the scenario itself so that its facts can be discovered, and the other players don't know the information.

And mysteries can emerge in play as long as they are pinned down at the right moment. If the GM has something happen but doesn't decide why or how yet, there is a big question mark over that and probably no way for the players to decipher or guess at what is going on through clues. But if the GM introduces something and immediately pins down all the information, then if a player starts prodding the situation for details, they may yield information that will make deciphering possible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thank you for expressing this belief as the subjective preference that it is. We simply like our games differently.

Yeah, and I don't even dislike the kinds of games he is talking about. I quite liked the Hillfolk adventure I used in the example. But there is a distinction between them and there are times you would want to play a mystery the way we are talking about versus that way.