GM fiat - an illustration

[AnotherGuy]

Yeah, now and then GMs might randomly pick up on something in a backstory in the old days, but D&D's core agenda and patterns of play works against it. Most typically a player would not want that stuff, as the GM is sure to shoot down most players attempt to leverage it in any way, and even worse, it's likely to get used against you. The goal is to get treasure and XP. Who your girlfriend is doesn't matter.

It is funny, these days when prepping for the next session, I continuously scour the players' character sheets (we use Obsidian Portal) for interesting details to use - Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Traits, Items, Backgrounds, interesting tidbits they have recorded about established fiction, to either utilise or potentially utilise should the appropriate fictional situation unfold.

They're high level, so when I do use actual combat (and not combat for colour) it is going to swallow 1 hour at the minimum, so I very much want to engage with the story elements of the game, raising tensions, and challenges/obstacles that cannot easily be overcome through the spend of common resources, where the cost lies mainly outside the structure of the combat system.

All this just to say, girlfriends matter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really? Does everyone agree with Plato on that?

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

While I think Plato's position on this is certainly less popular than it was back in the day, it's not one we can really dismiss. Interestingly it kind of resurfaces in things like cosmology. Is logic a characteristic of reality? These are valid questions with implications at that level.

 

[hawkeyefan]

so I was talking about approaches to describing and talking about games and making the point simply that we are both going to have to accept the other uses a different approach to that here

And we are circling the drain in realness. I have made pretty clear what I mean by it but you keep tackling it as though I am speaking in the sense of the thing really existing in the world (I was simply referring to mystery having objective facts that can be discovered and that the process of unearthing those facts and importantly, putting them together, was a process of the players ‘really’ or ‘actually’ solving a mystery that has an actual answer.

I never said other approaches couldn’t have cause and effect or consistency.

I'm not tackling it as if you are speaking of the thing existing in the real world. I know you don't believe that.

But I think that by labeling one method real and the other not, combined with your continued bringing up of the experiential quality of play, you are indeed implying that other approaches lack the application of cause and effect and consistency.

I mean, if one method is not real, then what does that mean? From what I can tell, you think that it means players won't engage with the mystery as if it can be solved, and as if the outcome will have no impact on play. That they won't feel immersed in their characters or the situation within the game. That the facts are mutable and inconsistent.

That's certainly how it comes across. If you don't mean those things, then I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

To me, this kind of connects to the idea of simulation as it's typically used in RPGs. Where things the GM has decided are considered truths and then extrapolations from those truths are considered to have a will of their own. That they exist beyond the mind of the GM rather than being the product of the GM's choices. The idea of a "real mystery" is similar to me... it's a bunch of decisions made by the Gm prior to play, and then extrapolated on during play.

It's a perfectly fine way to play... and I want to make it clear that I do plenty of this myself... but the timing of my decisions doesn't really make them more real. If I use my decisions as a starting point and then extrapolate from there, I'm not really simulating anything.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While I think Plato's position on this is certainly less popular than it was back in the day, it's not one we can really dismiss. Interestingly it kind of resurfaces in things like cosmology. Is logic a characteristic of reality? These are valid questions with implications at that level.

To me it is blindingly obvious that things like logic and mathematics have independent objective existence or at least are describing something that has. They produce similar results regardless of who is applying them. (Unless you make a mistake, which again requires that there is some objective "correct" truth to be compared against.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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!

Obviously.



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



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.

I think this usage just becomes less and less useful when you think about it. Everything in play is equally real by this measure. We really sit at a table and really play, etc. Facts about a mystery equally become real in all play. So what we focus on is when, how, by whom, for what reason, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what we focus on is when, how, by whom, for what reason, etc.

Yes. Which matters for whether it is a real mystery. Whether it had an objective answer before the investigation began determines whether you can really be solving it. This is not that hard. Like someone said before, a riddle without a predetermined answer is not really a riddle, it is just a question.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this usage just becomes less and less useful when you think about it. Everything in play is equally real by this measure. We really sit at a table and really play, etc. Facts about a mystery equally become real in all play. So what we focus on is when, how, by whom, for what reason, etc.

When you say, what "we" focus on, to whom are you referring? Affocianados of Narrativist play such as yourself? Because I can't see you claiming you're speaking for anyone else.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not tackling it as if you are speaking of the thing existing in the real world. I know you don't believe that.

But I think that by labeling one method real and the other not, combined with your continued bringing up of the experiential quality of play, you are indeed implying that other approaches lack the application of cause and effect and consistency.

No, that isn't the intention at all. It is about is about the objectivity of the mystery, about the fact that the players are "really" solving it. It isn't meant to suggest that there might not be approaches where "really solving" could be applied. But it is meant to draw a distinction between approaches where you might be solving it, versus ones where you might be effectively creating the backstory through procedures or shared narrative. And if you look at my reply to Pemerton, I was making pains to point out, that some real solving of the mystery might be going on in the procedures he has in mind (I am still unclear on those so I am waiting to see what he says). I would still draw distinctions between a mystery set form the beginning and one that unfolds. But I can see how you might have objective mystery elements pinned down as you go and that those could be discovered and the truths they point to solved. But the way I am using real and solve here there has to be a truth the players can in fact discover

I mean, if one method is not real, then what does that mean? From what I can tell, you think that it means players won't engage with the mystery as if it can be solved, and as if the outcome will have no impact on play. That they won't feel immersed in their characters or the situation within the game. That the facts are mutable and inconsistent.

All it means is the other method, for example the one we used when we applied HIllfolk, that the point wasn't to really solve the mystery. The point was to play out a mystery scenario that was dramatic, immersive and exciting; a scenario steeped in character drama, but one where the mystery was always this X factor that emerged through dialogue. Again though I have to re-iterate I did also say there are ways to adjust this so you could still have a core mystery if the GM just walled off certain elements of the story (it has been a while so I don't recall the proposed solution but a friend of mine with more Hillfolk experience suggested a solution that seemed workable). The only caveat is in order to do that, those elements of the scenario need to be walled off so that there is an objective mystery to be discovered and solved.

No I never said the outcomes won't have impact or can't be internally consistent. In Hillfolk for example once a detail was established, that was a real fact that had to be contended with moving forward (unless I suppose you had some brilliant twist you could add to it, but it isn;t like you end up with a scenario that is nonsensical or where players aren't engaged. They just aren't engaged with genuinely solving the mystery in the sense of actually putting together the facts and revealing a truth that was there all along but they hadn't yet known. And again to be doubly clear, I am not saying you can't wall off certain things to make sure they stay objective using this kind of approach. It is just when I say 'really solve the mystery' the objectivity of the truth of it and the clues are pretty vital for that process to unfold as a real solving of a mystery for the players.

That's certainly how it comes across. If you don't mean those things, then I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

I am trying to clarify as much as possible

To me, this kind of connects to the idea of simulation as it's typically used in RPGs. Where things the GM has decided are considered truths and then extrapolations from those truths are considered to have a will of their own. That they exist beyond the mind of the GM rather than being the product of the GM's choices. The idea of a "real mystery" is similar to me... it's a bunch of decisions made by the Gm prior to play, and then extrapolated on during play.

Okay this may be a point worth talking about. I think investigative adventures, are a different animal than a simlulationist or sandbox or living world scenario. There is going to be some extrapolation in a murder mystery. But I tend to think of mysteries as much more structured and concrete scenarios than I would typically have in a standard sandbox (they might come up from time to time, but when they do it is hard for me to not feel like I am shifting into a slightly different mode of play). Just as an example if you are doing a mystery you are going to be mapping out things like crime scenes, clue maps, etc. That isn't normally the type of prep I do in a sandbox campaign. And I get simulation does not equal sandbox, but I mention this because I see investigations as their own beast from the kinds of adventures I often talk about in this discussion.

It's a perfectly fine way to play... and I want to make it clear that I do plenty of this myself... but the timing of my decisions doesn't really make them more real. If I use my decisions as a starting point and then extrapolate from there, I'm not really simulating anything.

I think this would depend on what extrapolations you are making. If you aren't changing the core details (i.e. the clue envelope isn't this amorphous thing that can change) then sure. But if you are shuffling those kinds of details around either behind the scenes or through other procedures, I think that does create a different experience where it is starting to feel less like the players are actually solving the mystery and more like they are doing something else. It is like the difference between systems that force you to engage with the setting and be Sherlock Holmes, versus ones that allow you to simuluate Sherlock Holmes effectively through things like Skill rolls (i.e. the player making the deduction versus the roll making the deduction). Both of those are entirely viable but I am using the kind of language I am in order to mark a distinction. Arguably the latter does a better job of capturing a Sherlock Holmes story and of portraying Sherlock Holmes, while the former merely allows the player to experience the fun of solving things like Holmes does if they can. And this example isn't a difference between the different types of games. This can both be done in 'trad' and it just boils down to what kind of skill system, if any, it uses

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this usage just becomes less and less useful when you think about it. Everything in play is equally real by this measure. We really sit at a table and really play, etc. Facts about a mystery equally become real in all play. So what we focus on is when, how, by whom, for what reason, etc.

Yes but they don't become real until they enter the game in one example and in the other they exist as real facts the entire time. This is a key difference if you are solving the heart of a mystery. The latter is potentially knowable from the very beginning. A player might guess it by taking a wild stab and actually be right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes neither is better but they are different. And this is why I used the language of ‘really solve’ the crime. Because in the former the players actually solving it is the heart of the experience.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I agree that the players being able, at some point, to recount at least part of what the GM wrote COULD BE a significant part of the experience.

Honestly, we play a lot of Magic the Gathering using the Commander format. This is a pretty non-competitive format, but you still need to play, and the process of playing fundamentally involves winning and losing, and trying to win is necessary to make the game function. That doesn't mean winning is the heart of the experience. Quite to the contrary! I won a crushing victory in a game last week, and that was certainly the least fun game we played. Nobody said 'good game' at the end. Instead the fun game was the other one that was a brutal back and forth fight which lasted 2.5 hours in which my deck just couldn't quite close the game, and eventually the guy who was way behind managed to win.