GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

I think the approach to mystery scenarios you've described is very similar to a simulationist approach to play. There is the information determined ahead of time, and that forms the basis of play, with the GM using all of that to scaffold play and to build upon as needed.

It is probably best to put this aside for now, as it is a detour, but this is a potential area of contention I think in the style itself

Now, I think almost all RPGs have some amount of predetermination going on which is used as a basis to build upon, but with a simulationist approach... and with the mystery approach you're describing... there is much more determined ahead of time, and it is generally treated as inviolate. This last part is key, I think, and it's what @innerdude expressed frustration about in his post.

I think that, similar to what I would say about simulationism, what we're discussing is a process that relies on the illusion of cause and effect. What I would say is that for some, the illusion of cause and effect is likely stronger with a GM determining things ahead of time, since that's similar to how the world works. But it's just their sense of things... their opinion or preference.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement on cause and effect. I wouldn't describe it as illusionary. It is following logic and makes sense, and it isn't like all this stuff is determine by fiat. A lot of players who engage this style want heavy systems for example. So you can have very robust rules systems for simulating things. But I would call it cause and effect without qualifier. I realize you wouldn't agree. But I am just pointing out this disagreement because you state it is illusion as if that is a settled fact and I don't think that description is a settled fact in these discussions (it is a point of view or school of thought)

This is part of the struggle with communication here. There is no "changing" of details in The Between or similar games where the mysteries are not predetermined. It's not a case that something is one way and then it's another. (Or if it is, it's a case of some revelation granting new context to something, which can also happen in the predetermined scenario). The details aren't mutable or amorphous. They're simply not yet known. Once they are established, they are then set. From the player side, there is no real difference. It's only from the GM side that this functions differently.

I get that but I am being broad to cover as much a range of approaches because people take issue with our generalizations. But I would say if the details aren't yet known, then they don't exist until that moment in play. So prior to that moment, there is no objective truth the player could discover. Now perhaps after that moment, it becomes true. But it wasn't true all a long. This is a crucial difference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the approach to mystery scenarios you've described is very similar to a simulationist approach to play. There is the information determined ahead of time, and that forms the basis of play, with the GM using all of that to scaffold play and to build upon as needed.

Now, I think almost all RPGs have some amount of predetermination going on which is used as a basis to build upon, but with a simulationist approach... and with the mystery approach you're describing... there is much more determined ahead of time, and it is generally treated as inviolate. This last part is key, I think, and it's what @innerdude expressed frustration about in his post.

I think that, similar to what I would say about simulationism, what we're discussing is a process that relies on the illusion of cause and effect. What I would say is that for some, the illusion of cause and effect is likely stronger with a GM determining things ahead of time, since that's similar to how the world works. But it's just their sense of things... their opinion or preference.



This is part of the struggle with communication here. There is no "changing" of details in The Between or similar games where the mysteries are not predetermined. It's not a case that something is one way and then it's another. (Or if it is, it's a case of some revelation granting new context to something, which can also happen in the predetermined scenario). The details aren't mutable or amorphous. They're simply not yet known. Once they are established, they are then set. From the player side, there is no real difference. It's only from the GM side that this functions differently.

Is it regular practice in such games to make sure the players are informed that the solution is determined after the investigation begins, and not before? If not, I don't see how it could be anything other than illusionism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They fill in the gaps with their own ideas and then point out how D&D does it all?

No sure what you're getting at here. Are you trying to make some kind of point?

 

[robertsconley]

Sure and if I were being more precise I would say the goal is the investigation and the process of trying to solve, where the players are hoping to solve the scenario, but they might fail, and could still have fun. But really solving is still the heart of what we are talking about. Everything they are doing is in an effort to solve the case. Obviously other things can arise. The players have agency so they could decide they just want to murder all the suspects and take their stuff, without solving the mystery.

I'm not sure if this will help your discussion, but my perspective is that at the start, we have a situation involving events with NPCs that have already unfolded. If it is a situation involving a mystery, then one or more of those events will not be known to all those involved, NPCs and PCs alike.

Now my notes for this, like for the Scourge of the Demon Wolf, and the Deceits of the Russet Lord (which you played a while ago) are all about describing the situation as it stands when the PCs arrive.

The only thing that is about the future is a rough timeline of what will happen to the people involved if the PCs never got involved.

In your case, if the Bishop never hired your group to go collect his tithe from the Monks at Woodford, then a fortnight later you would have heard about how the shrine and village were wiped out in a devastating Orc raid. And later, if you and your group were still in the region, it was the result of the monks' bad administration, not properly surviving their bailiff, leading to a peasant revolt that left the village open to attack.

But you and the group did accept the job. Thus got involved with the situation.

At the time I ran it for you, you were the third or fourth group that I had run with the adventure. Your group forged its own path to discovering the full picture of what going on compared to others. At the same time you also did some of the same things the other groups did as well.

Plus I continued to run that adventure up to the present as part of the playtesting I am doing before releasing it. Over ten times so far.

I didn't have any preconceived notion of how it would play out. What I do know are the personality, goals, and resources the NPCs involved have. So when you and your fellow players did stuff, I looked at which NPCs were involved, their goals, motivations, and resources and roleplayed accordingly. As you know, I prefer to roleplay in the first person, acting as the character rather than describing what happens in the third person. For the other NPCs, I look at how soon, if at all, they would be aware of what the PCs did and make notes on what they would be doing.

For all the NPCs you encountered, my foundation for deciding how to roleplay is asking the question, "What would this character do in this situation." I don't consider any overarching metagame goals, such as solving the mystery or winning the day.

In one of the most recent run throughs of the Russet Lord adventures the group didn't even go after the Russet Lord. What happened is that after visiting the monks, they caught one of the Russet Lord's faerie lackeys, successfully made her talk about her liege's plans. Then, through a bit of clever roleplaying, made her go to where the orcs the Russet Lord hired to destroy Woodford and tell them that the raid was off. She went through with a bag of silver to pay them off for their trouble courtesy of the monk.

Then the group went about settling the situation between the monks, the knight bailiff, and the peasant, and helped them properly organize the defense of the shrine and the village in case the orcs returned. They returned to the bishop with the overdue tithes, briefed him on the situation, and he promptly dispatched additional troops for reinforcements.

Overall a very different resolution to the situation than what happen with your group and the others.

 

[darkbard]

Is it regular practice in such games to make sure the players are informed that the solution is determined after the investigation begins, and not before? If not, I don't see how it could be anything other than illusionism.

If by "such games" you mean narrativist ones, the entry into play is table understanding that what is settled (ie, fixed and determined) is what arises through actual play, not what may or may not be predetermined. Illusionism is when one party (in this case, the players) believes something is settled through play but another party (here, the GM) plays it the other way, that is, creating the illusion that player actions determine the outcome rather that their, the GM's, fiat, when fiat does the actual work. So, yes this the regular practice of narrativist games, but it is not illusionism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If by "such games" you mean narrativist ones, the entry into play is table understanding that what is settled (ie, fixed and determined) is what arises through actual play, not what may or may not be predetermined. Illusionism is when one party (in this case, the players) believes something is settled through play but another party (here, the GM) plays it the other way, that is, creating the illusion that player actions determine the outcome rather that their, the GM's, fiat, when fiat does the actual work. So, yes this the regular practice of narrativist games, but it is not illusionism.

I hope that is true. I have played several Narrativist games, and in none of them did the GM make a point of telling me about the play structure like you are saying here. Instead I was essentially blind-sided by it, and that was a substantial contribution to my irritation with that and all similar games.

In fact, very rarely have I received any such instruction about the play structure in more traditional styles of RPG either, certainly not in the academic, professorial style several Narrativist proponents on this site evidentally prefer to employ. Generally I have to figure this stuff out on my own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Here we have a fundamental disagreement on cause and effect. I wouldn't describe it as illusionary. It is following logic and makes sense, and it isn't like all this stuff is determine by fiat. A lot of players who engage this style want heavy systems for example. So you can have very robust rules systems for simulating things. But I would call it cause and effect without qualifier. I realize you wouldn't agree. But I am just pointing out this disagreement because you state it is illusion as if that is a settled fact and I don't think that description is a settled fact in these discussions (it is a point of view or school of thought)

But it is illusory. To be clear, I'm not talking about illusionism... that's something else. All I mean is that there is no cause and effect that's actualy at play here.

Same as the cause and effect rationale applied to games where things are not predetermined but are instead determined through play. One happens before play, one happens during, both consider what's already happened in play... but neither is actual cause and effect.

Like, the monogramed kerchief at the crime scene... it's not actually there because the suspect saw the grisly crime, held it to her face, and then dropped it as she fled the scene. It's there because the GM decided it would be there, and then determined the circumstances to allow that. The GM can decide whatever he wants to be the truth. Cause and effect are entirely open to the trad GM to determine prior to play.

That's not how cause and effect work. It's just as illusory as if the GM came up with the rationalization for the kerchief during play.

I get that but I am being broad to cover as much a range of approaches because people take issue with our generalizations. But I would say if the details aren't yet known, then they don't exist until that moment in play. So prior to that moment, there is no objective truth the player could discover. Now perhaps after that moment, it becomes true. But it wasn't true all a long. This is a crucial difference.

I think it is crucial only as it relates to preference.

Is it regular practice in such games to make sure the players are informed that the solution is determined after the investigation begins, and not before? If not, I don't see how it could be anything other than illusionism.

Generally speaking, if you're playing a game where the solution to the mystery is not predetermined, players are going to understand that.

No sure what you're getting at here. Are you trying to make some kind of point?

You asked how D&D was playable if a GM isn't well versed in the correct techniques. I said that they fill in the gaps however they want, and therefore plays slightly (or significantly, I suppose) differently than other groups of players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I hope that is true. I have played several Narrativist games, and in none of them did the GM make a point of telling me about the play structure like you are saying here. Instead I was essentially blind-sided by it, and that was a substantial contribution to my irritation with that and all similar games.

In fact, very rarely have I received any such instruction about the play structure in more traditional styles of RPG either, certainly not in the academic, professorial style several Narrativist proponents on this site evidentally prefer to employ. Generally I have to figure this stuff out on my own.

I can see that could be the case. For a lot of folks, these distinctions are less important than they are to many of us here. The GMs in question may not think that anything at all needs to be explained like this. Or maybe they're so concerned with just getting the basics down, that they don't focus on this stuff early on.

When I first ran Blades in the Dark for my long time gaming group, I just said it was different, and that the best way to see how was through play.... so I ran what was an incredibly simple score for them that allowed them to see some of the differences. Not all, but some. And then we introduced more with each score until they started to get it all.

By now, they generally know what to expect in certain games, but when they don't, I also now have several examples I can rely on to make things clearer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Generally speaking, if you're playing a game where the solution to the mystery is not predetermined, players are going to understand that.

Why should they, if as was said the players won't know the difference either way? Is the GM supposed to explain the play structure of a game that works this way?

 

[pemerton]

To arrive at the correct conclusion, through examining the evidence, identifying what is valid and accurate, and then applying a mixture of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning, filtering out who could or could not have committed the crime. If they successfully solve it, then that mixture of those reasoning methods will point them to the person who "really did" do the thing.

At least for me, to "actually solve [a mystery]", there needs to be an answer independent of any desires, preferences, or creations of the people doing the solving.

<snip>

It is very important, here, that the conclusion is and always was correct. To have a final result that did not have any correct answer until after we declared it is a serious problem for "actually solv[ing]" it.

This is false.

Imagine a dynamic puzzle game, where the state of the solution evolves, in some algorithmic fashion, based on the current state of the player's attempt to solve it. The puzzle is solved when the player's solution converges on, or anticipates, the next iteration of the puzzle state. I'm not especially well-versed in code-breaking, but an example of what I've got in mind might include matching true letters to code letters in deciphering an enigma code.

There is no assignment of true letters to code letters that is and was always correct - that's the whole point of enigma as a code machine!

But that doesn't mean that the answer is no independent of desires, preferences or creations. What it does mean is that your imagination about the relationship between starting conditions, inference rules and solutions is too narrow.

To have a mystery continuously shaped by player declarations, even if those declarations follow rules, would be like having a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces don't actually fit into a pattern until we decide they fit into a pattern, and then all of a sudden that was the pattern that was "always" there.

See, here you seem to betray your narrowness of imagination about RPGing: because all you can focus on (i) player declarations (so-called "narrative mechanics") as opposed to action resolution and consequences, and (ii) decisions, as opposed to realisations.

It's the great achievement of RPG design since Prince Valiant in the late 1980s to have identified ways of approaching RPGing that don't depend solely on "The GM says, then the player says" - that is, that are different from round-robin storytelling.