GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

I'd just like to note here that pre-authorship isn't required.

The only thing that is required is that there is some fact of the matter, within the fictional space. That fact-of-the-matter is most easily done by having it be pre-authored, e.g. by a GM or by an adventure writer, but it does not have to be done that way. Random determination is also possible, or (say) you could have a third party that doesn't know the context picking things out (so that it isn't random, but also isn't strictly "authorship" either.)

I've used the word "established" a lot here, and it's not for nothing. The order in which the truth is established matters. If the truth is pre-established--by whatever means, authorship being only one of them--then it is possible to solve for that truth by gathering evidence that points toward it (or which pushes you away from the false conclusions). If the truth is established by the investigation, if the establishment is causally downstream of the investigation, then I don't see how that investigation can be "solving" the mystery. It is, most certainly, still an investigation. But it is an investigation which creates a truth, rather than an investigation which discovers a truth.

If you're creating the truth, you aren't solving for it--you're building it with your own hands. Even if that creation is divided amongst multiple people and bound by strict and reliable rules and procedures, you are still creating that truth.

I cannot create the truth that 3+4=7, or at least I have no idea how I would create such a thing. But I most certainly can create a solution to X+Y=7 where X and Y are natural numbers, which does not have a solution as stated. I can create that solution by saying, "I declare that Y is 4, and thus X must be 3." Y could be any number of the set 1 through 6 (possibly 0 through 7, if you are like me and consider 0 a natural number); it is my choice to make Y=3 that creates the possibility of a solution in the first place.

I think the important thing is there be an objective mystery to solve. And ideally this mystery is set from the beginning so that your investigative efforts matter from the start. But a GM could easily use a random method for setting this up. Other methods could probably work too (as long as players can investigate it without knowing the solution and there is a way the steps of the investigation to make sense in terms of gathering clues, talking to suspects and that enabling them to try to solve the case in a way where they are genuinely solving something

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your earlier post frames what we have all been attempting to say perhaps the best of all. The only thing I disagree with here is your premise that authorship cannot be done via some random mechanism.

I would also say the third party picking the solution was an author of that fictional detail.

TLDR: you are just using author much differently than I am.

I see "authorship" as meaning something pretty specific: an intentional creator carefully selecting a specific set of things. I do not follow Barthes' demotion of authors to mere scriptors, though I do understand that his criticism of author-centric analysis came from a context where people were kinda claiming they could objectively prove the one and only correct understanding of a given work (which is a supremely silly idea).

A random process can't be an author, in this sense, because there is no "selection" at all, just random chance resulting in one option occurring instead of another. My ignorant-bystander idea (which I mostly suggested just so I had something other than "100% pure pre-authorship" and "100% pure randomness") is thus not really an author in the sense I mentioned above, as there is no intentional creation going on, but there is an actual selection, as in, someone is choosing something over something else.

 

[Campbell]

There is pretty clear and obvious tension between the two. The prep says "the X is at Y", the player says "I search the X at Z."

Apocalypse World doesn't feature that sort of prep (if we are running it according to its instructions). The game tells you how to prep (fronts in First Edition / threats in Second Edition). When the game says "always say what your prep demands" it means fronts/threats. You cannot take the always say ... part serious without taking the here's how we prep part serious.

 

[FrogReaver]

I see "authorship" as meaning something pretty specific: an intentional creator carefully selecting a specific set of things. I do not follow Barthes' demotion of authors to mere scriptors, though I do understand that his criticism of author-centric analysis came from a context where people were kinda claiming they could objectively prove the one and only correct understanding of a given work (which is a supremely silly idea).

A random process can't be an author, in this sense, because there is no "selection" at all, just random chance resulting in one option occurring instead of another. My ignorant-bystander idea (which I mostly suggested just so I had something other than "100% pure pre-authorship" and "100% pure randomness") is thus not really an author in the sense I mentioned above, as there is no intentional creation going on, but there is an actual selection, as in, someone is choosing something over something else.

Yea. I don’t see it that way. But it’s just definitional semantics at this point.

 

[innerdude]

Unless the causal order is preserved for the players in addition to being preserved for the characters, it isn't solving a mystery. It just...isn't. I don't know how to express it better than that. It's something other than solving. It has a lot of things in common with solving. It features characters that are, themselves, solving. But it itself isn't solving.

If the players don't know what I, the GM, have chosen as the conclusion, it doesn't matter what the conclusion is until it's revealed in play.

Given the evidence board shown, which of the 3 conclusions are possible for the GM to author?

The answer is all three. Sure, Solution Y is the most probable and has the largest preponderance of evidence, but will the players be shocked beyond belief if Solution Z is chosen instead? Or Solution X?

If this is my prep, then my prep demands that I set up the basic "game board" in the fiction to follow. I can even say, "I suspect, in the end, it will be Solution Y, but I'm leaving things open."

I get your argument --- solutions can only be derived from things we know to be absolute fact.

But "the facts" in the shared imaginary space are whatever the GM, the system, the principles of play, and the group ultimately agree upon. If I, as GM, move one of the arrows on Evidence D from Solution Y to Solution Z, before the players have encountered Evidence D, what difference does it make to the players?

Of course, you might ask, "Why as a GM would you even do that?" And the answer is that you'd do it in service of some other play agenda other than "I want the players to solve the mystery."

If the goal is to build tension, drive home character stakes/intent, foreshadow future events, or make salient a relevant concern of one or more PCs, why wouldn't I as GM make that choice rather than NOT make that choice?

And OF COURSE you're never going to choose a solution not based on the evidence. I'm going to follow and respect previously established facts, fictional positioning, and known "truths." But the unknown can stay unknown until encountered.

The question, too, can be raised, "Is this more enjoyable for the players? Wouldn't they rather know that they cleverly solved the GM's firmly established 'mystery' that was set in stone via prep 6 months ago?"

For some groups, maybe. In my experience the players are more than satisfied with discovering whichever conclusion is made in the end, AND they get the added benefit of greater investment and player stakes.

If that's not the same thing as "solving the mystery," well, okay then. I'll go for the better at-the-table experience every time. I don't care if it meets the definition. If you want me to concede the point, "You're not actually running a 'mystery' scenario," then sure, fine. When I'm playing or running Ironsworn, I'm not running a 'mystery' and I couldn't care less.

 

[thefutilist]

E.g.: "This is how you play to find out what happens. You’re sharing in the fun of finding out how the characters react to and change the world you’re portraying. You’re all participants in a great adventure that’s unfolding. So really, don’t plan too hard. The rules of the game will fight you. It’s fun to see how things unfold, trust us."

This is the no-myth interpretation but AW isn't a no-myth game. Dungeon World is really shaky, I don't think Adam and Sage knew what AW was trying to do in the slightest. A lot of the subsequent PbtA advice and designers do basically advocate no-myth.

Truncated history of no-myth. Gareth Michael Skarka invented it (or was the first to put it to text), he called it Intuitive Continuity. LeJour (A forge poster) took it and renamed it no-myth. The lack of backstory is leverage by the GM to create an exciting GENRE adventure. At the same time the idea of fail forward and flags was kicking around. Fail forward was really influenced by InSpectres. There's a kind of more thematic version of no-myth where you hit the flags with problematic challenges (as opposed to genre) and a lot of Narrativist games are interpreted that way even when they're not.

So the four components are: flags, no back story, fail forward, the GM as a kind of facilitator (is focussed on what the players want)

I don't think AW has any of those, although it was obviously interpreted that way and an overwhelming amount of the hype PbtA gets is because it's an introduction to no-myth.

 

[robertsconley]

I will @robertsconley defend his own game, because I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't think either of us would claim that how we run games is fundamentally different in terms of player and GM interaction than standard sessions. Neither of us is trying to reinvent the wheel there. But I think you believe you have greater access to the truth of how this process unfolds than others, at least than us, and you speak with such authority on the matter. But I find your descriptions of the process extremely reductive. I feel these interactions are much more organic and fluid than you observe.

What @pemorton is missing is the difference between approaching tabletop roleplaying from a first-person view versus a third-person view.

The GM's job is to present this material to the players, when the fictional circumstances make it appropriate to do so. And the players are not reasoning from the tone of Horne's earnest talking (as a police investigator might) or from the smell of the flames of the ghost (as a chemist might); they are reasoning from what the GM says.

For example, the above only makes sense if the referee chooses to present it in the third person. In contrast, what I and others do is roleplay as Horne, and talk in earnest, expecting the players to pick up on my tone of voice and act accordingly. As for things like smell, taste, or touch, we have to describe them, but a referee can choose to do so in a way that is only a step removed from actually having something there for the players to smell, taste, or touch.

The players can't "discover* what has happened to Leclair except by declaring actions for their PCs that will then make it appropriate for the GM to tell them that stuff.

Again, this only makes sense if @pemorton's approach to refereeing is from a third person viewpoint. My approach, as highlighted in the video of our session, is that wherever possible, I had you and the other players interact in the first person. One thing that the video is missing is the fact that, due to technical limitations, we had to run the session using theater of the mind. Typically, I will reinforce the viewpoint with the use of maps and minis. Rather than telling me what your character is doing, I have you show me what your character is doing by moving a token or pointing out something on the map. You experienced some of this with the Adventure in Middle Earth sessions, where we were able to use Roll20.

Overall, tabletop roleplaying has elements that are commonly used regardless of system, we use a game to adjudicate what the players do as their character, use dice, the referee describes things verbally, the players describe what their character do verbally, and these are the tools we use to make tabletop roleplaying campaigns happen. However, they are just tools. They are the brushes, paints, and canvas we use to create campaigns with. How we use those tools can make for very different experiences, just as in the world of art, brushes, paint, and canvas can produce impressionist paintings, romantic painting, along with all the different other styles that feel different from one another despite using the same set of tools.

I ran a LARP chapter and events for over a decade. Live action roleplaying is all about feeling as if you are there as much as you can given safety constraints. There is little in the way of third person description or declaring actions. You see what you see, sense what you sense, and act accordingly.

This experience helped me with tabletop roleplaying campaigns afterward. While tabletop isn't live-action, I figured out a lot of ways to apply the techniques I learned in live-action to the tabletop experience. To create more of a first-person experience that leaves the players feeling that they were there as their characters actually talking to Horne, and seeing the manifestation of LeClair's ghost.

And as I have posted, repeatedly, working from and extrapolating from notes is not the only way to constrain what is said.

@Bedrockgames What @pemerton is not considering is that the referee can choose how the flow of information is managed, choose not to exert narrative control. Instead, they decide to limit themselves to using notes and plausible extrapolation of motivations, goals, and resources. Why would a referee do this? Because I found through experience it makes a difference in how the campaign flows. It may not feel much different during a specific session, but as the campaign unfolds, it results in a distinct difference in feel for the campaign as a whole compared to other approaches.

The point of my approach is not for the referee to control the narrative, but rather to create a framework that facilitates player agency and makes interacting with the setting the primary focus of the campaign.


This establishes a feedback loop that makes the resulting campaign a unique product of both the referee's actions and the players' actions. Just as important, the fact that I impose on myself a commitment to plausible extrapolation means that I will give information to players not just based on what they do (or ask out of game), but also what their character would plausibly be aware of as if they were really there. For example, the player doesn't have to ask about the smell of LeClair's ghost; I would provide that information because it is a plausible thing to describe if the characters are present. If it was something that only an expert would recognize, then I would ask for skill rolls or make them myself based on the character sheets.

Looking at the chain of posts, I noticed several additional points. First, the feedback loop above isn't just about revealing information; part of it is figuring out how the characters of the setting react to what the players do. This creates a dynamic feel of a "World in Motion", and when there is a mystery involved imparts a feeling to the players they are part of a larger world with more things to discover than what they know as well as providing ideas for how they can continue to interact with the setting to discover what going on.

Coming up with how the world is in motion is one of the primary ways I am being creative during the campaign; it is not an area in which I exert absolute control. I have to use my creativity because the players did something. The end result ultimately becomes something that wouldn't exist without the players and me playing out the campaign.

I discussed how my approach limits the referee to plausible extrapolation. For the players, they are limited to what their characters are capable of. Part of what I found that made my campaign interesting, based on my players' feedback, is that the limitations both of us operate under make the campaign a more interesting challenge and create a feeling that they just had adventures in a place that could have existed despite the fantastic premises, like magic.

@Bedrockgames I hope this helps support the points you made.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the players don't know what I, the GM, have chosen as the conclusion, it doesn't matter what the conclusion is until it's revealed in play.

I disagree. The very knowledge that you have prepared a solution is information the players have that they can use to inform their play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the players don't know what I, the GM, have chosen as the conclusion, it doesn't matter what the conclusion is until it's revealed in play.

Given the evidence board shown, which of the 3 conclusions are possible for the GM to author?

The answer is all three. Sure, Solution Y is the most probable and has the largest preponderance of evidence, but will the players be shocked beyond belief if Solution Z is chosen instead? Or Solution X?

If this is my prep, then my prep demands that I set up the basic "game board" in the fiction to follow. I can even say, "I suspect, in the end, it will be Solution Y, but I'm leaving things open."

I get your argument --- solutions can only be derived from things we know to be absolute fact.

But "the facts" in the shared imaginary space are whatever the GM, the system, the principles of play, and the group ultimately agree upon. If I, as GM, move one of the arrows on Evidence D from Solution Y to Solution Z, before the players have encountered Evidence D, what difference does it make to the players?

Of course, you might ask, "Why as a GM would you even do that?" And the answer is that you'd do it in service of some other play agenda other than "I want the players to solve the mystery."

If the goal is to build tension, drive home character stakes/intent, foreshadow future events, or make salient a relevant concern of one or more PCs, why wouldn't I as GM make that choice rather than NOT make that choice?

And OF COURSE you're never going to choose a solution not based on the evidence. I'm going to follow and respect previously established facts, fictional positioning, and known "truths." But the unknown can stay unknown until encountered.

The question, too, can be raised, "Is this more enjoyable for the players? Wouldn't they rather know that they cleverly solved the GM's firmly established 'mystery' that was set in stone via prep 6 months ago?"

For some groups, maybe. In my experience the players are more than satisfied with discovering whichever conclusion is made in the end, AND they get the added benefit of greater investment and player stakes.

If that's not the same thing as "solving the mystery," well, okay then. I'll go for the better at-the-table experience every time. I don't care if it meets the definition. If you want me to concede the point, "You're not actually running a 'mystery' scenario," then sure, fine. When I'm playing or running Ironsworn, I'm not running a 'mystery' and I couldn't care less.



View attachment 401201

I appreciate the forthright nature of your stance here. Thank you for accepting the subjective, preference-oriented nature of this whole discussion.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I disagree. The very knowledge that you have prepared a solution is information the players have that they can use to inform their play.

Hey could you expand on that please, just in terms of how that information is helpful in the players solving the mystery?