GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

But you are dead keen on making assertions about what is "real", and what is "objective".

In a setting for a game

As I've posted, those assertions are purely dogmatic. They're not grounded in any actual demonstration of the "reality" or the "objectivity".

They aren’t at all. I would suggest your refusal to even concede there is such a thing as the players solving the mystery is the dogma here. And I have also taken pains to explain my position. I just haven’t done it the way you want me to

So, I'm thinking of an established fact in my old Rolemaster game, about who killed Derf. You're a player. How do you discover that? (Without just picking up and reading my old logs of play.)

You investigate

 

[Bedrockgames]

In AW, when a player says what their PC does, one of three things happens:

* The player's action declaration triggers a player-side move, which is then resolved;​

• The player's action does not trigger a player-side move, and the GM makes a soft move;
• The players action does not trigger a player-side move, but hands the GM an opportunity on a plate, and so the GM makes as hard and direct a move as they like.

Where is the tension supposed to exist, that @EzekielRaiden asserted?

Moving from bottom to top:

The GM always says what prep demands, and so in making a hard move will not contradict their prep.

The GM always says what prep demands, and so in making a soft move will not contradict their prep.

How is the resolution of a player-side move going to contradict the GM's prep?

If GM prep is something that can remain objective around the mystery, I don't see the issue. This point wasn't about knocking AW or any other type of game. I don't know whether it can or not, as I don't play AW. But like I said before, if the GM can prep a mystery background and nothing the players do changes details like who did it, how, with what, etc. Then I think they would be solving the mystery in the manner I am saying. I will leave it to the AW people to debate whether the system does or does not as I don't consider it an important point

 

[pemerton]

So does "negation of action declaration" mean something else to you than" what the player wishes to accomplish with the action they declared for their character doesn't come to pass"? Because I am not talking about moves. Like before we argue for 60 pages about this, I'd like to clear up some semantics first.

I don't understand your question.

Upthread, @EzekielRaiden made these posts:

There is a tension in the written rules, for DW, between the high-level Principle "play to find out what happens" (which pushes toward a "no-myth" approach) and the How To GM instruction "exploit your prep" (which pushes away from absolute no-myth). Here's a bit of relevant text which seems to fit, to some extent, with what you've described here (emphasis in original):

"In all of these things, exploit your prep. At times you’ll know something the players don’t yet know. You can use that knowledge to help you make moves. Maybe the wizard tries to cast a spell and draws unwanted attention. They don’t know that the attention that just fell on them was the ominous gaze of a demon waiting two levels below, but you do."

I have always understood these sections to be in tension because, as "play to find out what happens" is presented, there should be almost no prep at all, and certainly nothing like knowing very specifically that there is a demon on the second floor of the dungeon who might know about the players. I have had folks tell me, point-blank, that Dungeon World is supposed to be, at least practically if not theoretically, truly "no-myth", where there isn't any myth, at all, whatsoever, only and exclusively that which is explicitly established in play, and nothing else: hence, play to find out what happens.

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."

And I am asking: what is the tension?

I've set out the three ways, in AW/DW, that a player's statement about what their PC does can unfold. Where is the tension?

Upthread, you suggested as an example that the GM's prep is Person B will never reveal the truth about Q.

So, as @Campbell posted not far upthread, that doesn't seem typical for AW/DW prep. I don't think it's really flagged in the AW rulebook as part of prepping a front/threat.

But let's suppose that the GM does it anyway: how is it going to play out?

Let's suppose that a PC meets B, and asks B about Q. This is not a player-side move, so the GM responds with a soft move. Given that the GM always says what their prep demands, they will not have B reveal the truth about Q.

Let's suppose that the GM's soft move doesn't physically separate the PC from B, nor otherwise make it impossible for the PC to keep pressing B. So the PC asks again. And the GM responds again with a move. If the player is, at this point, handing the GM an opportunity on a plate (because ignoring the set up from the previous soft move), the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. Maybe, as the PC looks expectantly at B hoping for an answer, B falls to the ground. A hidden assassin has shot B! And the PC is the next available target! (Of course, this assumes that the threat of assassination has already been brought into play, so that this is a follow through on that prior move.)

Now consider the alternative. Suppose that as the PC starts talking to B, the player says that they are reading a person. So the dice are rolled and the move resolved: let's say the player gets one question, and so asks "How could I get B to tell me the truth about Q?" As the rules not (p 201), “Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?” And so the GM tells the player, "You can tell there's no way that B will ever tell you the truth about Q."

And then the player says, "I pull out my gun and put it to B's head. "Tell me about Q!", I shout." This is going aggro. And suppose the roll is a 10+. So the GM has to decide, does B tell the PC about Q or do they suck up the PC's bullet? If their prep demands the latter, then that's what happens.

So, as I've posted, I don't know what this tension is supposed to be.

Now if, when you (@Crimson Longinus) say that you're not talking about moves, you mean you're talking about some RPG other than AW or DW, OK, which RPG are you talking about? Because my post was in reply to comments about DW.

 

[pemerton]

You investigate

What does that mean. Like, I've never played a RPG before.

So I ask, "Do you mean, like in Cluedo where I ask about the cards in your hand?" So you say "No, you do it like <this>." How do you explain the <this>.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't understand your question.

Now if, when you (@Crimson Longinus) say that you're not talking about moves, you mean you're talking about some RPG other than AW or DW, OK, which RPG are you talking about? Because my post was in reply to comments about DW.

No. I mean that I understand "action declaration" to be a separate thing from the move. Like the player can declare all sort of things. like "I go to Krumptown to meet Sludge." But if the prep says Krumptown has been burned down and Sludge has been killed, then, that action declaration cannot come to pass, no?

But there is no process, in AW, whereby prep can produce a "negation", by the GM's reference to it, of a player's declared action.

Referring to this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What does that mean. Like, I've never played a RPG before.

So I ask, "Do you mean, like in Cluedo where I ask about the cards in your hand?" So you say "No, you do it like <this>." How do you explain the <this>.

But you have played one and I have explained how it might be done before to you on many threads. This is one of the most basic modes of play. There is nothing earth shattering about it. And you know what it entails (as does anyone reading this thread).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it is about modeling causation in an imaginary space

Sure, but modeling is different from actual causation. We can model causation after the fact.

If you freely jump from describing what the characters are doing and what the players are doing in your description of play, it’s going to be really blurry.

Also @pemerton I must emphasize once again this is a massive tangent over a throw away remark I made about 'real mysteries'. My overall point was about agency. Another poster mentioned you could swap out 'real' with 'genuine' or 'sincere' or whatever else works for you. But I do think it is a bit silly people are seriously questioning that there can be a distinction between a mystery like this that the players are actually solving (something most gamers have known, experienced and seen) and other types of mystery adventures where the players aren't solving an objective mystery. It feels like a lot of navel gazing and hair splitting over something most people just understand intuitively through play

So does not admitting that play is about finding out what the GM has decided before play when your entire argument relies in the GM making such decisions before play.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

No. I mean that I understand "action declaration" to be a separate thing from the move. Like the player can declare all sort of things. like "I go to Krumptown to meet Sludge." But if the prep says Krumptown has been burned down and Sludge has been killed, then, that action declaration cannot come to pass, no?

If the prep says that, but the character doesn't know it, that action declaration can come to pass. The player could know it, and that action declaration could come to pass.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but modeling is different from actual causation. We can model causation after the fact.

Yes you can and it is fine to do. But it creates a very different feel to mystery investigations if you do

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the prep says that, but the character doesn't know it, that action declaration can come to pass.

How? They cannot go to Krumptown as it doesn't exist any more, they cannot meet Sludge, because he's dead.