GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

No these two things are totally different.

They’re not totally different. There are differences, yes. I think there are similarities, also. And I think those similarities are more important than you seem to think.

Forget the word real if that makes you feel better, but you surely can see that a game where we are creating the solution to the question of a crime that happened,

For example, the bolded above could be describing either approach.

When you as GM create a mystery scenario for play, you do so without the constraint of cause and effect. You make up all the details you like, and you can edit freely. As you design your scenario, you are crafting it exactly as you want it, then afterward you apply the illusion of cause and effect. You are creating the solution to a crime that has happened (in the game world, I’d add).

Nothing in the scenario happens as a result of other things in the scenario. Everything in the scenario happens because you choose it to happen. Then you make up details why or how it happened that “fit”.

versus one where the GM has that solution all figured out and we need to guess at is and solve the problem as we acquire clues are completely different. In one you are solving a question that can be objectively answered. In the other you are creating the solution.

I would say that both involve the creation of a mystery and its solution. Both have the illusion of causality.

The difference is when the mystery and its solution is created and by whom.

This is central to what you are missing. You are not solving anything if you are engineering the answer but there was never a pre-existing solution. Not in the sense of solving a mystery. I don't know to make this much more clear. But it is super obvious

The players aren’t solving anything in either game. They are pretending to solve a mystery in both games.

To put it another way, I think that players making moves with characters and prompting the GM with questions to reveal his answers of who done it and why has much more in common with players making moves and prompting the GM with questions to determine via play process who done it and why than either of the above has with actually solving a mystery.

Sure, for some people, the idea that there’s some predetermined answer to the questions will feel more like they’re “really solving the mystery”. The idea that there’s not some predetermined answer would make this feel somehow lesser to some folks.

But for others, the fact that they know there’s one participant who knows all the answers and has constructed this mystery and is running the game will make it feel somehow lesser. Especially the more the game shifts away from the what might entail skilled play of the game and more toward a test of the players’ skill at figuring out the GM’s puzzle. That they know it’s the GM’s puzzle makes it lesser in some way for them.

This is before we even get into the quality of the mystery that has been constructed by the GM. Make it too easy, and it won’t seem very satisfying. Make it too hard, and play may stall out.

We’ve all seen these kinds of games stall out… the players shrug, unsure what to do as the GM stares at them like they’re idiots. Then inevitably, the GM makes some kind of decision to help prod things along… he gives a new clue or lets the players make a roll to get a hint, or something along these lines. Because when it’s all said and done… this is the scenario he designed, and he clearly did so with the intention that it could be “solved”… so if that doesn’t happen… well, that could be a problem for a lot of GMs. A problem not all will know how to handle.

I’ve played in tons of mystery games that absolutely sucked. Most of the time it was because the resolution of the mystery was too much of the focus of play. The best mystery type scenarios that I’ve played were not the ones where I figured out who done it (or whatever) but instead were ones that were thematic and engaging in ways beyond the central mystery. This is why Call of Cthulhu and Delta Green tend to be my go to examples for games like these that I’ve had fun with. They’re more about the vibe and theme and who can make it out and how intact will they be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The players aren’t solving anything in either game. They are pretending to solve a mystery in both games.

No this is just isn't so. The players are putting together information to reach conclusions about who did it. They very much are solving the mystery. It is very clear this is what is happening. They aren't going through the motions of solving it. They aren't creating the solution. The truth of the case exists independent of them because the GM determined it before play. There is very much a truth they can get to through investigation and reasoning.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, for some people, the idea that there’s some predetermined answer to the questions will feel more like they’re “really solving the mystery”. The idea that there’s not some predetermined answer would make this feel somehow lesser to some folks.

People have said again and again and again, that it doesn't make it lesser. I was talking about how great a time I had playing it this way with Hillfolk and mentioned that it was fun. There is just an important distinction to be made between a game like that and a one where the players are really solving the mystery. That 'really solving the msytery' bit isn't a knock on the other approach. I wouldn't have used Hillfolk in that way if I didn't think it would be exciting. What the Hillfolk system gave us for this adventure was the sense of a much more cinematic wuxia experience like from a Shaw Brothers movie. And it gave us tons of interpersonal drama along the way because drama is baked into the system. What the system couldn't do, at least the way I was wielding it, was allow for the mystery to be objective (again a friend mentioned ways to wall this off, which would have made it work, but if we did there would have been an objective backstory and set of objective facts to the mystery).

Also to be fully clear, while I like mysteries and investigations, I don't consider them the pinnacle of gaming personally. I like to run them and play in them once in a while, but they do have a sense of artifice that makes me not want to run them all the time (especially if you are doing trails of clues). But they are things players can objectively solve. That is obvious if you ru and play them in this way

 

[Bedrockgames]

We’ve all seen these kinds of games stall out… the players shrug, unsure what to do as the GM stares at them like they’re idiots. Then inevitably, the GM makes some kind of decision to help prod things along… he gives a new clue or lets the players make a roll to get a hint, or something along these lines. Because when it’s all said and done… this is the scenario he designed, and he clearly did so with the intention that it could be “solved”… so if that doesn’t happen… well, that could be a problem for a lot of GMs. A problem not all will know how to handle.

I’ve played in tons of mystery games that absolutely sucked. Most of the time it was because the resolution of the mystery was too much of the focus of play. The best mystery type scenarios that I’ve played were not the ones where I figured out who done it (or whatever) but instead were ones that were thematic and engaging in ways beyond the central mystery. This is why Call of Cthulhu and Delta Green tend to be my go to examples for games like these that I’ve had fun with. They’re more about the vibe and theme and who can make it out and how intact will they be.

Okay so I think we are getting closer to the heart of your objection. You don't like the solving the mystery aspect. That is totally fair. I never said it was the greatest thing on earth in RPGs. I've been pretty consistent saying play what you like, and I am not even saying I always want it to be all about the players solving things. I'm just saying there is a distinction that is going to matter if that is what the players want. And the heart of that distinction is whether the players are actually solving the mystery

No one is saying mystery games are consistently going to entertain you or not fall apart. I've mentioned before a lot of ink has been spilled addressing perceived problems that arise in mysteries. There are solutions like Gumshoe's approach of making it more about the players putting the clues together than finding the clues. There is the three clue rules. There is the ticking clock rule (count down to something exciting in case the players don't solve the mystery). These come up because mysteries are prone to those kinds of issues.

And also no one is telling you you have to love or even like this style of play. I never said this style was more rewarding for everyone. I just said this style allows players to engage the solving of the mystery. If you want thematic engagement beyond the mystery, by all means, don't play this way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When you as GM create a mystery scenario for play, you do so without the constraint of cause and effect. You make up all the details you like, and you can edit freely. As you design your scenario, you are crafting it exactly as you want it, then afterward you apply the illusion of cause and effect. You are creating the solution to a crime that has happened (in the game world, I’d add).

Nothing in the scenario happens as a result of other things in the scenario. Everything in the scenario happens because you choose it to happen. Then you make up details why or how it happened that “fit”.

Well the GM is constrained in that things have to follow if they want a sensical backstory, but they can create what they want. No one is denying that. Importantly though, this is all happening before play begins. And the GM isn't the one solving the mystery. The players are. If the GM is the one making up the mystery backstory, that doesn't take anything away from teh players solving it. But if the players are making up the backstory as things go, it is pretty obvious that takes away from them solving it.

But once the scenario unfolds, the GM any cause and effect is pretty clear: players go into the lobby, see the knife on the floor, examine the knife and determine it was the murder weapon, etc. That isn't particularly difficult cause and effect to navigate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They’re not totally different. There are differences, yes. I think there are similarities, also. And I think those similarities are more important than you seem to think.



For example, the bolded above could be describing either approach.

When you as GM create a mystery scenario for play, you do so without the constraint of cause and effect. You make up all the details you like, and you can edit freely. As you design your scenario, you are crafting it exactly as you want it, then afterward you apply the illusion of cause and effect. You are creating the solution to a crime that has happened (in the game world, I’d add).

Nothing in the scenario happens as a result of other things in the scenario. Everything in the scenario happens because you choose it to happen. Then you make up details why or how it happened that “fit”.



I would say that both involve the creation of a mystery and its solution. Both have the illusion of causality.

The difference is when the mystery and its solution is created and by whom.



The players aren’t solving anything in either game. They are pretending to solve a mystery in both games.

To put it another way, I think that players making moves with characters and prompting the GM with questions to reveal his answers of who done it and why has much more in common with players making moves and prompting the GM with questions to determine via play process who done it and why than either of the above has with actually solving a mystery.

Sure, for some people, the idea that there’s some predetermined answer to the questions will feel more like they’re “really solving the mystery”. The idea that there’s not some predetermined answer would make this feel somehow lesser to some folks.

But for others, the fact that they know there’s one participant who knows all the answers and has constructed this mystery and is running the game will make it feel somehow lesser. Especially the more the game shifts away from the what might entail skilled play of the game and more toward a test of the players’ skill at figuring out the GM’s puzzle. That they know it’s the GM’s puzzle makes it lesser in some way for them.

This is before we even get into the quality of the mystery that has been constructed by the GM. Make it too easy, and it won’t seem very satisfying. Make it too hard, and play may stall out.

We’ve all seen these kinds of games stall out… the players shrug, unsure what to do as the GM stares at them like they’re idiots. Then inevitably, the GM makes some kind of decision to help prod things along… he gives a new clue or lets the players make a roll to get a hint, or something along these lines. Because when it’s all said and done… this is the scenario he designed, and he clearly did so with the intention that it could be “solved”… so if that doesn’t happen… well, that could be a problem for a lot of GMs. A problem not all will know how to handle.

I’ve played in tons of mystery games that absolutely sucked. Most of the time it was because the resolution of the mystery was too much of the focus of play. The best mystery type scenarios that I’ve played were not the ones where I figured out who done it (or whatever) but instead were ones that were thematic and engaging in ways beyond the central mystery. This is why Call of Cthulhu and Delta Green tend to be my go to examples for games like these that I’ve had fun with. They’re more about the vibe and theme and who can make it out and how intact will they be.

So you're saying, you have a preference, and we have a different preference? Seems we could have agreed on that a while back.

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me you're in the no myth camp.

Huh? The existence of <Warlord? is myth. Prep. Likewise the clock. All done in accordance with the AW rulebook's instructions.

To me, it seems that you are ignoring the AW processes of play, and of prep, and wanting to do something different - "setting prep", for lack of a better phrase. AW uses threat/front prep. (Landscapes can be a type of threat, so Burned-out Krumptown could be a threat. With its own clock.

But the GM would say things involving it just as they say anything else, in accordance with the rules that tell the GM when and how to make moves, including threat moves.

Except that in your response to @EzekielRaiden which started this bloody tangent you insisted that you can totally prep all sort of things and there is no conflict. But ti turns out you actually just mean you can prep some vague ideas which might happen if the situation warrants it. That is not the sort of prep ER was talking about!
[/QUOTE]What I said to @EzekielRaiden was that I did not understand why he said there is a tension in the rulebook. When there's not.

 

[pemerton]

But what about history? What if the bad thing happened before the game even started, but the PCs don't know about it yet? Like certainly the world can have some sort of past?

The world went to hell in an Apocalypse! Hence the name of the game.

But you seem to be not having any regard to how the game instructs the GM to make their moves.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Why not?

Because prior to being directly, completely, and explicitly revealed-in-play, there's all sorts of effects the true facts should have on the world. That's like...literally what solving a mystery IS. Following the trails of facts that point to the correct answer.

If you have a situation where you, as DM, have given evidence in a suspended state--where it could be a perfectly good true clue, actually pointing to the real perpetrator, OR it could be a well-made false clue, pointing to an innocent person--then it isn't possible to reason from them to the answer. For the very simple reason that there ISN'T an answer.

Solving a mystery is a process of reasoning from clues to answers (and, consequently, of finding and verifying clues). If there are no answers, that process cannot occur.

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?

If I, as the DM, fudge a die the players didn't see so that what was a crit becomes a miss (or whatever you prefer), what difference does it make to the players?

The difference it makes is that we cannot learn from the things we interact with. They can--and, as you have demonstrated, will--change underneath our feet. Our attempts to learn are stymied by the simple fact that we could be correctly following the evidence to A, up until the moment that suddenly it's actually B, and anything which validly pointed to A before is now an invalid false clue.

I oppose all forms of fudging on principle, and it doesn't matter whether the fudge is quantitative or qualitative.

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."

So...you're now literally admitting that the thing you're talking about interferes with "solve a mystery".

Why, exactly, are we arguing if you are outright admitting the thing I've been aiming at this whole time?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you specify a situation that does not resemble a RPG, but rather an incomplete novel, what do you expect it to reveal about RPGing?

For a start, everything that you describe is about the fiction. Nothing you have said describes any process of RPG play.

I have done a thing almost exactly like the above, as something my Dungeon World group did. Are you saying that what they went through, the process of finding clues, interviewing suspects (including the victim! His memory was fogged by the poison that actually killed him), eliminating false leads, etc., had no intersection with RPGing? Because that would be pretty strange given...it was played out via RPG rules. They solved the mystery beautifully and, as a result, earned a greater boon than their patron had originally intended (that is, he got his desired end without triggering a diplomatic incident, which was what he had expected to occur).