GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

It's not a tension with player actions. It's a tension between the two instructions. One reads, to me, as "absolutely do not prep EVER unless you really, really, REALLY have to...and even then try to do as little of it as you can feasibly get away with." The other reads as, "You should definitely be doing a pretty significant amount of prep, down to a list of all significant denizens of a given area."

Huh? I haven't read DW as closely as AW, but where does it say list all significant denizens of a given area? I don't think it says anything like that at all!

 

[pemerton]

We, as players, investigate (e.g. we declare actions that trigger Discern Realities rolls) -> We, as players, establish truths by making statements which do not contradict what is already known, and which follow the rules for the kinds of statements we can make -> We, as players, find out what the correct result is, assuming our efforts as players were successful

That second step, making statements, creates new truths where before there were neither truths nor falsehoods, as anything not yet established has no truth value.

I don't understand the second step. Discern Realities questions are answered by the GM, not the players.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're the only poster talking about Hillfolk. No one else is talking about Hillfolk.

Yes. I brought it up in my original example and I mentioned it again to show @hawkeyefan the point I am making isn’t to say an approach to mysteries where the players aren’t actually solving them is somehow worse or less fun.

No one else is talking about this either. They're talking about games like Apocalypse World with pretty conventional authority allocations.

I was responding to a point in Hawkeyefan’s post about the difference between mysteries where the Gm creates the central backstory to be discovered and ones where the details of the central mystery are created during play. As I said before, if in AW you have a pre-existing central mystery that’s objective, then the players would also be solving a mystery in that case. I don’t play AW, so I have no clue if that is or isn’t the case I am not trying to attack it at all here. I haven’t commented on that game in regards to mysteries. I haven’t just been responding to you and @hawkeyefan posts challenging the distinction I made about actually solving. I wasn’t even thinking about AW when J made the example in the discussion of agency and information (there are even approaches to playing mystery in grad games where the point isn’t to actually solve it but rather to be the heroes in a mystery; this arose out of a discussion about agency and you guys took issue with my ‘really solving’ point

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

You and I had almost this exact exchange dozens of pages ago. I’ve been arguing all along that the distinctions being made are matters of preference. That there is no objective choice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't understand the second step. Discern Realities questions are answered by the GM, not the players.

Okay. What happens when the GM answers those questions in ways that fix the specific solution?

Has the DM not then, in that very action, pre-authored an answer?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Huh? I haven't read DW as closely as AW, but where does it say list all significant denizens of a given area? I don't think it says anything like that at all!

If you don't know the significant denizens, how can you know the demon is on the second floor? I should think the only way to know the demon is there is because you know all the significant denizens of the area, like...powerful demons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Yes, I follow you. I disagree that’s what’s happening. At best, they’re solving a logic puzzle created by the GM. I’d no more call it solving a mystery than I would call someone doing one of those murder mystery logic puzzles solving a mystery.

People have said again and again and again, that it doesn't make it lesser.

“Lesser” here was meant in the sense of enjoyment. Your players clearly wouldn’t enjoy a mystery solved through some other method than having predetermined answers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

“Lesser” here was meant in the sense of enjoyment. Your players clearly wouldn’t enjoy a mystery solved through some other method than having predetermined answers.

I think that depends on what we are doing. They were perfectly happy with the RBRB/Hillfolk mystery where there wasn’t a predetermined answer. They noticed the distinction right away, but that didn’t bother them, it was just something we needed to be aware of playing the characters

Both approaches can produce less enjoyment if expectations aren’t aligned and both can produce more if expectations are aligned

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I follow you. I disagree that’s what’s happening. At best, they’re solving a logic puzzle created by the GM. I’d no more call it solving a mystery than I would call someone doing one of those murder mystery logic puzzles solving a mystery.

View attachment 401275

I would quibble because there isn’t just the logic puzzle there is the investigation (even the simplest and most rigid trail of clues means the players will be actively investigating). But I think we have said everything there is to say here on whether this is a mystery being solved

 

[hawkeyefan]

Okay so I think we are getting closer to the heart of your objection. You don't like the solving the mystery aspect.

That’s part of it, yes. But you seem to have missed the part where it doesn’t feel to me like solving a mystery. That’s not what I get out of play.

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.

Right. But mysteries don’t have creators that oversee their creation and how all the details fit together. More importantly, they don’t do so with a sense of how to present those details in such a way as to function as a game of some sort.

This is why I’m making a distinction between what the characters are doing (solving a mystery) and what the players are doing (working out a logic puzzle).

If the GM is the one making up the mystery backstory, that doesn't take anything away from teh players solving it.

Maybe not for you.

But if the players are making up the backstory as things go, it is pretty obvious that takes away from them solving it.

This idea of “takes away” is what I was referencing by using thw word “lesser”.

There’s some amount of enjoyment lost for your players if the “facts” of the scenario are not predetermined by the GM. This is perfectly fine… but it’s a preference.

For others, some amount of enjoyment may be lost knowing that everything is predetermined. This is an alternate and equally perfectly fine preference.

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.

Sure… during play, both methods try to maintain some sense of causality. This isn’t unique to either approach.