GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

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

Yes, this was my point. My use of "you" and "your" was more a general use than specifically about your players.

Different groups will enjoy different approaches to varying degrees. They will feel like they're solving a mystery to varying degrees.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Different groups will enjoy different approaches to varying degrees. They will feel like they're solving a mystery to varying degrees.

But my point isn't about feeling. Both can produce fun and engagement. But when we did this with Hillfolk, we knew we weren't solving a mystery the way we were if had been doing it more like a trail of clues with an objective backstory. There is a clear difference in what is going on

 

[hawkeyefan]

But my point isn't about feeling. Both can produce fun and engagement. But when we did this with Hillfolk, we knew we weren't solving a mystery the way we were if had been doing it more like a trail of clues with an objective backstory. There is a clear difference in what is going on

I didn’t say there’s not a difference. But I do think it is all about feeling. That for you (or a given group) it feels more like solving a mystery if you know the facts have been predetermined by the GM.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn’t say there’s not a difference. But I do think it is all about feeling. That for you (or a given group) it feels more like solving a mystery if you know the facts have been predetermined by the GM.

Our reasons have nothing to do with feelings.

An example:
Narrativist games feel like they play differently than non-narrativist games BECAUSE they do play differently than regular games.

 

[darkbard]

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?

Answering questions as the necessary output of playing the game is not pre-authoring. It's playing the game. No one is arguing that answers do not get set as a result of gameplay. That, in fact, is (part of) the whole point of distinction that's trying to be drawn: between answer as pre-authored input into fiction vs answer as output of actual play.

 

[innerdude]

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.

So .... it's exactly like every episode of Castle or House M.D. or CSI or Law and Order, or .......

Not exactly seeing the conflict here. If detectives are following Theory A because that's the evidence they have, then suddenly they're faced with evidence that changes everything to point to Theory B ..... ?

Look, I'm not saying that there isn't some specific quantitative difference between "100% pre authored mystery solely created by the hand of the all-wise GM to amaze and entertain" and the "90% pre-authored mystery, but 10% left open to follow emerging drama, character stakes, and thematic impact". Could it impact play? Possibly, if you're playing with a certain type of player who demands fully that the procedural operation of play meet their own prescriptive need to only approach a "mystery investigation" as a "real life investigator would" (despite the fact that the investigation itself is a fictional construct wholly created by another fallible human and will likely have inconsistencies and holes because the author of the fictional construct doesn't write procedural crime novels for a living).

If you're playing with my players, all of the hand-wringing, word-parsing over "Oh my gosh, is it actually mystery????", the overbearing one-true-way-ism about how "If you change anything now, it will be terrible for the players, they'll hate it, it will ruin their enjoyment of the game, it will be this phony, fake, transparently hollow gameplay experience" is so wildly overblown and the 180-degree opposite of my own personal experience that it's actually quite depressing.

I don't want any new GM out there to get caught thinking that just because he or she came up with a super-cool idea six months ago for a "mystery to solve", but now they see a way to ACTIVELY ACCELERATE the fun and enjoyment of their game, that they're somehow now trapped---lock, key, and chain---because "changing the mystery now" is THE ULTIMATE BADWRONG EVIL and they should never do it.

I've played and am actively playing in games RIGHT NOW that completely blow that theory out of the water, and the players are having a great time, and actually ENJOY filling in the margins of the 10% left open.

Now, if your group is totally programmed to live, breathe, and eat the "trad value system of RPG play," then yeah; do the "100% pre-authored mystery" instead of the "90/10 mystery". It's no skin off my back. Just don't deny your players better gameplay experiences just because of the dogma.

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?

I think I just answered that question above.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Our reasons have nothing to do with feelings.

An example:
Narrativist games feel like they play differently than non-narrativist games BECAUSE they do play differently than regular games.

Yes, they may play differently. That produces a different feeling.

If I said to you that the method used for solving mysteries in Brindlewood Bay to me feels more like solving a mystery, you’d probably not object.

If I said that Brindlwood Bay is objectively about solving mysteries, you probably would object.

This is why I think the matter of “solving a mystery” is about feeling. One may feel more like that than the other, but that feeling is not going to be universal.

As for the differences in play process, we can certainly talk about those!

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, they may play differently. That produces a different feeling.

If I said to you that the method used for solving mysteries in Brindlewood Bay to me feels more like solving a mystery, you’d probably not object.

If I said that Brindlwood Bay is objectively about solving mysteries, you probably would object.

This is why I think the matter of “solving a mystery” is about feeling. One may feel more like that than the other, but that feeling is not going to be universal.

As for the differences in play process, we can certainly talk about those!

I would base my opinion on definitions. I’m not familiar with the particular game in question so no comment directly there.

 

[FrogReaver]

Answering questions as the necessary output of playing the game is not pre-authoring. It's playing the game. No one is arguing that answers do not get set as a result of gameplay. That, in fact, is (part of) the whole point of distinction that's trying to be drawn: between answer as pre-authored input into fiction vs answer as output of actual play.

I think the pre was incorrect in his statement. It is authoring. Authoring through play. Not cooperative storytelling, because it’s through rpg play, but authoring nonetheless.

 

[thefutilist]

Yeah, And this is vague as hell as myth goes. It is almost no myth, barely any myth, some myth-flavourd stands loosely scattered on a bottom of an empty myth box.

We're running into the issue of just having to show completed Apocalypse World prep. I was looking to see whether my prep was suitable but it's lots of scribbles that only make sense if you're me. A majority of the prep centres around the values and the resources of groups of people and how they relate to each other. Clocks often refer to other groups and so don't make a lot of sense without context.

Here is what I wrote for the npc hardholder.

Scythe: Came from scavengers. Got sold into slavery by her parents. Saw that the strong rule the weak. Came to be leader of the gang. Wants to rebuild civilization but people are stupid and evil and so must be forced. Aggressively took over and conglomerated other gangs. Raided the holding and killed Red (the previous hard holder). Started gathering slaves to work in the various manufactories of the holding. (prevent the war of all against all)

Then scribbled notes like: Huge tower building, underground slaver space and factories. Large gang size. heavy armed and armoured. building is 1 amour. Nobility class. gangs, slaves, 'free people'.

Or brief notes that make sense in my head. So one of the Captains in the gang for instance is:

White: Loyal to scythe (ideology), differs only in that he'd slow expansion, he thinks they're in a good place and too much expansion will (is in fact) screwing them.