GM fiat - an illustration

[robertsconley]

But you are presenting Hillfolk and collective authorship, or authorship by players of the fictional elements, as if these are the only ways of creating details during play.

Whereas they're not the only ways of doing so. And they're not the ways that RPGs like Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel do so.

The discussion between @hawkeyefan and @Bedrockgames is about the distinctions between ad-hoc mysteries versus pre-planned mysteries. What particular system is used to handle either is not germane to their discussion. Nor are design philosphies, such as collective authorship, germane to the points they are both making. At this point in their discussion, it is evident that both approaches have their pros and cons, not limited to particular systems or design philosophies.

So I fail to see how any of what you just mentioned, starting with post #1,560 is relevant or germane to their discussion. Rather than coming up with a relevant response, your arguments follow the same "I like blue cars, I don't like the fact that you like red cars" answer you adopted in your most recent response to my post.

 

[pemerton]

The discussion between @hawkeyefan and @Bedrockgames is about the distinctions between ad-hoc mysteries versus pre-planned mysteries. What particular system is used to handle either is not germane to their discussion. Nor are design philosphies, such as collective authorship, germane to the points they are both making. At this point in their discussion, it is evident that both approaches have their pros and cons, not limited to particular systems or design philosophies.

So I fail to see how any of what you just mentioned, starting with post #1,560 is relevant or germane to their discussion. Rather than coming up with a relevant response, your arguments follow the same "I like blue cars, I don't like the fact that you like red cars" answers you adopted in your most recent response to my post.

On the contrary - if someone asserts that the only way to have a mystery by "objective" is via GM pre-authorship, and then adduces as their evidence (as @Bedrockgames has done) that the non-pre-authored "mystery" was Hillfolk and therefore not "objective" because collectively authored, I am going to point out that there are possibilities that their analysis was missed.

It's as if they're arguing that because it's not the letter A it must be the letter Z, ignoring the fact that there are 24 other possible letters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So this seem to be an attempt at semantic chicanery, where you first identify that mysteries have some constraints about what sort of things can be said and then then proceed like any constraints on what can be said would produce a mystery. That's why I was not getting it, as this is so elementary logical fallacy that I would not expect you to employ it.

Nobody is talking about any old constraints producing a mystery.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So first I want to say this was an one-off event and the GM admitted they did not handle it well. Overall it has been a good campaign.

And yeah, it was a tad frustrating when it happened, but I also think it was interesting. It was produced by "secret myth" thinking clashing with a system that assumes pretty light myth. And the GMs thinking was logical. there were previous events that had occurred, that had tipped off our enemies. It made sense. Still, it did not work with how the game is structured.

I believe our GM thinks in terms of "secret myth" quite a bit. Like there are secrets and conspiracies we have uncovered and whilst the details may have been flexible, I assume most of them were preplanned way before we found about them in the game. Similarly NPCs and factions seem to do things based on their own plans and motivations and that produces events visible to us players. I am not sure how much this sort of thinking one is supposed to do when running a game like this. Like there are all these established factions and some named NPCs and they have their goals and stuff. But instead of as active forces with their own volition, should they actually be treated as fodder for fiction when the dice or player actions demand it?

I think it's fine to let the world grind forward, to a degree. And Doskvol is filled with factions, characters, entities, geography, lore, etc. so plenty would presumably be going on behind the scenes. You can think of stuff like that as basically the time dimension of the setting. But I would NOT simply have any of this suddenly come crashing down on the PCs. By all means, present rumours, start clocks, drop jobs on the crew where the background is rooted in some off screen conflict, etc. It all just needs to matter to the PCs somehow. The rest? Eh, maybe they read about it in the Times. Nor would I assume every organization in the book matters. Stick to a few that resonate, the rest are off in the shadows, maybe an operative drifts in and out of your story once. Yes, the Lampblacks exist, they just don't matter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the contrary - if someone asserts that the only way to have a mystery by "objective" is via GM pre-authorship, and then adduces as their evidence (as @Bedrockgames has done) that the non-pre-authored "mystery" was Hillfolk and therefore not "objective" because collectively

Again please see my qualifying posts. You are putting words in my mouth. I said in response to another poster that the GM doesn't have to do it. And that it could be the product even of a totally random process. The important thing, is it be set as discoverable facts prior to play and that those facts inform things like NPC behavior in the session. And if you feel anything has been overlooked, feel free to give a concrete and clear example that shows it is possible some other way (I feel like I have responded to specific examples when you have raised them though)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it's fine to let the world grind forward, to a degree. And Doskvol is filled with factions, characters, entities, geography, lore, etc. so plenty would presumably be going on behind the scenes. You can think of stuff like that as basically the time dimension of the setting. But I would NOT simply have any of this suddenly come crashing down on the PCs. By all means, present rumours, start clocks, drop jobs on the crew where the background is rooted in some off screen conflict, etc. It all just needs to matter to the PCs somehow. The rest? Eh, maybe they read about it in the Times. Nor would I assume every organization in the book matters. Stick to a few that resonate, the rest are off in the shadows, maybe an operative drifts in and out of your story once. Yes, the Lampblacks exist, they just don't matter.

Right, but at least to me it is pretty unclear where the line is. If we treat these factions as real and have them behave sensibly, then certainly things like the party to whom we are trying to set ambush for learns about it an thus do not walk into it can happen? Also, enemies kidnapping our allies, thus sorta "forcing" us to do a rescue score. Should this happen? I don't know, to me it is unclear how "active" the setting should be in creating trouble for us as logical outcome of the myth. Like there are already entanglement rolls, which produce negative events. Should the potential myth-based trouble merely be fodder for justifying those, or should the game have both?

Nobody is talking about any old constraints producing a mystery.

That's the only logic I could discern in it, but I've kinda checked out from this whole "What does 'real' even mean?" nonsense. Like I know what I mean by "real mystery" in context of RPGs, and it is the same usage overwhelming amount of people would understand. Now if someone wants to beat their head in the wall and insist that they do not agree with my use of "real" then I cannot stop them, but I am not going to change my language to please them in a manner that would make things harder to understand and more difficult to discuss for majority of people.

In any case, I don't think that part of the discussion will lead to anywhere. Not that it has ever stopped anyone around here...

 

[pemerton]

The important thing, is it be set as discoverable facts prior to play and that those facts inform things like NPC behavior in the session. And if you feel anything has been overlooked, feel free to give a concrete and clear example that shows it is possible some other way (I feel like I have responded to specific examples when you have raised them though)

I don't know what the "it" is - I mean, if it is "discovering" the GM's pre-authored stuff during play, then what other way do you think there might be doing that that isn't "discovering" the GM's pre-authored stuff during play?

If you mean, by "it is possible in some other way", a way of having "objectivity" without pre-authorship, then I and @hawkeyefan have already made many posts setting out possible other ways.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you mean, by "it is possible in some other way", a way of having "objectivity" without pre-authorship, then I and @hawkeyefan have already made many posts setting out possible other ways.

Yeah I feel like I have understood Hawkeye pretty well and been able to respond to what he has said about different approaches and techniques. But I am still having difficulty following a lot of your language.

What I mean is what I have been saying. If there is a central mystery to discover that exists prior to play, and can be discovered during play (regardless of what system you are playing or what style) then I would say you are really solving a mystery. And I said, if you are introducing facts during play, regardless of method, then you could still be kind of solving an objective mystery if you are pinning things down. But again it feels like it wouldn't be a mystery if two minutes in I make a guess and that guess is neither objectively right or wrong because that detail hasn't yet been determined.

I don't find you an easy poster to understand, so maybe I am just missing what you are saying. but I feel like I have been trying to account for more than just these two extremes in my posts (i even feel like I responded to specific examples you gave, with my explanations and thoughts, but that you ignored those)

 

[Bedrockgames]

The discussion between @hawkeyefan and @Bedrockgames is about the distinctions between ad-hoc mysteries versus pre-planned mysteries. What particular system is used to handle either is not germane to their discussion. Nor are design philosphies, such as collective authorship, germane to the points they are both making. At this point in their discussion, it is evident that both approaches have their pros and cons, not limited to particular systems or design philosophies.

Yeah this is my view. I also feel like I have answered a lot of the questions being asked already, and I don't my ability to answer them repeatedly is improving my answers (there is a diminishing each time you make the same point and try to remember the original context). But this isn't really about design philosophy to me or what system is better.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know what the "it" is - I mean, if it is "discovering" the GM's pre-authored stuff during play, then what other way do you think there might be doing that that isn't "discovering" the GM's pre-authored stuff during play?

If you mean, by "it is possible in some other way", a way of having "objectivity" without pre-authorship, then I and @hawkeyefan have already made many posts setting out possible other ways.

For some of us ‘discovery’ necessarily implies pre-existence before the moment of discovery for the thing being discovered.

That’s the issue we are pointing to. We all agree fictional details even those with no pre-existence can be binding once created, but that’s not discovery, at least by our definition. I’d be curious to hear your reasoning for why such pre-existence isn’t required for discovery.

*note - I think it’s important to keep a clear line between discovering for the players and discovering for the characters. I think we all agree the characters discover. It’s the players that are in dispute.