GM fiat - an illustration

[FrogReaver]

This is going to vary from group to group because we are covering a broad range of styles and systems. I am not talking so much about the priority of play. But merely about play where a mystery is in fact being solved (that could be in addition to a broader purpose of play). But the thing that is happening is the players are figuring out what the backstory is, the motives of those involved, etc. But that is not all of play. They may also be trying to arrest the person behind the crime and that is very much an aspect of play that goes beyond just what is in the notes. The point of having a mystery in this way, is so the players can solve it. The GMs notes are just a tool for helping establish the details of that (I do still think it is a mistake to fixate on the notes as the purpose of play)

Right. It’s the equivalent of saying the point of narrativist games is to make up some fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is going to vary from group to group because we are covering a broad range of styles and systems. I am not talking so much about the priority of play. But merely about play where a mystery is in fact being solved (that could be in addition to a broader purpose of play). But the thing that is happening is the players are figuring out what the backstory is, the motives of those involved, etc. But that is not all of play. They may also be trying to arrest the person behind the crime and that is very much an aspect of play that goes beyond just what is in the notes. The point of having a mystery in this way, is so the players can solve it. The GMs notes are just a tool for helping establish the details of that (I do still think it is a mistake to fixate on the notes as the purpose of play)

I'm just pointing out that you said that learning the backstory is the point of play in the post I quoted. Which I would hope would explain why people are saying that is the point of play. We aren't saying anything different than you are.

Right. It’s the equivalent of saying the point of narrativist games is to make up some fiction.

That is largely the point, yes! It's a game of make believe at the most basic.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just pointing out that you said that learning the backstory is the point of play in the post I quoted. Which I would hope would explain why people are saying that is the point of play. We aren't saying anything different than you are.

And all we are saying is that the method of play used to get there alters the feel of the game. Not better or worse. Just different.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We don't know that we exist, either. We could just be a computer simulation.

At some point we just have to accept that 99.999999999999999999% likely is known. Those answers exist before we find them. You can play philosophical games if you like, but I'm not going to do that.

I'm not playing philosophical games... just pointing out that there is a point where our understanding and what we know breaks down.

The locations are a mystery. It seems that you are unclear about what a mystery is.

I don't think so. I mean, even the article you shared never used the word mystery.

No idea. Never played Brindlewood Bay and I haven't played Call of Cthulhu since the 1980s.

Brindlewood Bay has no answer to the solution of its mystery scenarios ahead of time. They are generated through play, by players taking clues and coming up with their own theories that they can then put to the test mechanically to determine if they are "true".

Call of Cthulhu is (typically, and per the instruction) played with some kind of pre-determined solution to the mystery that's central to play. It is the kind of trad play that you and others are saying is a "real" mystery.

My point is that there can be people who feel like Brindlewood Bay feels more like actually solving a mystery. Do you disagree with that?

It's a stretch when you meet the definition of a mystery?

I don't think any definition of mystery mentions pre-determined facts. Why would it?

Per the definition of mystery, there's nothing preventing the kind of RPG mystery I've been talking about from being considered one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And all we are saying is that the method of play used to get there alters the feel of the game. Not better or worse. Just different.

Yes, I've agreed with that sentiment all along.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm just pointing out that you said that learning the backstory is the point of play in the post I quoted. Which I would hope would explain why people are saying that is the point of play. We aren't saying anything different than you are.

It is a long conversation so I am sure I haven't been clear with my language but in the post you were responding to I was saying it was something slightly different. This is the quote: "But the backstory being a concrete thing you can discover through play is the point that matters in terms of this distinction". I am just trying to be careful because it isn't necessarily the overarching point of play. It matters for the purposes of having a mystery to solve: it is where the distinction becomes important. You could have a whole session that is ad libbed to that point. It depends on the campaign and group

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think so. I mean, even the article you shared never used the word mystery.

It doesn't have to. The word mystery includes the article.`

Brindlewood Bay has no answer to the solution of its mystery scenarios ahead of time. They are generated through play, by players taking clues and coming up with their own theories that they can then put to the test mechanically to determine if they are "true".

Without a pre-determined answer to the mystery, they are taking those clues and creating the answer, not discovering the answer

And again, for the umpteenth time since those on your side seem to routinely "forget" we say this, that's not better or worse, but it does have a different feel to it.

Call of Cthulhu is (typically, and per the instruction) played with some kind of pre-determined solution to the mystery that's central to play. It is the kind of trad play that you and others are saying is a "real" mystery.

Because this sort of mystery is discoverable and doesn't need to be created as you go.

My point is that there can be people who feel like Brindlewood Bay feels more like actually solving a mystery. Do you disagree with that?

I honestly don't know. Creating the answer, rather than discovering it, wouldn't even begin to feel more like solving a mystery to me, and that's really the only frame of reference I have for this. I can't imagine someone feeling that way, but I suppose it's possible.

What I do know is that discovering the mystery is FAR closer to how it's done in with a real world mystery than Brindlewood Bay does it.

I don't think any definition of mystery mentions pre-determined facts. Why would it?

It just has to be something unknown that has not yet been explained. The location is unknown and the whereabouts have yet to be explained.

Per the definition of mystery, there's nothing preventing the kind of RPG mystery I've been talking about from being considered one.

Okay. I haven't been saying it isn't one. Only that it's not as close to a real world mystery as discoverable mysteries in RPGs are. Oh, and that the method of getting to the answer makes it feel different.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is a long conversation so I am sure I haven't been clear with my language but in the post you were responding to I was saying it was something slightly different. This is the quote: "But the backstory being a concrete thing you can discover through play is the point that matters in terms of this distinction". I am just trying to be careful because it isn't necessarily the overarching point of play. It matters for the purposes of having a mystery to solve: it is where the distinction becomes important. You could have a whole session that is ad libbed to that point. It depends on the campaign and group

Sure, but my point is that this distinction matters so much to your point that I don't see why you try to diminish its importance whn others mention it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but my point is that this distinction matters so much to your point that I don't see why you try to diminish its importance whn others mention it.

We have already covered that. I think it is a reductive shorthand for what is going on. I don't think notes and prep aren't important or essential to planning a mystery. But regardless of ones views on this, it still is establishing a real mystery in the setting to be solved by the players

 

[hawkeyefan]

It doesn't have to. The word mystery includes the article.`

What? The article's not a mystery.

Without a pre-determined answer to the mystery, they are taking those clues and creating the answer, not discovering the answer

Why are you framing creation and discovering as opposed things?

And again, for the umpteenth time since those on your side seem to routinely "forget" we say this, that's not better or worse, but it does have a different feel to it.

I didn't say you did. I don't know what prompted you to say this.

Because this sort of mystery is discoverable and doesn't need to be created as you go.

I honestly don't know. Creating the answer, rather than discovering it, wouldn't even begin to feel more like solving a mystery to me, and that's really the only frame of reference I have for this. I can't imagine someone feeling that way, but I suppose it's possible.

Your inability to imagine it doesn't make it impossible, as you admit here.

I personally feel more like I'm discovering something when I play The Between than I do when I play something like Call of Cthulhu. Do I feel like I'm solving a mystery? To some extent, I feel that in both games. Do I feel more so when I'm able to find the GM's deliberate clues and hooks? No... not at all.

When I play The Between, the way I feel is more active. Like what I have my character do or not do matters more. In the predetermined game, I largely feel like I'm going through the motions. I'm following predetermined pathways. Nothing about that feels much like solving a mystery or discovery to me.

What I do know is that discovering the mystery is FAR closer to how it's done in with a real world mystery than Brindlewood Bay does it.

I think they're both so far removed from actual mystery solving that it's silly to make the comparison. As I've said, the two games have much more in common with each other than either has with solving actual mysteries.

But as for feeling as if we're solving a mystery... that's subjective.

It just has to be something unknown that has not yet been explained. The location is unknown and the whereabouts have yet to be explained.

So, then Brindlewood Bay games are real mysteries? Their solution is unknown and not yet explained.

Okay. I haven't been saying it isn't one. Only that it's not as close to a real world mystery as discoverable mysteries in RPGs are. Oh, and that the method of getting to the answer makes it feel different.

I don't disagree with anything about what it may feel like to someone. This has been my point... it's a subjective thing.

The idea that one method is not as close to a real world mystery as the other is, I think, faulty reasoning. It's the same mistake as people often make when they claim to be simulating something in an RPG.