GM fiat - an illustration

[innerdude]

I think this is needlessly dismissive, which is a bit frustrating considering you've portrayed me as being needlessly dismissive of something I haven't actually dismissed at all and have specifically and repeatedly said is 100% fine.

Apologies, was not intended to be dismissive. Was merely trying to analyze @deleuzian_kernel 's point.

Specifically, this "badge of honor" analysis trivializes the player experience into nothing more than bragging rights, which has nothing to do with the goal in question.

Sorry, I just figured bragging rights was a lot fewer syllables than "enjoyment of the mental and social rewards of being seen as competent in a sphere of skill." Pretty well understood I think as being a primary reward loop for gamist play orientation.

But what I'm ultimately hearing you say is, "The GM modifying his/her notes on the fly constitutes a 'breach of player contract' sufficient to warrant a total renunciation of such action, because such an act nullifies the ability for players to receive the expected reward of recognition for their competence."

So the question then becomes, is that true? Is something actually lost or nullfied? And even if something is lost, is it worth the loss if something else is gained?

But I do agree with you, there is a cost/benefit equation to the differing approaches.

In Ironsworn (which, believe it or not, I have actually played!) is about giving players the personal experience of being in an early Iron Age society where vows and mighty deeds (and the attendant risk of extreme failure and difficult stuff) are core to your life, when I play or run a "whodunnit" adventure, I want to have (as a player) or produce (as the GM) the personal experience of mystery-solving, of "epiphany" if you'll permit my poetic license.

That is, there is value in the feeling of epiphany, of the personal experience of realizing what all these little facts were building up to all along. Indeed, that feeling of epiphany in an educational context is one of my favorite experiences of all, second only to seeing it in another's eyes as I help guide them through something they don't understand yet. (There's a shift in a person's eyes, it's subtle but distinctive, as the pieces fall into place and suddenly the mind is opened to a new perspective.) I don't think this has anything to do with a "badge of honor" effect. Instead, it is an internal feeling of gaining understanding, which is a neat feeling.

So here's the thing---and this is what I want to focus on in my actual play rundown from Ironsworn as soon as I can manage it---is that this feeling you described, is exactly what I felt as I as a co-GM / shared-GM running a mystery scenario in Ironsworn.

That feeling of the pieces suddenly, magically interlocking, the understanding of events as they had unfolded, the satisfaction of having understood a sequence of events having unfolded in a specific way, all transpired in our campaign---even though there were several pieces of the mystery that had not been fully established at the start of the session.

Sure. Would you like me to dig up the multiple places where I specifically said there's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't do the specific thing I'm wanting a "whodunnit" experience to do and thus for what I want it causes problems? Because I did say that. Several times. I repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with a set of rules or procedures that produce the experience of "my character solves mysteries" without producing the experience of "I, personally, am solving mysteries". It would be incredibly foolish for me to claim otherwise, since the vast majority of experiences you can have via TTRPGs are ones where you personally cannot experience it, but your character can and maybe even must.

To a point, I understand what you're getting at, and I've probably come across more argumentative than intended. There is something mentally appealing about simply locking down every possible element of a mystery as pre-defined fiction. There's very much a mental/metaphysical appeal to our human minds towards objectivity.

I just no longer find the argument---that such objectivity in RPG "shared fiction" is paramount to maintaining a "positive" or "correct" group gameplay experience---to be compelling. And the longer I've analyzed it, the less compelling that argument has become.

I just know in my past life as a hardcore "trad RPG play is the ONLY RPG play" GM that I would often feel trapped by my own prep. I was enculturated to believe what you're saying---I can't change that now, it would ruin the fiction / game / player happiness. Even though I would watch the game unfold unsatisfactorily because I wasn't "allowed" to change anything---even if a minor tweak or update or revision or "retcon" of a detail here and there could have made significant difference to the engagement of the group.

In part it may just be me rebelling against the dogmatic nature of the position --- a GM is inherently engaging in degenerate play when he or she either A) changes anything in his/her notes on the fly, even if unestablished as part of the fiction, or B) has no specific notation to a component.

And I can't say what it is about that position that doesn't sit quite right with me, but it doesn't. Especially now, since discovering Ironsworn in 2021. I've realized that such a position is, if not entirely incorrect, loaded with assumptions that aren't applicable for many RPG play pursuits.

 

[Maxperson]

What? The article's not a mystery.

You know, when I typed I thought to myself, "I bet he's going to play word games over that, even though he knows darn well what I'm talking about." I almost changed it, but I was curious to find out if I was right. I was.

Why are you framing creation and discovering as opposed things?

I'm not. I have repeatedly framed them as different things, and they are.

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

There has been a lot of that going around, and you aren't the only one reading and responding in this thread.

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

It's also possible that someone would think plant based steak tastes more like beef than real steak. I can't imagine that, but it's possible.

As I said, it's crystal clear that discovering is much closer to how it works with real life mysteries than creating, so it would be very strange for me to find someone who thinks creating is closer.

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.

But you aren't discovering. Discovering involves the unknown. When you create, you think of it and then speak it out loud and create it. You knew it before you created it, even if not by a long time. If I'm playing in a mystery game involving discovery and I discover a clue, I didn't know about even a fraction of second in advance. And I didn't create it myself.

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.

I don't know The Between, but I'm going to assume that it's close or closer to Brindlewood Bay than Call of Cthulhu. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I can understand how you would feel like what you do as a player matters more, but the character isn't creating the clues or solutions, you are. Why do you feel that what you have your character do matters more?

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.

That's fine. I don't. And I disagree with your assessment there. As I've pointed out, solving the real fictional mystery involves all the same processes as solving a real non-fictional mystery, while the other way does not.

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

Yes and no. They are real in the sense that they are mysteries. But they are not real in the sense that they have a pre-determined reality like we have been using the term "real" in this thread.

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.

Nah. The mistake is with those who think that simulations have to be super specific, exacting things. When I try to simulate something in an RPG, it is a real simulation, even if it's not the most accurate one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You know, when I typed I thought to myself, "I bet he's going to play word games over that, even though he knows darn well what I'm talking about." I almost changed it, but I was curious to find out if I was right. I was.

I genuinely don't follow what your original point was. The article describes a scavenger hunt. I don't recall ever hearing a scavenger hunt described as a mystery before. I certainly never heard of it being compared to solving a "real mystery".

I'm not. I have repeatedly framed them as different things, and they are.

So you don't think they need to be opposed? Someone can discover something through the act of creation?

What if the act of creation is not a solo thing? Can they discover things then?

There has been a lot of that going around, and you aren't the only one reading and responding in this thread.

You said "for the umpteenth time" and responded to me. If it wasn't meant for me, then don't say it to me, right?

As I said, it's crystal clear that discovering is much closer to how it works with real life mysteries than creating, so it would be very strange for me to find someone who thinks creating is closer.

I just told you I did feel that way. Others have expressed similar sentiments in this thread.

But you aren't discovering. Discovering involves the unknown. When you create, you think of it and then speak it out loud and create it. You knew it before you created it, even if not by a long time. If I'm playing in a mystery game involving discovery and I discover a clue, I didn't know about even a fraction of second in advance. And I didn't create it myself.

I don't know The Between, but I'm going to assume that it's close or closer to Brindlewood Bay than Call of Cthulhu. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Well in the games I'm talking about (I've mentioned Brindlewood Bay and The Between, which use the same mystery system) the clues aren't created by the players. The solution to the mystery is something that the players propose based on the clues that they find. They discover the clues in play, and then they come up with a theory about what's actually happening in the game world.

The solution to the mystery is not predetermined, but I think as a player I'm very much discovering through play.

I can understand how you would feel like what you do as a player matters more, but the character isn't creating the clues or solutions, you are. Why do you feel that what you have your character do matters more?

Because I'm not just following up on something someone else already created.

It's similar to the feeling I get when I'm playing in a game where I'm railroaded to one where I'm not railroaded.

When the mystery is predetermined in this way... which means it has an author who has crafted not only all the details of the mystery, but all the conditions for those details... and is then presented to me to "solve", it feels like I've simply been offered a puzzle to solve, maybe a riddle. I don't feel remotely like I'm discovering anything because it's all already known by the GM.

I feel more like the GM is revealing their plot more than I as a player am discovering anything.

That's fine. I don't. And I disagree with your assessment there. As I've pointed out, solving the real fictional mystery involves all the same processes as solving a real non-fictional mystery, while the other way does not.

No, as I've explained in a prior post to someone else, as the product of a single author who has determined every detail of the mystery, it's a very different thing. I think the two instances of "playing a game about solving a mystery" are more similar to one another than either is to actually solving a mystery.

Yes and no. They are real in the sense that they are mysteries. But they are not real in the sense that they have a pre-determined reality like we have been using the term "real" in this thread.

Yeah, you're using real in two ways here. I reject the second usage. Predetermined ahead of play is no more "real" than determined during play. They are both things that are made up.

Nah. The mistake is with those who think that simulations have to be super specific, exacting things. When I try to simulate something in an RPG, it is a real simulation, even if it's not the most accurate one.

No, the mistake is thinking that a GM extrapolating from information that they've previously made up is simulating anything. If you make a bunch of stuff up, and then imagine how it would go, you're not simulating. You're just imagining.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To a point, I understand what you're getting at, and I've probably come across more argumentative than intended. There is something mentally appealing about simply locking down every possible element of a mystery as pre-defined fiction. There's very much a mental/metaphysical appeal to our human minds towards objectivity.

I just no longer find the argument---that such objectivity in RPG "shared fiction" is paramount to maintaining a "positive" or "correct" group gameplay experience---to be compelling. And the longer I've analyzed it, the less compelling that argument has become.

I just know in my past life as a hardcore "trad RPG play is the ONLY RPG play" GM that I would often feel trapped by my own prep. I was enculturated to believe what you're saying---I can't change that now, it would ruin the fiction / game / player happiness. Even though I would watch the game unfold unsatisfactorily because I wasn't "allowed" to change anything---even if a minor tweak or update or revision or "retcon" of a detail here and there could have made significant difference to the engagement of the group.

In part it may just be me rebelling against the dogmatic nature of the position --- a GM is inherently engaging in degenerate play when he or she either A) changes anything in his/her notes on the fly, even if unestablished as part of the fiction, or B) has no specific notation to a component.

And I can't say what it is about that position that doesn't sit quite right with me, but it doesn't. Especially now, since discovering Ironsworn in 2021. I've realized that such a position is, if not entirely incorrect, loaded with assumptions that aren't applicable for many RPG play pursuits.

At least I have tried to be clear for the whole thread that neither style is "better" or "worse." They're just different. By talking about "real mystery solving" I do not mean to imply it is superior, let alone more virtuous, it is merely a way to denote style of play where there are "real" or objective pre-established fact to be discovered. And I have done both styles, both as a GM and as a player, and I enjoy both, though we all probably have our favourites and methods that come most naturally to us.

 

[Maxperson]

So you don't think they need to be opposed? Someone can discover something through the act of creation?

No. That doesn't mean that they stand in opposition, though. Different =/= opposing one another.

What if the act of creation is not a solo thing? Can they discover things then?

There is no discovery. The one player created it and presented it to the group.

If you have been working on the mystery of the who Jack the Ripper is and you show me your clues/evidence, I didn't discover those things.

You said "for the umpteenth time" and responded to me. If it wasn't meant for me, then don't say it to me, right?

No. Like I said, other people read and respond and several people here keep twisting what we say if we don't keep repeating that. If you want me to stop, send PMs to the guys who keep saying that we think our way is better and ask them to stop. If they stop, there's no reason for me to keep repeating myself.

It's not your fault, but I have to repeat myself in my posted responses to people.

I just told you I did feel that way. Others have expressed similar sentiments in this thread.

Feelings can be wrong. Something that is 0 steps removed from how it's done in real life cannot be farther away from how it's done in real life than something that is more than 0 steps removed from how it's done in real life. You can feel that it is, but your feelings won't make it so.

Well in the games I'm talking about (I've mentioned Brindlewood Bay and The Between, which use the same mystery system) the clues aren't created by the players. The solution to the mystery is something that the players propose based on the clues that they find. They discover the clues in play, and then they come up with a theory about what's actually happening in the game world.

Yeah. I've gathered that. It's not 100% created, but the solution will be. It's certainly closer to the way it's done in real life than a system that involved the creation of the clues as well. It's a middle ground method of mystery solving.

Because I'm not just following up on something someone else already created.

It's similar to the feeling I get when I'm playing in a game where I'm railroaded to one where I'm not railroaded.

When the mystery is predetermined in this way... which means it has an author who has crafted not only all the details of the mystery, but all the conditions for those details... and is then presented to me to "solve", it feels like I've simply been offered a puzzle to solve, maybe a riddle. I don't feel remotely like I'm discovering anything because it's all already known by the GM.

I feel more like the GM is revealing their plot more than I as a player am discovering anything.

Not exactly.

First, players are very inventive. They can figure out ways to get clues, even ones the DM didn't consider(Because DMs are not omniscient), through their actions. They might do something that causes the DM to think, "Would that find a clue, and if so, what form would it take?" If the answer is yes, they didn't create it, but their actions did prompt the DM to do so. Sometimes it's possible and the DM might roll to determine if there is a clue or not. And yes, I know, that particular clue was not pre-determined, but is based solely on things that were pre-determined. It's formed from pre-established in-fiction logic.

Second, many, if not most real life mysteries have people who know the answer to them. Unfortunately, who robbed or killed is known to the robber or killer, and that stuff happens many times daily. The DM knowing is no different than the thief or murderer knowing. Those who are not in the know are still discovering the clues and piecing them together, even if you don't feel like it in the game.

Yeah, you're using real in two ways here. I reject the second usage. Predetermined ahead of play is no more "real" than determined during play. They are both things that are made up.

It is real, because I wrote it down on a piece of paper and the paper with the information is real. It's still fictional, but it has a reality that can be shown.

No, the mistake is thinking that a GM extrapolating from information that they've previously made up is simulating anything. If you make a bunch of stuff up, and then imagine how it would go, you're not simulating. You're just imagining.

Nah. I can stick a toy boat in a tub and make waves. That simulates(very poorly) a real boat in bad weather. We do in fact create simulations, however good or poor they may be. If I have set up a process for it, even if I'm tracking the process in my head, it's still a simulated process for the real thing.

 

[soviet]

What would people think about a hybrid of the two approaches? Is that even possible?

I'm thinking something like: there are X possible suspects, the GM has prepped clues and backstory that eliminates all but two of them, but the GM does not know which of the two and when the players have eliminated all the red herrings and are in a position to try to prove whether it's A or B... dice roll! (Or some other spontaneous method of deciding.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then you know why I was confused! Because to me the two things--the way "Exploit your prep" was discussed, and the way "Play to find out what happens" was discussed--were wildly at odds with one another.

The latter (which is chronologically earlier in the GMing rules) seemed to me to say: DO. NOT. PREP. Unless you absolutely, positively MUST do so. Prep almost nothing, and if you can get away with prepping nothing at all, 100% always do so.

The former seemed to me to say: Prep lots of things. Not everything, to be sure, but prep reasonably thoroughly. Know any significant antagonists, where they are located, why they're there, what they're doing. Know the area players are going through and its contents. Know the possible consequences players might face for various actions they might take. Etc.

My ultimate solution has been to sort of...split the difference? I prep more than the absolute bare minimum I need, but not dramatically more.


Yes. I'm saying the "play to find out what happens" phrase, and the descriptive text meant to explain what the phrase means, indicated to me that that much prep was WAY, WAY too much prep.


And now you see why I found these instructions confusing! Because, again, the way "play to find out what happens" was explained in the text, it came across as "well, you probably can't do 100% no-myth, but you can do 99.9999999% no-myth, so you should never prepare more than the absolute tiniest amount you can get away with."

I don't see a conflict between these things, and I suspect that you do because you have a view of what 'prep' is which is rather different from what Baker did when he wrote AW2e. Baker's prep is pretty loose. It's not about establishing a lot of hard facts. It also ALL happens AFTER session 1.

That last bit is super important, you already know who the PCs are. By asking questions and putting together the backstory/playbook/gear/moves chosen by the players. Now you play the first session, a basic context is built. Afterwards you go off and think about your threat map. What sorts of trouble could be brewing that would put pressure on the PCs, threaten them, test their ideas of who they are, and/or put them in conflict with each other?

That is AW prep, at no point is even one bit of this just the GM world building. Maybe the techie character seems to be angling to get the town running again, with power, light, water, etc. Nope, turns out the nutters down the road say it was the robots that ended the world, and they're going to make darn sure you can't restore it! Worse, they convinced the Brainer they're right! Threat is on the map, it's coming for you, do you still believe in the big reboot? Or are giving up?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, this is where we on both sides have differing, but equally valid viewpoints.

10 layers removed from reality is a hell of a lot closer to reality than 100 layers removed from reality. You might look at the 10 layers removed, though, and hold the view that it's so far from reality that reality just doesn't matter, so let's head full steam for that 100th layer, because that's where the things I enjoy are the most fun. I on the other hand might look at the 10th layer removed and hold the view that anything past 10 is so unrealistic that it is no longer enjoyable. And 100 layers? Whoah, Nelly! That's some stuff that I don't ever want to try.

Reference the symbolism of my avatar for the gist of my reaction to this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you have been working on the mystery of the who Jack the Ripper is and you show me your clues/evidence, I didn't discover those things.

Well... unless I'm the GM and you're the player?

 

[Maxperson]

Reference the symbolism of my avatar for the gist of my reaction to this.

You'll have to say it. I'm not positive I'm understanding it.