GM fiat - an illustration

[Micah Sweet]

If one can understand "prep" so differently, it would seem to me that it would behoove the authors to be more specific, rather than just using a generic word and presuming everyone agrees on what it means.

Very specific use of terminology can be used to promote a point of view quite effectively, especially if the terminology is less than transparent.

 

[Maxperson]

This is just silly.

Placing clues is a hell of a lot closer to showing clues than killing prostitutes is!

Do you deliberately try not to get what is being told to you? It sure seems that way sometimes.

 

[Maxperson]

It's turtles, all the way down. Your not dealing with any facts or constraints. This is why calling world building and trad GMing 'simulation' doesn't fly. None of this is analogous to anything, there's no logic to say what is or is not correct. There's just turtles (made up stuff).

Of course you are dealing with facts and constraints. You the DM makes them up for your game. In the case of simulating reality to an extent, the fact and constraints are an approximation of reality. Just because you don't place the same constraints on yourself that I do, doesn't mean that mine aren't there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do you deliberately try not to get what is being told to you? It sure seems that way sometimes.

What you’re telling me makes no sense.

A GM places clues in a mystery scenario with the express intention of showing them to the players.

A criminal who has committed a crime is not placing clues. They’re very likely trying to not leave clues.

This is why comparing a game where you are very much intended to figure it all out (even if there’s still a chance you can get it wrong, the intention is that you have a clear shot at it) to an actual crime where the perpetrator is actively trying to keep anyone from learning the truth is just silly.

Criminals and GMs are doing very different things. Hence why I say the two things we’ve been talking about that involve GMs (each approach to mystery scenarios) are much closer to one another than either is to the one that involves criminals.

 

[pemerton]

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

If no fiction is ever made up when playing a RPG, then all the fiction was pre-authored. Meaning that it was an utter railroad!

 

[pemerton]

But this has none of the character of solving a mystery at all. How are the characters validating these guesses. Why are they guessing anything at all? The whole thing is simply a lampshade for a parlor game that is a logic puzzle. It can tell us nothing about the questions at hand here.

I'm so glad that some one posted this.

If all it is is a logic puzzle, then that's all a mystery is in the real world as well. Because in the real world you put together clues to try and figure out who dunnit.

Solving actual mysteries in the real world is nothing like a logic puzzle. It involves collecting information, and evidence (as a special case of information) by actually interacting with the world: looking at thing, poking them, talking to people, poking them, etc.

I've undertaken investigations into student cheating. These are not logic puzzles. They involve a lot of tedious work tracking down sources (books, articles, blogs, etc) and identifying where the student's submitted work lifts passages from those sources.

Sometimes you know that the student cheated - it is clear that what they have presented in their assignment could not have been written by them and must have been lifted from some source or other - but you can't find the source. All you can do, in your report, is explain the basis for your view that the student did not write the passage in question, even though you don't have the proof.

 

[pemerton]

....the logic puzzle IS the mystery-solving? I don't understand what your point is here.

This is like comparing rolling a d20 together with a damage die, to engaging in sword play.

I mean, I can roll the dice and thereby (in accordance with rules for doing so) establish a fiction about how a sword fight took place. But that has nothing in common with actually fighting a duel.

As @AbdulAlhazred has posted, a logic puzzle can have some fiction overlaid, the flavour text of solving a murder mystery. But it is not actually anything like solving a murder mystery. I mean, as I already posted:

We could change the flavour of the game - say, make the cards be dossiers, embassies, and foreign agents - and now it becomes a game of working out how the military secrets were stolen (It was Sergei getting blackmail dirt on the military attaché in the US embassy in Istanbul.) But actually solving a mystery is not about collecting information within a finite problem-space to then draw a logical inference; and solving a murder doesn't necessarily involve the same sorts of inquiries as engaging in counter-espionage (not only are the forensics apt to be different; the interviews/interrogations are likely to be different also).

To me, here is the most obvious difference between the information space involved in actually solving a mystery, and the play of a mystery-solving RPG: in real life, the perpetrator needs to be identified, and could - in principle - be just about anyone. But in a RPG, the players rely on the GM to put salient NPCs in front of them. This can be "lampshaded" in the same way that Agatha Christie-esque mysteries do (the last time I ran a murder mystery, it was on a Traveller-esque starship that was in jump space, so no one was able to board or depart the vessel). But the CoC modules that I mentioned upthread don't use those particular techniques - they just rely on the players' understanding that the GM will present to them, in some or other fashion, the necessary NPCs.

Comparing the play of Clue(do) to solving a crime (or even to solving a student plagiarism matter) is just ridiculous.

 

[pemerton]

The clues are there to be put together. That the DM puts the clues together in the real fictional mystery doesn't negate that the process is the same in both cases.

In the real non-fictional mystery, some of the clues will be placed by say the killer, and others by the environment, but they will be there to be discovered, put together, and then solved.

As I just posted, this is obviously wrong.

In the puzzle game (and as @hawkeyefan has already posted) the GM has deliberately created clues that (in the GM's estimation) permit the players' to infer the GM's pre-authored backstory. The players know that the GM has prepared these clues and is presenting them as part of narration.

In an actual mystery, there may or may not be clues. These may or may not lead to the correct conclusion. The investigator can't know that any given thing they encounter is relevant at all.

Except those unknown things actually had answers. Nobody knew what the answers were, but the answers were real.

Whether or not the answer is created as the output of actual play, if there is no answer at all until the moment play generates one, how could you reason toward that answer prior to its generation?

You seem to be presenting your question as a rhetorical one. But I already posted an example upthread, which you seem to have ignored:

I will refer back to this actual play report: Cthulhu Dark - another session

When Randall's player worked out that a crucial point linking business interests in Central Europe and business interests in East Africa (ie werewolves and werehyenas), why is this any less "real" or "objective" because the ideas have been introduced by me as GM "spontaneously", rather than by reference to something I wrote a week ago.

When the revelation that the Earl is a werehyena came out - confirmed, ultimately, by Armand (as PC) finding him exhausted and sleeping in a stable (a fairly classic trope for a lycanthrope story), why is that less "real" or "objective" because I as GM was having regard to the same players decision, as Appleby at the start of the session, that the Earl was mysteriously absent and "indisposed"?

To relate back to some things that @deleuzian_kernel posted upthread, the reason why that PC was drawn into the investigation of the mystery was because of his loyalty (as butler and manservant) to his master. How does this become less objective and real because it is the player who has decided to play a character who is perturbed by the fact that his master is missing? Of course at that point no one (including me, the GM) knew why - and when I introduced the first lycanthropic clue (the silverware cleaning fluid being kept in cannisters) the players (and their PCs) didn't pick up on it, and so even at that point play did not generate pressure on me as GM to determine a precise solution.

But no one has explained why the solution - that the Earl was a werehyena - is less real or objective in this episode of play, than is the solution to The Vanishing Conjurer.

As for how reasoning can take place, it's quite easy:

For instance, a missing person (as established by the player at the introduction of their PC) might make me, the GM, imagine that person has turned into a were-beast. I then introduce elements in to the fiction that point towards this - eg reference to Central Europe and wild animals, including hyenas (which in some ways resemble wolves, particularly for lycanthropic purposes) - and then the players think of lycanthropes too (because they can follow the clues).

The players can also miss clues. For instance, having lycanthropes in mind, I (as GM) introduce silver as a plot element. But the players in my game didn't pick up on this pointer towards lycnathropic concerns.

Name for me an example where the answer is GENERATED by the process of looking for it.

According to some theories in the philosophy of mathematics (eg Wittgenstein, who is the most famous radical constructivist), mathematical truths are established in virtue of humans undertaking the task of proving them.

According to some interpretations of quantum uncertainy, it is the process of measurement that causes the collapse of the wave function and hence produces the answer that is measured.

In an authored murder mystery, the answer is written knowing that readers will be looking for it. As @hawkeyefan has posted, it is intended to be the object of an attempt at solution, and a revelation - at the end - of whodunnit. The existence and nature of the answer, and its relationship to the attempt at a solution, is entirely contrived.

 

[pemerton]

hired mercenaries clearing out IRL ruins or fighting "invading hordes" etc. don't have a person on high placing dangerous opponents in interesting places, but TTRPGing does--even Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, and most other such games that aren't outright "no-myth".

I don't really see where this argument goes. We are necessarily talking about something constructed through the efforts of people.

I think your last sentence there concedes @hawkeyefan's point: puzzling out the solution in a parlour game, or in traditional CoC play, is no more solving a mystery than playing a dungeon crawl is actually exploring and looting a fantastic cave complex.

Thus, the challenge you pose here is irrelevant:

if you can give me an example of a mystery where there is no answer until that answer is generated by the people investigating it, I'd love to hear it. And, to be absolutely clear, since this seems to have been a point of unclarity:

1. It needs to be recognizable as a mystery. I hope that doesn't come across as hand-wavy, but that's the most concise way to express it.
2. It needs to not have any solution whatsoever before investigation begins. This doesn't mean that the answer is "no" or the like--it means that you cannot assign a truth-value, neither true nor false, to the key question of the mystery, an irresolvable question like "X+Y=7, X and Y are integers, what singular value is X?"
3. The solution to the mystery must be created by the actions of the investigators solving it. Again, this is not like "creating" a number by writing its digits down, nor about (say) developing the theory of distributions to make rigorous an idea that was purely BS handwavium, but rather that the investigational act itself literally produces a new truth where neither truth nor falsity existed. Again using the "X+Y=7, X and Y are integers" thing, where one of the investigators declares that Y=5 and thus creates the truth that X=2.

If you can give an example of that, I'd be all ears! That would be really weird, and while it might be a little disappointing, it would also be interesting to delve into what makes such a strange thing a mystery.

So I already posted two candidate examples: mathematical proof (on the radical constructivist account; maybe even if Brouwer's intuitionism is true, though I am less clear on this than on Wittgenstein); and measurement of very small things (on some accounts of quantum uncertainty).

A third example that occurs to me is the measurement of the time or location at which an event occurs: the space-time interval is constant, but there is no answer to the question of what time or what place until the measurement is actually taken by an observer who is moving at some or other velocity.

But anyway, as I said, the challenge is irrelevant. Because actually solving a problem where the investigator does not know for certain that there is an answer, and certainly doesn't have a collaborator (ie a GM) actually presenting facets of the answer to them, or presenting points to the answer to them, really has nothing in common with playing a game. Except that both are cognitive activities.

 

[pemerton]

Then you know why I was confused!

<snip>

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 know and I can't see.

The rules of the game seem clear to me. I believe you that you found, and perhaps still find, them confusing. But I don't understand why.

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.

From DW p 161:

Dungeon World adventures never presume player actions. A Dungeon World adventure portrays a setting in motion - someplace significant with creatures big and small pursuing their own goals. As the players come into conflict with that setting and its denizens, action is inevitable. You’ll honestly portray the repercussions of that action.

This is how you play to find out what happens. You’re sharing in the fun of finding out how the characters react to and change the world you’re portraying. You’re all participants in a great adventure that’s unfolding. So really, don’t plan too hard. The rules of the game will fight you. It’s fun to see how things unfold, trust us.​

So this tells you (as GM) (i) not to plan too hard, and (ii) to portray a world that is in motion, with denizens pursuing their own goals. It doesn't tell you how to to do (ii), but luckily the rulebook doesn't stop at p 161! Twenty-four pages later, on p 185, there is the following:

Fronts are secret tomes of GM knowledge. Each is a collection of linked dangers - threats to the characters specifically and to the people, places, and things the characters care about. It also includes one or more impending dooms, the horrible things that will happen without the characters’ intervention. . . . Fronts are built outside of active play. They’re the solo fun that you get to have between games - rubbing your hands and cackling evilly to yourself as you craft the foes with which to challenge your PCs. You may tweak or adjust your fronts during play (who knows when inspiration will strike?) but the meat of them comes from preparation between sessions.

Fronts are designed to help you organize your thoughts on what opposes the players. They’re here to contain your notes, ideas, and plans for these opposing forces. When you’re in a bind your fronts are where you’re going to turn and say, “Oh, so that’s what I should do.” Consider them an organizational tool, as inspiration for present and future mayhem.

When you’re building fronts, think about all the creepy dungeon denizens, the rampaging hordes and ancient cults that you’d like to see in your game. Think in broad strokes at first and then, as you build dangers into your fronts, you’ll be able to narrow those ideas down. When you write your campaign front, think about session-to-session trends. When you write your adventure fronts, think about what’s important right here and right now. When you’re done writing a few fronts you’ll be equipped with all the tools you’ll need to challenge your players and ready to run Dungeon World.​

Page 167, which is in between the two bits of rules text I've posted, has this in the list of GM moves:

Every monster in an adventure has moves associated with it, as do many locations. A monster or location move is just a description of what that location or monster does, maybe “hurl someone away” or “bridge the planes.” If a player move (like hack and slash) says that a monster gets to make an attack, make an aggressive move with that monster.

The overarching dangers of the adventure also have moves associated with them. Use these moves to bring that danger into play . . .​

Now I think the text in Apocalypse World is clearer, but the above is hardly confusing. Fronts are prepared by the GM, in secret from the players. They provide and organise the material the GM uses to oppose the players (and their characters).

So the GM's job is to portray a dangerous world, that is in motion and contains denizens pursuing their ends. The GM does this by making moves with monsters, locations and other dangers. And they know what those moves are (or should be) by drawing on the fronts that they have prepared.

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.

This makes no sense to me, to be honest. It seems to have little or no connection to the key rules that I have quoted. And to not really connect to the play of Dungeon World as I understand it, based on what the rulebook says and my own play experience.

The rules don't say prep lots of things. They say to prepare fronts, which contain threats; and to use those actively in play. This absolutely requires knowing what motivates those threats - knowing what danger they pose, and what nefarious things they hope to achieve.

Whether this involves location is a further matter, which I would expect would vary from threat to threat. Your idea of "the area players are going through" seems to me to belong more to exploratory D&D-esque play than to Dungeon World. Likewise your reference to "possible consequences": that is precisely the making of presumptions about player actions that the rules tell you to avoid.

To go back to the example of unwanted attention, it comes up on on p160 (ie immediately preceding the rules I've already quoted):

Part of following the rules is making moves. Your moves are different than player moves and we’ll describe them in detail in a bit. Your moves are specific things you can do to change the flow of the game.

In all of these things, exploit your prep. At times you’ll know something the players don’t yet know. You can use that knowledge to help you make moves. Maybe the wizard tries to cast a spell and draws unwanted attention. They don’t know that the attention that just fell on them was the ominous gaze of a demon waiting two levels below, but you do.​

This is consistent with the other rules. (Which is unsurprising.) The knowledge the GM has, that the players don't, is in their "secret tomes" - that is, the fronts and threats they've prepared. This is what the GM exploits, to make moves. So, suppose that player of the wizard decides that their PC casts a spell:

When you release a spell you’ve prepared, roll+INt. ✴On a 10+, the spell is successfully cast and you do not forget the spell - you may cast it again later. ✴On a 7-9, the spell is cast, but choose one:

• You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
• The spell disturbs the fabric of reality as it is cast - take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you Prepare Spells.
•After it is cast, the spell is forgotten. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.​

Suppose further that the player's result is a 7, and the players choose the first option. Now the GM has to decide what sort of unwelcome attention has been drawn by the wizard? How to do that? Well, suppose that the GM has prepared - as a threat - a demon who is waiting two levels below. The GM then decides that that is the unwelcome attention.

Now, the player of the wizard, or another player, can try and ascertain what the unwelcome attention is. Or they can just take their chances, in which case the GM has been handed a golden opportunity, and is at liberty to make as hard a move as they like when the back-and-forth of play permits it. (Page 166: "A soft move ignored becomes a golden opportunity for a hard move.")

To me, as I've said, this is all clear and consistent.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "more than the absolute bare minimum I need". The rules tell you how much you need - enough fronts, threats and dangers to have useful things to say when the rules require you to say things.

Of course, how you go about RPGing is your prerogative and no one else's. But for what it's worth, I'd suggest that you try playing Dungeon World as it is written and see how it goes. Rather than using it as basically an alternative action resolution framework for an improv-heavy D&D-type game.

If one can understand "prep" so differently, it would seem to me that it would behoove the authors to be more specific, rather than just using a generic word and presuming everyone agrees on what it means.

The rule are very specific. I've quote them in this post.

Very specific use of terminology can be used to promote a point of view quite effectively, especially if the terminology is less than transparent.

So one possibility is that Dungeon World is a great conspiracy to confuse would-be RPGers about the sort of prep it requires.

Another possibility is that, just like Apocalypse World, and as per the rules I've quoted in this post, it sets out exactly and unambiguously how it is to be played and GMed.