GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

The deliberate aspect is exactly what I’m citing. The GM crafting a mystery is placing things with the intention that they are found. What they are doing, whether they admit it or not, is creating a scenario that they intend to be engaging as a game.

That is not what a criminal does. They’re not concerned with how much fun it will be for people to solve the crime. They’re not actively deciding what sorts of clues to leave behind. They’re not also somehow responsible for other factors like witnesses and the weather and the like.

It’s a bonkers comparison.

But no one is saying the GM is like a criminal committing a crime that is then investigated. That is kind of a strange argument frankly. The GM is attempting to emulate mysteries and investigations (both in life from the news, but also from shows, novels, etc). Also not everything has to be set down with the intent of being a discovered clue. Some stuff is going to organically arise. For instance the GM may not have thought ahead of time about security camera footage at an apartment building where the crime took place. A thorough GM may, but some won't. So if the players ask about that, then the GM may have to make a call about whether there was security camera footage, and then based on his background details, if the killer was caught on camera anywhere. So there are also gray areas. But those gray areas are still generally grounded in whatever has been established.

Also I just want to point out again, this was a side tangent, it was a passing remark I made and for some reason, referring to this as actually solving a mystery has really provoked a strong reaction. I am not even interested in proving the point anymore. But I think the argument you are making is just obviously not true if you've every played a mystery where the characters are solving something

 

[innerdude]

Personally the murders my players solve are real ones I have committed.

You too, huh? We should, um .... compare notes sometime.

 

[Maxperson]

The deliberate aspect is exactly what I’m citing. The GM crafting a mystery is placing things with the intention that they are found. What they are doing, whether they admit it or not, is creating a scenario that they intend to be engaging as a game.

That is not what a criminal does. They’re not concerned with how much fun it will be for people to solve the crime. They’re not actively deciding what sorts of clues to leave behind. They’re not also somehow responsible for other factors like witnesses and the weather and the like.

It’s a bonkers comparison.

The deliberate aspect isn't relevant. Clues are clues. Finding is finding. Interpreting is interpreting. Solving is solving.

 

[bloodtide]

I can't really comment on what is entailed in such an endeavor in your games, clearly. I will just note that other posters have made comparisons with Clue, and have talked about clues and mysteries in terms drawn largely from detective genre fiction. While I think emulating such fiction is valid, even excellent, as an agenda, I don't consider such fiction to contain much realism, or even a lot of logic.

I can't really understand why some people think a mystery is fake or fictional. It's like someone saying you don't have real fun when you play a game, it is only fictional fun.

Or are people in your games just fictional playing the game, but not playing the game for real?

Mmmmm, yeah. You might want to ply this on a less deeply experienced audience.

I see plenty of shallow water....

The deliberate aspect is exactly what I’m citing. The GM crafting a mystery is placing things with the intention that they are found. What they are doing, whether they admit it or not, is creating a scenario that they intend to be engaging as a game.

This shows the two ways:

To you it is just a game. You can't say the word 'game' enough. Every action is a game action for the game. Game, game, game. You are locked in the limited view point. Everything is for the game, and there is nothing else. So when a DM makes a mystery they are making it in the game to be found in the game as part of the fun.

To others: it is more then just a game. Sure, everything the DM does is under a vague umbrella of fun. But it is much, more then "just a game".

So....brace yourself for this...when a DM acts as a fictional NPC criminal they FULLY ROLE PLAY as the criminal. They are NOT a 'game bot' trying to frame a setting for the game. They are fulling acting "AS" the fictional NPC and doing exactly what a character would do in such a reality. A good DM is not making clues to find, they are taking actions that could be clues if the players can find them.

And, as the all powerful game master, the DM does have total control over the game reality. But, again, a DM does not make clues to find, they just follow the game reality. The 'game bot' DM makes clue #3 the muddy boot print. The real mystery DM just says "they leave a boot print in the muddy ground, because that is how the game reality works: wet muddy ground equals leaving a boot print when stepped on."

That is not what a criminal does. They’re not concerned with how much fun it will be for people to solve the crime. They’re not actively deciding what sorts of clues to leave behind. They’re not also somehow responsible for other factors like witnesses and the weather and the like.

I understand that you don't like role playing a role in the game. Though this is fun for many players and DMs. The encounter is not with "NPC#3", in the more role playing games it is with "Zark-Tohk" a fully flushed out and made character.

This also shows the split between both simple and casual games......and complex and deep games.

As soon as I say the role playing DM role plays and makes the character fully......I can hear the more casual DMs groan "aw man, that's too much work".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Leaving clues for investigators to find is the same thing. Both criminals and DMs do it.

But no one is saying the GM is like a criminal committing a crime that is then investigated. That is kind of a strange argument frankly.

See the quote above from Maxperson.

I agree with you… it’s a strange argument to make.

Some stuff is going to organically arise.

Organically is one of those words that I think obscures more than it helps.

For instance the GM may not have thought ahead of time about security camera footage at an apartment building where the crime took place. A thorough GM may, but some won't. So if the players ask about that, then the GM may have to make a call about whether there was security camera footage, and then based on his background details, if the killer was caught on camera anywhere. So there are also gray areas. But those gray areas are still generally grounded in whatever has been established.

How does the GM make such decisions?

Also I just want to point out again, this was a side tangent, it was a passing remark I made and for some reason, referring to this as actually solving a mystery has really provoked a strong reaction. I am not even interested in proving the point anymore. But I think the argument you are making is just obviously not true if you've every played a mystery where the characters are solving something

Okay.

I think your inability to even consistently differentiate between characters and players is a real obstacle to discussion and a seeming blindspot for you in analysis.

The deliberate aspect isn't relevant. Clues are clues. Finding is finding. Interpreting is interpreting. Solving is solving.

Okay.

Let’s imagine two games with mystery scenarios where the GM has determined the conclusion ahead of time.

In one game, the GM is crafting the scenario much like we’d expect… he’s set up clues and suspects and witnesses and all that kind of stuff for the players to interact with.

In the other game, the GM is actively trying to prevent the players from learning about the crime. He’s trying to obscure the facts from the players.

You think these games would work out similarly?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I understand

You don’t.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think your inability to even consistently differentiate between characters and players is a real obstacle to discussion and a seeming blindspot for you in analysis.

I am fully able to distinguish but there are times when these intersect or where the players experience of doing something like solving the mystery is part of the fun

 

[Maxperson]

See the quote above from Maxperson.

I agree with you… it’s a strange argument to make.

Again, it's like you deliberately try to get what I'm saying wrong. Quite odd.

Let’s imagine two games with mystery scenarios where the GM has determined the conclusion ahead of time.

The DM has not determined the conclusion at all. He has no control(unless he's railroading things) over how it concludes. He has determined who did it, but that isn't the same as determining the conclusion.

In one game, the GM is crafting the scenario much like we’d expect… he’s set up clues and suspects and witnesses and all that kind of stuff for the players to interact with.

Yes. That is what we do.

In the other game, the GM is actively trying to prevent the players from learning about the crime. He’s trying to obscure the facts from the players.

Why would you do that? Because none of that is happening in the games we on this side of things are running.

You think these games would work out similarly?

Of course not, but I can't fathom why you would try to obscure the facts from the players or prevent them from learning about the crime.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The DM has not determined the conclusion at all. He has no control(unless he's railroading things) over how it concludes. He has determined who did it, but that isn't the same as determining the conclusion.

This is a big point. I don't know how much it has been misunderstood or not. But planning the background and facts, even anticipating ways clues might be found, etc, none of that means you are determining the conclusion of the scenario. The background has been established. Who did it has been established. But the adventure itself plays out organically

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why would you do that? Because none of that is happening in the games we on this side of things are running.

Of course not, but I can't fathom why you would try to obscure the facts from the players or prevent them from learning about the crime.

Yeah there are games that get around this by giving the players the clues, or making it easier to get them. This is going to vary a lot by mystery but presumably in some finding the clues and finding leads or suspects will be part of the enjoyment, in others it will be more about putting clues together. And real life mysteries can vary in this respect. The FBI for example uses evidence gathering teams. So it isn't like you have to have players playing FBI, go one scene and find the clues even. You could have them just toss that off to a team and it would still be an investigation because from there they would still do things like interview suspects.