GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

See the quote above from Maxperson.

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

On this thread of the conversation: the GM is definitely trying to create a scenario that is going to be fun, engaging, challenging etc. But it also needs to be a mystery for the player to solve if we are talking about the type of play I am discussions. None of those things are in misalignment. They actually work very well together. Now how challenging it is to get the clues, how the mystery is structured exactly, this stuff is all going to vary

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

And I think you breaking things up into constituents parts and avoiding natural language like this gets us further from what is actually happening because it is reductive. This is why I mentioned Zeno's Paradox. It is like there is a process we are all familiar with and understand and can communicate about in casual terms. And the way things get analyzed in this thread, rather than illuminate, disrupt out understanding of it.

How does the GM make such decisions?

Any number of ways. Extrapolation, what makes sense, resorting to rolls based no probabilities, etc. Stuff we have already covered in the thread

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

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.

Yes. That is what we do.

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.

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?

These two quotes are out of order so I apologize. I am not 100% sure I understand the two examples completely. But I can picture one scenario where there is a suspect actively working to thwart whoever investigates. I don't know if that is what you mean by the second example @hawkeyefan but that is something that could happen. I think if the GM was simply being a jerk and actively making it harder for no real reason for players to find clues, then that is likely to create issues. How fairly the players think the GM is running the scenario is going to matter. There is also the question of difficulty. That is kind of preference, taste and judgment thing: i.e. how difficult should this clue be to find?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I’m sure you are able to distinguish between players and characters… but when you discuss play, you often fail to differentiate the two. You use the words almost interchangeably.

For instance in the comment that I was responding to, you said:

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

Characters are solving the mystery in all cases, regardless of whether the culprit is predetermined or not. Characters in The Between are solving a mystery just as characters in Call of Cthulhu are. No one has said otherwise.

I think you meant players here, but it’s hard to be sure. Because I’m sure you know I’ve played games like those you’re describing… I’ve said so many times and have even mentioned them in this discussion.

But I think clearly defining what the players are doing as opposed to the characters is a crucial element in this discussion.

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

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.

I meant the solution to the mystery.

Yes. That is what we do.

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.

No one would craft the game that way. You’re exactly right. It is crafted so that it CAN be solved. That involves a level of authorship… of craft… of intent… that real world mysteries lack.

There is a guiding force behind play that is designing everything with the intention that it work as a fun game scenario. That is a key factor that you’re simply dismissing out of hand. I don’t know if it’s because you’re failing to see why it matters so much or what, but it absolutely does.

On this thread of the conversation: the GM is definitely trying to create a scenario that is going to be fun, engaging, challenging etc. But it also needs to be a mystery for the player to solve if we are talking about the type of play I am discussions. None of those things are in misalignment. They actually work very well together. Now how challenging it is to get the clues, how the mystery is structured exactly, this stuff is all going to vary

Yes, I agree. All of that is also what makes it different from solving a mystery. With a real mystery… the Ripper Murders, let’s say… there isn’t one guiding force behind what’s discovered and what isn’t, what investigative errors may have complicated the investigation, the weather and other environmental factors that may have contributed, the presence or not of witnesses, the testimonies of suspects and witnesses, and on and on. All of that stuff isn’t up to aGM who is making decisions about it with the explicit intention of it being an engaging bit of play.

This is why I don’t think it’s the same as solving a real mystery. It may feel that way in play for some folks… I have no doubt of that. But as someone who doesn’t feel that way, it’s very easy for me to see it as the subjective thing that it is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

These two quotes are out of order so I apologize. I am not 100% sure I understand the two examples completely. But I can picture one scenario where there is a suspect actively working to thwart whoever investigates. I don't know if that is what you mean by the second example @hawkeyefan but that is something that could happen. I think if the GM was simply being a jerk and actively making it harder for no real reason for players to find clues, then that is likely to create issues. How fairly the players think the GM is running the scenario is going to matter. There is also the question of difficulty. That is kind of preference, taste and judgment thing: i.e. how difficult should this clue be to find?

I think the post I just made may help clarify this, but just in case, I’ll try to clarify.

I’m talking about the GM here. One game works very much as you’d expect it to. The GM has crafted a whodunnit, with a culprit and possible clues and witnesses and suspects and motives and all that stuff. He has done so with the express intention that this scenario can be resolved satisfactorily by the players. They may fail… but they have at least a chance to succeed.

The other GM is (for the sake of argument) not interested in the scenario’s solvability. He knows who did it, how, and why… but decides that there are no witnesses, no real suspects, no clear motive, and the clues that are there don’t lead anywhere. Again, I’m speaking only about what the GM has decided about play… this is not about an NPC trying to prevent the characters from solving the mystery, it’s about the GM trying to prevent the players from solving it.

These two games would play very differently.

The GM’s intention here is the crucial element… do you see?

That intention is absent from a real mystery, which is why I think there’s a huge difference. It’s why I view it more along the lines of solving a puzzle… because a solution has been baked in. It is expected to be solved.

I hope that makes it clearer.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the post I just made may help clarify this, but just in case, I’ll try to clarify.

I’m talking about the GM here. One game works very much as you’d expect it to. The GM has crafted a whodunnit, with a culprit and possible clues and witnesses and suspects and motives and all that stuff. He has done so with the express intention that this scenario can be resolved satisfactorily by the players. They may fail… but they have at least a chance to succeed.

The other GM is (for the sake of argument) not interested in the scenario’s solvability. He knows who did it, how, and why… but decides that there are no witnesses, no real suspects, no clear motive, and the clues that are there don’t lead anywhere. Again, I’m speaking only about what the GM has decided about play… this is not about an NPC trying to prevent the characters from solving the mystery, it’s about the GM trying to prevent the players from solving it.

These two games would play very differently.

The GM’s intention here is the crucial element… do you see?

That intention is absent from a real mystery, which is why I think there’s a huge difference. It’s why I view it more along the lines of solving a puzzle… because a solution has been baked in. It is expected to be solved.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Sure, and to be clear, the second GM would be a bad GM. But this is straw man. No one is saying the fictional mystery is operating in the same exact way as a real one. But the GM is trying to emulate those elements, while also making a fun scenario. Again, people have said repeatedly, that the purpose here isn't to be exactly like a real life mystery (those can take weeks, they can go nowhere, they are often not particularly interesting, etc). But the point is to provide a mystery for them to solve in the game and setting. And again, the only reason this matters, is I made the point that in such a game, giving the players information their characters wouldn't have access to (for example just handing them the list of who did it) would be disruptive to agency. So agency isn't just about the players having more and more information.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I’m sure you are able to distinguish between players and characters… but when you discuss play, you often fail to differentiate the two. You use the words almost interchangeably.

For instance in the comment that I was responding to, you said:


Characters are solving the mystery in all cases, regardless of whether the culprit is predetermined or not. Characters in The Between are solving a mystery just as characters in Call of Cthulhu are. No one has said otherwise.

I think you meant players here, but it’s hard to be sure. Because I’m sure you know I’ve played games like those you’re describing… I’ve said so many times and have even mentioned them in this discussion.

But I think clearly defining what the players are doing as opposed to the characters is a crucial element in this discussion.

If I used them interchangeably it is because they often are for me. But here the important part of it is the player. If there is any confusion just feel free to ask for a clarification

Yes, I agree. All of that is also what makes it different from solving a mystery. With a real mystery… the Ripper Murders, let’s say… there isn’t one guiding force behind what’s discovered and what isn’t, what investigative errors may have complicated the investigation, the weather and other environmental factors that may have contributed, the presence or not of witnesses, the testimonies of suspects and witnesses, and on and on. All of that stuff isn’t up to aGM who is making decisions about it with the explicit intention of it being an engaging bit of play.

This is why I don’t think it’s the same as solving a real mystery. It may feel that way in play for some folks… I have no doubt of that. But as someone who doesn’t feel that way, it’s very easy for me to see it as the subjective thing that it is.

But those are things in life people can still investigate. The GMs job isn't to suddenly become whatever force in reality actually is responsible for any event (the GM doesn't have to be gravity to emulate gravity in a game when he says "the pen falls to the floor"). Also presumably the GM is making some effort to understand how invehrstaigtiaon and mysteries really happen. Especially now when you can research this stuff by watching police investigation of real murders on youtube. But even then, the point wasn't 'real' it was 'real enough'.No one is saying it is 1:1 like a real mystery. It is a mystery in the game the players are actually solving. You can be actually solving a mystery in a game and still say and conclude "This doesn't feel anything like a mystery in the real world!". But you are still solving a mystery occurring in the setting

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, and to be clear, the second GM would be a bad GM. But this is straw man. No one is saying the fictional mystery is operating in the same exact way as a real one. But the GM is trying to emulate those elements, while also making a fun scenario. Again, people have said repeatedly, that the purpose here isn't to be exactly like a real life mystery (those can take weeks, they can go nowhere, they are often not particularly interesting, etc).

Then people should likely be more careful about what they say. Because plenty of folks have indeed said that solving a mystery RPG isthe same as solving a real mystery. Even folks who didn’t feel the need to use the words “real” and “really” multiple times in the same sentence.

But the point is to provide a mystery for them to solve in the game and setting. And again, the only reason this matters, is I made the point that in such a game, giving the players information their characters wouldn't have access to (for example just handing them the list of who did it) would be disruptive to agency. So agency isn't just about the players having more and more information.

Regarding agency, it totally depends on many factors. The why this mystery matters, why the characters may be investigating it, and so on.

Having a predetermined answer that is meant to be discovered… much like a game of Clue… can be a game with agency. This assumes that discovering the culprit is the point of play. If it’s not the point, then I’m not sure it matters. But again, that depends on a lot of factors we may not know.

I set up a “mystery” to get my game of Spire going. But that was really just a means of getting the players to have the characters interact with all the NPCs and other setting elements that I wanted them to get entangled with.

The solution of the mystery was the characters’ given goal (they received this task from their superior) but for game play purposes, I as GM couldn’t have cared less if the characters solved the mystery or not. It was not the point of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then people should likely be more careful about what they say. Because plenty of folks have indeed said that solving a mystery RPG isthe same as solving a real mystery. Even folks who didn’t feel the need to use the words “real” and “really” multiple times in the same sentence.

For almost this entire discussion we have been clearly making this distinction. There may be 1 poster who is coming from a completely different point of view. But that is a distraction. Those of us taking this position have clearly stated this isnt exactly the same as solving a mystery in the real world, that they aren't identical. And we've done so because this is the argument you guys keep going back to (so we keep restating this again and again). But they do share many things, and so calling the mystery in the game real, calling it really solving the mystery, makes perfect sense

Regarding agency, it totally depends on many factors. The why this mystery matters, why the characters may be investigating it, and so on.

And I didn't disagree. But I brought up this type of mystery as an example of a situation where it would matter.

 

[bloodtide]

............

 

[bloodtide]

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

As was said above: Everything is personal for the players in these games.

When a DM does anything, it is a direct personal attack on the player(s). The player will complain that it is not right they have to find THE DMs clues, for example. They will complain that the DM "is just a player", so it is not fair they get to make up stuff and hide it from the others playing the game.

No one would craft the game that way. You’re exactly right. It is crafted so that it CAN be solved. That involves a level of authorship… of craft… of intent… that real world mysteries lack.

This is wrong.

In your game the DM who is stuck with the limited idea that they are just doing silly stuff in a game thinks this way.

Plenty of other DMs will make real mysteries to challenge the players, again: for real. Such mysteries are not made to be solved. If a player or players can, that is great: but they are not made to be a Red Carpet Cakewalk Easy Button game action for the players.

There is a guiding force behind play that is designing everything with the intention that it work as a fun game scenario. That is a key factor that you’re simply dismissing out of hand. I don’t know if it’s because you’re failing to see why it matters so much or what, but it absolutely does.

Well, what your saying is super vague. Sure the game is "all about fun", but what is fun is different for different people.

Some people have fun in a game where the player just sits there and uses a characters special ability to "have a clever idea". Then the DM tells the player the clever idea their character thought of and the player sits there amazed their character is so much smarter, clever and better then they are...

Some people have fun in 'sandyboxes' just doing random game actions until they decide to stop playing.

Some people like deep, real role-playing (the acting kind).

And on and on...

The other GM is (for the sake of argument) not interested in the scenario’s solvability. He knows who did it, how, and why… but decides that there are no witnesses, no real suspects, no clear motive, and the clues that are there don’t lead anywhere. Again, I’m speaking only about what the GM has decided about play… this is not about an NPC trying to prevent the characters from solving the mystery, it’s about the GM trying to prevent the players from solving it.

This sounds right up there with the "fictional fun" you have in your games as you can't have "real" fun as it is a game......

Then people should likely be more careful about what they say. Because plenty of folks have indeed said that solving a mystery RPG isthe same as solving a real mystery. Even folks who didn’t feel the need to use the words “real” and “really” multiple times in the same sentence.

I do! I did!

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

As was said above: Everything is personal for the players in these games.

When a DM does anything, it is a direct personal attack on the player(s). The player will complain that it is not right they have to find THE DMs clues, for example. They will complain that the DM "is just a player", so it is not fair they get to make up stuff and hide it from the others playing the game.

For almost this entire discussion we have been clearly making this distinction. There may be 1 poster who is coming from a completely different point of view. But that is a distraction. Those of us taking this position have clearly stated this isnt exactly the same as solving a mystery in the real world, that they aren't identical.

Well, someone in bad faith would say to "solve" a mystery you must be a beat cop detective physically doing things and use lots of fancy 'science'.

Though a cop to sit down and read a cold case file...and just sit there...and solve a mystery. I'm sure the person in question would say they "solved a real mystery". Well, that is nearly exactly what players will do to solve a real role playing mystery.


But sure the 'real' cop does not suffer from the paranoid delusion that "some guy" is in control of the world and is personally out to get them....