GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

Edit: I want to be quite clear here. If @Maxperson is genuinely arguing that given above starting situation the GM does not control the "solution" to a mystery I don't think there's anything productive further to be said.

He agreed with my clarification of his post upthread I believe. Which was the GM doesn't control how the PCs going about their investigation:

He is saying the Gm is in control if the background information and facts of the mystery, as well as things like NPCs but not in how the players go about their investigation

 

[pemerton]

For there to be a real objective mystery that the players are solving, core details and facts must be established.

Are you using "established" as a synonym for "pre-authored". Or not?

I've already linked to an example of play - Cthulhu Dark - another session - in which certain facts and events were established but were not pre-authored.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean… he’s likely created several, so he’s got a good idea, right? He’s also determined how difficult they may be to find and all kinds of stuff.

You can never tell where the group will look or what they will ignore.

I once had an abandoned temple of Tempus, god of war in the Forgotten Realms. It had been abandoned in a hurry a long time in the past. When the group went in, I made sure to describe rusted metal to the point where some doors had fallen in, furniture had been falling apart, etc.

They party to the room where armor and weapons were forged and repaired. On a table was a +2 shield that had been left behind, forgotten in the rush to leave. It hadn't painted yet, so I described it as a gleaming steel shield that looked like new.

Many groups would have been like, "Wow! It's not rusted even a little bit. There must be something special about this shield." Not my players. They just looked at each other and were like, "Do you need a shield?" Nobody did, so they just left it sitting there and walked away.

Clues are like that. They will not look or ignore some clues, easily find others. And create clue via actions and questions the DM didn't think of that would have yielded a clue. You keep ignoring that last part, even though this is probably the tenth time I've said it. THE PLAYERS WILL COME UP WITH THINGS THAT THE DM DIDN'T THINK OF. That means that the DM is not in control of the solution.

Doesn’t he have a ton of influence here, too? I mean… he created the NPCs. He will decide what they share based on what the PCs say. He’ll set the DCs for any social rolls.

Influence, yes. Total control over what happens with them? No.

What can they come up with on their own?

Seriously? You've never seen surprised by something a player came up with that you didn't think of? I'm highly doubtful of that.

What clues could exist that the DM didn’t place?

Lots of them. There are probably many things that would have left clues that I didn't think of. If they do, that's awesome. A new clue happens.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are you using "established" as a synonym for "pre-authored". Or not?

Again I wouldn't use language like pre-authored at all, so I would even be reluctant to say it is a synonym. Pre-authored is your language, not mine

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've already linked to an example of play - Cthulhu Dark - another session - in which certain facts and events were established but were not pre-authored.

I remember. But like I said before, I don't really have interest in reading an example that long. If you want to succinctly explain what happened at the table, which you feel makes it objective go ahead. But I have to reiterate that there was no judgement of your Cthulhu dark campaign at all in my posts. I don't have much interest in judging whether or not a given campaign of yours has an objective mystery (because I don't see it as being better or worse for being that way). And in previous posts I noted how there could be games that operate in a mid-point between the extremes.

 

[pemerton]

I remember. But like I said before, I don't really have interest in reading an example that long. If you want to succinctly explain what happened at the table, which you feel makes it objective go ahead.

I've posted multiple excerpts and explanations upthread. You and @EzekielRaiden appear not to have read them, but keep asserting that the only way to be "real" and "objective" is by way of GM pre-authoring the "core details and facts".

 

[hawkeyefan]

And create clue via actions and questions the DM didn't think of that would have yielded a clue.

The players can create clues?

THE PLAYERS WILL COME UP WITH THINGS THAT THE DM DIDN'T THINK OF. That means that the DM is not in control of the solution.

I didn’t say he was. I am saying he has significant influence over it.

What can the players come up with on their own? Certainly whatever they come up with will prompt the DM to make new information. New clues. Certainly he has influence on that.

Influence, yes. Total control over what happens with them? No.

What control does the DM not have over the NPCs?

Seriously? You've never seen surprised by something a player came up with that you didn't think of? I'm highly doubtful of that.

I’m asking you what the players can come up with on their own. It’s a straightforward question.

Lots of them. There are probably many things that would have left clues that I didn't think of. If they do, that's awesome. A new clue happens.

How does “a new clue happen”? Like what’s the process in play? The player gets to declare that something’s a clue?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've posted multiple excerpts and explanations upthread. You and @EzekielRaiden appear not to have read them, but keep asserting that the only way to be "real" and "objective" is by way of GM pre-authoring the "core details and facts".

Nothing I have seen you post in response to me, has struck me as being an objective mystery to solve. But it is possible these examples were posted in response to other posters in posts I didn't read. But I am also very unclear on your style because I do often find your way of phrasing things difficult to follow

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've posted multiple excerpts and explanations upthread. You and @EzekielRaiden appear not to have read them, but keep asserting that the only way to be "real" and "objective" is by way of GM pre-authoring the "core details and facts".

I did, in fact, read them quite closely, and said as much. The ending of the search for the Earl resulted in him being sent off to a private sanatorium, and you specifically mentioned that you were hinting at the notion that the mysterious antagonists were hoping to learn to control werehyenas, while the players were thinking it was about creating werehyenas, but ultimately that slight disconnect did not negatively affect the experience--and it was (AIUI?) a one-shot anyway, so nothing came of that.

 

[Maxperson]

The players can create clues?

Essentially, yes.

I didn’t say he was. I am saying he has significant influence over it.

You literally did.

This is you from post 1733

"He controls the solution. Even your phrasing shows that. “There are generally multiple avenues to the solution” means he doesn’t control how the players may arrive at the solution. But there is a solution."

What can the players come up with on their own? Certainly whatever they come up with will prompt the DM to make new information. New clues. Certainly he has influence on that.

There's no way to know. That's the point. I'd have to know the entire adventure and have players that thought of things that I didn't. What you're asking is impossible. First, there's no way for me to even have an inkling of what would be a clue or not when we don't have a detailed adventure to go by. Second, the entire point is I DIDN'T THINK OF IT.

What control does the DM not have over the NPCs?

I mean, if he's acting in bad faith, none. If he's acting in good faith, plenty. He has to respond in certain ways to certain things and has no control over those.