GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

And to be clear, I agree that there are differences here. I've said as much throughout the thread. Rules that set patterns for how new fiction gets authored are not, to my eyes, comparable to things like the rules of mathematics or logic, because even the most stringent fiction-introduction rules are worlds less stringent than (say) disjunction elimination or applying L'Hôpital's rule. They depend, critically and unavoidably, on purely elective and creative acts, and I don't see the creation of a new (fictional) truth as being the same thing as discovering a truth that was always there to begin with by reasoning (abductive, inductive, deductive) from evidence about it.

And I appreciate your intellectual honesty here

But responding to an argument with "well all your fancy words just get in the way of gut feeling" isn't going to accomplish much of anything. In fact, I suspect it will be taken as a concession that you don't have an actual response to the argument made.

That isn't what I am trying to do. I feel like I have provided arguments on this topic and I also feel like I have provided arguments for when the style issue comes up. But I was responding to someone saying we use overly vague language and explaining why that is (and I genuinely believe it isn't possible to break down and reconstruct what happens at the table in this way, I think you do lose something in that process). And if people want to do that, like I said, fine. But what bothers me is it feels like some who do, sneer at those of us who do things more intuitively

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I don't think @hawkeyefan is in any way incorrect with this analysis. What you call the "nuances" pretty much are just DMing with good grace by an unspoken gentleman's agreement, which by its unspoken nature can never be reviewed, challenged, critiqued, or even meaningfully responded to by players. They must either shut up and deal with it, raise a stink in hope that something changes, or beat feet. Those aren't exactly great options; the first is perilously close to "not gaming is better than bad gaming", the second will get demonized exactly as we see in replies above this one, and the third is "not gaming is better than bad gaming" (and, despite many claims to the contrary, people will ALSO demonize this! I've seen it from the very people who claim that any player who isn't happy should quit the table.)

All three of your options assume player unhappiness. I think it's important to remember that there are plenty of players who like classic or trad gaming playstyles and choose option 4: enjoy the game they're playing.

I know your statement assume player discontent, but I really think it's important in these heated discussions that many tables are filled with mostly happy players and GMs, and we probably shouldn't assume unhappy players with no good way out, no matter what style they are using.

 

[soviet]

I don't think it does. Many things in a game setting are approximation that we try to treat as having objective qualities. An NPC with stats is an objective entity in the setting, but just an approximation of a real person. A mystery here is objective in that it has things you can measure, it has definition and facts, and it exists outside the players (it is something for them to discover). Again no one is saying it is exactly like a real mystery in real life, no one is saying it comes into actual existence. But the players understand that whoever killed the victim in the mystery, that fact is always true no matter what. There is a big difference between a game where that fact is always true from the start of the session and one where it isn't

The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist.

You keep acknowledging that this is true and then saying that things can have an objective existence within it. They cannot, because it does not exist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist.

You keep acknowledging that this is true and then saying that things can have an objective existence within it. They cannot, because it does not exist.

Doesn't exist in what sense? Is Narnia real? No. Is there a bunch of information about it that exists in the real world and is true about Narnia in the fiction? Yes.

 

[soviet]

Doesn't exist in what sense? Is Narnia real? No. Is there a bunch of information about it that exists in the real world and is true about Narnia in the fiction? Yes.

One might call those things that exist 'the books' or 'CS Lewis's notes' or 'the GM's notes'.

It is not the same as saying that Narnia exists.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist.

You keep acknowledging that this is true and then saying that things can have an objective existence within it. They cannot, because it does not exist.

I am drawing a distinction between something that exists objectively in the setting and something that doesn’t. I.e there is a shop called WAN’S MUTTON STEW. It didn’t arise because the players came to town looking for a mutton stew ship. The GM has created it as part of a specific city, located in a specific area of the empire. So it isn’t an objective detail of the setting. I don’t think it is that outrageous of use. But in a mystery whether the players are solving it hinges on that. This is also why I said to Pemerton that there are is also middle ground and ask for more information on his examples, because even in these other approaches things can become objective after they are introduced in play

 

[Micah Sweet]

One might call those things that exist 'the books' or 'CS Lewis's notes' or 'the GM's notes'.

It is not the same as saying that Narnia exists.

For play and worldbuilding purposes (the two metrics that matter to me here), they are real enough for me.

 

[Xamnam]

The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist. The setting doesn't exist.

You keep acknowledging that this is true and then saying that things can have an objective existence within it. They cannot, because it does not exist.

Things, facts, and details can have an "objective" / "external" / "real" / "factual" existence if the frame of reference being used for that language is that of the characters within said setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am drawing a distinction between something that exists objectively in the setting and something that doesn’t. I.e there is a shop called WAN’S MUTTON STEW. It didn’t arise because the players came to town looking for a mutton stew ship. The GM has created it as part of a specific city, located in a specific area of the empire. So it isn’t an objective detail of the setting. I don’t think it is that outrageous of use. But in a mystery whether the players are solving it hinges on that. This is also why I said to Pemerton that there are is also middle ground and ask for more information on his examples, because even in these other approaches things can become objective after they are introduced in play

If the DM created it as part of the setting, how is it not an objective part of the setting? DMs and players have very different roles. As far as the players (the ones interacting with the setting) are concerned, that shop exists in the fiction of the world just as much as everything else, including the PCs themselves do. I don't understand your logic here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And I appreciate your intellectual honesty here



That isn't what I am trying to do. I feel like I have provided arguments on this topic and I also feel like I have provided arguments for when the style issue comes up. But I was responding to someone saying we use overly vague language and explaining why that is (and I genuinely believe it isn't possible to break down and reconstruct what happens at the table in this way, I think you do lose something in that process). And if people want to do that, like I said, fine. But what bothers me is it feels like some who do, sneer at those of us who do things more intuitively

If it cannot be examined, I don't think it's a good thing. That means we are stuck operating on gut feelings and ineffable, inexpressible desires. That's counterproductive and, in many cases, actively inhibits improving things, whether an individual person or group trying to improve their personal situation, or a community or game design team trying to improve their game.

I am dead certain your claim that analysis kills the experience is incorrect. Understanding how and why we do the things we do is one of our greatest tools for doing those things better. Resorting to vague mummery and gesticulation doesn't protect any magic; it simply denies us the ability to really talk about what we do and why.