GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

No, we can discuss it in concrete terms of play.

In Stonetop, for example, if a player said that the character was looking for a clue somewhere, they’d roll +Wis (2d6 plus their Wisdom score, typically between -1 and +3). On a 10+ they’d get to ask 3 questions from the Seek Insight list. On a 7-9, they’d get to ask 1. On a 6-, the GM makes a move.

Very clear procedure that can be described without the specifics of the fiction.

It seems to me that most of the trad proponents in this thread are very reluctant to talk about what actually happens at the table.

Yeah, okay. Except that's not what I'm talking about, so you're discussing something that doesn't apply.

Because so much of it is “the GM decides” and the more they say that, the more it makes them realize how much they’re controlling the game.

LOL No.

You said the players could create a clue. Now you’re acknowledging that the clues come from the DM. The players can prompt the DM with questions, but it’s largely up to the DM if the question results in a clue. And the quality of the clue. And how that clue propels the PCs.

If the DM really can't say no without acting in bad faith, it doesn't really come from him.

So the NPCs are limited by the DM in this way? So some kind of master thief would miss an obvious obstacle like cameras because the DM didn’t think of it?

What makes you think it was a master thief? And I really don't think many DMs would overlook cameras, but you're focusing on that one detail, because you don't want to take on the actual point that was successfully made by the analogy.

I was comparing the amount of GM Fiat in the mystery scenario to the amount of GM Fiat in the resolution of the Alarm spell from the OP.

There hasn't been any DM fiat in the mystery scenario. All of it is by the rules, if it's by the rules, there is no fiat going on. DM Fiat steps outside the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

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.)

First, that's not at all what he means by nuances.

Second, the bolded is provably false. In my game if something is bothering the players, they come and talk with me about it after the game. We come to a consensus about the issue, with me changing things sometimes and them accepting the ruling or whatever it is sometimes. I can only think of one time in the last 15 years where a majority of the players wanted something one way, and I put my foot down and did it the way I wanted. And I had a really good reason for doing it that way.

 

[Maxperson]

I see a distinction between players creating new fiction about a mystery, even when constrained by rules, and players discovering new information they did not create.

There is a reason I keep referring to Clue/Cluedo. That's a space where nobody "authors" anything. Nobody is creating new fiction with their participation. You can't, even in principle, enter a new fact into the situation which completely turns the thing on its head and reveals that all the work you'd done up to this point was a sham, a fabrication, a ruse, etc. Such a thing is not only possible but in many ways desirable under systems that defer any solution even forming until after the players have done extensive investigation. Such a thing is not possible in anything I would consider "the players themselves are, personally, solving a mystery."

In Clue/Cluedo, the whole point is to figure out who did it, where, and with which weapon. You are only able to access negative clues (your own cards and the ones you are shown by other players), but these negative clues allow you to narrow down the range of suspects, locations, and weapons until you have a small enough set that you feel comfortable risking a gamble at the correct solution. If you fail, you're out of the game; if you succeed, you've won specifically by solving the mystery, yourself, using your own deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Your character is theoretically doing the same thing but it's almost pure pawn stance (given you can literally accuse "yourself" in most versions...and might even be correct to do so!)

I've seen you reference that several times. I know what Clue is. I've played it often enough over the years. But I have no idea what Cluedo is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And in the real world it does not.

So what? How is that relevant?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What happens if the GM decides that Wan's Mutton Stew shop exists while the player characters are 8 cities away, and then decides that nah it doesn't exist after all when the players are 1 city away? Did it exist and then not exist? Did it never exist? Does it still exist?

The answer for me is that he should never do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whether it's good GMing or not, if something has a real objective existence it cannot be unexisted by an act of thought. I think again this comes down to 'the GM's notes' being given an artificial sense of gravitas by using language that invokes some kind of simulated world.

I see nothing artificial about that gravitas from my point of view. You are welcome e to believe otherwise.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've seen you reference that several times. I know what Clue is. I've played it often enough over the years. But I have no idea what Cluedo is.

"Cluedo" is the original name of the game, and the name most of the world knows it by. It was for some reason shortened to "Clue" for Americans.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with you, but it doesn't change my point, which is that because it is possible to do this, Wan's Stew Shop is not real.

I could take a wrecking ball to Wan's Stew Shop in the real world if it existed, and then it would no longer exist. It was still real.

 

[Maxperson]

What is blindingly obvious to me is that some posters in this thread have played both traditional CoC and other sorts of approaches to mystery RPGing, and don't feel the force of your assertion that only traditional CoC involves "objectivity" and "reality".

Say it ain't so! People who have experienced the same thing have a difference of opinion.

Your experiences don't give your opinions extra weight here.

The other thing that is obvious to me is that the "objective facts" cannot but be things the GM has imagined; which the players are then working out. But you refuse to accept that what the players are working out is the content of the GM's imagination.

And this has already been shown to be wrong. I've already demonstrated that the DM can fail to imagine things and then the players imagine them, bringing those things into the game via PC declarations, not the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

"Cluedo" is the original name of the game, and the name most of the world knows it by. It was for some reason shortened to "Clue" for Americans.

Thanks. Any idea what the "do" stands for? I know the clue part of the game, because it deals with clues.