GM fiat - an illustration

[Micah Sweet]

So... an approximation of Narnia exists, we might say. A shared concept of it.

Similarly, the worlds we play in do not exist. An approximation exists in our notes and our shared concepts of them.

Still searching for relevance here. This just seems like sophistry to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is saying that one style of play has an objective truth to it and another does not meant to be value-neutral?

I don't see why not, if it one way or the other works for you and your table.

 

[Maxperson]

Why?

What difference does it make that were-hyenas are thought of two weeks in advance, as opposed to 30 (or so) minutes into the session when Randall (a PC) inspects documents on a desk in a study?

(And in this very thread, we have @Bedrockgames and @Maperson saying that the GM making up security camera footage on the spot is consistent with the "objectivity" and "reality".)

What I said actually was,

"First, players are very inventive. They can figure out ways to get clues, even ones the DM didn't consider(Because DMs are not omniscient), through their actions. They might do something that causes the DM to think, "Would that find a clue, and if so, what form would it take?" If the answer is yes, they didn't create it, but their actions did prompt the DM to do so. Sometimes it's possible and the DM might roll to determine if there is a clue or not. And yes, I know, that particular clue was not pre-determined, but is based solely on things that were pre-determined. It's formed from pre-established in-fiction logic."

I never said it was the same as pre-authoring, but thanks for playing the twist his words game.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not even sure which 'side' I'm on, to the extent there are 'sides'. I've only ever played these scenarios in games where the identity of the murderer etc is a pre-authored fact. I've never read Brindlewood Bay or the like, although I am interested to know more about how these games work.

I've never read or played Brindlewood Bay (or similar RPGs) either. But as I've posted already (and extensively!) in the thread, I don't think that Brindlewood Bay and traditional CoC are the only two possibilities for mystery RPGing.

There is also the sort of approach I've described in this thread, and have pointed to an example of (using Cthulhu Dark informed by Burning Wheel norms as the system). This does not involve pre-authorship, but rather uses the system elements (player-established priorities for their PCs, GM framing by reference to those, intent-and-task resolution, and narration of failure consequences by reference to intent + priorities) to constrain the way the fiction unfolds.

I mean, it exists as an objective thing in the GM's notes. I'm not quite sure it's the same thing. The setting does not exist as an entity independent of the GM's notes and any further ideas that participants in the game might add to it.

I agree the setting has no independent existence. But there can be entailments/inference - that is, certain expressly established setting elements might entail other parts of the centre even if these haven't been expressly established.

A trivial example of this is that the existence of a human person entails the existence of their parents (even if the author says nothing about them). But less trivial examples can also obtain.

It's the possibility of these sorts of inferences - especially under other constraints, like connection to player-established priorities, stakes of framing, etc - that mean that it is a mistake to suppose that, if the GM didn't pre-author it, the players must have just made it up (and so hence didn't "solve" anything).

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I think it is the original Clue from England

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Name "Cluedo" is probably based on another game, Ludo, which is a British boardgame. IIRC Ludo literally means "I play" in Latin.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again… please. You just accused me of hubris and of being overconfident in my analysis, while steadfastly and repeatedly insisting on your view. Don’t try and paint me as the bad guy here. We’re discussing things and have both advocated for our views.

Well I am not painting you as the bad guy, but I man annoyed. I accused you of hubris after long frustration with what felt like dismissive remarks. Those happen all the time in these discussions with you and Permerton. Now I will take responsibility for my side of the discussion. When I said blindingly obvious, I said that because this seemed like such an obvious distinction. But that probably didn't help the conversation. So fair enough I shouldn't have said that. Hubris I used because I dont' think you or Pemerton realize how condescending you sound sometimes in these discussions, and I do think you guys have such abject certainty in you conclusions that it sometimes blinds you to the fact that some people have also thought about this stuff but don't agree with you assessment. Maybe hubris is too strong. Perhaps I should have just focused on the issue of certainty. You guys kind of have this "I was blinded but now I see" attitude combined with a "you guys just don't realize what is actually going on when you play because you haven't made connections X or Y that we have". And so much of the argumentation in threads like this are about language more than anything else. Pemerton makes good arguments because he is a professional law professor and knows how to control the language of the discussion. But I don't think his arguments get at the truth anymore than mine (but I can admit I don't have the rhetorical skill he does, I just have lived long enough to realize when that kind of rhetoric is being used on me)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I explained why I think it is similar to simulationism… it’s the error of thinking that the fictional events of play have actual cause and effect, that one thing leads to another is “organic” rather then “a decision made by the GM”.

The idea of cause and effect is certainly something the GM is likely to consider… like if the PCs steal from the royal vault, the king will dispatch his men to find them… but that doesn’t mean there is actual cause and effect happening. The GM could say the king doesn’t dispatch his men… because the threat of war from the neighboring country is too great to spare anyone… or whatever else he decides.

And that’s what I think connects us to the OP. The amount of decision making and back story creation by the GM can be so significant it almost becomes easy to overlook. To attribute GM decisions to something else… typically the fictional cause and effect of the game world.

But you are painting my position as an extreme here. You know I wouldnt' actually argue that real physics are going on in the game. But I would argue the king dispatching his men would be a reasonable approximation of cause and effect in a game, or that cause and effect can be modeled for game purposes. That a GM might redirect the cause and effect for ulterior purposes is to me besides the point. That two GMs might reach different conclusions about the cause and effect is totally fine (I mean in the real world, both the outcomes you described are conceivable: to me what matters is if the GM is genuinely considering cause and effect). But I am also not some kind of simulationist extremist. In these conversations I am sometimes forced to defend positions that are extreme ends of my own playtstyle but not my actual playtsyle. For example, I am want cause and effect to be a consideration in my campaigns, but I am also okay with with other considerations also being factors like drama, engagement, fun and excitement. There are people on the more extreme end of the cause and effect thing, but that isn't where I reside.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Like I said I don't think this stuff can be so easily quantified. That is the whole point. The point isn't that I have a list of things I specifically think you are missing. It is that there is clearly much more going on, at least from my view, than how you guys tend to describe this style of play.

If there is an inadequacy in what is described, it would be more helpful to describe what is lacking, than to say "your analysis is lacking so I'm going to ignore it". I know that the obvious is not always easily communicated, but if it is so clear to you that the analysis is missing something...talk about it! Try to be as specific as you can! That's how we learn things. That's how we actually move forward and develop the technology of game design (or, indeed, develop any body of knowledge.)

Fair enough. I don't agree with your analysis. I see your explanation and for me it falls very short. Perhaps you found it persuasive and helpful. That is fine. What I take issue with is you acting with so much certainty about it. Like there is no chance you are wrong.

If it falls so short, what is missing? It must be a lot of things, for it to fall "very short"--so tell me some of them. If possible, I will offer aid in refining the terms and discussion so we can get somewhere useful.

Yes but we aren't talking about quality. We are just talking about whether something is an actual mystery to solve

I think the phrase "actual mystery" is not very helpful. That's why I've mostly stopped using it. I don't think this communicates anything to anyone, even though I share your doubts about the alleged symmetry between "we are trying to learn information genuinely independent of ourselves" and "we are producing new information under certain rule constraints".

 

[Bedrockgames]

If there is an inadequacy in what is described, it would be more helpful to describe what is lacking, than to say "your analysis is lacking so I'm going to ignore it". I know that the obvious is not always easily communicated, but if it is so clear to you that the analysis is missing something...talk about it! Try to be as specific as you can! That's how we learn things. That's how we actually move forward and develop the technology of game design (or, indeed, develop any body of knowledge.)

We have a fundamentally different way of viewing game design. I don't see it as technology that is always moving forward

If it falls so short, what is missing? It must be a lot of things, for it to fall "very short"--so tell me some of them. If possible, I will offer aid in refining the terms and discussion so we can get somewhere useful.

Again, I think there is just a fundamentally different approach. It falls short, but I also think it is not really possible to thoroughly analyzing something like this. It is about human interaction and I think when you try breaking that down into parts in this way, you can certainly do it, but you end up missing elements that are intuitive and possibly taken for granted. It is like trying to hold a successful conversation with someone following a set of guidelines rather than your instinct. There is a human element that is very hard to pin down and when people do I think there is a pronounced tendency to be reductive

I think the phrase "actual mystery" is not very helpful. That's why I've mostly stopped using it. I don't think this communicates anything to anyone, even though I share your doubts about the alleged symmetry between "we are trying to learn information genuinely independent of ourselves" and "we are producing new information under certain rule constraints".

You don't have to use it if you think it doesn't work. The reason I use it is this is exactly how I would talk to people playing, and 90 percent of the time, they would understand what I mean almost exactly. I think the way most gamers would arrive at the distinction in your post is using language like "actually solve the mystery". Also I have taken great pains I think to clarify the full meaning of what I am trying to say over the course of my posts