GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

It isn't about the quality of the experience. It is about the authenticity of it. The integrity of it. The realness of it. That's what matters to me. The reason I do this thing is the experience of being there in the moment as the character I'm playing, feeling what they are feeling, and making decisions and seeing where that goes. The authenticity of it is an essential component. For me this is an extension of my love of acting. It's an act of vulnerability and empathy in the same way acting is.

I am not saying this can’t be immersive or your experience is less real. And to be clear I am not commenting on your style or preferred system as I don’t know what they are. All I am trying to say is in some mysteries the players are actually solving something and in others they aren’t (for example there are ways to play mysteries where the skill role do all the work and the players aren’t actually solving anything, and there are ways to play mysteries where the truth of the mystery isn’t established as something objective in the setting). But you can have meaningful and immersive play in all these styles. In the Hillfolk game I mentioned we weren’t really solving the mystery but I would say we were deeply exploring the character drama and about as immersed in our roles as you could be (it was just a challenge to establish outside objective details about the mystery and this became relevant in some places of the session)

It's not about judging the quality of play. It's about what is being said and implied about the nature of it. That I am not actually roleplaying but instead engaging in collaborative storytelling when I am emphatically not doing so. It's defining the nature of the play that is happening in a way that cuts against our intentions for it.

I never said you were not roleplaying or not playing a role. And I am not saying you are engaged in collaborative storytelling. This isn’t about narrative play. I have a trad session of RBRB I am planning and I was toying with cutting it up into four quarters to represent the four acts of a typical Shaw brothers movie. At each point there may be a revelation that drives things forward. I was debating if I should have a concrete backstory about who killed the players parents, simply randomize that fact when the time comes to reveal or empower the players to have some say. Admittedly the third option may go beyond trad play, but option two feels perfectly in keeping with trad. But I don’t think the players can be said to be solving the mystery in option two because the facts of what happened won’t even be spinner down while they are investigating. And option three I wouldn’t use the language of solve (not sure what word I would use but ‘solving a real mystery isn’t how I would describe it). However I do think options 2 and 3 will feel more like a real Wuxia story or movie and probably be more in line with what I want to achieve that session. I should have played this session already but have been pretty sick this month and haven’t been well enough to run it. Hopefully I can run scenarios doing all three options in the coming weeks

 

[Pedantic]

Feels like we're about to do the immersion discussion. Let's please not do immersion. It's clear to me that nothing is to be gained in addressing the the quality of the resulting experience, especially not in terms of its authenticity. My point is that we should be focused on the tenor instead, which is why I was pushing on gameplay as the divide here.

"Solving a mystery" basically means doing logic puzzles strapped to assorted means of gathering information to feed into that puzzle, maybe with a sideline in discriminating between true/false info. The alternative take seems to be something more like "experiencing a mystery" or maybe "being impacted by an investigation" which I think is best understood as a different gameplay loop.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I'm talking about the process of play. You said the players can introduce clues, so I asked how that works at the table. Do they simply get to declare new truths about the setting? Do they have to use a Plot Point or some other game currency?

It seems you've since described it as the players are able to prompt the DM with questions, and depending on the circumstances of play, the DM may be obligated to introduce new information and that new information could conceivably be a clue of some sort.

LOL No.

I'll stop thinking that when folks start speaking about what they actually do when they run a game.

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

I think a DM can say no without it being in bad faith.

As for it not coming from him... how is that? If the players ask about cameras, the DM is the one who decides if they're there, functional, and what may be captured on them.

He could say that there is a blurred image that shows the video was digitally tampered with after the fact. He could say that the perpetrator knew where the cameras were and avoided being caught on them in any significant way.

He could say any number of things... how is that not coming from him? To be clear, I'm not being pedantic here... I get it that the players have prompted this bit of play, but the DM has such unilateral control over the result... especially since it mostly depends on other things the DM has decided ahead of time, as well.

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.

It doesn't matter if it's a master thief... it matters that the DM may be limited by his lack of being a master criminal when the NPC would not have such limits. It matters because the DM is always making up additional details during play in response to player actions or what's developed in play to the point where so much of what we're talking about is not "objective" in the sense that's being used here.

I mean, if it's true that the key elements of the mystery must be "objective"... meaning determined ahead of time before play... then how can what gets determined during play be meaningful if it's not considered objective?

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.

I'm talking about DM fiat in the sense of the DM being the one who decides things. So, the starting scenario, likely the stakes of the scenario, its importance in the setting, the ultimate responsible party, any conspirators, the major clues or relevant information, the potential suspects, possible motives. All of that is decided by the DM.

Then the DM responds to player prompts by extrapolating from his own ideas... adding more ideas of his into play. And all the play processes involve input from the DM on both the means and the outcome (for example, setting a DC and then determining what's learned from reaching that DC).

This is a pretty broad web of DM authorship. It's incredibly DM-led. And to be clear... that's not a bad thing. But it's almost tautological at this point that it must be so... the "objectivity" angle relies upon it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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)

I think each of us made our point, we just continued to restate it.

I understand what you're talking about when you say your players are solving an objective mystery. I don't think that's the best choice of words, and I've said why, but I absolutely understand the idea of "figuring it out". It's why I compared it to a puzzle and also to a dungeon crawl. The challenge is set before play, and then we play to see if we can beat the challenge.

I absolutely get that type of play.

I was trying to separate the experience and the process... I don't think that distinction matters as much to you. I think I'm just unsure why... I don't know what it is that you think is missing when play is described about learning the things the GM has set. You say you don't like that, but it's foundational to what you're describing... so I'm at a loss. And you don't elaborate beyond it being "reductive".

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.

I'm not trying to paint your position as an extreme. I'm explaining to you how it seems to me, and how I see it as similar to the issue I have when folks talk about simulationism.

I hope you see why. The blurring of experience and process... of character and player... all of that. It's common to both.

And don't get me wrong... I used to do that, too. I'm guessing that's why my comments may read the way they do to you. Because, for me, to analyze and improve my play and GMing, I had to actively separate those two things. I had to set aside all the made up elements of play and focus on the process. It wasn't easy, and I had to face some hard truths about my play, but once I did, I had a better understanding of what I was doing, and how it shaped play, and how I could improve.

Now, maybe you don't agree with my thoughts on the matter, and maybe even if you separated the experience and the process as I'm describing here, things would remain unchanged for you... that's totally possible, and totally acceptable. But I can't change those things for me... they were formative, and will always factor in to how I view and discuss RPGs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Part of the issue with this, and I am not saying this to be difficult, is I think a lot of the people taking the position I am, but at the very least myself, would question the utility of thinking of RPGs in terms of a game loop

Why do you think that?

You could say that. It is somewhat reductive, but not wrong.

Okay... so what is it leaving out?

To me, it is the way you describe something for which you don't have a lot of respect, and having a lot of experience with that thing doesn't change that.

I have as much respect for traditional play as I do any mode of play. I

Absolutely. I'm just being clear that the claim "Clue(do) has no fiction" is factually wrong.

I think the important bit is that the fiction in no way impacts play. You can't leverage Colonel Mustard's military resources or Mr. Green's wealth or whatever. The game plays the same way it does without any regard to the fiction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why do you think that?

You won't like my answer, but I find play loops a reductive way about thinking of games. RPGs aren't video games and it feels like it is applying a way of thinking about games better suited to video games than the boundless play of RPGs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay... so what is it leaving out?

Mainly the process used for learning that information.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Solving a mystery" basically means doing logic puzzles strapped to assorted means of gathering information to feed into that puzzle, maybe with a sideline in discriminating between true/false info. The alternative take seems to be something more like "experiencing a mystery" or maybe "being impacted by an investigation" which I think is best understood as a different gameplay loop.

Yes, this. And I see that a lot of people on both sides of the discussion have liked this post. So do we have common ground? This is what is meant, regardless of the exact words used to describe it, and there is a marked difference? Agreed? Debate over?

 

[zakael19]

You won't like my answer, but I find play loops a reductive way about thinking of games. RPGs aren't video games and it feels like it is applying a way of thinking about games better suited to video games than the boundless play of RPGs.

Then why are you bothering to engage in a discussion that at its core requires a degree of critical thinking about how fiction and rules and authorities interact? The entire premise of this thread was a discussion of how different rule structures handle authority and narrative/fictional permissions, and what it means for things to be to unconstrained GM fiat. If you're not interested in a somewhat critical look at how that might engage with your own cycles of play, what's the point of eating up pages of forums space with back and forth?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do you think that?



Okay... so what is it leaving out?



I have as much respect for traditional play as I do any mode of play. I



I think the important bit is that the fiction in no way impacts play. You can't leverage Colonel Mustard's military resources or Mr. Green's wealth or whatever. The game plays the same way it does without any regard to the fiction.

True, but that's not what @pemerton claimed.