GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

I think it would need to be done at the start of the scenario.

<snip>

Also I am open to other approaches also functioning in this way. I just haven't seen one presented that isn't a pre-established factual foundation for a mystery that seems like it achieves that (not saying it is impossible, I just haven't seen anyone offer up an example, at least one I noticed-----so one in a response to one of my posts)

So you are not saying that it is impossible, just that you think it can't be done? (I don't see any other way to make sense of the the first and final sentences.)

 

[FrogReaver]

To put it another way, I take the point to be that the existence of a pre-established correctness condition doesn't change the actual process of game play, the way that the players engage with and think about the fiction, etc.

Of course it does!

 

[pemerton]

Of course it does!

How?

 

[FrogReaver]

How?

Step 1 Set up a pre-established correctness condition vs Step 1 don't setup a preestablished correctness condition. That's already a different gameplay process right out the gate.

Assuming the players agreed to play a game with a pre-established correctness condition and the GM obliges in good faith, then the players can factor the knowledge that there exists a pre-established correctness condition into any decisions they make. Decisions = engaging with the ficiton (just in case the obvious needs stated). In any game where this isn't so, they cannot do that.

Then going a bit more granular. In a game where there is not a preestablished correctness condition, there must be a way of generating a non-preestablish correctness condition. This isn't part of the process for the game with the pre-established correctness condition.

The pre-established correctness condition (and surrounding pre-established details) will also impact how the GM plays the NPC's -> which impacts the players decisions -> all of which changes the fiction -> which ultimately has changed the players interact with and think about the fiction (because it's now a different fiction).

Etc. (I could probably add details about the differences all day).

 

[Campbell]

I think something like Blorb Principles does a much better job at getting to the gameplay concerns of mystery scenario in large part because it's emphatically about fairness and the integrity of the challenge rather than getting into that space of this or that is more real.

Blorb Principles 3 Tiers of Truth are not built on this is "more like real life", but instead about removing as much bias as possible during the act of running the game.

Three Tiers of Truth​

The DM is asked a question like, for example: what’s in the office?

1. Look in the prep. Maybe this room is in there and the text says what is canonically in there, and you’re all set.
2. Otherwise, maybe you have a rule (“default offices have a stapler, a typewriter, a visitor’s chair” etc) or mechanic (such as a random room content table). Use that.
3. If you don’t have that either, make something up. Try to make it something that won’t help or harm the player characters too much. It can be evocative and build mood, but shouldn’t be 20 angry beholders (or 20 free healing potions). Don’t feel bad: allowing DMs to start small is how we get new DMs. But, patch the hole, or this category of holes, for future sessions. Then over time your DMing will get more and more solid♥︎.

Always work in that order, top to bottom, only falling to a lower tier of truth when you have to.

A campaign that’s built on all T2 and T3 truths isn’t as engaging as one that has some solid T1 framework in there (in a cloud, bones of steel), but as you patch holes (as T3 instructs you to) feel free to patch them with mechanics and general solutions (i.e. T2 truths). That’s you building a DM’s toolbox.

 

[Umbran]

Then again, the fiction is a big part of appeal of the game. That it evokes the imagery of a classic murder mystery is not trivial to the actual play experience, and if that was absent none of us would be discussing this game as it would have not survived past its first print run if it even made that far.

That does not change the fact that the fiction has no impact or input on the gameplay.

Do not confuse the actual play experience with the game - the overall play experience is larger, and can contain many elements not part of the game proper.

 

[FrogReaver]

That does not change the fact that the fiction has no impact or input on the gameplay.

Do not confuse the actual play experience with the game - the overall play experience is larger, and can contain many elements not part of the game proper.

There’s another term we can argue about for 100 pages. Does game denote overall play experience or does it just mean the rules and processes of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to stave off the argument - pemerton asserted that "Clue(do) has no fiction, no player characters, and hence no stance."

I personally think that is accurate. Since you could replace every named person, place, and thing in the game with things like "Weapon 1" "Room 3" and "Suspect 4" without altering gameplay in the slightest, that means that there is no fiction IN the game. The fiction is not a part of the gameplay - it is merely marketing, and mnemonics for the players.

If you are playing chess, and call the king and queen, "Ralph" and "Alice" doesn't mean that chess has fiction.

I can do that with D&D, too. I can remove my character's name and put down Character #1, Race #2, level 3, using Weapon #4 that does 1d8 damage, and spell #32 that doesn't miss and does 1d4+1 three times and can be different targets.

My feeling is that if you have to remove the fiction and replace it with Weapon 1, Room 3 and Suspect 4, then the game had fiction to begin with or there would have been nothing to remove.

 

[Umbran]

There’s another term we can argue about for 100 pages. Does game denote overall play experience or does it just mean the rules and processes of the game.

I'm happy with having the game be the rules and processes of the game, and the play experience including the other elements. It seems a pretty natural take on it, to me.

 

[zakael19]

I think something like Blorb Principles does a much better job at getting to the gameplay concerns of mystery scenario in large part because it's emphatically about fairness and the integrity of the challenge rather than getting into that space of this or that is more real.

Blorb Principles 3 Tiers of Truth are not built on this is "more like real life", but instead about removing as much bias as possible during the act of running the game.

This is exactly what I think about in terms of conventional mystery games, eg: CoC/Delta Green/D&D. Thinking about it is also why I mentioned that to me mystery prep and OSR-style dungeon prep seems very in-kind. Both establish truths about the situation, and concrete discoverables that the players can find out via question and answer. Both should have a high degree of trust that "if we reach out and touch the world, stuff isn't being decided on the fly by GM fiat." Blorb play relies on concrete prep, and pre-determined tables to achieve that (with the admonition that if you need to make a ruling about something you didn't anticipate that's about the truth of the scenario vs a creative problem solving action of the players, fix that for the future). Looking at stuff like well regarded Delta Green scenarios, it relies on a wide application of potential avenues with clearly stated "if the players do X, they will find out Y" so that they can have faith in applying the skills and know that following their character's strengths will lead them onward (or at least have a good chance to).

This is why I'm baffled by the combined contention of some here that seems to take that sort of principled start, and then leave it open to running GM fiat based on what the players do. Maybe outcomes from specific actions, sure; but in this style of play shouldn't the clues and world be predictable, in that they follow-forth from the sort of problem solving culture the game expects? If you're just fiating clues and "solutions" then aren't you really just running a version more akin to a narrative play style, but without the concrete player-facing rules that create their own set of controlled outcomes? Isn't it genuinely just all fiat at that point?