GM fiat - an illustration

[Crimson Longinus]

In the case of BW, the principles are fairly straightforward: the characters establish priorities for their PCs; the GM frames scenes that put pressure on those priorities; when the players declare actions, they declare intent as well as task; if an action fails, the GM narrates consequences that negate the intent, and that reframe in accordance with the framing principle I've already stated.

"I search the parlour for footprints and other clues. My intent is to find proof that Lord Calverton was here at the night of the murder."

"I carefully examine the document that proved that Miss Weller was guilty. My intent is to find it to be a forgery."

Etc. Valid?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Originally, I was going to quote a couple different posts--but that seems to me inappropriate, as there's an argument that two posts 50 pages apart might not be referring to the same thing even if they seem to.

But here--coupled with your repeated reference to "reasoning from tropes" etc.--exactly what I'm speaking of.

This seems to be like asking, how can there be foreshadowing without pre-authorship? In RPGing, John Harper explains how that can be the case here: The Mighty Atom

(Which I've already referred to upthread.)

Of course, when actual police solve actual mysteries, the clues are generally causally downstream consequences of the actions taken by the criminal (whether those actions are taken before, during, or after the commission of the crime).

But when we are talking about inference from statement to statement, as a component of a fiction, causation can be a component of the fiction without operating the same way in the creation of the statements.

In just this way, the fiction associated with a soft move can, in the fiction, be causally downstream of the fiction associated with a hard move, even though - in the actual process of play - the making of the hard move is causally downstream of the making of the soft move (eg soft move: "You see smoke over the horizon"; hard move "Its coming from your house, which is on fire").

In the fiction, the soft move is causally downstream of the hard move. In our actual actions, the soft move is causally upstream of the hard move. A horrible reveal which only occurs after it would be dramatic to reveal it so. The bad situation is subsequent to the initial information, not prior.

E.g., "reveal an unwelcome truth": The unwelcome truth is that the key clue you've been relying on thus far was false all along. How is that forbidden by either the procedures of PbtA or the genre-conventions of "whodunnit" literature?

Such a thing could quite easily be done in response to a failed Discern Realities or Spout Lore roll. I believe AW has the same moves by other names.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I posted the example, upthread, of looking for the charging cord on my desk. Which is about as simple as an investigative task gets.

I missed that!

An actual investigation involves manipulating things, poking at them, examining them from multiple angles, corroborating them by reference to at least somewhat independent alternative sources of information, etc. If you think something looked like XYZ, I can double-check your observation, your work, your experiment, etc.

Collecting statements from a single source (the GM) and comparing them, corroborating them, etc isn't much like this, in my view.

I see what you're saying, the investigation is rather flat given the medium which exists, particularly when you have in the main an arbiter of truth (the GM) feeding you the information.

You get more bang for your buck in mysteries where there are plentiful NPCs and the DM can put on many hats to provide a little of that sense of unease and insecurity in the players' educated guesses.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One final addendum.

I've not brought it up. You're the only poster whose done so, by my reckoning.

I am definitely not so. I began speaking of it specifically because someone else had:

Coming off watching a bunch of Poriot recently, in a Christie style mystery there often isn't a clear deductive through line to a single culprit, at least until the very end. There's often a lot of inference and circumstantial evidence that points towards multiple possible suspects and we often rely on the tropes of introduction to the cast to narrow things down - in at least some cases it'd be entirely possible for an outside party to have done the deed.

Clues can the point at a class of suspect, but not anyone in particular

Edit: Here's another example from a different poster. So it wasn't just once--nor was it something I saw anyone else meaningfully complain about, whereas (as you have noted) it pretty clearly bothered me a LOT.

If the players don't know what I, the GM, have chosen as the conclusion, it doesn't matter what the conclusion is until it's revealed in play.

Given the evidence board shown, which of the 3 conclusions are possible for the GM to author?

The answer is all three. Sure, Solution Y is the most probable and has the largest preponderance of evidence, but will the players be shocked beyond belief if Solution Z is chosen instead? Or Solution X?

If this is my prep, then my prep demands that I set up the basic "game board" in the fiction to follow. I can even say, "I suspect, in the end, it will be Solution Y, but I'm leaving things open."

I get your argument --- solutions can only be derived from things we know to be absolute fact.

But "the facts" in the shared imaginary space are whatever the GM, the system, the principles of play, and the group ultimately agree upon. If I, as GM, move one of the arrows on Evidence D from Solution Y to Solution Z, before the players have encountered Evidence D, what difference does it make to the players?

Of course, you might ask, "Why as a GM would you even do that?" And the answer is that you'd do it in service of some other play agenda other than "I want the players to solve the mystery."

If the goal is to build tension, drive home character stakes/intent, foreshadow future events, or make salient a relevant concern of one or more PCs, why wouldn't I as GM make that choice rather than NOT make that choice?

And OF COURSE you're never going to choose a solution not based on the evidence. I'm going to follow and respect previously established facts, fictional positioning, and known "truths." But the unknown can stay unknown until encountered.

The question, too, can be raised, "Is this more enjoyable for the players? Wouldn't they rather know that they cleverly solved the GM's firmly established 'mystery' that was set in stone via prep 6 months ago?"

For some groups, maybe. In my experience the players are more than satisfied with discovering whichever conclusion is made in the end, AND they get the added benefit of greater investment and player stakes.

If that's not the same thing as "solving the mystery," well, okay then. I'll go for the better at-the-table experience every time. I don't care if it meets the definition. If you want me to concede the point, "You're not actually running a 'mystery' scenario," then sure, fine. When I'm playing or running Ironsworn, I'm not running a 'mystery' and I couldn't care less.



View attachment 401201

 

[Maxperson]

So it’s all up to the DM? What might be, based on what we already know, using any mechanics he may feel like to determine whatever he wants.

If yes is what you get from no, then I guess so?

Well for folks who are so adamant that the answers be predetermined, you seem to care an awful lot less about how pretty much everything else in play works!

I don't predetermine a lot of my answers. Quite often I just set up an obstacle with no thought to a solution and just let them come up with something when they get there.

I'm talking about a mystery, not "the answers."

I mean and then what as in the next step. You’re saying the players can add things to play. Okay… they ask about the cameras, so now that’s an element of play.

Then what happens in play? Specifically what does adding the cameras do? Can you describe it in terms of game process?

Not really. Play would proceed organically from that point. So they discover that there are cameras. They may not go any further at that point, planning on checking them further and forgetting about them. Or maybe proceed immediately. Or.....or.....or....or....

I have no idea what happens after they discover the cameras. That's not up to me.

View attachment 401779

Very good! :::golf clap:::

All of that just to get back to what I said many pages ago. The way you do mysteries and the way I do mysteries are.......................different! Not better. Not worse. Just different.

 

[Maxperson]

But it's not remotely true that someone could do this, and play a game that remotely resembles any RPG I've ever played.

The fiction in a RPG is not always mere colour. Sometimes, even often, it matters to resolution.

Show me where I said RPG here.

"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."

You can absolutely do it with D&D. I personally would never want to do it, but it can be done. Whether you could do with with Blades in the Dark, Fins of a Shark, or RPG XYZ, I have no idea.

 

[pemerton]

In the fiction, the soft move is causally downstream of the hard move.

That depends on what the moves are.

Smoke over the horizon (soft move) revealing that your family home has been destroyed and your family massacred (hard move) has the structure you describe.

Your associate telling you you better be careful about what you say (soft move) and then shutting the door in your face (hard move) doesn't.

In our actual actions, the soft move is causally upstream of the hard move. A horrible reveal which only occurs after it would be dramatic to reveal it so. The bad situation is subsequent to the initial information, not prior.

E.g., "reveal an unwelcome truth": The unwelcome truth is that the key clue you've been relying on thus far was false all along. How is that forbidden by either the procedures of PbtA or the genre-conventions of "whodunnit" literature?

Such a thing could quite easily be done in response to a failed Discern Realities or Spout Lore roll. I believe AW has the same moves by other names.

A core principle is make a move that follows. How does what you're describing follow?

Here is the way DW describes the principle (from Gamemastering – Dungeon World SRD):

When you make a move what you’re actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it. What’s going on? What move makes sense here?​

And of course this intersects with the principle we discussed upthread, about the GM drawing on their prep.

To me, it seems that you are not taking seriously the constraints that operate in these RPGs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That depends on what the moves are.

Smoke over the horizon (soft move) revealing that your family home has been destroyed and your family massacred (hard move) has the structure you describe.

Your associate telling you you better be careful about what you say (soft move) and then shutting the door in your face (hard move) doesn't.

A core principle is make a move that follows. How does what you're describing follow?

Here is the way DW describes the principle (from Gamemastering – Dungeon World SRD):

When you make a move what you’re actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it. What’s going on? What move makes sense here?​

And of course this intersects with the principle we discussed upthread, about the GM drawing on their prep.

To me, it seems that you are not taking seriously the constraints that operate in these RPGs.

Are genre conventions part of the fiction?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If yes is what you get from no, then I guess so?

I don't predetermine a lot of my answers. Quite often I just set up an obstacle with no thought to a solution and just let them come up with something when they get there.

I'm talking about a mystery, not "the answers."

Not really. Play would proceed organically from that point. So they discover that there are cameras. They may not go any further at that point, planning on checking them further and forgetting about them. Or maybe proceed immediately. Or.....or.....or....or....

I have no idea what happens after they discover the cameras. That's not up to me.

Very good! :::golf clap:::

All of that just to get back to what I said many pages ago. The way you do mysteries and the way I do mysteries are.......................different! Not better. Not worse. Just different.

I would say the major difference seems to be that I can describe what I do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I posted the example, upthread, of looking for the charging cord on my desk. Which is about as simple as an investigative task gets.

An actual investigation involves manipulating things, poking at them, examining them from multiple angles, corroborating them by reference to at least somewhat independent alternative sources of information, etc. If you think something looked like XYZ, I can double-check your observation, your work, your experiment, etc.

Collecting statements from a single source (the GM) and comparing them, corroborating them, etc isn't much like this, in my view.

But this isn’t something anyone denies (that these are not identical to actual investigations). But just because one thing is more challenging to emulate (sifting through a desk where the players actual sifting skill is being engaged), doesn’t mean other aspects aren’t more easy to emulate. And the emulation doesn’t have to be 1:1, it can be approximate enough for a game. For example I agree short of creating a player handout involving an actual desk drawer, searching in the drawer to find the charge cord amid a bunch of stuff is a challenge. But you can easily simplify this to having a map of the room with the desk and a note that the charge cord is in the top desk drawer and the player can engage with the scenery to look for it. I’ve done plenty of maps where I broke down all the items in desk drawers and cupboards for example. Not every mystery needs to be this granular (for some simply having a clue present in the room is enough). But you can get granular. There are just always going to be some situations that are harder to model than others