I wouldn't say 'prompt' here as it sounds like a computer program or pavlovian response to me. And to be clear, I am not saying this is how the process unfolds each time (there is going to be variability)
But that's what's happening. Why not call it what it is? Why this fear of using certain words?
The players ask about the cameras, which the GM hadn't previously detailed or prepared. This prompts him to come up with something.
The whole game is a series of prompts. It's a conversation, with the GM prompting the players ("What do you do?") and then the players declaring actions that prompt a response.
Well we are talking about a broad range of styles and games so there isn't one response. And like I said, this is a gray area. But a GM could be more or less objective about it. So it isn't like this gray area diminishes something like 'honoring prep' if you don't want it to.
I think most GMs try to figure out how probably it was the camera was there, and what it likely would have revealed if it were based on what he knows about the background of the scenario (and the is why when running mysteries, I think you start to learn to be more detailed because inevitably players start asking these kinds of questions).
So the GM decides:
- If there is a camera
- If it captured anything
- How useful that information may be
And what guides him is:
- what has been prepared
One GM might say there was no camera. Another might say the killer is revealed. Other GMs may offer anything in between those two extremes.
Yes, that is the nature of a ruling.
This is going to vary by game, group and type of campaign. There are going to be different principles for different approaches. If you want the players to be really solving the mystery, then you want more objective principals, but it may be a space in the game where people want to open up some drama potential. It is really going to vary
This part of the conversation came about when
@Maxperson described the players as having the ability to add new clues in play. I asked how, and he came up with the example of the cameras.
My point is that the players don't have the ability to add a new clue. They can ask about something (i.e. the cameras) and that will then prompt the GM to consider this possibility. But as you say, the GM can decide there was no camera, or that nothing was caught on it, or any other outcome that doesn't result in a clue.
My point being... everything is up to the GM.
Part of the problem is we are talking about objective mystery scenarios while also talking about other things. So if I am trying to run this as a mystery scenario the players can solve, personally I won't worry too too much about these gray areas, because there is still plenty of solid background information that they handle more objectively. But I would tent to lean on what feels probable and using rolls because it is an unknown. I may even ask my players what they think is a fair percentage based on what is the most likely thing
Sure, that's an idea, and may be perfectly fine! I think the idea of involving players is likely a good one. Give them some amount of input.
In the example of the cameras, a principle that was something like "Reward good ideas" would probably help... it would guide the GM not to shut down the camera idea.
I am not sure breaking the process down is very helpful. You need to understand what a ruling is, and that the GM describes things and the players say what they want to do. But I would hesitate to get too prescriptive
I think it is very helpful.
As I've said a couple of times now, and connecting this in a way back to the original point in the OP... there is so much GM authorship going on in this scenario that it can be easy to overlook it. This is why I think
@Maxperson made the mistake of saying that the players can add new clues to the scenario. He's forgetting that the GM can simply deny that if it seems to make sense to do so.
Breaking it down and looking at the parts makes it easy to see how much the GM is deciding about what is happening in play, and that can be easy to miss when looking at the entirety of play.
