GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

Prompts are much more direct and stronger than cues IMO. They also suggest it runs like a computer program. I strongly dislike the programming language.

The computer thing is you - it has never even occurred to me until reading this post of yours.

In the context of theatre, I believe that "cue" and "prompt" are synonyms - or close enough to being so.

Likewise in ordinary language, which is what I have been using.

 

[FrogReaver]

The computer thing is you - it has never even occurred to me until reading this post of yours.

In the context of theatre, I believe that "cue" and "prompt" are synonyms - or close enough to being so.

Likewise in ordinary language, which is what I have been using.

Maybe it's more tech background vs theatre background, but i've viewed prompt as a computer waiting for user input as well. It does make it read very mechanized when read that way. Though the description of prompt even when taken this way is pretty tame all else considered IMO.

 

[pemerton]

One way in which it is more 'true' to have a set of details made up beforehand (while unrevealed) than it is to have those same details made up 1 at a time one after another during play is that the DM can apply inductive/deductive reasoning to them in ways you cannot when they are made up one at a time (one cannot reason from things that don't yet exist). I would call that a variety of more 'true'.

I don't understand.

You ask me to think of a vehicle - a realistic one. So I think of a car. Then you ask me to think of its propulsion method. At this point I might think of an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor, but I'm not going to think of (say) a nuclear reactor or (probably) even a jet.

So I don't understand your cannot.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah no one is saying the GM is not making up the prep. But the issue is if you want to actually be solving a mystery there needs to be some basic factual truths established before hand so that you can be intelligently figuring it out the whole time (so the clues mean something concrete and refer to objective facts within the setting).

Why can't this be done during play?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't understand.

You ask me to think of a vehicle - a realistic one. So I think of a car. Then you ask me to think of its propulsion method. At this point I might think of an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor, but I'm not going to think of (say) a nuclear reactor or (probably) even a jet.

So I don't understand your cannot.

He means it has been true the whole time.....

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why can't this be done during play?

It can be done during play but that weakens the players ability to have been and to be solving the mystery. And there are even ways to to it more or less objectively (you can pin things down, you can make sure they always relate back to the objective facts established at the core of the mystery). But clearly these are not the same thing. In one the players are actually solving. In the other, something else seems to be taking place

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand.

You ask me to think of a vehicle - a realistic one. So I think of a car. Then you ask me to think of its propulsion method. At this point I might think of an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor, but I'm not going to think of (say) a nuclear reactor or (probably) even a jet.

So I don't understand your cannot.

And I have no idea how your example there has anything to do with what I said. So I cannot help you because I don't understand your objection.

 

[FrogReaver]

He means it has been true the whole time.....

Right, what I said shouldn't be controversial.

 

[pemerton]

He means it has been true the whole time.....

@FrogReaver said that, if things are made up in advance, then "the DM can apply inductive/deductive reasoning to them in ways you cannot when they are made up one at a time". Why? What is the evidence for this claim? What is an example of reasoning that can be applied if they are all thought up together, that cannot be applied if they are made up one at a time?

And I have no idea how your example there has anything to do with what I said. So I cannot help you because I don't understand your objection.

My example shows the application of (simple) inductive reasoning bit by bit over time. Which is what you appeared to be saying can't be done.

EDIT: And @Bedrockgames, and @FrogReaver, I tagged you both in a post just upthread which actually illustrated, by reference to an actual play example, the solving of a "real" mystery where the mystery parameters were not all prepared by the GM in advance. What is not "objective" about it? How is it less "true" than a prep-based approach?

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, I think in a mystery, that 90 percent of the time, the GM will have the clues prepared (because the GM is very focused on one aspect of play: the mystery scenario). I don't think it is 90 percent in all adventure structures

That’s the context in which I meant it… the mystery scenario.

But you are distorting what I am saying by referring it back constantly to "GM decides" (and your bullet points beneath are not accurately reflecting what I am saying). Again, if all this is is you want to insist it is a process where the GM is prompted to author things, we aren't going to get anywhere. We just do not see this process in the same light (and I think the description you are taking to it, is a recipe for creating bad GMs)

I’m not twisting anything. I added what you said… about possibly using some method to help decide.

If you think there’s more to it, then say so.

I don’t think analysis is going to create bad GMs. I know my gaming has improved the more I’ve been able to look at play that way. I’ve played with other folks who look at games similarly and find their games very satisfying. So your concern, if that’s what it is, seems unfounded to me.

I strongly dislike the programming language.

As someone who knows nothing about programming, I can assure you, that’s not the reason for my use. My reason is simply the actual definition of the word.

And I do think it is reductive. I think trying to map out conversations in this way, rather than encouraging people to go by the flow and feel (with some general ideas of what might arise), isn’t going to help most people run a game in this way.

No one said you can’t encourage people to go by flow and feel. We’re talking about a basic process… a summary of what is typically happening at the table.

It’s not an either/or situation. It’s useful to break things down to what is happening at the table, just as it is useful when playing to be able to go with the flow.