GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

It can, but once written down and set in stone, it become an objective part of the mystery prior to any investigation. In the moment, it's a creation and wasn't set in stone prior, so has no objectivity.

If the GM decides something, and then "locks it in" in their imagination, why is that not an "objective" part of the mystery.

Eg in the example I've referred to multiple times, the player tells me that his PC's master is missing, which is why he - the PC - is in London. This establishes the mystery - what has happened to the Earl?

I then make an initial decision - the Earl's disappearance is connected to lycanthropy. That is now something that I stick to, build further fiction around, etc.

Why is this stuff that is imagined and immutable - the disappearance of the Earl, the relevance of lycanthropy - not "objective" just because it is decided now rather than then?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now, if in fact you are saying that a GM can GM a mystery in an "objective" fashion although the answer is unknown to the GM, because it is hidden inside a sealed envelope, then I have misunderstood your claim, apologise for that, and am interested to learn how you envisage this taking place.

Yes, that is precisely how I am envisioning it--and, indeed, I intend to apply the method at some future point, if "solve a murder mystery" were to be something reasonable to occur in the world, as a result of the things the PCs are doing, interested in, or drawn by/toward. As noted previously, there is a reasonable thing that might link to this, if the party ever pays a visit to the City of Brass (which is just located in Jinnistan/genie country in this setting), as one of the prominent noble efreet there, Baron Afzal, has seen the party's investigative abilities first-hand--and past fiction has established that a "mere" Baron of that city is still important because it, more than any other Jinnistani city, is deeply fractious, so a murder or theft of diplomatic import is a reasonable thing that a couple of different established Fronts could do to advance their political power.

It's still a "oh, I could try to apply the Clue thing to my game" idea at present. But, very loosely, I can already see one potential issue: by the "the correct evidence is sealed in an envelope" method, the only possible clues are negative clues, meaning, proving that X was not involved in the mystery (e.g. the Candlestick was not used, Prof. Plum was not the murderer, the murder did not occur in the Conservatory, etc.), which is a bit of an unfortunate element--I would like to be able to include both positive clues and negative clues. I am not yet sure how to handle this, so it's a good thing it's unlikely the PCs will run into such a mystery any time soon.

One option could be having several envelopes with evidence, some negative and some positive, that way it's still possible to get positive clues along the way, even though most evidence will be negative (as is the case for most real-world mystery-solving--most suspects get eliminated, only a small number of items could be the actual murder weapon, etc.) An alternative could be designating one card per suspect as a positive clue, one as a negative clue, and one as ambiguous or an effort on that suspect's part to divert suspicion whether or not they're guilty. Naturally, for either of these approaches, I wouldn't open the suspect envelopes until the players interact with the associated suspect/source, thus I'd be "playing to find out what happens" as much as the PCs are.

Should you have any suggestions on how to adapt this "secret clues" method for proper TTRPG use, I would of course be all ears. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I have a great deal of respect for your input on pretty much any topic. (And if I have failed to express this in the past, I sincerely apologize.)

 

[pemerton]

Yes, that is precisely how I am envisioning it--and, indeed, I intend to apply the method at some future point, if "solve a murder mystery" were to be something reasonable to occur in the world, as a result of the things the PCs are doing, interested in, or drawn by/toward. As noted previously, there is a reasonable thing that might link to this, if the party ever pays a visit to the City of Brass (which is just located in Jinnistan/genie country in this setting), as one of the prominent noble efreet there, Baron Afzal, has seen the party's investigative abilities first-hand--and past fiction has established that a "mere" Baron of that city is still important because it, more than any other Jinnistani city, is deeply fractious, so a murder or theft of diplomatic import is a reasonable thing that a couple of different established Fronts could do to advance their political power.

It's still a "oh, I could try to apply the Clue thing to my game" idea at present. But, very loosely, I can already see one potential issue: by the "the correct evidence is sealed in an envelope" method, the only possible clues are negative clues, meaning, proving that X was not involved in the mystery (e.g. the Candlestick was not used, Prof. Plum was not the murderer, the murder did not occur in the Conservatory, etc.), which is a bit of an unfortunate element--I would like to be able to include both positive clues and negative clues. I am not yet sure how to handle this, so it's a good thing it's unlikely the PCs will run into such a mystery any time soon.

<snip>

Should you have any suggestions on how to adapt this "secret clues" method for proper TTRPG use, I would of course be all ears.

Clue(do) depends upon the solution being open, but distributed - so the actual game play is the process of collecting those bits of the open information that one is not privy to given the initial distribution.

How do you propose the GM having access to negative clues, without also having all the information that would yield the solution? I'm missing completely how this is going to work in a RPG with a traditional allocation of authority, where the GM is responsible for framing scenes that the players then engage via their PCs.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In this thread, @Crimson Longinus, @Bedrockgames , and @EzekielRaiden (and perhaps also @Maxperson and @FrogReaver?) have all asserted that the play I've just described does not involve a "real" or "objective" mystery, because it was not pre-written by the GM

To be clear I'm not that interested in this part of the discussion. I find your play and how the mystery evolved far more fascinating and worthier of the discussion.
I agree with @Sepulchrave II that this is long tangent in this thread is very much nitpicking, however since I've been included this is my take on it and I only felt sure of my position after a comment @Maxperson posted upthread:
He mentioned that once the mystery is written it becomes "objective" and this got me thinking.

Your mystery or adventure is revealed in play which is fine - it is still a mystery and I agree with your assessment on this issue that one solves it, that is under the umbrella it falls (for me).
However, there is nothing one can point to prior play regarding the mystery/adventure, but a published Adventure Path or Module is an adventure prior play. Why is that?
I'm thinking because the adventure has been written. So, the adventure objectively exists. And a GM can change the course of the adventure during play (as he can with a mystery which is one of your arguments) but it doesn't negate the fact that the adventure objectively exists.

Please see this as not an attack on any style of play this is just my understanding of including the word objectively in this debate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Clue(do) depends upon the solution being open, but distributed - so the actual game play is the process of collecting those bits of the open information that one is not privy to given the initial distribution.

How do you propose the GM having access to negative clues, without also having all the information that would yield the solution? I'm missing completely how this is going to work in a RPG with a traditional allocation of authority, where the GM is responsible for framing scenes that the players then engage via their PCs.

The idea was that I wouldn't have access to that information until it is revealed as part of play. E.g., shuffle all the "cards" (more likely, cut up pieces of paper) into different envelopes, where I don't know the contents of any of those envelopes. Establish, in advance, at least a few suspects or witnesses (noting, not necessarily eye witnesses) that could be met. Perhaps wait until after the party has gone through a few locations in the City of Brass, and use those as locations that can turn up evidence, that way the locations aren't just pulled out of a hat, but drawn from established fiction. Any given source (e.g. location or witness/suspect) has a little information hidden in their envelope. I open the envelopes as the players investigate, so there's I guess technically a few seconds lead-time, but if we're doubting "the GM being honest about reporting what the envelope contains" we're already well past anything that procedures could address.

I might look online and see if I can find some kind of virtual deck-of-cards type deal I could use. Could also double-blind things: write the actual evidence on the strip of paper, then put that inside a small numbered envelope (shuffled so I don't know what number corresponds to what thing), then put that into the evidence-source envelopes.

Since I use Discord for the game, I could potentially have an accomplice even take pictures of the evidence (without showing it to me), so I can then pass that information on to the players without actually knowing it myself!

All of this will probably be at least a little hard to do, but I think it'll be worth it. Of course, it would be a lot easier if I had an in-person game so I could have the players draw the stuff themselves and the like. But I'm pretty sure I can figure something out to make it work.

 

[FrogReaver]

The inductive reasoning that my post examplified is this: if a car is to be an instance of a realistic vehicle, than its means of propulsion is probably either an internal combustion engine or an electric motor.

What do you mean by "inductive reasoning"? When that term has been used in this thread - by you, by @EzekielRaiden and maybe by others - I have taken it to have its standard meaning of reasoning by generalisation from known and/or instanced cases.

I'm going to focus on the example below because it gets much more to the heart of my point.

It normally contrasts with deductive reasoning (ie logical or mathematical reasoning). @EzekielRaiden has also, in this thread, referred to abductive reasoning, which is also know as "argument to best explanation". Some theorists think that this is really just a form of inductive reasoning, but that's contentious.

So, to give an example:

1 hour into the session, the GM establishes imaginary fact F1.​

​

Then an hour later, 2 hours into the session, the GM establishes imaginary fact F2.​

​

In the fiction, F1 and F2 are related in some fashion - eg F1 is an effect of F2 as its cause.​

In the second hour, the GM can bring their full body of knowledge and reasoning to bear on deciding to introduce F2 - including inductive reasoning about the relationship between putative F2 and already-established F1.

The only difference I can see from pre-authorship is that the GM can't now revise their ideas about F1 to accommodate some candidate F2, because the moment for editing has passed. What am I missing?

Going with your example (I think it's really good). What I'm saying is that at the 1 hour 30 minute mark the GM couldn't use inductive or deductive reasoning about anything related to F2, including about the relationship between F2 and F1, because F2 doesn't exist yet. In a game where F1 and F2 are preestablished then he can because both exist at the 1 hour and 30 minute mark.

Typically, there will be many more than F1 and F2, most likely F10+, meaning there's many existing facts in the pre-authored game that the GM apply deductive and inductive reasoning to and between.

Now if we look at some point in time after all the facts have been established (in your example any moment after the 2 hour mark would qualify), then I agree that anything after that time allows the GM to use inductive/deductive reasoning in the same way from that point forward.

*Note I'm assuming your timeframes are realworld times and not in-fiction timeframes.
**Also, I think you example would be even more clear with at least 3 facts. It's like the difference in having x and y and knowing x. And having x,y,z and only knowing x.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the GM decides something, and then "locks it in" in their imagination, why is that not an "objective" part of the mystery.

Eg in the example I've referred to multiple times, the player tells me that his PC's master is missing, which is why he - the PC - is in London. This establishes the mystery - what has happened to the Earl?

I then make an initial decision - the Earl's disappearance is connected to lycanthropy. That is now something that I stick to, build further fiction around, etc.

Why is this stuff that is imagined and immutable - the disappearance of the Earl, the relevance of lycanthropy - not "objective" just because it is decided now rather than then?

This isn't to me, but my answer is that it becomes objective only after it's locked in. So yes, after he locks it in then it's objective from that point forward, but it wasn't till then.

 

[pemerton]

To be clear I'm not that interested in this part of the discussion. I find your play and how it evolved far more fascinating.

That's a generous thing to say!

Your mystery or adventure is revealed in play which is fine - it is still a mystery and I agree with your assessment on this issue that one solves it, that is under the umbrella it falls (for me).
However, there is nothing one can point to prior play regarding the mystery/adventure, but a published Adventure Path or Module is an adventure prior play. Why is that?
I'm thinking because the adventure has been written. So, the adventure objectively exists. And a GM can change the course of the adventure during play (as he can with a mystery which is one of your arguments) but it doesn't negate the fact that the adventure objectively exists.

If there is something prepared - GM's notes, a module, etc - then there is an artefact (a document or collection of documents/papers) that exists.

There is also, perhaps, a plan that exists (as an abstract object). That might depend on the nature of the prep.

But there is no shared fiction until play actually takes place. And I don't think a bit of shared fiction is less "objective" because it is settled on now rather than is the result of a plan that was made then.

To me, the relevance of prep is really about why, and what for? Apocalypse World is very clear about this: prep is done between sessions, so that there is time to think it through and write it up; and the purpose of prep is to give the GM interesting things to say (soft moves and hard moves) - I had a back-and-forth upthread about this with @EzekielRaiden. (See post 1740, and the posts that precede that via quoting.)

In Prince Valiant - the system in which I ran "The Blue Cloak", a fairly simple mystery that I posted about upthread - preparation is generally about coming up with a scene or situation. Because the default PC in Prince Valiant is a knight errant, all a situation needs is a hook for that errantry: and that's what a good Prince Valiant episode provides.

In the case of the Cthulhu Dark session that I've spoken about in this thread, there wasn't any prep: the players established their PCs' raisons d'etre, and I used those as a starting point to then frame scenes/situations. And for making moves, I didn't need any prep because I drew on the elements that were in the scenes and situations plus tropes and genre (eg the lycanthrope stuff). In this respect, I think a one-shot is different from a game like AW that is meant to be played, and to unfold, over multiple sessions.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that all sounds ridiculous to me. Expecting to understand the processes of play and what the GM is doing and what rules or principles are guiding him… that doesn’t sound like a big ask for a game.

Nah. What's ridiculous is demanding to know why the DM decides everything down to each and every step. If you don't like games where that happens, don't play them.

That doesn’t mean the GM needs to explain very single thing… but clearly this stuff matters.

That is what you are asking when you demand the process by which the DM thinks about things and comes to decisions.

If you found yourself in my game or vice versa, we’d clearly have different expectations unless we discuss beforehand.

If I found myself in your game, we'd absolutely have a discussion before hand. We run things very differently and I wouldn't want to cause a disruption because I didn't understand something important about narrative play. And no, I don't mean I need to know the processes. I'm talking about the differences between my style of play and your style of play.

 

[Maxperson]

If the GM decides something, and then "locks it in" in their imagination, why is that not an "objective" part of the mystery.

Eg in the example I've referred to multiple times, the player tells me that his PC's master is missing, which is why he - the PC - is in London. This establishes the mystery - what has happened to the Earl?

I then make an initial decision - the Earl's disappearance is connected to lycanthropy. That is now something that I stick to, build further fiction around, etc.

Why is this stuff that is imagined and immutable - the disappearance of the Earl, the relevance of lycanthropy - not "objective" just because it is decided now rather than then?

It's only in your head. That's why. If someone mentions something more interesting, say dopplegangers, you could change from lycanthropy to dopplegangers and no one would know. You could even have the PCs find multiple clues and if they don't solidly state that lycanthropy is the reason, the reason could change to something else that fits those clues.

When it's written in advance, it's set in stone.