GM fiat - an illustration

[AnotherGuy]

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.

These are great focused uses of prep for games with specific styles of play. I definitely appreciate these unique approaches.

Many posters in this thread may use prep to actually flesh out the mystery before play begins which is similar to picking up an AP/module. The adventure/mystery exists whether we've run it or not.

Now one of the definitions of the word objective which I found is
(a) in a way that is based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
I'm personally NOT using it this way.

Another is
(b) in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually
This is the way I'm applying it.

So going back to the top part of your post!

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.

The mystery of the missing Earl is indeed a mystery but the facts of why he is missing have not yet been formulated until such time that they do. So almost anything goes as to the reason until it becomes established, then I'd say it is objective.
Whereas say a GM who has prepped that same adventure and has a definitive reason of why that Earl is missing, the mystery is not dependent on the mind (per the definition I'm using).

Now interestingly sandwiched between your style and the fully prepped style you could throw in 5e's Murder in Baldur's Gate which the secondary bad guy can be 1 of 4 people.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Bhaal, the BBEG, is selecting a host and the individual that is responsible for the most death (translated to murders, since he is the God of Murder), that is the person who's body gets taken over by Bhaal. 3 persons of interest provided for in the adventure itself and then the fourth being a PC. The PCs find themselves choosing which maddening events to stop in the city thus unknowingly directing which person gets the most kills. And the adventure provides the option for a PC being the most destructive. Really smart and fun adventure.

All three ARE mysteries, all three NEED to be solved, but they BECOME (for me) objective mysteries (i.e. the truths/facts are settled) when they have a definitive answer in play or when they have been mapped out (often via prep before play).

Anyways, I'm keen to try your style with my group - I seem to believe it may work better (or should I say feel easier to handle) with some genres (and systems) rather than others.

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.

At the beginning of that write-up you referred to a movie as some inspiration which I had intended to look up. Did that movie include any inference of lycanthropy. Just curious if you had something to work with in your mind before sitting down with the players.
When I have not documented anything for prep, I usually have some ideas running in my head before the game which I intend to inject into the fiction.
Often, as a procrastinator, I have to panic-brainstorm in the shower before my mates arrive for our in person games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Yes, once things are locked down, they become objective. And apparently in this case the earl being missing and the reason being lycanthropy (or húainathropy?) were nailed down pretty early on, and as those are the central elements of the mystery, that is decent amount of objectivity. Though it still seems that you're then just riffing on this and feeding the players related clues that pop into your mind. Seems pretty fiaty to me.

And I think @FrogReaver dissected this well, whilst some amount of "real deduction" can be made in this setup, the vague nature of it all undermines it somewhat. It matters when things are made up, and any claim of objectiveness this scenario has is by the virtue of making up the central answer before any deductions have been made, which is what we have been telling you is the requirement for "real solve."

 

[pemerton]

At the beginning of that write-up you referred to a movie as some inspiration which I had intended to look up. Did that movie include any inference of lycanthropy. Just curious if you had something to work with in your mind before sitting down with the players.

As best I recall, not at all - in my memory at least it is a ghost story.

I think the reason I thought of lycanthropes was because butlers are obsessed with polishing silverware (at least according to The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro), and somehow I got the idea of linking "galvanic gleaning" to fluid with traces of silver dissolved in it, which would be a tool for dealing with lycanthropes.

Were-hyenas are from a REH Conan story. (Queen of the Black Ghost, I think.)

When I have not documented anything for prep, I usually have some ideas running in my head before the game which I intend to inject into the fiction.

Yes, I often have ideas in mind. This also feeds into some of my prep: eg for Burning Wheel, I will prepare a NPC or creature that I think can be interesting, and then during the session I will bring the prepped being into play when it seems like it can play a useful role.

And prep for Torchbearer can include thinking up interesting possibilities for twists.

Now one of the definitions of the word objective which I found is
(a) in a way that is based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
I'm personally NOT using it this way.

Agreed, I don't think that's relevant at all.

Another is
(b) in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually
This is the way I'm applying it.

Yes, that's what I've been taking it to mean.

The mystery of the missing Earl is indeed a mystery but the facts of why he is missing have not yet been formulated until such time that they do. So almost anything goes as to the reason until it becomes established, then I'd say it is objective.
Whereas say a GM who has prepped that same adventure and has a definitive reason of why that Earl is missing, the mystery is not dependent on the mind (per the definition I'm using).

<snip>

All three ARE mysteries, all three NEED to be solved, but they BECOME (for me) objective mysteries (i.e. the truths/facts are settled) when they have a definitive answer in play or when they have been mapped out (often via prep before play).

I think where we might differ is in the significance we attribute to two things:

* The pre-authored scenario was dependent on someone's mind at the time it was written;

* The way that the prepared fiction is presented to the players in the actual moment of play is dependent on someone's mind.​

What these seem to mean to me is that someone has to come up with the ideas, and then present them to the players, and what the players then do - in their reasoning etc - is respond to, drawn on and build on what is presented to them. If at the point of presentation the GM is treating something as fixed, and using that to help inform new ideas and how things are presented, then to me it seems "objective" in the sense that the players aren't authoring their own solution.

Anyways, I'm keen to try your style with my group - I seem to believe it may work better (or should I say feel easier to handle) with some genres (and systems) rather than others.

Good luck!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

What I want as a player, and what I make sure to provide to my players when I GM, is to understand the basics of the way the game works and the methods and principles that guide the GM. As a GM, I revisit this regularly throughout play... whenever there's a moment that may be something we've not seen previously, or which may be unique in some way, I elaborate on my decision making.

This is how I demonstrate that I can be trusted as a GM.

The idea that players should not grasp the process of play is to me an unfortunate occurrence in the RPG community.

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.

But the game we'd be playing may not even be one you'd consider "narrative". If we were playing 5e or Mothership or the Alien RPG, I'd explain to you the gist of how they work and what you can expect from me as a GM. Even among these three games, there are differences that should be understood by the participants.

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.

I would say it's "set in stone" when the GM makes a commitment to honor the decision. It has nothing to do with writing it down. That doesn't prevent the GM from changing their mind.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

BTW, regarding different ways to run mysteries and various Cthulhu games being used as example, I think it is rather weird how Call of Cthulhu has become probably the best known mystery solving game and it operates mostly on objective mystery paradigm. I'm not sure that is actually a good fit for lovecraftian genre. Like sure, thee are "mysteries" in Lovecraft's stories, but the main theme is horror and madness. And I think horror is probably easier to run if the myth is more malleable and things can work more via genre logic and what would be dramatic/horrifying at the moment than by predetermined simulationistic pathways. Not that you cannot run horror in the latter way too, but I believe it to be somewhat harder.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would say it's "set in stone" when the GM makes a commitment to honor the decision. It has nothing to do with writing it down. That doesn't prevent the GM from changing their mind.

We don’t often agree but I 100% agree with this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

They may not even meet! I think Yoshimoto has been in person, interacting with Hino and Suetsuna for less than a half an hour of game time? This probably is directly contributing to Yoshimoto not having been murdered...

Well, this is what is cool about 1000 Arrows, who knows what will happen if they meet again? Some bonds will be checked against. If Hino tries to murder you, the GM will, undoubtedly pose this as a goal with a cost, and it will require something like an Indulge Your Obsession move. They could end up in some totally different place.

But I think the focus of the thread is being lost. In 1000 Arrows a magical camp site securing move could work, at least in principle, but Alarm alarm 5e could not. Its focus on time, space, and geography has no work to do in relationship to the concerns of 1KA. Nor can some orientation towards, or technique of, GMing allow 5e and 1KA to ever produce outcomes similar to the other game.

I doean EVER absolutely above too, not some soft version where one of you is the Nobel Laureate of GMs who can do anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To be clear here, I wasn't stating a lack of interest in playing other approaches to mysteries. The example I opened with was one where I was using Hillfolk to play a mystery (and my point was I liked it, but wouldn't use it if I wanted an objective mystery). I was simply drawing a distinction between mysteries the players solve (like you have in a typical CoC campaign) and ones where the players aren't actually solving them so much as exploring a mystery scenario.

Gumshow is more scene driven and more clue driven. It is basically just trying to get around the problem of players missing a clue and the mystery collapsing. So it leads with the idea that what is important is the players having fun putting the clues together. I think you can still technically miss clues in it. But the point is if you walk in a room and there is a clue, you generally get the clue. However I am more familiar with the game that preceded it, the Esoterrorists (which I recommend more highly than Gumshoe, which admittedly is probably not the norm: most people prefer Gumshoe). Esoterrorists is more for doing stuff like The Exorcist. I think it is beautifully designed and seems very inspired (absolutely love its approach to monster creation). Also forgive me if I misspelled it, The Esoterrorists always trips me up when I try to type it out

Right, I don't have opinions on what happens at anyone's games, or hold judgement on their aesthetics, outside of having personal tastes of course.

I do think there's a tendency in many discussions of the like of this thread though to resist analysis. Back when I took a step back and dug into what was happening at the table in detail my games got a lot better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton the idea to have Randal's coat stored away with the cannisters is as a result of GM fiat right? Not a failed roll.
If yes, how do you view this differently in comparison to your thoughts on the Alarm spell with a GM using fiat to narrate outcomes without dice? i.e. what if the fiat that overcomes the Alarm spell is pushing the story forward?

The Alarm spell fiat COULD be doing so. Without discussion of actual play at a detailed enough level to discern the relevant facts we cannot say. Now between TB2e and D&D 5e what we can discuss in a general way is the contents of the rules, and the structure of play, the process, which they specify. But when we do that, and attempt to apply some terminology, etc nobody seems willing to have that conversation. Particularly it seems like some of the parties have already decided the limits of what they will think about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

BTW, regarding different ways to run mysteries and various Cthulhu games being used as example, I think it is rather weird how Call of Cthulhu has become probably the best known mystery solving game and it operates mostly on objective mystery paradigm. I'm not sure that is actually a good fit for lovecraftian genre. Like sure, thee are "mysteries" in Lovecraft's stories, but the main theme is horror and madness. And I think horror is probably easier to run if the myth is more malleable and things can work more via genre logic and what would be dramatic/horrifying at the moment than by predetermined simulationistic pathways. Not that you cannot run horror in the latter way too, but I believe it to be somewhat harder.

Honestly, I think this is because running a satisfying mystery of the type being discussed in this thread... an Agatha Christie-like whodunnit... is actually really difficult. There's a narrow sweet spot where the mystery is portrayed and constructed sufficiently to be satisfying, and a whole great swath where it can be either far too simple, or else way too complex.

I mean, has anyone ever played a game of CoC where the mystery remained unknown for the entirety of play? Barring like an early TPK, I expect it's pretty much unheard of. There's a reason for that... because it's not really about the satisfaction of players solving the mystery. It's about how the characters deal with facing the unknown and the unknowable, and the price they pay for doing so.