And that's a valid thing to do. I don't generally do that, though I do occasionally share DCs or roll out in the open for a particularly dramatic moment when the roll matter a lot.
Sure, but my point is whatever methods you use, whatever approach you take toward play, should be known. I’m less concerned with the preference than if that preference is made clear to the participants.
These examples really aren't any different. The subway station would have cameras for sure, like a bank, though lighting and crowding might make the film less helpful. But for the others, "Are there cameras?" and my response "I didn't consider that, but it's an office building, so there's a good chance of one being there. I'm going to roll for it" is also very understandable.
You'd share the number you'd need to roll and roll out in the open. I would not, but I wouldn't fudge it at all and my players know that.
Well, I was offering examples where cameras were less certain, not absent for sure. The subway station could be in a foreign country in a rundown area. Whatever. The point is there’s uncertainty about a lot of this stuff.
I like when games offer a clear list of guiding principles for GMs and players. So when we run into these kinds of expectations, everyone involved has at least an idea of what goes on. Now, I like when games provide this list and discuss the principles in the text, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only way. A GM can establish their own principles even if the game does not.
That’s one of the reasons that in 5e I always roll in the open and share all DCs. This way, everyone at the table knows what to expect. There won’t ever be a doubt about what we’re rolling for or why.
I don’t share that example saying that will work for everyone… preferences vary and that’s fine… but I do it that way so that my players understand what I’m doing.
That's again, a valid way to play, but I don't view my way as obscuring anything. I'm not revealing as much, but there's no obscurement going on that 1) wasn't there prior, and 2) isn't easily understandable per the above.
Sure. For me, I just don’t quite understand the value in keeping these things from the players. Not the identity of the killer, but just how play works, what the GM is doing when he makes a decision, what’s guiding him, and so on.
It seems to be related to trying to keep players in the dark when the characters are? But the players are playing a game. I think sometimes that’s overlooked in favor of the events of play… the fiction or story or whatever folks want to call it. And while I get that… it’s a huge element of the game and it’s a large part of what makes RPGs fun… they still need to function as a game.
And it’s hard to play a game when you don't understand the processes of play. Or hard to play it well, at least.
Integrity, which I fully believe you and @pemerton have, isn't the same as objectivity. You may be true to what is in your head, but it isn't objectively established until it leaves your head and becomes canon in the game.
For me this depends on the game. I change my approach to GMing to suit the game I’m running. I recently ran a Mothership campaign, including the Gradient Descent module, which is essentially a space mega-dungeon. When I ran that, I ran it almost entirely as presented. Because part of the appeal of OSR style play is the challenge of it. So for that, you want to establish all that ahead of time and then let the players loose and see if their characters can navigate the dungeon safely.
But that’s different from how I run Stonetop. Our next session which will be Friday night will, funny enough, involve a murder mystery. In our last session, the town’s midwife was brutally, ritually murdered. The characters were able to learn that this was the work of Hlad the Devourer, an entity that has possessed someone in town. At the end of the session, the players had decided that the best way to find the culprit is to gather everyone together for a feast, and then try to figure it out.
I don’t have a set answer for who exactly is possessed. I have a couple of potential ideas, but I’m not going to decide until we play. The players may come up with a really cool theory that’s as good as anything I come up with, so I’ll run woth that. If not, then we’ll see how their investigation develops. If nothing presents itself, I’ll go with whatever seems best.
Two games, two different approaches. The games are about different things. They deliver different experiences.
That's true. There are probably other games out there where changing things is part of how to play that game. However, in those games players would be signing on for that to happen, so the social contract would not be violated. Additionally, the context of this tangent is such that those types of games aren't really applicable. We're talking about objectivity in mystery adventures via my playstyle and yours.
Right, this is my point about letting players know how I run a game. I want them to know what they’re signing up for.
Personally, I don’t find what you’re calling an objective mystery of the whodunnit sort to be all that compelling for play. At least, bot in and of itself. If there’s more going on in play related to the mystery or something, I usually find that better. But if the point of play (for whatever portion of play this scenario may take… a single session, a few, whatever) is to solve the mystery, I’m generally likely to be bored.
