GM fiat - an illustration

[FrogReaver]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Can I ask a question. Pick one of the narrativist games you play that you feel is the most transparent. What principle are you following when you GM and choose X as a consequence for a not complete-success roll instead of Y or Z as that consequence? Is that part transparent?

I mean obviously there are principles that constrain what values X, Y and Z can take, but the process you used to arrive at X instead of Y or Z is just as opaque as ever, unless I’m missing something?

 

[Manbearcat]

The framing of a lot of this conversation assumes (often unintentionally) that of the GM mystery cult. The GM needs guardrails and introspection and a good system because they are the primary social and aesthetic facilitator. Given that this is one of my big criticisms of rpg culture in general, I'm surprised at myself how often I let this framing slip by.

If, as you suggest, you're just transparent about the process of play then we're really talking game loops. If we're not and instead talking about how to be a good mystery cult GM, well that's a distinctly differently conversation.

IF we're just talking about game loops then it seems silly to demand introspective rigour from the GM. Why not instead demand inquisitive analysis from the players?

I've been doing a lot of GMless play recently and one thing that's interesting is how easy it is to talk about improving play. There's no confusion as to who has responsibility for what because it's so obviously a group endeavour. Yet as soon as a GM becomes involved, it's easy to let that dynamic slip away and take up bad social habits from the old trad days.

Hope that gets across stuff more clearly and isn't a massive non sequitur. I've just been thinking a lot about this lately and especially how I could do with being more active in pointing out mystery cult thinking in my own groups.

I don't have enough time to answer in extreme detail, but here are my thoughts on this. This dovetails with what would be my response to @Maxperson in his response to me, so I'm just going to tag Max here.

My interest, no matter what I'm doing when it comes to any games (TTRPGs, sparring in martial arts, playing ball sports, playing parlor/board games, etc etc) is a vigorously engaging, premise-addressing, gameful space (which necessarily means both transparent and binding refereeing principles and play meta).​

That will mean different things for different games (sometimes very different). But let me be clear, I think (a) the idea that a GM's decision-making & the attendant processes they mediate can be consequentially principled while simultaneously being obscured is a rejection of the sort of the vigorously engaging, premise-addressing, gameful space I'm pointing at. The point of participant principles and constraining procedures/rules in a game is that they are shared to be mutually understood in order to give rise to the nailing down of the play meta (the premise and boundaries of play and what undergirds them) and the particular gameful space it entails. So...I'm sorry, but I do not agree that it is possible to have a functionally gameful space when participants do not have a rigorous understanding of how the gamestate moves and/or what the premise of play is from moment-to-moment. Whether it be BJJ sparring, or sport climbing, or playing Sherlock Holmes booklet mysteries, or playing basketball, or participating in a TTRPG, if any of (i) the refereeing paradigm (its constraints, its principles which inform each instance of mediation) or (ii) the structure of play or (iii) the point of play (how initial conditions provide a substrate for the throughline which provide momentum toward endstate) is veiled to me? Its curtains. I'm not playing a game in this scenario because there is no functionally (reliably able to be well-understood and aggressively acted upon to inflict my desires upon the gamestate at each and every moment of play) gameful space for me as a participant. I'm engaging in play for sure, but I'm 100 % locked-in on my position on what is necessary to rise to being even the floor of a gameful space...and not robustly knowing how the gamestate moves from here to there and/or not being able to index how premise injects play with meaning, momentum, and purpose at each and every moment of play...because either of them are veiled within some seminal participant's idea-space of which I don't have access to? No. An obscured play meta and/or obscured/shifting orientation to central phenomena or play handles is a killshot.

The other part of this is Max's response to me is (b) revealing of what I already know; there is an internalized assumption in so many in the TTRPG space (many commenters in this thread...not just Max, but many many many others) of Sim-Immersionism as the cornerstone priority of play. The GM plays the world > at every moment of play, the players explore the world necessarily without access to a systemic understanding and engagement with a transparent play meta and attendant handles (because those would negate the exploration imperatives of Sim-Immersionism); declare actions from a particularized (which includes very specific and intensive limits on orientation to information, action resolution, decision-space and consequence-space parsing) first person perspective and, most importantly, trust the GM to render your orientation to situation without addressing meta and trust them to covertly mete out essential gamestate dynamics which are intentionally inaccessible to you (in order to protect your orientation to simulation and immersion). In fact, my idea of what is constitutive of a gameful space is actually anathema to this Sim-Immersionist cornerstone priority of play because it entails engaging with both a transparent play meta and, instead of intentionally reduced/muted/veiled handles, transparent and vigorous gamestate-attending handles at every moment of play.

---

That is likely to ruffle some feathers (but it should be clear in all my conversations throughout the years...I've said that in so many different ways). But that is my full-bore, honest position on all things "game" and TTRPGs in particular.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't have enough time to answer in extreme detail, but here are my thoughts on this. This dovetails with what would be my response to @Maxperson in his response to me, so I'm just going to tag Max here.

My interest, no matter what I'm doing when it comes to any games (TTRPGs, sparring in martial arts, playing ball sports, playing parlor/board games, etc etc) is a vigorously engaging, premise-addressing, gameful space (which necessarily means both transparent and binding refereeing principles and play meta).​

That will mean different things for different games (sometimes very different). But let me be clear, I think (a) the idea that a GM's decision-making & the attendant processes they mediate can be consequentially principled while simultaneously being obscured is a rejection of the sort of the vigorously engaging, premise-addressing, gameful space I'm pointing at. The point of participant principles and constraining procedures/rules in a game is that they are shared to be mutually understood in order to give rise to the nailing down of the play meta (the premise and boundaries of play and what undergirds them) and the particular gameful space it entails. So...I'm sorry, but I do not agree that it is possible to have a functionally gameful space when participants do not have a rigorous understanding of how the gamestate moves and/or what the premise of play is from moment-to-moment. Whether it be BJJ sparring, or sport climbing, or playing Sherlock Holmes booklet mysteries, or playing basketball, or participating in a TTRPG, if any of (i) the refereeing paradigm (its constraints, its principles which inform each instance of mediation) or (ii) the structure of play or (iii) the point of play (how initial conditions provide a substrate for the throughline which provide momentum toward endstate) is veiled to me? Its curtains. I'm not playing a game in this scenario because there is no functionally (reliably able to be well-understood and aggressively acted upon to inflict my desires upon the gamestate at each and every moment of play) gameful space for me as a participant. I'm engaging in play for sure, but I'm 100 % locked-in on my position on what is necessary to rise to being even the floor of a gameful space...and not robustly knowing how the gamestate moves from here to there and/or not being able to index how premise injects play with meaning, momentum, and purpose at each and every moment of play...because either of them are veiled within some seminal participant's idea-space of which I don't have access to? No. An obscured play meta and/or obscured/shifting orientation to central phenomena or play handles is a killshot.

The other part of this is Max's response to me is (b) revealing of what I already know; there is an internalized assumption in so many in the TTRPG space (many commenters in this thread...not just Max, but many many many others) of Sim-Immersionism as the cornerstone priority of play. The GM plays the world > at every moment of play, the players explore the world necessarily without access to a systemic understanding and engagement with a transparent play meta and attendant handles (because those would negate the exploration imperatives of Sim-Immersionism); declare actions from a particularized (which includes very specific and intensive limits on orientation to information, action resolution, decision-space and consequence-space parsing) first person perspective and, most importantly, trust the GM to render your orientation to situation without addressing meta and trust them to covertly mete out essential gamestate dynamics which are intentionally inaccessible to you (in order to protect your orientation to simulation and immersion). In fact, my idea of what is constitutive of a gameful space is actually anathema to this Sim-Immersionist cornerstone priority of play because it entails engaging with both a transparent play meta and, instead of intentionally reduced/muted/veiled handles, transparent and vigorous gamestate-attending handles at every moment of play.

---

That is likely to ruffle some feathers (but it should be clear in all my conversations throughout the years...I've said that in so many different ways). But that is my full-bore, honest position on all things "game" and TTRPGs in particular.

That seemed like very complicated way of saying that you do not like sim-immersionism. I am not sure if the implication is that sim-immersionism is somehow "wrong" of "faulty" way to play. In any case it is the most popular approach to RPGs, so it seems to work quite a well for a lot of people

I am also not quite sure about what sort of transparency we are talking about here. Like even in sim-immersionism I feel everyone needs to be on the same page about what sort of game we are playing, and the players should be aware how the mechanics and procedures work and how they will be employed. But the players don't need to be privy to the minutiae of the GM decision making process.

 

[Manbearcat]

But the players don't need to be privy to the minutiae of the GM decision making process.

This is the fundamental move that you make here, the core assumption that I'm pointing out, that is the cornerstone of disagreement. I could not disagree more.

If the players don't understand the GM's decision-space, they don't understand the play meta because the play meta absolutely pivots upon that essential piece.

If the players don't understand the play meta, there is not a sufficient gameful space for them to orient to, operationalize, and act upon to manage a decision-space of any potency whatsoever.

But we circle back to "the GM's decision-space must be obscured, the play meta must be veiled (and certainly never referenced in the course of play in order to triangulate and clarify particulars; that would be self-defeating), and therefore the gameful space for players must be accordingly reduced/muted in order to maintain Sim-Immersionist prerogatives."

Which is totally fine. It has nothing to do with like/dislike. It is super frustrating that we keep going back to this and trying to frame everything about preference rather than unpacking play dynamics. It is absolutely a legitimate way to play and a legitimate apex priority for a table. But the implications are a trade-off that includes (i) the intentional reduction/muting of gameful space for players + (ii) enduring a looming-over-play, significantly amplified space for player-signature-subverting GM Force (both covert and overt and both intentional and incidental) in order to achieve (iii) the desired amplification of an immersive space for particular minds + (iv) a preservation of GM's mandate over setting (and possibly, though not necessarily, story prerogatives).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is the fundamental move that you make here, the core assumption that I'm pointing out, that is the cornerstone of disagreement. I could not disagree more.

If the players don't understand the GM's decision-space, they don't understand the play meta because the play meta absolutely pivots upon that essential piece.

If the players don't understand the play meta, there is not a sufficient gameful space for them to orient to, operationalize, and act upon to manage a decision-space of any potency whatsoever.

But we circle back to "the GM's decision-space must be obscured, the play meta must be veiled (and certainly never referenced in the course of play in order to triangulate and clarify particulars; that would be self-defeating), and therefore the gameful space for players must be accordingly reduced/muted in order to maintain Sim-Immersionist prerogatives."

Which is totally fine. It has nothing to do with like/dislike. It is super frustrating that we keep going back to this and trying to frame everything about preference rather than unpacking play dynamics. It is absolutely a legitimate way to play and a legitimate apex priority for a table. But the implications are a trade-off that includes (i) the intentional reduction/muting of gameful space for players + (ii) enduring a looming-over-play, significantly amplified space for player-signature-subverting GM Force (both covert and overt and both intentional and incidental) in order to achieve (iii) the desired amplification of an immersive space for particular minds + (iv) a preservation of GM's mandate over setting (and possibly, though not necessarily, story prerogatives).

Can you be more concrete about what you actually mean here. Can you describe what sort of things you wish a s player to know about the GM decision making and what concrete impacts knowing or not knowing those will have?

 

[Maxperson]

That seemed like very complicated way of saying that you do not like sim-immersionism. I am not sure if the implication is that sim-immersionism is somehow "wrong" of "faulty" way to play. In any case it is the most popular approach to RPGs, so it seems to work quite a well for a lot of people

I am also not quite sure about what sort of transparency we are talking about here. Like even in sim-immersionism I feel everyone needs to be on the same page about what sort of game we are playing, and the players should be aware how the mechanics and procedures work and how they will be employed. But the players don't need to be privy to the minutiae of the GM decision making process.

Right. I can understand how @Manbearcat might think that sim-immersionism isn't a functionally gameful space for him, but to declare that it isn't functionally gameful for everyone is wrong.

"So...I'm sorry, but I do not agree that it is possible to have a functionally gameful space when participants do not have a rigorous understanding of how the gamestate moves and/or what the premise of play is from moment-to-moment. "

My style of play has resulted in a functionally gameful space for myself and those I play with for 40+ years. That's some pretty robust and vigorous testing of that playstyle. I've also been able to act upon my desires to inflict change on the game state. Assuming I succeed at my check, get my spell off, etc.

So while my style of play might not work for Manbearcat, that it does work for myself should be proof enough that it is possible to have a functionally gameful space for others. It's functional for me, but not functional for him.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the fundamental move that you make here, the core assumption that I'm pointing out, that is the cornerstone of disagreement. I could not disagree more.

If the players don't understand the GM's decision-space, they don't understand the play meta because the play meta absolutely pivots upon that essential piece.

If the players don't understand the play meta, there is not a sufficient gameful space for them to orient to, operationalize, and act upon to manage a decision-space of any potency whatsoever.

It might help to think of it like size. If I'm a halfling and you are a goliath, I need much less space to operate in than you do, so what constitutes a sufficient space for me, would not be sufficient for you.

The problem is that you are only looking at it from a goliath perspective and then declaring anything not sufficient for a goliath is insufficient for everyone.

40+ years of game play with other sim-immersionists has shown me that there is plenty sufficient space for us to orient to, operationalize, and act upon to manage a decision-space of potency. We just do so in a space that doesn't fit you or your desires is all. It doesn't work for you, but does work for us.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can you be more concrete about what you actually mean here. Can you describe what sort of things you wish a s player to know about the GM decision making and what concrete impacts knowing or not knowing those will have?

My take is that there is still plenty of non-transparent GM decision making in whatever style one plays in. Narrativism does a good job of nailing down when the GM should introduce a consequence (traditional play is a bit more free form there), but just like traditional it doesn’t nail down what any particular consequence should be. It may constrain the consequences more explicitly and transparently, but they can still be any number of things within the given constraints.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So when I think about RPGs, I think mostly about the fiction. And as player I think mostly about the perspective of the character. And I think with systems that operate at least vaguely simmish logic instead on some sort of meta logic, that is often enough. The "gameful space" is the fictional situation, and the player "moves" are the decisions their character take to interact with the situation. And I think in such approach the GM has principles that are know to the players, the GM's job is to make the world behave as it was real, so that the players in turn can treat it as real and declare actions based on that. Yes, there are mechanics, but they ultimately are just ancillary to this basic structure.

In my experience narrativistic games do not work quite like that. I don't feel that I can play Blades in the Dark by just focusing on the perspective of my character. The rules are not simulationistic, I have to constantly take into account the logic of the rules, which is not the same than logic of causally connected reality would be.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My take is that there is still plenty of non-transparent GM decision making in whatever style one plays in. Narrativism does a good job of nailing down when the GM should introduce a consequence (traditional play is a bit more free form there), but just like traditional it doesn’t nail down what any particular consequence should be. It may constrain the consequences more explicitly and transparently, but they can still be any number of things within the given constraints.

Yeah. To me it is weird that people think nar games are somehow less GM driven than trad ones. In my expereince in many nar games the GM is not bound by myth nearly the same degree than in trad games, and the common consequence mechanic constantly asks new input from the GM that they just make up on the spot and it can be nearly anything. I feel that in such game I am way more mercy on the GM's whims than in more trad game. (At least assuming that both games were run with similar level of rigour and consistency.)