D&D 5E 2 year campaign down the drain?

[Flamestrike]

Probably steal something car-like in Scum and Villainy, but it'd be cooler if you stole a starship.

What a wretched hive that pace is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My own groups (both of which are playing D&D 5E) are pretty active and go out looking for things to do and ways to achieve whatever goals they're pursuing, willingly engaging with the present story and setting up future things for me to instigate. Some of these people, I've played with in enough different systems to say that's how they play, independent of system. These same people didn't particularly engage with Fate Points as a way to do anything other than re-roll or add bonuses--combined with my own reluctance to meddle with characters (motivated by how I'd react to having my characters meddled with that way) meant the Fate Point Ecnonomy was broken, which meant the game didn't work for us. My own issues with having a hard time keeping the setting coherent and consistent enough in my head to run it, using other people's ideas, are almost certainly not entirely (maybe not at all) anything to do with Fate.

Not to convince you to go back and try Fate, and you setting issues are very valid, but I'd like to try, one more time, to discuss how compelling a trouble isn't taking control over character, or even really meddling with character.

Firstly, troubles are things the player should be picking because they want those things to be a large part of their character. They should be themes the player wants to see in play. So, invoking those themes isn't meddling, it's engaging the player's desires. If this isn't working, then there's a disconnect on the player side about understanding the goals of play in Fate. I mean, if you're okay using the Fear spell against D&D characters, that's a far more invasive usurpation of character because it's unasked for and assigns a trait hostilely compared to a Fate Trouble that the play chooses to evoke their character.

Secondly, compelling a Trouble doesn't force a line of action. You don't make the character do what you want them to. Invocations of aspects are, in all cases, now a requirement of the action declaration, not a limitation to a specific action. For instance, if you have the Trouble, "if it's not nailed down...," implying you tend to steal things lying around, and the GM compels that Trouble in a room full of treasures, then you, as a player, now have the option to be paid to engage this character trait you chose or, if you think it's important enough not to, pay to not engage that element. If you accept the compel, the GM should not be telling you what you do at all -- that's still up to you to form an action declaration. That declaration has to involve you taking something, but how you do that, what you take, and any other particulars are up to you, not the GM. You, as the player, have accepted a Fate point to engage in an aspect of your character that you selected, that's all. The GM isn't meddling in your character, it's all your choice.

I have not picked up Blades or anything PbtA. The couple of things I've looked through were somewhere between "no" and "hell no," probably because player authority over narrative seems to come with GM authority over player characters, and while I'm reasonably comfortable as a GM with the former I absolutely detest the latter as a player and therefore as a GM.

The kind of authority over characters the GM has in these games is being able to narrate failures freely, including describing character actions. The GM has wide latitude in failure narration. However, that's still tightly bound by the principles of the game -- the GM should be a fan of the characters, so failure narration must still be true to the characters and not an opportunity to describe incompetence or slapstick. Also, this authority only exists after the players have declared and action and then failed -- the GM has no way to force this authority.

So, the only time the GM has authority over characters in a PbtA or Blades game (they are different systems, if closely related) is after the player has declared an action and gotten an outright failure, and then only within the scope of the situation and the scope of the character with an eye towards being a fan of the character. It's very limited, and tightly constrained authority. I don't even have anything like a Fate compel to push on the PCs. In Blades, the closest thing is offering a Devil's Bargain, which is an offer to accept a complication in exchange for an extra die on a roll (or similar benefit), but there's no cost to refusing an offered Bargain and anyone can offer a Bargain, not just the GM.

In other words, there's very little of the kind of usurpation of character actions that you seem to be concerned with, here. If a character tries something and fails, it's natural for the GM to be able to describe that failure, which might include some brief narration of what the character does to earn that failure, yes? Say, if you were trying to sneak across a courtyard while a guard's back was turned, and chose to do so quickly, meaning the GM set the position of the task to Desperate (very risky) and the effect to normal (you get what you want) and you roll and fail (highest die is 3 or less), then the GM can describe how your character starts off in a silent sprint, but halfway across the courtyard their dagger jostles out of their gear and clatters to the ground and now they're halfway across the courtyard having made a racket, what do you do now? That's the kind of character control you get in Blades.

Now, that said, you should, as GM, absolutely be throwing up situations where a player's vice or trauma are invoked by the situation, so they have every opportunity to choose to indulge in them. This does earn the PC an XP at the end of the session, but there's no cost if they chose to not engage, other than not marking XP. PbtA and Blades are full of these kinds of pushes.

 

[pemerton]

In the end, The players took narrative control by attacking the Lord.

<snip>

I think this was a very interesting outcome and it might have been the desired outcome even if the DM had asked the players.

I agree with this. I think 5e D&D's combat mechanics give players a degree of control over the fiction that is different from its non-combat mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

The only thing/s I have control of are things the PCs aren't interacting with, and I have more control over things they haven't interacted with yet than over things they have.

Consider: in the fiction, the PCs interact with a hope chest. At the table, the players of those PCs say We look in the hope chest to see if the widget is in it.

Who gets to decide what the PCs see? Who gets to decide what (in the fiction) the hope chest contains?

DIffferent RPGs, and different GMing and resolution techniques associatd with them, provide different answers to these questions. As best I can tell, from your account of how you GM 5e D&D the answer, in your case, is you the GM.

Consider: the PCs interact with a PC, eg telling him to tell them where the widget is hidden. At the table, the players of those PCs are saying something like We ask the captain where the widget is, looking all scary and threatening! Who gets to decide how, in the fiction, the captain responds eg does he call for his bodyguards? Who gets to decide whether or not those bodyguards turn up when called? Again, different approaches provide diifferent answers to these questions. As best I can tell, when you GM the answer is that you the GM, decide.

This is not a criticism of anyone. It's an analysis. That's all.

To me, there's a functional difference between saying the book is in a specific piece of furniture, and saying it's in a specific room. Part of it is having played with DMs (or read adventures) where it was clear the PCs needed to search the specific piece of furniture to find the widget. I don't think much of insisting the PCs search the wardrobe specifically in order to find the widget (barring some specific reason to look in wardrobes).

OK. But that difference you're pointing to isn't what I had in mind. I'm not talking about the degree of precision or detail in the GM"s decision-making. I'm talking about who gets to decide whether the action declaration we look in place X can result in the coonsequence Cool, you find the widget!

I'm far more likely to establish where the widget isn't than where it is,

OK. What I'm saying is that If the players declare that their PCs search some place you've decided the widget isn't, then they do not have the power to put at stake, in that moment of resolution, that their PCs find the widget.

I feel as though the significant things that happen in the fiction are the things the PCs do.

Some time last year, I think it was, I had a whole other thread about this. One thing the PCs can do is look for the widget. That might also mean that they find the widget (or not). One thing they can do is threaten the captain. That might also mean that they draw the ire of the guards (or produce some other consequence). In each pair, it is the second of the twinned descriptions that will drive play. And if it is the GM who decides whether or not that second description is true, in the fiction, then it is on the GM how play unfolds. If the GM doesn't want violence, don't have the PCs' behaviour draw the ire of the guards. This is trivially easy to do. The guards are all drunk. They are in another fight of their own (like in Cirith Ungol in LotR). The captain hasn't paid them lately and so they are on strike. Etc.

Again, this is not a criticism of anyone or of any system. For all I know, you GM 5e D&D having regard exactly to these things. I was making these ponts in response to posters saying that the players have reponsibility for the consequences of their action declarations.

 

[Fenris-77]

I would agree with @pemerton here. In D&D 5E as written, the players have no input over consequences, that's entirely on the GM. There is no room in the D&D rules for a player to declare the widget is in the maguffin, they can only search the maguffin and hope for the best.

As for allocating authority for the unfolding of play, I might broaden the discussion a little. It is incontrovertibly true that the authority for consequences lies entirely with the GM. However, the range of those consequences is set by player actions, or at least suggested by player actions. In the guards example from above the range of reasonable guard reactions, or consequences, is to some extent determined by how the players handle the initial interaction, and their subsequent reactions. I might describe this as the players having a limited authority to narrow the field of consequences based on their action choices. An objection could be raised that 'suggesting' a range of consequences doesn't really confer any authority at all, but I would disagree. The extent to which the GM works within that range will have a significant impact on player engagement. If the GM is constantly ignoring, for example, player attempts to interact non-violently with the guard, the players are going get frustrated and/or angry. The reason for that anger is precisely that the GM is ignoring their input into the fiction in favor of his own narrative choices. I think the resulting motivation to work within the range of consequences suggested by the players' actions is strong enough to warrant use of the term authority, even if it's not so cut and dry as the GM authority over consequences.

In the case of the widget things get a little bit sticky, because now we're talking about physical reality, not social interaction. The GM still has similar choices to make though. In the face of a long string of well-reasoned player choices that all index narrowing the field of consequences around we need to find the widget the GM has to decide how often of for how long he wants to frustrate the PCs if they simply aren't looking where he put it. Part of this can be solved by changing the narrative a little. If the players were looking for evidence of the Duke's malfeasance rather than the Duke's diary then is no need to even consider changing the location of the letter, or other behind the screen decisions that sometimes get people up in arms and shouting about illusionism, railroading and the negation of player agency. Evidence, unspecified, could be found in many places, but the diary only one.

 

[pemerton]

I have not picked up Blades or anything PbtA. The couple of things I've looked through were somewhere between "no" and "hell no," probably because player authority over narrative seems to come with GM authority over player characters

PbtA is called that because it is modelled on Vincent Baker's game Apocalypse World. AW has its 8 basic moves, then the more-than-50 class-specific moves. Many of these allow using an atypical stat for a basic move, or enhance a particular stat or ability, or otherwise tweak the core mechanics. Some give new, specialised abilities (eg being able to use a particular piece of technical equipment, or having a special psychic ability). It doesn't have player "narrrative abilities" with the exception of a handful of specialised class options:

Visions of death: when you go into battle, roll+weird. On a 10+, name one person who’ll die and one who’ll live. On a 7–9, name one person who’ll die OR one person who’ll live. Don’t name a player’s character; name NPCs only. The MC will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible. On a miss, you foresee your own death, and accordingly take -1 throughout the battle.

Reputation: when you meet someone important (your call), roll+cool. On a hit, they’ve heard of you, and you say what they’ve heard; the MC will have them respond accordingly. On a 10+, you take +1 forward for dealing with them as well. On a miss, they’ve heard of you, but the MC will decide what they’ve heard.

Bonefeel: at the beginning of the session, roll+weird. On a 10+, hold 1+1. On a 7–9, hold 1. At any time, either you or the MC can spend your hold to have you already be there, with the proper tools and knowledge, with or without any clear explanation why. If your hold was 1+1, take +1 forward now. On a miss, the MC holds 1, and can spend it to have you already be there, but somehow pinned, caught or trapped.

Oftener right: when a character comes to you for advice, tell them what you honestly think the best course is. If they do it, they take +1 to any rolls they make in the doing, and you mark an experience circle.​

That's fewer than 10% of the moves in the game.

My reason for making this point is what I posted upthread:

my experience on these boards is that, if someone talks about player agency then the discussion will move straight to narrative mechanics meaning things like what you describe - either the players can freely establish elements of the shared fiction (like torches in your example) or can spend resources (eg Fate points) to establish such elements.

There seemes to be less familiarity with approaches where the player has to make a check in order to establish the fiction s/he wants - eg as per Burning Wheel wises, Circles etc.

And there seems to be even less familiarity with approaches like Apocalypse World in which the players have very little if any "narrative control" of the sort you have described, but in which they (i) have the ability, by succeeding at checks, to oblige the GM to narrate new fiction that runs the way the players want, and (ii) that the GM is, in general, obliged to establish fiction in ways that respond to the players' concerns first and foremost.

But AW certainly does involve player authority over the narrative in the sense that player action declaratios can generate results that are binding on the GM. In this way it resembles D&D combat or 4e skill challenges.

the only time the GM has authority over characters in a PbtA or Blades game (they are different systems, if closely related) is after the player has declared an action and gotten an outright failure, and then only within the scope of the situation and the scope of the character with an eye towards being a fan of the character.

In the AW rulebook, Vincent Baker gives the following example of a GM narrating a failure by a PC to read the situation in order to find an escape route when a gaing of thugs come knocking at her door:

"You’re looking out your (barred, 4th-story) window as though it were an escape route,” I say, “and they don’t chop your door all the way down, just through the top hinge, and then they lean on it to make a 6-inch space. The door’s creaking and snapping at the bottom hinge. And they put a grenade through like this—” I hold up my fist for the grenade and slap it with my other hand, like whacking a croquet ball.

“I dive for—”

Sorry, I’m still making my hard move. This is is all misdirection [jargon for establishing framing fiction in the course of narrating a consequence[. “Nope. They cooked it off and it goes off practically at your feet. Let’s see … 4-harm area messy, a grenade. You have armor?”​

I think that barely counts a GM exrcise of authority over the character. But maybe there are some RPGers for whom it would be objectionable.

That's not quite the kind of compel I was talking about (compelling a character aspect), but, yes, this is true. The kind of compel you're talking about is more on complicating the situation in general rather than encouraging a specific action from the player. For instance, if you did have a No Violence Zone aspect in play, then, well, it's going to be a pretty strongly framed situation already and the compel wouldn't be to direct a character's actions but to impose a condition that prevented violence.

<snip>

For instance, if you're going to have a no violence aspect to a scene, it's going to have to be strongly framed in the scene, with an obvious mechanism for it's enforcement. This clues in the players and provides the fictional underpinning to compel the aspect (or leverage it).

<snip>

This would have to be an overwhelming fictional device, though, and not a random or hidden aspect in a scene (if it were, it would be akin to railroading).

In the Cortex+ Heroic LotR/MERP game I'm running, I framed an Action Scene using a Scene Distinction Uncertain As To The Best Course. (I had in mind Aragorn's uncertainty when the Fellowship camps at Parth Galen, towards the end of Book II.)

The scene couldn't be resolved the players' way until that Scene Distinction had been elminated, by the players declaring actions that would help remove the doubt. It was the player of the Ranger who succeeded in this respect, which meant that he was able to decide what it was that the party did next (namely, pursue the Orcs carrying a palantir south towards Eregion). If the scene had enede dwith the uncertainty still there, I would have started the Action Scene by giving each player some Mental Stress, or perhaps a Doubt complication, at the start of that Scene.

I've never played or GMed Fate, but I would have thought that it could support a similar sort of idea, where a scene-based (rather than character-based) Aspect is used to convey some appropriate emotional or thematic feature of the situation, rather than a purely practical feature. (In my LotR game some Scene Distinctions are practical - eg In the Deeps of Moria.)

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here, so much as maybe being a bit more optimistic about the prospects for this sort of thing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would agree with @pemerton here. In D&D 5E as written, the players have no input over consequences, that's entirely on the GM. There is no room in the D&D rules for a player to declare the widget is in the maguffin, they can only search the maguffin and hope for the best.

As for allocating authority for the unfolding of play, I might broaden the discussion a little. It is incontrovertibly true that the authority for consequences lies entirely with the GM. However, the range of those consequences is set by player actions, or at least suggested by player actions. In the guards example from above the range of reasonable guard reactions, or consequences, is to some extent determined by how the players handle the initial interaction, and their subsequent reactions. I might describe this as the players having a limited authority to narrow the field of consequences based on their action choices. An objection could be raised that 'suggesting' a range of consequences doesn't really confer any authority at all, but I would disagree. The extent to which the GM works within that range will have a significant impact on player engagement. If the GM is constantly ignoring, for example, player attempts to interact non-violently with the guard, the players are going get frustrated and/or angry. The reason for that anger is precisely that the GM is ignoring their input into the fiction in favor of his own narrative choices. I think the resulting motivation to work within the range of consequences suggested by the players' actions is strong enough to warrant use of the term authority, even if it's not so cut and dry as the GM authority over consequences.

This is still relying on GM authority because player action declarations aren't binding. Take the example of a GM prescripting the guards as hostile and fighting to the death. The same power structure is in place for both examples, which means yours only exists at the GM's preference. I'll grant that many GMs play as if this is only partially true, but that can result in your, more pleasant, outcome or the one in the OP.

In the case of the widget things get a little bit sticky, because now we're talking about physical reality, not social interaction. The GM still has similar choices to make though. In the face of a long string of well-reasoned player choices that all index narrowing the field of consequences around we need to find the widget the GM has to decide how often of for how long he wants to frustrate the PCs if they simply aren't looking where he put it. Part of this can be solved by changing the narrative a little. If the players were looking for evidence of the Duke's malfeasance rather than the Duke's diary then is no need to even consider changing the location of the letter, or other behind the screen decisions that sometimes get people up in arms and shouting about illusionism, railroading and the negation of player agency. Evidence, unspecified, could be found in many places, but the diary only one.

I disagree that a physical object actually adheres to a different set of rules. I will agree that some (many) act as if they do, but this is a self-imposed restriction and I'm not at all convinced it's helpful or beneficial to play.

 

[pemerton]

I would agree with @pemerton here. In D&D 5E as written, the players have no input over consequences, that's entirely on the GM. There is no room in the D&D rules for a player to declare the widget is in the maguffin, they can only search the maguffin and hope for the best.

It's not just that they can't declare it. Players in BW can't do that either - they have to succeed at an appropriate Perception or Wises or similar check.

And players in AW can't do that. But they can, for instance, go aggro, and if successful force another character to give them something they think the PCs want. This requires the GM to narrate something to give effect to the consequence - probably the handing over of the widget!

What' distinctive about 5e D&D non-combat is that, canonically played, the players can't put any of these sorts of things at stake (outside of combat resolution). This is what I am saying gives the GM a special responsibility.

It is incontrovertibly true that the authority for consequences lies entirely with the GM. However, the range of those consequences is set by player actions, or at least suggested by player actions. In the guards example from above the range of reasonable guard reactions, or consequences, is to some extent determined by how the players handle the initial interaction, and their subsequent reactions.

<snip>

The extent to which the GM works within that range will have a significant impact on player engagement. If the GM is constantly ignoring, for example, player attempts to interact non-violently with the guard, the players are going get frustrated and/or angry.

You're talking here about whether or not the players get what they want (ie non-violent ineraction with the guards). But I had in mind something like what the OP describes. where the PCs have failed to achieve what the players were hoping for and the GM is establishing the consequences of that failure.

What counts as "reasonable guard reactions" in that context is entirely in the hands of the GM. When the boss calls for them, do they have to come? Or do the PCs hear the sound of a fracas break out on the deck below, as the chief guard finally gets sick of one too many curt instructions from a boss who doesn't pay well enough? (This is more-or-less how Samwise Gamgee was able to free Frodo from Cirith Ungol even though he failed to enter the fortress through its under-gate in Shelob's lair.)

I'm not saying that any particular answer to the question is the "correct" one. I'm just saying that if the GM choose to have the armed guards turn up, hands on sword-hilts then s/he has no real grounds for lamenting that her game devolved into one of lethal violence. I mean, s/he started it!

 

[prabe]

Firstly, troubles are things the player should be picking because they want those things to be a large part of their character. They should be themes the player wants to see in play. So, invoking those themes isn't meddling, it's engaging the player's desires. If this isn't working, then there's a disconnect on the player side about understanding the goals of play in Fate. I mean, if you're okay using the Fear spell against D&D characters, that's a far more invasive usurpation of character because it's unasked for and assigns a trait hostilely compared to a Fate Trouble that the play chooses to evoke their character.

So, spells or other things that briefly control the characters are more along the lines of things in the world attacking them. I can make up a monster that's built around scaring people, and things like the Fear spell make that work as a challenge for the PCs. I'm pretty sure you know this, and that you already see this difference yourself, I'm just putting that out here.

Also, using a Compel on a PC in Fate is (at least sometimes, I think--I'm not pulling any books out, here) specifically called out as possibly being a character behavior thing, especially if it's a Trouble Aspect. There's similar language in Blades in the Dark about the characters not always acting in their own best interests. I'm fine if a player wants to play a character that way--I have at least one player who's leaning into his character's low-ish INT and naivete--but using those mechanics feels to me like telling the player how to play their character in the moment. Yes, in the case of Compels based on character Aspects, they've said they want those things to come up, but that's arguably less the case if it's a scene Aspect.

There are other (better, IMO) ways to engage the players' desires for what they want to see in the story. I don't need an Aspect on a character sheet to set up a situation that engages that character's personality and tendencies. If I have a character based on a turn-of-the-20th-century unionist (and I do), I can set up a workers' strike in the city they're going to and see what happens (and I did, and the other players bought in). I have no idea how that player would have written that Aspect on her character sheet, if at all (the character's personality has emerged some in play) but it doesn't seem as though it would have been any more organic than what happened, and she would have been expecting it in ways she probably wasn't.

Secondly, compelling a Trouble doesn't force a line of action. You don't make the character do what you want them to. Invocations of aspects are, in all cases, now a requirement of the action declaration, not a limitation to a specific action. For instance, if you have the Trouble, "if it's not nailed down...," implying you tend to steal things lying around, and the GM compels that Trouble in a room full of treasures, then you, as a player, now have the option to be paid to engage this character trait you chose or, if you think it's important enough not to, pay to not engage that element. If you accept the compel, the GM should not be telling you what you do at all -- that's still up to you to form an action declaration. That declaration has to involve you taking something, but how you do that, what you take, and any other particulars are up to you, not the GM. You, as the player, have accepted a Fate point to engage in an aspect of your character that you selected, that's all. The GM isn't meddling in your character, it's all your choice.

In many of the examples in the Fate books I have, it feels exactly like forcing a line of action. To use the example that was floating around in another thread, if you have an Aspect that implies that you're a kleptomaniac, the GM might Compel that Aspect to insist that your character pocket something from their boss's office. Depending on where things are in the adventure, you might not have a Fate Point to resist the Compel, which means you have no choice but to try to argue with your GM about that course of action. Looks like GM meddling with the character, quacks like it, too.

The kind of authority over characters the GM has in these games is being able to narrate failures freely, including describing character actions. The GM has wide latitude in failure narration. However, that's still tightly bound by the principles of the game -- the GM should be a fan of the characters, so failure narration must still be true to the characters and not an opportunity to describe incompetence or slapstick. Also, this authority only exists after the players have declared and action and then failed -- the GM has no way to force this authority.

So, the only time the GM has authority over characters in a PbtA or Blades game (they are different systems, if closely related) is after the player has declared an action and gotten an outright failure, and then only within the scope of the situation and the scope of the character with an eye towards being a fan of the character. It's very limited, and tightly constrained authority. I don't even have anything like a Fate compel to push on the PCs. In Blades, the closest thing is offering a Devil's Bargain, which is an offer to accept a complication in exchange for an extra die on a roll (or similar benefit), but there's no cost to refusing an offered Bargain and anyone can offer a Bargain, not just the GM.

Given that in BitD the characters get "full success"--succeed without consequence--about a third as often as they screw up at least a little, incompetence seems like something of the draw, or else the putatively interesting parts of the game wouldn't engage. I've been poking around in the SRD and I'm glad I read that before spending any money on it.

In other words, there's very little of the kind of usurpation of character actions that you seem to be concerned with, here. If a character tries something and fails, it's natural for the GM to be able to describe that failure, which might include some brief narration of what the character does to earn that failure, yes? Say, if you were trying to sneak across a courtyard while a guard's back was turned, and chose to do so quickly, meaning the GM set the position of the task to Desperate (very risky) and the effect to normal (you get what you want) and you roll and fail (highest die is 3 or less), then the GM can describe how your character starts off in a silent sprint, but halfway across the courtyard their dagger jostles out of their gear and clatters to the ground and now they're halfway across the courtyard having made a racket, what do you do now? That's the kind of character control you get in Blades.

Now, that said, you should, as GM, absolutely be throwing up situations where a player's vice or trauma are invoked by the situation, so they have every opportunity to choose to indulge in them. This does earn the PC an XP at the end of the session, but there's no cost if they chose to not engage, other than not marking XP. PbtA and Blades are full of these kinds of pushes.

Other than the fact that the characters in BitD are broken scrabblers who are probably going to die horribly in the pursuit of petty venal wealth, there's nothing in what you've mentioned that's not possible in D&D 5E. If a character wants to do something, you can let them narrate the success, or the failure.

 

[pemerton]

In the case of the widget things get a little bit sticky, because now we're talking about physical reality, not social interaction.

I disagree that a physical object actually adheres to a different set of rules. I will agree that some (many) act as if they do, but this is a self-imposed restriction and I'm not at all convinced it's helpful or beneficial to play.

To build on what Ovinomancer has said here:

The key "metaphysical" constituents in the play of a RPG are not states of affairs (such as the widget is in the hope chest). A typical RPG is a series of framing narrations (from the GM) followed by action declarations (from the players, for their PCs) and the resolution of those. So the key "metaphysical" constituents are events - such as we look in the captain's trunk and find nothing or we look in the daughter's hope chest and find the widget.

The best treatment of this in the context of GM advice I know of is the one from Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World that I already quoted in part upthread (pp 110-11 of AW rulebook):

Make your move, but misdirect. Of course the real reason why you choose a move [= introduce some new fiction by way of narration] exists in the real world. Somebody has her character go someplace new, somebody misses a roll, somebody hits a roll that calls for you to answer, everybody’s looking to you to say something, so you choose a move to make. Real-world reasons. However, misdirect: pretend that you’re
making your move for reasons entirely within the game’s fiction instead. Maybe your move is to separate them, for instance; never say “you missed your roll, so you two get separated.” Instead, maybe say “you try to grab his gun” — this was the PC’s move — “but he kicks you down. While they’re stomping on you, they drag Damson away.” The effect’s the same, they’re separated, but you’ve cannily misrepresented the cause. Make like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction makes possible.​

Baker gives another example of this later on (pp 152-53):

Marie the brainer goes looking for Isle, to visit grief upon her, and finds her eating canned peaches on the roof of the car shed with her brother Mill and her lover Plover (all NPCs).

“I read the situation,” her player says. . . .

She rolls+sharp and hits with a 7–9, so she gets to ask me one question from that move’s list. “Which of my enemies is the biggest threat?” she says.

“Plover,” I say. “No doubt. He’s out of his armor, but he has a little gun in his boot and he’s a hard ****er. Mill’s just 12 and he’s not a violent kid. Isle’s tougher, but not like Plover.” (See me misdirect! I just chose one capriciously, then pointed to fictional details as though they’d made the decision. We’ve never even
seen Mill onscreen before, I just now made up that he’s 12 and not violent.)​

The GM's job in AW is to establish events as guided by the game's mechanics - in this case, the event in question is Marie noticing who is the biggest threat - but in such a way as to generate an experience of (fictional) states of affairs - in this case, that Plover is armed and hard.

Of course it's possible to GM a RPG by answering the question what events occur by working from a pre-established list of states of affairs - any Gygaxian dungeon works like this - but that's a choice of GMing technique, not dictated by anything about the subject matter of the fiction (eg that it involves looking for widgets rather than talking to guards).