GM fiat - an illustration

[Guest 85555]

By "solve" I mean something like, arrive at an answer under constraints - so the contrast is with invent, make up, choose, etc.

But solving also requires that players, at least in theory, can figure it out, that there is a truth to be known. If the methods you are talking about establish truths the players can guess at and be right or wrong, then I think solving is possible (it may still be different in degree or other ways because from your explanation before it sounds like it is being established as the game unfolds, but if details are pinned and solvable there is some amount of solving going on (but again, that may not be the same as solving a mystery that exists from the start of the session)

 

[Guest 85555]

I don’t think that’s the case. I will happily play in a trad mystery game like Call of Cthulhu or Delta Green, or any number of other trad games that may have a mystery scenario. I have no problem with that kind of play, and indeed, I understand the fun.

But I don’t make the mistake of considering that approach more real. I have recognized that cause and effect in fiction is a construct of the author. It isn’t real. It may be something that guides the author or GM in his decision making… he likely considers cause and effect throughout his process… but that doesn’t mean that cause and effect is actually at play.

Likewise, games that don’t rely on predetermined GM decisions also apply cause and effect. If we’ve previously learned that the widow Barnes was in the company of several people at the Velvet Room, then we know she can’t have been anywhere else during that time. Cause and effect still matters in informing the “facts” of the case.

Neither one is good or bad, and I know you accept that… but neither is actually solving a mystery.

so I was talking about approaches to describing and talking about games and making the point simply that we are both going to have to accept the other uses a different approach to that here

And we are circling the drain in realness. I have made pretty clear what I mean by it but you keep tackling it as though I am speaking in the sense of the thing really existing in the world (I was simply referring to mystery having objective facts that can be discovered and that the process of unearthing those facts and importantly, putting them together, was a process of the players ‘really’ or ‘actually’ solving a mystery that has an actual answer.

I never said other approaches couldn’t have cause and effect or consistency.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Common ground finally! PCs in my D&D game don't have shoes either!

The entire party is made of street-rats with not even a Mending cantrip between them.

 

[Guest 85555]

By "solve" I mean something like, arrive at an answer under constraints - so the contrast is with invent, make up, choose, etc.

by solve I mean there is a true answer or fact to be discovered and the players have the potential to accurately figure this out through things they discover during play

 

[Guest 85555]

Why not?

I'm sure there are puzzle games out there where the puzzle evolves dynamically, and the players have to engage with those dynamics in order to solve the puzzle.

This requirement that objectivity must be static, or pre-authored, is without foundation as best I can tell, and seems to be the result of a failure to consider all the possibilities.

Like I said, I could be missing something. But if you are using external procedures 1) are the players actually able to put two and two together and figure out something that is an objective fact they didn’t know before 2) you might be doing it in stops and starts or at various points (I.e. perhaps you are establishing true things for the players to figure out but they are stacking as time goes on to build a big picture truth.

If 2, I think some solving might be going on but it is still different from a start to finish mystery to solve. And to be clear, Inmight be misunderstanding the procedures you have in mind so feel free to clarify. But an example that comes to mind is the old tarokka deck for Ravenloft. You could use it in monster hunts. But to create the sense that it was really predicting things and revealing truths, details like where the monsters lair is located might not be pinned down until the tarokka deck reveals it during a fortune telling reading. That information wasn’t objective until the moment the deck was used. So in theory you might have enough information pinned down behind the scenes after the reading for the players to solve something, but in the hour of session before the tarokka there wouldn’t have been any really way to solve that puzzle using things like clues and information acquired

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It wasn't something that I encountered during 1e and early part of 2e. I started to and continued to see it during the middle and end of 2e, and on to all the other editions.

Yeah, now and then GMs might randomly pick up on something in a backstory in the old days, but D&D's core agenda and patterns of play works against it. Most typically a player would not want that stuff, as the GM is sure to shoot down most players attempt to leverage it in any way, and even worse, it's likely to get used against you. The goal is to get treasure and XP. Who your girlfriend is doesn't matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, now and then GMs might randomly pick up on something in a backstory in the old days, but D&D's core agenda and patterns of play works against it. Most typically a player would not want that stuff, as the GM is sure to shoot down most players attempt to leverage it in any way, and even worse, it's likely to get used against you. The goal is to get treasure and XP. Who your girlfriend is doesn't matter.

Eh, I don't see what works against it. Ultimately gold and XP are just boring numbers. Sure, the base structure of the game expects there to be killing things and taking their stuff, but there are a ton of contexts in which this can happen. If this context is something that the players care about, be it due its connection their character or for other reasons that make it compelling to them then that is what gives it meaning.

 

[Guest 85555]

It wasn't something that I encountered during 1e and early part of 2e. I started to and continued to see it during the middle and end of 2e, and on to all the other editions.

I think it is a gray area. And it is usually one where I see the player would ask questions (like is it okay for me to have a girlfriend in the city or can my dad be a reputably master from the north). And then the player and GM might hash out how that character is created. But I also think backstory increased a lot in importance the longer I played (my first characters pretty much had no backstory)

 

[Guest 85555]

Eh, I don't see what works against it. Ultimately gold and XP are just boring numbers. Sure, the base structure of the game expects there to be killing things and taking their stuff, but there are a ton of contexts in which this can happen. If this context is something that the players care about, be it due its connection their character or for other reasons that make it compelling to them then that is what gives it meaning.

I don't think the backstory is the issue, I think it is the player in the example taking the steering wheel and narrating details about the family member and the world. I do think it is a great area (in some edge cases, players making up family details during dialogue is normal, but usually still subject to GM intervention). But the norm when I have encountered it is the player would ask the GM if a given background detail is okay or if something specific in the setting exists

 

[Guest 85555]

Eh, I don't see what works against it. Ultimately gold and XP are just boring numbers. Sure, the base structure of the game expects there to be killing things and taking their stuff, but there are a ton of contexts in which this can happen. If this context is something that the players care about, be it due its connection their character or for other reasons that make it compelling to them then that is what gives it meaning.

I don't think there is one agenda at work in D&D. Early versions certainly had a focus on dungeon crawls and the dungeon remains an important feature of the game (it is in the name after all). But even when I have played with the most old school GM who's been running things the same since the early days of the hobby there is usually more going on than just the quest for gold. D&D has come to be a game that supports a lot of different approaches, people have experimented with different styles of play and the editions have all been different in individual ways. But my view for me when I am running it, is the most healthy D&D campaign is one that has a range of potential adventures, including things like forming connections with other NPCs, dealing with family obligations, etc. Some people are happy to run dungeon after dungeon, or hex crawl after hex crawl, and that definitely works. I find I need more variety in my D&D campaigns for them to have longevity (and for my interest to be held as a player)