Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9628786" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think the post I just made may help clarify this, but just in case, I’ll try to clarify. I’m talking about the GM here. One game works very much as you’d expect it to. The GM has crafted a whodunnit, with a culprit and possible clues and witnesses and suspects and motives and all that stuff. He has done so with the express intention that this scenario can be resolved satisfactorily by the players. They may fail… but they have at least a chance to succeed.The other GM is (for the sake of argument) not interested in the scenario’s solvability. He knows who did it, how, and why… but decides that there are no witnesses, no real suspects, no clear motive, and the clues that are there don’t lead anywhere. Again, I’m speaking only about what the GM has decided about play… this is not about an NPC trying to prevent the characters from solving the mystery, it’s about the GM trying to prevent the players from solving it. These two games would play very differently. The GM’s intention here is the crucial element… do you see? That intention is absent from a real mystery, which is why I think there’s a huge difference. It’s why I view it more along the lines of solving a puzzle… because a solution has been baked in. It is expected to be solved. I hope that makes it clearer.</blockquote>