Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9630073" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I'm talking about the process of play. You said the players can introduce clues, so I asked how that works at the table. Do they simply get to declare new truths about the setting? Do they have to use a Plot Point or some other game currency? It seems you've since described it as the players are able to prompt the DM with questions, and depending on the circumstances of play, the DM may be obligated to introduce new information and that new information could conceivably be a clue of some sort. I'll stop thinking that when folks start speaking about what they actually do when they run a game. I think a DM can say no without it being in bad faith. As for it not coming from him... how is that? If the players ask about cameras, the DM is the one who decides if they're there, functional, and what may be captured on them. He could say that there is a blurred image that shows the video was digitally tampered with after the fact. He could say that the perpetrator knew where the cameras were and avoided being caught on them in any significant way. He could say any number of things... how is that not coming from him? To be clear, I'm not being pedantic here... I get it that the players have prompted this bit of play, but the DM has such unilateral control over the result... especially since it mostly depends on other things the DM has decided ahead of time, as well. It doesn't matter if it's a master thief... it matters that the DM may be limited by his lack of being a master criminal when the NPC would not have such limits. It matters because the DM is always making up additional details during play in response to player actions or what's developed in play to the point where so much of what we're talking about is not "objective" in the sense that's being used here. I mean, if it's true that the key elements of the mystery must be "objective"... meaning determined ahead of time before play... then how can what gets determined during play be meaningful if it's not considered objective? I'm talking about DM fiat in the sense of the DM being the one who decides things. So, the starting scenario, likely the stakes of the scenario, its importance in the setting, the ultimate responsible party, any conspirators, the major clues or relevant information, the potential suspects, possible motives. All of that is decided by the DM. Then the DM responds to player prompts by extrapolating from his own ideas... adding more ideas of his into play. And all the play processes involve input from the DM on both the means and the outcome (for example, setting a DC and then determining what's learned from reaching that DC). This is a pretty broad web of DM authorship. It's incredibly DM-led. And to be clear... that's not a bad thing. But it's almost tautological at this point that it must be so... the "objectivity" angle relies upon it.</blockquote>

Verification