Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

I completely agree that you need mysteries. If everything in a setting is clear and understood by the players, it feels smaller. If you are going to allow PCs solve one of the big mysteries of the setting, its a good idea to have another mystery introduced. That keeps the world larger than the PCs comprehension. Of course, you don't need to this if the revelation is the end of a campaign. The revelation can serve as a conclusion.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

Yes.  Unresolved situations, not stories.

All the time.  Mixed in are other situations that the players can resolve if they pursue a little, and others that they may eventually resolve if they pursue diligently.  I don't telegraph which type is which, either.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

Usually, this is used as an excuse not to write a satisfying end to a story. I don't care how it ends (they live, they die, they get what they want, they don't get what they want) so long as it makes sense and feels right.

I was pissed about the ending to End of Watch, one of the best movies ever for me personally: both Gyllenhaal and Pena should have died in that alley. All that build-up that being a genuinely good police officer does not get rewarded and will condemn you to an ignominious end, it was all for nothing -- in the end, the white guy just had to be saved. The director made it out in an interview like it was some original, never-done-before take with some bullshit "ohh, I didn't want it to end like every other found footage movie" -- oh fuck off, the production company or the studio told you to change it.

And that's just one example. Again, if you're going to put threads out there, I (and others) can tell if you're being illegit.

You know what's crazy, though? The ending of the Vampire Wars trilogy, a godamm Warhammer series, was more legit in its ending than it should have been -- particularly the White Wolf character, made sense and felt right for that character.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056121Usually, this is used as an excuse not to write a satisfying end to a story.

In an RPG? All your examples are from works of fiction.

As far as fiction goes, I don't think not getting an answer to whether God exists in What Dreams May Come made that a bad film (whether it's a good film, YMMV). The question loomed over the afterlife setting, but still was orthogonal to the actual story of the film, the man trying to save his wife from her self-made Hell. Likewise my game was never about Cassandra & Polyachus - they were the heroes of their own story, not that of the PCs. I only have one player who even knows who they were because he's been playing wit me for nigh on 10 years. For him their story is an Easter Egg I guess, for others a bit of local colour.

Like everything else. Used well. It is fine.
Used not well.  And it is a disaster.
And everything in between.

The best is the middleground.
Things have a sort of course they will most likely take.
BUT
That course might be altered a little, or alot by something else. That something might be the PCs presence, or lack of presence. Or it might be something down the proverbial chain that the PCs effected.

example from a MUD.
The rooster crows at dawn every day.
This wakes Farmer Jones who then goes for a walk around town and stops to chat with other NPCs before ending up at the pub.
Jones arrives back at the farm and chases off some crows in the field.
Jones gives the PCs a quest to build a scarecrow to scare off the crows.

Now if the PCs say kill that rooster?
Jones wakes up late.
He talks to different people on his way to the pub.
The crows eat his crops.
Jones gives the PCs a quest to kill the crows.

When a course is obvious - Rooster crows=Jones wakes up - then it should likely happen. But when theres a question will something happen or not. Then roll a die, do a stat check, whatever and see what happens. And think on what that alteration might itself alter.

and sometimes just rolling up a random event can be a fun challenge. 5e D&D DMG gives ALOT of tables for this stuff and you can use as little or as much as you want as a foundation. Oriental Adventures way back had those event tables for things that happened on anywhere from a yearly to a monthly basis and could have quite an impact sometimes. As mentioned in an older thread we had to deal with a famine that swept through a region. Then a plague brought on by the famine. All while escorting around a diplomat who visited out of the blue.

Quote from: S'mon;1056130In an RPG?

Oh that's easy. C'mon S'mon, you know half the godamm adventure books published are prime examples of this crap. Just off the top of my head, some of the Dark Heresy premades and the Black Crusade ones do this. The one set on the prison planet is really bad about this, particularly in the first two scenarios. Lots of "who knows what else [x major npc] they're getting up to?" or "maybe there's another way out of the space station?" or even "you can't possibly think to invade this planet with your own fleet even though this is a WH40KRPG, that's ludicrous!". Shit is egregious. I never use these adventures too, just idle reading while commuting or whatever because I'm a total nerd.

If you've got a good idea, you've got a good idea -- don't try and slather on some enigmatic airs because you're too intellectually challenged to finish it properly. Definitives and specifics are gold. When I write an adventure, I'm telling you EXACTLY what they're gonna do, where and why. And especially don't do it because you feel the GM/players need the illusion of freedom. The GM can do whatever the hell she wants -- she's the godamm GM!

As for specifically focusing on the use of enigma as a motif or framing device in RPGs, your example is an allegory. The Caine myth in VTM is closer to what I think you're getting at. While it's great to read all the stream-of-consciouness metaplot, the reality is that, unless your PCs are Methuselah, they are unlikely to know personally if there's any truth to it... and it doesn't matter because that enigmatic flavor contributes immensely to the elder/neonate motif in the game.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.

This is what I *strive* for at all times. When the players have so immersed themselves in the game, they've taken it over from top-to-bottom and I as the GM am just as in the dark as they are. That uncertainty becomes so palpable that when I'm playing as an NPC - it feels like I'm just a player and the game is driving itself because I have no idea where it's going.

Uncertainty is the high-octane fuel that really takes your campaign to crazy heights if as a GM you let it loose fearlessly. It's a scary place to be for new GM's. It's tempting place to be for intermediate GM's. For experienced GM's it's the only way to fly.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056143As for specifically focusing on the use of enigma as a motif or framing device in RPGs, your example is an allegory. The Caine myth in VTM is closer to what I think you're getting at. While it's great to read all the stream-of-consciouness metaplot, the reality is that, unless your PCs are Methuselah, they are unlikely to know personally if there's any truth to it... and it doesn't matter because that enigmatic flavor contributes immensely to the elder/neonate motif in the game.

I think that means you're agreeing it's a good thing.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

My NPCs will normally give unreliable narrations about things they've seen/heard. Gene Wolff is an expert with such tricks.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056174My NPCs will normally give unreliable narrations about things they've seen/heard. Gene Wolff is an expert with such tricks.

I guess my question is whether you the GM ever keep the truth uncertain in your own head?

I don't recall ever doing this until quite recently, but it seems to make the world feel a lot more real & engaging to me.

Quote from: S'mon;1056175I guess my question is whether you the GM ever keep the truth uncertain in your own head?

I don't recall ever doing this until quite recently, but it seems to make the world feel a lot more real & engaging to me.

Ok. I always have the real story of what happened with me. But the players might only get snips of it here and there. Often times, there is no way for the players to know the whole truth behind something. Unless they found a journal or a video on the subject.

In one game, the players broke into a hotel room. Some random thing they were doing. The couple in the room I just made up on the fly with their own story. Only I knew their story. The players left the room as soon as they entered. They thought the room would be empty.

Yes, very often with my science fiction games. In that genre, if you do not have questions without definitive answers then the setting does not feel as authentic as it should. A lot of my games have an underlying theme of exploration - so mysteries are part of the adventuring landscape.

I usually treat cosmology this way in D&D games.  If the PCs see three sages they'll receive three different answers about the structure of the multiverse and the true nature of the gods.