Here's what I found:

http://www.gamingoutpost.com/discussions/index.php?showtopic=20745&hl=moving+clue

Interestingly, Memeto-Mori seems to be talking about the method where the players determine the culprit of the mystery in the same thread.

Quote from: GabrielHere's what I found:

http://www.gamingoutpost.com/discussions/index.php?showtopic=20745&hl=moving+clue

Interestingly, Memeto-Mori seems to be talking about the method where the players determine the culprit of the mystery in the same thread.

There's much more, (this was a very popular technique and topic back then which is why I remember it). So mostly I'm digging through the Google Cache. I end up with massive urls, and you have to do a 'find on page' to find the good stuff.

Here's a long url: 'moving clue'

Quote from: Ron"Similarly, one Narrativist group is not identical to another Narrativist group in terms of how constrained the Situation is - i.e., just what the problem for the group is today. Yes, the moving clue is a way to keep the GM's notion of the Situation and the players' efforts aligned. Some Narrativist GMs won't like it, but I do - it's a helluva lot better than the brick-wall effect during play (e.g. when the players just don't wanna talk to the chauffeur). "

Found it:

(Gabriel had the correct URL all along)

http://www.gamingoutpost.com/discussions/index.php?showtopic=20745&hl=Moving+clue#

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSay you're the GM, and you've set up the chauffeur as the guy who's got the inside scoop on the whole back-story. The player-characters are investigating all over the place, and you're just hosing them at every step, looking forward to role-playing this chauffeur guy. You've even thought about his mannerisms and all that thespian stuff. Well: the players are totally uninterested. "There's the chauffeur," you say. A few minutes later, "The chauffeur is checking you out covertly," you say. Nothing. They hate the chauffeur. They don't wanna talk to the chauffeur. They go and talk to the gardener, who you mentioned only 'cause you made him up a second ago just to add local color. They really, really want to talk to this gardener.

Bad GM tactic: the chauffeur almost literally hurls himself into the characters' path, or a cosmic rift appears which forces the characters to talk to him. Justification: "But without this, the story stops!" Bad, bad GM.

Good GM tactic: Zoink! The clue moves. Utterly unknown to the players, the gardener suddenly becomes knowledgeable about the whole back-story and the chauffeur never had that information at all. Play progresses, information is gained, the players are rewarded for their investigative efforts, and they think you're an incredibly organized genius.

Really, though, here's the main point. Clues in a puzzle-solving Gamist context are like "treasure" in a dungeon crawl. But they are NOT like that in a Narrativist game. In such a game, the only reason a Scene occurs (is played) is so that SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN. Relationships must change, otherwise, the scene was useless. It could be a big fight, a big whatever, and if no relationships changed, it was useless. The "clue" is not so much a clue as a clarification ("Joe is the long-lost son!"), a twist ("Joe is the long-lost daughter??"), a communication ("Betty is plotting to kill you"), or a crisis ("One of us is a traitor!"). It is part and parcel of changing relationships.

The responsibility of a Narrativist group, players and GM alike, is to facilitate these changing relationships. It is not a matter of the GM feeding the players things - it is a matter of everyone seizing them and even, in some cases, generating them right there in play.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, if you want more of this stuff then,

Gaming Outpost discussions
Forge discussions

It ties into the "say yes" absolutism that comes out of Forge-ish circles, where the idea is to "get to the conflict".

True, if you've put yourself in a position as GM where the only way your "story" will "advance" is if the PCs find the clue, then you don't want to pixel-bitch by having them describe searching every inch of the living room until they think to rip open the sofa cushions. In this sense "the moving clue" could be thought of as a way of responding to "we search the house" with "You find a note rolled up and stuffed in one of the sofa cushions" rather than "tell me where and how you search". But it adds fakery:

1. The players are fooled into acting as if their clue-gathering efforts actually matter.
2. The whole thing is premised on getting the PCs to some conflict that the GM thinks is important.
3. If the GM simply laid his cards on the table, the whole thing would be revealed as a game of Scruples, where the roleplaying is really just a bit of window-dressing on the way to revealing the backstory.

Apparently it also ties into Ron's experiences running Call of Cthulhu, as he described once how the sessions would essentially consist of the players doing stuff until the GM arbitrarily slipped in a clue, which then caused the players to run off to the next scene, followed more more stuff & a clue, &c.

Quote from: J ArcaneI've never had this problem.  Usually if the GM says sometihng after the session about how he was basically just winging the whole thing, my responds is usually, "Dude, that's badass!  You did an awesome job!"  And then I want to play more because I know the GM is that good.

And that's completely valid. The problem isn't with improvisation, it's with the removal of choices or use of false choices.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf your'e really good with google you can search on the terms "the moving clue" and "Ron Edwards" and you'll find Ron's advice about running a mystery game on the Gaming Outpost.

This advice, specifically identified as a "Narrativist technique"  circa 2000 or so, involved illusionistically moving the clue wherever the PCs were looking for it, whether you originally planned it to be there or not.

So, if I understand my Punditry correctly, the "moving clue" technique we're calling illusionism is automatically evil because Ron Edwards said it was good, right? Doesn't that kinda solve the issue?

Well, no...but there's a lot of silliness around it...such as:

* People who insist that not using the "moving clue" technique is illusionistic, because it forces the players to follow the GM's script.

* People who insist that the "moving clue" technique isn't illusionistic, because, by pre-assuming that the group's activity can be fixed into a made-up category ("Narrativism"), they can claim that "finding the clue" isn't imporant. Then they define "illusionism" as only creating false choices over "important" issues.

But Edwards said it was good, so it doesn't matter what category he sticks it in.

And just to make it clear, I'm joking with the Edwards take on things. I don't give a rat's ass what he says about something. If I think it's bad (like illusionism) then he's wrong, at least as far as it applies to me. If he and his group like it, they can call it whatever they want.

Missed this. In answer to "Why wouldn't you want to know that a GM is improvising?"

Quote from: RedFoxBecause it's less fun.  Like when a magician shows you his tricks.

Okay, but if the GM uses his powers of improvisation to give you the impression that you're maneuvering your character toward some goal, such as overcoming an obstacle or solving a mystery, when in fact it's really the GM guiding you somewhere, saving your ass, or feeding you clues, and then you find out, doesn't that affect how you approach the next game?

For me, if I believe the GM is doing that sort of stuff, then I'm less likely to take interest in applying wit, strategy, and tactics to the situation. Not only that, but if there's doubt whether the GM is doing that stuff, or to what degree, it will make it harder to enjoy the alternative, which is to approach the game as group storytelling. Why? Because if I have my character do something cool in a storytelling situation, I shouldn't have to worry about getting him killed because the GM is playing in "hard tactical mode".

Quote from: James McMurraySo, if I understand my Punditry correctly, the "moving clue" technique we're calling illusionism is automatically evil because Ron Edwards said it was good, right? Doesn't that kinda solve the issue?

Actually if you look back carefully, I haven't passed any such judgement on it. I'm saying this so-called "illusionist technique" of manipulating the situation so that no matter where the players looked, the outcome would be there was indeed once endorsed as "narrativist". I wanted to post the link so that there's an entire context to this determination.  

So you can actually check out what the posts themselves say on that.

My smilies and winkies mean I'm joking. I don't think anything Ron Edwards endorses is automatically evil, not do I care what categories he thinks they belong in.

Quote from: J ArcaneI've never had this problem.  Usually if the GM says sometihng after the session about how he was basically just winging the whole thing, my responds is usually, "Dude, that's badass!  You did an awesome job!"  And then I want to play more because I know the GM is that good.

Yeah, man.  After the session, that's perfectly fine.  I stated either in this thread or another one that I had that happen to me and reacted exactly as you described.

However, I don't need to go into a session knowing the magician has a wire up his sleeve that pulls out the handkerchiefs.

It won't spoil my fun, but it's slightly annoying.  Just like reading a module ahead of time.

Quote from: RedFoxYeah, man.  After the session, that's perfectly fine.  I stated either in this thread or another one that I had that happen to me and reacted exactly as you described.

However, I don't need to go into a session knowing the magician has a wire up his sleeve that pulls out the handkerchiefs.

It won't spoil my fun, but it's slightly annoying.  Just like reading a module ahead of time.

Ahh, you are talking before, rather than after.  I've had quite a few games where it was clear upfront that the GM was winging it, and that does color things a bit.  Usually it just means I'm a bit more critical, a little more suspect, because not every DM is all that great at it.  I expect the DM to do a really good job upfront, rather than being surprised after words.

And it does sometimes leave one feeling a bit directionless, unless directionless is what the game is supposed to be about.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMissed this. In answer to "Why wouldn't you want to know that a GM is improvising?"
Okay, but if the GM uses his powers of improvisation to give you the impression that you're maneuvering your character toward some goal, such as overcoming an obstacle or solving a mystery, when in fact it's really the GM guiding you somewhere, saving your ass, or feeding you clues, and then you find out, doesn't that affect how you approach the next game?

Personally, no.  I tend to approach every roleplaying game the same way as a player.  And I don't really think about the process the GM is going through, because it's not important to me other than that I'm having a good time.  That's why I don't like the GM telling me immediately before-hand what he has planned or how he's going to do things, because that forces me to consider such things when I'm playing.

Now this is all very much a "me only" type of thing.  Your mileage may certainly vary as to how you keep your suspension of disbelief contained.  The limits are going to change from person to person...  Stuart obviously wants to know everything the GM is doing is exactly according to his preference prior to play or he can't enjoy himself.

So different strokes and all that.  I just know I've played in and thoroughly enjoyed illusionistic gaming experiences as a player.

Quote from: RedFoxPersonally, no.  I tend to approach every roleplaying game the same way as a player.  And I don't really think about the process the GM is going through, because it's not important to me other than that I'm having a good time.  That's why I don't like the GM telling me immediately before-hand what he has planned or how he's going to do things, because that forces me to consider such things when I'm playing.

Now this is all very much a "me only" type of thing.  Your mileage may certainly vary as to how you keep your suspension of disbelief contained.  The limits are going to change from person to person...  Stuart obviously wants to know everything the GM is doing is exactly according to his preference prior to play or he can't enjoy himself.

So different strokes and all that.  I just know I've played in and thoroughly enjoyed illusionistic gaming experiences as a player.

I feel very much the same as you, RedFox.  I may be impressed by a GM AFTER a game, as to how he did it, but by and large when it comes to the before and during, how the GM does his thing is less important to me than how much fun I'm having interacting with him and my fellow players.

Quote from: J ArcaneI feel very much the same as you, RedFox.  I may be impressed by a GM AFTER a game, as to how he did it, but by and large when it comes to the before and during, how the GM does his thing is less important to me than how much fun I'm having interacting with him and my fellow players.

This compartmentalization may actually come from how much I work from a GM perspective.  As a GM, I have to switch modes into being a player so that I can enjoy myself and not dick the current GM around.  After the game I'm all interested in discussing techniques and whats, whys, and hows with the GM but before and during I'm concentrating on that big ogre fight we were going to get into when we ended last session...