Hi!
  Someone (and many others obviously) mentioned recently that rolling for investigation in order to keep playing CoC seemed wrong (paraphrase, not exact quote).
  I don't play CoC, but the question has been raised time and again, "why do I have to roll to get some6thing my character needs in order for the scenario to continue and what do I do if I fail?"
  This is a great question. But I've never seen the answer...

  The scenario is, the players have a mystery to solve, and the GM has a clue to give them, possible ways to handle this?:
1) Use the game's mechanics to see if the character can identify the clue from the setting
2) Give the player the clue they need for the game to continue

  Option 1 seems fraught with peril. I mean, what happens if the character does not discover the clue?
  Option 2 seems boring and borderline railroading.
  I imagine there are other options, but what are they?

I think the best option is #2*

If the players have to have some info, an item, a clue, witness an event, go to a certain place, etc -- don't mess around, just state that it happens and move on with the game.

• Leaving it to chance is a bad idea if you don't want a possible failure
• Pretending it was left up to chance, when it really wasn't, is just dishonest and/or wasting time
• Trying to coax the players towards the clue / direction is a bad idea, because they might push the other way or notice you're "railroading" and get annoyed
• Pretending that whatever choices / directions the players go it results in them getting the clue is a bad idea, because it's again dishonest and/or wasting time

This isn't about GM dis-empowering -- it's the opposite.  If you need something to happen to advance the game, just do it.  The players can then focus on what they have control over in the game, and not feel like there's a power struggle with the GM.  Everyone is treating everyone else honestly and fairly as well, which is always a good thing.

I wonder if not describing the event as you normally would will help make this feel more like a "cut scene" in a videogame, rather than classic "railroading" (which is usually a negative term, I think).  Perhaps switching to the past-tense and condensing the amount of time?

Changing the stakes of the skill roll can really help in these situations.

The classic case is the hidden door that conceals the rest of the frickin' adventure.  Man, I hate those damn things.  The normal situation is a successful Spot Hidden roll (or whatever) reveals the door, while a failure grinds the adventure to a halt.  Consider an alternative set of stakes.  A successful roll indicates that they easily find the door, while a failure indicates the door is found only because a tentacled horror is coming through that door right now!  The roll still means something, it's still important.  But the adventure continues either way.

I agree with Stuart.

Another option is

1) have lots of redundant and recursive clues
and
2) Allow for failure. So if the players fail to find the whatever, the game can still go on.  

The classic mystery type scenario is carried out through interviews and clue searches. The party goes from place to place conducting interviews with people, and searching for physical evidence. Even if you only put the main key clue in one suspect, you can still put pointers on the other suspects. But sprinkle clues all over the place so even if they only find 1 out of 4 they have something to go on.

So lets say the real clue holder is the chauffer, and you've been hoping all along that the players will go ask the chauffer. The players insist on asking the gardener instead.. Well, you should simply plan ahead and have the gardener give his story and then simply refer the chauffer by saying "you might also want to ask the chauffer about that other thing you are interested in."

But lets say they forget or don't catch on? Well, allow for that as well. The killer escapes to strike again or whatever, or even (in extreme cases) just say the scenario ends and the players 'lose'.

An alternative suggestion, based on the way I treat skills:

Let the normal investigative efforts of the players - i.e. without successful rolls - find the bare-bones necessary info, but let the successful investigative roll indicate better quality of information.

-clash

Damn, Clash beat me too it.

Here's how I'd probably handle it.  The characters will find a certain minimum amount of information regardless of skill rolls. Investigation checks give them more details, more information, maybe even more arcane, but useful clues. Failure means that they get something, but might have to go to someone else to figure it out, or they'll have to work harder to make sense of it.


Example, the characters are looking for a missing person in a spooky haunted house. They enter a room and make investigation checks.

No matter what the rolls are they are going to see the blood painting the walls. Total blind idiots will see the blood on the walls, it's a clue.

The guy without the skill, but who makes a good intelligence check might notice that the blood is tacky, not quite dry not quite wet, and suppose that the blood is only a few hours old.

The guy with investigation who makes the same check might notice that the blood splatter looks like an arterial spray, possibly from a cut neck.

The guy with the critical check might notice that there isn't enough blood to be a grown man, and that it's pretty low to the ground.

No matter what, they have a clue.  Maybe they need to get expert help to find out the blood is from an animal sacrifice and not a human, maybe the guy with the critical success can figure it out based on what you told him.

And of course, there is the possiblity that the players will ask for those details on their own. How recent is the blood? How much blood? Where is it?

Stuff like that.  Failure doesn't stop the adventure...

One question: What EVER happens that's only gonna leave one clue?
And another: What evidence can be preserved for re-examination?
And another: Are an NPCs interested?

Question one is a bggie. Fact is that unless something really important was being done by someone really professional, there'll be at least three fairly obvious clues. An address book is the best I can think of because there's a follow-up of potential witnesses (Oh, I'm going on the assumption of murder right now). An obviously faulty suicide note is good too, especially if it's someone the PCs know. Now, there may be more in depth clues whose meaning needs to be extrapolated based on data we don't have yet which brings me to question 2.

Question two is big because certain things will become important *later*. Like when they find out the guy was big into... I dunno... guitars? And they find no guitars in they guy's room. Or something. Or certain anomalies get explained by other things.

Question three is just there. Truth is, if the PCs are doing the interesting stuff, there are mooks doing the routine work. They dust for prints. They check for adress books. They hand three plastic bags to the PCs and show 'em a taped off crime scene and everything else is up to the PCs.

Quote from: SpikeDamn, Clash beat me too it.

Here's how I'd probably handle it.  The characters will find a certain minimum amount of information regardless of skill rolls. Investigation checks give them more details, more information, maybe even more arcane, but useful clues. Failure means that they get something, but might have to go to someone else to figure it out, or they'll have to work harder to make sense of it.

Bingo, my pika! Exactly the way I'd deal with it, with an example to boot! Maybe I should keep an insane pika of doom around with me all the time, to interpret my cryptic utterances...

Nah! He'd fry my electronics for sure!

-clash

Quote from: jrientsChanging the stakes of the skill roll can really help in these situations.

I like your take on it.  If you've got a certain set of clues that are built into the resolution of the game then they're not part of the character's achievements.  They're part of the premise.  The players use their characters to achieve things within the premise.  Those things they achieve are at stake.  The premise itself is not at stake.

Classic example:  Evil bad thing is trying to get to Innocent Maiden.  Your noble knight is trying to find the monster and slay it.

What are the stakes of the Spot Monster roll?  Sure as hell not "Do you find the monster?"  The game doesn't progress until you find the monster.  The roll is for whether you find the monster before it attacks the maiden, or whether you "find" it when it crashes straight into her bedroom.

Obviously, you'd really, really prefer the former.  You'd like to make the roll.  But it's not going to stop the game if you fail.

Quote from: flyingmiceBingo, my pika! Exactly the way I'd deal with it, with an example to boot! Maybe I should keep an insane pika of doom around with me all the time, to interpret my cryptic utterances...

Nah! He'd fry my electronics for sure!

-clash

I should warn you before you take that line of thought too far that we're union.

Recent published adventures, like the recent WFRP adventures for 2e, have finally started to get this right. Obviously, a good adventure won't have a single hidden lynchpin that MUST be spotted, often almost by chance or the whim or a single roll, in order for the adventure to work. Yet many older published adventures worked exactly like this.

Masks of Nyarlathotep, for CoC, was considered one of the best published RPG adventures of all time because it resolved this by presenting a plethora of initial clues, which led in several different directions, all of which would direct the adventure in different paths, that in turn led to other clues that might lead you back to paths you would have missed from the first batch of clues.

Spires of Altdorf, for WFRP, does much the same.

RPGPundit

I read a technique for doing mysteries not long ago.  I haven't had a chance to try it out, but it sounds like a lot of fun.

In most 'mystery' type stories, Sherlock Holmes or whoever looks at the crime scene, and a couple of clues jump out at him.  A lipstick stain on a wine glass, a clock on the mantle is slightly ajar, and so on.  The detective will then put all these clues together and discover who the perp was.  How does one get this kind of experience in an RPG?

Well, if the GM gives the players only the obvious clues that tell the mystery, there really isn't much suspense.  It can feel like the GM just gave the answer to them.  In that case he can give them tons of details with the important ones mixed in, and they have to figure out which ones are relevent.  That can just drown them in details and grind the game to a halt.  Finally, the GM can call for rolls to see if they find the important details, but this can often end in a vital clue not found as a result of a failed roll.

So let's take a different approach.  First, understand that there's no illusionism here.  The GM has determined, in advance, what the case is.  Take a murder case, he's decided who did it, why, and how.  The PCs are then presented with the mystery - there's a dead body in the living room for instance.  

There's no rolls at this point, or clues given out.  The PCs talk among themselves and come up with a possible explaination.  Then, the GM calls for investigation rolls.  They look around the room, looking for evidence that confirms or denies their theory.  The result of the roll determines the quality of the clues that they find.  Of course if it's incredibly obvious they may not need to roll at all - if the theory is "maybe he came in through the window" and the window is locked from the inside, that's pretty obvious.  Hard to fail that one.  The GM may have them roll anyway just in case they get a lot of successes.  Perhaps not only do they note that the window is locked, but there are bars on the outside and there's a fresh dusting of snow with no tracks - it is almost certain that the killer didn't come through the window.

This continues until the PCs have a solid enough case to make an accusation.  Of course interviews should be a part of this process as well.  The result here depends on the game - the might call the constable, the murderer may attack them or try to escape, or what have you.

Like I said, haven't gotten a chance to try it, but it sounds like an exciting game.

That sounds like a really cool way to do mystery investigations in an RPG!  Very cool.

Quoteflyingmice -  Here's how I'd probably handle it.  The characters will find a certain minimum amount of information regardless of skill rolls. Investigation checks give them more details, more information, maybe even more arcane, but useful clues. Failure means that they get something, but might have to go to someone else to figure it out, or they'll have to work harder to make sense of it.

-clash

Exactly. This the way how I handle things.

Also, I know the kind of players I have and toss out clues that I know they can handle (or that they will find interesting). I also keep in mind, that if what they come up with when they interpret my clues is better than what I had in mind, I change the storyline...

Regards,
David R

As far as Cthulhu is concerned, not enough information can be fatal. Failed Library Use rolls might still let the PCs find out that a particular ritual site is sacred to the cult of Glaaki... but not that Glaaki himself is said to appear there to receive sacrifices, for example.