The other problem with the three-clue rule is less obvious:  It means that it puts inordinate pressure that the three clues be very solid clues.  For a regular game, and players that don't care that much, when you don't use it often, you can get by with that.  But for players that love mysteries, it's the kiss of death.  You need clues that are subtle, including some that are so subtle as to almost not count as clues.  You need clues that are all but meaningless by themselves, but when put together make something useful--possibly after some work determining how to put them together.

That said, you can use the three-clue rule as a starting place.  Take your big, obvious three clues.  Make sure that they are solidly different clues.  Then break them up into several pieces each.  Scatter the pieces, rarely having more than two in the same general area (and not two pieces from the same bigger original piece, either).  It's a reasonable way to get started with the method I'm advocating.  However, once you do that a few times, it becomes a lot more natural to skip the three clues and just have 7+ (often 10+) clue fragments.  Makes the result seem more  natural to the players, too.  Remember, it will be very rare for a group to unearth all of these fragments, and they don't need them all to solve a thing (usually).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1119406But for players that love mysteries, it's the kiss of death.  You need clues that are subtle, including some that are so subtle as to almost not count as clues.  You need clues that are all but meaningless by themselves, but when put together make something useful--possibly after some work determining how to put them together.

I'm in the "love mysteries" camp. I'm the player the table hands the clues to when we're playing a mystery. As a GM, I've done RPGs with exactly the types of subtle clues you're talking about because TO ME its what I enjoy, but almost every time I've done RPGs with subtle or complex clues, my players completely failed to figure it out.

I like the idea of breaking a major clue into a couple of minor clues, but I've had mixed results in actual play as the players had trouble combining the bits, not recognizing the clues added up to bigger clue, not to the answer.

Seems that you really need to be able to read the table to determine if the mysteries are the main course or the side dishes.

I would think that additional clues beyond the 'main" ones would make dealing with the "Answer" easier.
If it's a murder then determining the inheritance and not just who did it.
If it a secret location then avoiding the traps not just where it is.
If it's a plot then bringing those behind it to justice not just stopping it.  
etc...

First, you need player buy-in. Otherwise, it is an exercise in frustration for the players.

Second, RPGs are a medium unto themselves. What works in print or on film will not usually translate to the tabletop.

Net effect: you cannot see yourself as a mystery writer and your players as the audience, trying to solve the mystery before your Big Reveal. Rather, your goal is that the players solve the mystery, and the process of getting to that solution is enjoyable for all.

Unless everyone buys in to playing a game about conventional mystery tropes, or some play style close enough to that (e.g. the puzzle game trope, or the "we're here to enjoy time with friends" trope, or the "I don't mind watching while other players do something" trope), then I think mysteries in RPGs are liable to annoy some players, waste people's time, or at least have the "tropes" mess up the mystery.

It seems to me that part of why mystery/puzzle threads trigger me is that I actually like them, but I want them done WELL, and not be spoiled by tropes. For my tastes, the best mystery books are the ones where the situations (both of the mysteries and the investigations and what else happens) are natural and organic and do not feel like mystery tropes.

Organizing things intentionally into categories of clues, suspects, red-herrings, and so on tends to trope-ify the thing, which to me makes it something I don't want to play or even watch. When I watch or read a tropey mystery, I am most interested in the natural situations and usually least interested in the actual mystery. When tropes show up in games, I tend to want to destroy them, undermine them, leave them and go someplace else, or do something to get to something other than a trope cliche.

I've never really thought of it this way, but I think I'm of the opinion that clues should be like adventure hooks in a sandbox -- scatter lots of them them around, but don't assume the players will follow any of them. They get to choose, and what they choose defines the campaign. Treating a mystery the same as adventure hooks means it doesn't matter whether the clues are easy, hard, or somewhere in between.

Quote from: Pat;1119452I've never really thought of it this way, but I think I'm of the opinion that clues should be like adventure hooks in a sandbox -- scatter lots of them them around, but don't assume the players will follow any of them. They get to choose, and what they choose defines the campaign. Treating a mystery the same as adventure hooks means it doesn't matter whether the clues are easy, hard, or somewhere in between.

Yeah that's what I generally do for everything, from the maps in/of the campaign world (which often have "clues" to random things on them from previous owners and/or the mapmaker) to rumors and smalltalk to loot details to what people you see on the road or in a bar, to which factions are squabbling with whom over what, to various covert activities and intrigues, crimes, rackets, etc. If there's a murder mystery, I may have thought more about the details around it that could be clues, but I'm not liable to play it out much differently than other situations. My expectation would tend to be the PCs might take a cursory look but will probably want to do something other than investigate, unless the victim was someone they cared about, or they get the idea someone might try to kill them. In which case, playing sleuth per mystery tropes might be an unlikely tactic for most of them.

Running a mostly-not-"about"-mysteries game in that style though, has several benefits I really like. It tends to be quite immersive for players compared to other styles. The world tends to feel more alive, real, detailed and interesting if players keep getting details and offered possibilities other than "the expected adventure". And it leads to establishing a context for what the PCs generally will notice and pay attention to and react to or not. Vardark is always wary of threats and studying people's weapons and armor. Bizzmat is interested in anyone that looks like a wizard, etc. And if/when there is something mysterious and covert on, the GM doesn't end up telegraphing it to the players by starting to mention details. If the GM frequently mentions some of the people around you and what they do or say and it's almost always NOT and adventure hook or clue or whatever, then when interesting things ARE afoot, they can happen naturally instead of drawing attention just because the GM is mentioning details. Not e.g. "Oh, the GM mentioned a person! Let's all interrogate him for clues to THE ADVENTURE!"

Quote from: Skarg;1119460Running a mostly-not-"about"-mysteries game in that style though, has several benefits I really like. It tends to be quite immersive for players compared to other styles. The world tends to feel more alive, real, detailed and interesting if players keep getting details and offered possibilities other than "the expected adventure". And it leads to establishing a context for what the PCs generally will notice and pay attention to and react to or not. Vardark is always wary of threats and studying people's weapons and armor. Bizzmat is interested in anyone that looks like a wizard, etc. And if/when there is something mysterious and covert on, the GM doesn't end up telegraphing it to the players by starting to mention details. If the GM frequently mentions some of the people around you and what they do or say and it's almost always NOT and adventure hook or clue or whatever, then when interesting things ARE afoot, they can happen naturally instead of drawing attention just because the GM is mentioning details. Not e.g. "Oh, the GM mentioned a person! Let's all interrogate him for clues to THE ADVENTURE!"

The one thing it does not do is simulate the world of a murder mystery. Which is actually a highly stylized and formalized genre, even if we ignore things like the 3 clues. So I'm okay with that, because RPGs tend to be adventure games of some sort. You can run a full-fledged murder mystery in the midst of an adventure campaign, but it works better as a campaign with a set of invested players who buy into the conventions and who work out the quirks over the course of a campaign (because there will always be differences in expectations). It's really hard to pull off as a stand alone.

But that doesn't mean you can't have mystery elements in a more typical campaign, just that only rarely will they approximate the genre format. Which is actually more dynamic and natural, because you'll have mysteries that are shortcutted by magic, violence, or luck; or mysteries that are ignored. That variance and naturalness can add a lot to the feel of a campaign, but the mysteries become contributing elements, rather than the core framework.

Quote from: Skarg;1119441Organizing things intentionally into categories of clues, suspects, red-herrings, and so on tends to trope-ify the thing, which to me makes it something I don't want to play or even watch. When I watch or read a tropey mystery, I am most interested in the natural situations and usually least interested in the actual mystery. When tropes show up in games, I tend to want to destroy them, undermine them, leave them and go someplace else, or do something to get to something other than a trope cliche.

I agree with you for red herrings.  They are very specialized for mysteries.  For clues and suspects though, I think there is still some use in the categories, at least for purposes of discussion.  That's part of the reason why I prefer to think of clues as "clue fragments".  What I want to avoid is thinking of them as "Clues" where people can hear the capital letters if I said it aloud.  It's an organizing principal for making sure the mystery is solvable (assuming interest and effort from the players), but once the game starts, every clue fragment is just another thing in the campaign.

I should also mention that there is a pretty sizable difference in player engagement between a typical mystery plot (e.g. murder) compared to unraveling campaign secrets or mysteries. As soon as you have something like murder or jewel heist or any of the usual mystery tropes, at least a few interested players will start looking for "Clues" and "Suspects".  Consider instead, "What happened to the people that lived here 70 years ago?  They seem to have vanished without a trace."  Maybe the players really care because they know someone with ancestors there.  Or supposedly that place was the last location of the item they are chasing. They aren't forced to uncover the mystery.  They can keep chasing that item some other way.  But if they get curious, uncovering the truth may also give them insight into the chase.  

Another way to think about what I'm advocating is a more elaborate version of the old D&D map trick.  The one where random treasure tables sometimes had you find a map to the treasure instead of the treasure itself.  Now, you can actually use a map in all three of my mystery categories.  It can just be another hoop to jump through--a few more locations you need to visit and fight more opponents and talk to more people before you get to the end.  Or it can be a full-blown "pirate buried treasure" genre mystery.  Or it can be incomplete and/or subtle how to use it.  It's likely that there is (or at least was) a treasure at the end of it, but the map doesn't have to take you straight there through action or genre.  It can just be the kind of thing where if you want to keep chasing it, you probably need some other things to go with it for it to make sense.

I did a lot of that kind of thing first.  It was only later that I discovered that if you did that a lot, you could occasionally do a murder mystery in the game the same way, with a fair chance that it would come across as an organic part of the campaign.  (Though it still helps a lot with that feeling if the murder itself is an organic response to player actions, not contrived just to have a murder.)

Quote from: Greentongue;1119089How do you run games that require players to solve mysteries such as a robbery or murder?

Any "Who Done It?" type game actually.

Do you depend on the player to know how to solve or do you depend on the character to unravel (with GM help)?

I let the PCs investigate. No mechanics, other than standard skills, etc.

The trick, I find, is to keep it simple.

• Don't have a really complex plot that takes lots of clues to work out, as the Players will lose interest.
• If you do have a really complex plot, break it down into smaller ones, so the PCs can solve it one step at a time
• Liberally spread clues for people to find
• Don't be amazed when the PCs don't find the clues or find a clue and don't know what it means
• If you have a clue that is important to the mystery, don't make finding it the result of a roll, make it clear the clue is there
• Invent clues if you need them
• Have NPCs drop clues if the Players are struggling
• If all fails use Big Fluorescent Arrows to light up a clue or point the Players to the next stage

Mystery scenarios are meant to be fun. It's a contest of the PCs' wits (and hence the Players' wits) against the GM's wits. Except, of course, that it isn't. It's just a way for the Players or PCs to find some clues and solve the mystery. There is no fun in an unsolvable mystery or something that needs you to stand on a certain tile, pull a lever at midnight while whistling Dixie.

Oh, and if the Players think of a better ending or solution of the mystery than you did, then feel free to use their version instead. There is no shame in that and it makes them feel good about solving the mystery, while you kick yourself for not thinking of it yourself.

The video game Return of the Obra Dinn does a really good job of laying out clues. It's not trivial, but doesn't fall for the "hunt the pixel" or ridiculous combinations of items tricks that older adventure games used to pull. As I was playing it, I thought a similar approach to clue design ought to work well in an RPG too.

Clue bats are OK. Blunt force trauma sometimes tenderizes the thinking parts of the mob, I mean party.

Honestly the biggest issue is the players themselves. Buy-in, Buy-in, Buy-in. Sorta goes without sayjng, but rather important for such a particular playstyle. Some like finding, some like putting together, some just like going on the ride while shooting shit. You MUST know your audience.