How 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)?
There's basically three different ways to approach it:
A. The fake mystery approach where the action isn't really about the mystery, but the action surrounding it.
B. Mystery surface stuff, imitating the style of a mystery (and probably a sub-genre within the mystery genre).
C. Things unknown to players that they need to discover but may not.
The first one, I'm not even that interested in reading books that do that or watching shows that do it. Sure not interested in gaming it. So don't have much to say about it. If the characters completely miss all the clues, then get conveniently jumped by goons, and one of them conveniently spills his guts after the battle, sending the players to the "next location" that they completely failed to "detect"--you are in this category.
The second one, is mostly about genre fidelity. Characters dress the part, say the lines, look for "appropriate" clues. The typical mystery writers rules are often in place. You'll see copious use of the "3-clue" rule, red herrings, and more or less fidelity (depending on exact sub genre) to not introducing elements during the conclusion. The range is fairly wide, in that you can totally ignore player agency, even to the point of just giving clues away as things progress, all the way up to some serious advantages for players that figure things out before their characters do. Ultimately, though, this one is about "characters solve the mystery" or at least failure to do so is about stuff outside the mystery. For example, there may be a time limit or a compromised superior or police interference. People serious about playing this way usually have built-in options for characters to get what they needed via some kind of hero points or character "I get over this block" abilities or what have you. Or the GM just hands them things, depending.
I don't much care for the second one, either, though I can see the appeal for some people. It's more about living a mystery than solving one, to me.
The third one is what I do all the time. Not only in relation to crimes or other "Who done it?" situations, either. I use these methods for any mystery or secret that may or may not be important to the characters/players:
- Lots of clues. More than are needed to solve it by a reasonable person, but subtle ones mixed in with a few obvious ones that are insufficient to solve it but enough to get started. This allows some players to make intuitive leaps with very few clues, but gives an outlet also for a dogged group (especially one that may be off their game today). The 3-clue rule is completely inadequate for this style.
- No freebies. Character skills can help you notice something that might be a clue, or get more information about it quickly, or any other such things you'd do in any game. But the player still has to put the clues together.
- No making up clues after it starts or moving them around or just handing them out. Don't find enough, then don't solve the mystery, then fail.
- Mystery solving isn't required to keep playing. And in fact, often doesn't have any particular forced ending. Players figure it out six months later (perhaps by stumbling over another clue while doing something else or just having thought about it more), they can still get the satisfaction of solving it. Events may have made the resolution different or even anti-climatic, but them's the breaks. Conversely, solving a mystery is a real accomplishment.
- Multiple mysteries/secrets are always available in the campaign. Clues may be mixed up, and some clues may even link more than one mystery. Players won't be interested/motivated to solve all of them, and that's fine. It's better than fine, as it leaves an aura of mystery in the campaign.
- Very rare to no deliberate red herrings. You'll get enough things that effectively work as red herrings due to all of the above and player mistakes. Heck, when it isn't even clear what is a mystery and what isn't, just normal stuff laying around can effectively become a red herring. (I do note when something has become a red herring, mainly so that I'm a little more careful how I talk about it. I don't want to unfairly inflate it to keep the players side tracked, but I don't want to bail them out from chasing it, either.)
This is what I've learned over 32 years of running games for a group of players that are particularly into mystery and secrets, especially uncovering them. Nothing comes close to matching their enjoyment when they crack a tough campaign mystery.
I like red herrings, especially pickled in sour cream. But yeah, they can be a major monkey wrench.
I highly agree with the GM having an overabundance of clues. It's amazing how much players will overlook and how many wrong turns they will take. If you do include red herrings, its crucial to have plenty of clues refuting the herring.
As an old school viking hat GM, I am very cool with the players failing BUT only because they screwed up, not because there wasn't a plethora of viable options and research avenues available.
It's quite fun to have the players get the mystery wrong and then have to deal with the repercussions of their failure. I've run several mystery campaigns in Traveller over the years and I'd say 50% went sideways, but most failures aren't permanent and the scramble to fix the mistake is great fun of its own.
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)?
Characters will find clues. No die rolls to find them. Not every clue will be found. No mystery is ever really completely solved/understood by all the characters.
Quote from: Greentongue;1119089Do you depend on the player to know how to solve or do you depend on the character to unravel (with GM help)?
In general, the players solve the mystery, but the characters find the clues assisted or hindered by player choices and roleplaying. Character skill and ability often helps, and may be required for them find some clues. Skills and ability e.g. an Idea roll can remind them of a clue that they have already found and either forgotten or ignored. Also, solution of the mystery is not a given.
For "literary" examples you could consider the "Precint" serie by Keith R.A. DeCandido. They are police procedurals set in a fantasy city that is Waterdeep from the FR in everything except name. They were a great source of inspiration when I ran my "CSI: Waterdeep" campaign.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07DBFSTZV?ref_=dbs_r_series&storeType=ebooks
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 generally do not do that... but actually I do it all the time...
That is, I don't do "this game is all about solving the mystery of who did something, using clues, like the mystery genre".
What I do do all the time is have situations going on (or that happened in the past) that the players may only get partial, misleading or no information about unless they investigate.
But I especially do not do the part about "that
require the players to solve mysteries". Closest would be if PCs actually have an assignment in the game world to try to solve or investigate something. Or, someone is killing them or people they care about one by one and they don't know who (so they're "required" to solve it in the sense that if they don't, the attacks will tend to continue and be more likely to succeed than if they do not). That certainly happens. So do other sorts of situations where there is an active covert/unknown situation going on that the players would like (or are assigned to) stop, but that will be much more likely to be doable the better they understand what's going on, and the people doing it may know that and so be doing things as diversions or frame jobs, etc.
Of Steven's three types, I do A) (something mysterious happened, and the game remains as always a game about the whole situation as the PCs experience it) or C) (there are possibly interesting things going on that the players may or may not investigate and may or may not successfully figure out or not), but pretty much never B) (genre emulation - my feeling is "DIE, genre emulation").
I make the mode of play where characters can look at and talk to and snoop around whatever their characters choose to and can get away with without being stopped by someone. I play it out with roleplaying and rules as appropriate. Characters have stats for their senses, perceptiveness, sneaking, shadowing, social and other relevant skills. Just like you can attack things, you can look at things and talk to people.
More often, these investigations are casual curiosity, tactical recon, precautionary, or actually part of PCs seeing if they can carry out
their own plots without being caught! Also fairly often, they just get interested in what's going on in the game world and/or adventure prospects, and so they tend to be nosy, curious, suspicious and paranoid in general. In fact, I find I have to mention enough random harmless details that the players don't treat everything as worth examining. But that also ends up creating a nice view of what the game world is like.
GURPS Mysteries might be worth a look. I'm not terribly familiar with the genre, and I felt it had a good summary of the conventions, and explicitly covered how a game session differs from a book. I also remember liking the "Death of an Arch-Mage" adventure in Dragon #111, though it's been ages since I've looked it over.
In practice, I occasionally include a mystery or a puzzle to solve, but make it peripheral to everything else. If the players figure it out, great. If not, that's fine too. I've been in too many games (well not a lot, but that's still too many) where the game grinds to a halt because the GM expects them to solve something, and the game flounders. Striking the right balance required to make a mystery challenging, but not a complete give away or a blank wall, seems nearly impossible. It might be different if everyone has the same investment and expectations, like the self-selection that goes into something like a murder mystery weekend event.
I see it as "The Shortcut".
Characters can bumble through the events around them or figure out what is going on.
The clues are provided along the way. They just have to assemble them into an answer.
If they don't, then it's the normal one thing at a time process till they get to the same place at the end.
It seems to me there's a serious issue with players being required to figure something out, and there being nothing else going on, and/or the game situation stopping until they do figure something out.
I almost always want there to be various situations developing other than a mystery or puzzle. I want failing to solve a mystery to be a very possible outcome with natural results, and I tend to want engaging most mysteries to be optional. So if players actually do actively go after and solve a mystery, then that's an accomplishment, and not a required or even inevitable outcome.
Quote from: Skarg;1119301It seems to me there's a serious issue with players being required to figure something out, and there being nothing else going on, and/or the game situation stopping until they do figure something out.
I almost always want there to be various situations developing other than a mystery or puzzle. I want failing to solve a mystery to be a very possible outcome with natural results, and I tend to want engaging most mysteries to be optional. So if players actually do actively go after and solve a mystery, then that's an accomplishment, and not a required or even inevitable outcome.
I'm guessing you're not playing Call of Cthulhu. :D
Do you think the Three Clue Rule addresses the issue of dead ending?
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule
Quote from: Greentongue;1119325Do you think the Three Clue Rule addresses the issue of dead ending?[/url]
It tries to, but fails.
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 prefer to have the players be the ones solving the mystery. I don't expect them to know forensics or anything though. I just want the engagement to be occurring on the player side rather than through character skills and rolls. I am flexible though. If I have a group who prefer the latter, I will happily run it that way for them. But my preference is for the former.
Quote from: Greentongue;1119325Do you think the Three Clue Rule addresses the issue of dead ending?
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule
It helps, but I somewhat agree with Steven Mitchell. The more clue options per plot point means the greater chance at least one clue will found per plot point. However, nothing stops players from missing all 3 clues, or more fun, misinterpreting one or more clues.
I don't see a problem with dead ends. Players who encounter dead ends usually retrace their steps to figure out what they missed, or they launch in a new direction. I've had very few groups just squat and whine and wait for the GM to give them the solution. In those few cases, I've let them sit and stew until they either took action or the NPCs won.
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. :D
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. :(