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.

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.