Quote from: James McMurrayThis is different than your earlier examples where you know what you want to happen and all roads lead there. In that one it would be that the killer is Joe Schmoe, and all investigative methods find him eventually. In the example Gabriel gave, the killer could be anyone and it's up to the players to decide (unknowingly) who that is.

Which method do you actually use? Everthing you've said so far has indicated to me that you use the first one (GM decides where all roads end).

Both are illusionist.

I use the method I posted earlier in the thread as an example, with the clockwork monkeys.  That's pretty much SOP for how I run adventure games.

Both are illusionist, but the method proposed by Gabriel is not a railroad. It's not a typical scenario either.

I'm really really going to regret this, but...

How again is setting up Joe Schmoe as the perp, ahead of time, illusionism? I mean, if that's the case, any pre-planned scenrio in which the BBEG is defined - at all! - is illusionism.

That, to me, is a load of crap.

It's not the fact that he's the perp--it's the fact that the PCs' actions will eventually reveal him as the perp, no matter what the PCs do. E.g., if they hunt under the stairs, they find the gun. But if they look in the chimney flue and not under the stairs, then the gun is in the chimney flue.

As for this "throw out a bunch of clues and let the players decide who's guilty" approach, I think of it as illusionistic but it's a different brand. Over on the Forge they call it "No Myth" and they tend to like it because it gives the players power and it avoids pixel-bitching; it's also been called "intuitive continuity" (I think by GM Skarka). Personally I don't like the idea as a general principle but if it's presented upfront as how a given game will work, I think I could have fun with it. In fact it's pretty much how Polaris has to work, and I believe that Polaris is fun as a game, regardless of what category one might put it in.

Essentially, I agree with you, James S. The idea that any mystery where the GM knows the answer beforehand is a railroad, or illusionism, is crap. The only way I can turn it into something sensible is if there's also the assumption that the "story of the scenario" will be the PCs finding the answer, no matter what. The railroady/illusionistic techniques which then go with that assumption include stuff like setting up a trail of breadcrumbs for the PCs to follow (Clue->Fight!->Clue->Fight! etc.) or the "moving clue" (as with the gun that's "hidden" wherever you look).

QuoteEncounter X is just a cool name

I agree!

Note the naming convention for my extensions:
X-Ray
Professor X

Quote from: GabrielA long time ago, I read some RPG tip about how to run a murder mystery setting. First, you create the crime. Then you create some random suspects. You finish up by creating some random clues. Not once in this process do you decide on the killer, the motive, or the specifics of the crime. Then you start the game and let the players investigate.

The idea is that players will create their own connections for clues and motivations for the suspects to have committed the crime. As a GM, you just sit there and nod knowingly and watch the show. The players recreate the crime you never decided on the specifics of, assign significance to clues which had none, and finger a suspect who you never labeled as the culprit. And if they've been entertaining, they're successful.

It is a bit of railroading in the way that all roads lead to the killer, but there are a lot of different roads and intersections.

Oh my GOD!  That's the WORST GM'ing advice EVER! hahaha

I mean, if I thought there was an actual solution and I was trying to figure out what it was... and then I found out the GM had just been screwing around the entire time and just making stuff up?  I'd be totally pissed

I think if you're doing something like that you need to tell your players you're going to be doing it.  Not doing so is just awful.

If everyone knows it's all being made up (like Pro Wrestling) then you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.  Thinking it's for real, when it's really not... that's just terrible.

(I'm actually grinning from ear to ear thinking about how BAD this advice is! Hahaha)

EDIT:

This advice is the murder mystery game equivalent of Superstar USA

Has someone actually played this way with a group of adult gamers?  Were they excited when they finally solved the mystery?  Did they ever find out that it was all fake?  What happened?

Quote from: StuartOh my GOD!  That's the WORST GM'ing advice EVER! hahaha

I mean, if I thought there was an actual solution and I was trying to figure out what it was... and then I found out the GM had just been screwing around the entire time and just making stuff up?  I'd be totally pissed

I think if you're doing something like that you need to tell your players you're going to be doing it.  Not doing so is just awful.

If everyone knows it's all being made up (like Pro Wrestling) then you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.  Thinking it's for real, when it's really not... that's just terrible.

(I'm actually grinning from ear to ear thinking about how BAD this advice is! Hahaha)

Actually one of the best gaming experience I ever had ended up with me asking the GM how he'd come up with such a tight, awesome, cool plot and him replying that he just threw random shit at us and riffed on what we as players came up with.  Completely fooled me.  I couldn't have been happier though, and I was dumbfounded but not upset at all when I found out.

Hell, I was envious.  If I'd known he was doing it, it would've spoiled everything.

Quote from: GabrielA long time ago, I read some RPG tip about how to run a murder mystery setting.

Can you remember where you read that advice?  Was it in something published?

I've run games and sometimes used player ideas to flesh things out. It especially happens when I suddenly find myself way off the map and out in the weeds running completely on the fly. I'd never do an entire campaign like that, and it's rare that I would ever use an idea from a player exactly as he conceived it.

Quote from: RedFoxActually one of the best gaming experience I ever had ended up with me asking the GM how he'd come up with such a tight, awesome, cool plot and him replying that he just threw random shit at us and riffed on what we as players came up with.  Completely fooled me.  I couldn't have been happier though, and I was dumbfounded but not upset at all when I found out.

Hell, I was envious.  If I'd known he was doing it, it would've spoiled everything.

Is the implication that doing it any other way, i.e. having a specific BBEG and allowing the players to explore the scenrio as set-up by the GM (even to the point where they "go off the reservation") is illusionism?

I get the sense, and this goes back to the specturm versus binary, that it's actually the people arguing spectrum that are actually saying "if there's any constraint, whatsoever, it has some railroad/illusionism." The only "pure" way is through complete freeform.

That can't really be the argument, can it?

Quote from: RedFoxActually one of the best gaming experience I ever had ended up with me asking the GM how he'd come up with such a tight, awesome, cool plot and him replying that he just threw random shit at us and riffed on what we as players came up with. Completely fooled me. I couldn't have been happier though, and I was dumbfounded but not upset at all when I found out.

Hell, I was envious. If I'd known he was doing it, it would've spoiled everything.

This is a true story.  Not one of the silly examples I like to make up.

I think I was about 11 and we had just finished an adventure through a dungeon my friend was DMing.  He had this hand drawn DM screen he'd made for the dungeon, and he had all sorts of paper behind it he was shuffling about.  I thought it was pretty cool, because he'd made his own module, like the one's we were used to playing.

The dungeon had a TON of doors in it, but we lucked out and managed to pick the right path, find the secret doors, avoid the traps, and eventually find the whatever-the-hell we were looking for, treasure, magic items, and escaped from the dungeon.

I thought it had been a good game, and was happy with how well we'd done.  I told my friend he'd done a great job with his module, and asked if I could see it.

When he showed me the blank sheets of paper he'd had behind the screen, I was shocked.  I couldn't believe he'd lied to us and pretended there were maps and encounters and everything, when he'd been making the whole thing up.

I was only 11, but I understood how none of the choices we'd made had really mattered at all.  It was all fake and while I could appreciate that he'd done a nice job improvising stuff and fooling us all into thinking it was real, it meant that anything I'd thought I'd done "well" was also B.S.

Quote from: James J SkachIs the implication that doing it any other way, i.e. having a specific BBEG and allowing the players to explore the scenrio as set-up by the GM (even to the point where they "go off the reservation") is illusionism?

I get the sense, and this goes back to the specturm versus binary, that it's actually the people arguing spectrum that are actually saying "if there's any constraint, whatsoever, it has some railroad/illusionism." The only "pure" way is through complete freeform.

That can't really be the argument, can it?

Well, I'm certainly not saying there's some One True Way.  All I'm saying is that Illusionism is a valid GMing method, with some good techniques.  I just don't like the degree of villification it's getting.

Quote from: StuartCan you remember where you read that advice?  Was it in something published?

No.  It was probably in the early 90s or late 80s.  I think it might have been some D&D fanzine from the UK.

I don't think its such bad advice, provided two things are true: 1) You as a GM are really good at improvising, and 2) Your players are a very bright, proactive bunch.  Otherwise, using the tip is a fair guarantee of a very random and unsatisfying experience.

It's something similar to something I do.  If I had to label it, I'd call it "intuitive GMing."  The idea is to just trust your instincts with regards to plopping down elements which initially feel random.  Then try to figure out how they all interact together later.  I've found that if you drop enough of these little things, you'll always have a "tag" to grab hold of later, and the ones which aren't useful will be forgotten.  Others call it "retroactive continuity" but I don't really feel that's entirely appropriate.  It's almost more about having a good instinct about what details to plop down and key on rather than rewriting the hidden history.

A common example would be a NPC mentioning they have a brother, but just using it as a throwaway line.  Later, you introduce a mysterious villain NPC.  Shit happens and then you decide the mysterious villain is the other NPC's brother, although you didn't intend it that way when you initially plopped them into the campaign.

If you do it right, then players feel there's an incredibly tight continuity to the campaign, and that everything has a reason.  If you do it wrong, then it feels like Sybok from Star Trek V.

It all works on the basic premise that human beings are pattern recognition devices.  Our minds see patterns, sometimes even when there are none.

QuoteWell, I'm certainly not saying there's some One True Way. All I'm saying is that Illusionism is a valid GMing method, with some good techniques. I just don't like the degree of villification it's getting.

My issue with it is only if the other player's don't know you're doing it.  In that case, they're expecting you to be playing by the rules, and you're not.  And lying to them as well.  That sucks -- there's no two ways about it.

Now, if they DO know you're doing it, then it's cool -- in the same way that Pro Wrestling is cool.  And what I really like about that comparison, is that "players" in Pro Wrestling do different things than competitive wrestlers.  Instead of worrying about trying to "win" at the actual match, they put their efforts into showmanship and creating an entertaining story.  So if your players know you're just faking it, they can focus their roleplaying and adding interesting bits to the plot you (as GM) are controlling.  Basically, you've changed what the game is about -- which is ok, because the other players understand that, and are into it.