How do you run investigation games?

[Takewo]

Hi there. My question is simple. I'm looking for advice on how to run investigation games, and I mean something other than "put there three clues and they'll find something" or "assume that there assumptions are true."

Let me put a bit of context here. I've never played in an investigation roleplaying game, I really have no clue about how to make them fun or even how to make them work. But the last day I had an idea about a setting that would include investigation, combat and social interaction, and I was wondering how the investigation part can work without railroading (or, at least, not too much).

So, I'm open to any advice, ideas, systems, experiences and things to be careful of that you want to share with me.

Thanks a lot.

[goto124]

Afraid I don't have answers, only questions. Well, at least one question:

How much can the GM change the world to suit the actions of the players (so that they don't spend hours smacking their skulls against the concrete walls of a dead end, for example), without breaking the consistency of underlying story the players are supposed to uncover?

[Thrudd]

Hi there. My question is simple. I'm looking for advice on how to run investigation games, and I mean something other than "put there three clues and they'll find something" or "assume that there assumptions are true."

Let me put a bit of context here. I've never played in an investigation roleplaying game, I really have no clue about how to make them fun or even how to make them work. But the last day I had an idea about a setting that would include investigation, combat and social interaction, and I was wondering how the investigation part can work without railroading (or, at least, not too much).

So, I'm open to any advice, ideas, systems, experiences and things to be careful of that you want to share with me.

Thanks a lot.

I don't. It always winds up feeling contrived. The most immersive and fun way to do this would be similar to how they do those murder mystery dinners. That requires elaborate set up, a large setting like a whole house to play in, and probably at least a couple more actors/accomplices besides yourself to run the thing. A well planned and organized one-shot LARP at an interesting venue would be the best.

[Democratus]

Look to Call of Cthulhu for how to run an investigative game.


Create an incident in sight of the PCs that piques their interest.

Have some benefactor approach them asking for help.

Leave a lot of clues. The typical CoC game will be filled with matchbooks with addresses, letters found on bodies, business cards with cryptic notes.

Always reward a sneak-in or research effort with something that keeps things moving forward.

When in doubt, the enemy organization will attack some PCs because they "are getting too close". Put more clues on the bodies of these attackers.

[NichG]

I've done a few of these, but generally what I find works is to create a campaign where there are many parallel outstanding mysteries whose solutions aren't critical, but where gaining knowledge and understanding is a good way for players to become empowered or come up with ideas for things they can do. If you do it like that, then thinking about and solving mysteries will feel more like a natural extension of the situation rather than a job or a task or something like that.

One way to do this is to make the world weird, but in a systematic way. Make a decision before you start the campaign about something or some small set of things that is just different about this universe than our own (or, from the standard universe people expect to go with the game system). Don't tell this to the players, just have their characters interact with the consequences. The players will eventually sense the disconnect and may seek to find explanations. Why is the night sky bright on one side and dark on the other? Why do little streamers of energy get released into the air when people die in this world? Why is it that every day we wake up, the city is slightly different? The PCs will do all sorts of other more practical things than chase down the mystery, but over time they'll keep thinking it over and will eventually start to make up explanations.

[CharonsHelper]

Unless the answer is obvious ("The butler did it!"), you'll probably have to have more clues that you think you will. The players will likely miss some.

A red herring or two are likely warranted, especially if, after some conflict, it gives them another big clue to the actual culprit.

If the players are getting stumped, have some thugs show up and tell them to "Stop snooping around" - who of course the players will beat up and get more clues from. Or an accomplice show up at the scene to get the X they left behind since they don't want the PCs to find it. (That's actually a major tactic in Spencer novels. He intentionally makes a lot of noise while snooping around so that the culprit gets nervous and makes some sort of move.)

No NOT use whodunit novels as a template. Their detectives make huge leaps of logic to get to the answer.

[goto124]

A red herring or two are likely warranted, especially if, after some conflict, it gives them another big clue to the actual culprit.

Aren't the players good enough at creating their own red herrings? Just follow those player-created red herrings and add in your big clues to them.

[Fri]

Nononoonono/

The most important advice I have, other than three clue rules is.

If you actually intend the mystery to be solved DO NOT PUT ANY RED HERRINGS.

Players will make their own red herrings, and you'll have hard time steering away their confirmation bias even without giving them actual red herring from the game.

Once the players are "sure" that they found the clue that the murderer is the orc butler, usually they'll follow that train of thought literally to the end of earth.

So what you need to put is actually more clues. When the players start to be "sure" that the orc butler is the murderer, you have two choices. Either run with it and make the orc butler the murderer, or spread clues to convince them that they're wrong.

[goto124]

Once the players are "sure" that they found the clue that the murderer is the orc butler, usually they'll follow that train of thought literally to the end of earth.

I want to see how a campaign manages to go this way.

"Yes, in my world, the earth is flat. Yes, you're at the end of earth. No, the orc butler is not the murderer. Get back on track already."

[CharonsHelper]

If you actually intend the mystery to be solved DO NOT PUT ANY RED HERRINGS.

Players will make their own red herrings, and you'll have hard time steering away their confirmation bias even without giving them actual red herring from the game.

Once the players are "sure" that they found the clue that the murderer is the orc butler, usually they'll follow that train of thought literally to the end of earth.

Depends upon the sort of game it is. If they're sure it's the orc butler, then they'll start a fight with the orc butler. (Who wasn't the killer, but was dealing meth - so still bad.) Then they find evidence on his person/corpse proving that he didn't do it but evidence that Baron Grayfallow did!

[Segev]

I want to see how a campaign manages to go this way.

"Yes, in my world, the earth is flat. Yes, you're at the end of earth. No, the orc butler is not the murderer. Get back on track already."

First off, this conjures the mental image - for me, at least - of a world where going "to the end of the earth" allows you to see visions of Truth scattered in the infinite depths beyond its edge. This perilous journey is only taken by the brave, desperate, or insane (or insanely courageous due to desperation), but could be the focus of half a campaign in and of itself (perhaps how they get from level 1 to 5-10, whatever is "powerful" in this setting). Then, the discovery of whatever they went there to look for lets them know what to do to solve the problem(s) they were desperate enough to seek solutions for.

And of course, legends of those who have "been to the end of the earth and back" as being supremely powerful and competent, legendary people are true: they're all above a certain level threshold because of the XP gained in making that journey. Depending, again, on the campaign, that could be level 5+ (for one that isn't going beyond level 10 or so), level 10+ (where anybody in the upper half of the level progression is insanely rare and powerful), or even epic levels (perhaps the secrets of breaking the level 20 cap are amongst those that can be seen "beyond the edge").



More to the OP's question... well, it's a hard one. This is a difficult problem, because information control is, in my opinion, the single hardest thing to do right in fiction, and it's compounded in an RPG. Horror is the second-hardest, because you have to get the player/reader/audience outside their safe living room amongst friends and into an existential/animal (depending on flavor) sense of desperation and danger. But information control is built into that, and is again one of the harder parts.

Too much information, and everything is painfully obvious. I've had what I intended to be big mysteries solved by a single leap of connection on the part of multiple players simultaneously from what I thought were horrifically oblique clues (and which I thought would never be enough, so I was worried I'd have to get more obvious). I've seen what the writer thought was painfully obvious (and, knowing the answer, I can see why he thought so) evidence turn into a real stumper for upwards of 6 people in a party, all of whom are intelligent people trying to wrap their heads around what this clue could possibly mean. All the while the poor GM is trying to figure out how to help them without just spelling it out.


One trick that helps if you're finding the failure is on the side of stumping the PCs/players is to not set a DC for the truly critical clues nor for their explanation. Instead, have the relevant skills rolled...and give the highest roller the result.

So if the clue is the red hair left at the crime scene, wedged in the doorway, and that the accused is the red-headed dwarf, the Knowledge(Nature) roll to realize that that's not hair...but fur...would go to whoever made the highest roll in the party. (If you just have one druid and nobody else has the skill, just give it to them.)

The other thing I strongly recommend is that you have, along with the clues themselves, skill rolls to a) interpret them or b) learn where they can learn more about them. And there should always be at least one place they can know to go to learn more about them without having to roll. Higher rolls can get better pre-knowledge or deductions without having to follow the breadcrumbs, but there should be breadcrumbs, however circuitous, leading to more information that they can follow.

Ultimately, you have to decide if failure is an option. IF it isn't, then the longest, most twisted and arduous path should still be semi-linear in that they can walk it and follow clue to clue to clue to clue by doing nothing special other than "be PCs." Their challenges might come in from combats or traps or other encounters along the way, and doing better or worse might provide short-cuts or diminish their resources so later stuff is harder, but the investigation is GOING to be solved. Better job deducing things, making better rolls, or otherwise succeeding well in certain encounters (even "asking the right questions") might lead to skipping large loops of that circuitous path, but even utter incompetence will get them there as long as they are willing to read the metaphorical instructions and go to the next waypoint/plot point.

If failure is an option, then consider making it a sequence of mysteries that build up to the ultimate one. Failure at one mystery only makes it a little harder because you don't have all the clues you could have. You still can succeed at others. Or failure at it might just make things harder in other ways: you didn't prove that the red-headed dwarf, Herr Reeng, is innocent, so he's jailed and discredited and can't help you later on when you find stolen jewels that he can identify as being forgeries designed to throw off those seeking to recover the real ones.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think I disagree with not having a Red Herring. If you have more experienced players, they'll get the picture that they can be mislead more easily and understand your 'hints' that they are on the wrong track. If you have less experienced roleplayers, make the red herring the most obvious person. Most mysteries start out with a very obvious at first glance suspect, that is quickly pulled out of the running by the first act. Like if Grandma Moneybags died, the obvious suspect is the poor, starving art student grandson who is in debt.

I also think a large part of the murder mystery drama is well...Drama. Don't have suspects just try to murder each other for money, but emotions as well. I mean, money helps, but toss in as much jealousy, hatred, anger, and love as you can cram in there. People are often irrational, so if something doesn't make 100% blame it on that. But they should emotional reasons to what they are doing.

I also must recommend tossing in additional secrets. That poor starving art student isn't really her grandson, his father is a different man then the one her daughter in law married! They have illicit magic running through their veins. That fortune was built from crime and/or mucking about with demons! They have an artifact that they stole in their house! Etc. Most of these should tie into the main murder plot, but they add flavor and complexity. Obviously, only include one if you think your players might get sidetracked or cemeted onto a single solution.

And since this is an RPG, you can offer alternatives to actually solving it. For instance, the lover of Grandma Moneybags doesn't want his affair to be known, so he'd like the party to stop investigating and pin the murder on the butler. He was never after her money, and has plenty of his own. Now, he could leave that money outside of their door if they just suspected the right person...Which gives the players an out and a dilemma. Solve the murder, or take the cash?

Hope that helps!

[CharonsHelper]

I think I disagree with not having a Red Herring. If you have more experienced players, they'll get the picture that they can be mislead more easily and understand your 'hints' that they are on the wrong track. If you have less experienced roleplayers, make the red herring the most obvious person. Most mysteries start out with a very obvious at first glance suspect, that is quickly pulled out of the running by the first act. Like if Grandma Moneybags died, the obvious suspect is the poor, starving art student grandson who is in debt.

I actually played that up in one short campaign. The most obvious suspect was one of the PCs... which of course everyone KNEW didn't do it. Only... he actually did do it in a short session we'd had before the campaign had begun. (It was painfully obvious besides meta-playing & things that player did to get rid of evidence / plant fake evidence.)

When they got too close, he ended up murdering all of the other PCs. End of campaign.

[Segev]

Avatar: The Last Airbender had an episode where Aang was accused of murdering - in a previous life - the beloved ruler of a now-small village which once was the heart of a great nation.

A lot of time is spent in the episode on trying to find evidence that his prior incarnation didn't do it. It gets worse and worse until they finally manage to connect Aang to his prior incarnation, and Avatar Kiyoshi tells the tale of her conflict with the horrible tyrant who sought to conquer and enslave Kiyoshi's people. She killed him in defending her home.

So having the accused be guilty, but it not really be a crime (or otherwise be justified) is sometimes an interesting twist.

[Knaight]

Depends upon the sort of game it is. If they're sure it's the orc butler, then they'll start a fight with the orc butler. (Who wasn't the killer, but was dealing meth - so still bad.) Then they find evidence on his person/corpse proving that he didn't do it but evidence that Baron Grayfallow did!

Finding it on their person tends to be contrived. On the other hand, if the person under investigation is one in the midst of a series of related crimes (and they often are), having that series continue after the wrong person has been blamed for it and taken out is a pretty good indicator that they got the wrong person. Yes, they got the Orc Butler. Two days later, Baron Grayfallow has another person killed - whoops, wrong guy.

[Fri]

I guess the conjecture on red herrings is, it should be short and clear that it's red herring. Like that if the orc butler guy isn't the culprit (seriously man, stop doing suspicious ****), giving clear evidence on Baron Greyfellow on his body (that damn Baron!) or having the murder still continues after you jail the orc butler should work.

[Lorsa]

I have ran several investigation adventures successfully, so I will try to give some advice as to what I think made it work.

The first thing to know though, is what kind of investigation game you have envisioned. For example, if it involves a lot of talking to suspects or witnesses, then the best is to run it as a solo campaign. Otherwise all those conversations will either get boring for a lot of people, or very confusing as they will continuously interrupt each other. Another advantage if a solo campaign is that it is easier for a single player to follow their own ideas, rather than, as often happens, being talked out of it by the other players. In my experience, groups are much better at inventing red herrings or ending up at the "wrong" path.

That's not to say that you couldn't run investigations with a group. You probably should avoid having it involve too much conversation though.

One very important thing to keep in mind, which is basically the same advice I always bring up, is that RPGs do not work like books or movies. In books or movies, there actually isn't any real investigation going on, as the actors are simply following a script laid out by the writer. When you show investigations like that, the important part is the clues. The actual mystery is not as important as having a good or interesting clue chain, with twists and turns, in order to keep the "solution" hidden to the viewers until the very end of the story.

There are some obvious reasons why you can't do that in a RPG. You don't control your "actors", so you can't predict how they will interpret or act on any "clues" presented. Similarly, you can't know when they will solve the mystery, so you have no idea when the "end of the story" will actually happen. When you write a book, or a movie, or a TV show, you can plan for the "big reveal" that will bring everything into place and the mystery will be solved. In RPGs, the big reveal can happen at any time, so don't even try to set one up.

If books/movies are more about clues and the order they are presented, RPGs are a lot more about the actual mystery. You honestly don't need to think so much about the clues, what is important is that you know what actually happened and run the world logically from there. The clues will present themselves (to you and the players). In fact, you can't even know what will constitute a "clue" for your players. They might figure the whole thing out based on some secondary or tertiary information you provided but thought nothing of. What I mean is that you should know what happened, which people know what, and describe the scenes or do the interrogations in the order of the player's choosing.

However, it is very important, imperative even, that the players have enough information to have a direction (or more) to go in. You don't want them to simply be standing still with no idea of where to look. If they give up in their search, you've done something wrong.

Ideally, you should give them multiple directions, and then let them choose which one to go in. Obviously, you must make sure they don't run out of obvious directions before they've solved the mystery, even if some can be "dead-ends" (or not really dead ends, as they will always provide some information).

For example, when I had a player investigate a murder in a small town, the Sheriff provided two possible leads, while the Deputy was convinced of a third one. This means the player had three potential suspects from the very beginning, which meant in total 5-6 possible directions to go. Either go and talk to one of the "suspects" (none of whom were guilty), or visit the crime scene, or look into the victims past and home.

I will have to stop writing now, but I can give longer, more detailed examples if you are interested.

[Honest Tiefling]

I will have to stop writing now, but I can give longer, more detailed examples if you are interested.

I'm not the OP, but I found the post to be very interesting. I'd like to hear more and it might help us all out.

[SethoMarkus]

I am finding this thread very interesting because I am planning on running a murder mystery game shortly myself. Though I cannot say whether or not this will be a successful game, I wonder if my steps in planning may help someone else here.

First, the setting will be in an enchanted mansion during a lock-in event. For those unfamiliar, a lock-in is usually an overnight event where the doors are all locked and the participants are confined to the space for the duration (usually something like 5pm until 12pm the next day). In any case, this lock-in will be a formal dinner and social gathering. The murder will happen two-to-three hours after the doors are all locked. I chose this setting to limit the directions the PCs can go. They are confined to the dozen or so rooms with the half-dozen or so suspects. This should simplify any issue with red herrings since they will never be too far from the true crime.

Second, there are conditions for failure, but that does not end the game. The PCs will have until the doors are unlocked to solve the mystery; if they do not apprehend the suspect, or accuse the wrong suspect, before that time, all evidence is magically cleaned away by the magical mansion staff and the murderer walks free. This won't be a "game end" as this is just one part of a larger campaign, but it will certainly have later repercussions. This creates a sense of urgency and importance, but without stakes being too high as to render the PCs immobile (or so I hope).

Third, while taking inspiration from crime and mystery TV shows, books, and movies, I am modeling the game after another game, Cluedo. For any clues in the game, the PCs will be able to prove or disprove their relevance to the crime. Each room will have the potential for two pieces of evidence. One that is automatic (given to whoever rolls the highest, regardless of result), and one will be earned (through a set DC). The players may roleplay investigation as well, which would reward either modifiers to the skill checks or a bit of information directly. I don't want to require or limit any method the players use; some of my players are strong roleplayers, while others focus more on their abilities in game as though they were playing an RPG video game. I want both types to contribute.

Finally, the motivation for why the PCs even want to solve the crime. Well, I am making it their jobs. They will be at the dinner as representatives of the local militia (part of the greater campaign this is a part of). Although the players are usually altruistic enough to follow these sorts of things, I also want to show that they have an in-game obligation to do so. It also explains why the other guests/suspects would cede to their authority.

And there's that. I am trying to make the mystery self contained enough to not spell an end to the campaign, while still making it compelling. Hope things go well, and best of luck to your own mystery game!

[CharonsHelper]

I guess the conjecture on red herrings is, it should be short and clear that it's red herring. Like that if the orc butler guy isn't the culprit (seriously man, stop doing suspicious ****), giving clear evidence on Baron Greyfellow on his body (that damn Baron!) or having the murder still continues after you jail the orc butler should work.

Yes - I totally agree. Once the red herring is followed up on it should (unlike some mystery novels) be freakishly obvious that they're not it.

Though of note - 'the crimes continue' thing can be turned on its head if it turns out that the orc butler was in cahoots with Baron Greyfellow all along! (making them not a red herring at all)

[Thrudd]

Yes - I totally agree. Once the red herring is followed up on it should (unlike some mystery novels) be freakishly obvious that they're not it.

Though of note - 'the crimes continue' thing can be turned on its head if it turns out that the orc butler was in cahoots with Baron Greyfellow all along! (making them not a red herring at all)

Yes, that follows the convention of "the guy we thought was the mastermind was just the henchman! We haven't prevented anything!"

[PrincessCupcake]

Mindset is everything.

You need to tell your players that you are running a mystery and that their job is to solve it by whatever means they can envision. I cannot overstate this enough. The entire mystery genre is predicated on the fact that you know it is a mystery. You know that you will be asked a question that will not get answered unless you figure it out yourself.

[goto124]

Yes, that follows the convention of "the guy we thought was the mastermind was just the henchman! We haven't prevented anything!"

How does stopping the henchman not help at all? Not as helpful as stopping the mastermind, but a long way from completely unhelpful.

[Thrudd]

How does stopping the henchman not help at all? Not as helpful as stopping the mastermind, but a long way from completely unhelpful.

Sure, it might help. It also could have all been part of the mastermind's plan, to use his henchman as a decoy while he gets into position to deliver his master plan. Either way, it's that convention where you've caught the guy you think has been the sole bad guy all along, only for another murder to happen. Then you get a mysterious phone call, or a note, mocking you that the evil plot continues!

[Lorsa]

I'm not the OP, but I found the post to be very interesting. I'd like to hear more and it might help us all out.

Sorry for not answering earlier, I have been busy.

I will try to give some more details on the adventure I touched briefly before, and then if you want, I could give more examples. Admittedly it is a bit hard to remember all the details, as it was a while ago. It was also my first real "investigation" adventure, even though I had been GMing for a long time already.

In any case, this adventure took place in World of Darkness, and the player had just started working for FBI. This was the first case the PC was sent to, so she had an NPC mentor with her to watch the progress. Quite obviously, this was not some DMPC or whatever, not did he offer any solutions to the mystery, but was there to uphold verisimilitude. At that time, the player thought this particular setting was supernatural-free, and was thus quite surprised when he found out the opposite. After a few more cases, some being supernatural and some not, the PC formed a task force in the FBI to investigate supernatural phenomena (don't be afraid to use concepts that work, originality is overrated).

To be honest and just show my level of uncreativity, this adventure took place in a small town in California called Charming. They had just had a murder, which was very rare (since mostly everyone in the town was overly (creepily) friendly and charming). The guy who was murdered was a 50+ years old owner of a very successful trucking company.

When the PC first got to the Sheriff's office, the deputy told her he was certain it was the local motorcycle gang that was guilty (no, my player had not seen Sons of Anarchy :P, a fact I was well aware of when taking inspiration for the adventure). During the conversation with the Sheriff, two more suspects was introduced, one being a rival truck company owner, who used to be on equal status with the victim but had fallen on hard times lately as the victim's success grew larger. The other was a former girlfriend of the victim, a waitress who was much younger. Apparently, the victim had dumped her when he found out she was pregnant, and refuses to accept he was the father.

The real story is that the victim was killed by the mayor of the town (another very successful businessman). Those two, and a third rich man (who had found oil on his land), made a pact with a demon some 25 years ago. This pact involves the yearly virgin sacrifice (who knows why demon likes this), and was supposed to give them wealth with the caveat that it could never be inherited by their blood. However, as the victim found out he made a girl pregnant, he was worried the child would somehow have an accident and die (I think this had happened to one of them before). Thus, he started to get a guilty conscience and wanted to end the pact with the demon. This could not be accepted, so he was murdered.

After the meeting with the Sheriff, the player was set free to do whatever he wanted. The first thing was to visit the crime scene (a truck garage), which I merely described as it was. The player then made the correct conclusion that the killer must have been someone the victim knew (gunshot at the back at close range, no signs of forced entry etc).

Moving on to interrogate some suspects, the PC went to a café to talk to the waitress. The player never really thought she was guilty, and after the coversation he was even more convinced that wasn't so. Then she (the PC, I know my he/she references might be confusing) went to the competing trucker, who was bitter of course, but not really a murdered either. I think it was during that conversation he (the player) found out that there were two other very successful people in the town, and that their success had seemed mostly coincidental.

After this the PC looked into the history of the three people, found out that they had all come across their wealth around the same time some 20-25 years ago, and that one of them had been married with a child who died in a car accident (or at least I think that was the case, it's getting hard to remember all the details). The PC also investigated the home of the victim, talked to a housekeeper and found a LOT of cash in a safe (apparently the victim had liquidated some funds). When he victim's will was revealed, it turned out he had left his house and everything in it to his ex-girlfriend, something that made the player very suspicious of what was going on here.

There was also a sidetrack where the player bugged the house of one of the rich individuals' house (not the mayor), but I don't remember exactly what was found out that way.

When the player had reached a certain point in the investigation, the mayor invited the PC for a dinner at his house. Before heading there, the PC scouted his house (located outside of town) for a bit, and found that the local motorcycle gang had paid him a visit. During the dinner, which involved some interesting back-and-forth by conversations when both the mayor and the player were suspicious of each other. As the mayor figured out the PC was awfully close to figuring out the murder, he decided to try and kill her (and the NPC agent who was with her). So, when leaving the dining room, the two of them were assaulted by a bunch of security guards. After having killed the guards, the case was eventually closed, and the player found the ritual room in the basement, with the latest virgin victim who had just been smuggled in from Mexico by the motorcycle gang. If you hadn't figured it out by now, the next yearly sacrifice was soon approaching, which is why the murder victim had gotten cold feet to begin with.

While it might not be what everyone means when they think of "investigation adventure", it certainly felt that way to me, and my player was more than happy with it. He thought it was very fun to play through, definitely not obvious to begin with and also with a surprising twist (as he was convinced there were no supernatural elements involved in the world).

I think I spent a total of 30 minutes preparing for it before the first session, and it involved like one A4 page of of notes. In the end, I think it took something like 3 sessions to play through, since my player enjoyed long conversations with the NPCs being questioned.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I think one main reason why it was so successful, was that I hadn't a definite "plot" of sorts. I knew what had happened, and provided three main leads (so the players had some direction for where to go), but in all other ways I left it up for the player to decide how to go about the investigation.

And that's really the thing with all campaigns, they HAVE to be more about the journey than the goal. When you write a movie, you can focus on those last 5-10 minutes of tension when everything will unravel, and people will be happy. With a RPG, you have to make the actual investigation more interesting than the solution itself.

So anyway, the campaign then turned into investigating a lot of cases that could have something to do with supernatural stuff. In all cases though, I let the player make the decisions on how things should play out. One of the cases led up to a vengeance demon, whom I thought the player would kill, but turns out he recruited it to FBI instead. I still can't quite wrap my head around how that happened, but it did.

Was this helpful to anyone?

[Darth Ultron]

The mindset is really key. The players must know it's an investigation type game. And even more so the players must know and understand that an investigation type game is often in spots fairly slow paced.

It will quite often take hours to put clues together and follow leads and do other things. It's rare that it's ''find a clue for five seconds'' and then ''two hours of awesome optimized combat''.

Drop lots of clues, the players will only find less then half anyway.

And take a page from just about any crime type TV show: coincidences. He the PC's show up at a place at exactly the same second that a bad guy is sneaking out of a window at that place, for example.

And it's often a good idea to ''quantum ogre'' to keep the game going. Even more so if it's a player idea. So when a PC finds a torn bit of cloak, and the player insanely says ''this must be from Clora's Cloak Shop, it's the only cloak shop in town'', then just sigh and put the adventure there....

[goto124]

At that time, the player thought this particular setting was supernatural-free, and was thus quite surprised when he found out the opposite.

He thought it was very fun to play through, definitely not obvious to begin with and also with a surprising twist (as he was convinced there were no supernatural elements involved in the world).

Strange. I was under the impression that in a mundane setting, setting up a case caused by supernatural elements is much more likely to upset the players. It pushes the game out of the agreed-upon genre, and it makes the case nigh impossible to solve for all the wrong reasons the players don't even have a chance of guessing at.

It's like playing a fun computer game, only to encounter a puzzle that you can't seem to solve. After hours/days/weeks of fruitless frustration, you go to check the online guides, and realise the solution was not only completely illogical, the only clue to the solution was placed in the 31st pixel of the floor of the one room all the way back in the tutorial level.

Then again, maybe I missed some context.

[Lorsa]

Strange. I was under the impression that in a mundane setting, setting up a case caused by supernatural elements is much more likely to upset the players. It pushes the game out of the agreed-upon genre, and it makes the case nigh impossible to solve for all the wrong reasons the players don't even have a chance of guessing at.

It's like playing a fun computer game, only to encounter a puzzle that you can't seem to solve. After hours/days/weeks of fruitless frustration, you go to check the online guides, and realise the solution was not only completely illogical, the only clue to the solution was placed in the 31st pixel of the floor of the one room all the way back in the tutorial level.

Then again, maybe I missed some context.

Yes, if one has agreed on a mundane setting, that is certainly the case.

However, in this game, the player was unaware of the exact nature of the setting (which was the agreement to begin with), and had simply drawn his own conclusions about the lack thereof. Also, since he likes supernatural elements, he was quite happy to see them there.