PDA

View Full Version : RPG based around investigation : how to?



Cazero
2018-08-01, 04:35 AM
When I was younger, I made my own RPG system with it's own setting. I didn't realise it back then, but the best source of plot hooks in it has the words "investigate mysteries" written all over it in giant glowing neon letters.
And I don't have any clue of how to emphasise investigation from a mechanical standpoint.

Clearly the D&D approach doesn't work well; it relies exclusively on adventure design, calling for specific checks at specific points to gatekeep information and hoping the players can figure out stuff by themselves even if they fail every roll. There isn't a single mechanical rule in the entirety of D&D that is supposed to support investigation, you just kind of make it work when you have to.

I'm not particularly familiar with more narrative oriented games like FATE, but I don't think that would really work either. From what I can gather, the mechanical decision would be something like "I apply my narrative power of investigation to that mystery" and that's it. I can see that it work from a narrative standpoint, but there is no particular emphasis on investigation in the design of the game, and as a result, putting more details into it requires to design the scenario around the specifications of the game, for example by forcing players to pick specialized investigative abilities to artificialy create a need for teamwork and methodology.

So I'm wondering how one could design a RPG where the mechanics themselves put heavy emphasis on investigation. What kind of things needs to be tracked? What would the resolution mechanics look like? How much guesswork ought to be allowed? What do you do when the players get everything wrong? How do you reward teamwork?

Pelle
2018-08-01, 05:42 AM
What's fun about investigation mysteries is to actually solve the mystery as a player based on clues found. So to me scenario design is the most important here, and it can be quite system independent. Either rolling a check or applying narrative power to "get a clue" is going against the purpose of this kind of game. For me, too many narrative powers for the players or improvisation by the GM will cheapen the discovery element of the mystery.

NichG
2018-08-01, 06:18 AM
If you aren't just using narrative editing, investigation is all about information flow and consistency. That is to say, your situation has to hang together well enough that players can make inferences and actually be correct about things even when filling in the gaps of partial information. There's another part to investigations which is, upon having the information or knowing what's going on, how to successfully bring things to a close - this aspect takes the form of, abstractly, overcoming (generally) passive obstacles - time, physical obstruction, power structures, politics, legal hurdles, etc.

The other issue with investigative gameplay is when things get stuck because the group can't figure stuff out or missed a clue. Strict mechanical 'get clue or fail to get clue' type things are therefore generally going to be bad design - so instead of making mechanics which ask 'did the character get the information?' we want mechanics that are more like 'here are the kinds of information you can go out and get (and this is what it will cost you)'

To gamify all of this, I think I would do the following:


- The game will operate in two modes: 'cold case' investigations and 'active' investigations. The difference will be that in 'cold case' investigations, the scenario should be designed such that nothing hinges on the investigation progressing and so dead ends are permissible, whereas 'active' investigations are on a timer and will definitively conclude within a specific, fixed interval (whether through complete or partial success or failure)

- In 'active' investigations, all uses of mechanical character abilities consume a resource 'Time', which moves things forward along the investigation's Timeline. Even though it's metagamey, the players know how much time they have before they fail the investigation. This is in essence a shared resource/hitpoint tracker for the situation. Some abilities consume Time for an individual character, others might consume it for the entire group. One could have multiple parallel active investigations going on at once, but they would not have separate Time pools.

- The timeline can contain a series of Checkpoints, which are indications that the quality of success may decrease or otherwise things may change following particular Time intervals. The time of the next Checkpoint is made known to the players, but not the total pattern. Whenever a Checkpoint triggers, the opposing forces in the investigation achieve one of their subgoals, and in exchange the PCs get access to an additional guaranteed Scene and its clues - a location where they have definite knowledge that something relating to the current mystery went down. The opposition could be someone the PCs are trying to catch, for example, but it could also be a police commissioner who wants an excuse to fire one of the PCs.

- To improve gameplay flow, characters can get slightly out of sync or take actions retroactively with regards to the spending of Time - up until the next Checkpoint. That is to say, if the next Checkpoint is 12 hours away, it's fine if Joe uses 8 hours of the investigation to find the crime family's hideout, and then Wendy spends 6 hours searching it for contraband, even though those actions should be sequential. This is to prevent arguments at the table about how different PCs should arrange their time - each player's Time is basically their own.

- 'Cold case' investigations are different, in the sense that they have no guaranteed information and a dead end or long period of zero progress is to be expected. In a sense, these should be used as either side-quests or very long background arcs of a campaign, with their benefits being primarily personal to the PCs involved rather than urgent in any way. For example, a character might receive information that ends up being useful in future Active investigations as a result of solving the decade-old murder of their father (or they might just get bonus XP or something), but those future Active investigations should in no way rely on those resources being acquired. Having cold cases where progress causes new active investigations to start is completely reasonable, so long as there's no sense given that the players 'have to' progress the cold case or 'have to' spark of those actives.

- In cold cases, all abilities that cost Time are essentially free, so the main focus of gameplay there is whether certain information is or is not within reach at all. These test the upper limits of character ability, whereas active cases test the efficient and strategic usage of character ability.



Characters essentially need to be able to use their Time to accomplish three kinds of things in order to bring an investigation to a close:

- Getting information
- Putting it together
- Getting stuff done

We could then further subdivide that into specializations and character progressions by noting that there are different ways one could get information or different kinds of information one could get, etc.

If for example we want to make the game about 'futuristic industrial espionage investigators in the year 2204', we could identify the following kinds of information gathering styles:

- Social media footprints/fingerprints: All interactions people have with the world are logged indirectly, and cast shadows. This kind of information ability allows investigators to know who spoke with who and when, what kinds of things people were interested in (websites they visited, etc), and at the high end allows things like predictive analytics: 'where would this person go?' 'how would this person react?' etc. The focus of this kind of information ability should be establishing things about the mind, emotions, and knowledge of target actors, rather than e.g. directly capturing personal encrypted information. Roughly speaking, this is for 'profiling' type abilities, and the way to use them is to ask (and answer) questions about behavior and intent.

- Physical world traces: Actions leave physical evidence, and with super-tech this can even go as far as to rewind time and reconstruct a precise sequence of events within a room days after the events took place. One use of these abilities is to produce Evidence, which is a resource that can be spent on 'Doing something about it' type stuff. Another use is to Link Scenes - by finding a piece of trace evidence in one Scene, a character can navigate to another Scene that is relevant to the case at the cost of some Time.

- Secure digital traces: Bank accounts, credit cards, traffic cameras. Digital traces focus on answering 'how' and 'why' - they can establish parameters of the opposition's operational abilities (how much funding, level of experience at this sort of endeavor, etc) as well as Link Actors - find an Actor in a mystery who has some connection, however remote, to an (unknown) Actor whose operations have been unearthed.

- Active traces: A more specialized set of abilities (but potent within its limits) is to actively pull information out of a target. This can include abilities such as putting trackers or microphones on people, up to the high end involving interrogation techniques and brain dives to extract a captive's memories.

- Contacts: Some information is held by people who are willing to part with it for someone they happen to like a bit more than the target. A Contacts-based character focuses on cultivating relationships with people in high and low places, and can trade Time (and possibly favors or other resources) to directly get clued in on a secret or thing of relevance. Overlaps with Getting Stuff Done.

Similarly for Putting it Together, you could specialize into:

- Logic engines: By augmenting human cognitive capabilities with the help of advanced AI, technicians skilled in the use of logic engines can check if their inferences are correct (spend Time to ask the GM: did I get this detail right?), identify concrete missing parts of the puzzle (spend Time to get answers to things like 'how many Actors are criminally involved in this case?' or 'are there any Scenes we missed?'), etc. Abilities focus on getting definitive confirmation of things that are only suspected.

- Holistic Detection: On the other side of the process, these abilities focus on obtaining unexplained insights which must be further investigated in order to bear fruit. While a logic engine user asks 'did we miss a Scene?', the holistic detective gets themselves roaring drunk and sees where they end up stumbling.

And for Getting Stuff Done:

For an investigative game, these abilities should be sort of like backfiring nukes - player characters can generally pull a lot of power from these, but if they pull power against the wrong targets (that is to say, if they screwed up the investigation) or pull power when they don't yet have the Evidence to support it, there should be a proportional backfire. So while the super-cop party member can arrest someone outright, the incentives of the game should be that they use a softer touch if they aren't 100% sure they've got the right guy.

- Authority: This character has built some kind of authority that lets them make obstacles of a lower station just go away - maybe they can demand to be let into the premises, or insist on being able to arrest a target on their own recognizance. At the low end, no backfire ('sir, we'd like to ask some questions' will generally be okay unless the target is super-important), but middle to high end acts can cause significant Time loss via bureaucracy. Generally, consequences of backfire are somewhat contained and don't grow here.

- Force: You can ask for a key, or shoot the door with a bazooka. This style has no soft moves - everything is likely to backfire pretty severely if you have the wrong guy, and even if you have the right guy you're still likely going to get some backfire - shooting the criminal rather than arresting them is still going to draw attention and an internal psych review at best, and at worst - if for example the character is just a mercenary - will get them sent to jail. Backfire from use of Force tends to make it impossible to remain in the public eye, but for off-the-grid characters it translates to a decaying 'Heat' score that promises interference in the character's other activities - if the cops see them, they'll arrest them, but after some time they may stop actively looking.

- Subtlety: This method has minimal backfire, since the character covers their tracks, but as a consequence these abilities take a lot of Time to use. Where the Authority user arrests a criminal, and the Force user shoots them, the Subtlety user leaks their specific travel plans to a mob family that bears an old grudge against them.


Anyhow, stuff like that... The point is, formalize the 'kinds' of information that can be gotten and shape design around giving differential access to those different types. Then stick a driver on the whole thing so it doesn't get stuck, and make players play a resource-conservation game where they can replace the use of powers (which cost the resource) with their own free deductions.

CharonsHelper
2018-08-01, 06:46 AM
What's fun about investigation mysteries is to actually solve the mystery as a player based on clues found. So to me scenario design is the most important here, and it can be quite system independent. Either rolling a check or applying narrative power to "get a clue" is going against the purpose of this kind of game. For me, too many narrative powers for the players or improvisation by the GM will cheapen the discovery element of the mystery.

I'll +1 this.

Though - having decent social rules for things like intimidation & lying could be useful - with bonuses to figure if someone's lying as you gain evidence etc.

Tanarii
2018-08-01, 07:06 AM
What's fun about investigation mysteries is to actually solve the mystery as a player based on clues found. So to me scenario design is the most important here, and it can be quite system independent. Either rolling a check or applying narrative power to "get a clue" is going against the purpose of this kind of game. For me, too many narrative powers for the players or improvisation by the GM will cheapen the discovery element of the mystery.
While I agree with what you're saying, this has the danger of pixel-bitching / reading the GMs mind. That's why many players want to roll a die to get a big fat hint. They're stuck, and they want a way to get the GM to give them a suggestion they wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

Of course, you can always just make the mechanic of getting a clue to say "Well, we're stuck. GM, want to give us a hint? Otherwise we're just gonna wander off and go find some orks to kill."

Requilac
2018-08-01, 07:14 AM
If I am being honest, developing a good RPG mystery is much more based around he actual presentation and player performance; not so much the system itself. I almost always include some element of mystery in my D&D games, and so far it has been a good method of doing it. What you need to understand is that you don’t always need to make a check to find a clue, sometimes if a player searches the right area they will just find it. The reason there aren’t many rules in D&D that support investigation is exactly because by doing so they would gatekeeper information even more.

Also keep in mind the vast amount of spells in D&D specifically meant to be used for investigative purposes. The whole school of divination and Speak with the Dead are there for a reason, and enchantment and illusion could also prove quite useful (and maybe transmutation to a lesser extent).

You seem to not want to focus on encounter design, but that’s exactly how investigation was meant to be built. By trying to emphasize mystery by a mechanical standpoint, then you run into the same problems you do with D&D and FATE which you didn’t like. By having strong mechanics, it supports fail or succeed binary or narrative powers; that’s the whole point of having mechanics.

Not that I am saying they aren’t games that do this better than D&D, but saying that it doesn’t support it at all is erroneous. Nor am I saying you shouldn’t create your own system for this. But I am telling you that by reducing focus on encounter design and more on mechanics you are specifically incentivizing your previously stated problems.

_____
I am not sure if this is to your taste, but have you ever played Call of Cthulhu? It is specifically developed to be a game based around investigation. The PCs are even called “investigators”.

Pelle
2018-08-01, 08:21 AM
While I agree with what you're saying, this has the danger of pixel-bitching / reading the GMs mind. That's why many players want to roll a die to get a big fat hint. They're stuck, and they want a way to get the GM to give them a suggestion they wouldn't have thought of otherwise.


Sure, but that's why I think robust scenario design is more important than the system. Reading the GMs mind is basically what mysteries are about though, since the GM creates the scenario and runs the world. If players ask for a big fat hint, I think they don't want to solve mysteries though, just to have the mystery solved. In that case you should just skip it alltogether.

Problem is with systems that give you abilities that give you answers too easily. If you want to be able to solve mysteries, you should take those abilities, but then there are no real mysteries for you to solve anymore. Those abilities are fine however if the players want to skip to having solved the mystery. They could be accounted for in the scenario design.



Of course, you can always just make the mechanic of getting a clue to say "Well, we're stuck. GM, want to give us a hint? Otherwise we're just gonna wander off and go find some orks to kill."

You don't need a mechanic for that, you just talk with your group about it. Anyways, that's what the GM do in practice. If you want the party to solve the mystery and they don't make any progress, you introduce more hints, emphasize certain information etc, until they are able to make the deduction themselves and feel empowered. Telling them the answer or making it too easy removes the fun for the players.

Altair_the_Vexed
2018-08-01, 09:19 AM
One of my favourite - but not everybody's - bloggers has done a lot on this topic, so here's a dump of links for your to trawl through.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39682/roleplaying-games/gm-dont-list-7-preempting-investigation

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36605/roleplaying-games/thinking-about-urbancrawls-part-11-the-investigation-action

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39651/roleplaying-games/rulings-in-practice-gathering-information

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39003/roleplaying-games/random-gm-tip-speak-with-dead-mysteries

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38374/roleplaying-games/check-this-out-player-tricks-solving-rpg-mysteries

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38104/roleplaying-games/random-gm-tip-matryoshka-search-technique

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37903/roleplaying-games/5-node-mystery

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/35906/roleplaying-games/untested-dd-interrogation

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/29334/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-gumshoe-approach-to-clues

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/33817/roleplaying-games/development-query-active-perception-checks-in-pathfinder

I hope that lot is helpful!

Cazero
2018-08-01, 10:11 AM
What's fun about investigation mysteries is to actually solve the mystery as a player based on clues found. So to me scenario design is the most important here, and it can be quite system independent.Agreed.
But more to the point, it's probably impossible to sidestep good scenario design. That's why I'd want to facilitate that, if it's at all possible. Recommending a "writing mystery novels for dummies" book is a sound idea, but here I'm wondering about what kind of mechanics could help.

Either rolling a check or applying narrative power to "get a clue" is going against the purpose of this kind of game. For me, too many narrative powers for the players or improvisation by the GM will cheapen the discovery element of the mystery.
That's the crux of the issue. On one hand, I want actual solving to happen. On the other hand, I want some kind of mechanical rules that can help solving the mystery without outright erasing it.
You can hardly pretend your game revolves around solving mysteries when your mechanics are about cicrumventing all need to think, and the same can be said if your mechanics don't help at all with the thinking. And if there is a middle ground somewhere, it's probably not universal. So I think I'll just have to deal with the fact that not everyone (and maybe not me) will be satisfied with whatever we come up with.


If you aren't just using narrative editing,
Full discolure : I don't know if I should use narrative editing. Using it helps with not being stuck or solving things too easily but can quickly create inconsistencies and the feeling that investigating was kinda pointless.
So could there be rules for using it, within certain parameters?

investigation is all about information flow and consistency. That is to say, your situation has to hang together well enough that players can make inferences and actually be correct about things even when filling in the gaps of partial information. There's another part to investigations which is, upon having the information or knowing what's going on, how to successfully bring things to a close - this aspect takes the form of, abstractly, overcoming (generally) passive obstacles - time, physical obstruction, power structures, politics, legal hurdles, etc.

The other issue with investigative gameplay is when things get stuck because the group can't figure stuff out or missed a clue. Strict mechanical 'get clue or fail to get clue' type things are therefore generally going to be bad design - so instead of making mechanics which ask 'did the character get the information?' we want mechanics that are more like 'here are the kinds of information you can go out and get (and this is what it will cost you)'

To gamify all of this, I think I would do the following:
-snip-
Anyhow, stuff like that... The point is, formalize the 'kinds' of information that can be gotten and shape design around giving differential access to those different types. Then stick a driver on the whole thing so it doesn't get stuck, and make players play a resource-conservation game where they can replace the use of powers (which cost the resource) with their own free deductions.
So defining oppositions with various methods of overcoming it and relative resistance to each of them, tracking down progress toward a failure state, and establish meaningful costs for any use of an ability that circumvent actual problem solving. Good stuff.


If I am being honest, developing a good RPG mystery is much more based around he actual presentation and player performance; not so much the system itself. I almost always include some element of mystery in my D&D games, and so far it has been a good method of doing it. What you need to understand is that you don’t always need to make a check to find a clue, sometimes if a player searches the right area they will just find it. The reason there aren’t many rules in D&D that support investigation is exactly because by doing so they would gatekeeper information even more.

Also keep in mind the vast amount of spells in D&D specifically meant to be used for investigative purposes. The whole school of divination and Speak with the Dead are there for a reason, and enchantment and illusion could also prove quite useful (and maybe transmutation to a lesser extent).

You seem to not want to focus on encounter design, but that’s exactly how investigation was meant to be built. By trying to emphasize mystery by a mechanical standpoint, then you run into the same problems you do with D&D and FATE which you didn’t like. By having strong mechanics, it supports fail or succeed binary or narrative powers; that’s the whole point of having mechanics.

Not that I am saying they aren’t games that do this better than D&D, but saying that it doesn’t support it at all is erroneous. Nor am I saying you shouldn’t create your own system for this. But I am telling you that by reducing focus on encounter design and more on mechanics you are specifically incentivizing your previously stated problems.So you think it can't really work out then?
To be honest, I do have an issue with encounter building in general, and I feel like having mechanics around mysteries specificaly would help for that kind of encouters. I'm not expecting a Mystery Rating to pop out, but what we have now is "guess how much of what you're thinking your players can guess".


I am not sure if this is to your taste, but have you ever played Call of Cthulhu? It is specifically developed to be a game based around investigation. The PCs are even called “investigators”.
I played that game several times. And you may disagree with me, but I'm lumping it in the "D&D way" box.
Yes, the PCs are called investigators. Yes, they are expected to investigate a mystery. But no, the game doesn't define any mechanics around actualy doing that, every significant thing the PCs can discover and how they can discover it has to be taken into account in the scenario writing step, and they usualy are ill-equipped to understand the supernatural events happening. It's less like investigating and more like being there and throwing guesses at some thing in the hope that one of your ideas stops it.

Requilac
2018-08-01, 11:06 AM
So you think it can't really work out then?
To be honest, I do have an issue with encounter building in general, and I feel like having mechanics around mysteries specificaly would help for that kind of encouters. I'm not expecting a Mystery Rating to pop out, but what we have now is "guess how much of what you're thinking your players can guess".

I played that game several times. And you may disagree with me, but I'm lumping it in the "D&D way" box.
Yes, the PCs are called investigators. Yes, they are expected to investigate a mystery. But no, the game doesn't define any mechanics around actualy doing that, every significant thing the PCs can discover and how they can discover it has to be taken into account in the scenario writing step, and they usualy are ill-equipped to understand the supernatural events happening. It's less like investigating and more like being there and throwing guesses at some thing in the hope that one of your ideas stops it.

I didn’t say it couldn’t work out, just that it will not work out the way you want it to. When it comes to TRPG’s mechanics are existent for two reasons; (a) to determine whether someone succeeds or fails at doing something, which is your problem with D&D or CoC style games or (b) to grant narrative powers, which is why you think FATE is a poor system. That’s the whole reason why mechanics are used. I don’t think you can implement a mechanical idea without running into either of those two problems. Maybe free form roleplaying would be more your style.

Mystery is so heavily based around scenario design because that’s what mystery is. It is literally going through scenarios where you investigate scenes and people to find out what scenario has occurred or will occur. It’s the whole basis and building blocks of mystery; that’s why it’s so focused on scenarios. As an analogy, it seems like you want to implement a combat system which doesn’t focus on attacking or a social interaction system which doesn’t focus on people communicating with each other.

By introducing mechanics, you also introduce the problems you don’t like. You can either leave most of the work to what the player’s can use their intelligence and wisdom to determine about the area; or you can use luck or narrative powers. Mystery naturally requires good scenario design; just as good combats require good design of enemies and the battlefield and good social interactions require well developed personalities.

And I think there is one thing you are getting hung up on; you don’t always need to succeed when it comes to TRPGs. I know this doesn’t come up in other media a lot, but for role playing that is part of its inherent nature. Sure you may investigate something, but just because you don’t solve the mystery and whatever BBEG or evil dudes get away their plot doesn’t mean it’s a pointless game. Failure is an intrinsic part of a TRPG, even a mystery one. Just as in D&D you can get TPK’ed by a dragon or in CoC jailed up in an asylum before stopping the Cult of the Fellowship of Yith from sacrificing people. Accept that sometimes if the players weren’t thinking right and are on the wrong track, they might fail to solve the mystery.

Pelle
2018-08-01, 11:51 AM
Agreed.
But more to the point, it's probably impossible to sidestep good scenario design. That's why I'd want to facilitate that, if it's at all possible. Recommending a "writing mystery novels for dummies" book is a sound idea, but here I'm wondering about what kind of mechanics could help.


Understood, and I realize my post wasn't helpful in that regard. At least I mentioned things that would be detrimental. NichG was more constructive!



That's the crux of the issue. On one hand, I want actual solving to happen. On the other hand, I want some kind of mechanical rules that can help solving the mystery without outright erasing it.
You can hardly pretend your game revolves around solving mysteries when your mechanics are about cicrumventing all need to think, and the same can be said if your mechanics don't help at all with the thinking. And if there is a middle ground somewhere, it's probably not universal. So I think I'll just have to deal with the fact that not everyone (and maybe not me) will be satisfied with whatever we come up with.


If the mechanics help you with thinking, it is solving the mystery for you. If you have a good scenario, you can do free form to solve it, not needing any mechanics at all. Character abilities should be tools that help them find information, but deciding which tools to use when and deducing what the information indicates the players need to do.

You can look at board game Sherlock Holmes - Consulting Detetective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-63xEB31dA). The game is basically just the scenario itself; you get a lot of information and need to figure out the mystery. Mechanic lite for being a board game.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-01, 12:22 PM
Take a look at Monster of the Week.


Investigate A Mystery
When you investigate a mystery, roll +Sharp.
On a 10+ hold 2, and on a 7-9, hold 1.

One hold can be spent to ask the Keeper one of the following questions:
• What happened here?
• What sort of creature is it?
• What can it do?
• What can hurt it?
• Where did it go?
• What was it going to do?
• What is being concealed here?

On a miss, you reveal some information to the monster or whoever you are talking to. The Keeper might ask you some questions, which you have to answer.

Nifft
2018-08-01, 12:31 PM
Gumshoe is a system designed around investigation, with several different instantiations.

Take a look at that and plunder it for innovations, if they seem compatible.

NichG
2018-08-01, 01:03 PM
Full discolure : I don't know if I should use narrative editing. Using it helps with not being stuck or solving things too easily but can quickly create inconsistencies and the feeling that investigating was kinda pointless.
So could there be rules for using it, within certain parameters?


It depends strongly on why exactly you like investigation scenarios. If you like the clever reveal at the end of detective stories, then narrative editing basically lets you offload the need to be creative onto the players, and you can watch them create solutions to fit whatever constraints you apply in defining the scenario.

But if you like the actual act of putting things together and solving things, you want to avoid narrative editing that influences or alters the actual salient points of the mystery itself (you can still get away with weak editing like 'oh, I have a contact in the underworld, lets talk to them' which mostly change the relationship between the PCs and unspecified setting elements that aren't actually directly connected with the mystery.

You don't strictly need even that level of it, as long as you design mysteries or have mechanics in the system that don't make it possible to become indefinitely stuck.

I tend to run stuff at the level of 'retroactively doing stuff or making decisions you could have plausibly done, but using your current awareness of the situation' narrative editing, since that's something that comes up at the table all the time, and having players spend a cheap renewable resource for it is a way to legitimize it while keeping it from getting out of hand.

Segev
2018-08-01, 01:46 PM
In a tabletop RPG, you rarely need specialized mechanics to handle a mystery. Mysteries can almost be thought of as point-and-click adventures. Except there's a far less limited supply of things to pick up and click on other things.

The key is to make sure the clues are not just there, but plentiful; players will miss far more than you expect them to. THe other keys are having interesting NPCs who are involved in it, because 80% or so of the play will be talking to them and figuring out their motives.

The kinds of mechanics that enter into it are skills at finding things, and social mechanics. The majority of it is information control and distribution, which, as others have said, goes into designing the scenario. Knowing what happened down to sufficiently fine detail that you can determine what there is to find and what can be seen, and if anything pertinent to the investigation is present. The mechanics are how the players determine what their PCs find, uncover, or persuade/trick/browbeat out of the NPCs.

Legato Endless
2018-08-01, 02:08 PM
The key is to make sure the clues are not just there, but plentiful; players will miss far more than you expect them to.

This needs to be emphasized. Tabletop RPGs are hell on most players' information retention. There's a ton of distractions, mental energy going in all sorts of other ways, and whether or not your players are more visual/tactile oriented. Details your players could easily identify and remember in a film or a novel tend to much more elusive in campaign. A mystery needs to be designed with the awareness your players focus won't always be the sharpest.

Thrudd
2018-08-01, 02:16 PM
I think NichG's example is a fantastic place to start for a detective/solving crimes RPG. As GM you would design the overall crime scenario and the timeline, and create detailed scenes that are investigated for clues by the players in real-time by asking questions (ala old point and click games). The players are the ones who need to ask the right questions about the crime scene and make the correct inferences to get the most favorable outcome (completing the scenario in the least amount of time, or before the timer runs out).

D&D is not designed for investigations and mysteries. The way the mechanics work, it is obvious that "mysteries" are meant to be solved in a binary fashion with the intent to drive the characters toward the next adventure location. or to determine whether they get something extra that will help them. Roll to see if you get the clue, or cast a spell to get the clue. Did you get the clue? Now you know where the bad guy's fortress is. Didn't get the clue? Now somebody leads you to an intermediary place where you have some encounters before you find out where the bad guy's fortress is, so you've lost some time and/or resources. Or, roll investigation - success? find a secret door shortcut. failure? have to take the long way around. Success?- get some extra treasure, Failure? - sorry, no extra treasure., etc.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-01, 02:42 PM
The key is to make sure the clues are not just there, but plentiful; players will miss far more than you expect them to. THe other keys are having interesting NPCs who are involved in it, because 80% or so of the play will be talking to them and figuring out their motives.

There are three types of mysteries to keep in mind:

Type One: Kids Stuff. Scooby Do, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Blues Clues, Inspector Gadget and so on. They are very easy and simple and direct, but still require some investment from a viewer. Reasonably, anyone should be able to solve such a mystery...but that won't always be true. Still this is the type of mystery, and the type of clues, that most people should be able to ''get''.

Type Two: Typical TV and books. CSI Anything, Any Cop show, Supernatural, Any Star Trek and so on. They are complex enough so the ''average person'' is clueless and won't 'get it' until the end or they will struggle to figure things out. Less then half of all people can ''get'' or ''solve'' and thing...but most should at least be able to follow along and get the vague idea.

Type Three: Hard Stuff. The really hard core novels and Burn Notice, X-Files, and so on. This type is very complex, and like real life often never has a 'true answer'. The ''average person" will be lost, but enjoy the ride..and only a few will 'get' what littler there is to get.

The vast majority of gamers really only like Type One. And while some do like Type Two, the trick is you will rearly get a whole group of them...unless you really set out the find them.

The real trick is the investment. When you 'translate' a mystery into an RPG there has to be a LOT of player investment and immersion. The player has to WANT their character to Solve The Mystery. And that type of focus is very rare.

Segev
2018-08-01, 02:58 PM
Eh, no. Anything can be divided up by difficulty, sure, but that's not really useful to this discussion. Especially when there's no suggestion provided for how to achieve those difficulties. Let's not insult people by pretending that "most gamers" are somehow "easy mode babies."

Now, where Darth Ultron has something of an interesting point is in whether the mystery in a fiction is a "fair play" mystery. That is, is the evidence all there, visible to the viewer, and all he has to do is notice it and put it together? Or is the evidence in some way concealed so that only the heroic detective can notice it? Sherlock Holmes was irritatingly commonly the latter kind, and a lot of "detective shows" go the same route. Some are blatant about it, with the detective's reaction shot to seeing the crucial evidence shown on screen, while the audience is left in the dark until the Big Reveal. Sherlock Holmes was obnoxious about it, sometimes pulling stunts like having the whole mystery be solved by a letter exchange Mr. Holmes had with somebody entirely off-screen, and the whole rest of the investigation a run-around that achieved nothing save wasting the reader's time right up until the Great Detective announces what he learned from his letter.

Others - and Psych usually was this kind, oddly enough - the evidence is all there. Sometimes, it's even highlighted for you when the detective first notices it. Others, it's only highlighted as the detective is putting things together...but it's always, ALWAYS stuff the audience saw before, as well. Personally, I find these to be the most satisfying mysteries. I can tolerate the former sort when the mystery was just a plot vehicle for something else, but if it's the primary plot in and of itself, I feel cheated if it's not a fair play mystery.

That said, these actually translate fairly well to RPGs, with a little bit of attention to mechanics. Fair Play mysteries are the harder ones to design and run, because they require that all the evidence really be there to be found. And they require the players to piece together clues, themselves, as well as working with their characters' abilities to find and manipulate them.

The other kind of mystery is pretty easy; the clues are something the players just roll to get, and make other rolls to interpret. The DM tells them what they know and maybe even what it means, letting the PCs who made the rolls announce their brilliant deductions and conclusions based on their uniquely-held knowledge which they, themselves, are the vehicle for introducing to all other observing players.

While I am a bit disparaging of that second sort, take my bias for what it is; I prefer the former. This doesn't mean the latter can't be done well, but...again, it works best if it's not the main thrust of the plot, but rather just the usual "you needed these clues to point you to the next adventure location" sorts of things.

That said! You can actually combine these. Write a fair play mystery, and run it as such. Use the second measure as a backstop against players not being as good at putting things together as their characters would be. Allow "investigation" rolls, or knowledge rolls, or other such things to tell the player, "Your character recalls X and Y, and is able to deduce Z," types of things as clues to the player to help them along the right track, or to steer them away from a red herring.

Speaking of red herrings...they're very tempting to write into your investigations. Don't. Not unless they lead somewhere interesting (even if unrelated to the mystery at hand). Players will invent their own distractions and wrong-headed theories; you need not make it even harder for them. If you do use one, make sure you are ready to fall back on the "give information only the PC would know" style of non-fair-play mystery to give players information that is BLATANTLY pointing out that this dead-end path was a red herring, and not the truth that they're just not yet seeing.

Tanarii
2018-08-01, 04:02 PM
You don't need a mechanic for that, you just talk with your group about it.
that's what I was saying. I should have put "mechanic" in quotes. :smallbiggrin:

Segev
2018-08-01, 04:04 PM
that's what I was saying. I should have put "mechanic" in quotes. :smallbiggrin:

You can build a mechanic for such things, though. All you need is some way to ensure that, if there's nothing interesting to find that you can think of, those who meet a particular DC in their search or other investigatory rolls get a generic "clue token" or the like. These tokens can be spent at any time for a hint about something they're currently investigating. The hints can be specifically related to what they're doing, or can be "look at X clue you already have in context of Y thing" if there's nothing they're overtly missing in the immediate scene.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-01, 05:19 PM
I'd say the only mechanic you might really want is a success tracker. If you're trying to find the identity of the person who killed the local MP then you go out, investigate, collect clues, and each clue that lets you/your characters build up a picture of who did it adds to your success tracker until you hit 100%. Depending on how you want to work it hitting 100% is either a prerequisite for the characters solving the mystery or allows the players to shortcut it when they're stumped.

Note that if you want to run a 'fair play' mystery under such a system then hitting 100% isn't actually solving the mystery, and much more likely to be the point where you have an encounter with those behind the mystery (whether to take them down, join them, or just give them a hug). It's when you've not only identified who's behind putting rat poison in school meals, but you're inside their house with a bat when they come home (and when they do it's Invasion of the Flying Rats).

Note that a GM who wants a mystery unsolved can stall it for a long time. We once spent a long time failing to identify an image of the church we operated out of because the outside was under construction until the penultimate session. Like the only truly effective horror games are ones where the players want to be scared, mysteries are only effective if the GM wants them solved.

Tanarii
2018-08-01, 06:30 PM
I played that game several times. And you may disagree with me, but I'm lumping it in the "D&D way" box.
Yes, the PCs are called investigators. Yes, they are expected to investigate a mystery. But no, the game doesn't define any mechanics around actualy doing that, every significant thing the PCs can discover and how they can discover it has to be taken into account in the scenario writing step, and they usualy are ill-equipped to understand the supernatural events happening. It's less like investigating and more like being there and throwing guesses at some thing in the hope that one of your ideas stops it.Yeah. They way I've experienced it, CoC is all about being in the (information) dark, with hints that there is something horrifying out there, and no real idea what's is going on.

And then you die. At least, the slowest party members do. Sometimes the faster ones get away. Until the next time. :smallamused:

Requilac
2018-08-01, 08:35 PM
Yeah. They way I've experienced it, CoC is all about being in the (information) dark, with hints that there is something horrifying out there, and no real idea what's is going on.

And then you die. At least, the slowest party members do. Sometimes the faster ones get away. Until the next time. :smallamused:

That's a surprisingly accurate summary actually. I have once also heard someone describe CoC as system where "they give you a percentile based ability check system, sanity points and a promisory message that your character will be dead within the next four hours of play, assuming you are even that lucky".

For a game that is built upon aspects which everyone seems to hate, it is an amazingly entertaining system.

Quertus
2018-08-01, 09:15 PM
So, I'm struggling to understand the question well enough to provide useful feedback? Here's my take on investigation, based on what I've seen be successful, and what I enjoy:

Investigation - in that it entails thinking - is up to the players. Some pieces of investigation - in that they represent the interface, or specific skills of the character - are best modeled with mechanics.

So, spot / listen / search / sense motive / chemistry / forensic medicine? Those are best modeled with mechanics.

D&D, for example, doesn't have those last few, so I'll either automatically give PCs information of "this looks like massive lacerations, consistent with blah blah blah", or make up a system, like roll BAB or Heal, DC X.

But what questions the PCs ask, what they search, what they conclude from the information given? That's on them.

So, to me, the system is the least important component. The adventure design - and setting expectations, such as regarding whether failure is an option - are of primary importance.

Can the system affect those? Well, sort of.

To pick on D&D again, there are certain expectations about what can and cannot be done. Violating those expectations - unless that is itself the "mystery" to investigate - removes the players' ability to think their way through the puzzle. Sort of like if you have a puzzle that looks like it's solved by shifting every letter down by 5, but you've secretly added in the letters from "on beyond zebra", invalidating their proposed solution, and making it impossible for them to solve your cipher without reading your mind.

Florian
2018-08-01, 09:17 PM
The games based on the Gumshoe system are great for this (Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists, etc.), but they're very different from D&D-type systems in terms of mechanics as well as how scenarios have to be designed and how the game mechanics interact with scenarios.

Pelle
2018-08-02, 03:44 AM
You can build a mechanic for such things, though. All you need is some way to ensure that, if there's nothing interesting to find that you can think of, those who meet a particular DC in their search or other investigatory rolls get a generic "clue token" or the like. These tokens can be spent at any time for a hint about something they're currently investigating. The hints can be specifically related to what they're doing, or can be "look at X clue you already have in context of Y thing" if there's nothing they're overtly missing in the immediate scene.

Yeah, but I don't like that particular one. Spending a clue token gained somewhere specific on getting a hint on something random feels too disassociated.

I was thinking about one where the players can ask for hint, in exchange for getting less xp since it makes the mystery easier. Then the GM inserts a new hint that doesn't mess with the continuity to make the party progress (maybe they find something the killer dropped, a witness comes forward, or some goons attack). This would put even more pressure on good scenario design though, so having to ask for hints doesn't feel unfair.

DonEsteban
2018-08-02, 03:48 AM
You should totally check out the Gumshoe system and the Alexandrian articles. But here is a different take. Similarly to Monster of the Week, City of Mist has a structure for solving mysteries:


Investigate

When you use your abilities to seek answers to burning questions, roll+Power. On a hit, you get Clues=Power. Spend your Clues one-to-one to ask the MC a question about the subject of your investigation or ask another player a relevant question about their character. They must give you either a straight answer or a solid lead. On a 7-9, they can also choose 1:
• Your investigation exposes you to danger.
• The clues you get are fuzzy, incomplete, or part-true part-false.
• Whoever or whatever you are asking the question(s) can ask you one question

Translated this means: Whenever you do something investigative you roll 2d6 plus some modifier and when your result is at least 7 you get one or more Clues. A Clue is not a literal clue, but a game resource that allows you to ask the MC (aka GM) a question. Any question. The GM then hast to either answer your question or at least give you a solid lead. A solid lead is "a useful detail that, when combined with other details, can point you toward the answer." The exact answer you get depends on what you were doing when you rolled and on how much the MC wants to give you. For instance, you could totally ask "Who is the murderer?". The MC might give you the straight answer "Rogger Rabbit", but more likely they will give you a lead like "you find a matchbook with the name of a bar in Chinatown" or "the janitor tells you he overheard a conversation mentioning 'the incident at the docks'" or "you get a vision of a woman in purple robes".

It's beautiful because it always gives you a default action - just find something to investigate. And the MC can always adapt the answers on what he thinks is best for the game.

Tanarii
2018-08-02, 04:02 AM
Investigation - in that it entails thinking - is up to the players. Some pieces of investigation - in that they represent the interface, or specific skills of the character - are best modeled with mechanics.

So, spot / listen / search / sense motive / chemistry / forensic medicine? Those are best modeled with mechanics.

D&D, for example, doesn't have those last few, so I'll either automatically give PCs information of "this looks like massive lacerations, consistent with blah blah blah", or make up a system, like roll BAB or Heal, DC X.

But what questions the PCs ask, what they search, what they conclude from the information given? That's on them.
Yeah. A generic system of resolution (a la 5e) may not work so well for an investigation game, because it's there for determine a general "do you succeed at X", and you need to limit X so it's not something like Int checks to 'get a clue' (figuratively or literally).

Whereas a game with specific skills for areas of training in information gathering might work okay. It's definitely gate keeping information behind skill checks in that case ... but part of such a system is creating characters that have certain kinds of knowledge. And you are filtering the knowledge the players can possibly gather through their character's mechanical skill.

There just need to be LOTS of different possible ways for characters to gather information, both relevant and red herring. Not just a few big clues that are always real.

In this situation, the relevant player skills are figuring out what might be relevant information and what might be red herring information, and how to put it together. You'll definitely need the right kind of players and plenty of buy-in.

Like you get from players of CoC. That's why I like that game. From what I've read, it seems like a Straight game of Paraoia might work too. But more politick-y.

Reversefigure4
2018-08-02, 04:29 PM
Various versions of Cthulhu have used a 'Core Clues' mechanic - that is, clues that you receive regardless of your skill rolls, because they are necessary to advance the story.

For example, the Investigators are searching a library where Professor Wentworth was killed. The Professor has a torn note dropped behind the desk, where he's writing to somebody to tell them that "You simply must know what I saw at Baron Martin's castle yesterday. It was incredible! Behind the tapestry of the fallen soldier, I learned that-".

The Investigators must find this, because it leads to Baron Martin's castle, the next piece of the encounter. Regardless of their Search checks, they find the note (because otherwise, the game stops). But a good Search check will also reveal that Professor Martin was killed by slashing claws. A better check reveals these didn't kill him instantly, but that he bled out, so something he did drove the monster off. A better check again reveals shards of wood and non-human blood in the doorframe, along with a shattered remnant of a stake under the desk, so our PCs learn the monster is vulnerable to wood. Well worth knowing - it might save their lives in the confrontation - but not necessary for the plot.

Various versions of the rules also use the 'Succeed at cost' method. The PCs get pointed to Baron Martin's castle no matter what, but if they fail the minimum search roll, it comes at a cost. They're so loud in the library that Baron Martin's spy sees them, and the Baron is pre-informed. They take so long that the cops come and bust them for interfering in a crime scene, and the PCs must pay out money to bail themselves out. A PC trips and sprains an ankle reaching for the note. Etc, etc. The adventure still proceeds, but it's harder because of failed investigation checks.

Cazero
2018-08-05, 01:04 PM
So much advice, so little about mechanics :smalltongue:
At least it's making clear that a good mystery requires good writing and good GM management.

So, if I were to device investigation mechanics, it would feature :

GM advice on writing mysteries (like the three clues rule, not putting too much effort into red herrings because players make their own just fine, etc)
GM advice on running mysteries (like knowing your audience and if that mystery is fine for them, avoiding narrative cheat unless necessary, etc)
various possible failure conditions that create meaningful costs for investigating further (like time before the evidence is disposed of or political pressure before getting kicked off the case) and advice on how to determine wich ought to be applied to your situation, with the possibility to track several separate failure conditions
detailed rules to track case progression and define narrative checkpoints where something happens, related to the costs of investigating
detailed use of investigation skills with relatively small dice variance, several degrees of success, and no critical success/failure, but always costing something to use
the option to "rush" an investigation to reduce the cost by increasing dice variance (and possibly reintroducing critical success/failure)
detailed social rules for interrogating people, idealy including a social combat system versatile enough to account for extremely different methods (from intimidation to feigning stupidity)
a joker button, giving players some narrative power to create/confirm a lead at a drastic cost (like damaging an investigation scene or getting a key witness killed)


Thoughts?

Quertus
2018-08-08, 12:31 PM
So much advice, so little about mechanics :smalltongue:
At least it's making clear that a good mystery requires good writing and good GM management.

So, if I were to device investigation mechanics, it would feature :

GM advice on writing mysteries (like the three clues rule, not putting too much effort into red herrings because players make their own just fine, etc)
GM advice on running mysteries (like knowing your audience and if that mystery is fine for them, avoiding narrative cheat unless necessary, etc)
various possible failure conditions that create meaningful costs for investigating further (like time before the evidence is disposed of or political pressure before getting kicked off the case) and advice on how to determine wich ought to be applied to your situation, with the possibility to track several separate failure conditions
detailed rules to track case progression and define narrative checkpoints where something happens, related to the costs of investigating
detailed use of investigation skills with relatively small dice variance, several degrees of success, and no critical success/failure, but always costing something to use
the option to "rush" an investigation to reduce the cost by increasing dice variance (and possibly reintroducing critical success/failure)
detailed social rules for interrogating people, idealy including a social combat system versatile enough to account for extremely different methods (from intimidation to feigning stupidity)
a joker button, giving players some narrative power to create/confirm a lead at a drastic cost (like damaging an investigation scene or getting a key witness killed)


Thoughts?

First and foremost, it depends on whether you're running the mystery as CaS or CaW; ie, do you and your players care about the final outcome?

If you want the Mystery to be a "fair fight", that you expect the players / characters to be able to solve, then you will have one set of criteria; if, OTOH, you take a more simulationist PoV, and the mystery is just a thing that happens to exist, you will have different criteria on what makes for a good mystery.

Also, your views on player skill vs character skill will change what you consider a good idea.

So, let's look at your ideas:


GM advice on writing mysteries (like the three clues rule, not putting too much effort into red herrings because players make their own just fine, etc)

This is generally sound advice. However, I am forced to note that it's more for a CaS style, whereas I run more CaW (and, thus, since I don't care if the players figure things out, I tend to ignore the "Rule of Three", despite advising people to follow it).

Also, it is important to point out that "Red Herrings" may be confusing - it is important to distinguish "misleading information" from "additional information that is unrelated to the mystery".


GM advice on running mysteries (like knowing your audience and if that mystery is fine for them, avoiding narrative cheat unless necessary, etc)

I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative cheat", but I suspect that "knowing if it's even acceptable" falls under "know your audience"...


various possible failure conditions that create meaningful costs for investigating further (like time before the evidence is disposed of or political pressure before getting kicked off the case) and advice on how to determine wich ought to be applied to your situation, with the possibility to track several separate failure conditions

I think Narrative vs Simulationist (vs Gamist?) will have different opinions here.

I run more, "knowing what everyone will try to do, and maybe knowing what they would have done if the PCs didn't exist / what they would have done if 2 or more sample parties had made 2 or more different attempts at solving the mystery". So these "costs" just flow naturally based on what happens (when given a chance, the murderer sneaks back and steals evidence, the rain storm tomorrow washes away certain clues, etc etc).

A more "disassociated mechanics" version could easily have a list of costs, which the GM applies in some fashion to any given failed roll. I've been debating trying to run a game this way since reading this thread.


detailed rules to track case progression and define narrative checkpoints where something happens, related to the costs of investigating

Alternately, no such rules like that are required if you run a more Simulationist version of an investigation. Things happen when they happen.


detailed use of investigation skills with relatively small dice variance, several degrees of success, and no critical success/failure, but always costing something to use

Investigation takes time. And what you do is generally going to be noticed, and people will react.

People who have been assigned to the case will probably start off with certain positive goodwill modifiers, which slowly erode over time. Depending on the case, they may drop to zero, or even go negative if the case stays in the public eye but "takes too long" to solve / the investigators show no signs of progress. Thus, the "showing progress" may be important to keep the positive modifiers with the public, government officials, etc. Choosing to release information vs keep it secret will affect the rate at which these modifiers degrade, while also affecting the investigation.

OTOH, a group of invisible pixies who have not been assigned the case do not have such modifiers, and need only be concerned about the clues disappearing (like in a rainstorm, or by people (maliciously or not) changing the scene), unless they choose to interact with people.


the option to "rush" an investigation to reduce the cost by increasing dice variance (and possibly reintroducing critical success/failure)

Why would rushing things increase the chance of critical success? :smallconfused:


detailed social rules for interrogating people, idealy including a social combat system versatile enough to account for extremely different methods (from intimidation to feigning stupidity)

... wow. So, what would the differences between Columbo asking me about the cookies missing from the cookie jar, vs having, um, Sherlock Holmes or the Hardy Boys interrogating me, be? Do you really think that you could map out a system for what the changes to the behavior of everyone who hears that conversation would be?

Personally, I think "just roleplay the NPCs" is going to be the better answer, and have your focus be more on creating the story than the mechanics here.

That having been said...

Sense Motive - ie, the ability to tell when someone is lying to you, get a read on when someone is nervious, etc - is particularly important to discuss. Mysteries can be run with mechanics for Sense Motive, and without. They can be run where the PCs have the capability to (have a chance to) tell when someone is lying to them, or when they have to piece reality together to catch the liar in their lie. They can be run where the players have a chance to learn information based on rolls, or where the GM just hands the players information, directly or indirectly (ie, "he's nervous", or "he keeps folding and unfolding his napkin, and hasn't really touched his dinner").


a joker button, giving players some narrative power to create/confirm a lead at a drastic cost (like damaging an investigation scene or getting a key witness killed)

The more Simulationist version would be... releasing information to the public, using a witness as bait, interrogating an important official?

-----

In short, I think that most of these rules are only important if you're trying to build a complex Narrativist, model. If, instead, you stick to a more Simulationist model, you don't really need many rules to run an investigation. The Rule of Three (and related things) are generally a good idea, but are technically also not required if you run the mystery in more of a CaW than CaS style.

So, yes, determining how you are going to handle things is important. The things you need to know how to handle include
Finding Clues - this is the core of most investigations. How will the PCs get information?
NPC Responses - NPCs will respond to the players actions - especially (but not exclusively) if the PCs are directly interacting with them. Do you just roleplay this, or are there mechanics to determine how they react to Dirk Gently or John Constantine? Also, how do the PCs get social information?
Discerning Lies (etc) - there's not usually much of a mystery if the murderer confesses. How do the PCs get social meta-information?
Putting things together - is this Player Skill, or do the Characters suddenly go, "Eureka!"?
Costs - investigating has costs - in time, goodwill, tipping NPCs off, etc. How are these determined?
Gameplay - what does the game look like, from the Players' PoV? What about the gameplay makes this engaging?
Fail States - what happens when the players are stumped? What if they kill off the only source of a clue? Does the game have fail states, and, if so, can the PCs recover? What do the players want the answer to be? How do they want that to play out?


Does your list contain answers to all of those? That seems like a decent first test case for whether your proposed mechanics are ready for more detailed testing, or need to be rethought.

Cazero
2018-08-11, 07:10 AM
First and foremost, it depends on whether you're running the mystery as CaS or CaW; ie, do you and your players care about the final outcome?To be perfectly honest, I think that part is about scenario design and that most ruleset have no reason to cater to one over the other.


If you want the Mystery to be a "fair fight", that you expect the players / characters to be able to solve, then you will have one set of criteria; if, OTOH, you take a more simulationist PoV, and the mystery is just a thing that happens to exist, you will have different criteria on what makes for a good mystery.Evaluating how "fair" a mystery is might be impossible, but it should remain solvable. Otherwise investigating is pointless to begin with.
Fairness might put some restriction on mechanical numbers based on the corresponding numbers a character could reach, but the idea of D&D style progression isn't really interesting for such a system, so fairness is best evaluated by knowing your players.
Solvability demands that the scenario eventualy guarantees sufficient information for clever players to solve the mystery regardless of how badly they roll. It doesn't guarantee the solving as that still requires player input.


I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative cheat", but I suspect that "knowing if it's even acceptable" falls under "know your audience"...It would be improvising something relatively small instead of following the exact minutia planned in the scenario.
For instance, if the scenario calls for some VIP being murdered after a set amount of time, and the players just happen to be interrogating said VIP during that timeframe, the narrative cheat would be to delay the murder until the PC can't trivialize the mystery by witnessing too much themselves (like walking across the suspiciously acting murderer on their way out). That would change the exact time or day of the crime to something different than what was planned for, but doesn't have to affect alibis or actual evidence left on the scene so that the overall mystery can remain the same.


I think Narrative vs Simulationist (vs Gamist?) will have different opinions here.

I run more, "knowing what everyone will try to do, and maybe knowing what they would have done if the PCs didn't exist / what they would have done if 2 or more sample parties had made 2 or more different attempts at solving the mystery". So these "costs" just flow naturally based on what happens (when given a chance, the murderer sneaks back and steals evidence, the rain storm tomorrow washes away certain clues, etc etc).

A more "disassociated mechanics" version could easily have a list of costs, which the GM applies in some fashion to any given failed roll. I've been debating trying to run a game this way since reading this thread.
I'm thinking of making a structure with all rolls having a "cost" and that cost is advancement of various trackers promising failure beyond some point, and still having things flow naturally.
The natural flow of those things can be related to those trackers in some fashion, like events set to happen at or after specific points.
A mystery game has to be asymetric, so the players wouldn't be told exactly how evens relate to those trackers and don't even have to know their state. However, fair play may demand meta-information about losing conditions.


Alternately, no such rules like that are required if you run a more Simulationist version of an investigation. Things happen when they happen.
Well, if one of those costs is time, most things happening when they happen will be directly related to that cost and tracking it becomes important. Similarly, if one of those costs is some NPC becoming annoyed up until the point the PCs are fired, tracking that annoyance also becomes important as it determines when the PCs get fired. I'm proposing that an investigation based system could track those in a way that helps explicit interactions with other things.


Investigation takes time. And what you do is generally going to be noticed, and people will react.

People who have been assigned to the case will probably start off with certain positive goodwill modifiers, which slowly erode over time. Depending on the case, they may drop to zero, or even go negative if the case stays in the public eye but "takes too long" to solve / the investigators show no signs of progress. Thus, the "showing progress" may be important to keep the positive modifiers with the public, government officials, etc. Choosing to release information vs keep it secret will affect the rate at which these modifiers degrade, while also affecting the investigation.

OTOH, a group of invisible pixies who have not been assigned the case do not have such modifiers, and need only be concerned about the clues disappearing (like in a rainstorm, or by people (maliciously or not) changing the scene), unless they choose to interact with people.I don't know if you're disagreeing with me or not here, but you're kind of making my point.
You're describing potential costs of investigating (time, hostile suspicion, and public opinion), and describe how important it is to track them as they inform the result of some (but not all) social interactions.


Why would rushing things increase the chance of critical success? :smallconfused:
It's about balancing minutia, not conceptual system design, so that's not my immediate interest.
But to elaborate : when I say extra dice variance, I mean bigger dice but I don't imply a higher roof and I absolutely want a lower floor. The worst ought to be far worse than what you would get without rushing things (for example, not rushing would never go low enough to actualy destroy evidence in the process of looking for it), and depending of the exact formula used, even a critical success on a rushed investigation may still be worse than an average result of a normal time investigation.


... wow. So, what would the differences between Columbo asking me about the cookies missing from the cookie jar, vs having, um, Sherlock Holmes or the Hardy Boys interrogating me, be? Do you really think that you could map out a system for what the changes to the behavior of everyone who hears that conversation would be?
Different form of "social attacks", aiming to reach a different way of making you cooperate, and having different costs (and secondary effects).
Columbo's tactic of choice is to make criminals incriminate themselves. He typicaly starts by feeding their confidence until they basicaly tell him how they commited the crime, and usualy switch to heavy pressure to make them panic and push them into making a mistake that will provide him solid and incriminating evidence. That's two different form of "social attack" to create different results right there.
Sherlock Holmes usualy doesn't give a damn about what the culprit have to say because he can prove the culprit did the crime without their input, so the people he's talking with are (usualy) already cooperative. Sherlock would rely a lot less on social rules than Columbo does.


Personally, I think "just roleplay the NPCs" is going to be the better answer, and have your focus be more on creating the story than the mechanics here.But when dice rolls get involved, you have to roleplay what the dice tells you to. I'm basically pushing for more detailed rules on that part of dice rolling because it's a very important part of mysteries.
For example, if a D&D adventure tells you that rallying the mayor to your cause is DC 20, you can (and should !) include some modifiers based on the players history with the mayor, but what the mayor decides will ultimately depend of how good the players roll.


Sense Motive - ie, the ability to tell when someone is lying to you, get a read on when someone is nervious, etc - is particularly important to discuss. Mysteries can be run with mechanics for Sense Motive, and without. They can be run where the PCs have the capability to (have a chance to) tell when someone is lying to them, or when they have to piece reality together to catch the liar in their lie. They can be run where the players have a chance to learn information based on rolls, or where the GM just hands the players information, directly or indirectly (ie, "he's nervous", or "he keeps folding and unfolding his napkin, and hasn't really touched his dinner").
Sometime the GM can't properly communicate some tells. Sometimes the players can see some where there are none. Sometimes the characters are supposed to be so damn good at it that they can pretend to be psychic. For all those reasons there should be some mechanics for Sense Motive as part of any "social combat" system.


The more Simulationist version would be... releasing information to the public, using a witness as bait, interrogating an important official?
Those are good examples of how the consequences could be explained IC.


In short, I think that most of these rules are only important if you're trying to build a complex Narrativist, model. If, instead, you stick to a more Simulationist model, you don't really need many rules to run an investigation.
Full disclosure : I don't give a damn about GNS theory. I find it innacurate and flawed on several levels. Notably, since I see Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist as perpendicular aspects of a game, it follows that sacrificing one of those three things for the benefit of the other must be done indirectly through other factors such as time spent working on the project, rules clarity or props budget. And it makes GNS pointless in the abstract (where those other factors don't exist) and pointless in the concrete (where those other factors are a lot more important).

-----

So, going through your list :


Finding Clues - this is the core of most investigations. How will the PCs get information?
Obviously there would be investigation rules for that. But they deserve some more thinking.


NPC Responses - NPCs will respond to the players actions - especially (but not exclusively) if the PCs are directly interacting with them. Do you just roleplay this, or are there mechanics to determine how they react to Dirk Gently or John Constantine? Also, how do the PCs get social information?
Social rules should cover that. You roleplay what the dice tells you to, and different persons have different attributes that makes different approaches more or less effective for different goals. So whatever the "social combat" rules end up being, it will have to be more complex than just bashing a "social HP bar" into submission.


Discerning Lies (etc) - there's not usually much of a mystery if the murderer confesses. How do the PCs get social meta-information?
Also part of the social rules.


Putting things together - is this Player Skill, or do the Characters suddenly go, "Eureka!"?
Player skill. Since it involves guessing, it is the second reason a joker could be needed (first one coming later).


Costs - investigating has costs - in time, goodwill, tipping NPCs off, etc. How are these determined?
The impact on NPCs behavior means that the social rules have to include some kind of feedback loop with at least one of those costs.
Other costs need to be tracked with some kind of point system to determine various modifiers and losing conditions.


Gameplay - what does the game look like, from the Players' PoV? What about the gameplay makes this engaging?
I honestly have no idea. I don't really have mechanics yet.


Fail States - what happens when the players are stumped? What if they kill off the only source of a clue? Does the game have fail states, and, if so, can the PCs recover? What do the players want the answer to be? How do they want that to play out?
Players being stumped is the main reason to have rules for a joker. If they deliberately kill someone they're doing investigation wrong, and if that someone is the only source of a clue that clue is lost. Ultimately, failure results from not making enough progress after wasting too much in costs. Failure on specific points would result in increased costs as some form of "death spiral" toward the final failure, but it is possible to recover if you manage to stay ahead.

Telok
2018-08-11, 04:57 PM
While I can't contribute to hashing out a rules framework I would like to bring up something that's sunk every multi-step investigation I've seen in played RPGs. Player impatience.

Now this has all happened in the D&D & derivatives ecosystem of games (because it takes a combination of bribes and threats to get people around here to play anything else) but it's crossed decades, DMs, and groups. What happens is that everyone supposedly buys into the premise of a mystery or investigation and starts off doing something appropriate. Then they seem to have one of two reactions, either what they've done instantly leads directly to the 'next step' that they have to do, or that action was a 'failure' and it's a dead end with no relevance or further options. Things especially seem to become dead ends if there's any wait time involved.

As examples; if some NPC can't be found with one roll then the players seem to assume that the NPC can't be found. If someone can't be intimidated by physical threats then it's assumed they can't be blackmailed or bribed as well. If an NPC is out of town on a sudden, unexplained, business trip for two days then the players act like that NPC has disappeared forever and won't come back. If some meeting or event is further away than tomorrow the players seem to assume that it's not relevant or that it's the deadline that the mystery has to be solved before.

To be honest I think that this may partially be because my local game ecosystem is primarialy just D&D derivatives and the modern D&Ds are pretty geared towards quick and immediate rewards. Which, if that supposition is correct, just means that my local gaming culture is not the appropriate audience for mysteries.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-11, 09:50 PM
My first point is the best way, maybe the only way, to have a good mystery game is to have a pre planned game. If you want to have a mystery for players to solve you have to create that mystery in full before the game. The player can only solve something that exists to be solved. The common game types of the DM just improving random stuff or the DM just making whatever the characters do (''Improv Ogre") simply don't work for a true mystery that the players will solve for real.

And this is the simple binary choice for a mystery game that must be made from the start:

1.Do you want a game where the players, for real, have to solve the mystery, for real. Or
2.Do you want a game where the characters play through the mystery the DM sets out before them.

The second one, the characters play through the mystery the DM sets out before them is technically, not a mystery; it's a set path unknown. But it is close enough for a mystery for an RPG. At best, the DM would make a planed path and then just lead the characters along it. In the middle is where the DM only makes a vague outline and improvs as the game goes along. And the worst type would be where the DM has an outline or less, and the DM simply makes game reality in front of the characters based on whatever the players do.

The reason the second one can't be a true mystery is the information, mostly represented by the clues. In a true mystery a character might or might not find any clue and might or might not figure out what they mean or where they lead; but it is all on the player. In the second game, the DM will not only simply give the characters the information and clues, but also figure out the clues and they mean or where they lead. The player here just has to sit back, make an occasional roll, and enjoy the ride.

Of course, this right here is what makes mystery games unpopular: A great many players don't like the type of game where the players, for real, have to solve the mystery, for real. To be blunt, few players are good detectives, even in a fictional sense and they don't find the massive chore of solving a mystery Fun. And from the other side, not many DMs are good a first writing a good mystery AND converting that mystery into a RPG. After all the typical mystery horror story is of a DM that makes a mystery, tosses out a pointless random clue that make sense only to someone who knows the whole mystery and then is confused when the players get frustrated and give up the game. ...or worse.

Though it does need to be said that the game types of the DM just improving random stuff or the DM just making whatever the characters do are popular and common and a valid way to play the game. The vast majority of RPGs are played this way as it is the simple, straightforward and direct way to play. It's, of course, very common with the Casual Gamers. Though, again, this would technically not be a mystery to solve, so there is not much of a reason to do it in a typical RPG, unless you just want to pad the run time of the game.

Tanarii
2018-08-12, 12:07 AM
To be honest I think that this may partially be because my local game ecosystem is primarialy just D&D derivatives and the modern D&Ds are pretty geared towards quick and immediate rewards.
IMX most people are pretty geared to those things in general. Especially when it comes to their fun time.

NichG
2018-08-12, 03:26 AM
While I can't contribute to hashing out a rules framework I would like to bring up something that's sunk every multi-step investigation I've seen in played RPGs. Player impatience.

Now this has all happened in the D&D & derivatives ecosystem of games (because it takes a combination of bribes and threats to get people around here to play anything else) but it's crossed decades, DMs, and groups. What happens is that everyone supposedly buys into the premise of a mystery or investigation and starts off doing something appropriate. Then they seem to have one of two reactions, either what they've done instantly leads directly to the 'next step' that they have to do, or that action was a 'failure' and it's a dead end with no relevance or further options. Things especially seem to become dead ends if there's any wait time involved.

As examples; if some NPC can't be found with one roll then the players seem to assume that the NPC can't be found. If someone can't be intimidated by physical threats then it's assumed they can't be blackmailed or bribed as well. If an NPC is out of town on a sudden, unexplained, business trip for two days then the players act like that NPC has disappeared forever and won't come back. If some meeting or event is further away than tomorrow the players seem to assume that it's not relevant or that it's the deadline that the mystery has to be solved before.

To be honest I think that this may partially be because my local game ecosystem is primarialy just D&D derivatives and the modern D&Ds are pretty geared towards quick and immediate rewards. Which, if that supposition is correct, just means that my local gaming culture is not the appropriate audience for mysteries.

One thing that happens I think is that many people end up playing games with GMs who sort of passive aggressively no-sell some ideas or approaches they disagree with by conveniently having the world just make those things impossible to initiate. Someone trained to play in that kind of environment will read a cue of 'the guy is on an unexpected business trip' as 'the GM doesn't want this to work'. So in order to not waste time pursuing something that for metagame reasons won't be allowed to proceed, they'll learn that it's better and ultimately less frustrating to just take the hint.

When another GM uses it as a legitimate 'actually this is what's really going on, and I thought it through and it should happen this way for everything to make sense' clue, where that business trip isn't just a random detail thrown in to make things arbitrarily harder, those players are going to have a hard time understanding whether this is a 'this won't work' hint or a 'try harder' hint or a 'think about it carefully and reason out what it means' hint, at least until they get used to the new GM's style.

War_lord
2018-08-12, 08:50 AM
An RPG written around the expectation of having actual mysteries that the players are expected to work to solve is going to be a niche product. Most gamers aren't detectives, even at an amateur level. That's why most advice out there on writing a mystery plot for an RPG is "don't, just write something that looks/feels like one with a forgone conclusion" most dungeon crawling types will either refuse to engage with a mystery or **** it up by applying a metaphorical hammer to the investigative process. Only run a genuine mystery game if you know the people who are going to be playing in that game actually like playing a sleuth and have an understanding of the skills involved.

Oh, and make sure you can actually plan out a good mystery, because that's one of the big challenges of detective fiction. The format essentially demands the reader/viewer/player pick at every last piece of information, every last character's motivation and characterization and every last clue you feed to them. If you're inconsistent with how NPC's act, or you forget to keep the world consistent with the information the players have or the clues end up not matching up the the solution, it's not just sloppy, it leaves the players feeling like you cheated them. Disbelief can't be suspended the same way it can in an action centered work.

Telok
2018-08-12, 12:43 PM
When another GM uses it as a legitimate 'actually this is what's really going on, and I thought it through and it should happen this way for everything to make sense' clue, where that business trip isn't just a random detail thrown in to make things arbitrarily harder, those players are going to have a hard time understanding whether this is a 'this won't work' hint or a 'try harder' hint or a 'think about it carefully and reason out what it means' hint, at least until they get used to the new GM's style.

That is a good point. I had not thought that prior experiences might have taught someone that a particular type of clue or something with a time delay might be a no-go signal.

What I have seen though is that the players will treat it as a no-go or dead end, along with anything else that does not immedately produce a tangible result. So any mystery that has the words "the next morning" or "in two days" gets treated as a "we failed" or "too hard" as soon as you reach that point.

HMS Invincible
2018-08-12, 11:02 PM
How would you outline a mystery so that the GM can keep track of all the details without messing up? Like would you keep flashcards of each npc and scene/locations, and refer to them as the PCs investigate? Or would you use a premade module like Tomb of Annihilation? I'm trying to build a 2 part mystery, and just keeping track of each npc is a challenge.

Segev
2018-08-13, 09:47 AM
The solutions to problems such as a player trained not to pursue "obvious DM no-sell dead ends" is similar to the solution to helping players through a mystery in general: skill and stat rolls. When players are at a dead end because the PLAYERS are missing something, it can be useful to call for a roll of some sort and to give the highest-rolling PC a reminder. Not necessarily a new clue, just...a reminder. "Well, business trips do eventually end; you could find out when he's supposed to be back," for example. Or, "You did find that golden pocketwatch in the bum's effects after you had to kill him in self-defense. And that is the symbol of the Timekeepers' Society."

Darth Ultron
2018-08-13, 12:13 PM
How would you outline a mystery so that the GM can keep track of all the details without messing up? Like would you keep flashcards of each npc and scene/locations, and refer to them as the PCs investigate? Or would you use a premade module like Tomb of Annihilation? I'm trying to build a 2 part mystery, and just keeping track of each npc is a challenge.

Well, whatever really works for you. The best way, of course, is to simply know everything about the mystery. Though, that only works for some people. Otherwise, use whatever tricks you find help you remember things. Flashcards can work, but what is really nice is making a Wiki or website, the kind full of links.

HMS Invincible
2018-08-13, 02:40 PM
Well, whatever really works for you. The best way, of course, is to simply know everything about the mystery. Though, that only works for some people. Otherwise, use whatever tricks you find help you remember things. Flashcards can work, but what is really nice is making a Wiki or website, the kind full of links.

People make wikis for their campaigns/adventure modules? I must be getting old, most of my friends use word, pre-printed, or maybe flash cards.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-13, 04:40 PM
People make wikis for their campaigns/adventure modules? I must be getting old, most of my friends use word, pre-printed, or maybe flash cards.

That is so 20th century.

A Wiki is by far the best way to do a ''player handout" and keep track of the DMs notes. And, you can print them out any time you need them.

NichG
2018-08-13, 07:09 PM
The solutions to problems such as a player trained not to pursue "obvious DM no-sell dead ends" is similar to the solution to helping players through a mystery in general: skill and stat rolls. When players are at a dead end because the PLAYERS are missing something, it can be useful to call for a roll of some sort and to give the highest-rolling PC a reminder. Not necessarily a new clue, just...a reminder. "Well, business trips do eventually end; you could find out when he's supposed to be back," for example. Or, "You did find that golden pocketwatch in the bum's effects after you had to kill him in self-defense. And that is the symbol of the Timekeepers' Society."

The actual roll seems superfluous in this case, since you're (as GM) in a situation where failure isn't tolerable because the game would get stuck, and the alternate question (which PC notices) doesn't really have real consequences in most cases. Maybe at that point, better to just establish a table culture permissive of OOC discussion between GM and players about their plans/conclusions? Since basically you're doing that here but masking it behind a skill check.

Cazero
2018-08-14, 01:51 AM
A Wiki is by far the best way to do a ''player handout" and keep track of the DMs notes. And, you can print them out any time you need them.
I don't know about that. Making a proper wiki takes a lot more effort than just typing, navigating a poorly made wiki can be a chore, and if any of your players are computer savvy enough to consult your DM notes without your approval you need to put in an extra layer of work on authentification and privileges.

Knaight
2018-08-14, 02:32 AM
I don't know about that. Making a proper wiki takes a lot more effort than just typing, navigating a poorly made wiki can be a chore, and if any of your players are computer savvy enough to consult your DM notes without your approval you need to put in an extra layer of work on authentification and privileges.

If you need computer security (or physical security) for your notes you have bigger problems than the effort that goes into wikis. The primary defense against players seeing your notes is playing with people who won't cheat by looking at your notes.

EccentricCircle
2018-08-14, 03:47 AM
I run a lot of investigation based games, and I'll echo what others have said: It is frequently as much about adventure design and how one GMs as it is about the actual mechanics of skills and interactions.

I have quite a concise method for building a mystery, which seems to work well, and might be of use in designing a system.
I'll use the example of a "cluedo style" murder mystery, but it applies to anything really.

1) Write a detailed dramatis personae of all of the NPCs who are directly involved in the mystery. This is where you set out who is guilty, who isn't and what the means, motives and opportunities are. This is useful for two reasons, First it gets things straight in your head, and gives you a reference to work from during play (mysteries can involve a lot of characters after all!) Secondly it basically breaks down what information the PCs can learn about any given suspect. It may even give you inspiration for how they might learn some of it.

2) Write a page or so description of what happened. I call this the "What is going on?" section, and it is basically where you work through the mysterious events and set it all out logically so that you are as clear as can be in your mind what happened and why. This works just as well for the dastardly schemes of BBEGs as it does for murder mysteries. If there is something you want the PCs to find out then its well worth writing up what you want them to be able to work out when they put everything together.

3) Key clues: Pick out a handful of pieces of information from these two documents, which you intend for them to come across. Ideally these clues should let them work out whats going on, but they don't have to be completely comprehensive, since they will get other "incidental clues" during the course of their investigation. I quite like to make the key clues into a paper trail. This is a series of handouts which they will have in their possession by the end of the game, and which will form the structure for their deductions.

4) Plan some set pieces. Investigation games can be very player driven, and it can be hard to tell precisely which lead the PCs will follow next. Thus good set pieces tend to be based around specific places they might go. Generally this is where they will find a piece of the paper trail, or have a confrontation with a suspect or other NPC. Its also good to have a couple of set pieces for when things go wrong. Maybe the murderer learns that they are on to them and tries to remove the detective. Its worth having an idea for how they can do so without tipping their hand entirely.

5) Tell the players whats going on... slowly. This is the critical thing which i've seen people get wrong about investigations. There is an assumption that there should only be one way to get a clue, and if the PCs miss, due to bad dice rolls, or not asking the right question, then that just adds difficulty to the scenario. I disagree with this assessment.

By the end of the game you want your players to be able to tell you the gist of your "what is going on" section. To get to this point they probably need most of your key clues, and will have to fill in the gaps with incidental clues which you didn't plan specifically, but which came to light throughout the game.

Running a mystery thus becomes an exercise not in what you tell them, but rather how quickly you reveal key bits of information. If they fail a skill check when you are expecting them to find a key letter, don't tear it up. Find another way to work it into the plot. If they find it straight away they are a rewarded with a useful bit of information. If they don't then they will have to find it by some other means. It should be harder for the characters to find it the second time around, but easier for the players. By this I mean that there should be more chance of injury, san loss (if playing Cthulhu) or death. However once they have paid for it in unfortunate events the Players should get it without chance of missing it again.

For example. They fail to find a letter when searching the murderer's room. Later that letter is sent to its recipient by demon post, and they will have to fight the demon in order to get it. However once they have done so there shouldn't be a check to find the now bloodstained letter on the body.

In cases where something isn't supposed to be too hard to find, you can just get the PCs to take ten on the roll. However I've found that something which works better in this situation is to ask for a round of search checks from everyone at the table. Don't set a straight DC, instead whoever rolls highest finds the clue. The result is the same, they spend time searching, and eventually find it. However you have the added depth that you know *who* found it, and who didn't. This can add to the story.

Then you rinse and repeat. The more times they miss the clues the more peril their characters encounter, until they have all the information to piece everything together. If they are not making the logical leaps you expected, then give them more "hints" to fill in the gaps. Make the characters pay for these hints, rather than the players though.

Get them to go through their notes every so often, to summarise what they are thinking so far. This is useful both for them, and gives you an insight into what they are currently thinking, and how close to solving it they are. Keep telling them related things until they put it all together.

I really like using handouts for this kind of game, because it breaks up the information a bit, and feels less like the GM just telling them stuff. There is also a brilliant moment of realisation when they reread a handout and realise something they didn't spot before, as they now have more of the context.

This sort of approach lends itself quite well to the traditional Call of Cthulhu style game, but i've found it just as effective in D&D, Star Wars, and many others. I was structuring adventures like this in D&D long before I first ran Cthulhu.

Hopefully this framework is of use, and good luck making your investigation game!

Segev
2018-08-14, 09:28 AM
The actual roll seems superfluous in this case, since you're (as GM) in a situation where failure isn't tolerable because the game would get stuck, and the alternate question (which PC notices) doesn't really have real consequences in most cases. Maybe at that point, better to just establish a table culture permissive of OOC discussion between GM and players about their plans/conclusions? Since basically you're doing that here but masking it behind a skill check.

The reason the roll goes to the highest roller is because the purpose here isn't to determine success/failure, but to determine which PC comes up with the realization. It allows for the genius-ball to bounce around the party while still mostly landing in the right experts' hands.

NichG
2018-08-14, 10:02 AM
The reason the roll goes to the highest roller is because the purpose here isn't to determine success/failure, but to determine which PC comes up with the realization. It allows for the genius-ball to bounce around the party while still mostly landing in the right experts' hands.

What I mean is, since the party as a whole gets the information in the end, the roll doesn't actually decide anything with real consequence. You could instead address the realization or hint to the party as a whole, for example.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-14, 12:35 PM
I don't know about that. Making a proper wiki takes a lot more effort than just typing, navigating a poorly made wiki can be a chore, and if any of your players are computer savvy enough to consult your DM notes without your approval you need to put in an extra layer of work on authentification and privileges.

Yes, making a game wiki is a bit of Work. I don't recommend it for casual gamers.

And woe to the not so clever gamer who reads something on the wiki like ''the escape door has no traps" and then in the game they happily try to sneak in that way....and encounter a trap! ''waaH, but there was no trap! " will cry the poor not so clever gamer, "oh really, why did you think that? Muuhahahaha!"



What I mean is, since the party as a whole gets the information in the end, the roll doesn't actually decide anything with real consequence. You could instead address the realization or hint to the party as a whole, for example.

In a general sense, you don't want a mystery game to rely on a high roll. If the characters and players must know some information to move the game along, then to not give them that if they all roll low will stall the game.

But that is also why you should not make things like finding clues a roll check, and even more so a very broad and general one.

The casual gamer just has their character stumble into a room and roll something like a search check...and then sit back and say ''ok, DM tell me what my character found". For a much better mystery type game, you should not allow players to do that (''ok, Billy your super smart character found the room has four walls...here is a figet spinner to play with"). You want players to only use checks to get details about things they have already found.

At best, you really want players who will be totally invested at solving the real mystery for real. So when the characters come to the room where some art work was stolen, they don't just ''roll for clues and DM tell me stuff". They look around the room, in character, and try and figure out things like ''how did they get in or out", and use skills and rolls to enhance the investigation and mystery...not just solve it.

Segev
2018-08-14, 12:59 PM
What I mean is, since the party as a whole gets the information in the end, the roll doesn't actually decide anything with real consequence. You could instead address the realization or hint to the party as a whole, for example.

You definitely could. It's really aesthetic at this point, since yes, you ARE giving it to them one way or the other.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-14, 01:34 PM
The solutions to problems such as a player trained not to pursue "obvious DM no-sell dead ends" is similar to the solution to helping players through a mystery in general: skill and stat rolls. When players are at a dead end because the PLAYERS are missing something, it can be useful to call for a roll of some sort and to give the highest-rolling PC a reminder. Not necessarily a new clue, just...a reminder. "Well, business trips do eventually end; you could find out when he's supposed to be back," for example. Or, "You did find that golden pocketwatch in the bum's effects after you had to kill him in self-defense. And that is the symbol of the Timekeepers' Society."

This seems a bit patronizing.

Segev
2018-08-14, 04:31 PM
This seems a bit patronizing.

I suppose it can read that way, but I've found it necessary as a GM, and helpful as a player, to have such reminders given. I haven't found it patronizing when I'm really at a dead end. Usually it gets one of two reactions: a forehead-slap and, "Oh, right! I had forgotten about that!" or a head-scratch and, "How's that...relevant?"

The latter usually means the GM has done a poor job of setting things up, while the former usually is just due to the players not actively living in the world of the game.

Reversefigure4
2018-08-20, 09:39 PM
Usually it gets one of two reactions: a forehead-slap and, "Oh, right! I had forgotten about that!"

...The former usually is just due to the players not actively living in the world of the game.

This. It's important to remember that for the characters, investigating what fiend murdered Uncle Bob is the overwhelming priority that consumes their lives. For the players, it's one of 60 details in a Monday night weekly game, and is in competition with real-life things like "Remember anniversary", "That project at work needs finishing", and "What was the name of my new yoga instructor?"