The best clues are people, if a variety of people have relevant information then the PCs can put together what happened by tracking down the right people and finding ways to make them talk.

In itself that tends to spin off other mini-adventures, maybe you need to do one guy a favour, maybe another guy has gone missing, maybe one would respond to threats and another to plain honesty.

It's best not to be prescriptive though, what matters is you know what happened and how it happened, and you know who was involved and what they were like.

If you start play knowing the NPCs well, and knowing exactly what happened, how and why, you can improvise details on the spot and they will make sense because you have those facts under your belt.  PCs will always investigate stuff you didn't think of, but you can fill in that stuff (which may be relevant or irrelevant) because you have the basics.

If you know that the poison was delivered via a speciality bread that one guest at a party was known to be fond of, then you know that if the PCs investigate the wine that won't pan out, but you also know if they look into what the poisoned guest did that nobody else did they'll learn he ate that bread specially ordered for him while hardly anyone else touched it.

Write down all the NPCs involved, write down brief notes on their personalities (a few words each is fine).  Write down what happened and how it was done and why it was done.

With those basics, even fairly convoluted plots are solveable.

Avoid red herrings, as said above, and because I can't say it too much make some of the clues information in people's heads because that way the PCs have to interact with the NPCs and that's where your drama comes out.

Quote from: BalbinusInspectres works because it's up front about what's going on.

Have I been unclear in my expression? That's essentially what I say - InSpectres shows up front what it is about. At first glance towards the rules you can see that any kind of roll can give you Franchise dice, and that enough Franchise dice are all you need to solve a case, so it's an acceptable solution.
Pretending that the kind of lead has an effect and building an illusion of investigation by player skills, while the GM secretly retrofits the thread of clues however isn't.

Quote from: SkyrockHave I been unclear in my expression? That's essentially what I say - InSpectres shows up front what it is about. At first glance towards the rules you can see that any kind of roll can give you Franchise dice, and that enough Franchise dice are all you need to solve a case, so it's an acceptable solution.
Pretending that the kind of lead has an effect and building an illusion of investigation by player skills, while the GM secretly retrofits the thread of clues however isn't.

No, I was unclear in mine, I was agreeing with you and supporting your point.

Well, it looks like I wasn't doing that, but that was what I meant to be doing.  What can I say?  I'm tired...

Hahaha.  Like I said in the original post, I know it's an unpopular tactic to talk about in RPG circles.  It still works at the gaming table.  

You don't know it is happening and you are having fun, so how can that be bad?  I'm not getting into ethics or morals here.  I don't GM or roleplay to show people what an (dis)honorable soul I am.  I'm roleplaying to have fun.  My players are roleplaying to have fun.  They are _having_ fun.  So how can that be wrong?

It's not a matter of deprotagonization.  If anything, it's just the _opposite_.  I'm taking what they _do_ and making it the highlight of the session.  Making the game all about their choices.  The mystery is still there, it still needs to be solved, but there is more than one way to solve a mystery.  Just because they come up with a clue that I didn't think of, if it seems plausible and I like it, why can't I change the scenario to match it?  Has no one here ever changed the course of an adventure mid-game before?  Hell, I routinely run player-driven adventures that I don't know how will end beforehand.  Why does everyone get up in arms when you use the same technique with a mystery?

Look at all the investigations you've roleplayed as a player.  How do you know your GM wasn't doing the same thing?  He can say he wasn't, and of course, you can believe him (and he might be telling the truth), but it doesn't change the experience.  If you had fun, you had fun.  If you find out later that he was being flexible and that detracts from your fun that's another issue.

QuoteSo a soccer / football referee couldn't cheat, because they're not playing against the players?

Flawed comparison.  Once again, you're taking a competitive viewpoint.  A roleplaying game is not the same type of game that a soccer game or a board game or even a tournament point-based RPG adventure.  There are no winners or losers.  It's all about fun, unless I'm missing something.  If I ever told my players what I was going and they decided it wasn't fun, I would of course be flexible enough to adapt, in the interest of fun, but again, that's another issue.

Gurps Mysteries, mentioned above, is a pdf available from e23 at sjgames.com

It's very good, largely system independent, and well worth the purchase.

The Flying Buffalo game, Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes (often referred to as MSPE) also has good advice on running mystery games.

One of my pet hates is the way most advice is like Pspahn's, telling you how to basically mislead your players.  Mysteries and MSPE don't fall into that trap and are all the more useful for it.

Quote from: BalbinusIf you know that the poison was delivered via a speciality bread that one guest at a party was known to be fond of, then you know that if the PCs investigate the wine that won't pan out,

Correct, but why, in the course of them investigating the wine, can't you drop in a clue that leads them to the bread, perhaps adding in a complication instead of just dropping the bread clue?

Pete

Quote from: pspahnHahaha.  Like I said in the original post, I know it's an unpopular tactic to talk about in RPG circles.  It still works at the gaming table.  

Actually, it's a very popular tactic, I was surprised by this thread as yours is the most common advice I've seen online, particularly at rpg.net.

Quote from: pspahnYou don't know it is happening and you are having fun, so how can that be bad?  I'm not getting into ethics or morals here.  I don't GM or roleplay to show people what an (dis)honorable soul I am.  I'm roleplaying to have fun.  My players are roleplaying to have fun.  They are _having_ fun.  So how can that be wrong?

By that logic cheating on your wife is ok as long as she doesn't find out.  If you don't get why lying to friends is wrong, I don't think that's something I can help you with.

Quote from: pspahnIt's not a matter of deprotagonization.  

Yes, it is.  It guarantees success and guarantees the players can't get it wrong.  I want my choices to matter because they can make a difference between success and failure.  I don't want the GM running around behind the scenes moving the furniture to make it all work out ok.

As for the thing about if you don't know what's the problem, it's a problem because it is treating somebody with a lack of honesty and a lack of respect.  It's the gaming equivalent of a faked orgasm, but I imagine you would argue that's fine because the person faked to doesn't know so where's the harm.

The harm is that I think personal relationships, be they deep or shallow, are better founded on honesty and a degree of respect and I don't believe in lying to people on the basis there's no harm if they don't find out.

Frankly though, the hostile reaction you're getting is because you're being a dick with this bwahahahaha bollocks, what are you, 14?  Game how the fuck you want, but your superior "I'm telling it like it is and you can't handle the truth" schtick is fucking wearying.

Quote from: BalbinusMysteries and MSPE don't fall into that trap and are all the more useful for it.

To you, maybe, and that's fine.  Notice I'm not making blanket statements. It's why I said up front that it's not a popular tactic in RPG circles.  What works for some people obviously won't work for others.

Pete

Quote from: pspahnCorrect, but why, in the course of them investigating the wine, can't you drop in a clue that leads them to the bread, perhaps adding in a complication instead of just dropping the bread clue?

Pete

I can, but I don't want to.  In part because in my experience it is more fun and more rewarding (and more consistent) when the game world isn't shifting behind the scenes to match the players' actions.

Also, if I've done my prep properly why should I need to?  If I know what I'm doing as a GM I'll know my players and I'll have structured the game so there are clues to be found and enough of them that missing one clue won't stall the game.  

Put simply, in my experience which I admit differs from yours you get a better game if you structure it so the mystery is out there in the world and not flexing to meet the players actions.

Quote from: pspahnTo you, maybe, and that's fine.  Notice I'm not making blanket statements. It's why I said up front that it's not a popular tactic in RPG circles.  What works for some people obviously won't work for others.

Pete

The hahaha bit seemed a bit blanket, or possibly I'm tetchy this evening.  Certainly my penultimate post on rereading it is a tad tetchy.

Your technique does work, and I have played in games where the GM did that and the game rocked.  It's not my preferred technique and it's not what the original poster asked for, but I have played in con games where I thought I had total free will but was given the adventure afterwards and was plainly led by the nose (which isn't what you're advocating I know but it does have that element of what the players don't know won't hurt them).

I'm cool with that for a con game, but I wouldn't be on a regular basis.  I'm just not comfortable with not being straight with folk.

Just one question, Pete: Why do you do you shtick behind the curtain? Why do you not tell up front about how you run investigative adventures?

I'd definitively leave every GM about who I find out that he secretly cheats to me (and that is something that will always be found out, maybe not this session, maybe not this month, but definitively at some time). A GM who tells me up front that he wants to press the FF-button for the pixelbitching, but who clearly leaves for instance combat as an result-open part of the game is however someone who I could accept on short term as well as on long term.

Quote from: BalbinusActually, it's a very popular tactic, I was surprised by this thread as yours is the most common advice I've seen online, particularly at rpg.net.



By that logic cheating on your wife is ok as long as she doesn't find out.  If you don't get why lying to friends is wrong, I don't think that's something I can help you with.



Yes, it is.  It guarantees success and guarantees the players can't get it wrong.  I want my choices to matter because they can make a difference between success and failure.  I don't want the GM running around behind the scenes moving the furniture to make it all work out ok.

As for the thing about if you don't know what's the problem, it's a problem because it is treating somebody with a lack of honesty and a lack of respect.  It's the gaming equivalent of a faked orgasm, but I imagine you would argue that's fine because the person faked to doesn't know so where's the harm.

The harm is that I think personal relationships, be they deep or shallow, are better founded on honesty and a degree of respect and I don't believe in lying to people on the basis there's no harm if they don't find out.

Frankly though, the hostile reaction you're getting is because you're being a dick with this bwahahahaha bollocks, what are you, 14?  Game how the fuck you want, but your superior "I'm telling it like it is and you can't handle the truth" schtick is fucking wearying.

I'm bwhaha'ing because I'm actually laughing as I post these, because I knew there would be opposition to it when I posted.  If that's offensive, sorry.  "Behind the scenes rearranging/illusionism/whatever" is a legitimate tactic and it works.  It works better for some than others.  Just because it's touted on rpgnet doesn't make it useless.  

I think you guys are taking this a little too seriously and a little too personal.  Now you're bringing orgasms and cheating on wives into this.  Shit, Balbinus I always had a lot of respect for your posts (and I still do), but come on.  

If I'm having fun playing make believe my way and my players are having fun playing make believe my way, I still don't see what the harm is.

Pete

Quote from: BalbinusThe hahaha bit seemed a bit blanket, or possibly I'm tetchy this evening.  Certainly my penultimate post on rereading it is a tad tetchy.

We all have days like that.  

QuoteI'm cool with that for a con game, but I wouldn't be on a regular basis.  I'm just not comfortable with not being straight with folk.

I can totally see where you're coming from, and a structured mystery is a cool thing, but maybe not for everyone.  Maybe it's just people like me (who are just not good at solving mysteries) need to take a more freeform approach when designing them.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnI'm bwhaha'ing because I'm actually laughing as I post these, because I knew there would be opposition to it when I posted.  If that's offensive, sorry.  "Behind the scenes rearranging/illusionism/whatever" is a legitimate tactic and it works.  It works better for some than others.  Just because it's touted on rpgnet doesn't make it useless.  

I think you guys are taking this a little too seriously and a little too personal.  Now you're bringing orgasms and cheating on wives into this.  Shit, Balbinus I always had a lot of respect for your posts (and I still do), but come on.  

If I'm having fun playing make believe my way and my players are having fun playing make believe my way, I still don't see what the harm is.

Pete

Yeah, I know, I realised after posting I had been way too harsh but I let it stand as I don't like to edit posts you know?

But yeah, I way overreacted.  I think I'm just tetchy tonight and it came out in a great and unexpected rush, to continue the inappropriate sexual metaphors...

Sorry about that.  As I said in my follow up post, I've been in games that worked that way that played great, and many players actually expect the GM to do that and would consider it kind of negligent if he didn't.  Like Risus, there's no wrong way to play any rpg.

Quote from: SkyrockJust one question, Pete: Why do you do you shtick behind the curtain? Why do you not tell up front about how you run investigative adventures?

Because it's never been an issue and there's never been a need.  Maybe it's just a matter of consistency.  I design a lot of bare bones adventures (crime boss kidnaps politician's daughter) and adapt them to the players' actions (if they go to Tatooine, the crime boss is a Hutt, if they go to Corsucant it's a Dark Jedi), so when a mystery comes up I'm not doing anything different.  

QuoteI'd definitively leave every GM about who I find out that he secretly cheats to me (and that is something that will always be found out, maybe not this session, maybe not this month, but definitively at some time).

I don;t know.  I've been running games for 25 years now and none of my players have ever called me a cheater.