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

Of course not, none of them ever found out

Quote from: BalbinusYeah, 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.  

 No problem.  That's what makes the 'net so interesting.  

QuoteAs 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.

I'm with you 100%.  

Pete

Quote from: BalbinusOf course not, none of them ever found out

Heh, heh.  And they don't come to therpgsite, so I'm still safe.  

Pete

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesI've decided to run my girlfriend through a series of solo games where she'll be playing a detective.

What I'm looking for as far as advice goes is how to maximize the player's actions being responsible for the outcome of the game, and minimize any leading by the nose or handing the solution to the player on my part.  I've been in entirely too many investigative style games where it became a matter of waiting for the GM to finally dole out whatever last bit of information might be needed to solve the mystery at hand.

At the same time, we'd want to cultivate a blend of the solution arising from the skills of the character and the ingenuity and problem-solving of the player.  Neither of us would want the game to finally, ultimately come down to a situation of: "You finally make an 18 on your Investigate roll, and know that it was the butler in the cloakroom with the candlestick."  Nor do we want to just hand-wave such matters.  We'd like to keep the game being a game, so to speak.

For the record, in case any of your advice depends on these matters, I'll be using 3.5 as the rules and will be setting the game in Eberron, most likely in Sharn.

Hey, just in case we didn't lose you over the last few pages, I'll mention that running a solo mystery presents its own unique set of challenges.  A group of players can bounce ideas and theories back and forth amongst each other, but with one person, you're locked into what she pieces out on her own after all the clues have been presented (unless you rely heavily on die rolling).  Plus, you have to consider what sort of access to magic she has (since it's Eberron/3.5) and how that will affect the course of the investigation.

Pete

Quote from: pspahnHey, just in case we didn't lose you over the last few pages, I'll mention that running a solo mystery presents its own unique set of challenges.  A group of players can bounce ideas and theories back and forth amongst each other, but with one person, you're locked into what she pieces out on her own after all the clues have been presented (unless you rely heavily on die rolling).  Plus, you have to consider what sort of access to magic she has (since it's Eberron/3.5) and how that will affect the course of the investigation.

Pete

Good point, it's much more intense but it's much easier to flounder.  I'd suggest her having some magic that will actually actively assist, maybe making the mystery part fairly easy to decipher but the real challenge being what you do about it once you know what's going on.

Quote from: BalbinusIn 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.

I concur. Although I agree that it's a valid way to game, it's not the way I want to game. Personally, as a player, I want my contributions to matter and to me, it doesn't seem as if they do if the GM re-writes things behind the scenes.

Seanchai

Quote from: pspahnFlawed 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.

It wasn't a comparison.  It was a generic example showing you can cheat even if you aren't playing against the other players.

Fun is subjective, but the fun derived from playing a game is usually tied to the goals + challenges of playing that game.  Traditional RPGs usually don't have zero-sum competition, but they still have competition (Gimli + Legolas killing orcs) or at least group win / loss conditions.  This is particularly true in the case of a mystery.  Solving thy mystery is a win.  Not solving it is losing.

If there is no actual challenge in solving the mystery, the goals + challenges of playing the game can shift to something else.  Character acting, improvisation, tactical combat, comedy, whatever.

To keep the goal + challenge of solving a mystery as part of the gameplay, but to provide some level of safety-net, my suggestion for running an investigation is to break things into "chapters".

During each chapter of the game the players control the characters, and make meaningful choices.  The GM doesn't rearrange things behind the scenes, and the players try and find clues and solve puzzles as they pre-exist in the game.

Between chapters you can advance the narrative in a "cut-scene" like manner.  If the players missed clues that are essential for continuing the game you can narrate how these clues were discovered.  This could be done by the PCs, a rival investigator, or a failure to find the clue means something "bad" happens (another murder?) but revealing the clue so the players can carry on with the game.

As GM you get to keep things moving along, and get the players back on track if they're drifting, or unable to solve the puzzles.

The players understand what they're accomplishing on their own, and what's being "given" to them to keep the game moving.  They understand when their decisions have an impact on the game world, and when the GM is simply setting the stage for the next part of the game.

Don't ask the players to make a choice about something unless it's meaningful.  If they'll get the same result either way -- just tell them what happens.  Don't ask "Where do you look?"  Just say: "You look around the apartment and you find a set of keys under the couch"

This goes for dice rolls too.  Don't fake-roll behind the screen.  If you need something to happen -- it happens.  If you want to leave it up to chance -- roll the dice.

If you break the investigation down into chapters, even the most clueless investigator can get to the end of the mystery.  Although the player will know when they get there how much was their own success, and how much was help from other sources...

Quote from: StuartDuring each chapter of the game the players control the characters, and make meaningful choices.  The GM doesn't rearrange things behind the scenes, and the players try and find clues and solve puzzles as they pre-exist in the game.

Between chapters you can advance the narrative in a "cut-scene" like manner.  If the players missed clues that are essential for continuing the game you can narrate how these clues were discovered.  This could be done by the PCs, a rival investigator, or a failure to find the clue means something "bad" happens (another murder?) but revealing the clue so the players can carry on with the game.

As GM you get to keep things moving along, and get the players back on track if they're drifting, or unable to solve the puzzles.

See, that would never fly with my group.  The "problem" with mysteries is that they're essentially limited by the cleverness of the GM.  The GM sets the scene, sprinkles clues throughout, and then expects the players to pick up on them to advance the story and eventually solve the mystery (or not).  As a player, I would rapidly lose interest in the method you describe.  You're essentially taking away all free will - the mystery will be solved and clues assigned through cut scenes whether or not I find any myself.  I just find the whole approach too limiting (but I know there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't so it's certainly another viable option).

Seanchai mentioned wanting his contributions to matter, but when you break it down, solving a typical RPG mystery is not really about contributing, it's about being as smart or smarter than the GM--or at least being able to think like the GM so as to follow the clues he's designed.  So that a lot of times, even if you piece together all the clues on your own, it still feels like you just followed a script.  It's even worse if the investigation stalled and the GM has to prod you with a clue that drops out of the sky.    

Just to clarify, if the mystery is part of an ongoing story and solving or failing to solve the mystery has further repercussions, then yes, I have no problem with letting the players succeed or fail without any wrangling from me (I make all die rolls in the open, so there's no fudging dice).  

Most of my groups have the attitude (or social contract if you want to call it that) that says "we trust you to put us in interesting situations that allow us to do interesting things and be entertained for the night."  

That's why a freeform, player-driven investigation works best for me. I don't have to worry about things getting bogged down or stalling because they either follow up on the correct leads or they follow up on a bogus lead that points to a correct lead (after I toss in an interesting complication).  It also means I don't have to think of everything--if, say, a body was dumped in a river and I expect the PCs to follow up on boot prints, but they decide to talk to the local campers to see if anyone videotaped something useful, that's a much cooler lead than trying to track down someone's Timberlands, so why not reward them for it?  

Again, their investigation might fail (especially if related events are in motion such as the characters being unable to track down an assassin before a political speech), but their investigation will never stall.  They're happy, so I'm happy.  

Pete

Quote from: StuartFun is subjective, but the fun derived from playing a game is usually tied to the goals + challenges of playing that game.  Traditional RPGs usually don't have zero-sum competition, but they still have competition (Gimli + Legolas killing orcs) or at least group win / loss conditions.  This is particularly true in the case of a mystery.  Solving thy mystery is a win.  Not solving it is losing.

This is why I like the "clues-vs-evidence" model with investigative games I talked about back in post 4: you don't want a situation where, for whatever reasons, the players aren't finding any information at all, because that's a boring stalemate. By making the clues easy to pick up, you ensure that things at least progress; by making the evidence more difficult to acquire, you make sure that there's a challenge present. If you follow the clues, you'll get to the climax of the investigation, but if you didn't pick up any evidence you might have no idea how to actually resolve the case.