TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Pebbles and Marbles on September 26, 2007, 11:58:55 PM

Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Pebbles and Marbles on September 26, 2007, 11:58:55 PM
I'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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: walkerp on September 27, 2007, 05:39:55 AM
I don't have a lot of experience directly with this type of game, but I know more and more people are trying to address the problems you mentioned above.  Esoterrorists (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12716.phtml), Aletheia (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13268.phtml) and GURPS: Mysteries (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/mysteries/) are supposed to have tons of good advice. Not suggesting you buy the games, but just check out the reviews on them, which explain their basic strategies in presenting mysteries to PCs without getting caught between the scylla and charibdis of giving it all away or the players being totally lost.

I would suggest starting with the crime itself and working backwards toward the clues, scattering as many as you can in as many places and forms as possible, allowing the players multiple opportunities at finding clues and multiple storyline possibilities.  Also, find a range of difficulties for clue revelation.  If the PCs are having a tough time, throw the NPC with the obvious clue.  If the PCs are getting things too quickly, switch to the tougher clues.  All very easy to say in theory, tougher to do in practice.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Hackmaster on September 27, 2007, 08:16:21 AM
Don't roll! I hardly ever require people to make investigation rolls or such when running this type of campaign. You want to reward clever thinking and good roleplaying. Don't let a bad roll hinder a good idea. Also, you don't want to give away the farm just because a player rolled really well.

What I like to do is outline the basic structure. Plan out the number of steps the player can use to get from the beginning to the end. Here's an example:

Step 1: The setup. Learn about the mystery and are provided one or two introductory clues (which, ideally you should have to work for). A client comes into the private investigator's office and asks for help. The PI gets the clues by asking the client the right questions.

Step 2: Legwork. This is where the real investigation starts. Hopefully using a lead obtained in step 1, the PC goes and talks to someone who may have information, investigates the scene of a crime or does some surveillance.

Step 3: Run-In. It's often fun to throw in a little action/combat encounter with someone who may have a clue on them or know some useful information. It's important that the character's earn any clues by defeating the bad guy and competently interrogating him afterward. I let them make rolls once in a while, but I primarily judge the outcome on what questions they ask. In other words, if you roll well for interrogation but only question the guy about red herrings, he'll only tell you about red herrings. If you roll poorly but ask the right questions, he'll point you where to go, but won't fill in any other important details.

Step 4: Conclusion. This is where the clues lead to the end of the road, or at least to a big climactic final battle or social conflict where the truth will be revealed at the end.

Depending on the players, I may throw in another legwork step, to make them work harder and prolong the investigation. This would be good for a small game with only one or two players but with a larger group, it's tough to get them to take too many steps to get to their goal.

Now with each step, I try to come up with at least two or three clues that will lead them to the next step. For instance, when searching for a missing piece of art, the PCs can speak to someone in the art community who knows what is coming and going illicitly, or they could talk to someone in the crime community to know who has been making a lot of heists lately or finally, speak to someone with divination magics who might be able to help.

Lately, no matter what I lay out, my players choose an option I hadn't thought of, in which case I improvise a way for them to find whatever clue they need to get to the next step (if their idea seemed like a reasonable one).

One final note is that each of the steps need not be the same depending on the course of action the players choose. One avenue of investigation might lead to a totally different step 2 and 3 then another approach. The only important thing is that the number of steps should stay about the same, to keep the story properly placed.

So there's my method for running a mystery. Hopefully some of it will be helpful to you!
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Warthur on September 27, 2007, 09:47:07 AM
A friend of mine once pointed out that the key to running a really good mystery RPG is to make a distinction between "clues" and "evidence"ยท

"Clues" are just bits of information. They're what let the investigator follow the investigation to some kind of a conclusion. They're the facts that you want to make damn sure the investigator finds, because otherwise the game's going to hit a brick wall before you get to the conclusion. Clues are pretty easy to pick up - in some investigative scenarios the challenge might be choosing which to follow up, especially if there's a lot of chatty witnesses all with slightly differing stories. At the same time, clues aren't always especially solid or clear-cut: they can often be ambiguous, or open to interpretation, or hopelessly compromised because of an investigative blunder ("Hey, the gun also has YOUR fingerprints on it, detective!") or because the witness providing the information isn't very reliable.

"Evidence" are bits of information which help the investigator get what he or she wants out of the situation, whether that's getting someone convicted of murder, or exorcising a ghost, or uncovering a lost treasure. The "game" element in an investigative game revolves around accumulating enough evidence to back you up when you get to the conclusion. Sure, you may get enough clues to make you decide to arrest Mr Smith for the murder of Mr Jones, but you'd better have the evidence to back that up when the case comes to trial. If the player has skillfully accumulated most-to-all of the evidence, the climax should be reasonably easy - a moment of triumph for the player to bask in for a bit - although it obviously won't be without risks. ("Your meddling has ruined everything! I kill you!") If the player has only a little evidence to hand at the climax, it's going to be real challenge and failure should be a very real possibility. All pieces of evidence are clues, but not all clues are pieces of evidence, and in general pieces of evidence should require skill and smarts to acquire.

(The terminology, incidentally, is based on an analogy with criminal cases - the police might have a whole wealth of clues, but only a small subset of those are going to be admissable as evidence in court.)

Once my friend had explained these ideas to me I realised that that's pretty much how I'd been running investigative games all along: you might find it useful to think in these terms too.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Seanchai on September 27, 2007, 10:16:49 AM
Quote from: Pebbles and Marbles
.


Create a matrix of clues. You can do this by having each clue lead to at least one other clue.

A clue doesn't have to be a physical thing. It can be a relationship, opportunity to commit the crime, etc..

Create an enjoyable journey by having the clues lead to memorable places, people and scenes.

Some clues will be red herrings or merely allow the investigators to cross a suspect off the list.

Don't allow there to be just one solution. At least a couple of paths of inquiry should lead to the real suspect.

Seanchai
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Skyrock on September 27, 2007, 10:31:06 AM
I can only give some general bits of advice:
1.) Keep it simple, stupid. No, much simpler.
2.) Avoid red herrings. The players will very probably investigate anyway stuff you never had thought of and that has no significance, so you should avoid to put in any by yourself.
3.) Redundancy in the leads is a good thing - single threads are prone to be single points of failure.

Moreover, I find investigative stuff as easiest to construct if you start with the solution and track from thereof leads to the very beginning. Such a flowchart is anyway useful as a quick reference for yourself.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Hackmaster on September 27, 2007, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: Skyrock
Such a flowchart is anyway useful as a quick reference for yourself.


Great idea. I do this all the time. I grab a big sheet of paper, draw in the starting point, draw in the ending point, and then start flowcharting all the stuff that comes between, tracking how various clues and pieces of evidence relate to each other.

I find that the players who are most successful at playing an investigation scenario and that get the most enjoyment out of it often do the same thing themselves when they come upon various clues, people, places and things.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: Skyrock
The players will very probably investigate anyway stuff you never had thought of and that has no significance,


Man, that's the truth.  That's why flowcharts don't work for me.  Something I like to do when this happens is be flexible.  If the lead they're following up seems remotely plausible and/or they invest some serious time and energy into following it up, I try and work it into the scenario as a viable clue.  

I wrote a section in Vice Squad: Miami Nights called "No Dead Ends," the gist of which is that every lead/clue that is followed up should somehow further the investigation.  What this means is that if you want the PCs to go to the hotel, but they decide to go to the bowling alley, you should insert another lead/clue at the bowling alley that could point them towards the hotel.  However, instead of gift wrapping it on a silver platter, you should also insert some sort of complication into their trip to the bowling alley (a run in with police, a gang fight, etc.).  

I've found that players get a lot more interested in a mystery if they're following up clues and leads that they picked up on themselves (or at least, clues and leads that they think they picked up on).  The trick is not to let them know you're doing this, of course.  This is kind of an unpopular tactic in most RPG circles, but if they don't realize it's happening and they're having fun, what's the harm?

Pete
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Ian Absentia on September 27, 2007, 04:18:44 PM
Quote from: Skyrock
2.) Avoid red herrings. The players will very probably investigate anyway stuff you never had thought of and that has no significance, so you should avoid to put in any by yourself.
So true it needs to be repeated (twice, apparently).  If the players are doing well at figuring out a puzzle, connundrum, or mystery without completely heading off in the wrong direction, they should be rewarded, not penalised with irrelavent clues.

!i!
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Blackleaf on September 27, 2007, 04:24:10 PM
Quote from: pspahn
This is kind of an unpopular tactic in most RPG circles, but if they don't realize it's happening and they're having fun, what's the harm?


It's lying. It's cheating. It removes the risk of failure and thus removes the reward of success.   What's the point in playing poker for pennies if the dealer is cheating to always let you win?  

If you want to play in a game where there's 100% success rate for solving the mystery, then the "game" part shifts to something else, like improv acting, tactical combat, etc.  That's perfectly okay, and you should be upfront with your players about that, so they can actually play the game instead of the illusion of playing a game, when in fact they're not.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: Stuart
It's lying. It's cheating. It removes the risk of failure and thus removes the reward of success.   What's the point in playing poker for pennies if the dealer is cheating to always let you win?  

If you want to play in a game where there's 100% success rate for solving the mystery, then the "game" part shifts to something else, like improv acting, tactical combat, etc.  That's perfectly okay, and you should be upfront with your players about that, so they can actually play the game instead of the illusion of playing a game, when in fact they're not.


Hahaha.  Blahblahblahblah.  

I can't cheat.  I'm not playing _against_ my players.  I want them to succeed.  My group meets once a week.   I don't want them to waste all night following Mrs. Cheevers around town only to find out that she had nothing to do with the mystery and I don't want to tell them "Mrs. Cheevers has nothing to do with the myster" because then I _am_ just leading them around by the nose, making them dance to the clever little mystery I cooked up.  Look how smart I am.  

That's why I made a point of saying the trick is not to let them know what you're doing.  In this case, what they don't know won't hurt them, especially if they're having fun.  If I'm the only one who knows I'm adapting the scenario, who's to say that I am.  A tree falling in the woods and all that.  

Pete

EDIT - What it does is shift the focus of the game from being on the mystery (which is limited by a set series of encounters) to being on the actual process of the investigation (which can have many interesting encounters).
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Skyrock on September 27, 2007, 05:57:41 PM
Quote from: pspahn
Something I like to do when this happens is be flexible.  If the lead they're following up seems remotely plausible and/or they invest some serious time and energy into following it up, I try and work it into the scenario as a viable clue.  



I've found that players get a lot more interested in a mystery if they're following up clues and leads that they picked up on themselves (or at least, clues and leads that they think they picked up on).  The trick is not to let them know you're doing this, of course.  This is kind of an unpopular tactic in most RPG circles, but if they don't realize it's happening and they're having fun, what's the harm?
I have to agree to Stuart in this regard: It's cheating. It's negating the influence of the players on the play. If you want to make solving of the mystery by player achievement the main point of the game, they lie to them and instead give them an automatic success where their efforts don't make any difference. It's like a dungeoncrawl where the GM rolls behind the screen to make sure that no PC dies and they win in the end.

Of course, you can do a game where it's less about solving by achievement and more about exploring a investigative story, and in that case it is of course advisable to avoid lengths and needless frustration in moving forward. (InSpectres is the most typical example that comes to my mind.) This seems however to be less what the thread starter had in mind:
Quote
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.
And even in that case, it's advisable to tell them up front that their skills won't make any difference and that it's more about interesting, well-paced fiction and less about problemsolving and puzzling. (InSpectres is another fine example for this - everyone knows by the very system that earlier or later every case will be solved, regardless of which leads the PCs follow.)
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Blackleaf on September 27, 2007, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: pspahn
Hahaha.  Blahblahblahblah.  

I can't cheat.  I'm not playing _against_ my players.


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

Bwahaha wrong. :haw:
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: pspahn
Hahaha.  Blahblahblahblah.  

I can't cheat.  I'm not playing _against_ my players.  I want them to succeed.  My group meets once a week.   I don't want them to waste all night following Mrs. Cheevers around town only to find out that she had nothing to do with the mystery and I don't want to tell them "Mrs. Cheevers has nothing to do with the myster" because then I _am_ just leading them around by the nose, making them dance to the clever little mystery I cooked up.  Look how smart I am.  

That's why I made a point of saying the trick is not to let them know what you're doing.  In this case, what they don't know won't hurt them, especially if they're having fun.  If I'm the only one who knows I'm adapting the scenario, who's to say that I am.  A tree falling in the woods and all that.  

Pete

EDIT - What it does is shift the focus of the game from being on the mystery (which is limited by a set series of encounters) to being on the actual process of the investigation (which can have many interesting encounters).


I don't consider "lie to your friends" to be good gm advice.

I also don't think it's particularly ethical actually, what you are advising is that you intentionally mislead your friends and deceive them.  I find that rather bizarre.

What I do when I run mystery games, which I often do, is I work out what happened and I work out how it happened and I put the knowledge of that in the heads of a variety of NPCs, so that the players need to talk to people in game to work out what went down.

As others suggest, I go for multiple clue paths, and I accept that the players may fail.  The fact they can fail, and occasionally do, makes the victories sweeter.

I find the idea of guaranteed success through lying rather bland, compared to the players knowing they worked it out through their own skill.  But mostly, I don't think lying to friends is good policy and it's not something I think is good advice.

Also, in my experience, people work it out over time and it takes some of the fun out, there is no real satisfaction because you were always going to win.  It's kind of hollow.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:01:40 PM
Quote from: Skyrock
I have to agree to Stuart in this regard: It's cheating. It's negating the influence of the players on the play. If you want to make solving of the mystery by player achievement the main point of the game, they lie to them and instead give them an automatic success where their efforts don't make any difference. It's like a dungeoncrawl where the GM rolls behind the screen to make sure that no PC dies and they win in the end.

Of course, you can do a game where it's less about solving by achievement and more about exploring a investigative story, and in that case it is of course advisable to avoid lengths and needless frustration in moving forward. (InSpectres is the most typical example that comes to my mind.) This seems however to be less what the thread starter had in mind:And even in that case, it's advisable to tell them up front that their skills won't make any difference and that it's more about interesting, well-paced fiction and less about problemsolving and puzzling. (InSpectres is another fine example for this - everyone knows by the very system that earlier or later every case will be solved, regardless of which leads the PCs follow.)


Inspectres works because it's up front about what's going on.

What Pspahn is suggesting is that he acts so that if I were a player, what I do doesn't matter because he will bend the game around it so it works out.  That makes my choices meaningless, and to use a phrase I do find useful utterly deprotagonises me.

Bugger that for a game of soldiers.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:06:24 PM
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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Skyrock on September 27, 2007, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
Inspectres 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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:12:23 PM
Quote from: Skyrock
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.


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...
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:22:17 PM
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.

Quote

So 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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:22:22 PM
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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:27:18 PM
Quote from: Balbinus

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,


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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:29:08 PM
Quote from: pspahn
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.  


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: pspahn
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?


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: pspahn
It'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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:30:10 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
Mysteries 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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:31:24 PM
Quote from: pspahn
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


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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:33:47 PM
Quote from: pspahn
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



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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Skyrock on September 27, 2007, 06:36:12 PM
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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
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.



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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
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.

We all have days like that.  :)

Quote

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.


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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:40:47 PM
Quote from: pspahn
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


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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:45:43 PM
Quote from: Skyrock
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?


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.  


Quote

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).


I don;t know.  I've been running games for 25 years now and none of my players have ever called me a cheater.  :)
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: pspahn
I 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 :p
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:51:14 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
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.  

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


Quote

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.


I'm with you 100%.  

Pete
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
Of course not, none of them ever found out :p

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

Pete
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 07:33:53 PM
Quote from: Pebbles and Marbles
I'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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Balbinus on September 27, 2007, 07:42:29 PM
Quote from: pspahn
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


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.
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Seanchai on September 27, 2007, 08:30:19 PM
Quote from: Balbinus
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.



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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Blackleaf on September 27, 2007, 09:49:50 PM
Quote from: pspahn
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.


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... :)
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: pspahn on September 27, 2007, 11:34:43 PM
Quote from: Stuart

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.


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
Title: [GMing Advice] Running an Investigative Game
Post by: Warthur on September 28, 2007, 09:13:06 AM
Quote from: Stuart
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.


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.