General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I don't have much to add except that I see that I had similar problems in running or playing mystery adventures, and also seen example where it worked well.
There is already a lot of good advice here and I will have to incorporate it in my adventures. (I really need to start a new homebrew, but I want to run the H-P-E series of WotC, too!)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I agree. I hate mysteries too, at least in D&D, Star Wars and other action-adventure genres. Mysteries in Call of Cthulu can be cool, or at least slimy.
Once PCs start investigating anything, the DM should be ready to have someone with a sword kick in the door as soon as the players get stumped. And that person should be clearly connected to the mystery, so that when you whip his behind you have a solid lead to follow.
There's a reason that's a staple of detective fiction.
PS
__________________ You can clean up vomit, but data is always messy. - Storm's Law
I don't care if you light his face on fire and put it out with an anvil... - A. Taylor
I like running mysteries, and my players seem to like playing them. I do have a problem with them sometimes, and I can't tell if it's related to what Merric experiences, or if the exact opposite problem.
Specifically, my players have a very hard time sitting still and letting time pass during a mystery. And for many mysteries -- "Murder in Oakbridge," an excellent adventure, being one of them; Nick Logue's first and second "St. Demain" adventures being two others -- you just can't get all the clues you need until they're left by the bad guys in future events.
So we've spent two full sessions before, with the players alternately discussing, "Well, what now?" and running around to speak to every NPC they've ever encountered. I finally said, after one such session, "Have y'all ever watched or read a mystery? The bad guy keeps doing stuff, and usually the heroes can't stop him immediately."
It's gotten better, but it's still an issue. (The need to fill every single minute of every single in-game day with "doing important hero stuff" is actually a little bit of an issue with my group in general. It's just worse in mystery adventures.)
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Second, get rid of skill challenges that reveal clues. Instead, identify all the major clues, and give 'em to the PCs. They don't require skill checks, or set the DC so low that it'd be nearly mathematically impossible to fail (and if PCs do fail, make sure they get the clue anyways, a bit later). Skill checks can be used to give bonus clues, and they should come from players actively using them - using Heal to do some forensics on the body, using Arcana to detect magic and learn about the latent necromantic energy in the air, or using Religion to find out that Deep Mummies exist.
I couldn't agree less with this statement. Mysteries are the spotlight time for skill monkey characters. Giving all the main clues essentially eliminates their main strength from the game.
It's the same as anything. Set your DCs appropriate to your party's level. Multiple paths to the solution allows you to have failures without ruining the adventure. Aiding another helps. If the PCs can acquire circumstance bonuses that will help. But coming back to a scene or a suspect and realizing that the clue was there all along? Yummy. Having the murderer get away only to become a reoccurring villain that you helped create? Priceless.
To use an analogy: if every module gives the party another way to follow their quarry other than tracks, why bother to take the Track feat? If you're going to get all the necessary clues anyway, why take social interaction skills? Heck, why RP at all? Just skip to the end scene where you cross swords with the murderer.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
There's already been some excellent suggestions which I cannot hope to match, so I'll just emphasize one point I find particularly important:
My rule of thumb for mystery-style adventures is:
'For every clue the pcs are supposed to find there need to be ten ways to get it.'
Now, 'ten' is somewhat arbitrary but it seems to be a number that works well with my players. And the important thing about it is:
The number should be really high, otherwise the clue is going to get missed and then they're stumped.
I'd also avoid placing many red herrings. Additionally, if the pcs get fixated on a certain red herring, I'll often turn it into a real clue. Obviously, if the pcs think there's something worth investigating further, it should be! This may take a good bit of improvisation but it's definitely worth it.
I'll pipe in with agreement on the the "it's not a bad genre--it's bad adventures" perspective.
The very first adventure writing I ever did, lo those many years ago, was in the investigations genre, and I learned a lot really quickly. The first mistake many mystery adventure writers make (myself included, in some of my early stuff) is to take a simulationist approach: A real investigation involves many potential clues and leads, only a very few of which actually lead anywhere. Hence, if the adventure features, say, 20 potential clues and leads, the writer is tempted to think that, logically, only 2 or 3 actually lead anywhere--the other 17 or 18, by default, are dead ends and red herrings.
The problem, of course, is that adventures model fiction, not reality (and should abstract the drudgery and focus on what's fun, just like action-oriented adventures do). Dead ends and red herrings should be important elements of a mystery story--not the default state. Thus, an adventure with 20 potential clues and leads should include (perhaps) 2 or 3 well thought out dead ends and red herrings--the other 17 or 18 should all propel the story forward, even if only a few of them represent real breakthroughs. (By "well thought out" I mean they should create plot twists or positively affect the pacing of the adventure.)
As many folk have already mentioned, multiple paths through the mystery are also key. That doesn't mean the heroes shouldn't have to work for their clues and plot points--just that the adventure doesn't presume a specific set of actions and require success at every key point.
Finally, an adventure can feel--indeed, be--very investigative without relying on super sluethiness. Most James Bond films are investigative in nature, but Bond is hardly Sherlock Holmes. His plotlines are generally pretty linear, and the clues are usually obtained through instinct and daring with just a dash of hardcore investigation. The Bond movie is a pretty good model for investigative adventuring in general--you start with a mystery, and end with the satisfaction of solving a mystery, but go through at a pace that's satisfying at the gaming table. (The clue-leads-to-action-leads-to-clue-leads-to-action-etc. format makes for good gaming as well.)
That's my experience in a nutshell. Hope it helps!
Something else, from a structure perspective. I think I first saw this in the Gamma World d20 GMG, but I'm sure it's appeared elsewhere (although maybe not in gaming).
Simply phrased: If the the mystery does not have to have a specific answer the third one the players suggest is the correct one.
This simple phrasing, needs explanation, however.
In a murder whodunit, ala Christie, the actual murderer is generally interchangeable with the rest of the suspects for most of the story. A mystery needs to present multiple plausible suspects. So you structure the plot so that the clues point to, say, six possible people. Let the players assemble the clues as they wish. When they investigate the first person, the evidence doesn't hold up. They get a few more clues that lead them to a second conclusion. When they focus on the second suspect, everything looks good, but he the case falls apart when it's revealed he's covering up his affair with the victim, not his guilt in her murder. This drops some more clues, however. Then when they talk to the third person, it all works and they have their murderer (or mole, or theif, or whatever). This requires a little thought and some notes, but it's not particularly hard. Also, just because the target will appear later as a reoccuring villian or a rival or needs to lead them to the mastermind, doesn't prevent this structure from working. It only really falls apart when you need a specific person (player's mentor, sibling, girlfriend, etc) to be the villian.
The second thing is if it's ALWAYS the third thing they try it gets obvious fast. So change the number frequently, or pick the number randomly by rolling 1d4 or 1d6 or something. Depends on the patience of your group.
This structure works for a lot of things beyond a whodunit. Find the mole, find the location of the missing temple, etc. The key is that it works as long as the specific answer isn't as important to the plot as the search for it is.
Also, having someone kick in the door to try and kill or threaten the PCs works, as does the foil showing up and putting the moves on the detective or whatever. If the players are lost and confused, have the world give them direction. Again, don't limit yourself to having the killer try and take the PCs out because they're getting close. Maybe they kill someone else. Maybe they try and flee to country. Maybe the assassin makes an attempt on their target with the PCs in the room. The details depend on the plot and the mystery, but have a NPC act so the players can react and then follow the new leads and clues.
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
Last edited by Krensky; 8th December 2008 at 04:56 PM..
D&D mysteries should not leave players frustrated wondering what do I do next. Player actions should not be constantly thwarted with red herrings and dead ends. Missing a clue, not doing the one right solution, should not lead to roadblocks that stall the adventure.
Skill challenges to gain a helpful piece of information are fine. Skill challenges to obtain the only way to proceed with the adventure are asking for trouble.
Its the same as puzzles and traps and even combat (where you can retreat). Failure should not shut everything down in the game.
A fun mystery one I ran was Demon God's Fane by Malhavoc Press. The murder mystery challenges are designed to be figured out by the powerful heroes and lead to the next part of the adventure, not to hide the adventure from them. The mysteries are steps along the way, not the end game themself, therefore they are not designed to stop the PCs but be a pacing element for the story narrative.
To use an analogy: if every module gives the party another way to follow their quarry other than tracks, why bother to take the Track feat? If you're going to get all the necessary clues anyway, why take social interaction skills? Heck, why RP at all? Just skip to the end scene where you cross swords with the murderer.
1) Because I want my character to be able to track quarry, 2) because I want to mechanically have a social oriented character, 3) because it is fun.
I'll add to the recommendations for Murder on Oakbridge. It taught me one of the great lessons of D&D murder mysteries. If the PCs do nothing, people keep dying. (Leaving more clues in the wake).
I have ben lost and still haven't got a sense on this thread so I will just ask....
Are you meaning Nancy Drew type stuff to solve something that is recently happening type of mystery, or the Indiana Jones type mysteris to save the world that are steeped in ancient prophecies and legend that encompass the whole game as the largest plot arch?
I don't think anybody directly answered your question, so here's an answer.
This thread is talking about the "nancy drew" type of mystery. A Whodunnit, or whostoleit.
----
Now to something else:
CharlesRyan hit on exactly what I was thinking. In a number of TV/movie "mystery/detective/investigative" stories, clues lead to action, or good clues fall into the investigators lap. There's not a lot of legwork going on.
The red herrings then are in place, to "throw" the forumla off. Basically, run your 1st 2 whodunnits where clue leads to clue leads to bad guy. Then the 3rd game, the clue leads to a red herring/false accusation. Which appears to set the party back, until they re-examine the crime scene/witnesses and find a new clue, or a new informant turns up, or a new body turns up that does reveal a real clue.
Don't waste time on red herrings except to change up from the LAST whodunnit you played. Basically, let the players feel "smart" for solving the last murder, then let them feel stumped. That stumpage let's the bad guy commit another crime, which is where the REAL clue comes in.
It works for James Bond, and nearly every other investigative show.
Another common trope, is that the police detectives are never as observative/charming as the PCs. Witnesses don't say anything to the cops, but they'll talk to the PCs. The cops won't notice that torn note half hidden under the rug, but the PCs will. The cops won't follow up on any of those "random" clues, but the PCs will. And that's how the PCs solve the mysteries, with few if any red herrings. The red herrings are actually for the NPC investigators to stumble over. Label the protagonists in fiction as "PCs" and it's the model you should follow.
Just thought I'd pipe in to add that the things that Charles Ryan said about mysteries are, essentially, the underlying insights into Robin Laws GUMSHOE system. Even if you don't buy or play the system, you can read articles online where he discusses his reasoning, and gives examples and thoughts on the subject.
As for my own opinion: Every RPG player who plays a mystery campaign wants the mystery to be Agatha Christie. But none of them are smart enough for Agatha Christie (seriously, how many Agatha Christie murders have YOU solved without cheating?). They'll have a lot more fun with CSI: Baywatch Nights, as long as you trick them into thinking that they're really getting Agatha Christie.
What you want is this: most of your scenes provide you with clues. These clues tell you where you should go to investigate further. When you get there, there is a new scene, which results in a new clue being revealed. Eventually, you find the bad guy. Some of the clues are red herrings, some genuinely lead to the bad guy, but here's the key- at a fundamental level, they're all the same. Because even a red herring leads you to a clue of some sort, which helps you get to the next scene, and the eventual completion of an investigation. Think about how it works in investigative shows: some clue makes the cop think it was the husband, so he goes and interrogates the husband. It turns out the husband is completely innocent- the clue was a red herring. But in the course of the interrogation the husband lets slip some seemingly unimportant detail which, to the cops trained criminological skillz, is the key to the next person the cop will arrest and question.
There are certain players who will go nuts with anger if you tell them that this is what you're doing- roguerouge provides a good example above. Just don't tell them.
I think mysteries games are great when they are well designed.
To put the case in point what would have happened in starwars if the droids (in this case PCs) had not made the roll to discover they had the princess.
One you have to make sure that the PCs are given the opurtunity to discover all the clues, you can put in a single red herring, but not more than one. Events work better than locations, but if you do have a location then you need an event that funnels the PCs there. so that they have the opportunity to discover.
As a GM if my players are standing around and they dont' know what to do next, I drop another body on them giving them more clues they may have overlooked.
Here there is a penalty for not getting all the clues right the first time, you let someone else die.
Even better, how about the murder shows up and confessees to doing it and then you go another direction with it (ALA Seven).
I think your problem with mystery games is not that you hate mysteries, is that you hate the GM/designs pacing of the game, becuase it stalls out.
I don't think anybody directly answered your question, so here's an answer.
This thread is talking about the "nancy drew" type of mystery. A Whodunnit, or whostoleit.
If they did, I couldn't find it or missed it.... No I don't want to play through a Nancy Drew book either. I will break out of of the "How to Host a Murder" games I have for that.
For me, a mystery game is like a puzzle... But not like completing a puzzle. Instead of that, it's more like getting enough pieces of the puzzle to figure out what its picture is.
That means the players should have different places/people available to investigate, and each of them should be able to give them one clue (one "piece of the puzzle") if managed correctly. The more pieces they get, the easier they'll find to figure out the mystery, but not every piece should be needed, and no one piece should be essential.
Another good thing to keep in mind when designing mystery adventures is to make every clue available through a different approach/action. Maybe a NPC should be overcome in combat to tell the clue, another one should be bluffed or charmed, another one tracked, etc. This makes every character helpful, and everyone can have fun doing what they want to do and are best at.
Finally, have a couple of "kicking" events to happen if the PCs get stuck. Maybe the bad guy hires some assassins to kill the "meddling kids", and those assassins happen to know one of his hideouts, or they find a scared hobo who babbles about the "sewer monster" he saw, and so on.
I couldn't agree less with this statement. Mysteries are the spotlight time for skill monkey characters. Giving all the main clues essentially eliminates their main strength from the game.
It's the same as anything. Set your DCs appropriate to your party's level. Multiple paths to the solution allows you to have failures without ruining the adventure. Aiding another helps. If the PCs can acquire circumstance bonuses that will help. But coming back to a scene or a suspect and realizing that the clue was there all along? Yummy. Having the murderer get away only to become a reoccurring villain that you helped create? Priceless.
To use an analogy: if every module gives the party another way to follow their quarry other than tracks, why bother to take the Track feat? If you're going to get all the necessary clues anyway, why take social interaction skills? Heck, why RP at all? Just skip to the end scene where you cross swords with the murderer.
See, what I was saying is this: if you set the game upon the success of a skill check, then bad things will eventually happen. Either a) the PCs will fail the skill check, and your game will stall, or b) you'll give them the clue instead, regardless of the skill check result.
Using skills in a mystery is fine, but make the checks reveal additional details - not the main clue. If you need the PCs to realize the mud from that footprint neat the body is only found near the quarries, have them find the mud for free (no check). Nature checks could reveal the locale the mud is found in, as could dungeoneering. But the actual finding of the mud? That's a freebie - lest they all fail that perception check and you're stuck.
To follow your analogy - not every group has the track feat, and if you rely on the PCs having the feat, your game stalls. Now, why have the track feat? Because it could speed things up... or, more likely, because it's one more way you can get to the finish line. If you find the muddy footprint, the ranger says "Hey, I can follow the tracks!" and the group heads off, never thinking that they could analyze the origins of the mud. Therefore, track became the main means of solving the puzzle - the Players will never know there were other ways.
So, yeah - allow skill checks to reveal additional clues that can make solving the game easier, but don't rely on skill checks to do the dirty work. I'd prefer relying on the RP side of things in a mystery.
__________________ Current Campaign:The Shattered Isles Homebrew - Hammer (Minotaur Fighter 8), Kirra (Drow Rogue 8), Shedin (Dragonborn Paladin 8), Zahar (Half-Eladrin/Half Drow Bard 8), and Seahorse (Halfling Rogue 8). Currently the group is in the Feywild, trying to discover who is poisoning the drow.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
