Authenticity in RPGing

[pemerton]

The three clue rule is simply about addressing the problem of the players not being able to go in any direction because they don't have information about the mystery in question. I don't think it is about keeping it moving towards a specific goal or path. It is just about it not grinding to a halt.

If something is not moving toward a specific goal, then I don't know why we'd worry about things grinding to a halt. All of this is assuming that the players want to solve the mystery, or that the characters need to, for some reason in the fiction. That solving the mystery is the goal of play (however temporary a goal it may be).

I was going to post the same things as what @hawkeyefan has posted here.

The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players need (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.

 

[TBeholder]

Consider your more narrow premise - "you're all good cops". Who gets to - is obliged to, in and via play - to express a conception of what it is to be a good cop?

In DitV, the premise of play is that the PCs respond to sin and injustice, in their capacity as religious enforcers. They have to express a conception of what constitutes sin, and what sort of response it deserves.

What exactly is the alternative? Roll completely random characters with random motivations, half of which obviously should not have any interest in the given adventure? “My character… huh… I guess he just sits here and smokes weed”. What would be the point of this?

RPGing can generate pressures that push against authenticity.

Basic premises are not “pressures that push against authenticity”. They are minimal conventions necessary for an adventure to be meaningful.

The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players need (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.

Yes. Which is always the case if

1. the adventure has a goal and
2. some information is necessary to achieve it.

Lack of (2) leaves us with a “dumb arcade” style game (beat up 1000 goblins in small groups, then beat up Goblin Boss). Which isn’t big on meaningful choices.
Lack of (1) leaves us with a full sandbox game. Which is full of meaningful choices, but it’s the opposite of a discrete adventure.
Also, with this process of elimination you are playing “guess my invisible hoops to jump through”… while decrying anything that involves a GM offering the players any hoops to jump through.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I was going to post the same things as what @hawkeyefan has posted here.

The premise of the "three clue rule" is that the players need (in some sense of that word) to acquire the information toward which the clues point.

Sure but that is just more information. It isn't an event or a scene or a place the players need to go. It is just the complete picture of what the mystery was (i.e. Who committed the crime). Like I said, that is something. But it isn't like it is all pointing towards a set piece. Now you can use this to set up clues that would lead the players scene to scene or towards some final showdown if you wanted to.

Like I said a mystery has some basic buy in: solving the mystery. In order to solve the mystery you do need to find clues pointing to the culprit. Importantly the clues the GM comes up with aren't all that exists. Again, permissive clue finding is important here. And there well may be clues beyond the ones the GM thought of but would be entirely findable by certain PC actions if the GM has enough awareness of the backstory to adapt as players seek clues out.

 

[pemerton]

What exactly is the alternative?

To what?

 

[Maxperson]

Writing free verse is like playing tennis without a net.

You do a lot better? I used to play tennis in high school and I have to say, if the net was gone I would have done better.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The three clue rule assumes solving the mystery is a thing. I grant that is a goal I suppose, but I think a goal like "solving the mystery" especially if it is a goal the players themselves have chosen to engage is different from the kinds of goals a GM might be tempted to railroad towards.

That’s interesting.

If GMs didn’t expect or worry about players “solving” a mystery, and instead just set up mysteries that exist in the world, then the pressure is off to ensure the players are successful.

Then if along the way some mysteries happen to get solved it’s genuinely rewarding.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That’s interesting.

If GMs didn’t expect or worry about players “solving” a mystery, and instead just set up mysteries that exist in the world, then the pressure is off to ensure the players are successful.

Then if along the way some mysteries happen to get solved it’s genuinely rewarding.

Sure if you are running a sandbox or more open campaign you can do that

But the three clue rule is just about individual mystery adventures. It isn’t really factoring in the broader campaign structure

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure if you are running a sandbox or more open campaign you can do that

But the three clue rule is just about individual mystery adventures. It isn’t really factoring in the broader campaign structure

Even with the broader campaign structures, you can have campaigns that are mostly (at least in part) about solving mysteries. A lot of modern day monster-hunter campaigns lean into that pretty heavily, for example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Even with the broader campaign structures, you can have campaigns that are mostly (at least in part) about solving mysteries. A lot of modern day monster-hunter campaigns lean into that pretty heavily, for example.

Of course. There are a lot of campaigns like that. I am running a modern monster hunt campaign right now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would have thought so, too! Not least because I used a lifepath generator offered by the makers of the game to come up with my character's backstory and history in the Federation. I have no idea about the specific examples you've offered, but I didn't expect that I was doing anything that really contradicted the setting. And I'm sure that with other GMs who were perhaps not so stringently devoted to the setting, it would not have been an issue.

Yeah, the first 2 series TOS and TNG focus almost exclusively on the bridge crew and generally portray them as very highly accomplished upholders of the values of Star Fleet (though not always beyond reproach). So I can see how someone might just fixate on nothing but reproducing that exact scenario. As you said, there was rather a mismatch in premise there. I haven't played the newest Trek RPG, but I'm guessing it is a bit more narrativist in its approach than the older ones?