I hate mysteries

[ExploderWizard]

Wow. Assassin's Knot. I forgot about that one, and I absolutely loved it. What was the name of that town - I used it in about three different campaigns as a base of ops.

Love,
Tonight on the WP

Garrotten, a wretched hive of scum and villany.

EDIT: I forgot another one. The Melford Murder over on Dragonsfoot is great too. A solid murder mystery with a good mixture of evidence types to pursue. There are physical clues for the CSI type of player as well as NPC's to interview that provide information that allows solving the crime through the application of logic applied to the various stories told. As with any mystery, if the players do not pay attention to details then it won't be very interesting. I really liked it.

 

[roguerouge]

My player absolutely loved the opera murder mystery that I posted in EnWorld's wiki. Check it out: http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/Method_to_His_Madness_:_A_Very_Theatrical_Murder_Mystery. I did a lot of research on what to do and what not to do when running mysteries.

She disliked the Cages of Delirium as a one PC scenario, though, which surprised me. She said that it needed more than one PC for brainstorming what to do, as there were many times that she felt lost on what to do next. It may be that you need more substantial help too.

Also, do you have the mysteries version of the old 1e tradition of having someone make a map of the dungeon? By that I mean, do you have someone who takes copious notes of who said what about what clue when? That's absolutely invaluable in solving mysteries. If you're lost, the notes are often the best way to go.

 

[JackSmithIV]

Now, there may be people out there that are great at playing in investigative adventures, but the players I play with aren't them.

Or your DM. Seems like we've found the problem, really. Your example of how mystery-games is the give-away here. If your games are like that, then they're not really mysteries. Or your DM just doesn't know how to run a good mystery game. This doesn't mean he's a bad DM, it just means he's not the kind of DM who's cut out for running mystery-based games.

See, the biggest mistake you can make when running a game with mystery elements is minimalism. When I run a mystery, I turn the dial up on description, narration, characters, details, everything. Mysteries require quite a bit of immersion. Minimalism only leads to the game feeling obvious. Then, when this is realized, the DM tries to fix it with mindless red herrings or simply withholding information.

Think of any mystery movie or book you've ever read. They thrive in details. The goal of a mystery isn't to come up with the right answer, it's to find the right answer in a sea of clues and details. Mysteries require alot of fleshing out. They also require huge commitment to narration from the DM. Also, most DMs design mysteries so that there's only one way of reaching the conclusion, so players spend all they're time just trying each door until they find the correct one.

Mysteries need to serve the players in the efforts and their imaginations. Many DMs craft one right path, and then a bunch of wrong ones, leave out what they'd call "fluffy" details, and then see what the players do. This will inevitably lead to frustration. The DM should create an exciting cast of characters, seriously consider their personalities and motivations, and constantly give the players details about the environments, actions, and details of the game world. Red Herrings should change the circumstances of the mystery, not lead the players to frustrating dead ends.

I'm just rambling, really, but let me provide a few examples of what I mean:

Bad Mystery:

The players enter a casino to find someone with ties to a mob boss. The DM says that the casino is full, and describes three particular characters (two red herrings (RHs))that the DM has obviously planned for the characters to talk to. The characters spend an hour of game time talking to the first two RHs. It leads to nothing fruitful or interesting. The third is the obvious tie-in, and the DM says something to the effects of (after an hour of scripted RP) "He tells you where to go to find the mob boss".

Good Mystery:

The players enter the same casino for the same reason. The DM describes the casino, how it smells, how the people look, the look of the waiters, how the characters feel... he describes the room in parts, casually mentioning the three characters in the example above mixed in with a cast of other colorful characters. The players can choose to approach anyone or do anything they like. If they engage the first RH at any point, they might not find anything out about the mobster, but the RH might be linked anyway, and warn the mobster, leading to encounters with his goonies later. The second RH doens't know anything at all about the mobster, but might be hooked up with the casino performers, a few of which are under the mobsters payroll (if the players decide to make new friends). The third character, a high-stakes gambler, is shooting craps. The DM describes the game being played in detail, so the players can get a feel for the type of character and the attention he draws. The description of his crass and chovenistic demeanor might clue the players into the kind of lurid things the gambler is into, which might help the players appeal to the gambler in a way that might get them the information they want...

So there you go. It seems like your games are played in the first manner, "The Bad Mystery". The second type may look more cliche, but with a little bit of true effort on part of the DM a mystery can be incredibly rewarding. It just takes energy, skill, and the will to make it a truely great and interesting thing.

 

[Agamon]

Wow. Assassin's Knot. I forgot about that one, and I absolutely loved it. What was the name of that town - I used it in about three different campaigns as a base of ops.

Garroten, I think? Secret of Bone Hill and Assassin's Knot are two of the better adventures from 1e.

 

[justanobody]

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?

 

[Ycore Rixle]

You might want to check out the new GUMSHOE system from Robin Laws. I haven't played it yet myself, but I've heard plenty of good things. From reading, it sounds like it requires a bit of a different metagame approach than many traditional RPG mysteries, but maybe that's a good thing.

And I agree with everyone else that mysteries can be great when well run.

I try to make sure that mysteries that I DM are very open-ended, sometimes to the point where I don't even know who might be an accomplice and who might be innocent. Then I see after a few hours of play which NPCs would give the greatest surprise or sense of satisfaction if they turned out to be guilty.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I try to make sure that mysteries that I DM are very open-ended, sometimes to the point where I don't even know who might be an accomplice and who might be innocent. Then I see after a few hours of play which NPCs would give the greatest surprise or sense of satisfaction if they turned out to be guilty.

Me, too. I throw a bunch of stuff out there for players to investigate, and when they come up with cool ideas for what they think the plot is--turns out they were right! They're such great detectives. Not everything they brainstorm is right, of course, but when they get close to what I was thinking, or come up with something better, that's what I run with. It saves everyone the frustrating hours of trying to guess the right places to search, the right questions to ask.

 

[Skallgrim]

I think that also, more than any other sort of roleplaying session, during a mystery, the DM has to be very conscious of what the players are picking up, and what they are missing. In addition, in a mystery, the players need to be very actively conscious about creating a clear picture in their mind of what is going on.

Compare it with a combat encounter. You can certainly run a combat encounter without any paper, miniatures, or maps. However, the players will need a LOT of description as to distance, obstacles, terrain, enemy movement, and the like. Even with a fully detailed map and miniatures, you'll get better game play if people can really imagine what is on the battlefield, and know that the 2D table can be turned over, or climbed on, etc.

Now in a mystery, all of those terrain pieces, obstacles, distances, and monsters are the facts and the plot. There's very little way to represent those physically (though good use of props can help). The players need to have a very clear image of what has happened, and what can happen, to be able to navigate the plot of a mystery as well as they can navigate the course of a combat encounter.

This can be very rewarding and entertaining, but it is pretty demanding. It is easier (but certainly not better), to do the narrative equivalent of the featureless 50' x 50' room: "This guy looks suspicious. Interrogate him."

In my successfully run mystery sessions, the players had very vivid and detailed recollections of what happened, who was involved, and the like. In the ones I have bombed with, the players were confused, not by the deliberate red herrings and false trails, but by an unclear understanding of the plot or characters.

 

[Wik]

I dunno. I sort of like throwing mysteries at the party, but they're usually part of a larger plot. But then, that's my play style. A few years ago, I did a generic D&D game set in a fantastic Venice where the PCs investigated Cthuluesque threats. Sort of like D&D X-Files, really... and it was a game I'd love to run again. The adventure would start with a corpse, and a little mystery that left the group in the dark. Then, things would start happening, and they'd slowly put two and two together... and then there'd be a climactic fight. It was a lot of fun.

One adventure I never got to run was a "Deep Mummy" (from Tome of Horrors, I think) that had been thrown overboard by his fellow sailors, and was now hunting them down each night and "Drowning" them with his kiss. It would have been great, because each crime scene would have a mystery - how does a body in a locked room die from drowning?

I'd love to run that campaign again. God, too many games, too little time, eh?

I dunno. If the GM is prepared, and has multiple paths to lead the PCs on, a mystery can be a LOT of fun, and I find they're very engaging. But, I think with D&D, mysteries can be a harder. Part of is the fact that mysteries tend to encourage heavy RP and puzzle-solving, and less on the die-rolling aspect, so that the player and the character are really closer in ability; D&D tends to divorce the player and the character by relying on die rolls. In many D&D mysteries, this tends to mean that to find a clue, you have to make a skill check; or the strength of your clues depends on how high you rolled.

Whereas in games suited for mystery play, the design is set up with the intention of "if the PCs get here, these are the clues they get". Random elements don't factor into the acquisition of clues nearly as much.

I think if you want to make a D&D mystery, you need to rethink the game a bit. Make sure there are multiple paths to keep the story moving forward, so the PCs don't grind to a halt when they fail to realize that so far, every crime scene has been on the riverside, and every body seems to have drowned.

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.

On the whole, though, I agree with you. D&D is not a good system for mysteries, and the mystery adventure (especially as they are usually written for D&D) is not fun for an unprepared or uninterested group.

 

[jdrakeh]

No, what I mind is the players not knowing what they're supposed to be doing. I really hate it when every lead you follow turns out to be a dead end or a red herring. Or when the NPC you're talking to has the information you need, but will only tell you if you ask exactly the right questions.

In fairness, that sounds like a poorly designed mystery, especially with regard to the bolded text.

First, a well-designed mystery should have a clear goal and motivation. For example, if children in X village have recently been turning up dead and the PCs are hired to investigate, the goal is clearly to find the killer/s and stop the murders. IMO, too many mysteries start with a dead body, a vague goal, and no real motive for the PCs to follow through with investigation (or care enough to take it up in the first place).

Second, the PCs should be given some leads. Leads are essentially hooks for a mystery adventure. All too often I see mysteries that start with an event (or events) and then expect the players to generate all of their own leads. Not every RPG players is Sherlock Holmes, and it seems that too many mystery scenario designers forget this.

Third, while all leads need not not pan out, some of them should. Further, the mystery should be designed so that the simple process of eliminating red herrings will narrow the scope of an investigation, ideally revealing more valid leads (these new hooks are the reward for investigation). Sadly, the 'every lead is a dead end, except lead X' model of mystery design seems rather common, IME. Every lead, even red herrings, should tell the PCs something (other than "Hey, you just wasted three hours!" of course).

Finally, a good mystery has considered as many avenues of resolution or investigation as possible. A flow chart can be really handy for such organization. Frex, if X lead is followed to Y, Z happens. Or if X lead is followed to B, C happens. Or if X lead is followed in Y way, see V. Mystery writers make use of flow charts in this manner quite often. Things can get complicated quickly and the GM should have some idea of where things might go.

This is obviously not a mystery flow chart, but you get the idea.

In most mystery adventures I've played in, we've spent most of our time just sitting around wondering what to do next. Someone's disappeared on the planet? OK, we go there. We ask about her. No-one's seen her. Where does that leave us? Frustrated, that's where.

Again, a great example of a poorly penned (or run, in the case of RPGs) mystery.

Although I'm not quite sure if the adventures aren't causing the problems in the first place - what is a well written investigative adventure?

Sadly, a lot of published investigative adventures are total clunkers that get hung up specifically because they don't do a lot of what I have suggested above — they lack a clear goal, are full of red herrings and dead ends that do not serve to narrow the focus of an investigation when discarded, do little to reward players for following up on valid leads, and have a single, inflexible, path to success.

Now, there are exceptions, but (IME) such adventures are just that — exceptions. I love mystery scenarios but there are precious few published scenarios that I would play as written. A decent scenario that I consider to be representative of the good design traits that I mention above can be found at the following site:

Brent Falconer's Lifepod

For me, I can quickly browse an adventure scenario and determine if it's something that I would like playing by noting the occurance of "if" statments. Frex, "If the players do X, Y happens" — it's a good indicator that the designer has considered multiple avenues of investigation. Likewise, if the scenario has more than one possible outcome described based on PC actions, I'll probably be willing to give an adventure the benefit of the doubt (note that Lifepod is somewhat limited in that regard, but this is because it's a 'one shot' adventure).