I hate mysteries

[sinecure]

I love mysteries. Mysteries in roleplaying games are like riddles. They only have one answer and if you require the players to solve the them to further the game's objective, then you are going to have many games resulting in failure for the players.

If you want mysteries, remember everything in the game is a mystery until the PCs discover what it is. For campaigns I suggest not requiring any discovery to be made. This is easy if you do not have any required objectives. For one-shot adventures make sure the goal of the adventure can be accomplished by only finding some of the clues or even just guessing right.

Not to mention chances are the party will break a few laws to find out who done it, but this is D&D and Star Wars, right? I would roll checks to see when (not if) any not well covered up wrongdoing on the PCs' part is found out. And if legal action is required to take action against the perpetrators, the PCs need proof not just claims of a solution to the mystery. Basically if there is law and order in the area, the authorities will be the ones who drag in and prosecute the criminals. And they will not act without some well grounded justification.

EDIT: In the U.S. you need to prove means, motive, and opportunity.

 

[pemerton]

I think in the US, like other common law jurisdictions, you have to prove both the physical and fault elements (assuming the offence is not strict liability), and also the absence of any justifying or excusing matters which the defence has succeeded in raising.

The notions of means, motive and opportunity (as the wikipedia article notes) go more to the social-psychology of jury trials than to the elements of an offence or the rationale for prosecutions.

But in any event, in a quasi-medieval D&D-like world I would imagine that most criminal prosecutions are privately rather than publicly initiated. So the PCs (if they are not just acting as vigilantes) could initiate prosecutions themselves.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The thing about mysteries is that it HEAVILY depends on your group. I have a group of players that if you throw them a mystery they immediately seem to lower in intelligence sometimes.

For instance, you'll say: "You need to find the contact at the casino in order to speak to the mobster. You arrive at the casino. What do you do?" And suddenly the only thing they can come up with is "Ummm...I talk to the first person I see...I ask them if they know the gangster."

I'd like to blame the story(since, I am also running Dawn of Defiance and a lot of RPGA) but at a certain point, I think the players need to actually think in order to solve a puzzle. Sometimes that means being stumped for a short while and really having to think. I agree that it CAN be frustrating to feel like you hit that wall and just have no options. But I've found it's even more satisfying when you eventually figure out what you were missing. At least, IMHO.

Whenever the goal isn't spelled out for them in a way that is so obvious it hurts, then they easily get distracted by red herrings(even after being told out of game by me "You really don't think this guy appears to know anything"). They even start coming up with new ways to get distracted from their goal. For instance, AFTER finding out that the woman they've been talking to has no connection to the mobster whatsoever, they want to have a casual conversation with them about their life...then they want to invite the woman back to their room for drinks. They completely forget they are even looking for the mobster.

Those are the things that seem to cause more trouble for me. I've started having to beat them upside the head with a clue bat on a regular basis. If the game isn't on rails, then it goes nowhere. If the adventure is based around a logical series of actions and events leading to the answer then my players will likely take the most ILLOGICAL action they can find and make in near impossible for them to find the answer.

 

[RFisher]

If you're going to get all the necessary clues anyway, why take social interaction skills?

Well, that’s why I prefer systems without or with minimal social interaction mechanics.

Heck, why RP at all? Just skip to the end scene where you cross swords with the murderer.

Because, while I don’t enjoy rolling for clues, I do enjoy role-playing an investigation. I enjoy following the clues and watching the pieces fall into place. It’s the journey, not the destination. Just like following the dungeon entrance to see where it will lead. Just like following the path through the ominous forest.

 

[Ydars]

Some advice for running mysteries;

1) have dead ends or red herrings reveal microstories that both eliminate a suspect and also reveal something useful about the NPC who has been cleared that is a sort of "story treasure".

For example, if the PCs suspect a wine-merchant of being a murderer, due to his suspicious behavior (leaving the city at odd times and having unexplained wealth) then when the PCs break into his shop, I would have them discover that he runs a business smuggling people in and out of the city in his barrels; could be useful to the PCs later and he probably knows the thieves guild as well. So the PCs gain a contact or they can turn him in for a reward. They are no closer to solving the mystery but this is ofset by the gold/contact.

2) set up ways for the PCs to initiate action; the problem with mysteries is that they can feel very passive and reactive to the players. They are sitting around trying to solve something but often the action is controlled by the murderer etc. So the PCs need a way of drawing the murderer out or iniating actions. For this to happen, some of the clues, instead of revealing who the protagonist is, reveal instead his motivations and possible next moves; then the PCs feel clever and one step ahead and back in the driving seat.

Here is an example; say the Pcs are hunting a murderer. They discover he attacks prostitutes but after one murder, he also kills a laundry-woman about 7 hours after the original attack, though it is not initially obvious that they are the same attacker. Clever PCs are now allowed to find out that he always kills witnesses if they use this clue well. So, if they spread the word that they have another witness in custody, the scene is set for a trap..........


3) Allow the PCs some way of interacting with the protagonist if appropriate; the murderer or whoever. Maybe one of his minions dies early in the piece and/or drops a magical item/mobile phone that allows written communication with the protagonist. Or perhaps he leaves cryptic messages in a local newspaper in the personals columns or produces pamphlets and distributes them. The PCs can then communicate by returning the favour.

4) Make it personal; a mystery is often boring because it is a railroad in the sense that the PCs don't really want to be involved. They would much rather be down the dungeon; but the art is to make them hate the protagonist so much that they rush to try and find him. Make them care about solving the mystery by raising the stakes. If necessary implicate the PCs so that they are both trying to hide to avoid arrest and trying to find the real culprit.

5) Have many ways to get any particular piece of info; if the PCs have no social skills then they should also be able to get the info through bribes, following people and observation, breaking and entering, forgery etc.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

If you will always be able to track quarry by module writer fiat, why bother taking the feat or the class that lets you do so, rather than another one? If the DM is always going to let you accomplish or not accomplish social goals based on DM fiat, why bother wasting the resources on a part of the character that does not impact the world? And if a DM is just going to tell you the major clues, why go through the bother of solving the mystery if he's going to take the risk of failure out of the equation? This is a reaction against DM fiat, which, in my experience, makes things less than fun as soon as you realize that you are not the captain of your character's fate... in fact, you're barely even the bo'sun.

 

[roguerouge]

If I can shift the discussion a little bit: What are the published adventures with mysteries? Which have worked for you, and which haven't?

Cheers!

Okay. What did you think of my adventure, published in this site's 3e wiki? Does that look like a way for a published adventure to have a fun mystery to you or does that raise flags for you? Since I've written it (with Enworld help, incidentally) and DMed it, I can give specific advice on how to run that adventure.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

...

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.

There is no main clue. Even the most basic murder mysteries involve Motive, Means, and Opportunity. And I've been advocating for multiple paths to the solution. It's never one skill check and it's never one clue and it's never one NPC interaction that gives you the solution. It should be a balance of skills that different PCs have and a balance of skills that different players have that come into solving the murder.

Tell you what, take a look at my adventure in the 3e wiki on this site for how I've actually done this thing. It may be that, in practice, we've got more common ground than is appearing here.

 

[Cadfan]

If you will always be able to track quarry by module writer fiat, why bother taking the feat or the class that lets you do so, rather than another one? If the DM is always going to let you accomplish or not accomplish social goals based on DM fiat, why bother wasting the resources on a part of the character that does not impact the world? And if a DM is just going to tell you the major clues, why go through the bother of solving the mystery if he's going to take the risk of failure out of the equation? This is a reaction against DM fiat, which, in my experience, makes things less than fun as soon as you realize that you are not the captain of your character's fate... in fact, you're barely even the bo'sun.

I don't think you would actually enjoy a game that worked the way you're describing. Imagine it.

Scene: A game of 3.5.

DM: "You come across the caravan you journied to meet, but disaster has struck. The caravan cars are torched and burned, their contents looted, their passengers killed. Nothing remains but vulture picked bones and ashes. You can see odd footprints in the sand, but they are unfamiliar to you, and you don't know where they lead."

Player: "I will have vengeance on whoever did this to our allies! I make a Survival check to track the footprints." *rolls dice*

DM: "You can't track without the Tracking feat. I mean, you could, but you'd have to use Spot or Search, and you automatically fail if the DC is above a certain amount. Which it is."

Player: "Oh. Um, I look for other clues that would help me figure out where the raiders went."

DM: "You don't find any."

Player: "I haven't even rolled!"

DM: "I know. But I can't just give you other clues that let you completely bypass the Tracking feat. If I did, you wouldn't be adequately rewarded for your feat choice."

Player: "But I didn't take that feat."

DM: "But you could have. And if you did, you should get to use it. If you can just use some other skill to accomplish exactly the same thing, then the Tracking feat was pointless. So, to get through this obstacle, you have to have the Tracking feat."

Player: "But I don't."

DM: "Right."

Player: "So... other clues?"

DM: "None. This was a tracking challenge. You failed because you're not trained in tracking. Giving you other clues would make your decision not to train in tracking meaningless. So there aren't any."

Player: "You're saying that this adventure is totally and completely stalled."

DM: "Yes. For philosophical reasons, I have completely denied you any and all means of obtaining revenge against the creatures who did this to your allies. You might as well go back to the city and pursue some other plot hook against some other enemy."

Player: "This adventure blows."

 

[wedgeski]

/chuckle @ Cadfan