I don't mind secrets. 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.
It's just like real life. Most case work is a lot of repeated discovery of what is useless or non-applicable. That's just the way things really work out. In time though you learn to distinguish what is probably unimportant from what is obviously vital or nearly always applicable. It takes practice. But then again every lead has to be run down. If it ain't then you ain't doing your job, and you're bad at your job. Life ain't like TV and the movies. Or most books for that matter.
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.
However you have a real point here. Games ain't real life either. In real life you don't have to ask exactly the right question, even in interrogation. You have to ask a question that trips another set of questions, or more likely, a set of inconsistencies. Maybe that's a weakness of game design in the way the scenario or mission is written or presented (having to ask the perfect question to resolve an imperfect situation), and maybe it is a mistake in the way the DM plays the encounter because he or she is not experienced in the way it really works. But you rarely can ask exactly the right question, because think about it, if you knew exactly the right question then you'd probably already know, or at least heavily suspect what the true situation really was. So you ask "linkage questions," things you can verify or disqualify through other means, can corroborate, or expose as incorrect.
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.
Now, there may be people out there that are great at playing in investigative adventures, but the players I play with aren't them. 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?
So my solution to that kinda thing would be (from the writing and GM play points of view) to write a mystery in such a way, and that's the way I do it, so as to allow for "linkage patterns," clue exploitation, corroboration or dismissal, inconsistencies of story, conflicting evidence, and so forth and so on. And have the DM "play loose." Because things like criminal investigation, intelligence analysis, problem solving involving true mysteries, etc. they don't work in a linear progression of from A to B to C. As a matter of fact oftentimes all you've got is X and it's your job to run the numbers and letters back through the sequencing code in all directions and find out how you got X in the first place, and what that means.
As far as players go, and style of play, I can make a few suggestions.
Come up with an
Operational Investigations Plan. Something you can go back to when leads are dry and time is a wasting. Always have a plan. And follow it. I can't tell you exactly what it will look like, that will vary depending on what you're doing, who is involved, the suspect trail, timeline, case details, etc. But here are the basic components of what you'll need to include and what will work. In time. Just remember an investigation is not like a ball game. Often you don't even know who the other team is. Investigations take time, and mind-work. You're hunting, not shopping. Sometimes you just gotta wait till the deer flinches to take your shot. But you can't wander about just hoping things will come your way and you'll get lucky. That it'll all be obvious and tied up in bows with bells on the toes. You gotta take the right spot based on what you know of your prey. And that takes a plan, and that takes working your plan.
1. Don't look for linear solutions to your mystery. Instead think about what you're investigating probably implies and then see if you can find evidence to either corroborate your theory of what's really going on, or disprove it. You're looking for patterns, not lines on a graph. Analyze your situation scientifically and methodically. Once you know the situation (as well as you can at the moment anyways) then sit down and make a list of things you want to explore and investigate, and what those things might imply. Same for people. Make a list, set up a chalkboard, draw out a linkage and analysis chart. Make out a timeline. Link up events, where they happened, when, how, why? If Tom knows Bill, then how? What's the relationship? How long? There's a reason real Dicks and analysts do that kinda thing. It's dirty, it's time consuming, it's plodding, it's legwork, but it also does work. Usually extremely well. And when you finally see what you missed because you were trying to do it all in your head, or because you weren't bothering to be methodical, you'll say to yourself, "Idiot! I knew that all along I just didn't write it down!"
2. With people ask questions. But also re-ask, and ask again. Include intentional disinformation to see how the other guy reacts. They're lying to you. So lie right back. Become very good at it. Confuse them and see if their story wanders. "Oh yeah, well, back the first time we talked you said Mary had went to get cigarettes. Now you say she's never smoked? Are you blowing any my way by some chance?"
Instead of worrying about asking the perfect questions ask tricky questions. Even things you know they don't know. Rattle their cage, act crazy, act coy, act disinterested - like you'd rather be at the bar with a hooker, act like you know what you don't. Then cut em loose and tail em. See if they take to the air. Hit the ground. Dig a hole. Swerve outta control. Sweat like a prodded sow. Ask questions you can corroborate. Things you can disqualify. Coax out things you can use later. You don't have to solve everything from the first conversation, and God knows, you likely won't. What you will do is later remember, "Hey, that sounded awful funny when he first spouted it. And now I know why!"
3. Surveil your marks. Watch people. Put places under the glass. Watch long enough and you'll see something worth seeing, even if at first you don't realize what you saw. In time you'll say, "I know where I've seen that before, and what it means!" And you will too, because you were paying attention.
4. Keep records. Accurate information. If you don't understand why then you will later. Believe me.
5. Run down clues and leads. Footwork. Gumshoe. Hard scrabble plowing. Approach clues the same way you did events and relationships in section 1 of your plan. Nine times outta ten
"catching a break" is really just having your feelers out far enough in the field that when the fly hits the web something vibrates in your own head.
6. Spread it out. Delegate. You don't have to run down every clue yourself. That's why you have partners and a team.
7. Network. Build up a group of informants. And use them. Don't necessarily trust them, but use them. Informants make the difference between what you do know, and what you'll never know if you ain't got any.
8. Puzzle over things. Go back to where you started. See if your pieces fit. Try arranging them in a different order. Prepare to be confused and to have your theories shot all to sunshine. It happens. Don't sweat it. You got a plan and you know how to work it. And you got time and they ain't nearly as hard-headed or as patient as you are. There's a reason they call you a manhunter. Because you know how to do it and because you won't stop til it's over.
The point is when you got a plan then you'll always have something you can be running down. You won't sit around waiting for the milkman to deliver the good news. You'll be in the action. You'll be prepared. You'll be systematic. And dangerous, and in time you will get your man.
Now as far as a game goes, there ain't a lot you can do if your GM decides he's gonna run the game in some terrible, unrealistic fashion that you can't possibly win because the only way you can figure out the truth is if you do it like it's written in the module. (There's more than one way to skin a cat and I've never seen a case that had only one way of catching the cat either.) But that's not your fault, and it ain't your job. Your job is to play your game the right way. And if you got a good plan it's a lot easier to do things the right way no matter what anybody else is up to in the wrong way.
FS did an exclelent job with these comments by the way.
For myself as a DM I do a scatter-plot for mystery games. I set up lots of initial clues/methods of investigation and then numerous paths that can be taken from there, and those branch off into other ones, etc. So it becomes more and more spread out, after a peak moment in the mystery-plot it begins to shrink down again as it leads to the end of the mystery and the truth.
I will also add in the cases where the certain path leads to a dead-end. Not a complete dead-end but simply a different investigation that branches off from that one. You always see in crime shows/mystery shows sometimes 2-3 other corresponding investigations that branch off thanks to the initial one.
Now, mystery is one of my favourite kinds of games to play so I invest lots in running it well. I usually have some sort of force pushing the PCs/plotline to keep going so they don't stall out, there is always a need to go, go, go, go. So even a investigative and diplomacy ridden plotline has tension and excitement.
So did Wik with these.
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.
This is a right smart observation too:
In fact, I'm convinced that the failure to consider degrees of success and failure is a huge part of why 'bad' mystery scenarios fall apart in actual play (specifically, this line of reasoning is responsible for those 'if the PCs don't roll X for Y, they can't advance the scenario any further' situations).
Sorry, I didn't have the time to read the entire thread. I'm sure others made good comments.
A good thread too by the way.
