A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

I don't disagree about whodunits--as whodunits--being at least potentially problematic. That said ...

I knew what was going on and who was doing it and why, and I knew (at least mostly) how they were going about it. I didn't know how the PCs were going to approach the situation, and I didn't know how they'd handle things--and it was at least in principle possible that they'd be able to demonstrate the merchant was innocent without digging up and triggering the larger problem.

As I said, I kinda ad-libbed myself into running that mystery. The merchant hired the party to escort him to the dwarven stronghold, and I ended up needing reason/s for him to be persona non grata there. I didn't think the PCs would continue with the job if he was guilty, so he wasn't. So, if he wasn't guilty, something else needed to be going on, and that something else was what the party ended up finding as they were solving what looked like a whodunit.

Yeah, there are ways to make it work. And I wouldn't say that my games don't wind up with some of this kind of content involved. It can sometimes come up as a natural progression of the game and what the players do.

Also, I want to clarify in regard to my recent posts....when I say "erred" or that things are "going to go poorly" or any of that, I only mean for my own tastes and what I am hoping to get out of a game, either as player or GM. There may be any number of games where this works great for all involved, and I realize that. A lot of this is just my preference.

 

[prabe]

Yeah, there are ways to make it work. And I wouldn't say that my games don't wind up with some of this kind of content involved. It can sometimes come up as a natural progression of the game and what the players do.

Also, I want to clarify in regard to my recent posts....when I say "erred" or that things are "going to go poorly" or any of that, I only mean for my own tastes and what I am hoping to get out of a game, either as player or GM. There may be any number of games where this works great for all involved, and I realize that. A lot of this is just my preference.

Yeah. It's not a type of story I'm ever looking to drop into a campaign; the one that happened, just kinda happened--as you say, a natural progression of the fiction. I was not--honest!--taking it as any sort of personal statement that I had erred or that my game had gone poorly, though I gotta admit I was worried I had erred, when I realized I was committed to running a mystery.

I think part of GMing is knowing the tastes of the people at the table, and at least not aiming dead-center at something someone detests. I honestly think that if the mystery had been nothing but frustration for the players, I could have worked something out--probably explicitly out-of-game--to get around that. Sincere apologies go a long way, I've found, in cases like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I like to call this do you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story or do you want to try to be Sherlock Holmes. Those are very different goals. One expects certain story tropes to emerge, clues to come together in certain ways, for the mystery to be solved by the master detective, and for him to find and piece together clues most of the time (even if he is stumped, you expect Sherlock Holmes to figure it out eventually). But if you are trying to be Sherlock Holmes, you want to experience the challenge of solving a mystery, which demands the possibility of not solving mystery to have any value.

So this is an interesting look at it. And it kind of raises a question in my mind. And this is just something that popped into my head reading the above, I don't mean this as a question specifically for you, @Bedrockgames , though I am interested in your take, too!

How does a player feel like Sherlock Holmes? How do we try to portray that in play?

There's the idea with this kind of mystery that there is information that's been intentionally obscured, and Holmes is going to find it, right? That's kind of the essential element.

Is the best way portray that in a game to be to try and replicate it? By that I mean, have the players be searching for the clues that are hidden in hope of finding them?

Or is there some other way? Because to be honest, Holmes stories sometimes require major intuitive leaps made by the character because he is a fictional character allowed to make those leaps......it's all the product of one author, and so Sherlock can make these crazy proclamations and he seems amazingly intuitive and observant. But it's all artifice.

I would think that trying to replicate that would either see the players fall short because their crazy intuitions will not likely be right, or the mystery itself would be simple in comparison to those of the kinds Holmes tends to get involved with.

Would that still make for an engaging game? Very possibly.

Or would it feel more Holmesesque if the players had some kind of ability to steer things beyond simply finding what's there? Would that feel more like Holmes?

If we think of his deductions as being class abilities and Doyle as his player......maybe there's a case for approaching mysteries in another way.

Not that I have any idea how you would do that. But just some thoughts.

 

[Campbell]

I am not opposed to mysteries, even of the who killed this man variety. I am just not super big on it being the main course. Even if we are playing a game where we play detectives it should be more like Homicide - Life on the Street than Sherlock Holmes or the mystery genre. There should be multiple balls in play, the perpetrators should have real goals and plans, and our characters should have their own naughty word going on. Like everything should not slow down and be about solving this one single crime. I love PC Adventure games, but I am not looking for that experience in a roleplaying game.

Part of the issue from my perspective is that I believe scenario design should be focused on what the player characters will do when faced with a given situation. The story in mystery novels are not about the detectives. It's about the crime that already occurred. I am looking to focus on what's going on right now. Mysteries can and should inform that, but should not be primary for my tastes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So this is an interesting look at it. And it kind of raises a question in my mind. And this is just something that popped into my head reading the above, I don't mean this as a question specifically for you, @Bedrockgames , though I am interested in your take, too!

How does a player feel like Sherlock Holmes? How do we try to portray that in play?

There's the idea with this kind of mystery that there is information that's been intentionally obscured, and Holmes is going to find it, right? That's kind of the essential element.

Is the best way portray that in a game to be to try and replicate it? By that I mean, have the players be searching for the clues that are hidden in hope of finding them?

Or is there some other way? Because to be honest, Holmes stories sometimes require major intuitive leaps made by the character because he is a fictional character allowed to make those leaps......it's all the product of one author, and so Sherlock can make these crazy proclamations and he seems amazingly intuitive and observant. But it's all artifice.

I would think that trying to replicate that would either see the players fall short because their crazy intuitions will not likely be right, or the mystery itself would be simple in comparison to those of the kinds Holmes tends to get involved with.

Would that still make for an engaging game? Very possibly.

Or would it feel more Holmesesque if the players had some kind of ability to steer things beyond simply finding what's there? Would that feel more like Holmes?

If we think of his deductions as being class abilities and Doyle as his player......maybe there's a case for approaching mysteries in another way.

Not that I have any idea how you would do that. But just some thoughts.

In the answering the question it is really, really important to put your game bases aside in terms of style I think. Everyone, myself included, tends to answer this question with their own preferences in mind. This is why I drew a distinction between being in a sherlock holmes story (which is more what you describe) and being (not feeling) Sherlock Holmes. Neither approach is wrong or right, they are just different goals (and to be clear, there are more distinctions to be made here. The type of play I think aligns with being Sherlock homes is where the players are experiencing the challenges of solving, or failing to solve, the mystery by finding clues, piecing together the clues, etc. This is, I think, for the kinds of fans of mystery for whom so many bookshelf games were made in the 70s (you can look these up to see what I am talking about). So I think the answers your questions suggest are much more in the realm of players who want to be in a Sherlock holmes story, or those who want to simulate sherlock holmes (i.e. they want to make a character who can do the things Sherlock holmes does, and use something like a set of skills or abilities to do those things, rather than do those things as directly themselves as possible). Again, there is nothing wrong with any of these preferences, but they are preferences you see emerge in discussions around mystery adventures where some people want Sherlock Holmes to be able to make 'crazy proclamations' and have those be true, others want to see if they can piece together the available data and arrive at something true.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If I were to break it down more clear types of distinctions, it would be:

Do you want to emulate a Sherlock Holmes Story
Do you want to simulate sherlock holmes
Do you want to play the game of detective that Sherlock Holmes plays

There are probably better ways to describe this. You can easily discern three or four different sets of preferences around mysteries in these discussions (and in truth some campaigns are going to be a blend because groups are made up of people with all different kinds of preferences and sometimes people like to engage all three of these things at different points in play: humans are complicated

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So this is an interesting look at it. And it kind of raises a question in my mind. And this is just something that popped into my head reading the above, I don't mean this as a question specifically for you, @Bedrockgames , though I am interested in your take, too!

How does a player feel like Sherlock Holmes? How do we try to portray that in play?

There's the idea with this kind of mystery that there is information that's been intentionally obscured, and Holmes is going to find it, right? That's kind of the essential element.

Is the best way portray that in a game to be to try and replicate it? By that I mean, have the players be searching for the clues that are hidden in hope of finding them?

Or is there some other way? Because to be honest, Holmes stories sometimes require major intuitive leaps made by the character because he is a fictional character allowed to make those leaps......it's all the product of one author, and so Sherlock can make these crazy proclamations and he seems amazingly intuitive and observant. But it's all artifice.

I would think that trying to replicate that would either see the players fall short because their crazy intuitions will not likely be right, or the mystery itself would be simple in comparison to those of the kinds Holmes tends to get involved with.

Would that still make for an engaging game? Very possibly.

Or would it feel more Holmesesque if the players had some kind of ability to steer things beyond simply finding what's there? Would that feel more like Holmes?

If we think of his deductions as being class abilities and Doyle as his player......maybe there's a case for approaching mysteries in another way.

Not that I have any idea how you would do that. But just some thoughts.

Well.... Doesn't this kind of point at a sort of 'Story Now' approach? I mean, the players indicate they are wanting to solve a mystery, or the entire game is pitched that way/falls into that genre or whatever. So the GM frames a scene, which establishes the essential starting point. Inspector Lastrade calls the doctor in (or these are analogous characters anyway), there's been a murder! It is vital that it be solved, 'Scotland Yard' is stumped, etc. From here on out the players start asking questions and 'looking for clues'. The GM might have certain answers, there is some mud on a shoe, etc. That doesn't mean he knows exactly what it all means! As the players achieve successes they dig into further levels of story, danger, intrigue, whatever the GM thinks to frame into a scene that 'turns the screws'. Complications likewise arise, perhaps there are red herrings, or evidence is missed or destroyed. Even Holmes was sometimes stumped for a time, and did make mistakes.

In this sort of process there isn't 'one single solution' to the mystery. There could be no specific solution in the GM's mind at the start, or perhaps she's thought of several possibilities. There can definitely be surprising elements which come up, but it may well be that one or more of the players actually defines the 'solution to the mystery'. This is still finding a solution, and it is still clever, though it might be a bit different type of puzzle solving than figuring out a mystery defined entirely by someone else. I can certainly see it as potentially entertaining.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am not opposed to mysteries, even of the who killed this man variety. I am just not super big on it being the main course. Even if we are playing a game where we play detectives it should be more like Homicide - Life on the Street than Sherlock Holmes or the mystery genre. There should be multiple balls in play, the perpetrators should have real goals and plans, and our characters should have their own naughty word going on. Like everything should not slow down and be about solving this one single crime. I love PC Adventure games, but I am not looking for that experience in a roleplaying game.

Part of the issue from my perspective is that I believe scenario design should be focused on what the player characters will do when faced with a given situation. The story in mystery novels are not about the detectives. It's about the crime that already occurred. I am looking to focus on what's going on right now. Mysteries can and should inform that, but should not be primary for my tastes.

True. Something like 'CSI the RPG' would probably work better. There are various threads going on, the PCs are parts of a team, each with their own areas of expertise and skills. Several cases could be going at once, and the focus is more on how they go about what they do vs just focusing on solving a crime which is over and done with. This sort of setup would also work in a pretty wide variety of settings. It could certainly be pulled off in a D&D game, for example. This also mitigates the 'dud problem'. Yeah, maybe some cases will be easy to solve, but there are always other harder ones, and maybe some that stump the party.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well.... Doesn't this kind of point at a sort of 'Story Now' approach? I mean, the players indicate they are wanting to solve a mystery, or the entire game is pitched that way/falls into that genre or whatever. So the GM frames a scene, which establishes the essential starting point. Inspector Lastrade calls the doctor in (or these are analogous characters anyway), there's been a murder! It is vital that it be solved, 'Scotland Yard' is stumped, etc. From here on out the players start asking questions and 'looking for clues'. The GM might have certain answers, there is some mud on a shoe, etc. That doesn't mean he knows exactly what it all means! As the players achieve successes they dig into further levels of story, danger, intrigue, whatever the GM thinks to frame into a scene that 'turns the screws'. Complications likewise arise, perhaps there are red herrings, or evidence is missed or destroyed. Even Holmes was sometimes stumped for a time, and did make mistakes.

In this sort of process there isn't 'one single solution' to the mystery. There could be no specific solution in the GM's mind at the start, or perhaps she's thought of several possibilities. There can definitely be surprising elements which come up, but it may well be that one or more of the players actually defines the 'solution to the mystery'. This is still finding a solution, and it is still clever, though it might be a bit different type of puzzle solving than figuring out a mystery defined entirely by someone else. I can certainly see it as potentially entertaining.

The problem is, for a lot of players this isn't actually solving the mystery, this is helping to write a mystery story. Which is fine, but it isn't what someone who wants to have a go at the challenge of being a detective is looking for. And in such a case, I think having a concrete mystery external to the player is crucial. That said, it shouldn't mean there is only one way to solve. There may be one true event that occurred, but there ought to be many paths to arrive at the truth of that event, and the GM should be open to pathways that would realistically yield clues to the truth (even if the GM has not foreseen those pathways). In this sort of scenario, the GM is basically doing his or her best to run a holodeck Sherlock Holmes scenario for Data. If the GM just allows Data's theory, even if it is wrong, to become the truth, it isn't really beating the challenge (and players in this style want to genuinely win or genuinely lose)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is, for a lot of players this isn't actually solving the mystery, this is helping to write a mystery story. Which is fine, but it isn't what someone who wants to have a go at the challenge of being a detective is looking for. And in such a case, I think having a concrete mystery external to the player is crucial. That said, it shouldn't mean there is only one way to solve. There may be one true event that occurred, but there ought to be many paths to arrive at the truth of that event, and the GM should be open to pathways that would realistically yield clues to the truth (even if the GM has not foreseen those pathways). In this sort of scenario, the GM is basically doing his or her best to run a holodeck Sherlock Holmes scenario for Data. If the GM just allows Data's theory, even if it is wrong, to become the truth, it isn't really beating the challenge (and players in this style want to genuinely win or genuinely lose)

Well, 'multiple paths' might work, but at that point is there some value to there being one and only one correct solution? My experience with other sorts of Story Now play indicates that, as long as the results are consistent and plausible, and engage the PCs in the expected way, that the literal solution isn't usually the primary point. I certainly don't, myself, as a player feel like there can really BE one and only one solution, that's more just a fixed idea that the GM came up with. It is all fiction.