A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

Funny enough, I was looking through my bookmarks on my phone, and I came across this blogpost by Sean McCoy, the creator of Mothership.

Investigation Blogpost

This touches on some of the things mentioned over the last few pages, sometimes almost verbatim!

The investigation sheet is an interesting idea.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, but interestingly you don't 'solve a mystery' in Clue. There is actually no explanation of what the clues are. In fact, amusingly Clue has no clues at all! You simply reveal cards without the slightest explanation of how the investigation is carried out, or what it consists of. Why is it not possible that Mr Mustard did it in the Study? We have no idea, this is not addressed. So Clue is not a model for a mystery game at all, and in fact it is a pretty silly game with as much sophistication as Tic, Tac, Toe when you get right down to it.

Sure, but I think that you could build from this idea to a more complex and robust game. As Bedrockgames says, part of how Clue works is a game of deduction based upon the limited list of possible suspects, rooms, and weapons. Of course it's possible that Mr Mustard did it in the Study, but what matters is that he actually did it in the Billiards Room. But you can certainly probe the possibility that Mr Mustard did in the Study, and doing so may help narrow down your list of possibilities even if you know that he didn't do it in the Study.

I don't really see how Ironsworn helps much either. It is a thoroughly narrativist game in which the players invent the fiction, or else it is generated via 'oracles'. The 'fulfilling oaths' part is a structured set of GOALS that the players, through their PCs, construct, but the rules don't really address how you achieve them, except through the mechanics of play. It is in these actual mechanics that a pure mystery story game would have to deal with a mystery. In order for that game to achieve success by the criteria of the 'traditional' non-narrativists in this discusion it would have to involve a fixed answer to a mystery which can only be revealed by either specific player declarations "I search the dresser." or mediated through skill checks which resolve those actions "I do a thorough search and roll an X on my Search skill check."

I'm not proposing Ironsworn as a traditionalist, non-narrativist RPG here, only as a system that I think could do Holmesian mysteries with the appropriate setup and re-tooling. So it seems a bit misplaced that you criticize Ironsworn as being inappropriate for being thoroughly narrativist while later then suggesting that the best approach would be a narrativist one. While the players invent the fiction, Ironsworn definitely makes the game about stakes and goals, which are IMO an important part of mysteries. One could set up separate mysteries and Oracles for things like the suspect, the weapon, the location, the motive, and the grand solve. Complications may arise with characters in the game, interrogating witnesses, cooperating with law enforcement, the femme fatale, pursuing a shadowy eavesdropper, and the like.

Ah, given that I was never really sucked into that whole genre much I guess I never knew there were TWO different RPGs covering the same IP. I remember the earlier SotC based one as being favorably received. I've never played any SotC-based games, but I did read through the core rules way back when. It seemed like a fairly reasonable system core for this kind of thing.

They are "two different RPGs" but at the same time they are built on the same Fate engine, though the Dresden Files RPG is pre-Fate Core, and DFA is post-Fate Core. The way mantles work in DFA is that you are picking essentially an archetype, much as a playbook, which comes with a set of preselection of Conditions and Stunts. You may check off boxes to use some of your Mantle abilities. Or you may have to check off a box when that condition is triggered (e.g., violate your oath, etc.). When you run out of boxes or want to recover boxes, typically one of several things must happen depending on the tag:

• Fleeting: You recover your conditions at the end of the scene or some trivial point.
• Sticky: Concrete action must be taken and typically a dice roll.
• Lasting: Same as sticky, but typically time must also pass (the session) or the completion of a secondary objective.

What this entails will naturally vary based on the Mantle and character. Mantles also have access to a choice of Stunts that can provide additional archetype-themed bonuses or assist with the mantle conditions.

I actually used Dresden Files Accelerated for the aforementioned one-shot of a Supernatural Investigation Society set in 1840s Vienna. If I were to run it again, as I one day hope, I would still consider DFA but also Monster of the Week, Urban Modern Fantasy (i.e., "Dungeon World Modern"), or Vaesen, though the latter is a little too Swedish/Nordic and not enough Austrian/Central Europe.

 

[pemerton]

i don’t know AW enough, so you may have to answer that. But this is just a pretty standard GM technique. Perhaps it is more formalized in AW. so possibly the difference is in the formal ways moves operate in those games. The one possible difference I see is in my situation the GM is working if the facts established about the mystery and answering as logically as possible when the players go into unexpected territory or take unexpected action. But a question like what here isn’t what it seems appears more likely to be changing material of the mystery that wasn’t there before (not sure, just going by what the question suggests). Not sure why it would matter here though if they are similar or the same

in DW, the GM is OBLIGED to answer the question, and an answer of "all is as it seems" isn't really kosher. In fact DW specifies that the PC making the move gets a "+1 Forward when acting on the answers" (so the GM's response logically must have fictional in-game utility to the PC which explains why they get this bonus). Of course the bonus will only assert itself if the PC's further actions engage with the answer. If the GM responded to "what happened here recently?" (another question that can be asked) and the GM said "some goblins passed through, you see their footprints" then surprising the goblins later might get the +1, assuming the PCs track them. If they ignore the clue, then there's no benefit.

An answer everything here is exactly as it seems might be boring in many contexts, but in the context of solving a mystery might actually be helpful- and thus provide a +1 forward.

In any event, in a mystery game of the sort Bedrockgames was describing we might be looking at different questions - eg he had the PCs asking the bystanders what they saw. This would be a version of what happened here recently?

 

[pemerton]

I think what's most difficult is tying it to the here and now. A mystery on its own is not what I would consider a playable scenario. There need to be real stakes and real decisions to be made by the players. It should not just be about figuring out what already happened. It should be input in how things are about to happen.

I really think it depends what the game is meant to achieve. As I posted way upthread, I ran a freeform murder mystery for my daughter's birthday last year. The answer was pre-authored by me. The setting was a spaceship in jump-space, so like an "Orient Express" or isolated mansion whodunnit - and reinforced by my framing - there were a finite number of suspects in a finite space. (Though the actual solution cheated a little bit in this respect, it was within fair parameters I think.)

The actual play consisted of (i) the set-up, letting the players get the hang of their characters and meeting the NPCs (including the victim) and then (ii) the investigation. This was all just "poking around" Poirot-style.

I think it counted as a game. And it was a RPG - there was shared fiction and the players had their own characters to play, each of which has a motive to be the killer and thus establishing a possible red-herring for the other players (there was no promise in advance that the killer was a NPC; and two of the player positions included associated and also suspect NPCs).

Where it differed from what you (@Campbell) describe in your post was that there were no real stakes, and no player agency over the shared fiction. It was entirely exploration of a situation established, adjudicated and developed by me as referee.

 

[pemerton]

I think you need to have some in place for sure....the victim or equivalent, and the perpetrator. Any obvious details found on the scene like the murder weapon or the like.

Beyond that kind of stuff, I think I'd mostly prefer to leave the rest of it open, and allow the players to determine the angles of investigation, and then I'd likely try to have clues emerge accordingly.

The bioweapons conspiracy in my Classic Traveller game wasn't exactly like this - it was even looser at the start - but was closer to this than to the murder mystery I've described.

In the murder mystery the only clue I remember adding that went beyond what was already in the scenario I was drawing on was one about the dinner service. That clue seemed a natural fit with the solution. And its inclusion was driven more by me as GM than by the players. (I think maybe it came up when NPCs were being asked about their whereabout etc.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

In any event, in a mystery game of the sort Bedrockgames was describing we might be looking at different questions - eg he had the PCs asking the bystanders what they saw. This would be a version of what happened here recently?

I am not familiar with this particular term so don't know what it encompasses. In this case, the existence of background details doesn't preclude active elements like antagonistic NPCs or other things the players themselves may be pursuing. So the players are not simply finding out what happened recently in the adventure, they may also be contending with threats and forces that were involved in what happened. Now there is an objective thing that happened (or at least the GM is treating the backstory as if it really occurred and trying to honor that in all of his or her adjudication as the players go into unexpected territory). Occasionally this might mean the GM has to invent something on the spot because a player presses for a detail that would be obtainable, but was something the GM simply hadn't considered. I think the key there is making sure anything you come up with, flows as logically from the backstory and NPCs as possible, or at the very least, doesn't contradict them. So, for example players may use an autopsy to discover what the victim had for breakfast that morning. To me that doesn't seem like an outrageous expectation, so I would provide info (in fact I might even ask for a moment to quickly google autopsies just so I am getting things right----or I would make clear I know very little about autopsies and will be forming a judgment based on what little knowledge I have----also being open to thoughts from players who may know more" these kinds of conversations are actually quite common in my games). The bottom line though is, if I go this direction with the players, I need to decide what the NPC ate, and I need to not just make it some random thing (because obviously this could be a relevant clue even if it doesn't seem like it right away). This will be based on what my backstory says first and foremost, and then driven by what logic I can apply. If I have in my backstory, that he was simply walking down the street when he was accosted by the murderers, that is going to restrict me a lot more than if I don't have that kind of detail (and there is a 2 hour gap between him leaving his house in my notes and being shot). Whatever the case, I will try to think of what he hate, when, where and with who, just in case any of those details could possibly be deduced (again no expert on autopsies so some of that will depend on what is settled about how good autopsies are at determining if someone just at a big mac).

On the active end, all the perpetuators involved in the event, all the suspects, are still being treated as living NPCs. Some may be taking actions against the players, some may be plotting other nefarious deeds, and some may be working to cover things up or conspire to pin the blame on someone else.

Also, there is no telling what the players will do. If they just start shooting suspects (which has happened in games I've run before), that takes things in a radically different direction.

 

[pemerton]

POTENTIALLY another way to do it, and maybe this is another way of saying the same thing, is to have 'meta-clues' which are simply clues which steer play back to the really direct clues. So, if you miss the murder weapon at the scene somehow, then forensics tells you later what to go look for. If some handwriting would clue you in, then some NPC analyzes it and lets you know it was significant if you missed it somehow, etc. These meta-clues are not guaranteed to be uncovered either, you still have to do legwork, but they would tend to 'fail safe' the solving of the core mystery to an extent.

As you present this, I find it hard not to see it as a railroad. That's not an objection as such, but does tend to push against the presence of player agency in play.

 

[FrogReaver]

As you present this, I find it hard not to see it as a railroad. That's not an objection as such, but does tend to push against the presence of player agency in play.

I thought having mechanics around something prevented DM force and thus prevented railroading.

 

[Fenris-77]

As you present this, I find it hard not to see it as a railroad. That's not an objection as such, but does tend to push against the presence of player agency in play.

Well, I think that's maybe unfair. A mystery only has so many pieces, and only so many clues that point in so many places. You can build some choice and agency into that scenario, but it differs from a lot of games because many possible player choices are counter to the desired player outcome, which is to solve the mystery. Maybe it's just that the term railroad has such a heavy negative load, and in this kind of scenario you need at least some linearity. Yeah, it might just be the term that irks me. Is it the case that every kind of plot that has linear elements, even if that's desire of all the parties at the table, needs to be labelled with a negative label, like there's something wrong with it? I'm not sure that's where we want to be. It stinks too much of badwrongfun for my tastes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but I think that you could build from this idea to a more complex and robust game. As Bedrockgames says, part of how Clue works is a game of deduction based upon the limited list of possible suspects, rooms, and weapons. Of course it's possible that Mr Mustard did it in the Study, but what matters is that he actually did it in the Billiards Room. But you can certainly probe the possibility that Mr Mustard did in the Study, and doing so may help narrow down your list of possibilities even if you know that he didn't do it in the Study.

Sure, but how does Clue's mechanics, such as they are, inform us about how to do this? There is no 'clue' in Clue, no fiction at all, aside from naming the variables and the puzzle in a suggestive fashion. Looking at Clue doesn't help us develop an RPG process. It is divorced from fiction and from RP at all. Saying "model your game on Clue" doesn't even get me one iota closer to an RPG solution to a mystery game. I mean, yes, we could cloak Clue's core mechanic in a more open world type of game where you RP going from location to location, and perhaps you actually need to find a murder weapon instead of just guessing them. But how do you explain the 'process of elimination' part in game world fictional terms? It doesn't really make sense. The "I need to guess the murder weapon" is a nonsensical and utterly gamist construct. MAYBE we can more carefully build other constructs, but the core issue remains. In Clue you simply blurt out "Mr Mustard did it in the Study with the Knife" but in an RPG you'd have to play through finding some evidence for those assertions, and then some process by which making them would lead to either their validation or refutation. None of that process is informed by modeling on Clue.

I'm not proposing Ironsworn as a traditionalist, non-narrativist RPG here, only as a system that I think could do Holmesian mysteries with the appropriate setup and re-tooling. So it seems a bit misplaced that you criticize Ironsworn as being inappropriate for being thoroughly narrativist while later then suggesting that the best approach would be a narrativist one. While the players invent the fiction, Ironsworn definitely makes the game about stakes and goals, which are IMO an important part of mysteries. One could set up separate mysteries and Oracles for things like the suspect, the weapon, the location, the motive, and the grand solve. Complications may arise with characters in the game, interrogating witnesses, cooperating with law enforcement, the femme fatale, pursuing a shadowy eavesdropper, and the like.

OK, but if the particulars of the case are determined by oracles (as I understand it these are random tables) how does this work? The real issue here with mysteries in particular is nuts and bolts. How do you go from the initial idea of playing a mystery, through the conceptual maze of what that means in game structural terms, and then down to the final level of actualization of a specific mystery story in play. We've all discussed a few proposals in the first 2 areas, but I don't think we can go further in that discussion without bringing it all the way down to the "what exactly happens at the table" (and obviously to work out which proposals 'gel' in actual play would require testing them, but I am confident we're not going to do that in a thread here).

They are "two different RPGs" but at the same time they are built on the same Fate engine, though the Dresden Files RPG is pre-Fate Core, and DFA is post-Fate Core. The way mantles work in DFA is that you are picking essentially an archetype, much as a playbook, which comes with a set of preselection of Conditions and Stunts. You may check off boxes to use some of your Mantle abilities. Or you may have to check off a box when that condition is triggered (e.g., violate your oath, etc.). When you run out of boxes or want to recover boxes, typically one of several things must happen depending on the tag:

• Fleeting: You recover your conditions at the end of the scene or some trivial point.
• Sticky: Concrete action must be taken and typically a dice roll.
• Lasting: Same as sticky, but typically time must also pass (the session) or the completion of a secondary objective.

What this entails will naturally vary based on the Mantle and character. Mantles also have access to a choice of Stunts that can provide additional archetype-themed bonuses or assist with the mantle conditions.

I actually used Dresden Files Accelerated for the aforementioned one-shot of a Supernatural Investigation Society set in 1840s Vienna. If I were to run it again, as I one day hope, I would still consider DFA but also Monster of the Week, Urban Modern Fantasy (i.e., "Dungeon World Modern"), or Vaesen, though the latter is a little too Swedish/Nordic and not enough Austrian/Central Europe.

Interesting. It is a genre I've really not had a lot of contact with. Kinda stuck more with the 'Cthulhuoid' sort of modern fantasy. Most of the 'elves exist in the real world' sort just never seemed to push my buttons that much (and don't get me started on all these Vampire stories, Anne Rice was compelling fiction back in the day, but I don't see much value in what came after).