McGuffins, Secrets and Player Defined Solutions

[aco175]

There is always a NPC around to get the pcs back on track, even if he is a dead guy with a note scrawled in blood. I like the captain obvious ones if everyone is getting bored/frustrated.

 

[Reynard]

There is always a NPC around to get the pcs back on track, even if he is a dead guy with a note scrawled in blood. I like the captain obvious ones if everyone is getting bored/frustrated.

The exact reason to discuss this stuff is so none of us end up with bored and frustrated players.

 

[payn]

Yeah. I have run many, many con games. I do mini "con-campaigns" ranging from 3 to 6 slots (episodic so folks that only play 1 can still enjoy their experience).

Anyway, this thread is larger than that con game question, but the idea of wanting to make sure "mystery" methodology works for shorter (one shot, limited campaign) games is important, too. In this case, though, I am leaning toward the PCs knowing what the McGuffin is at the outset and having to figure out how to get it, then how to use it to kill Ser Brightburn in the 4 hours alotted.

Stranger Things took a page out of Call of Cthulhu this past season and had some scooby doo like investigation going on. One thing that keeps up the pressure is events triggering as the PCs discover pieces of the puzzle. Reframing that from horror to supers shouldn't be too difficult. Neither should looking at some CoC one shots for inspiration.

 

[Reynard]

Stranger Things took a page out of Call of Cthulhu this past season and had some scooby doo like investigation going on. One thing that keeps up the pressure is events triggering as the PCs discover pieces of the puzzle. Reframing that from horror to supers shouldn't be too difficult. Neither should looking at some CoC one shots for inspiration.

CoC is very strongly in the first form I defined in the OP. I have played in both wonderful and terrible CoC scenarios, and the deciding factor between each is whether the GM wants you to discover the clues. I really dislike dithering in RPGs, whether it is pixel hunting, over planning, or grinding in combat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

CoC is very strongly in the first form I defined in the OP. I have played in both wonderful and terrible CoC scenarios, and the deciding factor between each is whether the GM wants you to discover the clues. I really dislike dithering in RPGs, whether it is pixel hunting, over planning, or grinding in combat.

So, there's this article. It's pretty short, and clearly written, and I think it does a good job of explaining how a lot of games can be approached. At least, you see a good bit of these styles in a lot of posts here at ENW. I think that considering this article might help with the ideas that you're struggling with, at least in forming an idea of how you want to approach it at a high level. Honestly, for a con game with a system like SWADE, I'd heavily recommend starting with a mix of participationism and trailblazing, with a few illusionism cards up the sleeve if things bog down. SWADE doesn't have many useful supporting tools to play bass, and that mode of play isn't well suited to the constraints of a con game without strong system support.

 

[overgeeked]

Last night while unable to sleep, I started to think about the best method for adventures that revolve around specific or particular "answers" to situations in play. In this case it relates to a "The Boys" style game I am putting together, where the PCs aren't powerful enough to defeat the super bad guys, and will need some McGuffin or trick to get it done. But this could also be about murder mysteries or other "key information" based adventure design.

The already mentioned three-clue rule and node-based design are what I consider the gold standard for this kind of thing.

Here's the primary question I keep coming back to: is it better to a) define the McGuffin and all the associated details, including the clues that will lead the PCs to the answer, or b) simply know there IS a McGuffin but let the players tell you what it is by their actions.

For me, it's better to have this stuff defined upfront rather than defined through play. The former can be changed, altered, bits moved, etc...while the latter has a very real risk of feeling like keep away or an anti-quantum ogre. No matter where you go or what you do, you won't find the McGuffin until the referee wants you to.

In the former case, a few failed skill rolls or the PCs running off on a tangent could really bog the game game down. The GM has to work extra hard to make sure they are communicating things to the players in ways that lead them to the conclusions the GM intends, and has to be able to redirect or adapt if the PCs run after a red herring. In the latter case, the GM is free from those constraints but must focus on pacing and coherence without making the entire exercise seem artificial and essentially running down the clock until the timer goes off for the big showdown.

In most murder mysteries you're not going to lock vital information behind a roll. Not if you want the murder mystery to actually work at least. Things like failing forward, success at cost, and simply handing players clues in a murder mystery are standard practice. It's up to the players to interpret those clues. Generally the less dice involved the better.

So, if you have a murder mystery or a McGuffin hunt or some other highly specific information or action key adventure, what do you do to guide play to the goal? What methods do you use to support the PCs getting where they need to go? Do you ever let them decide, and if so do you explicitly do so or do you pick a thread they were pulling on?

Again, the three-clue rule and node-based design are incredible for this. The Alexandrian talks about prepping dozens of clues and scattering them across your nodes. And when the players inevitably go outside your prepped nodes, you can move one or more of your clues to that new node and help guide the players back to the main nodes. You see something similar in Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master with clues. The idea is to prep the clues you might want to drop in the game, but do not decide where those clues are. You drop the clues where the players actually go. But in the original context, Return is using clues for hooks and world-building rather than mystery solving. So some adjustments might be necessary.

There's also X-Treme Dungeon Mastery, a book by Tracy Hickman. In it he also talks about node-based design, but he introduces what he calls hard and soft bumpers. Instead of the moveable clues of the Alexandrian, Hickman suggests increasingly hard bumpers to steer the players back into the "story." Say a simple obstacle, a harder obstacle, a nearly impossible obstacle, and finally an impossible obstacle. As much as I like most of the book, it's hard not to read this as railroading and illusion of choice.

 

[Reynard]

So, there's this article. It's pretty short, and clearly written, and I think it does a good job of explaining how a lot of games can be approached. At least, you see a good bit of these styles in a lot of posts here at ENW. I think that considering this article might help with the ideas that you're struggling with, at least in forming an idea of how you want to approach it at a high level. Honestly, for a con game with a system like SWADE, I'd heavily recommend starting with a mix of participationism and trailblazing, with a few illusionism cards up the sleeve if things bog down. SWADE doesn't have many useful supporting tools to play bass, and that mode of play isn't well suited to the constraints of a con game without strong system support.

SWADE has tons of great tools, from dramatic tasks to quick combats to all kinds of dials. It isn't a narrative or story game, for sure, but it is a pretty sleak, relatively simple, option heavy trad game that is surprisingly versatile. The only thing you really ahve to watch out for is its swinginess in combat -- which happens to be a net gain in this particular scenario.

 

[Reynard]

There's also X-Treme Dungeon Mastery, a book by Tracy Hickman. In it he also talks about node-based design, but he introduces what he calls hard and soft bumpers. Instead of the moveable clues of the Alexandrian, Hickman suggests increasingly hard bumpers to steer the players back into the "story." Say a simple obstacle, a harder obstacle, a nearly impossible obstacle, and finally an impossible obstacle. As much as I like most of the book, it's hard not to read this as railroading and illusion of choice.

I have never heard of that book. I will have to find a copy. Thanks.

 

[prabe]

This is possibly the least-useful advice you're going to get--sorry--but what I've done in similar situations was A) figure out what the answer was--in this case, that'd be figuring out what (and probably where) your Maguffin is; B) figure out what information was available to the PCs--in this case, what is known about this Maguffin, what traces has it left on the world; and C) as the PCs did things, trying to learn about the situation, figure out whether (and how) what the PCs were doing would get them information, and what information. This--obviously--involves a lot of GM judgment in play, and does not involve trying to predict every PC course of action, or writing where every piece of information is; so it might not be an approach that will work for you, or for what you're trying to do.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm a huge fan of leaving blank spaces in my adventure design. It's a great way to increase player involvement, when you have a problem or challenge that has no pre-planned solution. I love it when my players surprise me with what they do to get past them. And having that bit of mystery gives that much more room for improvisation on my part, too.

My brother sometimes does a similar thing, but he frequently adds a parachute of "well if the players don't come up with anything, this is what it is." Which honestly isn't a bad idea, either.

I'd say give the MacGuffin an evocative name, like The Stonevoid Bane or somesuch, and let the PCs figure out what it actually is. Lots of people do better on improv when they at least have a starting point.