GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

That the old methodology may look and feel like “reality” and like the American judicial system, but that is no coincidence. The detective genre has always been entangled with a cultural fantasy about closure, accountability, and truth being singular, discoverable, and legally actionable. But that is a fiction — both in literature and in life. And when we import that structure uncritically into RPG play, we mistake a literary convention for a necessary structure of play.

This seems like a weird road to go down. No one here is commenting on the American system of justice. You can even be critical of real world investigation but understand something really happened. Are you saying there aren't objectively true events?

Also yes, this is meant to emulate genres. So we are not trying to solve real world problems about knowledge or police work. We are trying to create a fun mystery the players can actually solve

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Bedrockgames @Crimson Longinus @Micah Sweet

A question for you:
What does it mean to "solve" an investigation scenario under the light of a pre-established, pre-written mystery backstory?

Is it when the players correctly guess the culprit's identity? Is it when they reconstruct the entire sequence of events the GM prepared? What if they miss half of it, but still catch the culprit — is that a solved mystery? Or what if they uncover the full backstory, but only after the GM spoon-feeds it to them through exposition to finish off the session? Is that a “solution”?

Is it when they take action against the culprit and bring them to justice? What if they do that without understanding the full context. Is that still "solving" the mystery? What if they kill the wrong suspect but uncover the actual backstory later?

Is it when the players themselves understand the backstory, or when their characters do? What if the players piece it together out of character, maybe a week after, but the PCs never quite grasped the full picture? Is that a solved mystery?

What if the players correctly identify the culprit, but the culprit escapes? Is the mystery “solved” at that point? Or does it only count if they both discover the answer and successfully confront or apprehend them?

What if they expose the entire backstory, piece it together beautifully, but the culprit dies offscreen, or flees to another country, or is killed by someone else before they can act (This would be bad play in story now, but maybe acceptable in a more neutral style)? Is that still considered solving the mystery?

What if the players solve the mystery too late. They figure out who did it, but by then, more people have died, more crimes have been committed, and now those events have opened up entirely new mysteries? Is the original mystery still "solved" in any meaningful sense, or has the investigation simply unfolded into a larger, evolving situation that can’t be neatly boxed into whether they cracked the initial case?

These ideas about what constitutes “solving” a mystery aren’t some essential truth. We’ve inherited them from the structure of crime fiction, particularly 20th-century detective stories, where everything is designed to converge on a singular solution that retroactively justifies the plot. Fiction can and often does operate under those laws, but it doesn't have to. Today, we have plenty of modern examples where resolution isn’t as neatly constructed. Where mysteries linger, where solutions are partial, messy, or even absent, and the focus shifts to how the investigation transforms the people involved or reshapes the world around them. I’m thinking of True Detective, where the investigation leaves threads unresolved and the emotional, moral, and personal fallout becomes the real resolution. Or Zodiac, where the investigation spans decades without closure, and the mystery’s weight lies in the obsessive toll it takes on the investigators.

That the old methodology may look and feel like “reality” and like the American judicial system, but that is no coincidence. The detective genre has always been entangled with a cultural fantasy about closure, accountability, and truth being singular, discoverable, and legally actionable. But that is a fiction — both in literature and in life. And when we import that structure uncritically into RPG play, we mistake a literary convention for a necessary structure of play.

What I’m trying to get at is that there is no such thing as “solving” a mystery outside of the broader act of resolving a situation, or if you let me rephrase, providing resolution to an ongoing and shifting situation in an RPG. This implies that the definitive "solution" to the same pre-written mystery could look VERY VERY DIFFERENT depending on who you ask.

So my question, again, is what does it mean to "solve" an investigation scenario, and as a follow up, who decides that?

The investigation is over when the players, through their PCs, cease investigating. What the exact circumstances are when that happens will likely be quite different, but in any case it is up to the players when the mystery is considered solved.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

But humor me. What does it mean to actually solve it?

For instance:

The wealthy industrialist, Victor Harrow, is found dead in his locked study, shot once in the chest. There were four people in the house that night: his estranged daughter Clara, his business partner Lewis Grant, the family maid Sofia, and the private investigator Harrow had hired the week before, named Mason Drake. Unknown to the players, the truth is as follows: Lewis Grant killed Harrow because he discovered Harrow was planning to cut him out of the company. Grant entered the study using a spare key he had secretly copied, shot Harrow during an argument, wiped his prints, and left through the servants’ entrance unnoticed. Clara heard the shot but assumed her father had taken his own life. Sofia found the body but panicked and ran without alerting anyone. Mason Drake was outside on a phone call at the time of the murder.

There are fingerprints on the copied key hidden in Grant’s coat pocket. There are financial papers in Harrow’s desk showing he was planning to disinherit Grant. Grant’s shoes have traces of mud from the servants’ entrance path. Sofia can be found later and will nervously reveal that she saw Grant leave through the side door.

All of this is sitting in the GM’s notes, pre-written.

What does it mean to actually solve it?

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

The investigation is over when the players, through their PCs, cease investigating. What the exact circumstances are when that happens will likely be quite different, but in any case it is up to the players when the mystery is considered solved.

Thank you for responding! That seems like a viable resolution of the investigation for me as well. I'm building up to something but I'll let others respond.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@deleuzian_kernel one can obviously partially solve mysteries. I don't quite see what you're getting at.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But humor me. What does it mean to actually solve it?

For instance:

The wealthy industrialist, Victor Harrow, is found dead in his locked study, shot once in the chest. There were four people in the house that night: his estranged daughter Clara, his business partner Lewis Grant, the family maid Sofia, and the private investigator Harrow had hired the week before, named Mason Drake. Unknown to the players, the truth is as follows: Lewis Grant killed Harrow because he discovered Harrow was planning to cut him out of the company. Grant entered the study using a spare key he had secretly copied, shot Harrow during an argument, wiped his prints, and left through the servants’ entrance unnoticed. Clara heard the shot but assumed her father had taken his own life. Sofia found the body but panicked and ran without alerting anyone. Mason Drake was outside on a phone call at the time of the murder.

There are fingerprints on the copied key hidden in Grant’s coat pocket. There are financial papers in Harrow’s desk showing he was planning to disinherit Grant. Grant’s shoes have traces of mud from the servants’ entrance path. Sofia can be found later and will nervously reveal that she saw Grant leave through the side door.

All of this is sitting in the GM’s notes, pre-written.

What does it mean to actually solve it?

If I am following you, solving it properly would mean getting to the actual truth. But this honestly sounds like a scenario intended to lead the players into convicting the wrong person because the evidence and circumstances create a false impression (again if I follow you, possible my quick read missed something). If that is the case there is still an objective and real mystery, it just might be that the players don't discover the truth because the way you designed it (or they might dramatically discover it later when it is too late and the wrong person has either spent years in jail or been hanged). I don't think anything here changes much of what we said. There is no guarantee the players successfully solve such a mystery. That is on of the most talked about aspects of this kind of adventure structure

 

[Bedrockgames]

@deleuzian_kernel one can obviously partially solve mysteries. I don't quite see what you're getting at.

Yeah just because you are trying to provide a mystery for them to solve, that doesn't mean they end up actually solving it. And the players can be just as subject to the deception of NPCs as anyone else in the scenario. It is an objective mystery for them to solve, but they may well fail to solve it correctly.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

If I am following you, solving it properly would mean getting to the actual truth.

So catching Grant right? If they discover that it was Grant, but he escaped half an hour ago, did they solve the mystery?

If that is the case there is still an objective and real mystery, it just might be that the players don't discover the truth because the way you designed it (or they might dramatically discover it later when it is too late and the wrong person has either spent years in jail or been hanged).

If they don't discover the truth, or they go find and imprison Sofia, did they solve the mystery?

one can obviously partially solve mysteries.

@Bedrockgames, do you agree? Like catching Grant but never really knowing that he did it because he discovered Harrow was planning to cut him out of the company? Did that solve the mystery?

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

I don't quite see what you're getting at.

I'm building up to it. Given your continued involvement in this thread, I suspect you'll still be here for when I do.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Yeah just because you are trying to provide a mystery for them to solve, that doesn't mean they end up actually solving it. And the players can be just as subject to the deception of NPCs as anyone else in the scenario. It is an objective mystery for them to solve, but they may well fail to solve it correctly.

Ah great! But like, that's still productive play right? Failure to solve the mystery, is still very much a welcomed outcome for this type of play? Yes?