Why do you play games other than D&D?

[Umbran]

I don't disagree with you, in principle anyway. I supposed where I begin to disagree is with the notion that Brindlewood Bay is the latter rather than the former, which it plainly isn't (setting aside notions of whether it succeeds at that design task). I

I have not read or played Bindlewood Bay.

However, what has been described to me is - you go about and find clues. You then put together clues to make a theory - when your party has consensus on what theory they are going with, you roll to see if that theory is correct. If it is not, you gather more clues until you can put together a new theory.

That, if accurate, seems very much "telling the story of solving a mystery", in that there is no predetermined puzzle for the players to solve. The mechanics effectively decide whodunnit, without anyone knowing that before play began.

... but given that there are many, many, fans of BBay who think the mechanics work marvelously as a mystery game, and who experience wonderful fulfilling games with it

The number of people who have wonderful games with may indicate if it is a fun game, but it does not determine whether it is "solving a mystery" or "telling the story of solving a mystery," as I defined it above.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not a fan of the limited resource part. It feels gamey to me. Others are absolutely entitled to feel differently.

So, what I don't get is how, absent any real game mechanics around it, it can end up feeling "gamey". I would understand if you described that limit as, say, "arbitrary" or the like, but there... no real game-playing involved in that part of the overall game - that's in fact the design intent - to get rid of mechanics around finding clues!

So, yeah, I'm interested in why you say "gamey" as opposed to some other descriptor. How it is like a game?

 

[SableWyvern]

So, what I don't get is how, absent any real game mechanics around it, it can end up feeling "gamey". I would understand if you described that limit as, say, "arbitrary" or the like, but there... no real game-playing involved in that part of the overall game - that's in fact the design intent - to get rid of mechanics around finding clues!

So, yeah, I'm interested in why you say "gamey" as opposed to some other descriptor. How it is like a game?

It is a game mechanic, so I'm not sure why it needs to have other game mechanics around it in order to feel gamey. But, to summarise, I have a hard time visualising what the expenditure of the resource means in the gameworld, in a way that I'm satisfied with and which is consistent with the resource being limited and something that can run out.

Making a decision about whether to spend a resource now or later, worrying that the resource may run out, being unable to gain additional information once the resource runs out, all feels like I'm interacting with the mechanics, rather than the world.

I suppose another way to put it is that it feels like a metacurrency and I generally find that metacurrencies feel gamey.

That's about the best I think I can explain it. To be very clear, this isn't intended as any kind of objective judgement -- it's just about my subjective feelings. I'm not making any statements about the designer's intent, or whether they succeeded in their intent, or how anyone else should feel about the system.

 

[MGibster]

I reject the idea that Gumshoe's approach to investigation is "fancy".

The first time I read the rules I had a real "duh" moment. It was such an elegant solution to a problem I had had with many investigative games, Call of Cthulhu included.

If you have a skill, and think to use it in a place where a clue might be found... you find it.
If there's additional information, you can spend a point to get it.

And yet you're correct about it being utterly simple. Another thing I like about Gumshoe is you don't always even need the skill. If you tell the GM specifically you're pulling up the rug to see if anything is underneath then your character will discover the clue that's there.

Tacos are great -- probably one of the best foods ever -- but it can't encompass everything.

I'm every taco/
It's all in me/
Anything you want done, baby/
I'll do it naturally/
I'm every taco/
It's all in me/
I can your thoughts right now/
Every food from A to Z/
Whoa, whoa, whoa

It is a game mechanic, so I'm not sure why it needs to have other game mechanics around it in order to feel gamey. But, to summarise, I have a hard time visualising what the expenditure of the resource means in the gameworld, in a way that I'm satisfied with and which is consistent with the resource being limited and something that can run out.

Gumshoe is a system that isn't particularly concerned with what resources means in the game world. If that's your bag, then I can certainly see why Gumshoe isn't the system for you. Resource management is there because it increases tension. Do I spend some points from Architect to get additional, useful information? If I spend a point now now, then when I find another another clue in another scene I won't have any points left for additional, useful information.

 

[mamba]

don't disagree with you, in principle anyway. I supposed where I begin to disagree is with the notion that Brindlewood Bay is the latter rather than the former, which it plainly isn't

BB definitely is the latter, there is no predetermined mystery that gets solved. The players come up with a theory and the dice decide whether that theory is correct. That explicitly is the latter case

 

[mamba]

I know you think the issue is obvious, but given that there are many, many, fans of BBay who think the mechanics work marvelously as a mystery game, and who experience wonderful fulfilling games with it, I don't feel the need to explicate in any depth the enormous difference between your opinion and any kind of demonstratable fact

it works fine as a mystery solving story, and people may be fine with that, but there never actually is a predetermined mystery that is being solved by the players, the rules make that pretty clear.

You don't have any facts to push back against, just your opinion, which I cordially disagree with.

I’d say the actual rules qualify as a fact rather than an opinion

 

[Arilyn]

I get the solve vs. create a mystery argument in B. Bay, but the game does play tricks on the mind. The players know that I haven't set up the mystery, other than suspects, clues, and the victim. As they discuss the gathered clues and are trying to solve the murder, they wrestle with the information as if there has been a set culprit in a traditional whodunit. They worry about whether the suspect they like is actually the killer, and work hard to make as many clues as possible make sense.

The players in my campaign never just threw anything together and "roll to solve." The clues do need to fit together. They know there's no predetermined set solution but they feel like they've solved a mystery, rather than creating one. It's a bit of a weird head space.

I loved running the game. My challenge was the NPCs, since I have no idea who the killer is either. That was awkward for me at times.

 

[pemerton]

BB definitely is the latter, there is no predetermined mystery that gets solved. The players come up with a theory and the dice decide whether that theory is correct. That explicitly is the latter case

it works fine as a mystery solving story, and people may be fine with that, but there never actually is a predetermined mystery that is being solved by the players, the rules make that pretty clear.

I'm between 99% and 100% sure that @Fenris-77 knows how Brindlewood Bay works.

The point that he (and I) are making is that the players don't just "come up with a theory and then roll the dice*. They play the game, thereby acquiring clues, which establish a pattern and conjectures and further clues, and they propose a solution that is based on those clues and patterns and reasoned conjectures. Which is actually much like the way solving a problem by dint of investigation actually works!

I get the solve vs. create a mystery argument in B. Bay, but the game does play tricks on the mind. The players know that I haven't set up the mystery, other than suspects, clues, and the victim. As they discuss the gathered clues and are trying to solve the murder, they wrestle with the information as if there has been a set culprit in a traditional whodunit. They worry about whether the suspect they like is actually the killer, and work hard to make as many clues as possible make sense.

The players in my campaign never just threw anything together and "roll to solve." The clues do need to fit together. They know there's no predetermined set solution but they feel like they've solved a mystery, rather than creating one. It's a bit of a weird head space.

This is 100% what I am trying to get at. The cognitive process that the players go through is in near-perfect alignment (allowing for the fact that they're playing a game) with the actual reasoning process of actual mystery solvers.

The idea that they are playing the creation of a story, as opposed to playing the solving of a mystery, is an assertion contradicted by the reality of play, and a basic analysis of what happens in that play.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup, I know how the game works. I've played it, run it, and designed for it. I don't want anyone to think I'm being unfriendly, so if I've given that impression, my apologies. That said, I'm in complete agreement with @pemerton on how the game functions.

 

[mamba]

I'm between 99% and 100% sure that @Fenris-77 knows how Brindlewood Bay works.

good to know, but then I am confused why they misrepresent the mechanics

The point that he (and I) are making is that the players don't just "come up with a theory and then roll the dice*. They play the game, thereby acquiring clues, which establish a pattern and conjectures and further clues, and they propose a solution that is based on those clues and patterns and reasoned conjectures. Which is actually much like the way solving a problem by dint of investigation actually works!

they acquire clues, they come up with their theory, that much represents the investigation part, sure. But then a die roll decides whether their theory is correct and the DM never really set up a predetermined puzzle with one specific solution / murderer, and that is where it does not match up with actual investigations.

Hence it is telling a story about solving a mystery, but there is no actual predetermined mystery that is being solved, it is smoke and mirrors.

That does not mean it cannot be enjoyable, and it probably reduces the load on the DM, but it doesn’t change that there was not actually any mystery solved, even if it may feel like that for the players