Authenticity in RPGing

[Fenris-77]

Gumshoe uses a different mechanic than other games, but it doesn't "reframe" in the sense that, as Lanefan says - you are trying to solve a mystery, and need information to do that.

Well, I think to be fair the mechanics for clue collection in Gumshoe represents a pretty dramatic move in the direction of addressing some of the flaws in the 'you need the clues' approach to mystery solving.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I think to be fair the mechanics for clue collection in Gumshoe represents a pretty dramatic move in the direction of addressing some of the flaws in the 'you need the clues' approach to mystery solving.

Sure. But Lanefan's point still holds. The characters do have to go out there gather and use clues to solve a mystery. That "direction" is not removed from the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I don’t tend to try and exclude games from being considered RPGs. I’m a large umbrella guy when it comes to that.

It didn't seem likely from past posts--but just not one of those things I let wander on by, you know?

Right. So that’s like a little give and take, right?

Sometimes, players may not have their characters do what they may want them to do because of real life concerns… so no on splits the party so that everyone can remain involved, and so on.

Isn’t that a case of the player allowing the game structure to squelch his authenticity in that moment?

Sure. Honestly, you can make an argument that any time any sort of metagame consideration is factored in, that it steps on authenticity. That's why its usually a good idea to construct the character in the first place so certain sorts of common and ongoing metagame considerations are already going to be how the character rolls, and just accept a few of the others. I think the pursuit of authenticity at all cost is fundamentally hostile to making games work (even old-school RGFA simulationists understood that sometimes you just have to let it go for practical reasons).

As for rotating focus, I think it’s far easier to do it than many tend to think. I mean, we always do it to some extent with rounds and turns and so on. It’s really not much more difficult to rotate scenes as needed.

As I said, I've done it. I don't entirely agree with your conclusion here. But possibly its a case of your conclusion being correct if you append "for some people and groups" to the end of that.

So a game having the ability to do that… or the GM and players being able to do that… is something that enables authenticity.

It does, but again, at a price.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I think the more narrow the concept, the more likely a game is to be less extended in duration.

I dunno, man. I wouldn't say my more narrow campaigns have had a shorter lifespan than my more broad ones. Often the limiting factors in campaign length in my experience have to do with things largely outside the structure of the campaign itself.

If the PCs must be the beat cops, so to speak, in a bad neighborhood, well that opens up a lot of conceptual space, but at some point it is quite likely at least some of them will move on beyond the boundaries of the game concept and it will end. There's also likely to only be a certain amount of stuff you can do in a really narrow premise/milieu before people have started to run out of things to do. Its like cop shows, they start out with just 'cop stuff' but by the end of season 2 all the character's girlfriends, kids, the mafia, whatever is all wrapped up in it and it starts to break down, or at least you have to kind of reinvent the premise to keep it going.

Well, that also turns on pace-of-resolution on a strategic level. If there are, say, eight significant things that need to be resolved in the campaign, but each of them takes six sessions to resolve, that's still a nearly year long campaign at a session-a-week speed. There are plenty of games that don't last longer than that no matter what they're about.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The Brindlewood Bay mystery mechanic provides an obvious alternative, as much as it isn't for everyone. Gumshoe changes the framing of how clues are collected too.

There are also other methods for minimizing the amount of dead ends you get. Chill 3e had a mechanism where success or failure on information gathering turned on how fast you were accumulating data and how much was red herrings, but what it wouldn't do was leave you with nothing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was wandering off-topic a bit, but just suggesting that solving the mysteries doesn’t have to be the goal of having mysteries.

True. I was just noting that a lot of games that are not avowedly about solving mysteries still need you to do so to proceed with what they are about.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One wonders how else a mystery-solving scenario can be run.

The very definition of a mystery is that something unexplained either is happening or has happened; and to solve that mystery one has to acquire enough information to explain what was previously unexplained.

Which means yes, if the goal of the game is to solve a mystery the players/PCs do in fact need to acquire the information needed in order to achieve that goal. The three-clue idea is merely one suggested means of presenting that information.

If done right, the only time it can become a railroad is if the GM won't allow the PCs to fail should their information gathering prove fruitless.

Sure, as long as you are in the more trad paradigm of a GM supplied scenario where all this is preordained before the start of play. I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always. Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, as long as you are in the more trad paradigm of a GM supplied scenario where all this is preordained before the start of play. I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always. Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.

Yeah, there's nothing that would stop you from having a process where, effectively, the PCs construct the mystery as they go and create the solution. It might not be satisfactory to some people, but if the point is to explore the process rather than the mystery itself, its still valid.

 

[Umbran]

Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.

The Mystery of Edwin Drood, for example...

 

[Fenris-77]

Gumshoe uses a different mechanic than other games, but it doesn't "reframe" in the sense that, as Lanefan says - you are trying to solve a mystery, and need information to do that.

Sure, but not every game does that thing the same way or with the same challenges, so perhaps a more granular look makes sense.