Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9623664" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Putting to one side for a moment whether a chemist attempting to come up with a material regime for breaking down and repurposing superheated cranberry skins  or a forensic engineer performing cause and origin on why a structure failed, or a physicist sorting out the enigmatic nature of the cosmological constant (variable?) constitutes "mystery solving," what is the actual, GM-side experience in running the two forms of mysteries?  I guess I'll give my thoughts as I've done Story Now mysteries aplenty recently.ON THE EXPERIENCE OF GMING STORY NOW MYSTERIES VS TRAD MYSTERIESWhen running The Between (Story Now Mysteries), my broad sense of my role is as some combination of (i) sculptor imagining further shape and developing theme from a somewhat-worked clay substrate (thematic, ripe to bursting, but sufficiently vague initial conditions) + (ii) steward/quartermaster of an unfolding, intuitive continuity + (iii) direct thematic opposition in the form of obstacles and danger from the current Threat (parlance for The Between's mystery) + (iv) giving life to relevant Side Characters/haunted Victorian London/Hargrave House (the PC's haunted base of operations).There are other roles just as significant related to the premise of each PC's playbook, the Mastermind's looming threat, and facilitator of the structured loop of the game, but these above are directly related to each individual mystery, so I'm going to focus on those.[HR][/HR]When running Trad Mysteries, my broad sense of my role is multifaceted as well.  I must (i) author to conclusion my own (or assimilate someone else's) prefabricated mystery and its constituent parts (continuity, clues, solve) before play.  I must (ii) develop a network of connected clues which manifest in play through information dumps, triggered by players interrogating preordained NPCs or locations, and (iii) give rise to a subsequent, coherent scheme of investigation.  In the course of this, (iv) I'm giving life to people and places relevant to the mystery (including any foil that may be opposing the PCs).If this mystery is set within a larger network of mysteries or metaplot or sandbox, my role is to simultaneously integrate those pieces in the course of play. [HR][/HR]While there is both technical and experiential overlap between the two regimes of GMing, I'm just going to focus on where they diverge from one another:* I get to "play to find out" GMing Story Now mysteries, whereas I "already know" GMing Trad mysteries.* The abundance of creative energy and mental bandwidth demands take place during play when GMing Story Now mysteries. Meanwhile, the fullness of creative energy takes place before play when GMing Trad mysteries, but significant mental bandwidth demands take place both preplay when formulating the mystery and also during play when conducting and shepherding the staged reveal and solve.* Elaborating on the above, GMing Story Now mysteries feels like equal parts investigator (I'm interrogating the mystery myself in the course of play) + creative collaborator + steward/quartermaster (of theme, managing the logistics/developing relationships of discovered Clues, overarching intuitive continuity development, managing integrity of snowballing situation-state).  The experience of play is one of theme and premise development in real time as the investigation narrows inexorably toward a collective discovery of the nature of the Threat, its emergent reveal and solve.  Meanwhile, GMing Trad mysteries feels like I'm an exclusive author + shepherd/conductor + stage magician as players explore my prescriptive investigation nodes, info dumps, red herrings, and means of mood development (performance, milieu, exposition style).  The experience of play is that of witnessing a chain of inferences drawn (hopefully!) which propel play toward the preconceived nature of my written (or assimilated) material and its attendant reveal/solve.  If play halts because players haven't drawn my intended inferences (for whatever reason), there are two alternative experiences of play possible.  The first is a frustrating regime of prodding and redirecting with either straight up exposition or some "connective tissue breadcrumbs."  The second is to detonate; some preconceived clock ticks down and a bomb goes off.  This may be delightful or it may be frustrating pending various factors and disposition.  IMO, detonation is infinitely preferrable to prodding and redirecting.</blockquote>

Verification