Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9624436">No, that isn't the intention at all. It is about is about the objectivity of the mystery, about the fact that the players are "really" solving it. It isn't meant to suggest that there might not be approaches where "really solving" could be applied. But it is meant to draw a distinction between approaches where you might be solving it, versus ones where you might be effectively creating the backstory through procedures or shared narrative. And if you look at my reply to Pemerton, I was making pains to point out, that some real solving of the mystery might be going on in the procedures he has in mind (I am still unclear on those so I am waiting to see what he says). I would still draw distinctions between a mystery set form the beginning and one that unfolds. But I can see how you might have objective mystery elements pinned down as you go and that those could be discovered and the truths they point to solved. But the way I am using real and solve here there has to be a truth the players can in fact discover All it means is the other method, for example the one we used when we applied HIllfolk, that the point wasn't to really solve the mystery. The point was to play out a mystery scenario that was dramatic, immersive and exciting; a scenario steeped in character drama, but one where the mystery was always this X factor that emerged through dialogue. Again though I have to re-iterate I did also say there are ways to adjust this so you could still have a core mystery if the GM just walled off certain elements of the story (it has been a while so I don't recall the proposed solution but a friend of mine with more Hillfolk experience suggested a solution that seemed workable). The only caveat is in order to do that, those elements of the scenario need to be walled off so that there is an objective mystery to be discovered and solved. No I never said the outcomes won't have impact or can't be internally consistent. In Hillfolk for example once a detail was established, that was a real fact that had to be contended with moving forward (unless I suppose you had some brilliant twist you could add to it, but it isn;t like you end up with a scenario that is nonsensical or where players aren't engaged. They just aren't engaged with genuinely solving the mystery in the sense of actually putting together the facts and revealing a truth that was there all along but they hadn't yet known. And again to be doubly clear, I am not saying you can't wall off certain things to make sure they stay objective using this kind of approach. It is just when I say 'really solve the mystery' the objectivity of the truth of it and the clues are pretty vital for that process to unfold as a real solving of a mystery for the players. I am trying to clarify as much as possible Okay this may be a point worth talking about. I think investigative adventures, are a different animal than a simlulationist or sandbox or living world scenario. There is going to be some extrapolation in a murder mystery. But I tend to think of mysteries as much more structured and concrete scenarios than I would typically have in a standard sandbox (they might come up from time to time, but when they do it is hard for me to not feel like I am shifting into a slightly different mode of play). Just as an example if you are doing a mystery you are going to be mapping out things like crime scenes, clue maps, etc. That isn't normally the type of prep I do in a sandbox campaign. And I get simulation does not equal sandbox, but I mention this because I see investigations as their own beast from the kinds of adventures I often talk about in this discussion.I think this would depend on what extrapolations you are making. If you aren't changing the core details (i.e. the clue envelope isn't this amorphous thing that can change) then sure. But if you are shuffling those kinds of details around either behind the scenes or through other procedures, I think that does create a different experience where it is starting to feel less like the players are actually solving the mystery and more like they are doing something else. It is like the difference between systems that force you to engage with the setting and be Sherlock Holmes, versus ones that allow you to simuluate Sherlock Holmes effectively through things like Skill rolls (i.e. the player making the deduction versus the roll making the deduction). Both of those are entirely viable but I am using the kind of language I am in order to mark a distinction. Arguably the latter does a better job of capturing a Sherlock Holmes story and of portraying Sherlock Holmes, while the former merely allows the player to experience the fun of solving things like Holmes does if they can. And this example isn't a difference between the different types of games. This can both be done in 'trad' and it just boils down to what kind of skill system, if any, it uses</blockquote>

Verification