I hate mysteries

[Voadam]

To use an analogy: if every module gives the party another way to follow their quarry other than tracks, why bother to take the Track feat? If you're going to get all the necessary clues anyway, why take social interaction skills? Heck, why RP at all? Just skip to the end scene where you cross swords with the murderer.

1) Because I want my character to be able to track quarry, 2) because I want to mechanically have a social oriented character, 3) because it is fun.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'll add to the recommendations for Murder on Oakbridge. It taught me one of the great lessons of D&D murder mysteries. If the PCs do nothing, people keep dying. (Leaving more clues in the wake).

 

[Janx]

I have ben lost and still haven't got a sense on this thread so I will just ask....

Are you meaning Nancy Drew type stuff to solve something that is recently happening type of mystery, or the Indiana Jones type mysteris to save the world that are steeped in ancient prophecies and legend that encompass the whole game as the largest plot arch?

I don't think anybody directly answered your question, so here's an answer.

This thread is talking about the "nancy drew" type of mystery. A Whodunnit, or whostoleit.

----
Now to something else:

CharlesRyan hit on exactly what I was thinking. In a number of TV/movie "mystery/detective/investigative" stories, clues lead to action, or good clues fall into the investigators lap. There's not a lot of legwork going on.

The red herrings then are in place, to "throw" the forumla off. Basically, run your 1st 2 whodunnits where clue leads to clue leads to bad guy. Then the 3rd game, the clue leads to a red herring/false accusation. Which appears to set the party back, until they re-examine the crime scene/witnesses and find a new clue, or a new informant turns up, or a new body turns up that does reveal a real clue.

Don't waste time on red herrings except to change up from the LAST whodunnit you played. Basically, let the players feel "smart" for solving the last murder, then let them feel stumped. That stumpage let's the bad guy commit another crime, which is where the REAL clue comes in.

It works for James Bond, and nearly every other investigative show.

Another common trope, is that the police detectives are never as observative/charming as the PCs. Witnesses don't say anything to the cops, but they'll talk to the PCs. The cops won't notice that torn note half hidden under the rug, but the PCs will. The cops won't follow up on any of those "random" clues, but the PCs will. And that's how the PCs solve the mysteries, with few if any red herrings. The red herrings are actually for the NPC investigators to stumble over. Label the protagonists in fiction as "PCs" and it's the model you should follow.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Janx and CharlesRyan are brilliant people and I endorse the things they say.

 

[Cadfan]

Just thought I'd pipe in to add that the things that Charles Ryan said about mysteries are, essentially, the underlying insights into Robin Laws GUMSHOE system. Even if you don't buy or play the system, you can read articles online where he discusses his reasoning, and gives examples and thoughts on the subject.

As for my own opinion: Every RPG player who plays a mystery campaign wants the mystery to be Agatha Christie. But none of them are smart enough for Agatha Christie (seriously, how many Agatha Christie murders have YOU solved without cheating?). They'll have a lot more fun with CSI: Baywatch Nights, as long as you trick them into thinking that they're really getting Agatha Christie.

What you want is this: most of your scenes provide you with clues. These clues tell you where you should go to investigate further. When you get there, there is a new scene, which results in a new clue being revealed. Eventually, you find the bad guy. Some of the clues are red herrings, some genuinely lead to the bad guy, but here's the key- at a fundamental level, they're all the same. Because even a red herring leads you to a clue of some sort, which helps you get to the next scene, and the eventual completion of an investigation. Think about how it works in investigative shows: some clue makes the cop think it was the husband, so he goes and interrogates the husband. It turns out the husband is completely innocent- the clue was a red herring. But in the course of the interrogation the husband lets slip some seemingly unimportant detail which, to the cops trained criminological skillz, is the key to the next person the cop will arrest and question.

There are certain players who will go nuts with anger if you tell them that this is what you're doing- roguerouge provides a good example above. Just don't tell them.

 

[Qwillion]

I think mysteries games are great when they are well designed.

To put the case in point what would have happened in starwars if the droids (in this case PCs) had not made the roll to discover they had the princess.

One you have to make sure that the PCs are given the opurtunity to discover all the clues, you can put in a single red herring, but not more than one. Events work better than locations, but if you do have a location then you need an event that funnels the PCs there. so that they have the opportunity to discover.

As a GM if my players are standing around and they dont' know what to do next, I drop another body on them giving them more clues they may have overlooked.

Here there is a penalty for not getting all the clues right the first time, you let someone else die.

Even better, how about the murder shows up and confessees to doing it and then you go another direction with it (ALA Seven).

I think your problem with mystery games is not that you hate mysteries, is that you hate the GM/designs pacing of the game, becuase it stalls out.

 

[MerricB]

As for my own opinion: Every RPG player who plays a mystery campaign wants the mystery to be Agatha Christie.

I'll settle for James Bond, myself.

However, I'd like to thank everyone who has been offering advice. It's been very helpful - thank you!

If I can shift the discussion a little bit: What are the published adventures with mysteries? Which have worked for you, and which haven't?

Cheers!

 

[justanobody]

I don't think anybody directly answered your question, so here's an answer.

This thread is talking about the "nancy drew" type of mystery. A Whodunnit, or whostoleit.

If they did, I couldn't find it or missed it.... No I don't want to play through a Nancy Drew book either. I will break out of of the "How to Host a Murder" games I have for that.

 

[Betote]

For me, a mystery game is like a puzzle... But not like completing a puzzle. Instead of that, it's more like getting enough pieces of the puzzle to figure out what its picture is.

That means the players should have different places/people available to investigate, and each of them should be able to give them one clue (one "piece of the puzzle") if managed correctly. The more pieces they get, the easier they'll find to figure out the mystery, but not every piece should be needed, and no one piece should be essential.

Another good thing to keep in mind when designing mystery adventures is to make every clue available through a different approach/action. Maybe a NPC should be overcome in combat to tell the clue, another one should be bluffed or charmed, another one tracked, etc. This makes every character helpful, and everyone can have fun doing what they want to do and are best at.

Finally, have a couple of "kicking" events to happen if the PCs get stuck. Maybe the bad guy hires some assassins to kill the "meddling kids", and those assassins happen to know one of his hideouts, or they find a scared hobo who babbles about the "sewer monster" he saw, and so on.

 

[Wik]

I couldn't agree less with this statement. Mysteries are the spotlight time for skill monkey characters. Giving all the main clues essentially eliminates their main strength from the game.

It's the same as anything. Set your DCs appropriate to your party's level. Multiple paths to the solution allows you to have failures without ruining the adventure. Aiding another helps. If the PCs can acquire circumstance bonuses that will help. But coming back to a scene or a suspect and realizing that the clue was there all along? Yummy. Having the murderer get away only to become a reoccurring villain that you helped create? Priceless.

To use an analogy: if every module gives the party another way to follow their quarry other than tracks, why bother to take the Track feat? If you're going to get all the necessary clues anyway, why take social interaction skills? Heck, why RP at all? Just skip to the end scene where you cross swords with the murderer.

See, what I was saying is this: if you set the game upon the success of a skill check, then bad things will eventually happen. Either a) the PCs will fail the skill check, and your game will stall, or b) you'll give them the clue instead, regardless of the skill check result.

Using skills in a mystery is fine, but make the checks reveal additional details - not the main clue. If you need the PCs to realize the mud from that footprint neat the body is only found near the quarries, have them find the mud for free (no check). Nature checks could reveal the locale the mud is found in, as could dungeoneering. But the actual finding of the mud? That's a freebie - lest they all fail that perception check and you're stuck.

To follow your analogy - not every group has the track feat, and if you rely on the PCs having the feat, your game stalls. Now, why have the track feat? Because it could speed things up... or, more likely, because it's one more way you can get to the finish line. If you find the muddy footprint, the ranger says "Hey, I can follow the tracks!" and the group heads off, never thinking that they could analyze the origins of the mud. Therefore, track became the main means of solving the puzzle - the Players will never know there were other ways.

So, yeah - allow skill checks to reveal additional clues that can make solving the game easier, but don't rely on skill checks to do the dirty work. I'd prefer relying on the RP side of things in a mystery.