Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4580418" data-attributes="member: 40961">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;As for my own opinion:&nbsp; Every RPG player who plays a mystery campaign wants the mystery to be Agatha Christie.&nbsp; But none of them are smart enough for Agatha Christie (seriously, how many Agatha Christie murders have YOU solved without cheating?).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;What you want is this: most of your scenes provide you with clues.&nbsp; These clues tell you where you should go to investigate further.&nbsp; When you get there, there is a new scene, which results in a new clue being revealed.&nbsp; Eventually, you find the bad guy.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It turns out the husband is completely innocent- the clue was a red herring.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp; Just don't tell them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4580418, member: 40961"] 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- [I]at a fundamental level, they're all the same[/I]. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification