Neverending "Yes ... And" Feedback Loops in Mysteries

[Retreater]

This is a problem I've had over the past 30 years I've been GMing, especially when I'm running a homebrew adventure that has mystery elements.

The party goes to interview someone or research a topic. You don't want to just say "no - they refuse to talk to you" or "no - you can't find any information," so you put a little bit of flavor in there, something seemingly unrelated. And then it ends up in an endless loop of tangled conspiracy theories, no one able to focus on the original mission, feeling they can't trust anyone because everyone has some dark secret.

We are two sessions in what was supposed to be a simple heist adventure, and it's ballooned into a continent-spanning conspiracy between two rival nations and two rival cults - so four major factions. The characters are still 1st level.

What do you do in this situation? Just tell them "no, stop looking for clues and do the obvious thing that you need to do."

(To further complicate the situation, I have two players who want mostly to roleplay and investigate - perfectly happy with no fights at all. I have two other players bored out of their minds and disengaging about the convoluted plot.)

 

[TiQuinn]

I have a standing though unwritten rule - if interest is flagging for anyone, it’s time for a fight. Something to shake things up.

 

[kenada]

I have not had this problem. The last time I ran an investigation, I used the three clue rule and node-based design. These structured are designed to keep the adventure on track while giving the players flexibility to decide how to go about them.

 

[payn]

I have a standing though unwritten rule - if interest is flagging for anyone, it’s time for a fight. Something to shake things up.

Along the lines of this, I usually have my NPCs get proactive. Folks dont like people asking questions and likely will do something about it. Or at least try to. If the players wont go to the adventure, bring the adventure to them.

 

[sevenbastard]

We had a mode called "Fast Shadowrun"

The investigation would enter a "montage" of the GM giving info and overview of the investigation with some dice rolls. The GM would throw out some "red herring" on bad rolls, but those just slowed down or took resources. " the bartender story about bug cultists turns out to be dragon drek but you spend $500 nuyen and 24 hours following up with the other residence in the run down tenement"

If the montage stopped on a NPC for a full roll play then you knew the info was important.

This sped the game up and made sure we got to the next clue.

 

[TiQuinn]

Along the lines of this, I usually have my NPCs get proactive. Folks dont like people asking questions and likely will do something about it. Or at least try to. If the players wont go to the adventure, bring the adventure to them.

Yep, if it's a conspiracy, gotta start making nosy investigators "disappear". Cue the government agent/hit squad...

 

[DEFCON 1]

If players are latching onto unrelated flavor... then don't give out unrelated flavor. Give them the answers they seek when they go asking around for it. Push the story forward.

Players enjoy it when the idea they've come up with turns out to be the correct one. So give it to them.

 

[TheSword]

It’s worth having mysteries that progress through events. If players fail to respond to clues in a timely manner, events proceed without them. They still end up involved but a later more advanced stage. Has the dual benefit of keeping the plot point relevant to the PCs while rewarding good investigation and action.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If players are latching onto unrelated flavor... then don't give out unrelated flavor. Give them the answers they seek when they go asking around for it. Push the story forward.

Players enjoy it when the idea they've come up with turns out to be the correct one. So give it to them.

To me doing that ruins the experience, since they essentially didn't discover anything, instead they made it up and are being manipulated into thinking they discovered it. It's basically the quantum ogre, only you've forced the player's idea into reality instead of your own.

 

[innerdude]

When this happens, my experience tends to indicate that it's a function of me as GM wanting to unnecessarily drag out "the mystery."

As a GM, I get too attached to the idea that the more "intrigue" and "secrets" and "conspiracy" I can layer on to a scene/situation, the better it will play out.

When in fact I've found that players respond much more positively to the opposite. They get their kicks by following through on what they learn. It's much more powerful to let them move forward, play out the scenes/situations, and then reflect back on what happened afterward.

If they care at all about their character as a more than a pawn, they also reflect on how the situation affects their character's attitudes, positions, cares, and needs, and then bring some of that richness back into play.