Why do you play games other than D&D?

[SableWyvern]

I don't know if would make a difference to anyone, but I would be happy to rephrase my original statement to something like this:

In Brindlewood Bay, the players are not solving a mystery, but are playing characters who do.

I think that's more accurate to my intent than my original phrasing, and may be more palatable to those who originally disagreed with me.

 

[pemerton]

none, but actual investigations tend to have actual persons doing a specific thing in a specific way and either the investigators discover this, or they fail.

In the absence of an actual murder to investigate the equivalent would be for the GM to set up a predetermined mystery / crime for the players to solve.

<snip>

The difference is that the DM did not set up a predetermined mystery that the players either discover or fail at discovering, the way an investigation of a real life crime would

The epistemic situation of an investigator isn't changed by the fact that there is an "external" truth. They have no access to that truth other than by uncovering clues, finding patterns, forming conjectures, and doing their best to make sense of it all. Whereas the position of players in the sort of game you describe is that the players can ask the author if they got the answer that the author intended; that's why I compared it to a crossword puzzle (or any other clue-based puzzle where the author has written the puzzle with an intended solution). This capacity to get authorial confirmation; or to be critiqued by the author for failing to solve the puzzle; makes a CoC-type module pretty different from the actual process of solving a mystery.

By focusing on correctness/truth, you are focusing on something which is the main point of difference between solving a mystery and playing a CoC scenario. (This is also why I made the comparison to Agatha Christie.) Whereas Brindlewood Bay, as described by @Fenris-77 and @Arilyn, foregrounds the epistemic position of an investigator, in which correctness is not available in any unmediated "authorial" fashion.

it’s not arbitrary in the sense that any nonsense is equally convincing to the players, even if the die roll were to say it is the correct answer because they collected enough clues at that point. It is arbitrary in that the die roll decides whether it is the solution even if the theory feels pretty unconvincing

"Unconvincing" to whom? As @Fenris-77 posted, if players are making conjectures that they find implausible, that's not a system problem.

If you mean "unconvincing to some external audience", well so what? Was every explanation ever of a murder that took place convincing to those people? Sometimes the best theory of how a murder occurred isn't the one that you or I would arrive at left to our own devices.

 

[mamba]

"Unconvincing" to whom? As @Fenris-77 posted, if players are making conjectures that they find implausible, that's not a system problem

unconvincing to the players, most players have no audience so I would not worry about that.

If the players make an unconvincing case but the die roll says ‘this is the correct solution’ I do find that somewhat unsatisfying, but I guess it is in line with Agatha Christie’s answers to how it was done

 

[soviet]

The epistemic situation of an investigator isn't changed by the fact that there is an "external" truth. They have no access to that truth other than by uncovering clues, finding patterns, forming conjectures, and doing their best to make sense of it all. Whereas the position of players in the sort of game you describe is that the players can ask the author if they got the answer that the author intended; that's why I compared it to a crossword puzzle (or any other clue-based puzzle where the author has written the puzzle with an intended solution). This capacity to get authorial confirmation; or to be critiqued by the author for failing to solve the puzzle; makes a CoC-type module pretty different from the actual process of solving a mystery.

By focusing on correctness/truth, you are focusing on something which is the main point of difference between solving a mystery and playing a CoC scenario. (This is also why I made the comparison to Agatha Christie.) Whereas Brindlewood Bay, as described by @Fenris-77 and @Arilyn, foregrounds the epistemic position of an investigator, in which correctness is not available in any unmediated "authorial" fashion.

I haven't played the games being discussed but I work as an investigator in real life and I've definitely learned that you never (or almost never) really know 100% what's happened. You can build evidence and see patterns and figure out broadly what happened and how, but there are always little details that you don't understand or that don't quite fit. Real life is complicated. Even when matters go to court you sometimes wonder if there is some bizarre explanation they might be able to provide that blows your theory out of the water. Even when people plead guilty or (in civil matters) choose not to contest, it's rarely accompanied by a confession and there are always questions left unanswered. So, there is never a word of God moment when you know definitively 'this is what happened, and how, and why'.

I remember one part of my training was a timed exercise involving a bunch of suspects and then a complex network of 'if a then b, if c then not d' type clues. Basically if you took a top-down approach and tried to put all the clues into a formula and then see which suspect it matched, you would run out of time. The only way to solve it was to just pick a suspect and work through the questions until you ruled them out, then pick another suspect and work through the questions until you ruled them out, and so on until you either got a match or you ran out of time.

 

[pemerton]

@soviet That's a very interesting post!

I'm not an investigator, but I am an academic lawyer. And have also worked on mainstream epistemology to the Masters research level. Which is the perspective that I'm brining to bear: the fact that truth is (typically) mind-independent is an interesting and important thing; but it's not a thing that shapes the receipt of and reasoning about evidence, because the investigator can't step "outside" of their epistemic "location" to confirm correctness via a god's-eye-view/"authorial" perspective.

(The key work that shaped my thinking on this is AJ Ayer's discussion of William James's theory of truth in The Origins of Pragmatism.)