Why do you play games other than D&D?

[pemerton]

Is any of this actually in dispute? I'm sure it is somewhere, but not in this thread, from anything I've seen.

I said that some investigation games involve the players actually solving "a mystery" and I also mentioned "solving puzzles".

At no point did I say anything remotely like, "Call of Cthulhu is an accurate, high fidelity simulation of a real life police investigation." I'm pretty sure no one else in the thread said it either. I don't think anyone hereis under the illusion that RPGs are just like real life murder investigations.

Sure, but then I can assert that Brindlewood Bay players also solve a mystery - namely, of how to integrate the clues and observations and etc they have acquired, via their play of the game, into a coherent and plausible account of what happened. That's a demanding cognitive task, which even if it doesn't have one unique solution has many possible dead ends on the way to any particular candidate solution.

And it's a cognitive task that, as I've posted upthread, has some resemblance to the cognitive task involved in actually trying to solve a mystery in real life.

I agree it's not that much like solving a puzzle, because of the absence of (i) a unique solution being known to exist, and (ii) the clues being known to have been written to permit inference to (i). But the absence of (ii) actually makes it more like solving a mystery than solving a puzzle.

All of which is why I don't agree that CoC involves solving a mystery, as opposed to playing at solving a mystery, to a degree that Brindlewood Bay does not. But I do agree that a CoC module is more likely to involve solving a puzzle to a degree that Brindlewood Bay will not.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sure, but then I can assert that Brindlewood Bay players also solve a mystery - namely, of how to integrate the clues and observations and etc they have acquired, via their play of the game, into a coherent and plausible account of what happened. That's a demanding cognitive task, which even if it doesn't have one unique solution has many possible dead ends on the way to any particular candidate solution.

And it's a cognitive task that, as I've posted upthread, has some resemblance to the cognitive task involved in actually trying to solve a mystery in real life.

I agree it's not that much like solving a puzzle, because of the absence of (i) a unique solution being known to exist, and (ii) the clues being known to have been written to permit inference to (i). But the absence of (ii) actually makes it more like solving a mystery than solving a puzzle.

All of which is why I don't agree that CoC involves solving a mystery, as opposed to playing at solving a mystery, to a degree that Brindlewood Bay does not. But I do agree that a CoC module is more likely to involve solving a puzzle to a degree that Brindlewood Bay will not.

I don't know if you missed it, but I did early retract my "telling the story of solving a mystery" phrasing.

I believe:

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

is a more accurate expression of the distinction I was trying to make.

I'm not seeing much of a difference between puzzles and mysteries in this context, but if replacing the world mystery with puzzle enables you to understand the main thrust of my point, then so be it. I do also agree with @hawkeyefan that we're talking more about how things feel to players than anything else, but it seems quite clear to me from reading a lot of feedback from actual Brindlewood Bay fans that many people who love the game feel similarly to me on this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know if you missed it, but I did early retract my "telling the story of solving a mystery" phrasing.

I believe:

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

is a more accurate expression of the distinction I was trying to make.

I'm not seeing much of a difference between puzzles and mysteries in this context, but if replacing the world mystery with puzzle enables you to understand the main thrust of my point, then so be it. I do also agree with @hawkeyefan that we're talking more about how things feel to players than anything else, but it seems quite clear to me from reading a lot of feedback from actual Brindlewood Bay fans that many people who love the game feel similarly to me on this.

For me, I just object to the elevation of one gaming approach as being “closer” to the real thing. It’s just silly.

In both cases, people are pretending to be investigators solving a mystery. In neither case is a mystery actually being solved.

Perhaps that implication is not intended… but comments like “one is about solving a mystery and the other is about telling a story of solving a mystery” certainly seem like it is.

The “my pretend is more authentic than your pretend” vibe is what I disagree with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me, I just object to the elevation of one gaming approach as being “closer” to the real thing. It’s just silly.

In both cases, people are pretending to be investigators solving a mystery. In neither case is a mystery actually being solved.

Perhaps that implication is not intended… but comments like “one is about solving a mystery and the other is about telling a story of solving a mystery” certainly seem like it is.

The “my pretend is more authentic than your pretend” vibe is what I disagree with.

Well, one of them shares something with a real life mystery that the other doesn't. In real life, there is an answer to the mystery that is not contingent on anything the investigators do or don't do. They may not find the answer, but it exists nonetheless. In a traditional game like CoC, that independent answer exists as well, unconnected to the player's actions or die rolls. In this case the GM stands in for reality, but in both cases an actual, independent answer exists.

From what I'm reading here, in Brindlewood Bay the answer doesn't exist until it is determined by a synthesis of player action and setting details. Not discovered, determined. There's nothing wrong with preferring either approach, but I can tell you which feels more like solving a mystery to me personally.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, one of them shares something with a real life mystery that the other doesn't. In real life, there is an answer to the mystery that is not contingent on anything the investigators do or don't do. They may not find the answer, but it exists nonetheless. In a traditional game like CoC, that independent answer exists as well, unconnected to the player's actions or die rolls. In this case the GM stands in for reality, but in both cases an actual, independent answer exists.

From what I'm reading here, in Brindlewood Bay the answer doesn't exist until it is determined by a synthesis of player action and setting details. Not discovered, determined. There's nothing wrong with preferring either approach, but I can tell you which feels more like solving a mystery to me personally.

Sure. And I can tell you which feels more like it to me personally. That’s my point. It’s a matter of preference.

Neither has more in common with real life investigations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. And I can tell you which feels more like it to me personally. That’s my point. It’s a matter of preference.

Neither has more in common with real life investigations.

It is a matter of preference, true. However, I don't understand the objection in your second sentence. In what way does the first style I describe, where it shares a significant similarly to a real life mystery that the second style doesn't, not have more in common with a real life mystery? Your claim needs more than you've given (which is nothing but a statement of belief) to be convincing to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

where it shares a significant similarly to a real life mystery

I don’t think it does. A mystery show? A mystery novel? Sure. But I know how you also don’t like the idea of a story, so I don’t know how that sits so well with you.

Why I don’t think it has much in common with a “real life mystery” is because real life mysteries are not authored. They’re not storified or gamified. They require all manner of actions already described in this thread that would make for incredibly dull novels/shows/games.

Both types of games are simply that… games. Games about solving a mystery, and each has a method for doing so, and neither is closer to the real world.

To put it more directly, “the GM makes stuff up” is no closer to real life than “the players make stuff up and then make a roll to see if they are correct”.

 

[soviet]

I don’t think it does. A mystery show? A mystery novel? Sure. But I know how you also don’t like the idea of a story, so I don’t know how that sits so well with you.

Why I don’t think it has much in common with a “real life mystery” is because real life mysteries are not authored. They’re not storified or gamified. They require all manner of actions already described in this thread that would make for incredibly dull novels/shows/games.

Both types of games are simply that… games. Games about solving a mystery, and each has a method for doing so, and neither is closer to the real world.

To put it more directly, “the GM makes stuff up” is no closer to real life than “the players make stuff up and then make a roll to see if they are correct”.

I agree that 'solving the GM's puzzle' and 'investigating a real life murder' are very different things, for all the reasons you describe. But I can see how they might feel similar to some people. I can see how it would have a representational effect so that the GM's puzzle acts as a sort of proxy for a real investigation and exercises similar kinds of muscles so you feel like you are Doing the Thing. I'm thinking along the lines of how bashing people with a rubber sword might stand in for real combat, debating IC around a table might stand in for real courtly diplomacy, and playing Jenga might stand in for disarming a trap. They aren't Doing the Thing, but they might briefly let you trick yourself into feeling like you are Doing the Thing.

Or, to be pretentious about it, 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe'.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree that 'solving the GM's puzzle' and 'investigating a real life murder' are very different things, for all the reasons you describe. But I can see how they might feel similar to some people. I can see how it would have a representational effect so that the GM's puzzle acts as a sort of proxy for a real investigation and exercises similar kinds of muscles so you feel like you are Doing the Thing. I'm thinking along the lines of how bashing people with a rubber sword might stand in for real combat, debating IC around a table might stand in for real courtly diplomacy, and playing Jenga might stand in for disarming a trap. They aren't Doing the Thing, but they might briefly let you trick yourself into feeling like you are Doing the Thing.

Or, to be pretentious about it, 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe'.

Sure! How something feels likely plays a big part in how much they like it.

I just think mistaking that feeling for some kind of objective truth is an issue. It attempts to grant authenticity when it’s not really warranted.

 

[soviet]

I also think, as a real life investigator, that 'putting together a half-cocked theory that matches most of the available data, and seeing if it sticks' is very close to How Things Actually Work. Much closer than 'putting all the pieces together perfectly and getting external confirmation that you were right'.