Investigation/Mystery Adventures

[Bedrockgames]

I run a lot of investigation and murder mystery adventures and wanted to see how other GMs approach this adventure type. It is definitely a little tricky to get right. There are tons of pitfalls and there is a lot of bad advice out there on how to properly run investigations/mysteries.

One thing that works for me is throwing the whole idea that the PCs must solve the mystery out the window. Instead I make sure the adventure stays interesting whether they solve it or not. I've encoutered some advice that suggests PCs should always get the clues or effectively be assured victory, and that is fine for some people, but it never worked for me. I find my players appreciate solving a mystery more if the possibility of not solving it is real.

That said, they should be given a fair opportunity to get to the bottom of things. Handing them clues doesn't work, but neither does Mother May I. I like to make sure there are multiple leads, and multiple ways the mystery can be solves (I also like to be open-minded during play and give the players clues if they come up with an angle I didn't forsee, but makes sense).

The most important thing, IMO, is to make sure you understand the events surrounding the mystery or investigation. For example, if you have a basic murder mystery, you need a concrete timelie of events, people, etc. All the details of the murder itself (and its backstory) need to be fully constructed before you can move onto the cover up and to fleshing out investigation locations, etc. This is something that just comes with practice. Players have a habit of asking very specific questions (ones that don't often come up in mystery novels), so you just learn what kind of info will be needed over time.

I have also decided mysteries and investigations, even though they are largely location based in many cases, are fundamentally about the characters. The need characters who are memorable, make sense, and are consistent. Most of the fun comes from interacting with suspects, allies and witnesses.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the subject. I am curious how others handle this.

 

[SiderisAnon]

Three Clue Rule

I try to always use The Three Clue Rule from an essay by Justin Alexander. Basically it boils down to anytime a clue would lead the party from A to B, there should actually be three possible clues to lead them from A to B in case they miss one or more.


My biggest problem with running mystery adventures in fantasy settings is that after a certain level magic burns through the mystery too easily. (I had this same problem in a super hero game I ran too one time.) I've frequently had players who like solving mysteries and problems, but they're generally also not people who are going to not use an ability that solves a problem just because it might be more entertaining to do the problem "by hand".

 

[Hand of Evil]

Flow Chart - list of suspects - list of clues - list of outcomes based on die roles - time table (for if it can't be solved in the first 48hrs, odds are it will not be)

 

[Crothian]

GURPs Mysteries is a great gaming book on how to run mysteries. Like most GURPS books it is not designed for one specific genre and does a great job of showing how different genres trat mysteries different. And the actual GURP rules are very miniscule making it a great reource for any gaming.

 

[Wycen]

Several months ago a friend ran a mystery one-shot using a new system. I didn't play because of a conflict, but I talked to another friend about how it went.

Unfortunately he didn't have much good to say about it, but we talked a little about why mysteries are difficult and how to overcome the problems as a DM.

His suggestion was simple. If the players grasp a clue and run with it, that because the core of the story. In other words, no red herrings. They can hem and haw about the clue all they want, but as long as they run with it, it turns out to be good and leads to the next clue or answers the puzzle.

This of course might defeat the purpose of a mystery "story" where the detective follows clues that lead to dead ends, but usually figures it out in the end, but we aren't writing a novel in order to trick or make an amatuer detective feel good about their skills. We are throwing dice.

 

[SiderisAnon]

His suggestion was simple. If the players grasp a clue and run with it, that because the core of the story. In other words, no red herrings. They can hem and haw about the clue all they want, but as long as they run with it, it turns out to be good and leads to the next clue or answers the puzzle.

I think that is an excellent suggestion. Player absolutely despise spending time and effort to follow a trail only to find out it was wasted. It works well on TV and in books, but not so much at the gaming table.

That said, I do like the evidence to point the wrong way sometimes simply because part of the mystery is that someone tampered with the evidence. If you play it right, instead of feeling like they wasted the effort, the players like they spent that effort to shine more light on the actions of the perpetrator or enemy.

 

[SiderisAnon]

Double post.

 

[The Shaman]

If the players grasp a clue and run with it, that because [sic] the core of the story. In other words, no red herrings. They can hem and haw about the clue all they want, but as long as they run with it, it turns out to be good and leads to the next clue or answers the puzzle.

This of course might defeat the purpose of a mystery "story" . . .

There's no "might" about it.

. . . where the detective follows clues that lead to dead ends, but usually figures it out in the end, but we aren't writing a novel . . .

No, I most definitely am not writing a novel.

. . . in order to trick or make an amatuer detective feel good about their skills.

Why bother presenting a mystery to solve if there is, in fact no, mystery?

The reason to present a mystery in the game, in my opinion, is because pursuing the mystery is fun for the players. The real trick, in my experience, it to make failing to solve the mystery at least as interesting as solving it; the investigation should offer its own perils and rewards exclusive of the outcome.

In our Flashing Blades campaign Saturday night, the adventurers arrived in Grenoble to discover that the officer they were supposed to meet has been missing for two weeks. Solving Lieutenant Gourjon's disappearance may ultimately prove secondary to who the adventurers may meet and the paths they may follow should they choose to investigate, including those paths which are dead-ends relative to the mystery but which open up other opportunities and dangers for the adventurers in their own right.

There is a mystery to solve, but what the investigation may reveal is potentially at least as compelling. It's in no way necessary for me to 'fool' he players into thinking they're solving the disppearance.

We are throwing dice.

What makes a good roleplaying experience for me is much more than "throwing dice."

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that is an excellent suggestion. Player absolutely despise spending time and effort to follow a trail only to find out it was wasted. It works well on TV and in books, but not so much at the gaming table.

That said, I do like the evidence to point the wrong way sometimes simply because part of the mystery is that someone tampered with the evidence. If you play it right, instead of feeling like they wasted the effort, the players like they spent that effort to shine more light on the actions of the perpetrator or enemy.

I think this will depend on your players. Some players want a mystery because it is a fun puzzle to solve (and if success is a forgone conclusion it defeats the purpose for them); others want to experience the feel of a murder mystery but aren't as concerned about actually piecing the details together and solving the puzzle.

In my experience you play to the group. My default is to make failure a possibility, to include red herrings, and set it up so the players actually have to piece everything together like detectives. However I also realize some players want something else, so if I alter my approach as needed.

 

[Quickleaf]

My favorite type of game to run is the mystery adventure, which I usually compose as a logic puzzle on a matrix when I prep for the game.

I think most of the main points have been covered: the 3 clue rule, making failure interesting, 'red herrings' which feed back into the investigation, flowcharting, and poignant NPCs.

However, picking up on what [MENTION=44949]SiderisAnon[/MENTION] said, magic is a major factor to take I into account. Not only that but the extent of all rules involved in the PCs' investigation. During my last campaign I learned to prep with a "mockup investigator" on a notecard; basically this was the bare minimum description of a character (equal level to the PCs) optimized for solving mysteries with race features, skills, spells, and items. I would quick read through my notes, comparing the "mockup" notecard to different parts of the investigation -- that little trick helped me better understand the capacity of the PCs and design mysteries which went beyond those capacities.