![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On running a mystery
Just musing on the nature of running a mystery in either a tabletop or online game (one run by a person, not by code). There's a spectrum that goes from "running on rails" at one end, to "wherever the wind might blow" at the other. After a quick lj-cut, I will expand on this.
When a mystery is running on rails, the person running the game (the GM) knows the circumstances of the mystery. All the details have been worked out, and will not change no matter how many false paths the players run down. This is a sort of absolute, objective reality approach: the facts are there, if you can't find them, tough luck.
The benefit of this method is that the GM can work out all the details in advance and be prepared for most eventualities, even anticipating some likely red herrings. The main problem, however, is that if the players fixate on something the GM hadn't considered, they're hosed. No matter how good they are in-game, they'll never find out a thing on their chosen path. It can reach a point where the GM has to abandon the story and say that some other group solved it off-screen, if leaving it unsolved would have a negative effect on the game (or if he's bored of making up stuff on the fly to flesh out blind alleys).
Now, a GM can try to drop hints to get players onto the right track, but often what you think is a blindingly obvious hint can be completely obscure, arcane and impossible to unravel to the players. For example, I once dropped a clue to my players that should have let them unravel things after a quick trip to a Bible Concordance (and yes, this was a group where I could reasonably expect them to look in such a beast). But they all came back the next week completely mystified. The reason? The clue related to 2 Maccabees, and all my players were raised Protestant, so they never thought to look in a Catholic Concordance. Oops. And the term I dropped as a clue shows up nowhere in the King James.
In any case, when the mystery is on rails, it really doesn't matter how well the character can solve mysteries, since the player has to make most of the deductions first. A really good roll just means a very emphatic, "Nothing to be gained this direction," reply.
At the other end, wherever the wind blows mysteries only have a few basic facts worked out in advance. The GM relies on player input to make things interesting...if someone is sure that the clues point to a particular character, and the GM thinks it might fit, then maybe that character is involved after all. This is a consensual reality approach, and relies more on the skill of the character than of the player...any stupid player-originated idea has a chance of being right, although it may be a small chance.
The benefit of this method is player involvement. There's much less chance of feeling like you're butting your head up against a wall...if you're playing the city's greatest detective, you will make progress, no matter how dense you are in real life or how badly the GM's clues are zooming over your head.
The main disad is that players who actually enjoy figuring out the mystery themselves will feel cheated. Players who don't mind knocking out an opponent via a lucky die roll (as opposed to their use of good combat tactics) may still object to having their thinking done by their dice as well. Additionally, a GM has to be very good at changing direction on short notice, and while preparation can help, a lot will be wasted.
Obviously, neither extreme is really fun in the long run. Always having to be smarter than your character can get frustrating, as does always having events being dictated by the dice. Unfortunately, in my experience, a lot of GMs cling to the "run on rails" end, because it appeals to the sort of Master Planner mentality that tends to attract people to the GM chair. And most of the rest love improv and make no plans at all.
The key to not frustrating your players is, of course, to see that elusive middle ground. If you're running on rails and the characters do a fantastic job of investigating a blind alley, give them some results they would have gotten if they'd been going the right direction. If you're going with the wind, be sure to have at least some solid facts that they have to figure out, even if you let them follow roundabout paths to get there.
Here's an example. A vile murder has been committed by Villain A. The players are convinced it was actually Villain B, and have started scoping out B's last known locations. A "rails" GM has worked out all the places where useful clues might be found, and none of them are on the players' list. A "wind" GM is perfectly willing to have the PCs fight B for a while. Here's some ways to get the players onto the track of Villain A in more or less time, in order from "most likely to appeal to a rails-style GM" to "most likely to appeal to a wind-style GM":
In short: have some plans and stick to them, but be willing to bend reality if your players run off in the wrong direction.
When a mystery is running on rails, the person running the game (the GM) knows the circumstances of the mystery. All the details have been worked out, and will not change no matter how many false paths the players run down. This is a sort of absolute, objective reality approach: the facts are there, if you can't find them, tough luck.
The benefit of this method is that the GM can work out all the details in advance and be prepared for most eventualities, even anticipating some likely red herrings. The main problem, however, is that if the players fixate on something the GM hadn't considered, they're hosed. No matter how good they are in-game, they'll never find out a thing on their chosen path. It can reach a point where the GM has to abandon the story and say that some other group solved it off-screen, if leaving it unsolved would have a negative effect on the game (or if he's bored of making up stuff on the fly to flesh out blind alleys).
Now, a GM can try to drop hints to get players onto the right track, but often what you think is a blindingly obvious hint can be completely obscure, arcane and impossible to unravel to the players. For example, I once dropped a clue to my players that should have let them unravel things after a quick trip to a Bible Concordance (and yes, this was a group where I could reasonably expect them to look in such a beast). But they all came back the next week completely mystified. The reason? The clue related to 2 Maccabees, and all my players were raised Protestant, so they never thought to look in a Catholic Concordance. Oops. And the term I dropped as a clue shows up nowhere in the King James.
In any case, when the mystery is on rails, it really doesn't matter how well the character can solve mysteries, since the player has to make most of the deductions first. A really good roll just means a very emphatic, "Nothing to be gained this direction," reply.
At the other end, wherever the wind blows mysteries only have a few basic facts worked out in advance. The GM relies on player input to make things interesting...if someone is sure that the clues point to a particular character, and the GM thinks it might fit, then maybe that character is involved after all. This is a consensual reality approach, and relies more on the skill of the character than of the player...any stupid player-originated idea has a chance of being right, although it may be a small chance.
The benefit of this method is player involvement. There's much less chance of feeling like you're butting your head up against a wall...if you're playing the city's greatest detective, you will make progress, no matter how dense you are in real life or how badly the GM's clues are zooming over your head.
The main disad is that players who actually enjoy figuring out the mystery themselves will feel cheated. Players who don't mind knocking out an opponent via a lucky die roll (as opposed to their use of good combat tactics) may still object to having their thinking done by their dice as well. Additionally, a GM has to be very good at changing direction on short notice, and while preparation can help, a lot will be wasted.
Obviously, neither extreme is really fun in the long run. Always having to be smarter than your character can get frustrating, as does always having events being dictated by the dice. Unfortunately, in my experience, a lot of GMs cling to the "run on rails" end, because it appeals to the sort of Master Planner mentality that tends to attract people to the GM chair. And most of the rest love improv and make no plans at all.
The key to not frustrating your players is, of course, to see that elusive middle ground. If you're running on rails and the characters do a fantastic job of investigating a blind alley, give them some results they would have gotten if they'd been going the right direction. If you're going with the wind, be sure to have at least some solid facts that they have to figure out, even if you let them follow roundabout paths to get there.
Here's an example. A vile murder has been committed by Villain A. The players are convinced it was actually Villain B, and have started scoping out B's last known locations. A "rails" GM has worked out all the places where useful clues might be found, and none of them are on the players' list. A "wind" GM is perfectly willing to have the PCs fight B for a while. Here's some ways to get the players onto the track of Villain A in more or less time, in order from "most likely to appeal to a rails-style GM" to "most likely to appeal to a wind-style GM":
- Villains A and B are rivals, and naturally keep tabs on each other. When doing a stellar job of investigating one of B's haunts, a PC notices one of A's henchmen lurking around. The henchman is nervous when discovered, because he knows that his boss did the deed that PCs are investigating. A little setting-appropriate questioning later, and the PCs are on the right track.
- Villain A has been framing Villain B, thus explaining why everything seemed to point at B. Once B is defeated, proof is found that he was innocent of the crime in question (but may well be guilty of plenty of other stuff they PCs put him away for), and pointing at A.
- Villain C wants to see Villain A go down, sees the PCs going the wrong way, and by some means points them at A.
- Villain B is actually a cover identity for Villain A! Or, less extreme, Villain B turned out to have done some of the legwork (but not the actual killing) for Villain A, and once defeated will give up the goods.
In short: have some plans and stick to them, but be willing to bend reality if your players run off in the wrong direction.