Whodunnits in Burning Wheel [Archive]

jchokey

05-30-2009, 11:51 AM

I'd even like to hear from those of you that haven't actually tried but have given a little thought to this. How would you try to do this?

I fall into this category-- I haven't actually done this, but I have *thought* about it. And, like you, my thoughts are generally that BW's emphasis on transparency, player-generation of action, and even the ability of players to help 'establish' the world (through wises/Circles) could run counter to the basic assumptions of the classic 'whodunnit'.

That said, it might be possible to still do something like a whoddunnit, if you decided to discard (or at least reduce) the illusionism of the 'whodunnit' genre-- i.e. the idea that it has already been worked out in advance by the author/GM who committed the crime, how, and what the clues are-- and that all the protagonist needs to do is piece together the parts to find "the truth" and bring the criminal to justice.

Instead, in its place, you might have a scenario like this: A crime has been committed. The PCs each start play with a belief about who did it-- or who did not do it. The action of the game is oriented around them seeking to convince each others and/or some external authority (the sheriff, the city warden, the baron, whatever) that their belief is correct. The game would come in two phases: first, an investigation phase, where the PCs would seek to find information that substantiates *their* belief about who did/didn't do it. Then there would be the "confrontation" stage, which will involve a DOW (or, more likely, a series of DOWs) that operate under a few special rules-- perhaps that BOA is established (or modified) by how many "clues" can be brought in support of your claim, or that you are only allowed to make points/rebuttals that pertain to clues that were found in the investigation phases. Or something like that. This would be a series of DOWs, I think, in a 'closed' room, with all relevant parties present, such that no-one could "walk away"-- the DOW could not be refused.

For this to work, I think, it would be necessary to discard the idea that there was a predetermined truth of the matter with pre-created clues that the PCs need to "discover". Instead the "investigation" phase would-- in a sense, be about the players *creating* the clues in the course of actual play e.g. you make a tracks-wise roll to find bloody footprints-- and success means that they are there; you later make you make a circles roll to find someone who is wearing boots with bloodstains on them; you make another circles roll later to find someone who saw that person at the scene of the crime, just minutes before the persons death, etc.. (Or, maybe, you can make a Circles/wises rolls that help you find clues that undermine the cases of other PCs.)

So, in one sense, this would be mirroring the forms and the story of the classic whodunnit, but it would still work quite differently in that the PCs would not be disinterested 'neutral' investigators, seeking to get to the truth, but rather individuals seeking to uncover/create facts that would support their belief about who did it-- then ultimately convince the others of that fact.

stormsweeper

05-30-2009, 01:55 PM

luke

05-30-2009, 04:14 PM

I am finishing up reading a fantastic mystery. I have thoughts. More soon.

Dwight

05-30-2009, 04:25 PM

The tack I have used was borrowed from the writer of a certain RPG that uses Jenga for its resolution mechanic. Instead of having X clues in Y locations, you basically thrust the clues in where they players make successful tests, and red herrings in where they have failed them. I still will have a rough idea of pertinent clues, but at least half the time I make up stuff that is appropriate.

Did the players know whether they failed or succeeded? They knew what was a red herring and what was a pertinent clue? Where the players trying themselves to really figure out whodunnit?

@jchokey

Interesting. That is roughly about how I have done it when the mystery, which was a murder of a friend of a PC, the murder happening prior to start of play. I didn't predetermine the perp, the perp didn't even exist prior to the start of play. EDIT: The perp was created and identified during the second session of play, I burned him up in detail after the second session was over.

The PCs "figured out" who it was, in truth it was determined by how the players and I approached it, and then they set their sights on it. I found it an interesting exercise creating the culprit from the clues found. I'm not sure how well it would have worked though if it had been the focus of the campaign? It was largely the prelude to the meat of the action.

I didn't consider it a "serious" attempt. We didn't do anything like the very Agatha Christie thing you describe with the modified DoW. The PCs went straight to vengeance mode. They brought about "justice" via framing the perp for a different murder, of a extremely corrupt judge, that they themselves were responsible for.

Sempiternity

05-31-2009, 06:54 PM

I've been playing with the dreaded mystery game for a few months now, using D&D and a homebrew rules-light system.

John Kim's site has an excellent write-up (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/mysteries.html) of one way of approaching a mystery which is very similiar to what jchokey proposed above.

This site has some more general information (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/three-clue-rule.html), and blends "hippie" and clue-structured styles.

I figure that in straight-up mystery mode, the rules system fades away - which isn't a good thing as far as BW is concerned.

So the question is: How do you combine the intense player-driven play of BW with the puzzle-solving needs of a mystery?

I'd probably start by making sure the detective (PC) has a Belief along the lines of "Solve the Mystery (because X)", letting the PC's player push scenes toward gathering evidence to solve the mystery, throw in a few classic mystery Bangs ("A man comes through the door with a gun!") as needed, and judge the resolution of the mystery (the confrontation) based on how well the investigation goes.

Red-herrings should be avoided, but Failures can provide complications (of all sorts!) *along the way* toward getting the clue that was being sought. Successes can just hand out clues as they occur.

The tricky part would be deciding how much evidence is actually needed to be reasonably sure that the solution to the mystery the player has come up with is the right one - this might be largely up to genre conventions, or rely on the "Abduction" cycle as presented in the first link above. I mean, the PCs are going to be sent out to "check up on" their theories - but how do you make sure they need more than a single clue to get right to the heart of the mystery?

Also, since BW kinda drives its characters to be active and .. um.. dangerous, the villain of the mystery probably needs to be someone (or something!) powerful or well protected/connected. ;) (Unless the PCs are "professional detectives" a la Holmes, et al.)

Edit: To clear that up: The GM comes up with a mystery (a crime & a criminal, etc), and the "hows & whys" of it, but *not* the actual clues leading from point A to B - the players come up with those as they investigate. For this to be BW, that clue-creation has to hammer on Beliefs and other character flags - making the mystery less like Holmes or Poirot, and more like Spade or Marlowe... ...it isn't just getting a clue, but making a hard choice in the process.

Dwight

05-31-2009, 07:07 PM

John Kim's site has an excellent write-up (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/mysteries.html) of one way of approaching a mystery which is very similiar to what jchokey proposed above.

That reads like it is the polar opposite of what jchokey proposes. For example here's a line from the section GM Must Be Honest midway through the article; "The players must know that the GM will not alter his Case -- ever."

John is assuming a predetermined correct answer that the players must uncover. Jchokey is expressly tossing that premise under the bus.

Countercheck

05-31-2009, 09:15 PM

I kinda like the way InSpectres works... GM creates a situation, and the players collectively produce a solution. GM goes in not having planned anything... the players state what evidence they want to find, and roll to see if they find it. I think that kind of play would work wonders for BW mysteries. Wises are perfect for producing clues (I want to find a ticket stub for a prizefigt with prizefight-wise). In fact, if the GM doesn't have a culpret in mind, the PCs could enter each having a belief about who they think the criminal is. Whoever wins the rolls determines who was the (NPC, of course) criminal.

Sempiternity

06-01-2009, 10:31 AM

That reads like it is the polar opposite of what jchokey proposes. For example here's a line from the section GM Must Be Honest midway through the article; "The players must know that the GM will not alter his Case -- ever."

John is assuming a predetermined correct answer that the players must uncover. Jchokey is expressly tossing that premise under the bus.

Well, yes - they're not the same thing, but they're alike in that the players are *creating* the Clues during the characters' investigation, rather than having the GM place them to be found, scavenger-hunt style. The method on John's site tells the GM to come up with a Result and a Case, while jchokey's method just has the GM design the Result - letting the players compete (or co-operate) to create the true Case.

The difference in play - especially if it gets competitive - might be quite a bit wider, however!

Dwight

06-01-2009, 11:10 AM

while jchokey's method just has the GM design the Result

No, I don't think that's what he's suggesting. Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Chokey, but play begins with potential Results written into Beliefs. The "who" of whodunnit comes out of the play and dice rolls. EDIT: Oh wait, the Result as he's talking about it doesn't include the murderer. Ok, there is a hole in the terminology for comparison of the two.

In the case of my campaign we didn't even start with that much. We just started with a murder of a friend. Of course the mystery wasn't entirely central to that campaign, and the Belief highlighted that. The campaign was about bringing justice for the murder...and some other things. We were using the Primeval Peril rules.

-- -- -- -- --

About failed rolls and red herrings. One thing I did that I probably incorrectly called a red herring is that on a failed roll I give clue/fact that on the surface appeared very bizarre. One of those facts that make no sense without having another very unexpected info. Or you get the other side of the pair. In the meantime it engages your brain, gets it churning. But there are so many possibilities, even valid possibilities, So they aren't so much red herrings as just clues of very limited value in solving the mystery ... until you know the answer. (( EDIT: These would normally be candidates for Abductive reasoning but the truth is I didn't know how they fit when I tossed them out there. I didn't know what the missing piece of info was. ))

Agatha Christie used this a lot. I'm not much of a fan but my wife is, so we have a current Hercule Poirot video library. So I've seen most if not all of them. I've also read a few of her books, though not really my cup of tea. The other side coming out is the reveal, that "ahhh" moment.

On the other hand for successful rolls I (the GM) give an unambiguous explanation. The correct interpretation of that particular clue. That part of the puzzle falls into place. It just seemed the approach that fit BW, where success is success and failure is interesting. I'm not sure how sustainable it would have been?

jhkim

06-01-2009, 12:12 PM

Well, yes - they're not the same thing, but they're alike in that the players are *creating* the Clues during the characters' investigation, rather than having the GM place them to be found, scavenger-hunt style. The method on John's site tells the GM to come up with a Result and a Case, while jchokey's method just has the GM design the Result - letting the players compete (or co-operate) to create the true Case.

The difference in play - especially if it gets competitive - might be quite a bit wider, however!
First, a side note: The essay that Sempiternity linked to is on my site, but was written by Chris Lehrich and edited by myself.

I think that's correct. In both Chokey's and Lehrich's methods, the clues are created on the fly by the GM in response to player lines of investigation. The difference is that in Lehrich's approach, the GM knows who the perpetrator is and roughly how they did it -- but leaves open how they are to be discovered and caught. I think that both are compatible with the Burning Wheel philosophy. After all, in Fight!, the players don't get to decide on who their opponents are and what their stats are.

In Chokey's method, the players choose Beliefs for who did it -- and thus it would be problematic if the GM determined in advance who did it, since that would mean setting up one of the players as the winner in advance. However, that seems like more of a long-term approach rather than a single session adventure -- i.e. something more like the series Twin Peaks rather than a single Doyle short story.

It seems to me that both methods could be used depending on the scope of the mystery.

Dwight

06-01-2009, 03:46 PM

In Chokey's method, the players choose Beliefs for who did it -- and thus it would be problematic if the GM determined in advance who did it, since that would mean setting up one of the players as the winner in advance. However, that seems like more of a long-term approach rather than a single session adventure -- i.e. something more like the series Twin Peaks rather than a single Doyle short story.

I can't say I agree entirely on your assessment of suitability for different kinds of scope. While it might make it easier in some ways to run a longer investigation, to draw out a sprawling epic case, it is seems rather well suited to episodic investigations, too? If you ran between 1 session and 2 sessions for a investigation that'd be about right for a regularly turning over Belief (1 session per like clockwork is maybe a little to regular for the right Artha flow).

EDIT: BTW if we had gone with the DoW confrontation path we would have easily wrapped up in two 2 hour sessions. The majority of the campaign was stage 5. Although they did continue to find new information about the killer and his [other] illegal activities, and a bit more detail of his motives, it was 1+ session of locating the killer and 7+ sessions of bringing the bad guy down.

Even for the longer case I'm not certain because the problem I foresee with having a set answer is the complex nature of prebuilding a huge case. Either there needs to be lots there, and thus much easier to have problems authoring and managing, or there is a lot of dead space between the clues and information the players are discovering. But maybe this isn't a problem? Or maybe, because the end product from the BW game could also be large and complex you could end up getting lost in there as a group, anyway?

David Artman

06-02-2009, 09:01 AM

All this reference to "Result" and "Case" is called abduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning), and it's just about the only way I'd run a mystery in an RPG or LARP these days. "Breadcrumbing" (i.e. deduction) is just too much of a pain in the ass (especially in LARP).

HOW you might choose to build Case--GM-provided or built from PC Beliefs or just guessed at and Circled up (or as appropriate) by the players--is going to be a matter of taste. BW does support all three methods of Case building. (Many LARP systems, however, do not, being left to GM-provided.)

Heh... it's kinda funny. We've been all over the "how to do mystery" on RPG.net years ago... I should hunt for the thread.

Thor

06-02-2009, 09:17 AM

Are you talking about Whodunnits in particular or mysteries in general?

I think BW is great for hard-boiled mysteries, for instance. I recommend picking up Ron Edwards' The Sorcerer's Soul, which is a supplement for his game Sorcerer. That book has Ron's excellent breakdown of how to create and use Relationship Maps in games -- and particularly relationship maps taken from the hard-boiled mysteries of guys like Ross Macdonald.

These types of mysteries are character-driven stories about people with strong, conflicting motivations. Sounds like a perfect fit for BW to me.

Dwight

06-02-2009, 10:29 AM

I was thinking whodunnits in particular. But maybe that's more a matter of split in the focus? What drives things in the plot more, the puzzle or the personality. That kinda comes back to what got me thinking about this [again], Earthen's posts about Harry Potter over is Luke's SSS pimp thread.

But even the whodunnit is a smaller aspect of the more general mystery genre. Underneath there is the question about how to lay out the scenario in the BITs of the PCs and NPCs. BW requires that those be open. But I'm concerned that if too much is given away in the BITs it undermines the question about who and how.

@David Artman

That linked Chris Lehrich essay talks about abduction. Abduction is a pretty normal stage to go through. Just because its process is the equivalent to a logical fallacy doesn't mean it's not useful.

But whodunnit novels tend to be heavy on the abduction side for the reader. Because induction and deduction are the tools for going out and testing your hypothesis, by the nature of novels doing so is difficult for the reader due to the passive nature of the medium. You have to do some translation there because RPGs are not so passive, players expect to get in and much around and test out their hypothesis. When they do that they tend to look for clues. Unlike a novel writer, that means that you must have an exhaustive list of facts for the game play (or be able to generate anything from the exhaustive list during play).

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "breadcrumbing" because the abductive process still needs those things to leave a trail to the solution. Maybe the difference for you between "breadcrumbing" and not is requirement to have there being only one trail to a single solution?

BW does support all three methods of Case building.

With BW pre-built details, particularly when hidden, tend to undermine the system.

P.S. Where dat Luke at? With this kind of delay this better be good. :)

Thor

06-02-2009, 11:08 AM

Dwight

06-02-2009, 01:11 PM

Personally, I don't think Whodunnits work in RPGs at all by virtue of their structure and focus. (IMHO of course)

Whodunnits are puzzle-centric rather than character-centric. We get to watch the detective gather a seemingly incoherent set of clues and the question is whether we, the audience, can put those clues together in a meaningful fashion before the detective does.

Some translation is required because you are going from passive to active. But I think you can still have that same race condition, which at the heart is "can I guess the right answer before I'm told". You can still get the little gray cells churning and you can still have that reveal with the "oh, that's how things fall into place" and/or "Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick? I knew it!"

Whodunnits don't particularly care about passions, motivations, and so on. Those things are merely inputs. The Whodunnit doesn't really care about Why. It cares about How. It's a logic puzzle.

I think that's an overstatement. There is certainly a lot of identifying with the protagonists of [successful series], the personalities matter. For example Sherlock Homles had a rather well developed personality, which drove how and why he solved the crimes he did. There were his daemons of cocaine and heroin addictions, which for some of his cases were as much the focus as the case itself. Those stories delve into why he is he way he is. I don't think they'd be nearly as wide read if they weren't.

I'm talking about how to fit the two prongs together in Burning Wheel. How to accommodate the puzzle while letting the BITs do their character focus magic.

Yeah, I'm know I'm trying to finesse and cheat the nature of the beast. :) If it was easy I'd just do it and not start this thread.

Thor

06-02-2009, 01:31 PM

I think that's an overstatement. There is certainly a lot of identifying with the protagonists of [successful series], the personalities matter. For example Sherlock Homles had a rather well developed personality, which drove how and why he solved the crimes he did. There were his daemons of cocaine and heroin addictions, which for some of his cases were as much the focus as the case itself. Those stories delve into why he is he way he is. I don't think they'd be nearly as wide read if they weren't

It's not the detectives I'm talking about.

Dwight

06-02-2009, 01:38 PM

It's not the detectives I'm talking about.

But there they are, smack dab in the middle of the whodunnit. I want to figure out how to squeeze that ten pounds of mud into a five pound sack. Screw Dolly and the rest of you naysayers. ;)

P.S. Prof Moriarty was there, too.

luke

06-02-2009, 09:51 PM

Okay, personally, mysteries don't interest me that much. The genre conventions are trite enough that the thrill of seeing how it's done this time isn't enough to hold my interest. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I think that good mysteries must be as character centric as a good BW game. The mystery must be tied into the history and goals of the character. As our protagonist unravels the mystery, the audience must learn about him via his actions.

The other side of the mystery is the presentation of limited and misleading information.

I think BW can model this just fine. The situation for the mystery must be the mandate to solve the mystery coupled with a piece of misleading information. The kicker for the mystery must be an action or complication that bisects one or more Beliefs.

Behind the scenes, the GM has to flesh out the crime. There must be an act -- hard facts established. An initial clue must be laid out.

Now, after that point, the course of the exploration is up to the players and what tests they make. The mandate for success and failure in BW ensures there will be no dead end, but only complications that make the ultimate solution more dramatic.

That's my take.
-L

Thor

06-03-2009, 08:00 AM

But there they are, smack dab in the middle of the whodunnit. I want to figure out how to squeeze that ten pounds of mud into a five pound sack. Screw Dolly and the rest of you naysayers. ;)

P.S. Prof Moriarty was there, too.

But it never cares about Why Moriarty does what he does. I'm not saying that Moriarty is an uninteresting character. Nor am I saying that Doyle's Holmes stories are bad.

For Burning Wheel to be engaging as a game, the players, through through the agency of their characters, need to interact with NPCs driven by powerful beliefs of their own and then make difficult choices about what to do about them.

A locked room puzzle in BW? Boring. Trying to uncover why your best friend stabbed you and left you for dead, and then deciding what to do about it once you know the reason? That's good stuff.

The stories of Ross Mcdonald, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett -- hell, even Mickey Spillane -- would make excellent BW fodder. I'm in 100% agreement with Luke.

Dwight

06-03-2009, 08:47 AM

But it never cares about Why Moriarty does what he does. I'm not saying that Moriarty is an uninteresting character. Nor am I saying that Doyle's Holmes stories are bad.

For Burning Wheel to be engaging as a game, the players, through through the agency of their characters, need to interact with NPCs driven by powerful beliefs of their own and then make difficult choices about what to do about them.

Ok, that makes more sense. Impacting, going both ways. One thing common in the whodunnit sub-genre are secondary foils. Usually represented by the police or a professional peer. These are generally irritants, and sometimes comic relief buffoons, of the cardboard variety. Bringing depth and growth to them, being able to impact them more, making them more personally tied to the protagonist.

So then the questions becomes; Why is your life long comrade/brother/lover trying to keep you from solving the locked room mystery? What am I going to do about this? What do I do when I find out why?

The other side of the mystery is the presentation of limited and misleading information.

This is the part where the wheels come off for me. Isn't it antithetical to BW to have blatantly misleading info without a huge, explicit "this is misleading" tag on it, a tag that the GM reads out loud to the player? All these things in BW to prevent a communication disconnect and then purposely put one back in?

I think that's why my gut told me to avoid a true red herring by just putting in true but nigh unfathomable clues. Because if it was a red herring I felt compelled to say "this is a complete red herring, don't follow it" and that struck me as something that the players would immediately mentally scribble out, toss away, and forgot, therefore a waste of time for me to take the time to speak it.

Hrmm, maybe the "red herrings" have to be something that you want them to follow, that the PC's BITs say to follow? The PCs having one or more Instincts like "Always suspect the staff" would seem appropriate for that ((EDIT:maybe even a full Belief like "My father is a convicted bank robber, I suspect it's in him to have moved onto murder." if they want their prejudice to be an ongoing complication and obstacle to solving a murder. )). That would allow mixing in true red herrings that would stick in player minds and be relevant to the game rather than a cardboard replacement for "no clue".

luke

06-03-2009, 09:07 AM

Dwight,
I never said that one should present false information. Misleading, or imperfect, information should be true.

As for the GM identifying misleading information, no, I don't think that's necessary. Especially if you're explicitly playing out a mystery.

-L

Dwight

06-03-2009, 09:35 AM

The intent of a red herring is to purposely lead someone astray, to introduce extraneous, irrelevant data to the problem domain. The crime puzzle scenarios I've seen in RPGs stumble on two things:
- a failure on a single point of failure path to the solution
- players misunderstand and/or misinterpret the what they presented (for whatever reason) and rocket off down the wrong path

Eventually frustration sets. Then NPCs start dying in droves, often via some form of sadistic torture, as the purging fire of inquisition seeks to find out whodunnit.

The job of the red herring is to hasten these events.

As for the GM identifying misleading information, no, I don't think that's necessary.

I know when I fail a roll. The people I play with do, too. ;)

luke

06-03-2009, 09:44 AM

Anthony said this above -- BW's success and failure mechanics hedge against dopey "you fail, you lose" results.

In the scenario of play that you present, you're left with either the options of hacking BW into a hippy game (which it is not) or omitting mysteries from your diet of scenarios.

I'm saying this: A red-headed man was at the scene of the crime. This does not mean that the next red-head encountered is the culprit. It does not mean, in fact, that the man at the scene of the crime is necessarily the culprit. It does not mean that a player can test Red Headed Step Child-wise to solve the mystery. It's merely a clue that leads to more information. Gleaning information from the clue is done via Perception, Interrogation, Circles and wises tests.

-L

xenomouse

06-03-2009, 10:12 AM

A mild whodunnit crept into our game recently. There were many failed circles and persuasion rolls involved. Eventually, we got to a definitive suspect, captured him, and then engaged him in a DoW. His argument was "let me go and don't bother me again" and the PC's argument was "tell us your evil plan." He won the DoW, but we got a major compromise from him. We got him to implicate an accomplice. The GM basically treated it like a failed circles and had the accomplice be a major NPC with whom we all had a relationship and whom we all liked. Fun stuff.

Dwight

06-03-2009, 10:40 AM

Anthony said this above -- BW's success and failure mechanics hedge against dopey "you fail, you lose" results.
I've never been worried about the first point being covered with BW. It's the second one.

It's merely a clue that leads to more information.

The red-headed man is a red herring is if he DOESN'T [potentially] lead to more information [about the crime]. He was just some random pleb that happened to walk by on his way from the bus stop, entirely unconnected with the crime scene. That is to say the GM had this unconnected dead end happen by to muddy the waters for the purpose of derailing the investigation and leading to the proverbial wild goose chase.

Gleaning information from the clue is done via Perception, Interrogation, Circles and wises tests.

The question being what to do with successes and failures. An example intent from the player "I examine the knife for the murderer's bloody fingerprint." What are the selection of valid scenarios that you see there?

luke

06-03-2009, 11:04 AM

Dwight, I understand that investigation games often go awry in RPGs because the players hare off after an element they mistakenly take for a lead. As written, there's nothing in BW that prevents that. But BW is also no worse suited to a mystery game than a traditional RPG.

Well, I'll overlook the fact that in a medieval game, there's no fingerprinting. Also, I'd quibble on the completely subjective prejudgement of the "murderer's" print. I don't think I'd allow that. However, what you're asking for is, what to do with "I make a test for ye olde clue."

Informational tests can be handled in the following ways in BW:

• You find the obvious information, in this case, the bloody hand print. Now what?

• You test Perception success indicates an accurate view of the hand print. Failure indicates that either no print was found or the print is partial, inaccurate or misleading.

• Appropriate skill test to glean information -- Bloodletting, Research or a wise. Similar directional results as above.

-L

Paul B

06-03-2009, 11:52 AM

I'm in agreement that procedural mysteries are boring to play out in an RPG. Then again I'm also deeply bored by CSI-style drama.

That said, puzzle-solving often feels good in the players' heads. It's almost certainly a distraction, maybe even a welcome distraction, from deep character identification and passionate play.

So I think you can come at the question of how to model a mystery in BW from a couple different angles:

* An actual puzzle for the actual players to solve (the procedural approach), or

* An inevitable unfolding of events as we watch how the investigation impacts the characters (the noir/Hammett approach)

Personally, I'll take the second option every time.

Given my own personal preferences, the Gumshoe approach is probably the way to go: you get the clue, but the interesting tension is around what it'll cost you. This, to me, is good baseline BW play in any case: no failures, just costs and complications. But it undermines the procedural thrill -- if the players know they'll solve the mystery no matter what, they'll feel uninterested in the outcome. I think if the players were on board with that from the beginning, if they knew they were getting into a noir story and not CSI, it'd go just fine.

p.

luke

06-03-2009, 12:06 PM

Dwight

06-03-2009, 12:38 PM

As written, there's nothing in BW that prevents that. But BW is also no worse suited to a mystery game than a traditional RPG.

"No worse than the next guy's crap"? That sucks as a sales pitch. ;) :D I know, I know, the genre isn't really your thing so you don't care so much and didn't build BW with it in mind.

Well, I'll overlook the fact that in a medieval game, there's no fingerprinting.

My bad, I tend to think of BW in much broader terms these days. Although there is historical record of Chinese use of hand/finger print identification in criminal matters well over 2000 years ago. So it's not so much a tech problem as just a historical fact of one society that the European law enforcement powers that be, such that they were, didn't really adopt fingerprinting until the late 19th century.

Also, I'd quibble on the completely subjective prejudgement of the "murderer's" print. I don't think I'd allow that.

That doesn't surprise me, the same thought occurred to me as I mulled it over myself. But you'd be explicit about not allowing that, right?

Also, I don't think it would necessarily be critical to deny it explicitly being the murderer's print. I would make the task harder certainly, potentially breaking it into two Tests. But a finger print doesn't solve the crime by itself. You still have to find the other end, and that might be quite the job in itself. Or maybe you think it's been enough work to this point for the player to know the secret. But it's another matter to convince the members of the justice system, or confront the killer, or confront you interests in the matter. Because certainly with BW all that is well beyond the realm of handwavium, it's not necessarily in the bag at that point. It'd be a judgement call about the specifics of the situation, I think. If you could stomach the player's success then go for it.

But getting back to being explicit with the players.

• You test Perception success indicates an accurate view of the hand print. Failure indicates that either no print was found or the print is partial, inaccurate or misleading.

But the players know it's misleading, right? Or are you suggesting you not tell them it's misleading? Because I don't see much purpose towards that end and that path is fraught with difficulty (they know they failed the roll) and danger of loss of trust. An innocent's finger print on the knife, that the players know is an innocent's print, can trip them up as easily. Especially if it's playing to BITs. I would suggest that crafting it towards a BITs is what you should be doing, as that's always the GM's job.

There is the rub, and perhaps also the salvation with staying true to BWR. As the GM I'm not allowed to lie to the player (blatant lies of omission count). I'm also not to purposely push/lead them away from where their Beliefs are going. So as long as I keep all my red herrings directly and blatantly aimed at BITs, and I'm explicit about what intent they are really getting when rolling, and I don't try to weasel to slip one past them, we're shiny.

EDIT: Because the imaginary character, not the player, in the imaginary world is using their imaginary skills to solve the imaginary crime.

luke

06-03-2009, 12:43 PM

Dwight

06-03-2009, 01:11 PM

The only time I ever tell a player something is misleading is if an NPC is lying to them. Often I roleplay it out and then say, "He's lying. What do you do?"

Otherwise, there's no reason to say, "You failed. That clue is false." Failure adds to the mystery. It creates doubt. Is that information we go accurate? It's a good feeling. I like doubt and uncertainty in play. Too much certainy is boring.

Ok, so we are down to the know the roll is fubar. I'm the player, my character just pulled this stellar print. This is a failed roll in BW, Luke's the GM, something very bad is going to kick me in the grill. :) So shortly or eventually the other shoe drops, or doesn't. Process of elimination. But I guess there is some doubt in there.

Hrmmm. I will delay a failure result, for suspense. Quite often. Maybe that'd be OK, I don't usually delay that long though. Seems harder to keep it all straight as GM. Maybe it's just my preference for the "This fits and points the right direction but how does this fit?" rather than "does this point the right direction or is it garbage?" Choosing between the two feels a lot like choosing between playing BW and not. Yeah, that's what bugs me about it. I like puzzles that hide their solution right in plain view.

P.S. I'm not trying to be a dick here by being contrarian. I'm trying to externalize, to get it out so it's clearer for me to look at. Thanks everyone for posts so far, it's helped me a lot.

stormsweeper

06-03-2009, 08:51 PM

Another thing I tend to do with failed tests is basically the "twist" option as in Mouse Guard. An example from Burning THAC0:

Petronax is researching at an academy in Ylarum (your typical fantasy faux-Arabia). He's looking for info on a hidden palace from an old Sorcerer King of Ylarum who had a knack for fighting demons and such,. he's hoping to find info there that will help the party fight the Big Bad of the campaign. He fails the test. So I decided that NPC enonomy is good, and made that long lost king into the Big Bad. When the party gets to the palace, they find lots of ominous clues that teh Big Bad had been there, and eventually find conclusive evidence of it.

Dave Lucas

06-04-2009, 12:39 AM

Picking two examples out of the air, look at the Maltese Falcon and The Name of the Rose. The great detectives in those excellent mysteries FAIL to solve the mystery, but they're involved until the revelation and we learn a hell of a lot about them in the process.

What would Sam Spade's Beliefs and Instincts be in The Maltese Falcon?

B: Archer was a dope, but you gotta stick up for your partner if you want to work in this town. It's just what you do. Especially when he's killed. I have to find his killer and bring him to justice.

I: If someone's packing heat, I'll spot it.

B: A broad ain't worth much... but a good lady is hard to find. I want to fall in love.

I: If the cops come calling, crack foxy to them.

B: ?

I: Always negotiate for more money.

David Artman

06-04-2009, 10:02 AM

When they do that they tend to look for clues. Unlike a novel writer, that means that you must have an exhaustive list of facts for the game play (or be able to generate anything from the exhaustive list during play).Not at all; I think you missed the point.

Players can hypothesize the *clues* as well as the Case, and all the GM has to do is ask hirself if the posited clue would fit the (GM-provided) Case. (Of course, if playing where the players "generate" the Case for themselves based on successes and failures in various tests, then there is even less prep--i.e. none.)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "breadcrumbing" because the abductive process still needs those things to leave a trail to the solution.Deduction, basically: the GM has seeded the world with clues, and the players must find them and piece them together (in only one way) to solve the Case.

But, no, abduction doesn't need any kind of "trail" other than common sense and logic: if a posited clue would fit the (unknown, pre-established) Case, then the GM Says Yes (or tests and then says yes or is non-committal).

Behind the scenes, the GM has to flesh out the crime. There must be an act -- hard facts established. An initial clue must be laid out.Technically, no, which is the point I was making about running mysteries with abduction. All that must be established prior to play is the Reveal--the particulars of the situation as it will be discovered by the character(s).

And note that this approach is utterly system-agnostic: you can play this "mystery game" with no RPG system at all, or with freeform LARP rules, or within any other system (well... excepting maybe something like Universalis, where the players can just solve the mystery by paying for the Facts that build the Case).

But, sure, if doing a GM-provided Case, then it can be setup to ping the hell out of BW character BITs.

The red-headed man is a red herring is if he DOESN'T [potentially] lead to more information [about the crime].See, here again: this talk of "red hairrings" is for a deductive approach--a red herring is just a false breadcrumb, presumably amongst several correct breadcrumbs.

In an abductive approach, one of the *players* would say, "I bet there was a red-headed man seen at the crime!" and roll some kind of test (Circles, I reckon? Interrogation, forked with Circles, as he asks around the neighborhood for witnesses?). If successful AND if it fits the Case, then, yep, there was one seen scuttling about. If failed, you don't find out either way (i.e. no one saw enough details to say yes or no on that issue, or folks won't talk to the likes of YOU). Dead-ends are a (weak-sauce) complication, after all: you have to try to build the Case with different details.

So I think you can come at the question of how to model a mystery in BW from a couple different angles:
* An actual puzzle for the actual players to solve (the procedural approach), or
* An inevitable unfolding of events as we watch how the investigation impacts the characters (the noir/Hammett approach)Your first bullet could be done deductively or abductively. The second bullet is railroading, IMHO. Not saying it couldn't be fun... but it's definitely a "follow the script to all the scenes I have planned, and react like you've been actively pursuing the Case." Either that, or it become a courtroom drama (with courtroom loosely defined as "where we all see the Reveal and see the Case built and react"). Again... playable, but let's call it what it is.

...

If anyone likes, I could start a thread where I demonstrate this process: I'll post a Reveal and then, in the second post of the thread, spoiler-out the Case; and folks can posit Clues to which I'll just say yes or no (i.e. skip using a test system, for the sake of demonstration).

Crazy Jerome

06-04-2009, 05:17 PM

Disclaimer: I have not tried this in BW yet, but I see no reason why my usual approach wouldn't work.

I don't do mystery games, the same way I don't do horror games. Instead, I put a lot of mystery (and a little horror) in my games. Sometimes, a particular mystery takes on a life of its own, and becomes something like a whodunit.

The scraggly bandit dwarf lies to the main characters, "The reeve told us when the baron would be traveling through the forest, and we set up the ambush." This could be a Say Yes (a player asked and you spoke in character), or it could be a failed roll. I don't know about you, but there wouldn't be any difference. My players would know the character was lying either way (or suspect so strongly that they might as well know). Either way, though, they aren't getting the information about who really did tip off the bandits, from this particular bandit. Heck, the bandit may not even know. So we have a mini-mystery here. Do this enough, and some of them string out into a mystery session.

OTOH, if the party suceeds on a check, then the bandit gives them something highly useful, and we have nothing mysterious at this point (though I hope we have something hitting BITs in some other way). Which is fine, because since mysterious stuff like this is coming up all the time, I don't care. Next scene.

On those occasions when the players go off on a tangent, as long as it is interesting, so what? If it happens to be a mysterious tangent, so much the better. If it isn't interesting, then get them onto something that is.

I guess the question is does a mystery scenario need to be forced in BW because you really want a particular mystery at a particular time, or is it sufficent to have mysterious things happening and let the characters BITs interact with those that end up mattering?

Dwight

06-04-2009, 05:45 PM

Not at all; I think you missed the point.

You think wrong. ;) What I was getting at there is that you still have to be able to pull from anywhere on the 'list', even if you are populating it on demand. With the novel the writer can focus on a limited set, and cordon off no-go areas, because they control where the characters go and look. Try to do that in an RPG to any real extent and you'll hear calls of "choo-choo" from around the table.

Now while I think populating it on demand is really the only viable option, what I really was getting at is that it is virtually a guarantee that the GM will screw up somewhere alone the line. If they don't then they missed their calling as a career criminal. It's extremely hard to fabricate details on the fly with 100% accuracy. It's hard enough doing it when taking your time.

But, no, abduction doesn't need any kind of "trail" other than common sense and logic: if a posited clue would fit the (unknown, pre-established) Case, then the GM Says Yes (or tests and then says yes or is non-committal).

Uh, that isn't abduction. Certainly not an the player's part (and on the GM's part it would be deduction). Abduction is the process of forming a hypothesis (a guess) to explain a given set of facts, with the assumption that those facts are related (where you linked explains this). So you need something, at least one fact (AKA clue) to start the process of reasoning. A body laying on the floor with a blood soaked dagger sticking out the back and their spouse standing over top, for example, would constitute a start. ;) Or another classic is the letter from a new client or an old friend giving the outline of their problem and case.

I highly suspect that is what Luke's talking about. You may look for a few more clues before beginning the abductive process, though often people will jump right to guessing since that can help guide locating clues.

After you have formed the hypothesis you can then deduce other facts that should exist if your hypothesis is correct, and then check those out. It's the scientific method with a different name.

That's why detective novels are more abductive heavy for the reader. They can't actually check out just any old deduced fact, they are limited to the preordained set given by the writer. The ones contained within the text.

I get the sense you are using "Abductive" in a redefined way?

In an abductive approach, one of the *players* would say, "I bet there was a red-headed man seen at the crime!" and roll some kind of test (Circles, I reckon? Interrogation, forked with Circles, as he asks around the neighborhood for witnesses?). If successful AND if it fits the Case, then, yep, there was one seen scuttling about. If failed, you don't find out either way (i.e. no one saw enough details to say yes or no on that issue, or folks won't talk to the likes of YOU). Dead-ends are a (weak-sauce) complication, after all: you have to try to build the Case with different details.

I have two sets of questions about this. First, what do you envision as the reason the player said "I bet there was a red-headed man seen at the crime!" Where did the idea of a "red-headed man" come from? As well what does this red-headed man represent, if he is not a suspect and not a red herring? Could he be a potential witness that the GM did not initially plan to be there?

Also, when do players stop looking for clues? Can they ever fail to solve a case? I'm curious how this keeps from being "20 questions" but with dice, to see if the GM will answer a given question, and an infinite number of questions?

* An actual puzzle for the actual players to solve (the procedural approach), or
* An inevitable unfolding of events as we watch how the investigation impacts the characters (the noir/Hammett approach)
Your first bullet could be done deductively or abductively. The second bullet is railroading, IMHO. Not saying it couldn't be fun... but it's definitely a "follow the script to all the scenes I have planned, and react like you've been actively pursuing the Case." Either that, or it become a courtroom drama (with courtroom loosely defined as "where we all see the Reveal and see the Case built and react"). Again... playable, but let's call it what it is.

Railroading requires going against player's choice. Since the second bullet in BW would be the [potential] consequence of player chosen BITs, which represent the player's preferences, it is by definition not railroading.

What Paul's describing, I believe, is the investigation as the backdrop against which the player challenged via probing of the character's personality and morales, rather than challenging with a puzzle.

P.S. I certainly agree with you that red herrings are normally weak sauce. They are the cheap way out to screw with the player and they waste time and energy. But going back to what I said about carefulling aiming any "red herring" at a BIT, that strengthens the sauce considerably. They are no longer a waste of player time (though they are still so of the character) and are a challenge in the way player has requested. I'd still use them very sparingly though, as they tend to make a mess of the puzzle aspect and weaken that to an extent. You'd want to make sure the BIT you are hitting is a very hard [cock]punch to make up for that.

stormsweeper

06-04-2009, 08:42 PM

Red herrings should never be dead ends, in game or fiction. Pursuing the red herring should advance them along the main mystery in some way.

David Artman

06-05-2009, 09:09 AM

Perhaps I do misuse the term--so, fine: call it the "Oughta Be Method."

To compare and contrast Oughta Be Method and Breadcrumbing:
- OBM and BC: A Reveal is presented to the players, showing the crime and, in all but the most rarefied situations, providing a Clue or two.
- OBM and BC: Assuming a GM-provided Case (not something ginned-up using player-authority mechanics), the GM is aware of the perp, the basic MO, and the general time it was committed (whatever sufficiently defines the crime).

* BC: The GM has a carefully planned, coherent set of Clues, placed in the world, which the players must find, assemble into a logical chain of causality/influence, and thereby solve the Case.
* OBM: The GM has NO planned set of Clues; rather, the players (beginning from the Reveal) propose a step in the chain, an additional element of the Case related to what they already know, and ask if it fits the (as-yet-unknown by them) Case. The GM confirms, using only basic logic from what he knows about the Case (i.e. everything germane).

That's a pretty big difference, when it comes to GM prep time, no? And (for context of how we worked it out some time ago) consider how a LARP would run a mystery--a big LARP, run outdoors, on acres of land, with cabins and so-forth. Seeding Clues? Good luck doing so without at least one player spotting you. PCs connecting the Clues? Only in the most cooperative and centralized game; and a PvP or factional (or even merely level-divided) game will mean it's rare for anyone to get enough Clues together to make a deduction. But with the OBM, a single individual could (in theory) piece together reasonable guesses as to where Clues *would* be, and build the body of evidence.

SOOO.... getting this back to how to do it in BW: this method works in any system (or, indeed, without any system: it can be a road-trip, conversational game). But to really engage BW's mechanics with the OBM, the players are going to try to get tests to "uncover" Clues--with success providing information and failure doing so also BUT with complications--and will possibly even try to tie-in Beliefs, which *so long as they do not break the Case* can be layered onto the sufficient information that the GM provides to make for a "character-engaging" solution to the crime (albeit with epiphenomenal elements).
-----
Anyhow... I think that's about all, for me, on this topic. It's really a simple method, and you can take it or leave it as it suits your play group. I've found it to work very well--in particular in LARP--and I wouldn't, myself, try to go back to Breadcrumbing a mystery and the illusionist play that such an investigative process ultimately entails (never mind the shit-ton of work to prep--ever had a BIG old railroad built, and the players just said, "Meh, fuck it--I don't care who's killing off these people in this berg; I want to go..."?).

xenomouse

06-05-2009, 10:04 AM

I'm not too familiar with whodunnits (or just don't care enough to know that I'm looking at one), but I think that Clue provides a decent example of what it might look like in BW. You have a limited pool of suspects: existing NPCs or the first few NPCs from Circles tests, maybe a couple of the PCs get implicated too.
The suspects' links to the victim come out through DoWs and other social tests: "Mr. Boddy knew I had an affair with a patient and was blackmailing me."
Some wises are rolled to determine game facts: I roll call-girl-wise to declare that Miss Scarlett had her former "employee" Yvette kill Mr. Boddy.
Failures are near inevitable and should add new complications to the story: eventually, everyone is proven to be guilty (maybe not this particular crime) in some way.
The actual perp could be any of the suspects - most likely an NPC, though a PC may be willing to take the hit. Who the perp is will probably make sense after enough evidence is gathered through tests - failed or otherwise. Of course, an abundance of evidence doesn't necessarily mean guilt.
I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but the investigation should be guided by beliefs. Each PC should have a belief about who they think the perp is, and it should drive their portion of the investigation. Evidence from successful tests should justify the PC's belief about the perp, and evidence from failed tests should push against the belief and even give the player a chance to break said belief.

Possible twists... The investigators misinterpret evidence, wrongly implicating someone.
Innocuous information is misconstrued as evidence.
Lack of alibi.
Misleading evidence is planted by the actual perp.
The investigators manufacture evidence to target someone they strongly suspect or just plain don't like.

I think corruption is my favorite twist.

-----

p.s. - I guess I didn't state it outright, but I'm arguing for the perp being unknown until the end. Though, I'm still sticking with "an abundance of evidence doesn't necessarily mean guilt." Maybe you've got the wrong guy. FREE O.J.!!!