Barf Forth Apocalyptica
hacks => blood & guts => Topic started by: Chris on January 17, 2011, 02:57:50 PM
-
I've had a few ideas for little hacks to run for my group that center around investigation, but I've never been able to come up with good moves. The best I've been able to do is modified Workspace rules.
Watching a lot of media of this type, the most important move seems to be When the session is almost over, you'll suddenly know the answer, but that sucks.
Any thoughts?
-
Here's an idea:
When you've examined the scene and talked to the witnesses, roll +Sharp.
On a 10, the MC writes down a realization that would really shake up the case, turns it over and puts a countdown clock on it, starting at 10:00. This clock runs down when you suffer, make headway, or accept other people's help.
On a 7-9, same thing, but the coundown clock starts at 6:00
On a miss, a hard move like normal, but if the MC tells you something, that's the intuition that draws you.
-
There's this thread here: http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=448.0 (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=448.0)
Basically, it's hard!
I think the question you need to answer is whether "Do the investigators figure out the mystery?" is really at stake. If it is, then you need to make sure play is fun even if the investigators fail. If it's not, then you need to make sure there's something else at stake. Neither of those seem like easy things.
I heard someone talking about an investigative game where each failure meant there was another murder, and therefore more clues, so you'd eventually succeed, but possibly at great cost. That seemed like a reasonably good middle ground.
In terms of concrete moves, for a police procedural I'd focus on specifics of different investigative techniques:
When you dust for prints, you collect samples of any prints in the vicinity, and roll +focused. On a hit, you get to ask questions.
10+, ask 3
7-9, ask 1
On a miss, the Mystery Master can introduce a complication, a red herring, or else you just can't find anything.
How many different prints are here?
How old are the prints?
Was this thing touched by someone?
How was this thing held or used?
Oooh! And:
When you send a sample (DNA, fingerprints, trace, camera footage) to the lab geeks, roll +hard.
On a 10+, hold 3. 7-9, hold 1.
Spend 1 hold to get one of the following (MM's choice):
Introduce a new suspect
Introduce a secondary crime scene
Locate a suspect
Identify a murder weapon
Oh! And of course:
Once per session, when you make a terrible pun over a dead body, take +1 forward. YEEAAHHH!
-
Yeah, it's really hard - giving the players their character's stroke of genius wedges in a separation between character and player that AW doesn't otherwise allow.
It crosses John Harper's The Line, right?
-
Well, in CoC and similar games, the real stakes are Do the players figure out the mystery with the characters rolling to find clues and the player interpreting them. The player/character line is gonna get destroyed because it feels silly to stay in character as an idiot if you, the player, know the answer. I'm sure there's a fruitful void thing going on here, where there are moves that give out peripheral information or set up a workable path towards solving the mystery.
-
I would argue that in a lot of CoC, as it is played, there are no real stakes. The players will figure out the mystery one way or the other. There might be some stakes regarding how well the characters survive the experience. The CoC I've played has exclusively been about the experience of uncovering the mystery, not about whether the players will succeed.
Coming up with police procedural moves is fun.
When you break a suspect, hold 3. Spend hold 1 for 1 to ask questions:
What did you see?
Who was with you?
Where were you at the time?
What do you know about X?
When you rough up someone in interrogation, roll +hard
10+ you break them.
7-9 you break them, and the MM chooses one.
On a miss, the MM can introduce a complication, advance a countdown clock, or give a red herring, and the MM chooses two.
- They're hurt pretty badly
- You get caught
- Someone else sees you
When you talk a suspect around to cooperating, offer some genuine insight into their motives, and roll +sharp.
10+ you break them
7-9: they give you a titbit (MM's choice)
On a miss, the MM can introduce a complication, advance a countdown clock, or give a red herring, and the MM chooses two.
When you leave a suspect to stew, the MM can advance a countown clock, but hold 1 (max 3). Spend hold 1 for 1 to take +1 on any roll to break the suspect.
-
Oooh, hey, those are pretty darn good.
-
When you leave a suspect to stew, the MM can advance a countown clock, but hold 1 (max 3). Spend hold 1 for 1 to take +1 on any roll to break the suspect.
I dunno if it breaks the "always misdirect" principle, but I especially like the interaction here between a player move and one of the MC's fronts, very cool.
-
Thanks! If I didn't know what a huge amount of work it would be, I'd be thinking about a procedural hack.
The real challenge though is not coming up with moves, it's finding a way to have the game be fun, even if the investigators don't solve the mystery. Possibly a more long-running police drama like The Shield would be a better model. Or just a really bleak procedural, with more focus on the community in which the crimes take place, so your real challenge is keeping the community functioning, not just solving crimes. That would require a whole new set of moves though.
Dammit! Now I'm thinking about a hack!
-
Or go the GUMSHOE method, where the game isn't about finding clues, but interpreting them.
I've got something to do with Love Letters to the players, but spaced out somehow over the course of the session, not all out front, and it's on the tip of my brain.
Because it has to be a preplanned mystery, I don't see a way around that without going the Dirty Secrets route and that's not what I'm looking for here.
Like maybe make each crime scene a custom move, like a mini love letter? It's midnight and my brain is dying.
-
Chris,
Like maybe make each crime scene a custom move, like a mini love letter? It's midnight and my brain is dying.
That's an interesting idea!
-
It seems to me that AW procedural is all about what that procedural is playing towards, right? So each one has their gimmick, dependent on what they do: CSI was all about the lab work (interspersed with cultural commentary), law and order was about due process and law, Lie to me about deception and the interpretation of personal response. Just saying "I'm doing a procedural" doesn't really describe most of these, even if the term is technically accurate to "doing what the police/justice system do."
So moves for this would depend on your gimmick, right? Or maybe that's the difference between character splats and character moves. hrm.
My favourite from a generalised move view: Whenever you take significant time away from the case, roll +intuition. 10+ something happens that makes clear something you didn't know before. 7-9 you couldn't stop thinking about some piece of evidence. If there's nothing more to Know, the MC will tell you.
-
So moves for this would depend on your gimmick, right? Or maybe that's the difference between character splats and character moves. hrm.
I think I'm not really explaining myself well. I realize that the moves will change depending on the specific game we do, but I'm still at a more esoteric level here. From another thread:
Jared Sorensen said an interesting thing about investigation games.
He said that the normal approach to investigation rules is like:
"When you search a place high and low for clues, roll +observent"
or
"When you analyse a substance, roll +science"
and so on.
He said it would be interesting to make a game where the rules are like:
"When you have an unanswered question about something, and you try to find an answer, roll +investigate:
10+ The MC gives you a detailed answer to that question, in the form of clues and analysis of those clues.
7-9 The MC gives you a clue that suggests the answer to that question
On a miss, the question cannot be answered with available evidence."
Not sure that's the right format for AW though. It's more broad and genaral than a move really should be, I think. It might be better to have specific questions you can ask, like Read a Person and Read a Sitch:
When you examine a crime scene, roll +observant.
10+ hold 3
7-9: hold 1
Spend a hold while looking for clues to ask one of the following questions:
What is out of place here?
What is not what it looks like?
What happened here, exactly?
What should I be on the lookout for?
Or something.
That's more police procedural than Cthulhu, though.
See, all of those give us, the player, clues. And then we, the player, interpret them. In AW, that's fine. The questions in that game are more "Is Smith going to be able to get Ruby to marry him?" or "Can Barbie hold off the Biker gang?"
But in an investigative game, the question is "Can the PC solve the mystery?".
So in AW (and lots of other non-investigative games), it's always "I make decisions and then if I trigger an appropriate conflict, we go to the dice". But in investigative games, we roll to observe or get clues or we spend resource points to do so, a la ToC, and then we make decisions, using our player noodle, to figure out the clues our character got us through rolls or spent points.
There also what Simon suggested:
I think the question you need to answer is whether "Do the investigators figure out the mystery?" is really at stake.
Which is good. Outside of Cthulhu games, which are a bit more inevitable, it's hard to see a game where we know that the mystery is going to be solved and I'm just acting out the path to get there while dealing with personal conflicts. A House game or a CSI would seem to be that. The stakes are not "Do we solve..." but what personal conflicts are going on inbetween.
Maybe the answer is in this:
(http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/cracked-article.jpg)
-
I'd encourage you all, if you haven't, to go read what Graham has to say here (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=13924&page=1#Item_21). It's excellent.
-
Maybe I don't get it.
It seems to me Graham is saying "Just make it up! It's easy! Or don't if you'd rather not!"
Is that excellent?
-
Well, I like that, but it's still just a way to pass out info. It's a great way, sure; I'd do countdown clocks with hold moves that fill it up, each tick giving more info, something like that. But does anyone got anything for clue interpretation for investigation games? I dig the Cthulhu thing, sure, but it's a small part of the investigative genre that seems overrepresented in gaming.
It just seems that the entire point of the genre, that deductive part, happens entirely outside of the character.
Sort of a "When you [want to] make a deductive leap, roll..." sort of thing? And then the MC tells you what your character came up with? But that feels so bad. Is this a fruitful void conversation?
-
Simon: He's saying, prep a solid foundation and know your boundaries, and then improvise on them and within them as you need to provide more detail.
Player:
When you investigate a crime scene, roll+thorough.
On a 10+, you find everything there is to find. The MC will tell you what you find.
On a 7-9, you may not find everything, but you find enough to draw some conclusions. The MC will tell you what you find.
MC:
When someone investigates a crime scene, on any hit, give them the 2-4 solid pieces of evidence that you've prepped. On a 10+, though, improvise at least one additional clue or detail. If you need inspiration, think about the victim's and the perpetrator's emotional states at the time, their past interactions, their daily habits, their personal fears or failings. Be generous, more is better than less!
Chris: I'd just do it with ask-some-questions moves.
When you muse over the clues you've gathered, including getting results back from the lab and comparing notes with your assistants and analysts, roll+insightful. On a 10+, ask 4. On a 7-9, ask 3:
- Which happened first, this event or this event?
- Where was this object or person when this event happened?
- Here is how I reconstruct events. Am I missing anything?
- How did this person feel about this object, person, event or relationship?
The MC can answer any of your questions with "you can't tell the answer to that from the evidence you've found." In that case, you get to ask a replacement question for free.
-
Ah, oh, make it this instead: for any of your questions, the MC can ask you back, "how would you figure that out?" If you have an answer, hooray! The MC will give you the answer to your question. If you don't, she won't, but you get a replacement question for free.
-
Now I perversely want to name my murder-mystery-crime game HOORAY!
-
Vincent, I like that last one!
There's an interesting thing going on here which is the degree to which you want the players' skills in mystery-solving to influence the outcome of things.
I think it's fair to say that for a lot of people (me included), showing off their skills in piecing together clues, their knowledge of investigative techniques and so on is part of the fun. For these people, a game where your character doesn't figure out what's going on until the dice say you do is gonna be frustrating to them. "We all make up the solution together" is gonna be a problem for these folks too.
But on the other hand, it's exhausting for the GM to preemptively cover every thing the players might ask, or to make things up on the spot that won't paint them into a corner in terms of having a coherant story at the end. It's also incredibly painful for players to have to detail their characters' every action, and get no positive feedback.
To please these people (i.e. me), your mystery game needs to:
For the players:
- Always give them options for receiving more information
- Reward clever use of knowledge or intuition
- Provide a meaningful way for play to continue even if the mystery isn't solved
For the GM:
- Give firm instruction on what they need to know about the mystery before play starts
- Make sure what they need to know is not too detailed or lengthy
- Control the flow of information to the players so that the GM can just play characters and answer questions
-
I'm actually doing something like this for my Horror game (which I'll post up here when I've got the lion's share done).
Gathering evidence gives a special kind of hold called 'Clues', which are compiled and spent to fuel investigations.
When you gather evidence, roll +Savvy
On a 10+, you gain 3-Clues. The MC will tell you what you find.
On a 7-9, you gain 1-Clue.
On a miss, you have gathered evidence, but you can't make heads or tails of it.
This leads into players pursuing clues-- the ability to generate new scenes.
When you follow a lead, roll +Cool
On a 10+, a new piece of evidence crops up, and take a +1 forward to gathering evidence.
On a 7-9, new evidence crops up.
On a miss, you have alerted your quarry of your investigation, and they may hinder you.
Lastly, the players may finger the culprit. It works similarly to the Savvyhead's Oftener Right ability. The player comes up with a theory based on the evidence related to the case.
When you finger the culprit spend up to 3 Clues and roll +(clues spent)
On a 10+, ...
Okay, that part I have no idea.
-
Okay, here we go (there's references to some of my Horror tools, like Dread)
The Investigation Moves
When you gather evidence, tell the MC what sort of thing you're looking for and roll+savvy. If you are investigating a PC, rol l+Hx. On a 10+, you get 2-Clue +1. On a 7-9, you get 1-clue. On a miss, you have evidence, but you can't make heads or tails of it. If your Clue is +1, you get a +1 to following any leads from that clue.
When you follow a lead, you roll +cool.
On a 10+, the MC gives you a scene where new evidence crops up, and take a +1 forward to gathering evidence. On a 7-9, the MC gives you a scene where new evidence crops up. On a miss, you have a confrontation, expose your position, or alert the quarry.
When you put the pieces together, spend your Clue Holds (up to 3) and roll +(Clues spent). On a 10+, you get 3 of the following, and take 1-Dread.
On a 7-9, you get 1 and take 2-Dread
On a miss, take 3-Dread
you learn their motives
you learn their weakness or Dread Secret
you learn where they’ll be in the near future
you learn the extent of the conspiracy or power
When you cover your tracks, roll+Dark. On a 10+, you get all 3. On a 7-9, you get 1.
you misdirect their investigation
you slow their investigation down
you make them waste precious resources
If used on a PC, on a 10+ you remove 2 clues from their pool, on a 7-9, you remove 1 clue. On a miss you have a confrontation with the PC.
-
Lots of these moves are pretty cool, but I think I would be concerned about their scope in terms of the story. Lots of these moves feel like entire scenes, rather than actions a character takes within a scene. Now to be fair, that mimics the source material pretty well -- the details of scenes are kind of unimportant compared to the fact that it's a Lab Scene or a Crime Scene scene or a Suspect Shakedown or whatever -- but it also kind of feels like you could solve an entire crime doing nothing but chaining together single moves, with not a lot of story/play in-between (or even interior to the moves.) If you compare this to the scope of vanilla AW, it's a fairly dramatic contrast.
-
I actually was thinking about that. The solution is the 'to do it, do it' rule. To gather evidence the character is lifting fingerprints, or interviewing witnesses, or any of the other things detectives do. To follow a lead, the hard boiled PI may snap his fingers and realize that that no good husband of the deceased HAS to be lying, or the brilliant detective from Scotland Yard realizes that the reflection in the camera reveals where the photos were taken. It just divorces the idiom from the mechanics. I don't think it extends the rules any further than Seize by Force does, which is intentionally vague.
I'd also point out the that putting it together rules let the MC know what the character isn't aware of, and thus lets her adjust the story's pace.
I'll note that what I only have the vaguest ideas about are how to set up the fronts for mystery play. My rough, rough ideas are something like each front being a Conspiracy trying to hide something. This lets the players navigate the mystery the same way they navigate the fronts. Really, the system would hinge on how fronts are used.
-
Check out Simon's method for dealing with investigation Fronts, here:
http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=417.msg3908;topicseen#msg3908
-
I'm dealing with these issues in Monster of the Week. I haven't had time to put my thoughts into words yet, but I'll post over the weekend with how I am approaching it.
-
I'm messing around with an investigative hack at the moment too!
At the moment I'm exploring my love of no-roll moves by making it entirely diceless. I dunno if it's going to stay that way though.
-
Okay, here's how it goes in Monster of the Week. Note that the objective here is to get the hunters on the tail of the monster pretty quick.
When you try to find out more about the current mystery, by research or interviewing witnesses or whatever, roll +Sharp. On a 10+ pick two (or the same one twice). On a 7-9 pick one.
- Tell me something that has already happened.
- Tell me something about what we are hunting.
- Tell me one of the monster's weaknesses.
- Tell me something that is likely to happen.
- Tell me where the monster is headed.
- Tell me who the next target is likely to be.
- Tell me if anyone is hiding something, or something isn't quite right.
The Keeper may ask “how do you find that out?” If you don't have a good answer, choose one of the other questions instead.
On a miss, you're going to reveal some information to the monster or whoever you are talking to. The Keeper might ask you some questions, which you have to answer truthfully.
As you can see I've already taken Vincent's suggestion from further upthread and added it in, to prevent the possibility of going from "I found this bit of fur" to "the monster's lair is in the old factory" or something like that.
I initially had separate looking for evidence and interviewing people moves, but I found that they ended up looking almost identical, so folded them both into this generic investigation one.
In play, I've found it works pretty well. People naturally stick to the things that make sense to find out based on what they're doing, and as Keeper (=MC) there's usually an obvious "next thing to tell them" for each option. Monster of the Week needs the hunters to chase them down, so it's there to pace the mystery unfolding - good rolls will have things go quicker, and enable them to save more of the potential victims.
Each mystery (=session) gets set up as a one-shot Front, in effect. There's a monster, some regular people, and possibly some minion monsters, places, or afflictions, and a countdown that tells you what the monster is planning to do.
It turns out that I don't actually have any deeper thoughts on it right now, but feel free to ask if anything there needs more unpacking or explanation.
-
I like that. I really like how you embedded the game format into the rules like that. World of Secrets (the rough hack title) is built more along the Phillip Marlowe style lengthy investigation, with lots of dead ends, double crosses, and the like.
Each character is also investigating each other, thanks to replacing sex moves with Secret moves. When someone learns your Dread Secret (you killed your high school teacher, you're a mobster's son, etc.) they get power over you. It is, as the Monarch would say, a game of cat and also cat.
-
I like that. I really like how you embedded the game format into the rules like that. World of Secrets (the rough hack title) is built more along the Phillip Marlowe style lengthy investigation, with lots of dead ends, double crosses, and the like.
Each character is also investigating each other, thanks to replacing sex moves with Secret moves. When someone learns your Dread Secret (you killed your high school teacher, you're a mobster's son, etc.) they get power over you. It is, as the Monarch would say, a game of cat and also cat.
Interesting about replacing the sex moves. I wonder if that makes it too rare an occurrence though?
What if you make it "When you tell someone the truth about yourself"?
-
Oh, oh ho ho ho.. YES. That's exactly what I was looking for.