Stepping on Up to the Investigation

This is part rant, part question, part proposition, part idle musing. Make of it what you will.

Over on anyway. Vincent had a conversation with Dave Berg about his game Delve. (link: http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=567)

 At one point, he wrote:

Do I solve the weird problems in play, or does the GM solve them in prep?

Missing children, foul odor, destroyed forest, magics at work, I'm right with you. I've got my augury and my special perception and I'm psyched; bring it on. But is it my job, as player, to discover what's going on and then decide what to do about it, or to discover what's going on, discover what to do about it, and then do it?

(bolded by me, italics Vincent's)
The former is good, the latter sucks, yeah?

So, anyway, let's say that I'm playing a game, where the core question is "Can you solve this mystery?". And my character goes about, solving it, investigating a situation. The GM is not leading me by the breadcrumb trail, he has no planned reveal, I could easily fail to figure out what's going on, the GM doesn't care either way, yada yada, all that stuff. Awesome.

But consider this: let's say that at the heart of the mystery is a murderous werewolf. During the course of the game, my character discovers this fact. He also discovers that werewolves have a deadly allergy to silver. I could have failed to discover that information, I was actively discovering stuff, not simply accepting the GM's reveals. But once I win this investigation (by my wits, luck and skill, playing the dice as hard as I can) does it really really remain any question about "what to do about it?". I fucking shoot the werewolf with a silver bullet.

Much like in a fight, if there is a best weapon+power combo, the game gets boring, because there's an obvious answer to a question. Why would I ever not pick that weapon+power combo? Why would I ever not shoot the werewolf with a silver bullet?

So consider the investigation as a conflict. The better I am at investigating, the more I learn, until the only clear solution presents itself, and I've won. Getting enough information is like taking away all the enemy's HP. Discovering that I can shoot the werewolf with a silver bullet is taking the mystery to 0, sine missione. But maybe I wasn't as good in my investigation, and I'm forced to face the werewolf without the benefit of knowing about silver and there's some compromise, not a complete victory. Or maybe I completely fail to discover the beast and it carries out its goals.

I'll break here for now. Thoughts?

I read the GNS-Big model-people's thoughts on it every now and then, but I still don't know if I catch all Ron's and the others thoughts well. For me, your thing is gamism vs narrativism. "Can the PC players solve this module if they really try?" is clearly about gamism for me. Or at least not narrativism. I think I can hardly percieve simulationist agendas. (This connects with I don't really believe, such a thing exists.)

You are talking about a different type of play than what Vincent is.  Your werewolf play can be interesting if you are interested in the challenge of beating the werewolf, you are proposing a very much gamist game.

Vincents proposition turns the play around, it's not obvious you kill the werewolf.  There may be little challenge in figuring out who the werewolf or it's weaknesses but deciding what to do about it is where play shines.  Do you try and kill the werewolf or try and cure the innocent victim?  

I read the GNS-Big model-people's thoughts on it every now and then, but I still don't know if I catch all Ron's and the others thoughts well. For me, your thing is gamism vs narrativism. "Can the PC players solve this module if they really try?" is clearly about gamism for me. Or at least not narrativism. I think I can hardly percieve simulationist agendas. (This connects with I don't really believe, such a thing exists.)

What I'm describing is a Step on Up (or Gamist) approach to the investigation itself, yes. I'm not trying to go for any sort of "versus" opposition however.

I think a Right to Dream investigation game is Trail of Cthulhu. The question in ToC is not "Can you find the clues that lead to the conclusion?" (of course you will) or "What will you do to find the clues?" but rather "How will your investigative skills lead you to the horrible conclusion that will wreck your mind?".

Call of Cthulhu is much closer to what I'm talking about or at least supports this kind of play better than ToC.

You are talking about a different type of play than what Vincent is.  Your werewolf play can be interesting if you are interested in the challenge of beating the werewolf, you are proposing a very much gamist game.

Vincents proposition turns the play around, it's not obvious you kill the werewolf.  There may be little challenge in figuring out who the werewolf or it's weaknesses but deciding what to do about it is where play shines.  Do you try and kill the werewolf or try and cure the innocent victim?  

Yep, of course. Except I'm not really interested in the challenge of beating the werewolf, like, face to face.

Using Storming the Wizard's tower as an example of a de facto Step on Up game, the large scale question is "Can you help/save the town?" (of course you can say "Screw this, I don't care about these peasants." but that's obviously not where the game is, if you do that, you're not really playing). Zooming in, the source of the trouble is a monster, so the question is really "Can you deal with the monster?".
Now, there's an investigative phase in Storming, too, namely the foundational rolls. These pretty much ensure you will get to the monster.* You can get extra info, but it's all only relevant in the scope of your ability to defeat the monster. Interrogating people, checking your childhood memories and so on might tell you what the monster's weakness is, or where it lies, which can give you an edge in battle, and that's what matters.

What I'm proposing (or questioning the possibility of) is a Step on Up game where the investigation itself is the main challenge. Finding more information does not really build up to you having an edge in the fight, but rather definitely resolving the final outcome. So instead of "there's a werewolf, what do you do about it?", it becomes "there's a mystery, what do you do about it?" and instead of "can you (save the village by) defeat(ing) the werewolf?" it becomes "can you (save the village by) unravel(ing) the mystery?".

I don't know if I'm explaining myself well.



*By comparison, the town in Dogs is similarly revealed in play. You will find out what the problem is, and the question remains how you deal with it.

Gregor: I'm with you so far.

As always, my answer to "is it possible to...?" is "maybe! The only way to know for sure is to design it."

I wouldn't get excited about the GNS-talk, though, anybody. We can take this idea on its own, as its own thing, and worry about GNS only later and only if we really want to.

I think you are explaining yourself well.  You want an investigation game where the investigation is the challenge and yeah that's possible, heck I'm sure it's been done with Call of Cthulhu by some groups I've played with.  Often it ends up shifting away from the challenge though, the gm doesnt plan for failure rather he just lets the players mull around until they do solve the puzzle and find the right clue which leads to the next step.  

What you are looking for is a game where failure is an option and it has consequence.  You just have to keep that in mind when preparing (or designing) your game and in the moment.

The only way to know for sure is to design it.

It's what I'm trying to do right now! That's why I wanted to see if I'm missing any obvious glaring flaws in the premise itself.

@Vernon: crossposted - yes, making failure not boring and not obstructive to the flow of the game is very important

Cool. If anyone has any more questions, comments, thoughts, bring them forth. Meanwhile, I'll try to get a rough draft together.

Hi Gregor,

I've been thinking about challenging investigation in RPGs for a while.  Had a Story Games thread that was partially about it a while back.

One of the best ideas I've heard is to use Zendo, a criteria-matching game based on shapes and colors.

I could go on, but I'm not sure where you're hoping to locate the challenge here.  What does my performance earn me or cost me?  (1) Each piece of a puzzle whose solution is obvious with all the pieces?  (2) Puzzle assembly info?  (3) Resources needed to implement a solution?  (4) Life or death?  (5) Some or all of the above?

Amen to Vernon's point!  When I fail to find information, for the love of god, kill me, don't force me to meander about in confusion!  (Or make me trade hit points for info or something.)

Ps,
-David

Personal anecdote.  A guy I knew always GMed 'solve the mystery' style  play with any game he ran.  He knew what was really going on, and apparently, if the characters examined the right things, asked the right questions and the players deducted the right conclusions from information thus acquired, we could solve the mystery!

It was the most tedious fucking process you could imagine.

What about if we try this?  nope.
Does this guy know anything?  nup.
Im going to look at this thing.  Its a thing.
A special thing thing?  No just a thing.

So whatever you end up doing, dont do the above, please !

Personal anecdote.  A guy I knew always GMed 'solve the mystery' style  play with any game he ran.  He knew what was really going on, and apparently, if the characters examined the right things, asked the right questions and the players deducted the right conclusions from information thus acquired, we could solve the mystery!

It was the most tedious fucking process you could imagine.

Wouldn't this be an example of the GM, possibly, having a Simulationist agenda?  It sounds like the possible tedium and frustration of trying to solve a mystery or crime in real life.

I think a Right to Dream investigation game is Trail of Cthulhu. The question in ToC is not "Can you find the clues that lead to the conclusion?" (of course you will) or "What will you do to find the clues?" but rather "How will your investigative skills lead you to the horrible conclusion that will wreck your mind?".

See, I think both CoC and ToC are ultimately about how the PLAYERS interpret their clues. CoC makes you work for the clues while ToC doesn't, but the actually nitty-gritty, solve the mystery stuff is done purely out of the character headspace, to me. And in ToC, having all the clues doesn't mean you know what's up. That "Dr House/Sherlock Holmes" AHA moment is always on the player end.

I think investigative games are already in that challenge space. I made a thread here about getting them out and pushing more toward story.

The best I was able to come up with is a more robust ToC-style clue "giving" system that uses resource points earned in personal conflicts.

Found a link for Zendo, if yer interested.

Lots of stuff to reply to! I'll be brief.

@David. I've looked at Zendo, and I'm pretty sure that's not what I'm going for. I mean, I don't know, I could be wrong in my own assumptions. But my gut is telling me no.

@stefoid. Dear gods, no. I'm definitely not doing that. That's partially why I'm iffy on zendo, too. It sounds too much like "figure out the GM's clever plot!" to me.

@Chris, exactly. ToC doesn't make you work for the clues. Which is - to me - essentially a way to make sure the players will get to the end. CoC makes you work for the clues themselves, which (I think) factors into how well prepared you will be for what awaits you. I'm interestend in zooming more on that.


Roughly, it would be like this:
*GM, your job is to prepare: something bad happening, the people and/or monsters responsible for it, a (first) effect or evidence of something bad happening.
*Players, your job is to see if you can figure out what is happening, and who is responsible.

It's not "discover what's going on and then decide what to do about it". That would be like Dogs. I'm certain to discover what's wrong with the Town in Dogs, since the GM's job is to reveal the town actively in play. In Dogs my job as a player is to decide what to do about it, not investigate the mystery.

I'm not interested in the "what do you do about it?" bit! As I pointed out above, once a mystery is resolved, it's often painfully obvious what to do about it. When you find out who the serial killer is, you don't ponder about it, you lock him up! When you know who's the werewolf, you shoot him with a silver bullet, the END. (this of course provided that I'm not interested in getting gripping fiction or thematic narrative from it, it's not Story Now)

Now, to fully ebrace a Step on Up investigation, I guess there must be the "can you" element to it. I think this is the biggest design challenge here.
David, you wrote:
"When I fail to find information, for the love of god, kill me, don't force me to meander about in confusion!  (Or make me trade hit points for info or something.)"

Yes! In a fight, it's pretty obvious when the PCs have lost (or "lost") and need to run away, back down, give up or die or whatever. "Try harder next time." How to make failure not terrible?

How do you know that the players have failed to resolve the mystery? You can't leave them flounder about in the dark, pointlessly doing stuff that has nothing to do with the mystery. When do you say "Ok, guys, I think you can't figure this out, game over?" That's the questions that need answering.

1. I think the simplest and most obvious way is to have one or more progress tracks or countdowns on the table, clicking to inevitable conclusion. CoC handles this well with its Insanity meter, of course. You go insane, insert coin. ToC, too, but I think ToC's motivation for the insanity meter is different than CoC's (intentionally or no).

2. To use Storming as an example again, if I have my character chat up the barmaid or weave baskets instead of going into the dungeon to kick the monster's ass, then I'm playing obstructively. I'm not playing where the game is. My hypothetical game would need simmilar methods of positioning and player direction to keep the characters focused on the task at hand.


(I thought I would be writing this game this month, but I'm currrently caught up in writing a Spartacus game and trying to study, so this will have to wait.)

"Progress toward inevitable conclusion" sounds good to me, but if you want to challenge the players, it might be fun to make them ration that! 

Here's an idea:
Give the players a budget of something they need to solve the mystery (scenes, die rolls, whatever) that can be spent in various ways.  Then kick your progress track forward every time they spend.  If they achieve enough with their spends, they solve it in time; if not, they don't.

Determining how spends can lead to varying degrees of progress (or even just yes/no) would be key.  The link would need to be predictable enough for the spend choice to be meaningful.

Is that too card/boardgamey?  Step On Up tends to go there for me.

So I wrote this little game sometime ago that I think tackles some of the stuff I was talking about here.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24592325/Blood%20in%20the%20Mist%20%28Beta%29.pdf

It's not a perfect example, because I was too preoccupied with other aspects of the design, but there it is.