No investigations? II (split)
Ron Edwards:
In fact, I'm splitting it now. All the above have been pulled from No investigations?
Best, Ron
Alfryd:
Quote from: stefoid on April 02, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
How can the results of an investigation be dramatic? As in, if what is at stake is the success of an investigative activity = success means you succeed in the investigative activity and fail means you dont.
I've given this a little thought myself. I pondered the notion that if the players just figure out particular implications of a particular clue themselves, then they don't need to roll versus a skill at all. If they want to roll versus a skill, and succeed, then that eats up one extra 'unit of time' (however that's measured- in-game hours, scene allocation, doom-track-progression, etc.,) and the GM tells them at least some of the implications. If they needed to roll and failed, the GM can still tell them the implications, but it's assumed the investigator(s) needed even longer to puzzle it out, during which time it's likely/possible that some other unpleasant event has transpired. Rolling and failing doesn't necessarily mean 'dead end'- it just has to make a difference.
Ron Edwards:
We're waiting for an actual play account for crucial orientation purposes. Let's everyone hold off until it arrives.
Best, Ron
stefoid:
Hi the actual play concerning mysteries and investigations that I am familiar with is CoC which has been run like I described in the previous thread:
"Personally, this is a style of play that I dont like. Its basically the players guessing what the GM wants. Its kind of like a more involved version of 'guess the number Im thinking' Is it 4? no. Is it 17? no, but Ill give you a hint, its less than 15 and more than 2. Is it 9? no.
Yes, it isnt as random and arbitrary as that, but its still a bunch of players (not characters) trying to guess/deduce what the GM thinks the clues should mean.
No, I dont know the solution to that if someone does , please tell me. Even in games that arent supposed to be investigation games, there are often periods of play where the characters are trying to work out what is going on or why something is happening, so I think the situation is broadly relevant."
My concern is to avoid this style of play where if the payers dont (a) find the clues and/or (b) guess correctly what the clues mean, then nothing happens. The story does not advance, which is boring and frustrating, rather than dramatic and satisfying (whether you find the clue or not, something interesting happens)
stefoid:
Here is the actual play I am anticipating:
something happens that the players cant ignore, lets say in my upcoming game that the nazis are suddenly taking previously impregnable allied positions, and the PC squad is called in to such a battlefield where the allies just managed to be repulse and attack at great cost -- to find out how the nazis are doing it. Ultimately Id like this to lead to some realisation that the nazis are using supernatural forces to aid their war effort, such as using reanimated soldiers or something, and who is behind it.
So essentially its a mystery that requires successful 'investigation'. And Im thinking of how to handle that. How to make it dramatic. OK, the use of undead soldiers will be easy to 'solve'. This corpse has been dead for 4 months!, and a few hysterical soldiers relating pumping magazines of bullets into nazis who keep advancing... pretty obvious. That can be narrated in response to PC actions, its low drama stuff.
But how to proceed from that realisation to which particular nazis are behind the reanimation? Do I continue to drop 'clue scenes' on the PCs and resolve them in a low drama fashion, as above, leading them by the nose to to the villains? where do my challenging , dramatic scenes come from when the players are involved essentially in an 'investigation' process?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page