Suspect Behaviour (quite long, really; sorry about that)

[Tim Denee]

An idea for a game inspired by the antics of a certain Belgian inspector. Now that I look at it, it's kinda long for an 'idea'.

Whaddya think? This is my first post here, so be nice. Feel free to use any GNS lingo neccessary.

Suspect Behaviour

For this game you need at least four people, preferably five or six. One person is the inspector, and the rest are suspects. You are going to construct the events leading up to a crime together, working through, and creating, all the twists and turns of any good murder mystery or whodunnit.

The inspector outlines the crime, with only the bare minimum of facts. Generally, something stolen or someone dead.

E.g. Cornelius Smith was found dead in his bath-tub, killed by a blow to the head with a blunt instrument, at his country manor.

Everyone other than the inspector takes on the persona of someone who is suspected, i.e. was in the vicinity of the crime.

E.g. Monsieur Smith's butler, his wife, his daughter, an old friend staying at the mansion while in town, and the maid.

Each of the suspects writes down who they think the criminal is, and places it face down in front of them, perhaps under a book or something.

The inspector makes up and writes down three facts he has 'uncovered during his investigations', and places these face down under three mugs.

E.g. - Whoever killed Cornelius was wearing greasy gloves, and left greasy marks on the door handle. Who was wearing greasy gloves, and why were the gloves greasy?
- Monsieur Smith recently changed his will, leaving nothing to his wife and everything to his daughter.
- the butler and daughter were having a secret relationship.

Starting with anyone he chooses, the inspector begins asking questions to the suspects. He makes notes. Any conflicting statements may indicate one of the alleged is lying. At any time, even at the start, the inspector may reveal one of his facts, or he may reveal them all at the end to support his conclusion.

When the inspector knows how the crime was committed, who the criminal is, and the motive, he may declare his conclusion. This should make sense of everyone's statements while keeping in line with the three facts. Note that even if the inspector has a possible conclusion, he can keep on investigating if he doesn't think that's the whole truth.

No-one actually knows who committed the crime, or how, until the conclusion, not even the criminal (!). It is up to the suspects to weave the story as they see fit, trying to create an interesting series of events, while gently guiding the inspector towards finding the person they wrote down at the start as guilty. Note that the guilty party does not 'lose' or 'win', and suspects are welcome to guess themselves as the criminal. Note also that the inspector should not have any thoughts of his own at the start as to who the criminal is. He should go with the flow and come to a natural conclusion, using his questions and his twists to keep things cohesive. Anything the suspects say which is not in answer to a question the inspector may ignore, and he may likewise cut answers short at any point, even insisting on yes-or-no answers if he so chooses. Finally, the real object of the game is to create an interesting, complex crime. Do not place having your guess of criminal come true over a good story. The guessing thing is just a bit of spice, really.

Example of play:
Inspector: Monsieur Pluck [the butler], did you hear anything the night of murder?
Pluck: No, nothing.
Inspector: Madame Smith?[the wife]  Mademoiselle Smith?[the daughter]
Mrs Smith: Yes, I heard my husband cry out at around 11:00 pm from his office.
Miss Smith: I heard the same.
Inspector: Monsieur Gold [the guest], where were you that night?
Gold: The guest house.
Inspector: Which is located where?
Gold: Near the front gate of the property.
Inspector: Did you hear anyone leaving or entering?
Gold: Yes, I heard a car drive out at about 10:30.
Inspector: When did you hear about the murder?
Gold: Susan [the maid] came running out and told me at about 11:05. I ran straight to the manor.
Inspector: And everyone was there?
Gold: No, Mr Pluck did not arrive until about half past eleven.
Inspector: Is that so? Mr Pluck, where were you between half past ten and half past eleven?
Pluck: I drove out to the chinese take-away place in the village. I didn't tell anyone because I'm not supposed to leave the grounds when I'm on duty.

In this example, the butler would seem to have an alibi; he wasn't even on the property when the murder was committed. But the chinese take-aways would certainly cause greasy gloves... And perhaps the butler, knowing of the will, sought to knock off Mr Smith so that Miss Smith, Pluck's secret sweet-heart, would become very, very rich.

Or maybe that's all nonsense. After all, Gold didn't report hearing anyone re-enter before he left the guest house at 11:05. And why was the cry heard from the office when the body was found in the bathroom? Evidently some further questioning is needed.

As an aside, when the inspector narrates his conclusion, the way the crime actually happened, it is quite fun to have the guilty party mime out what happened as the inspector describes it, like the flashback scenes at the end of Poirot, or any other murder mystery show for that matter.

[Ferry Bazelmans]

This sounds like a lot of fun, but I think you'd have to lay down the law pretty sternly on the players if you don't want this to turn into a free-for-all, yarnspinning experience.

I'd love to see what this develops into.

By the way, what if it was a player's duty to construct his story so that others are implicated, while he has to try and wriggle out of implications put upon him. That would create a ever tightening web of lies and deceit for the Detective to navigate.

Gimme more! :smile:

Crayne

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-20 08:11, Crayne wrote:
By the way, what if it was a player's duty to construct his story so that others are implicated, while he has to try and wriggle out of implications put upon him. That would create a ever tightening web of lies and deceit for the Detective to navigate.

That's what I thought that Nomad had suggested, essentially. The players play their characters, and, of course, in the process they'll be defending themselves (as suspects are wont to do), and trying to implicate others as a form of defense.

Great concept, Nomad. I love Poirot.

Here's an idea. Rotate who is the Detective through each player. They have one hour to get through their investigation (the length of one Poirot episode). This starts with creating the setting and characters and assigning them to players as well as designing their clues. The players then write their guesses and the questioning begins. Within the hour, the Detective must finish up and determine whodunit.

After he completes his description of the events, reveal the votes. If the Detective picked the suspect with the highest votes, he gets three points. On a tie vote, the Detective wins if he guesses any of the tied suspects. Each player who wrote the name of the character that the Detective found guilty gets one point.

Rotate Detectives and do another round. After all players have been the Detective, the player with the highest total score from all rounds wins.

Optional Advanced version: The Agatha Christie style is to almost always have an obvious contender for the guilty party who almost always turns out to be a Red Herring. So, instead of trying to find the character with the most votes, the Detective is trying to find the person with the second most votes. He scores double points if he pointedly exonerates the character with the most votes, and then getts the character with the second most votes. Again, in the case of ties, any order is acceptable. Much more challenging version, and very fitting of the form, IMHO.

Just some ideas,
Mike

[hardcoremoose]

This is not at all meant to discourage Nomad's excellent idea.  I'm just saying this because, well, I read it over at Hogshead and it seemed interesting.

Sometime next year, James Wallis' Youdunnit is expected to hit the shelves.  It's a whodunnit game where everyone tries to pin the blame of a crime on everyone else, while shrugging off any allegations that come their way.

Maybe this is the next big fad in gaming!

- Moose

[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-12-23 20:32 ]

[Paul Czege]

Hey Nomad,

I wouldn't be discouraged by the Youdunnit game that Hogshead has plans to publish if I were you. They've got products on their publishing schedule that they've been developing for years. Priorities change, people flake out, shit happens. You can't possibly know whether they'll actually publish Youdunnit next year. You've got a cool idea. I think you have to trust that you have a unique vision for something and pursue it, despite that Hogshead might have a similar product on their schedule. And I think that Moose probably agrees, and if he were in the same situation I think you can guarantee that he'd pursue his project, despite what Hogshead was doing.

Paul

[hardcoremoose]

Quite right Paul!  I wouldn't have this problem if I could read French, but since I can't, and since Hogshead really likes to drag their heels on these things, I've been forced to take a different approach.  Thank God for Ron Edwards and Sorcerer & Sword.

- Moose