Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Eric Provost, October 15, 2004, 01:54:27 PM
Quote from: M. J. YoungThe first thing that's not been discussed is the critical question: why do the players' characters care about the answer to this mystery? There's been an assumption from the beginning that "this is what they do"; but why do they do it?
QuoteChris has several times suggested that you kill the character the players have come to suspect if it's the wrong character; that can work, but it faces a second set of complications. Why did the killer kill the person on whom suspicion has fallen? It's much more common for the second death to be someone who knows something but hasn't told anyone yet--whether because they were thinking of blackmailing the killer or because they haven't yet realized what it means.
QuoteAnother technique that works fairly well is the limited suspects approach.
QuoteYou should also distinguish in your mind the whodunnit from the howtogettem.
QuoteIn creating the mystery, you must work backwards from what actually happened to what clues will exist because of it; then you have to make them available to your detectives beginning with the most evident clues and working in to those which can be found with a bit of digging.
QuoteAlso, this discussion seems fixated on the murder mystery.
Quote from: clehrichMy point was simply that you shouldn't usually let the players get from stage 4 to stage 5, i.e. from the end of whodunnit to howtogettem as it were, unless they are correct about whodunnit.
Quote from: Technocrat13Or perhaps it's just that I'm imagining that, giving advice to a GM that reads "If the players are ready to make a move on the wrong suspect, then make sure to throw something in the way to show them that they're wrong." would lead to some railroady, less than satisfying play. I mean, [..]It may not fit into the classic model as well, but I think I'd prefer that the detectives have a chance to fail.