[Dirty Secrets] Resolving a Crime, or "Look! Look! I have a Grid, too!"

[GreatWolf]

We playtested Dirty Secrets again on Monday.  (Our regularly scheduled playtest on Thursday night was cancelled, due to sick children.)  In this session, we finally got around to resolving a Crime, which is probably the major system of the game that hasn't received any real testing yet.  This gives me the opportunity to elaborate on how this works.

The Crime Grid

One of the goals of Dirty Secrets is preserving the essential mystery about the key Crimes that have occurred during the course of the game.  This is an attempt to preserve the shock and surprise of reading a detective novel when the Reveal finally happens.  At first, I was keeping track of Facts which incriminated various Characters and whatnot, but then I discarded all of this in favor of a different system.

Let's face it.  The average detective novel is ridiculously convoluted, and rarely are they set up as a whodunit.  Rather, the shock of the Reveal is usually not because of the logical direction of the evidence, but rather because of the relational context in which it occurred.

To this end, I came upon the following system for Crime resolution.  At the beginning of the game, there are a certain number of Crime sheets (similar to Character sheets) available for use during the game.  One of them has to be a Murder.  In addition, there is a Crime grid set in the middle of the table.  This is either a 3x3, a 3x6, or a 6x6 grid, depending on the length of game that the players want.  At the beginning of the game, a counter is randomly placed on the Crime Grid.  After each Investigation scene, whoever won the scene's conflict gets to move the counter a certain number of spaces in a straight line, based on the intensity of the conflict.  The player then gets to write down a Character name in the space where the counter ends up.  The counter has to be moved across all empty spaces.  If this isn't possible, then the player tries to resolve a Crime.  He selects one of the available Crimes and then rolls two dice, which will give Grid coordinates.  This is where the counter ends up.  If the space is blank, the Crime goes unresolved for now, and the player writes a name in the space where the counter ended up.  Otherwise, the Character whose name is in the space is the perpetrator of the Crime.  The players then use the currently established facts to justify this outcome.

As the Grid fills up, it gets harder and harder to move the counter legally, thus forcing an eventual resolution of all Crimes in play.  Once all Crimes have been created and resolved, the game ends.

Currently, we are playing with a 6x6 Grid.  This seems to be working fairly well, although it definitely produces a "novel-length" game.  We're about five sessions into this story, and we're just finally resolving our first Crime.  The next time through, I'm definitely going to need to try with a smaller Grid and see what happens.  I'd like this game to be able to be used for a quick, pick-up game.  Five sessions isn't exactly a pick-up game (he noted dryly).

In play, it all worked out rather nicely.  The investigator (Robert George)  was breaking into the house of his client's probation officer (Courtney Jackson) to see if she had stolen his client's address book.  (This was the Crime that started everything off.)  Crystal had been angling for this scene for a while, so she had maneuvered the counter into a corner of the Grid to make it easier to trigger a Crime resolution.  She also pushed in the scene conflict, thus forcing the counter to move two spaces instead of one.  The conflict, by the way, was getting past the large German shepherd that was guarding Courtney's house.  Eventually, George was triumphant, allowing him to enter and search the house for the book.  Crystal then narrated finding the book and ended the scene.  Because of the location of the counter, Crystal was able to trigger a Crime resolution.  She selected the theft of the book and rolled.  Oddly enough, the counter landed on a space with the name "Courtney Jackson".  So, officially, by the rules of the game, Courtney had indeed stolen the book.  Otherwise, we would have had to justify how the book had ended up in Courtney's house.

Of course, we had established the importance of this address book earlier, since Robert's client (Debbie Sandberg) was a major drug dealer at one point before being caught and going to jail.  According to Debbie, Courtney is running a drug ring out of the Probation Office and wanted the contact information in Debbie's address book so that she could expand her network of contacts.  Although, now that I think about it, I wonder if it has anything to do with the large shipment of cocaine that went missing just after Debbie was thrown in jail....

Anyways, the point is that it was very easy to justify why Courtney had stolen the book.

So, at least for the first time out of the gate, the Crime Grid seems to be working.  A good thing, too, because this is the system that I've probably been the most nervous about.  It's a tricky thing to balance player authorship and GMful play on this side with a desire to create complete audience surprise on the other side.  I think that I've managed to do it, but this is a system that will need a lot of testing.


Division of Authority

In a previous thread, I said:

However, last night, I realized that I also need to be looking for the techniques that we apply during gameplay.  After all, the three of us have gamed together for quite some time, and there are a variety of techniques that we apply without really thinking about it.  If the success of the game relies, even in part, on these techniques, then I need to be sure that I know about it so that I can communicate them in the rules manuscript.  I'm not just testing the rules; I need to observe the emergent behavior that the rules produce and be able to explain to a stranger how to produce similar effects.

One major area that has turned up has to do with the division of narration authority.  Who gets the final say on what?  We had an extensive discussion about this in the wake of our last playtest.  This was really helpful, because it finally helped me put words to what I've meant the game to do.  Essentially, the game relies on a balance of two factors.

The first factor is an explicit assigning of narration authority to certain players.  The investigator player has final say over the status and actions of the investigator.  The current opposing player has final say over everything else.  However, there is a Challenge rule, which states that any narration by any player may be overridden by the unanimous consent of the other players.  In other words, if the rest of the group doesn't like what you've said, then they can veto it.  (Hat tip:  Spione and Universalis)  So, at any given time, it should be clear who has the authority to say "Yea" or "Nay".

The second factor, though, is what I am currently calling "friendly trespass".  What I mean by this is that any player should feel free to narrate anything, even if it wanders onto someone else's territory.  In fact, all narration should be almost a free-for-all of ideas and suggestions being pitched out by all players.  Of necessity, this will result in someone entering into an area that is controlled by someone else.  But that's okay; it's "friendly trespass".  Of course, it should be understood that the appropriate person can say, "No, I have a better idea" and overrule your idea.

In other words, the game plays as a free-for-all, with an explicit authority structure to fall back on when necessary.

So, for example, during the German shepherd conflict, Crystal wanted Robert to have a flashback to pitching for his Little League team when he was growing up.  This was to justify Robert's being able to hit the dog with a chunk of concrete.  This was within her authority, since she is the investigator player for our game.  However, Gabrielle and I weren't buying.  We accepted Robert's throwing the concrete; we just didn't think that Robert was enough of a team player to have been a baseball player, and we didn't think that it was really an appropriate time for a flashback anyways.  Thus, the rest of the table vetoed a portion of Crystal's narration.

This requires a functional game group, but I'm finding that it works quite well in play.


My Research Scenes Are Awful

And now, an appeal for ideas.  Dirty Secrets has several scene types to encompass several broad types of action.  One scene type is the "Research scene".  This is when the investigator goes poking around a crime scene or in records of some kind to find out some raw information.  From a structural perspective, the point is to introduce some new facts to give the investigator some direction when he is stalled out.  Here's my dilemma.  I don't want a research scene to allow for a massive data dump.  There needs to be some constraint.  On the other hand, it doesn't really make any sense to use the standard conflict system for a research scene.  Trust me; we've tried.  So I need a simple research system.

What I currently have is this:  the investigator describes the actions that he is taking to research and lays out the sort of information that he is looking for.  The opposing player then makes up 1d6 facts for the investigator, based on the investigator's narration.

This works okay, but it feels boring.  Any ideas on improving this?


What Now?

The next step is to finish the current story that we're playing through.  After that, I figure that I'll write up a basic playtest draft, both to gather my scattered thoughts and to allow others to take the game for a spin.  At that point, I'll probably solicit for some blind playtesters and do some more testing myself.

I'm feeling pretty good, actually.  The game feels like it is coming together well.

[Valamir]

This is sounding pretty cool.  When do I get to play?

I like the sound of the crime grid.  To summarize, you move the counter some number of spaces in a straight line and if it lands on (or passes?) a space with a name on it, you go to Crime Resolution.  Otherwise you add a new name to the grid?  Any rules or standards for what name goes on, or is any name the player wants?  Can a new name be invented (introducing a new character this way) or only established characters?  What about the nameless paperboy who was just color in an earlier scene...can I give him a name and add him to the grid?

When the crime is resolved does the name HAVE to be the perpetrator...or could it be an accomplice or just someone who knows who the perpetrator was?  A stray thought...if you go to Crime Resolution and then roll up a blank space, how about the player selects the name of someone who is definitely INNOCENT of that crime.  That way the Resolution is never a non event, and always resolves something.

That Grid sounds like a great way of getting the bizarre outcomes common in the detective fiction I've read.  Definitely detective-y and not mystery-y.  Sometimes the chain of connections becomes pretty convoluted with alot of layers before the final reveal.  Maybe there's a way the grid could help assemble that as well.  Stray thought #2:  what if when you trigger a Crime Resolution by passing over a non blank space the names of the people you pass over have to be tied to the resolution somehow: as dead end suspects, accomplices, witnesses, etc.  Then if the crime doesn't resolve and you wind up adding a new name to the grid...draw a line between any character passed over and the name you added to the grid.  Any future Crime Resolution that lands on either of those spaces has to then tie into any space connected by a line as well.


As to research...Stray thought #3...what if you steal a page from Sign in Stranger and have all of the players write down a bunch of words thrown in a hat.  Then when you have a research scene you have to draw a number of those words and figure out how to tie them into a lead...same as figuring out how to tie the perpetrator to the crime for Crime Resolution.  The words / phrases would have to have a suitable Noir feel, which based on your expectation of genre familiarity can be assumed.  They could either be interpreted literally or "tarot-style."

Alternatively, you could do the exact same thing as the Crime Resolution grid...only instead of writing character names on the grid you write leads and facts and clues on the grid.  Then work it just like triggering a Crime Resolution, only instead of selecting a Crime to tie a character to, you select a Character to tie the leads to.  Resolving the Crime then requires the player to incorporate the tied in leads to the Perpetrator as well.  One could even use the lines / connections idea on this grid too. 

Then you'd have TWO grids and be way cooler than Grey Ranks which only has one :-)

So the big reveal then becomes something of a puzzle where everyone tries to sort out all these connected characters and leads and shake them into something that reasonably fits with the established fiction.

Sounds like fun to me.

[GreatWolf]

This is sounding pretty cool.  When do I get to play?

Soon, my young apprentice.  Soon....

Seriously, I want to finish the current playtest run, in part so that I can get a rules draft onto paper and partly because I'm not sure that I have enough headspace for more than one game of this running at a time!  After that, I'm all for going nuts with it.

I like the sound of the crime grid.  To summarize, you move the counter some number of spaces in a straight line and if it lands on (or passes?) a space with a name on it, you go to Crime Resolution.  Otherwise you add a new name to the grid?

Correct.  The rules also state that you have to move to a blank space if you are able.  So Crime Resolution is triggered only if there are no available legal moves.

Any rules or standards for what name goes on, or is any name the player wants?  Can a new name be invented (introducing a new character this way) or only established characters?  What about the nameless paperboy who was just color in an earlier scene...can I give him a name and add him to the grid?

The name needs to be tied in some way to the contents of the preceding scene.  The group is allowed to Challenge any name that is added to the Grid, just like anything else.  You have to use an established Character...but this requires a word about Characters.

At the beginning of the game, the group establishes how many Character cards (i.e. character sheets) will be available for the game.  During a scene, any player can say, "That person is a Character".  Once you are out of Character cards...well then, you can't introduce any new Characters.  So, to answer your "nameless paperboy" question, you can't add him, unless you first make him a Character.  But, so long as there are still available Character cards, you are free to make him a Character and then add him to the Grid.

When the crime is resolved does the name HAVE to be the perpetrator...or could it be an accomplice or just someone who knows who the perpetrator was?

It has to be the perpetrator.  Now, something that I've toyed with is having certain spaces on the grid has special effects, like "Roll again for an accomplice" or "Roll again for a witness".  We're not using those rules for our current game, but they will probably be added in to make the grid a little more interesteing.

A stray thought...if you go to Crime Resolution and then roll up a blank space, how about the player selects the name of someone who is definitely INNOCENT of that crime.  That way the Resolution is never a non event, and always resolves something.

Hmm.  I'm not sure that I want to start locking characters out of a Crime, but it does seem that something should happen on a miss.  I'll have to roll this around a bit.

That Grid sounds like a great way of getting the bizarre outcomes common in the detective fiction I've read.  Definitely detective-y and not mystery-y.  Sometimes the chain of connections becomes pretty convoluted with alot of layers before the final reveal.  Maybe there's a way the grid could help assemble that as well.  Stray thought #2:  what if when you trigger a Crime Resolution by passing over a non blank space the names of the people you pass over have to be tied to the resolution somehow: as dead end suspects, accomplices, witnesses, etc.  Then if the crime doesn't resolve and you wind up adding a new name to the grid...draw a line between any character passed over and the name you added to the grid.  Any future Crime Resolution that lands on either of those spaces has to then tie into any space connected by a line as well.

At this point, I think that I'm going to rely on the players and the Investigator's Notebook to create those potential connections.  See, the investigator is responsible to write down various facts as they come up to assist the group in making these connections, and, honestly, helping the group keep track of everything that's going on.  That's the Investigator's Notebook.  If you're really cool, like our group is, then you'll use an actual 4 x 6 notebook.  Also, anyone can write down notes on the various Character cards, too.  Believe me, there's a lot of potential that gets generated from those semi-random facts.

As to research...Stray thought #3...what if you steal a page from Sign in Stranger and have all of the players write down a bunch of words thrown in a hat.  Then when you have a research scene you have to draw a number of those words and figure out how to tie them into a lead...same as figuring out how to tie the perpetrator to the crime for Crime Resolution.  The words / phrases would have to have a suitable Noir feel, which based on your expectation of genre familiarity can be assumed.  They could either be interpreted literally or "tarot-style."

This is a slick idea that I will probably steal.  I had been thinking about using a similar idea for game setup but had discarded it in favor of another system.  Using it for research is a cool idea.  Honestly, I could even include a word list with the game that you roll against.  Have to weigh the pros and cons of each approach.

Alternatively, you could do the exact same thing as the Crime Resolution grid...only instead of writing character names on the grid you write leads and facts and clues on the grid.  Then work it just like triggering a Crime Resolution, only instead of selecting a Crime to tie a character to, you select a Character to tie the leads to.  Resolving the Crime then requires the player to incorporate the tied in leads to the Perpetrator as well.  One could even use the lines / connections idea on this grid too. 

Then you'd have TWO grids and be way cooler than Grey Ranks which only has one :-)

Cooler than Grey Ranks?  No way!

Seriously though, I think that I'll stick to the free-form recording of facts for now.  Otherwise, it could be too constraining for the players.  But we're definitely on the same page.

So the big reveal then becomes something of a puzzle where everyone tries to sort out all these connected characters and leads and shake them into something that reasonably fits with the established fiction.

So far, it has been.