Heya,

So I entered this Iron Game Chef competition.  At first I read over the ingredients and the time constraints and I thought, “Nah, there’s no way I’d be able to come up with something.”  I focused first on the second set of ingredients.  Steel, Law, yeah there’s some good ideas there, but eh.  Nothing came.  I almost clicked the close button when I decided to give the first list another glance.  Committee and Glass stood out for sec.  A few minutes later Emotion joined my thinking.  About five minutes after that a game titled “The Holmes and Watson Committee” was born.  You can read a Power 19 about it HERE.  I have been furiously writing and revising it for the last three days.  Awesomely, I had a chance to playtest my game last night.  All I can say is, wow!

I based my game off the InSpectres model of letting the players drive the mystery.  Nate’s recent AP post on the game really inspired me.  I tossed in a rather complex resolution system, some color for the characters, and a few motifs and characters from the stories I got from a website and met up with my buddies.  Here’s what happened:

GM: Me
Players: Dave, Mike, and Rob.

I was hoping for at least four players.  I think that’s the best number to play this game with, but I had to take what I got on such short notice.  Dave read over my quick sketch of the rules and figured the Committee would need a doctor, so he selected the Physician Archetype.  Mike selected the ex-Clergyman Archetype, and Rob was a retired Soldier.  I was so excited to watch my friends fill in their character’s Passions, Emotions, and Abilities that I hadn’t put any thought into the initial Encounter where the GM gives the players the victim and the crime.  So when play started, I just pulled out the old “Rich guy has family heirloom stolen from a bank” thing off the top of my head.  I thought it was pretty lame, but my guys took to it right away.

During the initial question phase, they got out of the victim (Ronny Granger) that he had a rival named Richard Childress.  They then went to the bank to check out the safe where the item was taken from.  They discovered that the safe was blown open by a small explosive (hey, it’s their show.  They get to make up the clues).  Also, inside the safe the thieves left some jewelry and a deed to a plantation.  So, they were just after the family heirloom.  At this point they decide to split up.  Mike goes to Public Records to see if he can find much detail on the heirloom.  Dave goes to one of the two stores in London where a civilian can purchase explosives.  Rob decides to get in touch with his Ally to see if he’s heard anything. 

Mike spends a Case Point (the currency in this game used to discover clues) to find that the heirloom was made in the Renaissance by an ancestor of Richard Childress.  He also decides to see if there was an insurance policy on it, so he heads over to Lloyds of London to check that out.  Dave is able to get a receipt from the explosives dealer (costing him a point) with a name on it: Robert Goode (a known safe cracker).  Rob gets in touch with his Ally, Tony Two-toes, and asks him about the hit.  I was going to make him spend a point or make an Interrogation Ability Check, but all the players demanded that I participate too and make up what Tony says.  I was floored.  I never thought about the GM having any say in the case beyond the Initial Encounter.  But the more I thought about, the more I thought “Why not?”  I’m a participant just like they are.  So I have Tony tell Rob that the job was a job for higher, not some thugs just trying to make a quick buck on a valuable stolen item.  I like the fact that the GM can play too in a very limited circumstance.

Meanwhile, Mike reaches Lloyds.  He finds out (after making an Investigation Ability Check) that the insurance on the item was worth 500 pounds while the item itself was only worth 300.  This aroused everyone’s suspicions.  They all returned to 221b Baker’s Street to discuss their findings.  Mike decides to go see his Ally- his sister who works in a brothel.  Dave decides to head to an upscale tavern where Mr. Childress is known to frequent (they’re making this all up on the fly, just so you know) while Rob decides to stakeout Mr. Childress’s mansion. 

Mike’s sister tells him that someone was bragging about the heist to one of the girls in the next room.  She also says that he left in a hurry.  Mike decides to investigate the room and makes another Investigation Ability Check.  It comes up all failures.  In this game, a character always succeeds at whatever action he tries to take, but there are consequences for low results (called failures) in the resolution system.  All failures can result in some nasty consequences, in this case Mike somehow mutilates his character.  He decides that while he is looking under the bed he pokes his eye out on an open chest of safe cracking tools.   The tools are engraved with the initials RG (Robert Goode).  He returns to 221b to wait for Dave to come and fix his wound.

Dave decides that he isn’t able to find out much about Mr. Childress at that tavern.  This shocked me.  There was no reason he had to say that.  He just created his own dead end!  Amazing!  Meanwhile Rob stakes out the mansion and spends a point to see two hooded figures enter Childress’s mansion with a box about the size of the item that was taken from the safe.  He says he gets a good look at one of them, a male, but doesn’t recognize him.  He meets up with Dave at the tavern and the two head back to their office.

Dave fixes up Mike (the loss of the eye is permanent, but he relieves the wound which was a penalty to further rolls Mike would make).  They know they’re getting close to solving the case.  Their target, they decide, will be Mr. Goode.  He’s the one who actually stole it and Mr. Granger said that’s the person he wanted brought to justice.  Dave spends his last Case Point on the receipt he had from earlier.  He turns it over on the back and discovers a street address.

They all three head to the address.  (remember, this is them making everything up as they go) They see inside the small house Robert Goode with a *ahem*  working lady.  Rob says he recognizes him from Childress’s mansion and tells Dave to knock while he looks through the window.  Then he says Goode draws a pistol and starts to walk towards the door.  At this point, I add a Hazard.  Hazards are the GMs way of adding penalties to rolls made by the PCs to make the situation a bit more dangerous and higher stakes. Rob pulls his trigger first and shoots through the window at the gun Mr. Goode is carrying.  He rolls all failures.  He decides to take a mutilation and loses his right ear as Goode saw him first and shot back at him.  Mike rushes in through the back door and Dave busts down the front.  Mike uses his Subdue Foe Ability to wrestle Goode to the floor and tie his hands.  Dave grabs the woman and knocks a knife out of her hands.  Rob comes in with his handcuffs and makes sure she cannot cause any further trouble.  I spend my remaining points on Robert Goode and make him a “super-character”.  That is a character from which no clues can be garnered.  Mike decides to use his Interrogate Ability on the woman instead and she says she will testify against Robert.  She actually helped him commit the crime. 

They needed 3 pieces of evidence for Scotland Yard to arrest a villain.  Evidence is a clue that either leads to the villain’s identity and/or the method he used to commit the crime.  The woman, the receipt, and the tools from the brothel all can connect Robert Goode to the crime.  The take him and the woman to the police station and return home.

A couple days later, Mr. Granger returns and pays the PCs the agreed upon sum and the case is over.

Reflection:

Only recently have these guys started playing anything but illusionist DnD.  I mean Cutthroat was their first game to try that was what we’d call a non-traditional game.  I was shocked at how quickly they took to having narrative control over the situation.  They love illusionist DnD, they really do.  But they probably had more fun playing this game than the last 3 DnD sessions combined. 

The game worked well, but I got two pages of suggestions and clarifications from my players.  Which is great.  By the time I get this thing finished it will really be something.  I’m very pleased with how well it captured the spirit of InSpectres in that the players really did drive the action from the very beginning to the very end.  It was so nice as a GM to just sit back and react to what they did.  I did almost no planning and ended up with a great case, complete with dead ends and red herrings.  I couldn’t be happier about it.  I’ll probably make a Design post about the game soon and better explain how the game works, but I’ll be happy to answer questions here if anyone has any.

Peace,

-Troy

Good game! (But you've heard that already from my post on the power 19 thread.)

First some criminal justice ideas. You say the players needed to provide three clues for Sctoland Yard to act. Why not tie that to what is needed to prove a case in court? Means to do the crime, Motive to do it, and Opportunity to do it. I've used this in Engle Matrix Games murder mysteries for twelve years and it works great.

I'm not surprized one of your characters gave themselves a dead end. I've seen it happen. It seems to be part of what the player thinks "should happen" in a mystery story. If things go in a straight line it is just "too easy." Since all your players are working on the same side, the game doesn't have the build in competition between players to create red herrings.

I've run Sherlock Holmes Engle Matrix Games at GenCon since 1998 and found it to be a great hook to bring players in. A compare and contrast is in order.

Honoring Connan Doyles words: Neither of our games do that. Your players are not Holmes and in my games while one player is Holmes most of the players are potential suspect (though everyone can make clues Holmes finds). Simulationism ain't happenin here.

Number of players: You seek 4. I like game to have between 8 and 12. Why? Your game looks very cooperative while my game can get very competitive.

Length of play: Yours is 2 hours, mine is 2 to 3 hours.

Player control: In both game players can make up people and clues. You're doing it the dice pool method I'm doing it the matrix game argument method - end results look the same except MG arguments are more easily detached from the character. So I, as the suspect, can argue that Holmes finds a red herring to get me off.

Scenario: Looks like we both start with a short openning hook. I did one called "The Case of the Oriental Dog" that starts a lot like your off the cuff game. Key difference, I start the game with a fleshed out cast of characters, including Holmes, Watson, and a bunch of suspects. Players pick a character and read the brief character description out loud. This, along with a map of London, are in effect a relationship matrix (as is used in narrativist games) though I don't explicitely say that in the game. Players can make up new characters but often they stay with the ones provided. Since there are 20 characters and up to 12 players, it is very likely that suspicion will fall on one of the players.

End game: You end with the arrest - very true to the Holmes stories. I end with a trial. One player presents the case against, another player defends, and the remaining players form the jurry. They decide how strong the argument "They're guilty!" is. BTW even though I think in many ways I'm often interested in simulation (in a wargame sense) over story now, I think these games are very story now.

Potential for replay: When you structure games the way we both have - allowing the players to make the clues - games are highly replayable. I think I've run the "Case of the Dead Duke" ten or more times at conventions, it never comes out the same twice and is always fun.

DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS

What do you think of giving the players the option of jumping into the role of the chief suspect? The dramatic clash potential of this is great. It brings in an air of competitiveness, true, but I think your rules could handle that.

What about giving the players some props to hang their game on - at the very least a map of London (say from Cthulhu by GasLight?)

Not everyone knows Holmes literature so a short intro "Welcome to London...Here is what kind of clues need to be found to trigger and arrest" piece could help. You don't need to be specific about clues - just explain what means motive and opportunity mean.

Good luck with the project!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Sherlock Holmes Engle Matrix Games

Heya,

First some criminal justice ideas. You say the players needed to provide three clues for Sctoland Yard to act. Why not tie that to what is needed to prove a case in court? Means to do the crime, Motive to do it, and Opportunity to do it.

Length of play: Yours is 2 hours, mine is 2 to 3 hours.

BTW even though I think in many ways I'm often interested in simulation (in a wargame sense) over story now, I think these games are very story now.

What do you think of giving the players the option of jumping into the role of the chief suspect? The dramatic clash potential of this is great. It brings in an air of competitiveness, true, but I think your rules could handle that

What about giving the players some props to hang their game on - at the very least a map of London (say from Cthulhu by GasLight?)

Not everyone knows Holmes literature so a short intro "Welcome to London...Here is what kind of clues need to be found to trigger and arrest" piece could help. You don't need to be specific about clues - just explain what means motive and opportunity mean.

I bet a Dickens map of down town London would work fine. The inner city hasn't changed streets in a while. I believe Regent's park was on the outskirts of town in the 1820's but after than time the city that appears on all the maps is pretty similar. The difference is the Crystal Palace (1850? to WWII, when they got rid of it because it was so vissible to German bombers).

There are Ordinance Survey maps of London from the 1880's but I don't think they are very pretty. Maybe a tourist guide book from around 1900 would have one? Personally, I drew one up on Campaign Cartographer 2.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

Drop by my booth at Origins or GenCon and we'll share maps.