Hi!

I've been writing (and thinking) of a role playing game in the same spirit as Agatha Christy's novells (I.e detective novells) in a couple of days now (with a little effort, this could probably have become a 24h rpg). I think I've come up with a quite cool idea:

In the beginning, the players sit down and decides on the scenario: Setting (what time, where?), Who died, and how it happened (Strangled, shot, head and torso separated with a spade, etc).

The players are playing the suspects, and the GM are playing the Investigator, hereby called Investigator.

The players will design the characters using basic questions like "What is your name? What do you work with? How are your social status?" And the most important questions: "How are your relationship with the other player's character? How were your relationship with the murdered person?"

Note that no one knows who did it. Not even the one that truly DID do it.

The players also get two stats: suspicion, which are used by the Investigator to arrest the murder, and excuses, which
the players uses to evade the Investigators questions. The players get 5 suspicion and 10 excuses.

The Investigator's job is to ask the players questions in a traditional police-manner (what did you do last Friday? What did you have for yesterday's supper? Are my shoes tied correct?), and they should narrate from it.

In some situations, the players will lose or gain some excuse or suspicion:
* Manage to be questionized until the Investigator moves to the next player.
* Get yourself an alibi, preferably by another player.
* If your alibi turns out to be fake, you will be punished!
* Tell the Investigator that, and why, you suspect an other player.
* A player are allowed to pay a excuse to sneak out of the questioning, evading tricky questions.

So... What are those stats doing? Are they just there to be lowered and raised? No. They are there to resolve tests.

If two versions of the same event differe, the Investigator is allowed to call a Truth-test. Both sides will buy six-sided-dice with their excuses and roll 'em. The one with most dice of the highest value on the table wins, and should tell the (current) truth of what happened.

If the Investigator wants to arrest someone, the same procedure is followed. Thou, the Investigator is buying dice with the player's suspicion.

And, well, there is some extra rules about using alibis in truth-tests and arrests. But other than that, these are the rules.

So.. is this any good? The game I want to create is gameistic AND narrativistic. I know that you people here on the Forge have said that it is impossible to make, and OK. If I have to choose one I'll go with the gameistic, because then everyone will sneak around, thinking in strategic terms and stab eachothers backs: and that is exactly what I want in a narrativistic view!

So feedback...
I would like to know if you can see anything special about this game, sort of.

Is there any more situations where excuse and suspicion should be raised? Since the GM will be a very Gameistic Master, I can'tät tell him to pay the players with points when he feels like, so--even if I don't like it--I have to stake out exactly where the players should gain and loose points.

Gasten

Well... Since it have gone a couple of days now, and There isn't any reply on this thread, I wonder what I did wrong? I would really appreciate to be able to better next time.

Gasten wrote:
So.. is this any good? The game I want to create is gameistic AND narrativistic. I know that you people here on the Forge have said that it is impossible to make, and OK. If I have to choose one I'll go with the gameistic, because then everyone will sneak around, thinking in strategic terms and stab eachothers backs: and that is exactly what I want in a narrativistic view!

So feedback...
I would like to know if you can see anything special about this game, sort of.

Is there any more situations where excuse and suspicion should be raised? Since the GM will be a very Gameistic Master, I can'tät tell him to pay the players with points when he feels like, so--even if I don't like it--I have to stake out exactly where the players should gain and loose points.

What you need to do is write out specific situations that give an increase/decrease in suspicion/excuses. Think of it as a board or card game, making sure all possible "moves" (narrating an alibi, countering other people's facts etc) have a mechanical representation/effect. Then, add narrative requirements & restrictions afterwards.

Heya,

Is there some kind of limitation on how many questions the Investigator can ask or for how long he ask them?

Peace,

-Troy

Hi!
Thank you for the answers.

Special isnt what you want. Just make a good game that is fun to play.

Heya,

About that limitation of questions... There isn't any right now, but if I find that it's needed after playtesting, I would add it.

Ah! OK, I thought I wrote this in the topic: The player can spend one (or two) points of excuse to "flee" from the questioning, and the Investigator have to move on and question another player. A player can also seek out the Investigator between the questionings and try to clean his name, even more.

You've got a really killer good idea here and it would appeal to a huge audience