I'm writing a short amnesia style scenario that I intend to run with a tabletop and/or online group.  I'm torn on a certain piece of the setup, and hoping I can get some good opinions.

Briefly, the characters wake up in a hotel room with no idea of their own identity, or that of the others with them, nor how they got here.  Total amnesia.  They have no IDs.  Their clothing is splattered with dried blood, and smells like gasoline.  There is a pistol on the bedside table, and a shotgun beside the door.  The TV is playing, but the volume is too low to make out what the newcaster is saying, though there is a video playing above her shoulder that shows a large home, completely consumed by flames, with fire trucks and emergency personnel around trying to put out the blaze.  One of the characters turns up the volume to hear the newswoman talking about Senator Howell's house burning.  She says that an unnamed police source says that they suspect arson, and are interested in finding a white conversion van which was seen leaving the area shortly before the fire.

It is dark outside, and the hotel room opens up right onto a sidewalk and the parking lot.  Outside, right in front of the room, is parked a white conversion van.  Inside are a couple more pistols and a couple of empty gasoline cans.  A phone rings (either the phone in the hotel room, or a cell phone that's in one of their pockets, not sure which yet), and a voice says "There is a pair of police cars about to pull into the parking lot.  They're not here for you, but if they notice that van, they're bound to get curious.  Hurry up now.  I'll contact you again soon."

There is yelling outside, across the parking lot - sounds like a heated domestic dispute.  Two police cars pull into the parking lot, lights flashing.  Two cops emerge from the first car, and one from the second, and they make their way toward the arguing couple.

That's the opening scene.  What I'm hoping for help with is the following:  Whether or not Senator Howell's body is in the van (or in the bathtub, for that matter).  I'm agonizing over the decision because I'm not sure how it will make the players react.

Without the body, I'm inclined to think that they're likely to do their best to evade the cops, trying to figure out what's happening.  Obviously, something bizarre is going on, but they don't *really* know the extent of their trouble, etc.

With the body, it makes things way more hot for them, right away.  "Oh shit.  what do we do with the body???"    I'm afraid it might make it so hot, that some players might just want to go to the cops.

What is your opinion?  Which do you think is a better opener, with or without the body?  And why?

Thanks!

I'm not sure if this is a valid First Thoughts thread, but I'm going to post with the assumption that it is, and maybe Ron will come by and let us both know.

I think we need more context before we can decide on the specifics of the situation.  What system are you using for this? A published system, or one of your own creation?

What is your intention, as the scenario designer, for this scenario? What are you expecting play to look like?  It seems to me like you want a fairly directed story, where the situation drives the players to follow the general outline of the plot you have prepared, without feeling "railroaded" by you, the GM.  Is that correct?  I get that impression from things like the voice on the phone, giving directions, and the heavily loaded situation pointing to only one outcome.  If that's the case, I don't think it matters whether the body is there or not.  If you think that's the coolest point for them to discover the body, then that's fine.

On the other hand, it's possible your intention is "here's the situation, now do what you like." Then the body is more important, but things like the voice on the phone need to go. 

Players are extremely sensitive to even the suggestion of railroading.  As a player, I would immediately give a huge yawn as soon as we started getting directions from the telephone.  See, to the players, there's no difference between an NPC saying "guys, get in the car" and you, the GM, saying it.  Even if you have every intention of allowing the PCs complete freedom, that's not how it's going to be percieved.  So, if at all possible, ditch the dude on the phone.

If you're married to the idea of the guy on the phone, then I strongly suggest you get buy-in from the players first.  Pitch your scenario as "you're a group of amnesiacs in a tough situation, getting directions over the phone" and then, depending on which way you want the game to go, add either "the game is about the things the characters learn as they follow the instructions" or else "the game is open-ended, and you'll discover more about the characters as you try to get out of the situation".  If you're going with the second option, make sure it is genuinely possible for the characters to get out of the situation, and genuinely a viable option for them to throw the phone away and go directly to the cops.

Basically, what I'm saying is don't trust your scenario design to herd the players towards a plot you have in mind.  That never works, because players can sniff that every time.  Make sure the players know exactly what kind of game they're into before you start play.  If you don't want them to go to the cops, tell them before the game starts that going to the cops will likely mean the end of the game for that character, that it's a viable option for a player to choose, but that character's story will end at that point.

I agree that the thing seems a little railroady; a friend at a recent con told me about playing in the second amnesiac scenario of his life and finding it just like the first: horribly railroaded in a seriously uncreative way. Done right, though, this could be fun in a Phil Dick meets Robert Ludlum kind of way. I think you have to anticipate that the PCs will at some point go to the cops, and be prepared for it as something other than game over. One thing I'd do is give one of the PCs a cell phone with one number in its call list. If the PC calls the number,they get guidance per your original idea, but it's definitely not omniscient: "You're still at the motel? Jeez, I was just listening to the police scanner and they sent some cops there for a domestic! If they see the van you're cooked! Get to the safe house fast!" The point is to have the world respond to the PCs actions, so that if they don't call, and don't turn up the volume on the TV, and don't even open up the damn door, then the cops come knocking and the scenario goes to the "Downtown at Police HQ" section of the sandbox. As for whether or not you put a body in the bathtub: only do it if it makes sense in the context of the back-story that explains what happened: "Oh, we needed the chip out of the base of his skull to take back to control? Well, that makes sense now."

Thanks for the feedback.

Let me try a different take, though:

I'm running a game, and here's my Kicker.  "You and some other people wake up in a hotel room with blood on your clothes and smelling of gasoline.  You don't know who you are.  You don't know who they are.  The news channel on the TV indicates that the police are looking for a white van seen leaving the scene of a suspicious fire, and there's a white van parked in front of your hotel room.  What do you do?"

I don't want this to devolve into a discussion about railroading.  I'm aware of the hazards and pitfalls of railroading.

I'm just curious if, from a player's perspective, if having a body involved from the start, or not having a body involved, significantly changes the game.

In answer to your other questions though, the system will be World of Darkness, though I plan to use it "under the hood", no character sheets, limited dice rolling, etc.  The point of the scenario is in fact "You are a fish out of water, what do you do?" trying to get reactions and decisions from the players.  It is not a game about punching out bad guys.

You both seemed to zoom in on the guy on the phone.  I do have a plan for the game, this is not Inspectres.  While I'm prepared for the players to go totally off the map, I do have a few scenes in mind that I'd like to present to them.  Again, this is tangential to my question, though.  So, yes, the guy on the phone is meant both as a 'weird factor',  ("Who is the dude on the phone, and how/why does he know what's going on?"), and as a means for me gently help them along through the scenario.

The body has no immediate effect on play. Your choices are still run like hell or go to the cops. The meta-gaminess of the voice on the phone overwhelms its intended plot-mystery function: I doubt anyone will treat it as anything other than the view from GM-fiatville.It's poor design, in my opinion.