Games that revolve around a mystery for which investigation is required and clues discovered may take some thought to make them work well solo. The problem with a mystery / investigation is that for a clue to point to the mystery’s solution, we are starting from an effect and working our way back, not to possible causes, but to the one and only particular cause of that instance of the effect.
Clues must present a logical and coherent picture (real or imagined) when examined, if players are to have any hope of solving the mystery. Worse still, as seen in social games with poorly designed scenarios, the correct interpretation of the clues hinges on one particular clue, which the players might not find. It is no wonder that there is often an element of railroading in social investigation games, as a result.
When reliant upon randomization for story elements, or subject to it, if that is your position, then that logic and coherency must either be imposed by the solo gamer and thus surprise and sense of discovery limited as the player tries to direct the results of random generators and sets up scenes that point to a particular solution, or ignored, which potentially results in a frustrating investigation of a mystery that remains unsolved.
If one simply accepts that some mysteries will go unsolved, then there is no problem, but for those who cannot, or for RPGs which base character changes on such success or failure, that may not be an option. For those games, some of the following might work, but I will admit to having little experience with them, as I subscribe to the idea that not all mysteries can be solved:
- Expand your role as the GM. Determine several possible solutions to the mystery, decide which is most logical. As the player, explore that possibility first - if the results point to this being the answer then there you go. If not, look at the remaining solutions, and explore the next most logical, etc.
- Decide IN ADVANCE what the resolution to the mystery is. Create a pack of cards - each containing a clue - for each scene, draw a card to see which clue you stand to gain and play out a scene around it. I think, to add to the challenge, make the possibility of losing the clue part of the scene - and if you don't collect enough clues, you can't succeed. When you have all (or whatever number you require) of the cards, you have solved the mystery and can play out the resolution. If you don't get enough, then you fail.
- As an alternative, you have all of the clues up front, your goal is to play to determine how those clues add up, and determining what they mean. The game is about finding coherency among possibly unrelated elements.
There is a bright light, so to speak, if one disregards a logical coherency of the clues and that clues must point to their cause. Lovecraftian style games, where the protagonist hopes merely to escape with their wits intact, let alone actually solve the mystery presented, benefit from this potential lack of coherency. Tenuous connections between clues spur the investigation while driving the protagonist closer to things that should be best left alone. Typically, in Lovecraft at least, the unexplained remains so to the end.
Here is what I did in Trail of Cthulhu game I played - Player starts with making several starting hypothesis (or not even starting, new ones can be created during the game), and then roll D100. This way the player will find out how valid was the hypothesis: 1-10 weak, 11-20 low, 21-40 below average, 41-60 average, 61-70 above average, 71-80 High, 81-90 exceptional, 91-00 Incredible). Ability received in this way player uses for test against task difficulty to see how successful he was. Each clue discovered during the game that speaks in favor of the hypothesis adds 5 to 10 (based on the clue value) to the roll. Also, every clue against the hypothesis removes 5 to 10 from the roll.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting idea. Clearly it's the player, with Cthulhu mythos knowledge, who makes that kind of guess. THe challenge I'd see would be figuring out a starting situation without giving too much away—maybe just a simple, "There's a mysterious dead body," and leave the rest to be filled in by the oracle of one's choice?
DeleteNice idea here, Aleksandar. This is very nearly what I was looking for. By setting up initial odd circumstances, my character can make a guess as to what is really going on.
DeleteI think I'll try a variant of your method and, instead of rolling d100, I'll assign any initial hypothesis a confidence score of d20+20. This starts me between 20-40. If I just rolled a straight d100 and ended up with an 86, for example, I would miss out on a good chunk of mystery play since I would know my idea was almost spot on. This variant should give me a starting spot which reflects that I don't have all the information just yet (and that my first hypothesis is bound to be rubbish, anyway).
Using random tables for clues (as in Covetous Poet's book, for example), I can determine whether a particular clue (once properly analyzed with skillchecks) fits my hypothesis, as you mentioned. If a clue matches my hypothesis, it adds 2d6 to my confidence score (some clues are more valuable than others, as you mentioned). If a clue does not match my hypothesis it reduces my confidence score by 2d6 (as some clues are red herrings).
If my hypothesis is ever flatly denied by a clue (as in, the killer is most definitely female when I had suspected a male character), or if my confidence score ever dips below 20, then I have to re-examine the clues and come up with a new hypothesis. The new hypothesis automatically gets reinforcing scores for every clue I've already gained (i.e. I re-roll the reinforcement score 2d6 for each).
And, as a final rule, I cannot move into the third act (as outline in Covetous Poet's book) until my confidence score reaches or exceeds 100.
That ought to be a sufficient model for a good mystery with some room for surprises. I'll probably have to tweak it. But, a big thank you to you, Aleksandar. I wouldn't have had a clue (heh) how to do this without your post here. So, by extension, thanks to you, too, John, for tackling this difficult solo roleplaying problem and starting the discussion.
Nice idea here, Aleksandar. This is very nearly what I was looking for. By setting up initial odd circumstances, my character can make a guess as to what is really going on.
DeleteI think I'll try a variant of your method and, instead of rolling d100, I'll assign any initial hypothesis a confidence score of d20+20. This starts me between 20-40. If I just rolled a straight d100 and ended up with an 86, for example, I would miss out on a good chunk of mystery play since I would know my idea was almost spot on. This variant should give me a starting spot which reflects that I don't have all the information just yet (and that my first hypothesis is bound to be rubbish, anyway).
Using random tables for clues (as in Covetous Poet's book, for example), I can determine whether a particular clue (once properly analyzed with skillchecks) fits my hypothesis, as you mentioned. If a clue matches my hypothesis, it adds 2d6 to my confidence score (some clues are more valuable than others, as you mentioned). If a clue does not match my hypothesis it reduces my confidence score by 2d6 (as some clues are red herrings).
If my hypothesis is ever flatly denied by a clue (as in, the killer is most definitely female when I had suspected a male character), or if my confidence score ever dips below 20, then I have to re-examine the clues and come up with a new hypothesis. The new hypothesis automatically gets reinforcing scores for every clue I've already gained (i.e. I re-roll the reinforcement score 2d6 for each).
And, as a final rule, I cannot move into the third act (as outline in Covetous Poet's book) until my confidence score reaches or exceeds 100.
That ought to be a sufficient model for a good mystery with some room for surprises. I'll probably have to tweak it. But, a big thank you to you, Aleksandar. I wouldn't have had a clue (heh) how to do this without your post here. So, by extension, thanks to you, too, John, for tackling this difficult solo roleplaying problem and starting the discussion.
Seems like Mythic or a similar system could be useful for this kind of game. I think Scarlet Heroes might also be able to be used, with their ""urban adventures", maybe. I guess part of it comes down to whether you're actually working out a mystery or the mechanics of one, if that makes sense? I'm thinking concrete vs abstract, I guess. A story, clues, etc., vs collect so many clue tokens by going to different locations, taking different actions, etc. You know?
ReplyDeleteIn any case this kind of adventure can be a nice change of pace from the usual dungeon delve kind of adventure where the idea is to kill monsters and amass treasure/loot.
Another type of adventure I've become interested in lately is more of a thief or scouting or other covert type of action/adventure, where the idea is to avoid conflict and killing or even getting caught. I haven't seen much of anything like that anywhere - the closest I could find among things I know is the old Covert Action pc game by Sid Meier. But I don't know of any board games or rpgs for that type of thing (although one on the horizon that I kickstarted is called Burglar Bros. A modern heist kind of game, cooperative and therefore soloable.) With all of the fantasy tropes of thieves and rogues and rangers and such you might think there would be more of what I'm describing, but I guess direct conflict with fighting and killing is easier to design. (ease of design is one reason I think we see so many zombie games, too - probably easier to design an AI for such a foe, than for a more intelligent nuanced foe.)