The core structure of a mystery is not the absence of knowledge (as one might first assume), it is the acquisition of knowledge: It’s the detective finding the murder weapon. It’s the sleuth following the werewolf’s footprints. It’s the kid on the bike spotting the guys in Hawaiian shirts loading packages into an unmarked van.
So if that’s the case, why is the failure to find a clue so vital for a rich and engaging mystery scenario?
This can actually be a controversial statement, so let’s back up for a moment. If you go poking around the RPG meme-sphere, you’ll find all kinds of advice telling you that allowing the PCs to fail to find a clue in a mystery scenario is a sin somewhere on par with murdering a nun.
Much, but not all, of this advice is the result of running fragile scenarios in which Clue A leads to Clue B leads to Clue C in a breadcrumb trail that completely collapses the moment a single clue is missed. This isn’t good either, of course, and techniques like the Three Clue Rule can be used to build more robust scenarios where missing a clue doesn’t become apocalyptic.
Far more important than simply being able to miss a clue, however, is for the investigators to go looking for a clue and not find it because it doesn’t exist.
You can think of this a little bit like the scientific method: As the PCs investigate a mystery, they will form hypotheses and will then test those hypotheses to see if they’re true. (“If it’s a werewolf, then the attacks will only have happened during the full moon.” or “If the murderer came in through the window, then they would have left tracks in the mud outside.”) Null results are an essential part of that problem-solving process because it allows the PCs to discard false conclusions and refine their hypotheses (which can, of course, be tested through further investigation).
You can experience analogous problem-solving when working on a crossword puzzle, for example. Your read a clue, reach a conclusion about what the word might be, and then test it against the grid. If it doesn’t work, then you have to think about other possible solutions; or combine the clue with other information (e.g., letters crossing the answer) to figure out the answer. Sometimes you’ll think you have the right answer, but then later discover (due to crossing clues) that you were wrong.
You may have encountered techniques like these:
- Improvising a clue so that the PCs find a clue, no matter what method of investigation they used.
- Altering the solution of the mystery to match whatever theory the players come up with.
- Auto-finding all clues (so that the players can have complete surety that they didn’t miss anything).
These all remove texture from a mystery scenario by damaging or completely removing the feedback between creating and testing hypotheses: It can be a pleasant pastime to fill in a crossword grid with words you choose at random, but it’s not actually the same thing as solving a crossword puzzle.
It should be noted that these techniques can be quite popular, however, so I have no doubt that many hackles have been raised reading this.
So, to be clear, these are not intrinsically bad techniques, per se. In fact, they are often successful in redressing the problem they’re designed to solve, and it’s far better to have, for example, a shallow scenario than a broken one. It’s also quite possible for these techniques to be moderated or modified to good effect. For example, Brindlewood Bay is a storytelling game designed entirely around the players inventing the solution to the murder, succeeding because (a) it explicitly replaces the joy of solving mysteries with the thrill of creating them and (b) it mechanically enforces null results in the form of failed theories, forcing the players to create anew. Similarly, permissive clue-finding is a form of improvising clues, but with the important proviso that you’re doing so in a way consistent with the solution.
To return to the point: You don’t need to choose between shallow mysteries and broken ones. There are methods for creating robust mysteries that will preserve and even enrich the depth of the scenario.
Next: Returning to the Scene of the Crime
RUNNING MYSTERIES
The Null Result
Returning to the Scene of the Crime
Enigma
The Two Types of Leads
Hints
Proactive Nodes
Background Revelations
Good mysteries are really hard to run because the GM needs to be a bit adversarial in the social space between the real humans at the table. Gotta have a good poker face.
As AngryGM said in a recent post, “Show, don’t tell, slow down, and give them a chance to get the wrong impression.” He wasn’t speaking about mysteries specifically, but the advice seems applicable.
It can feel awkward to know the answer, know the players have come to wrong conclusions, and then just keep playing!