#8 - The Trouble with Sherlock

Mystery in role-playing games is almost impossible to pull off. Every time I've included a murder mystery or a puzzle with a single answer, the players always get stuck. This may seem odd to any fan of detective fiction. After all, If deduction is such a simple skill, why do intelligent players make bad conclusions? Sherlock Holmes' famous logic, is to remove the impossible answers until only one remains. That "last answer standing" is the truth. But, that has never worked for a role-playing game. Because, deduction requires a clue and previous knowledge.

The trouble with Sherlock, is that his deductions are short, easy to explain, and save the day. This arises when we realize that a deduction requires a known connection. I once read a story where Sherlock identified someone's line of work by looking at their right hand. The right hand was larger than their left, and so Sherlock said the man earned his money through labor. Sherlock concluded this because a man who works in labor would have a larger right hand. The man before Sherlock had a larger hand, and thus could be (and was) a laborer.

This is fine and all, for a story where the author can tell me something and have me believe it. But, as a person in the real world (and as a role-player) I don't know that. It isn't an established fact in my life that laborers have larger hands. I could believe it if I read it in a book, but it isn't something that I knew. I never learned before. That clue given to me in a role-playing game, would have led me to a different conclusion. I'd have gotten there, logically, because I have different previous knowledge. Players can't be expected to make a single deduction from the fact that a man has a larger right hand. It could / would mean that he is a laborer, but only if the player already knew that before. A larger could also mean that he has diabetes. A larger hand could mean he plays basketball. A larger hand could mean he types in a chair for a living.

We don't know everything, we can't. What we do know, is different from one player to the next. As players in a role-playing game we have as much influence in creating the world of fiction as the narrator. In a role-playing game with 4 players, that clue of the larger hand could lead to 4, or more, conclusions. Each player could have a guess on what it means. Each will believe that they have correctly deduced what the clue meant. They all applied the same logic, and all made a justified conclusion.

The bizarre part of that result, is that each of them will be right. The role-playing game exists only in shared imagination. Whatever the player is thinking IS the “real” answer. Telling them otherwise is unhelpful. To have a better mystery in your role-playing game, match your in game clues, with in game knowledge.

A player might suspect that detective smoke cigarettes, and that the cigarettes they found may be a clue for their slice of personal knowledge. But, it is much better if the heroes had already seen that detective smoke a cigarette. Do not think that this is heavy handed or obvious. We are carefully matching known in game facts with in game clues. If there is to be only one correct answer we need proof positive from the game itself. Relying on common sense, tropes, or guesswork will point the finger at the butler when it should have been the Gardner.

Also, say that it is proof positive. If the players make a good conclusion. They think they've identified the right suspect, please reward them with that certainty. Players have been confused before by a wild goose chase. Once I had cornered the right suspect who then tried to lay blame on another. This is believable, that the guilty party would throw off guilt, but it led the rest of us to spend 3 more hours on the case, when we had already solved it. Realistic perhaps, but not rewarding. It was punishing and frustrating.

Less is more when it comes to good mysteries in role-playing games. Try creating a handful of potential suspects and just a few clues. Center these few clues, around a larger clue. Make sure the clues are consistent with each other. For example: We have witnessed the Private Eye smoke, there are cigarettes left behind at the scene of the crime, and tobacco smell was left on the victim. These clues circle the correct suspect, even if we don't gather all of them, we have a good place to ask the right questions. If all three are found, the players should be able to cut out all the wrong answers. If the players get stuck, introduce new action, have shots ring out, to bring their attention back to clues they ignored.

With a few clue found, let the players think of creative ways to test their hypothesis. Then give them clear proof that their theory was right or wrong. Agree with your players after they've argued it among themselves, and chosen the right answer. In the end, if your mystery has only one answer, everybody should agree on the order of events.