I need some tips for running investigatives scenarios, using 3ed mechanics... how u fellow GMs manage those things?

...last session i was trying to convert and old 2ed scenario (sing for ur supper) using the new mechanics (dices, trackers...all the new stuff) but the investigation really dragged and was kinda boring. Ok, maybe the players where a bit lazy, and they ended discouraged by the lack of ready evidences.

I must admit that S4yS is writed quite well: each location players may visit clearly state wich key-informations (clues) can be gained and how. (mainly simply roleplaying whit NPC). Clues are linked toghether, so that u could easly follow from one location to the next. What i've done was:

Made the investigation in a single ACT to run in story mode, made of several different episodes (one for each key-location)

• set up a basic progress tracker to time-track: each location-change advance it
• set up a 10 space "investigation" tracker (like An Eye for an Eye) whit a middle and a final event: this advanced each time players uncover an important clue (i've choosed 10 from the total clues avaible, since there was way more, not all directly linked to the case). The events are those described in the adventures (some ally give a vital clue at first, then return in the end to clearly state where the kidnapped girl is held prisoner)
• i've also made all the clues readly avaible whitout any (or very simple) rolls: i dont want that vital clues get skipped for plain bad luck (more or less ala "trail of Chthulu")

Now...meanwhile i was running it, i've noticed a big weak spot in this adventure and/or tracking system: there are no clues that point to where the kidnapped girl is, and this discovery is made possible only by the final event...wich is trigged by the simple fact players already have investigated all locations, only to discover they really are "clueless" and need an ally to sort this thing out!! Problem is that my players have skipped a couple locations and thus cannot see how to further advance the tracker to the final event....

what do you think about this progress-tracker system? would have you handled it in different manner? how investigations are handled in Edge of Night?

Others general problem i've encountered are:

1. Players sometimes pick interest in a totally random name or npc, one wich isn't even descripted in the adventure: what do you do? you immediately close this path, for example making this random npc unavaible to speak, or u follow the path and invent something?
2. Players sometimes skip or forgot to go to a vital location/NPC...u let this be(potetially failing in uncover the thruth) or u force them back on road? in this case how?

Thanks in advance for any suggestion! Byz!

I used to /make/ my players go through every..single..plodding..location in a scenario. Now, I've resolved that if they find the BBEG right off the bat, SO BE IT! It sounds like your session had the above issue where you felt like they needed to go through a bunch of events and clues before moving on. Now, with the location of the girls not being readily apparent, this is how you can pace the entire scene.

The progress tracker was a good idea, but if the players jump ahead in the encounter, you're stuck possibly losing an interesting encounter. In this case, I'd probably just put a delay in them 'getting there' to the kidnapped girls. If you were to run it again, you'd be better off winging-it on when you think the two extra progress-tracked encounters were to occur.

I just ran With a little help from my friends (SPOILERS). It's a stake-out and then black-ops scenario to rescue a kidnapped by being held for ransom. The PC's get hired, they observe a house to determine the number of bad guys and their habits, and then smash-n-grab for the kid. I didn't use a progress tracker, but this would have been a good time to do so. The players have 48 hours to rescue the kid and the bad guys are observed doing various things during that time..I went with the CLOCK instead of a progress tracker though. It was just easier to go by time rather than translate time to a progress tracker and back to time.

I've run it three times and all three times were different. Sometimes you just cannot predict what they're going to do:

First run (WFRP2e): Group picked off the bad guys one by one (as well as the dangerous tilean manhound), making the in-house grab a lot easier, but they were pushing the time -frame at the end.

Second run: Group got half of the bad guys to go to the party next door or run around the neighborhood (including to the prostitute's house) before going in. This was achieved by a bunch of successful rolls (WFRP2e)

Third run (WFRP3e): Group locked one guy and the dog out back and then went right in through the front door (taking out the ogre-like Paolo before he could mash them into dust) and then getting to the kid early. I also threw in a mickey-mouse-man (skaven) from a hole in the basement to make more of an ominous effect for future events.

This scenario requires that the GM ALWAYS give each of the players something to do and to encourage them to use their brains instead of focusing on the rules. Funny, after running this on two editions of the game, I realized how little difference there really is between 2e and 3e. (so there's a few more things for players to track, but that's only important if you've whiny, lazy players who feel they shouldn't have to do anything but show up and sponge off the GM's hard work

It just goes to show that you've got to keep things moving and wing it a little. The progress tracker can be limiting sometimes.

This is a good article about the three clue rule.

thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule

Basically, give the players three clues to whatever you want them to discover/conclude.

I like the Gumshoe system from Pelgrane Press (Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists) approach to investigation. Leaving aside its mechanics, its principles can apply in any system.

Figure out the "Core Clues" - these are the things that are essential to get through the bare bones of the investigation, to get from core scene/location/NPC to core scene/location/NPC. E.G. - they must realize they need to find a book in the library of Baron X, they must learn that something is happening at midnight in the woods, etc. These are the things that "gee if they miss that, nothing happens, it's fail, it's boring".

Core Clues should come out automatically - you can still roleplay - the character with Education trained is the one who gets the first one for example, and you should distribute among PC's who gets each to give each Player spotlight time and show "yes, your PC having that racial feature, skill, action matters" - but you do not risk a roll failing.

You use rolls to get more info or affect outcomes (do you get the book quickly, do you realize it's pages are poisoned or not, do you attract attention while doing so etc.), this can include geting more out of a Core Clue, finding out "Bonus Information" that helps you succeed, avoids risks, learns the safter way etc.

Other " clues" (which can be things NPC's tell you, how they act, facts deduced from scenes, locations, etc.) come through roleplaying and use of skills etc. and when designing adventure you should distribute the clues around the PC's useful abilities so that each Player is useful as they find clues revealed by things each is good at (if some clues make wizard shine because they require magical sight and Education others make the wood elf shine because only someone raised in woods with Observation would find them).

Yeah i've tried to put gumshoe's principles to work: how would you apply them in 3ed? i can assume that if a player put his characther in the right place and clearly states he wish to use one of his pc's skill/talents/specialization/whatever, he automatically get a clue if the ability was pertinent...for example, one of my PC have "detect lies" specialization: when he ask me to use this ability on a NPC i always tell him the thruth, no matter how many success on the roll. But often the player forget to ask for this....you would suggest something like "who have X ability?" or not?

The "three clues principle" is genial...i only wish ever adventure-writer knew it before starting to work...'cos in S4YS it doesn't seems implemented! Still the article have great suggestion for GMing. Thanks for sharing the link!

I wish somehow we can arrive to define some general or brader rules to assembly an investigative progress tracker...for example how long it should be...i've tried to make it as long as the number of key-clues, but maybe it could be better to make it shorter, to ensure to come at the final event/revelation (wich is also the transition trigger to the next act) sooner, or without asking the players to go throught each scene. I think i've also made the mistake to not add another token for the bad guys...

For using the principles in Warhammer 3rd, pretty much as you say, any use of skill gets the core clue the roll determines what happens around/in addition.

For the issue of "Player neglected to ask", this is tricky as it can range from "they never bothered looking in the other room, where they would have seen the bloody cult sign on the wall" (roleplaying actions that to GM seemed obvious - "open the other door!", chat up the locals etc.) to "they never tried magical sight which would have told them dark magic afoot" (specific skill uses in a scene).

A practical example of a roleplaying one, is that in my verson of Eye for an Eye (which has investigative components in it), the heroes stay overnight at a small village on way to manor, it's the closest village and several of the manor staff are from it thus some "rumours" are available including one that should make sure they want to poke around in the Study. The heroes script zero interaction with the locals (we are put in the hay barn, great, we go to bed but set a watch) and so get none of this information. Yes that was a bit "oblivious" of them but looking back, I should have scripted how there's a nice open air peasant tavern with locals chatting away merrily and buxum serving maids, a couple of woodsmen (hopefully that would have been enough of a lead in).

For the "skill use that they're not using" (education, folklore etc.) I'm not sure best way to handle it. There probably is no one best way, one way is to suggest that these sorts of things are always quasi running, "Hans, something tugs at memory, or Hans, something nibbles at the edge of your sight" - let making the roll be their choice (since any roll that's not a Simple check can have downsides).

Rob

Fineshed S4uS now, after 3 session and man...it was so disastrous!!!

Since i always deem a loss having to skip funny encounters due to players failure in catching the bad guys i'm now starting to think to build my investigation whit just a single possible outcome: success(well, partial at least!)

As for 3ed rules i think that after all the progress tracker for investigation(as described in aE4aE) work well enough, whitout the need of an extra tracker to keep track of time: this last one was maybe the biggest problem in my run, as i think now that the pace of events must follow the pace of adventurers, otherwise the chances of failure will be too much...what can i say?sometimes is easy to get overwhelmed by 3ed accessory!

Well at least i've learned something usefull to run an investigation:

1. give clues for free ala trail of chtulhu work really well
2. is better to prepare a very clear summary chart of avaible clues, and follow the "three clue rule"!

I ran Sing For You Supper converted to 3e for two players a little while back. Having run it, I have to say it's a very easily breakable scenario. I was lucky to play it with two players who like to work towards making the story progress and don't mind being led a bit by the nose.

Here's my main points of critique:

The scenario is written like a string of clues that lead to the end. Any break in the string of clues lead the characters hanging with no instruction on how to get them back on track.

*spoiler*

Sometimes the scenario mentions clues in locations, but doesn't say how characters are supposed to naturally find them. For example, having the characters talk to Carla Lindt and making her spill the beans about everything. It seems a bit forced.

Sometimes the clues are very easily missable. The wors example of this is that the characters need to go to the Town Hall to get some important clues, but the only thing in the scenario that might point the characters in that direction is one random comment from one of the nobles about there being a clerk at the party. I honestly missed it myself when preparing the adventure and sat there going "Wait... how the heck are the players supposed to get the idea to visit the town hall?"

The scenario is written as a set story where characters go there, learn this, then go there, learn that, then over there and learn that. MOst noticably, the three butcher shops. The characters are supposed to go to the first shop first because that's the one they're told about, but it's completely improbable that the owner of all three shops doesn't know where they are. So what if they ask him where all three shops are at the start of the adventure and then go to another one first? Or what if they ask the second shop owner about the robberies they think happened in the third shop but really happened in the second shop?

Sing For You Supper is really a completely "on rails" type of scenario. It just gives the appearance of being an investigative scenario. Heck, it's not even like the characters solve the mystery. They get the solution from the street urchins who just suddenly pop up and go "Oh by the way, this guy did it and there's the missing daughter."

The scenario has a cool concept, but if I was to run it again I'd re-work it completely and make it more free-flow with each location being designed to be visited at any time and containing several clues that lead to other clues.

I experienced problems trying to change this into a 3e scenario because it's so strict in structure. If I was re-writing it properly I'd introduce a progress tracker for the investigation. I'd also introduce several oppertunities for the characters to eat sausages. Then when they discover that the sausages might be tainted, give them some corruption and stress.

valvorik said:

I'm in two minds about this... It might depend on your players whether or not this sort of thing would annoy them, but you could always spend some fortune points from the party pool, on the players' behalf to 'hint' at one of the players.

Eg. The party has chatted with the butler, is waiting for the master to arrive and decides not to have a quick peak behind the other (unlocked) door.

the GM, realising that this is the only chance the PCs will get to see the cult sign before it's washed off, and that it's vital to the plot that they see it, takes a fortune point or two from the pool very slowly and deliberately, and says to the group (or possibly to one player) "it sure is quiet in this almost deserted house, and you guess it will take a while for the master to walk all the way from his personal quarters... you sure would have time to have a look around the room while you're waiting... perhaps even take a sneak-peak behind that other door... if you were so inclined..."

Players, now grinning, speak up: 'You know what? I think I'll go and wait by the door the servant left by to keep watch. How about one of you others have a look around, see if that door is unlocked, perhaps.'

As long as you don't do this too often, I've played in games where the Storyteller/GM has dropped hints to the players that have been greatly appreciated by all concerned.

I would suggest that the trackers are there for an aid to the GM. If you're finding it too hard to shoe-horn them into your session, leave them out - they're clearly not doing what they should be...