I've been thinking about trying a quest similar to pic related for my gaming group sometime. Either where they have to defend some NPC by looking at facts and finding inconsistencies in someone's abili or having them be more like a detective. What do you think? What would be a good way to run this?
>>47238020
Well, I can tell you it'd take considerable planning and writing on your part. Coming up with a good murder mystery is no small feat, and coming up with one involving over-the-top characters like in Ace Attorney is an even bigger one.
That said, if you did it right, I could see it being pretty fun. You wouldn't need much in the way of stats or anything, so long as it was all based on logic and dialogue like the games. So long as everyone has a well-defined character, and you provide them with well-defined NPCs and present the clues in a deliberate, logical fashion, the game should all but run itself.
>>47238020
Just play Sea Dracula.
>>47238233
>>47238020
>Coming up with a good murder mystery is no small feat,
Which is why you use one which is already created. Thats what they did with the big Lebowski. I'd use one of the Humphry Bogart ones, or maybe the ones from a foreign program, like Montalbano.
>>47238020
It's a completely and utterly awful idea. Selecting the right piece of evidence to progress the puzzle is terrible because everyone will see things differently. You can have the best explanation in the world but if you did not use the item the GM wanted, well, sucks to be you. Then nobody's happy.
>>47238380
That's why you write in a few Schrodinger's Fork: have multiple outcomes in mind, and only bring out the answer which the players pick. Ya gotta be good at improv.
>>47238380
Here's the trick I've used for situations like these.
When the clue isn't what you expected but the player gives a solid argument to justify their theory, try and change any clues or outcomes the PCs haven't found out about to help fit what the PCs think happened. They've laid out a logical sequence of events to support their case, which makes them feel clever, and you keep the story within bounds.
Basically, >>47238456
Otherwise, have the prosecution come up with a good argument as to why the defense is wrong, possibly forcing his/her hand to the existence of a clue that can be used by the defense, or clarifying the situation in a way that helps the players figure out what questions they should really be asking themselves.
>>47238020
I would recommend first off that you have a plan for both PC failure and PC success.
I'm not a fan of "Schrodinger's Fork" style GMing like in >>47238456 because it sort of runs counter to the idea of having a murder mystery with a culprit in the first place, and it's very easy to kill any sense of consistency in the mystery.
There's nothing wrong with thinking ahead and having multiple possible outcomes and degrees of success though - the PCs might not catch the killer, finger the wrong suspect, so on and so forth - being prepared for that is solid.
>>47238574
As others have noted, don't make any piece of evidence hinge completely on die rolls, and don't make any single piece of evidence super key to the investigation.
Skill checks and die rolls to discover evidence should, if used at all, simply improve the quality of information, rather than the existence of information.
For example, you shouldn't need a skill check to discover something key like a dead body, and a general idea of "this guy was killed recently" vs. "this guy is dead and rotting" - anything that is apparent on casual observation.
Instead, skill checks should only be called to reveal something available with only expert knowledge, like "The person has been dead for 6 hours). Try not to make this information completely dependent on die rolls either - perhaps there are other clues that may indicate the time of death.
A good rule of thumb is to expect your players to discover at most only 30% of the breadcrumbs you lay out for them, so be liberal with clues.
>>47238574
>it's very easy to kill any sense of consistency in the mystery.
Oftentimes there is a point in the narrative where the clues point to multiple parties. The trick often just boils down to deciding who's the red herring and who isn't.
![2-lpnwn2_ch041_002[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Byw1dMB.jpg "2-lpnwn2_ch041_002[1].jpg")
>>47238020
Neverwinter Nights 2 had a very good investigation/trial plot, involving the PC getting framed for massacring a village. It worked on an invisible score system where gathering evidence, securing positive witnesses and choosing the right dialogue options gave you points, while failing to disprove bad witnesses and not meeting the opposing lawyer's challenges deducted them. It had a TON of variables, and at the end the jury would give a verdict based on the score.
>>47238020
Bumping because also curious about this
