Its a fun discussion. Mystery systems and adventures are probably some of the hardest to design, write and gamemaster (perhaps even play).
To me, the mystery game, depending on its genre, is about characters trying to figure out a world that is bigger than themselves, and which does not revolve around them. By this I mean that there might be some things that the characters wont' understand, and that events might happen without the characterss knowledge. This breaths life and mystery into the world, it makes discovery impactful.
Discovery becomes truly meaningful when there is a chance of missing out - when missing out affects your odds of solving the mystery. If things and events only materialize when percieved by the characters, I think a better term would be "creation" - which games like Brindlewood Bay focuses on (if I understand it correctly). Mysteries, to me, is about discovery - but just as combat needs the possibility of losing to be exciting, discovery needs the possibility of missing out to be exciting. For this to happen, things must exist and events happen whether characters percieve them or not.
When collaboratively deciding where the clues lead and who is the killer, i.e. creating the story together, I think you take the mystery out of the mystery game. Not that you cannot be surprised by the each other. But something is lacking. This does not make the game better or worse, but different. I think a good comparison could be D&D and Microscope. In D&D, players often discover the world that the GM created, giving a sense of wonder and excitement, and gives a feeling of agency (should we go over the hill or into the dungeon? The choice only really matters if their nature and content differs), wheras in Microscope, we collaboratively create a quantum world where agency matters less because players are in full control of the world and its events.
When I play a mystery, I want to experience a sense of discovery, that my choices are important and that the clues represent the truth. Whether I interpret that truth correctly is part of the fun of discovery, and if I don't, it gives me the opportunity to discover my faulty conclusions and re-discover the true meaning of the clue.
There are a *lot* of badly designed mystery games, so I get the shift towards the quantum mystery.
Yeah, for the problems you mention, I basically have changed how I handle mysteries from when I originally wrote this post 4 or so years ago. It could justify its own post, but the long and short of it is that now it is not quantum in that there is a correct answer, but also I would never reveal the correct answer or confirm that they got it right to the players. Just like when a crime is "solved" in real life, the cops could be totally convinced they got the right guy but the truth is not fully ascertainable. Basically, I allow the players to feel they have the right guy even if they didn't get the right guy and also let them have doubts that they got the right guy even if they did.
Its a fun discussion. Mystery systems and adventures are probably some of the hardest to design, write and gamemaster (perhaps even play).
To me, the mystery game, depending on its genre, is about characters trying to figure out a world that is bigger than themselves, and which does not revolve around them. By this I mean that there might be some things that the characters wont' understand, and that events might happen without the characterss knowledge. This breaths life and mystery into the world, it makes discovery impactful.
Discovery becomes truly meaningful when there is a chance of missing out - when missing out affects your odds of solving the mystery. If things and events only materialize when percieved by the characters, I think a better term would be "creation" - which games like Brindlewood Bay focuses on (if I understand it correctly). Mysteries, to me, is about discovery - but just as combat needs the possibility of losing to be exciting, discovery needs the possibility of missing out to be exciting. For this to happen, things must exist and events happen whether characters percieve them or not.
When collaboratively deciding where the clues lead and who is the killer, i.e. creating the story together, I think you take the mystery out of the mystery game. Not that you cannot be surprised by the each other. But something is lacking. This does not make the game better or worse, but different. I think a good comparison could be D&D and Microscope. In D&D, players often discover the world that the GM created, giving a sense of wonder and excitement, and gives a feeling of agency (should we go over the hill or into the dungeon? The choice only really matters if their nature and content differs), wheras in Microscope, we collaboratively create a quantum world where agency matters less because players are in full control of the world and its events.
When I play a mystery, I want to experience a sense of discovery, that my choices are important and that the clues represent the truth. Whether I interpret that truth correctly is part of the fun of discovery, and if I don't, it gives me the opportunity to discover my faulty conclusions and re-discover the true meaning of the clue.
There are a *lot* of badly designed mystery games, so I get the shift towards the quantum mystery.
Yeah, for the problems you mention, I basically have changed how I handle mysteries from when I originally wrote this post 4 or so years ago. It could justify its own post, but the long and short of it is that now it is not quantum in that there is a correct answer, but also I would never reveal the correct answer or confirm that they got it right to the players. Just like when a crime is "solved" in real life, the cops could be totally convinced they got the right guy but the truth is not fully ascertainable. Basically, I allow the players to feel they have the right guy even if they didn't get the right guy and also let them have doubts that they got the right guy even if they did.
I think that's a subtle and clever trick. It also allows you to pull off a true detective season 1!