Done and available!
The workshop addresses investigation (detective, mystery) at a deeper level than merely technique or entertainment qualities, well beyond anything I’ve presented in the past. The topics include fiction and puzzle media, the diverse functionality of what can and cannot be done, the diverse origin of backstory, the diverse distribution of knowledge, and idiomatic expression vs. genre when using a game system devoted to the latter.
The participants have received the recording and the materials, and I’ve set up a Patreon post for patrons to get their discount code.
Purchase it here (reminder: listed prices are in Swedish kronor; dollars and Euro are about one-tenth that amount)
Participants and anyone who gets the thing, please let the rumpus begin! i.e., the comments.
10 responses to “Workshop: Investigating Investigation”
We discussed a bit at the beginning on how fraught is investigation as a concept, and how people tend to flip to “puzzle solving” as a mode of non-play when they hear it (even people that potentially would be interested in actually playing). We also talked a bit at the end about how to navigate such waters and present and present the possibility of actually playing an investigation to others.
I know I keep yapping about Inquest, but in this case I think it’s very relevant. I’ve had all sorts of successes and failures with it (including my own writer reflex that I discussed here https://adeptplay.com/2024/01/31/im-a-recovering-rewriter/)
What I realized is that you can’t manage people into actually playing when they don’t want to. The best filter is knowing how to inspire people to want to play and filter out those that don’t. This is a resilient medium as long as _everyone wants to do it_.
A good way that I found (although it might have its own issues) is to put forward the premise of the game front and center, as in “what are we here to discover and change”, a question that summarizes the most important parts of category (2) which we discussed in the workshop. In case of Inquest, it’s “Why do people do terrible things?”, and highlighting that play is about how people change as a result of morbid revelations.
And the second one is just referencing past good play and the emotions and takeaways that I got from that. The fact that each person expressed a unique part of their personality and that it would have been completely different without them.
On the other hand, sidestepping the word “investigation” as much as possible. If they tell me “it’s not an investigation game” then I say “sure. then it’s a game about an investigation.”.
I’ve been surprised at how powerful that final distinction is in practice. It solves so much: “this game concerns some people trying to discover something important,” is apparently totally, 100% different from saying, “we are playing an investigation scenario.”
It seems very easy for something mysterious in a scenario to be latched onto by players as an investigation with all the baggage that implies.
I’m seeking in my mind for useful examples counter to this effect.
One was the Harnmaster game at the Happening, across two sessions. There was a body, there was a backstory, there were even really good reasons for characters to want to know who killed the guy, and there were valuable treasures which had found their way into various characters’ possession. But somehow play was about people in a tough and confusing situation, and even trying to discover information never turned play into a mystery/investigation ™.
When I was running Blade Runner it never felt like it was just about running down clues until an inevitable confrontation and I think that partially had to do with the fact that the “mystery” also came with a mandate. The characters are police officers, so, of course, there was “investigation” in the literal sense of crime scene analysis and interrogating witnesses/suspects. But that was never framed as “who done it”.
In the first scenario I ran it was “find and stop this renegade replicate that murdered a corporate VP.” In the second it was “prevent another terrorist attack”. And, of course, information just cracked open all the humanity and politics inherent in all that.
Even though there was A LOT of just running down information it was all wrapped up in power, authority and justice as most interesting stories about policing
are ultimately about.
When I posted this comment I was specifically thinking back to when I was running a lot of 5th Ed D&D at a local games café a few years back. For Halloween I had found a ravenloft / ebberron cursed train thing and thought it would be fun to borrow another GMs circus themed pre-gens and have them abducted by it. They went to sleep in their circus wagons and awoke to find they were hitched to the back of this careening ghost train.
I had figured the players / characters would interact with some of the creepy, ghostly and ghoulish passengers and crew and then try and get their circus wagons unhitched and escape. However, despite the skeletal train guards and the old lady with her knitting, who was also a ghoul inclined to try and eat them, not dropping any clues the players became more determined to find out why the circus had been kidnapped and get answers. Sadly they turned down the chance to visit the spectral ballroom carriage and instead climbed on the train roof heading for the front of the train when they decided the answers must be.
Looking back I can well imagine that I inadvertently gave lots of prompts that there was an “investigation” with an answer here. Its pretty easy to use wordings that imply this unless one is properly thinking about it, and I guess both trains and horror, thanks to CoC, push role-players that way if you don’t actively push back.
Can’t wait to dig into this.
I ran an investigative game of Blades in the Dark and it was really fun – very much inspired by True Detective and the way the show was about the monsters that flourished in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I used the game’s cases to show the world’s lore in a way that meant something to the players.
Anyway, more after I’ve listened to the content.
Hi Ron!
I’ve been meaning to write and thank you and all the other participants for the Investigating Investigation workshop you hosted a couple of months ago. I really felt like got a lot out of it. It brought clarity to a part of play that had challenged me for years. Specifically, how to include investigative play into my growing repertoire of scenarios that I feel comfortable bringing to the table to share with others when pursuing a “Story Now” purpose. The way the workshop framed the interaction between backstory authority and contingency helped dissolve boundaries I had previously seen as separating investigation off as a kind of sub-type or outlier.
I also wanted to apologize for not posting or joining the follow-up discussion on AdeptPlay. I know how much you value those conversations, and I do feel I let you down and others by not engaging or starting a thread of my own, specially given my enthusiasm on the topic.
The truth is, I wasn’t sure I had much to contribute. My overall response to the workshop was mostly a strong sense of alignment. The dynamics you elucidated reflect how I’ve started to see things myself. So I held back, not wanting to chime in just to say “I agree.” It felt redundant, and out of respect for the quality of discourse at AdeptPlay, I didn’t want to dilute it with something that felt too self-evident.
I did, however, happen share some of my thoughts and a recap of what I took from the workshop as part of this very passionate online discussion here: https://www.enworld.org/threads/gm-fiat-an-illustration.712258/post-9623856.
I hesitate to suggest anyone to click on it, mostly because I can imagine how little patience people might have for the kind of online discussions where even the basic idea of “purposes of play” is still up for debate. And to be clear, I’m not sharing it to impress anyone, or as to say, “look how a clever student I am.” It’s also possible that I might be paraphrasing Ron incorrectly, so that itself should plenty of reason just to hate that I chose to develop my own musings about these ideas in this particular way.
For better or worse, arguing and presenting a position is merely a first step in developing my understanding of a topic.
I’m sharing it, though, because it felt important to let you know that what you presented has continued to grow and evolve in my thinking. It’s helped me deepen my own understanding of particular phenomenological aspects of role-playing, and I’m very grateful for that.
I look forward to participating in more workshops if you have any planned!
I very much appreciate you posting this, and, to respond to one of your phrases, it is important to let me know. Especially the point that the workshop’s effect for you is long-term and developmental. Hot-shot feel-good workshops or courses leave everyone feeling smart, but they don’t do anything … my goal is to start or encourage a flame that grows in its own way and time.
I’ll follow up with some recommended reflection or work.
1. With respect, beware of any coursework experience in which you say to yourself, “I knew that,” or, “That aligns with my perspective,” or, “Well, of course.” In many cases this response is a bit defensive and produces a curious amnesia about not having really understood it before that point. The negative impact is, later, to be unable to express it to anyone else who doesn’t understand, as one has forgotten what it was like not to know.
2. Please review the workshop recording from about 45 minutes into Part 1 through about 4 minutes into Part 2. This is the structural-information exercise corresponding to slides 7 and 8. Consider whether you understand it, and try it again, by yourself, anew, well after the workshop participation. What do you do and conclude?