How should you run them? Should clues make or break the adventure? What happens if players fail to put clues together or miss spotting them altogether? Should clues have consequences?

>>95947662 (OP)
Their actions and choices should snowball into revelatory realizations. Treat clues like they're just indicators of what is going on, there's no need to put two and two together to figure anything out, players can or will if they do. Try to keep a proper railroad, or carrot on a stick ongoing and pace out scenarios.

>>95947683
Thanks. I think I used these tips as a guideline today when I ran the adventure in the OP. Players can get tangled in clues and many are red herrings, so there’s no need to force clues as make it or break it.

>>95947683
Mostly, although you can also tie clues/successes to victory/fail conditions. If they miss the clues, then they're going to have a combat encounter to force them back on track. Or if they find the clues, then they're going to get X magic item or save the NPC or whatever. Clues shouldn't be entirely irrelevant, but the game should have a backup to move on without them.

A lot of investigative campaigns involve subtle railroading most of the time. YOu might need to make a necessary piece of info take a different form to get to the same conclusion. Also it helps to make players feel that they solved a huge case or issue when it might have been drip fed to them instead.

>>95950861
This is trash advice. Just make the information available to players, and let them draw there own conclusions. Never railroad your players.

Google the Three Clue Rule. Make sure there are redundant sources of information. Really consider whether or not information needs to be gated behind checks or not. Read a gumshoe system game, even if you aren't going to use the system, they have very good advice about structuring a mystery/investigation scenario.

But if you're having to "subtly railroad," it means that your probably including bottlenecks in your design that are fucking things up.

>>95950894
>Make sure there are redundant sources of information.
that's just railroad with extra steps

>>95950894
>This is trash advice.
Maybe, but >>95950861 is also right. Players don't want freedom of choice. They want the illusion of it. >>95950510 is correct.

>>95950969
Correct. Whether you call it a "failsafe" that they'll definitely get or name it something differently? In the end, it's a fuckin' railroad. You make sure it can't fail.

>>95950969
>>95951061
You do not understand what the term "railroad" means. That is not what railroading is.

>>95951379
The term "railroading," in ttrpgs, is used to refer to when the GM forces the players down a specific story path.

You're welcome to define your terms if you think it means something different, but you are absolutely not, in any way, an authority on what words mean. Mister Webster's Ackshully Dictionary.

>>95951399
Making sure the players have plenty of clues to move the investigation forward isn't the same thing as
>the GM forces the players down a specific story path.
The GM forcing a predetermined story is a fucking fail state. If you need to force your players to do anything, why play at all? "You need to railroad" is always bad advice.

>>95951434
Are you failing to follow the conversation? The suggestions have been "let clues happen but have a way to get them back on track if missed." That means that the story has a predetermined outcome regardless of the player action. That's a railroad according to the common definition as I defined it here >>95951399.

It would appear your reading comprehension is failing you, somewhere along the way. That or you're suggesting "if they miss the redundant clues, then the GM eventually just says 'fuck it, game over you lose.'" Which is the exact hypothetical that the two anons (one of whom is me) were disagreeing with the post in >>95950894 as ever being an acceptable possibility.

So yeah: your reading comprehension has failed you. Or you're trying to redefine what "railroading" means.

>>95951434
bro, your >>95950894
>Make sure there are redundant sources of information.

>>95951490
>>95951514
There is a big difference between "make sure that the investigation doesn't stall," and "make sure they follow my predetermined railroad." The fact that both of you (or just you, if you are samefagging) tells me that you *only* understand """investigations""" in terms of a railroad, and I feel bad for you. You aren't actually running or playing in an investigative game, your running or playing in a railroad where you are desperately either trying to find the tracks your GM has set out, or as a gm you are constantly trying to railroad your players in an effort to get them to "your story." You don't have to do that, it's a shitty way to run a game, and I hope you can do some reading and break yourselves (or self) of these shitty habits. The Alexandrian has several articles on both how to run mystery/investigation games and what railroading means, I suggest you read them and better yourselves (or self).

>>95950894
>>95951046
That is kind of what I meant when I said you might have info take a different source. You have the same or a similar clue but in a different location. You might have to drip feed and make the situation seem tied to what the players are doing if they get way to off track. I might have worded it badly, but I mean railroad in the sense that you slightly adjust the game to kind of reach a similar outcome in the end.

>>95951546
I think you are misinterpreting what people are syaing. People are not saying the story has to be 1 to 1 of how the GM wants it to go, but a mystery game absolutely should have a set motive, crime, and perpetrator. Even how the criem was done should be pretty consistent. The nature of an investigation itself kind of limits sandbox possibilities outside of how the players acquire information and from who.

>>95951546
Just FYI, you just said you disagree with me here:
>>95951490 (You)
And that you disagree with me here:
>>95951046 (You)

I think you're failing to think it all the way through. If you simply move the evidence around and present alternative ways to get it, but it results in the same conclusion? That absolutely is just "railroading with extra steps," which is exactly what anon said here: >>95950969

You're simply in denial about what "railroading" is, anon. In your hypothetical, the investigation ends up the same way no matter what. That's a railroad. You're just failing to understand it.

>>95951601
You are trying to make a duality of sandbox and railroad, this is not a duality. What you are describing is linear game design. You can design a linear scenario without railroading. Railroading is a fail state, it is not method of game mastering.

>>95951611
Railroading is forcing specific narrative by negating player choice. Making sure the players don't stall out by giving them numerous and redundant clues isn't the game thing as negating playing choice in order to force a specific narrative. I don't know what else to tell you, either you think all investigations must be railroads, which is wrong, I'm running investigations that aren't railroads right now, or you don't understand what a railroad is.

>>95951627
>>95951648
I kind of feel this argument is going in circles. Linear game design by itself generally has traits of railroading in some capacity though. It is a set path at the end of the day. Railroading might usually used to be the most egregious examples, but linear game design generally is having multiple paths or ways to reach the desired end goal.

>>95951648
>Railroading is forcing specific narrative by negating player choice.
Exactly our point.

You are trying to redefine the term "railroad" in ttrpgs.

No: that's not what a railroad is, in ttrpgs. A railroad, in common usage in ttrpgs is (as I helpfully defined in >>95951399): when the GM forces the players down a specific story path.

You're welcome to redefine it. That's fine. That's exactly how words work. But you've redefined it away from what EVERYONE else means by "railroading." So, if anyone accepts your overhaul of the definition? Sure: you're right. But since we don't then yes: what you're describing is "a railroad with extra steps."

>>95951664
Yep. It's "I define words differently and claim to be the dictionary" day on /tg/. Again.

>>95951664
>>95951668
If you go into a dungeon, with a boss at the end/bottom level, is that a railroad?

>>95951679
>>95951668
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

>>95951704
>>95951712
A dungeon used as an example is pretty bad in this case. It already has a pretty thought out layout. You have challenges that the players can think/choose different options to solve these challenges. Likewise, an investigative campaign already has some things set in stone. I ma not sure if you are just misinterpreting what people are saying on purpose or not at this point.

The article you brought up in even make similar points. People are not invalidating players choices by having a set outcome or even having other alternative sources of clues that say the same thing or the same clue in a different location found under different circumstances. The challenges can change based on what the player chooses to get those clues or figure out the crime.

>>95947662 (OP)
On the off chance that OP is going to check back in this thread:
Ignore anyone who tells you that you need to railroad players. That's bad advice.
Read the Alexandrian's advice on running mysteries scenarios, especially the 3 clue rule, and the stuff about node based scenario structure, but those articles should link to a bunch of different articles on how to structure a mystery. His book also has the advice in a more organized structure, but the articles are free.
If you can, read a gumshoe system game. Trail of Cthulhu has good advice for scenario level structure, Night's Black Agents has good advice for campaign level structure/tackling big conspiracies, which sort of play out like a big mystery solved by solving a bunch of smaller mysteries. Both of those are by Ken Hite, I'm not sure if he's written any specific articles or done any talks specifically about his style of mystery writing but it might be worth seeing if he specifically has anything on YouTube about. He calls it "the ocean of clues," that phrase might help you track down good information.

>>95951756
So, then you don't ever need to railroad your players. What were you arguing about, then?

>>95951712
Define your terms if you want or don't anon. I don't care about blogs you link.

>>95951704
Again: Railroading is when the GM forces the players down a specific story path.

You tell me whether your hypothetical is a railroad. Is the story the same regardless of what the players do in the dungeon? If yes, then it's a railroad. If no, then it's not. If the players turned and walked away and your next sentence was "someone else killed the boss" then yes: when taken as a single unit, the story of the dungeon and what happened to the boss at the end of it is a railroad regardless of what the players did or didn't do in the dungeon.

>>95951781
>What were you arguing about, then?
Your compelte and utter failure to understand the posts you're reading.

>>95951792
>Railroading is when the GM forces the players down a specific story path.
And again, by that specific definition that you've just given, supplying the players with plenty of clues in order to make sure the investigation can keep going is not railroading.

>>95951773
Why do you keep posting about the alexandrian? The articles and the sections in books you mention are even saying the same points in some cases as the people you are criticizing. Having multiple smaller mysteries in a bigger one is good advice in some cases, but you aren't really addressing any arguments.

>>95951781
Did you misunderstand what I posted? I don't really understand your point right now either. People are saying railroading as a slight exaggeration of having a set outcome, motive, and perpetrator in this case. No matter your experience, you might have to sometimes adjust your game to make it so that what the player chooses did lead to figuring out some clues.

>>95951815
Is the end of the investigation "they catch the culprit because you just keep throwing clues at them no matter which they pick up or miss, until they get the culprit?" Because yes: that's a railroad, anon. The story is the same no matter what.

>>95951792
>Define your terms if you want or don't anon. I don't care about blogs you link.
>I am a dumb person, and I want to continue to be a dumb person, and be smug about it.

K

>>95951828
>I can't speak for myself so therefore I will call you names

k

>>95951816
>>95951823
Jfc I hate this shit that board has devolved into where the two options are "literal sandbox where the GM just lets the players do absolutely anything and never ever tells them no" and "railroad." If those are your terms, it's pointless to have a conversation because you are absolutely cooked.
Having the enemies have a lot going on in the background is not a railroad. Having a mystery is not a railroad. Having plenty of clues so the characters don't stall out isn't a railroad. Allowing the players to reach their own conclusions isn't a railroad. "You have to railroad your players" is ALWAYS bad advice, and if you're giving that advice, you either don't know what a railroad is, or you're a shitty GM.

Whatever, I'm out.

>>95951868
No one has proposed the false dichotomy you suggest in this post. Yet again: you've failed to comprehend the posts you're reading. Bye bye.

On the topic of the thread, a mystery or investigative campaign also really depends on tone or what you are going for. Is it more eldritch, noir, pulpy high-action, or something more light like scooby doo. A lot of these really influence how the game goes or what you should expect form players and the gm.

>>95951868
You are arguing with people who even agree with you on some points. No one is making the argument you just stated even. It is just a difference in how terminology is being used.

>>95951668
>(as I helpfully defined in >>95951399)
do you know what an investigation is? I think you also said something about railroad being a fail state (whatever that means?) but the fail state would be piecing evidence together incorrectly and inditing the wrong culprit.

>>95952261
to add to this, I mean >>95950969 why would the clues be redundant at all? they likely only work when paired together, or else you get the wrong guy

>>95951792
>Railroading is when the GM forces the players down a specific story path
The point being that the GM predefines the whole path, not just the end. Because the analogy is precisely that a train can't leave the tracks at any point, not just that it has a set destination.

>>95951868
I dont speak for everyone here, but is
>sandbox vs railroad
not like The Dichotomy of RPG play? I think the issue is just inherently everyone knows railroading is bad, because RPGs are the only medium where true sandbox play is a possibility. Video games only tend to railroad, so why implore that style in an RPG.

>>95952298
Depends how you break the units up, in the definition you're using. If we look at the story unit as being "do the PTs catch the culprit?" Then it's railroading if the end is that the PTs catch the culprit no matter what. If we break it up into the unit of "do the PTs find the bloody knife under the sink?" Then it's not railroading if you just put the bloody knife into the storm drain they check later.

It's entirely based on how you define the unit you're examining. If you are examining the unit as "the investigation ends up with the PCs finding out whodunnit and catching them," then what anon proposed in >>95950894, as stated by >>95950969, is just "railroad with extra steps."

If you analyze it at smaller units, where the PC can find the knife under the sink or not? Then it's no longer a railroad. Absolutely: whether or not something is a railroad 100% depends on the perspective from which you examine the question.

>>95952405
I swapped into PTs when I meant PCs because I'm thinking about work, sorry. I meant PCs.

>>95952261
What I was saying about a "fail state" is that, if you want to make it a railroad where you just keep putting clues in front of PCs until they find one that gets them to the solution, then add in a fail state or a reward if they miss them. So sure, as I talked about in >>95952405, the bloody knife turns up in the storm drain if they miss it under the sink. But put some kind of reward or punishment in, additionally, if they failed to find it under the sink. So it DOES matter if the players find and connect the clues, or not. But it DOESN'T prevent the game from moving forward, when the players fail.

>>95952427
anon, that's just a quantum ogre at that point
moving the knife like it's the only thing that matters for the players??

>>95952534
>that's just a quantum ogre at that point
Which is why other anon called that anon's suggestion "railroading with extra steps." Yes I agree with you.

>>95952601
Define railroading. Are you suggesting that even milestones are railroading? Or quests?

>>95955758
Helpfully, anon, I already did that here: >>95951792 & >>95951399

That's what most of us, and certainly I, mean when we we say "railroading."

No such thing as should.

>>95955758
>Define railroading. Are you suggesting that even milestones are railroading? Or quests?
I am the other anon, and railroading is when you move a bloody knife around because it leads to the predestined outcome you decided. There needs to be a way to peice together evidence in a way that indicates a suspect who didn't do the crime and doesn't deserve the punishment.