A Taste for Murder Playtest: Milton Keynes RPG Club, 1st April, 2008
Players: Scott Dorward, James Mullen, Matt Sanderson, Neil Smith
Having finished our Cold City game prematurely, we found ourselves with a couple of weeks free for playtesting and agreed to try A Taste for Murder. Three out of the four players had read the rules, and two had been present at a previous playtest, so the game setup was quick and problem-free. The characters and relationships were as follow:
James played Diana Hopworth, the matriarch of the family, a widow and a devout spiritualist.
Neil played her son, Gerald Hopworth, an avaricious ne'er-do-well. His elder brother had died some years previously.
Matt played Perkins, the family butler who was also rumoured to be the widow Hopworth's lover.
Scott played the Reverend Cuthbert Pickersgill, the head of the local spiritualist church and Mrs. Hopworth's spiritual advisor.
The relationships were:
Gerald/Diana: Gerald is resentful that Diana is spending his inheritance on funding the spiritualist church.
Perkins/Diana: They are rumoured to be lovers.
Diana/Pickersgill: Diana is supporting the reverend and his church financially
Gerald/Perkins: They are clashing over future plans for the development of the estate.
Perkins/Pickersgill: Perkins is devout Church of England and hates Pickersgill for being a "heathen".
Gerald/Pickersgill: Gerald blames the reverend for the death of his brother.
This initial situation helped create a gratifyingly coherent and satisfying story from the word go. In the first round of action, the reverend convinced Mrs. Hopworth to change her will to leave everything to the church, which led to most of the conflict driving the rest of the game. Certainly over the next two rounds, most of the scenes were related to the potential ownership of Mrs. Hopworth's estate, Pickersgill trying to drive Gerald from the house using some phony mediumship and a battle over the disposal of a purportedly cursed idol that the late Mr. Hopworth had brought back from darkest Africa. This idol was initially passed to Pickersgill, who was charged with ridding the family of the curse (and was only too happy to once he realised how valuable the idol was), but Perkins ended up in possession of it.
At the end of the second round we drew a name randomly, and Diana was found in her bed, bludgeoned to death with the statue the following morning.
The household gathered in the drawing room, waiting for the inspector to arrive, and the knives came out immediately. It took three full rounds to uncover the murderer, as there were almost as many influence as mystery scenes, but the conflicts were brutal. We had blackmail, assault, attempted murder, slander and general backstabbing galore. Pickersgill coerced Perkins into arranging an “accident” for Gerald, to avoid any legal unpleasantness over the will, and Perkins blackmailed Pickersgill into getting 51% of the estate. Various fights erupted, leading to all three suspects being quite injured by the end of the game.
The escalation of the relationships went as follows:
Pickersgill/Diana: They were secret lovers; The relationship had started many years ago, and Mr. Hopworth had taken his own life when he discovered it.
Gerald/Diana: Gerald needed the money from the estate to pay off some debts; he had already been stealing money from his mother; the debts were due to him being blackmailed over having murdered his brother to make sure he was the sole inheritor of the estate.
Perkins/Diana: While was her lover, he was only such because she pays him for his services; in addition, he was blackmailing her; the basis of the blackmail was that Perkins is actually Gerald's father.
The denouement played out well, with Perkins being revealed as the murderer and going out fighting, taking Pickersgill with him.
Everyone reported that they enjoyed the game thoroughly. As mentioned above, the structure of play made it very easy to create a coherent story, and there was never a feeling of “What do we do next?”. The new suggestions about framing conflicts worked very well, as did the suggestion to ask the killer question while pointing at the target. We also had particular fun trying to narrate the effects of the black and white dice in.
A number of questions and comments did come up. In no particular order, they are:
- A couple of players felt that there was a bit of an inverse death-spiral going on with influence scenes. I ended up accumulating an obscene number of dice by the end of the game, mostly through luck, and it became increasingly unlikely that I'd lose a conflict. The black and white dice do mitigate this, and the probability of someone else winning never becomes negligible, but it did raise a few eyebrows.
- If a conflict in a mystery scene is unsuccessful, there is no real outcome and the result can feel a bit flat.
- What scope of narration rights does winning a conflict give you? While it decides who wins, can you use it to throw in other details? At the moment this seems to be down to consensus, which may not always work. In one case we had a disagreement because Matt narrated that Diana was pregnant when winning a scene, which James didn't like. While we sorted this out amicably, some explicit guidelines may be in order.
- Also relating to guidance, we had a situation where the agreed outcome of an influence scene was that Pickersgill convinced Perkins to arrange for Gerald to fall down a flight of stairs in order to frighten him off. The accident wasn't arranged immediately, and we ended up not having it happen, which became a bone of contention between Pickersgill and Perkins. Was this just a poor stake?
- Apologies if this in in the rules and we just missed it, but when Inspector Chapel is in a mystery scene with another character, what dice are rolled by the other character? We assumed it was their influence over the victim, but couldn't find it in the rules.
- One very minor point relating to the examples is that you suggested in the notes on the playtest at Concrete Cow that having relationships based on secrets was a bad idea, but one of the examples in the text is that Rufus is blackmailing Lady Mortimer. This probably wouldn't be common knowledge.
In all, this was a very successful session. Everyone stated an interest in playing again at some stage. If any of the other players want to step in an fill in missing details (I know I've been very brief with the story), please come and help me out!
Yes, an excellent game.
Submitted by Neil Smith on Sat, 05/04/2008 - 21:28.
Yes, an excellent game. Lots of scenery chewing, lots of dark secrets, and no incest! I particularly liked the way the wheels prompted people to putting some emotion into their playing, and the way it simulated the erratic nature of people under stress. Agreeing to 'raise the bar' about what deserved one of the wheel dice helped. Perhaps the game could include some advice along the lines of 'if anyone is unsure about whether some portrayal deserves a bonus die, it shouldn't be awarded.'
Which brings me to another comment that I realised after the game. A couple of times, there were assaults where one of the bonus dice was on 'Pain' or 'Ruin.' It wasn't at all clear whether the perpetrator or the victim should gain the die in these cases. Any suggestions?
Another issue I'd like to raise, after some reflection, is the long time needed to create the 'more sinister' bits of relationships, especially the later parts. A couple of times it took a while to come up with something that people were happy with, which broke up the flow of the game somewhat. I don't have any suggestions about what to do about it, as pre-determining the skeletons in the closets would alter the dynamics of the game a lot.
Neil.
(Apologies for any errors of spelling or syntax: it was quite a nice Chardonnay.)
When I read the rules for
Submitted by James Mullen on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 09:42.
When I read the rules for the game a couple of weeks ago, I had deep reservations: a murder mystery game without alibis, clues, red herrings and all the other paraphenalia of a typical Agatha Christie? Heresy!
Having now played the game, I have to say how very impressed I was: it's actually very liberating to focus solely on character motives. When Scott mentions the gratifyingly coherent and satisfying story, I think it is this 'motivated play' that supports & encourages it.
My biggest concern was the inverse death spiral Scott refers to, especially from the perspective of Inspector Chapel; when I started with 2 Investigation dice, seem to recall Scott had about 5 Influence dice in his relationship with Diana Hopworth. If we were playing correctly (see Scott's post above, again) then that situation makes it nearly impossible for the inspector to uncover the next layed of motivation. In addition, the relationship to the murder victim can't go down once they are dead, but it can still go up as a result of moving dice into it from other relationships. All in all, this means its easier for the other players to win Mystery scenes against each other than it is for Inspector Chapel to win against them, which doesn't feel quite right.
The two wheels with their Black & White dice were great and really encouraged us to stretch our portrayals to earn those dice. This was a very strategic move on the players' parts, though I felt a bit left out once I became the inspector. In fact, I had to spend a lot of my time sitting things out, since the Inspector can never be the Target of a scene. Whilst everyone else was getting two or more scenes per round as pro- or antagonist, I got one scene as protagonist and then one or more where I was just witnessing what was going on. All in all, it makes the inspector feel like a very marginalised character, more like a Greek chorus than a great detective. Is that the intent or should I have played him more proactively?
I would definitely play this again; it is already a very strong game and had lots of playability. I think it could even lend itself to scenario play, with a set of pregenerated characters & relationship alongside a predetermined order of locations to be used in each round. I'd be fascinated to see how different groups arrived at different stories from the same starting point.
This is great
Submitted by Graham W on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 19:09.
Thanks very much. I'm very grateful.
Scott, to answer your specific points...
A couple of players felt that there was a bit of an inverse death-spiral going on with influence scenes.
I haven't seen this before and, actually, I'm rather glad the influence dice proved so useful. I'll keep an eye on it.
It sounds as though it interacted badly with Inspector Chapel's mystery scenes, though.
* If a conflict in a mystery scene is unsuccessful, there is no real outcome and the result can feel a bit flat.
That's true. Mechanically, I think it must work that the mystery isn't revealed; but, narratively, there needs to be some guidance there.
(Essentially, I guess the victim gets to flounce out of the room, brushing aside any questions aimed at him or her.)
* What scope of narration rights does winning a conflict give you?
Like you say, it's by consensus, but I must think about that. I'm reluctant to do a specific "You get narration rights" thing, but I can put some guidelines in.
* Also relating to guidance, we had a situation where the agreed outcome of an influence scene was that Pickersgill convinced Perkins to arrange for Gerald to fall down a flight of stairs in order to frighten him off. The accident wasn't arranged immediately, and we ended up not having it happen, which became a bone of contention between Pickersgill and Perkins. Was this just a poor stake?
No, it's a fault in the game! I've seen it before.
I'm unsure about this and I'd welcome suggestions. Two things I think might help are:
1. You're definitely committed to doing the thing. If you don't do it in your next scene, the other player may insist that you've done it anyway. (Quite how this affects the person you're doing the thing too, I'm not sure.)
2. The My Life With Master idea: you're committed to making one roll towards doing the thing, but after that, your obligation is finished.
Note that it doesn't always make sense that you should do the thing in your next scene. If the thing is "stealing the priceless goblet", it'd be awkward to frame a scene around doing that.
Apologies if this in in the rules and we just missed it, but when Inspector Chapel is in a mystery scene with another character, what dice are rolled by the other character?
As the rules stand at the moment: none. You have to fight for the black and white dice, otherwise your fate is in the hands of the players.
However, everyone finds this counterintuitive. Perhaps it should be your lowest number of influence dice or something.
(I don't think it should be influence dice over the victim, but I can't quite explain why.)
One very minor point relating to the examples is that you suggested in the notes on the playtest at Concrete Cow that having relationships based on secrets was a bad idea, but one of the examples in the text is that Rufus is blackmailing Lady Mortimer. This probably wouldn't be common knowledge.
Yes, my fault for phrasing badly.
The condition is that, whatever your relationship, any other player is allowed to suddenly decide they know it. That's necessary for mystery scenes: you can't have a situation where I try to investigate your blackmailing of the victim and you say "But you don't know about it".
Thanks again.
Graham
Neil's stuff...
Submitted by Graham W on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 19:14.
Thanks Neil.
Perhaps the game could include some advice along the lines of 'if anyone is unsure about whether some portrayal deserves a bonus die, it shouldn't be awarded.'
That's interesting. Perhaps not quite that harsh. The guidance is basically the same as for the Sincerity die in My Life With Master: make them work for it but, if they're working for it, hand it over.
A couple of times, there were assaults where one of the bonus dice was on 'Pain' or 'Ruin.' It wasn't at all clear whether the perpetrator or the victim should gain the die in these cases. Any suggestions?
It's always, always the victim. I must make this clearer. You always get the White Die for taking a blow and the Black Die for giving a blow.
Another issue I'd like to raise, after some reflection, is the long time needed to create the 'more sinister' bits of relationships, especially the later parts. A couple of times it took a while to come up with something that people were happy with, which broke up the flow of the game somewhat. I don't have any suggestions about what to do about it, as pre-determining the skeletons in the closets would alter the dynamics of the game a lot.
Interesting. Yes, predetermining wouldn't be good.
I could set a time limit. The Target's allowed to say "Thirty seconds" and, if it's not decided within thirty seconds, the relationship isn't made nastier. I'm not quite sure I like that solution, but it's worth a try.
Graham
James!
Submitted by Graham W on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 19:16.
All in all, this means its easier for the other players to win Mystery scenes against each other than it is for Inspector Chapel to win against them, which doesn't feel quite right.
Yeah. Being in a scene with the Inspector should be a thing of fear.
Any ideas how the Inspector role could be made better?
Graham
And I have questions, too
Submitted by Graham W on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 19:17.
1. How did the Black And White Die Circles work out? Did any of the words not work?
2. How did the thing about pointing, when you say the killer phrase, work out? Did you use it? If so, did you use it all the time? And in Influence scenes or Mystery scenes or both?
Graham
Meta-comments
Submitted by Neil Smith on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 21:29.
Apologies if this in in the rules and we just missed it, but when Inspector Chapel is in a mystery scene with another character, what dice are rolled by the other character?
As the rules stand at the moment: none. You have to fight for the black and white dice, otherwise your fate is in the hands of the players.
Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I think it's quite intuitive, and it makes the Inspector quite a lot more powerful mechanically. Keep this.
It's always, always the victim. I must make this clearer. You always get the White Die for taking a blow and the Black Die for giving a blow.
OK. That would change things. I presume that there doesn't need to be an actual 'conflict' to get the dice (frex, I was once a gnat's whisker away from getting both 'Supercilious' (vs Perkins) and 'Grovelling' (vs Inspector Chapel) in one scene). It also means that when two characters do come to blows, getting the white die can be a lot easier ('He hit me with a poker? Cool! I scream in pain, now give me the white die').
1. How did the Black And White Die Circles work out? Did any of the words not work?
I'm unsure about 'Wanton Destruction'. When we tried to introduce it, it always seemed to be a little artificial in the scene.
2. How did the thing about pointing, when you say the killer phrase, work out? Did you use it? If so, did you use it all the time? And in Influence scenes or Mystery scenes or both?
We used it in mystery scenes, and it worked great. We didn't need it in influence scenes: moving to the mechanics was pretty obvious once someone said 'No.'
Neil.
More details
Submitted by Scott Dorward on Sun, 06/04/2008 - 21:37.
Edit: Cross-posted with Neil, so please forgive the redundancy.
The My Life With Master idea: you're committed to making one roll towards doing the thing, but after that, your obligation is finished.
I like this. Being able to force another character into a particular conflict for their scene is quite powerful, but very fitting.
Apologies if this in in the rules and we just missed it, but when Inspector Chapel is in a mystery scene with another character, what dice are rolled by the other character?
As the rules stand at the moment: none. You have to fight for the black and white dice, otherwise your fate is in the hands of the players.
However, everyone finds this counterintuitive. Perhaps it should be your lowest number of influence dice or something.
This makes perfect sense now, and I think it's a good idea. It makes Inspector Chapel a force to be reckoned with, and mystery scenes with him something to be feared. It may be worth making it a bit more explicit in the text, though.
1. How did the Black And White Die Circles work out? Did any of the words not work?
There were no problems that I can remember. The word choices didn't trip anyone up (although I did have to explain "superciliousness" to another player) and the options really spices up some scenes.
2. How did the thing about pointing, when you say the killer phrase, work out? Did you use it? If so, did you use it all the time? And in Influence scenes or Mystery scenes or both?
We did use it, only in mystery scenes, and it worked very well indeed.
Throwing Suspicion
Submitted by James Mullen on Thu, 17/04/2008 - 07:56.
* If a conflict in a mystery scene is unsuccessful, there is no real outcome and the result can feel a bit flat.
That's true. Mechanically, I think it must work that the mystery isn't revealed; but, narratively, there needs to be some guidance there.
(Essentially, I guess the victim gets to flounce out of the room, brushing aside any questions aimed at him or her.)
Graham
What if the target gets to throw suspicion on the protagonist when the target wins the mystery scene? This could apply some penalty to the protagonist, such as:
- They can't use the Black & White dice in their next scene
OR
- They must be the target of the next Mystery scene, whoever the protagonist is in that scene
I'd like to play this again, only this time using the proper rules for Mystery scenes, as this would clearly make Inspector Chapel a much stronger character. I'm also interested in how you see the contribution of the other players affecting those scenes: its easily possible that the dice pool rolled by the other players will outweigh that rolled by the Inspector and his target, making possession of the Black & White dice crucial if the target is going to avoid having their next motive box filled in.
Perhaps in these scenes, the Inspector should be the sole adjudicator of whether the dice are awarded to the target; this would give the Inspector character some authority to push the target to a stronger performance, much like the Master's role in MLwM.