Open vs. Closed Investigations in RPGs

I recently shared a post on the Actual Play forum on the Tavern detailing the various platform assumptions for the Curse of Strahd game that's in its second year of play at the moment. It was a bit of housekeeping and I was amused by the reply that Tom (aka The Guvnor), who plays Ser Alys de Rouge in the game gave.

The Tavern Thread

"We, the players, don't have a closed WhatsApp group where we plot against Strahd, i.e. Dom."

This is referencing the point that, a couple of sessions ago, we'd got into quite a detailed tactical discussion across Discord, WhatsApp and the Tavern about the ways the players could deal with the cliffhanger combat that I'd left them on at the end of the session. It was fascinating to watch as a GM, and also to prod and tease. It was also useful, because it let me have an idea of what they'd be doing. As a GM, I play the antagonists, but I try to be a fan of the characters. I want them to succeed, but they may pay a cost to do it. I probably get as nervous as them when we get into a dangerous combat; I don't want to kill them off, but I'm representing forces that would like nothing better.

Suddenly, midway through, the players remembered I was there and getting this insight into what was happening. After which the conversation dried up. I don't know, to this day, whether they really do have an alternative discussion group.

Last week, I started to play in the Eternal Lies campaign for Trail of Cthulhu, run by Richard Lock. I'm really quite excited about this; it's at least as epic in scale as Masks of Nyarlathotep and it's something that I've wanted to run - or play - since it came out. This is perhaps the third or fourth major GUMSHOE campaign that Rich has run for me, and I absolutely trust him.

The Miro Board.

That's part of the reason why I'm sharing our investigation notes so he can see them. I used to post them up, exported from Scapple, but this time I'm using Miro, as it is a great collaborative tool when you need to bring data together. I'm sharing these for a number of reasons;

1. If I (or Dr Mitch who's also playing) makes an error on the facts about the clue, Richard will correct it.
2. It's really easy to lose track of a large investigation's moving parts, so this a public record we can all see and reference.
3. If Richard can see what we think we know, and where we think we need to follow up, it makes it much easier for him to prepare and also make gentle course corrections if they're needed.

However, the direction of the investigation and the resulting risk is all down to Dr Mitch and myself.

I'm sitting in the same place as Richard in the Curse of Strahd. I'm actually comfortable with both an open or a closed approach. I do enjoy the challenge of rolling with whatever route the players want to go. I'm also happy with having an idea upfront so I can plan to make it the best experience possible.

Which way do you prefer, open or closed?

14 February 2021