Bothered by Bludgeoned on Broadway
May. 21st, 2018 03:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lovingbothL had a shared birthday party with someone local earlier this year. It was based around a murder mystery 'live action role-playing' (LARP) game, Bludgeoned on Broadway by Freeform Games.
The plot is that the leading actor of a play opening on 1940s Broadway has just been murdered. Each of up to thirteen players also has a couple of other objectives (Who's been bombing theatres? Who's the communist? Who took someone's jewels? etc) but all but one player's basic objective is to find out who did it.. with the other player's aim being to remain undiscovered as the murderer.
Each player also starts with a secret or two they'd like to keep, and a couple of useful objects and/or powers, like money - at least one player needs more than they have - or being able to not answer certain questions from the first couple of people to ask.
With the initial setup and the 'who do you think did it?' at the end, it lasts about four hours. And people enjoyed it, including the person running it.
But my problem with it as a game is that, unless the murderer confesses, the additional information that is both necessary and sufficient to solve the main case is only given to one player, about thirty minutes before the final debrief.
If you're that player, you could skip nearly all of the previous three hours and work it out, and unless you tell someone else what you know, no-one else is going to be able to do more than guess.
In this case, I saw it happening, was a pushy enough character to ask them, got told, and went 'Ah ha, "this" and "that"? If both those are true, the murderer is X' very quickly. I can't remember if the person who was handed the info got the implication of what they'd been told, but I think I was the only one to correctly state* who the murderer was.
And that makes me feel cheated by the game. If you can't solve the basic plot without info handed to just one of you very late on in the process, is it fair to call it a murder mystery? From the other side, there's nothing that the murderer can do to stop this extremely incriminating info coming out, so they're stuffed too.
The same person's run one of their other games, where I suspect something similar happened..
* I'd say 'guess', but it wasn't a guess - if you can link two facts, the result very clearly points to one and only one person.
The plot is that the leading actor of a play opening on 1940s Broadway has just been murdered. Each of up to thirteen players also has a couple of other objectives (Who's been bombing theatres? Who's the communist? Who took someone's jewels? etc) but all but one player's basic objective is to find out who did it.. with the other player's aim being to remain undiscovered as the murderer.
Each player also starts with a secret or two they'd like to keep, and a couple of useful objects and/or powers, like money - at least one player needs more than they have - or being able to not answer certain questions from the first couple of people to ask.
With the initial setup and the 'who do you think did it?' at the end, it lasts about four hours. And people enjoyed it, including the person running it.
But my problem with it as a game is that, unless the murderer confesses, the additional information that is both necessary and sufficient to solve the main case is only given to one player, about thirty minutes before the final debrief.
If you're that player, you could skip nearly all of the previous three hours and work it out, and unless you tell someone else what you know, no-one else is going to be able to do more than guess.
In this case, I saw it happening, was a pushy enough character to ask them, got told, and went 'Ah ha, "this" and "that"? If both those are true, the murderer is X' very quickly. I can't remember if the person who was handed the info got the implication of what they'd been told, but I think I was the only one to correctly state* who the murderer was.
And that makes me feel cheated by the game. If you can't solve the basic plot without info handed to just one of you very late on in the process, is it fair to call it a murder mystery? From the other side, there's nothing that the murderer can do to stop this extremely incriminating info coming out, so they're stuffed too.
The same person's run one of their other games, where I suspect something similar happened..
* I'd say 'guess', but it wasn't a guess - if you can link two facts, the result very clearly points to one and only one person.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-05-22 09:52 am (UTC)How much does it matter that it's not a fair-play mystery solving puzzle if everyone had fun?
(To be honest i'd prolly be a bit annoyed that it wasn't what it said on the tin too but it sounds (reads) like the structure does a good job of widening/deepening the play for everyone)
(no subject)
Date: 2018-05-22 03:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-05-23 05:32 pm (UTC)Games like these need to ensure no wisearse gleefully announces the winner in the first hour, having put the right two bits of info together, so invariably rely on various injects throughout and thus no-one can be certain until near the end.
I've played a murder mystery in a box game which was woefully easy and the plot terrible, so only worked as a drunken night of bad comedy acting (I cannot do an Irish accent, though I was supposed to be playing an alcoholic).
Marcus ran one some years ago which was excellent, with injects fed to various of the dozen players by three NPCs throughout. As one of the three attempted murderers, who was also selling the group's secrets, I was most amused that the people who knew secrets were being sold never thought to mention it to anyone!
(no subject)
Date: 2018-06-28 09:53 pm (UTC)