Mystery and Obscurantism

"What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?"

We're discussing another tool in the GM's toolbox, but this time it's a story tool. The basic definition of Obscurantism is the practice of deliberate restriction of facts. When discussing the real world, this refers to things like a ruling class not making education available to the masses. A secondary definition is the practice of deliberately making knowledge obtuse or hard to grasp, something that was apparently super popular to accuse philosophers of to imply they don't know what they're talking about, and just writing down a bunch of bullshit.

Basically we're discussing the deliberate restriction of knowledge. To what end? Well, in movies and video games, Obscurantism is used to make something seem more important and intellectual than it really is.  The Matrix trilogy is very fond of this tactic, using junk philosophy to make a set of dumb action movies seem like they're far more intellectual than they really are. Mystery can also make for a serious "Cool factor" attached to a concept, place or character in your movie, an attitude and feel that you can't otherwise emulate.  Usually in a movie using Obscurantism this is a bad thing because it's deceptive and cheap. It's a crutch used by some filmmakers to make it look like their movie is so super mega intellectual and clever that you just don't "GET it". Donnie Darko can be arguably accused of Obscurantism. A lot of avant-garde arthouse movies can too, and some whole filmmakers like Terrance Malik, Lars Von Trier or David Lynch have been accused of overuse of this tactic. Every once in a while it's used acceptably, though. What's in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction? The fact that you never know is arguably the entire point. However, the contents of the suitcase aren't really integral to the plot, and it's just there for feel and to put weight to Marcellus Wallace as a crime boss. Nevermind that the script says it's just a shitload of diamonds. Or if you hate Pulp Fiction...what's the deal with the Cowboy in The Big Lebowski? Why's he the narrator, and what's he doing at a bowling alley in California? There's no answer to that question, and that's on purpose. Maybe the Coen Brothers know...but maybe they don't.

Editor's Note: I ran across this while proofreading and editing my blog and I felt really stupid for including it. The Coen Brothers know. They always know. Nothing in their movies is included for no reason. Nothing. 

So what's this mean to you? Well, you could certainly accuse David Lynch of creating scenes and plot lines that have no real intellectual substance and exist just to make you think there's some sort of mystery. However, Lynch believes that a movie is wholly an emotional experience...so maybe he'd even agree with you. Obscurantism is nearly always bad in a movie, but in a Pen and Paper game it can be a tone-setting emotionally manipulative buddy. Mysteries are cool, a lot of the time way cooler than the answer. We love pondering the answer to things, putting clues together and hunting for the truth. See also "Why Lost was so popular for so long".

It's totally okay to put a mystery in your game just to put a mystery there. In fact, it's perfectly okay for you to not know the answer to that mystery right away. Imagine an asterisk on the end of that statement, though. One the size of a mac truck. The thing is, with every mystery, you have a time limit. You can trickle clues to the PCs or wing it on answering their questions, but you do eventually need to decide what the answer is, whether you intend to ever give it out or not. Obscurantism is at its worst when there simply is no answer, and you should avoid that as much as possible. Your players will eventually notice when you're just being coy or when you're making shit up, I promise you. See also, "Why nobody remembers Lost very fondly".

So if you decide to toss a mystery out there without knowing the answer, you're racing your player's curiosity. I can't tell you how much time you've got to come up with an answer, because it depends entirely on  how nosy your players are and how cool the mystery is. Learn how and when to place clues to keep their interest going, and remember it's okay for the PCs to "dead end" every once in a while, but try to do so reasonably. Don't just shut them down, try to feed them clues that won't necessarily blow open into a whole wealth of knowledge you don't want to feed them just yet, because flat out saying "no" is really obvious. You want them to be interested and thinking of ways to find the next clue, not thinking "Oh, that's all we're getting right now regardless of what I do. Fine."

You need to know when to pay off and when not to, though. The more important a mystery is to the main story, the more important it's going to be for you to 'pay it off' and let the players find the answer at some point. Never just hand them the answer, instead you can trigger their final investigation by handing them a key piece of evidence. Even if you haven't been carefully crafting this mystery(which is totally fine) you can still think of something that'll basically reveal the answer without actually revealing the answer, like finding the skin-suit that proves the PC's contact is actually an alien, or reliable evidence of someone being in literally two places at once.

But, if it's a side story, a side NPC, or something that's maybe not so important...feel free to never pay it off, even OOCly. If the players are content to simply discuss the mystery and aren't particularly keen on following the rabbit hole, let it lie. If they're burning with curiosity long after the game's been finished, maybe tell them then. I've sat on the answer to key mysteries for years simply out of hope that I'll be able to give them a proper reveal some day. Don't feel bad doing the same....just remember the answer has to be there, even if you never tell anyone.