Introduction to villains and clues

[Gilladian]

I respect this position, and I understand it works for many people. But i dont think it is an absolute need of design. It very much comes down to preference. For me, for my own enjoyment as a player, the exploratory process of the mystery (finding the clues) is just as exciting and interesting as what you do once you have them. I like there ot be the possibility of failure on both ends. I can happily play in a game that takes the other approach, but it isn't what works best for my enjoyment.

Well, the other part of the equation is this: if I present my PCs with a mystery and they start investigating, and they are told by witness A "I saw three people at the scene of the crime; a man, a woman, and a dog."

Three hours later, they've investigated and discovered who the man and the woman are. But they ignore the dog. I mention the dog again, in passing, in case they've forgotten it and WANT to investigate. But no, they ignore my reminder. They pass off the idea of the dog as being important with a laugh, or whatever.

That's their fault. They don't find out the dog was a druid in shapechanged form who knew three pieces of info.

TWO of the pieces of info are so key to the mystery that they are available in other places; if the PCs try, they'll find them. But the third piece, which reinforced other clues, and which shed light on some other story aspect, is lost to them forever. They failed to observe a clue, they missed out on some fun. And, if they're slipshod enough with the other clues, maybe they DO fail the mystery in the end; success isn't guaranteed. I'm just not going to let them lose out due to the rogue rolling a 1 on his spot hidden check to find the ONLY clue that gives them the ONLY chance to discover that villain A is the killer, not villain B.