Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fba827" data-source="post: 8256227" data-attributes="member: 807">This is a suggestion that is entirely group dependent, as it might help or might hurt depending on your players themselves, so take it with a grain of salt....as you say, you do have a lot going on here.  You could consider making a hand out for the players like a chart.  Left hand side put down suspects (and leave spaces for others to be written in) and the right side column for motive and alibi and notes.     I would even go so far as to prefill a couple suspect names of the people that are obvious suspects from the intro material given.   This might provide focus and structure for the players.   But again for some players it might turn in to a ‘straight jacket’ limiting their thoughts rather than being a place to simply organize and focus.    So judge your players before doing this handout.next clues....  if victim didn’t see murderer, was it a ‘from behind’ attack?  If so, make sure you communicate to PCs investigating the murder scene that the wound as well as the position of the body as it fell would indicate an attack from behind.    This would help justify why speak with dead wouldnt be too helpful before hand rather than just hearing it after the fact and feeling like a wasted avenue.if they do still push for a speak with dead, still give some sort of helpful clue like ‘I led a very blessed and community-focused life, I can’t think of anyone that would kill me for anything i have done”. Thus the speak with dead isn’t wasted and provides a hint that it isn’t about the priest’s personal life.if your players watch csi type shows, also be prepared for questions like does the stab wound suggest someone tall or short, etc.And that the entry wound was swift and precise ( suggesting someone doing this with a calculated purpose as opposed to someone doing an emotionally-driven murder nor defensive wounds nor extra stabs etc)The plot does require more background  knowledge than PCs just arriving on the scene could even begin to fathom.   So you need something to signal to the players through their PCs to look beyond immediate information.  You mentioned a bloody footprint as a possible clue.   Do the people there wear footwear or barefoot?   Actually, this was a precise calculated thing, so it shouldn’t be a footprint but blood splatter on her hand - and possibly a little splatter on  her blouse.    That being the case was this murder in the open or in a building?  If it a building there might be a partial bloody handprint on the door to leave , else if outdoor maybe a bloody handprint on a nearby plant/bush that the murderer lacrosses through to leave the scene of the crime. Also deep in to the invesTigation if people start questioning specifically about the sister, maybe someone makes an off hand comment about how ‘ she is so particular she’s already changed her clothes twice , I guess trying to find the right outfit for her brother’s wedding”I wouldn’t have too many clothes about the deeper plot. A hint yes but that’s not what would come up in basic questioning. About three fourths of the clues really should focus on the immediacy of the sister being the murderer though her motive would be the big question.  Then when she gets confronted and her nature revealed is when the twist of the background and her motive can be revealed.     I say all this because if you start giving history lessons in your clues, your players might lose interest as it’ll seem either unrelated or information overload.     So consider it act 1 to identify the murderer and act 2 to confront and/or get motive and history.    And try and keep some focus on what the PCs reveal Anyway just sine off the cuff unorganized thoughts as I read this.   Hope it helps in some small way and sounds fun. Good luck</blockquote>

Verification