Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6313026" data-attributes="member: 177">I have come to think that the GUMSHOE approach to investigations - the interesting thing isn't searching for clues.  The interesting thing is *interpreting* them once you have them.  Thus, make the clues pretty easy to find, and let the players work out what the clues mean.I start with the presumption is that the whole point is to prevent the assassination, not to figure out who did it after the fact.  So, you intend to push the PCs to the rally site, and to make the sniper position pretty obvious.  The problem with that is there is now no need to do further investigating.  They know when the sniper will appear, and where.  Stopping the attack should be child's play - lay in wait and watch the position, and nab the sniper when he or she shows up!  Trying to follow the rest of the rest of the scheme adds risk to a sure thing!Presumably, if the sniper shot doesn't go off, the others won't start shooting into the crowd, or blow up safe houses - those actions only make sense if the target goes down first. So, the PCs missing these is probably irrelevant.So, if it is supposed to be an investigation, I suggest the thing needs to be restructured.  So, I'll ask a leading question - why is the sniper *threatening* to kill, instead of doing so quietly, without warning?</blockquote>