Introduction to villains and clues

[Janx]

Personally I find te possibility of missing clues through rolls to be more interesting in a mystery adventure.

this mentality is the leading cause of Mystery Adventure Failure. As noted in the oft mentioned The Alexandrian Blog Archive Three Clue Rule

You may truly find it interesting to do it the way you propose, but for most people, it leads to more failures than any adventure types.

There's enough other complexities in a mystery adventure to baffle and challenge the PCs, and for the GM to screw up. Why add more choke-points?

For me, I find the possibility of the players screwing up, not being thorough, jumping to wrong conclusions, and seeing the answer through the clues to be more interesting than arbitrary failure through dice rolls.

 

[Quickleaf]

One trick I've used when running mysteries is to structure the mystery as a logic puzzle. Eventually the PCs will learn all the clues (assuming they put effort towards it), and once they do, then it's up to the players to solve the logic puzzle. Skill checks are used for peripheral or extra information that is helpful but not necessary.

Here's an example of how I've done this...

 

[jasper]

1. Minor villain escapes to become major one. This happen when my group was playing in one 3E modules with mind flayer. He barely escaped with his life and his plans ruined. I slapped a pc class on and Mr. Fred return to haunt the party.
2. Bystanders become villains. One adventure the party was TRYING to save the village from necromancer. At the end of the adventurer one third of the villagers were undead, one third of the villagers killed or ran out town by party. One third of the villagers hoping someone else would come rescue them. Had some of survivors hire an NPC party to go after the party.
3. Sometimes the group just needs to handed the clue. This depends on the groups skills and their real life making not paying enough attention at the table. aka Airborne Kobolds from the sky!
4. Not necessary an evil villain. Group of kids following the group mocking them. Merchant who always gets the better end of deal on the group.
5. Villain escapes with most of loot. One of 3e modules with low level dragon. The party fought the dragon to stand still. Both sides retreated. As the group rested up and healed the dragon packed up half his horde and bravely ran away.

 

[Bedrockgames]

this mentality is the leading cause of Mystery Adventure Failure. As noted in the oft mentioned The Alexandrian Blog Archive Three Clue Rule

I like this article and think the alexandrian is a great writer on this subject. I think the three clue rule and much of his other advice is a great place to start. But I also think (as he points out) mysteries are not strictly about following a trail of clues. Players can still have a fun adventure even if they ant solve the mystery.

You may truly find it interesting to do it the way you propose, but for most people, it leads to more failures than any adventure types.

I think some people will like my approach and others wont. But I am not convinced my way leads to more failures, because failure is factored in to the adventure design. Its okay to fail using this kind of approach.

There's enough other complexities in a mystery adventure to baffle and challenge the PCs, and for the GM to screw up. Why add more choke-points?

I am not suggesting adding choke points. I am suggesting that you can have fun even if the players can miss clues through rolls or by failing to look in the right places. Its not for everyone. Just like the gumshoe approach isn't for everyone. Mind you, i bepieve both laws and the alexandrian offer highly sensible advice, and I use it to a degree, but I also think the most important thing in a mystery adventure is knowing what your players want.

For me, I find the possibility of the players screwing up, not being thorough, jumping to wrong conclusions, and seeing the answer through the clues to be more interesting than arbitrary failure through dice rolls.

I think both add an important dimension to the game. I am not saying everything should boil down to a roll. In fact i think taking out rolls entirely is a perfectly acceptible way to play this sort of adventure. The most important thing to me be the possibility of failure remain in play and that it can hinge on either clue acquisition or clue analysis.

My prefered style (and the alexandrian suggests it as well) is to have interesting things going on so there is still something to do if the mystery isn't solved. In fact it is much more exciting i think. Especially if there are actual consequences for not solving the mystery.

Again, not for everyone. But i have used this approach for years with lots of success at the table. So I am not saying what you are advocating is wrong just that mystery/investigation advice isn't one size fits all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

One trick I've used when running mysteries is to structure the mystery as a logic puzzle. Eventually the PCs will learn all the clues (assuming they put effort towards it), and once they do, then it's up to the players to solve the logic puzzle. Skill checks are used for peripheral or extra information that is helpful but not necessary.

Here's an example of how I've done this...

That is an interesting approach quickleaf. Can you offer up a short example of how it might play out at the table?

 

[Quickleaf]

That is an interesting approach quickleaf. Can you offer up a short example of how it might play out at the table?

Sure. First of all you've got to realize the example I offered is excerpted from a ~30 page adventure I wrote. So, from my example, let's take the "weakened" clue (the vampire is weakened from recently casting the Dark Gift of the Undying ritual).

The PCs enter the vampire's lair (the vampire is not there), following a lead from an NPC, and face the vampire's minions and gargoyles within.

They find the vampire's journal in which she ponders turning the NPC's father into a vampire via the Dark Gift of the Undying ritual, and contemplates that the ritual will leave her in a weakened state for several days, and how she might deal with it. Since the PC's already know that the vampire tried to turn the NPC's father (the clan's Pathfinder), they'll realize the vampire is weakened.

Back at the vistani camp (where all the suspects are), the PCs investigate the five suspects:

- Ahmesar is a spry vistani fiddler, seemingly possessed of supernatural vigor.

- Kessia is weak from the strain of maintaining ritual wards around the vistani camp during a time of heightened supernatural activity. She seems sincere enough, or is this merely the perfect cover?

- Valiora is an old frail tiefling woman, so it would be hard to tell if she is weak from casting a ritual or just because of her age.

- Sornryn is a drow lover of the NPC who is helping the PCs, however he has been accused of diablerie and chained to the bottom of a well; in his current state he is extremely weakened. Then again, if he's a vampire he could just turn gaseous to escape his chains...

- Wastrel is a grimy halfling fence who suffers from a wasting disease which has left him disfigured. Is his weakened state truly the result of the disease or has he been casting naughty magic?

So the PCs rule out Ahmesar as a suspect (at least for now), then go about acquiring new clues, until through process of elimination they find the vampire. Of course, they might go after the wrong suspect or fail to catch the vampire in time, in which case a "horrific reveal" may be in order.

Their investigation of the vampire is structured as 3 connected skill challenges. These skill challenges provide extra helpful information and context - they aren't strictly necessary to solve the logic puzzle. Investigating the suspects is the 2nd skill challenge...

While asking around the camp, the PCs learn that Ahmesar harbors a grudge against the clan leaders, particularly the Pathfinder, for abandoning him and his brother in the Shadowfell during the last Long Road. Some of the PCs are suspicious of the sly Ahmesar (even though he is the only suspect who *isn't* weakened), and dig further.

The PC bard tries to trick Ahmesar into revealing his secrets over a game of cards and wine. Succeeding his Bluff check, the bard coaxes Ahmesar into revealing the story of how his brother was “cruelly” abandoned by the Pathfinder in the Shadowfell during the last Long Road because the opening had become unstable, though he is evasive about how he escaped. The bard gets the sense that Ahmesar's guilt over his brother is stronger than his resentment toward the Pathfinder.

Later on, the PC rogue, who noticed Ahmesar is conspicuously absent during the day, follows him at the crack of dawn. Succeeding her Stealth check, the rogue follows Ahmesar to a gnarled lightning blasted oak tree where he speaks a command word "Far bulaz" and the tree splits open, revealing stairs descending into hellish red light. Ahmesar descends below.

So the PCs now know about Ahmesar's motives, and that he is involved with some kind of nefarious magic, but so far it seems unrelated to the vampire.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. First of all you've got to realize the example I offered is excerpted from a ~30 page adventure I wrote. So, from my example, let's take the "weakened" clue (the vampire is weakened from recently casting the Dark Gift of the Undying ritual).

The PCs enter the vampire's lair (the vampire is not there), following a lead from an NPC, and face the vampire's minions and gargoyles within.

They find the vampire's journal in which she ponders turning the NPC's father into a vampire via the Dark Gift of the Undying ritual, and contemplates that the ritual will leave her in a weakened state for several days, and how she might deal with it. Since the PC's already know that the vampire tried to turn the NPC's father (the clan's Pathfinder), they'll realize the vampire is weakened.

Back at the vistani camp (where all the suspects are), the PCs investigate the five suspects:

- Ahmesar is a spry vistani fiddler, seemingly possessed of supernatural vigor. So he probably isn't the vampire.

- Kessia is weak from the strain of maintaining ritual wards around the vistani camp during a time of heightened supernatural activity. She seems sincere enough, or is this merely the perfect cover?

- Valiora is an old frail tiefling woman, so it would be hard to tell if she is weak from casting a ritual or just because of her age.

- Sornryn is a drow lover of the NPC who is helping the PCs, however he has been accused of diablerie and chained to the bottom of a well; in his current state he is extremely weakened. Then again, if he's a vampire he could just turn gaseous to escape his chains...

- Wastrel is a grimy halfling fence who suffers from a wasting disease which has left him disfigured. Is his weakened state truly the result of the disease or has he been casting naughty magic?

So the PCs rule out Ahmesar as a suspect (at least for now), then go about acquiring new clues, until through process of elimination they find the vampire. Of course, they might go after the wrong suspect or fail to catch the vampire in time, in which case a "horrific reveal" may be in order.

Their investigation of the vampire is structured as 3 connected skill challenges. These skill challenges provide extra helpful information and context - they aren't strictly necessary to solve the logic puzzle. Investigating the suspects is the 2nd skill challenge...

While asking around the camp, the PCs learn that Ahmesar harbors a grudge against the clan leaders, particularly the Pathfinder, for abandoning him and his brother in the Shadowfell during the last Long Road. Some of the PCs are suspicious of the sly Ahmesar (even though he is the only suspect who *isn't* weakened), and dig further.

The PC bard tries to trick Ahmesar into revealing his secrets over a game of cards and wine. Succeeding his Bluff check, the bard coaxes Ahmesar into revealing the story of how his brother was “cruelly” abandoned by the Pathfinder in the Shadowfell during the last Long Road because the opening had become unstable, though he is evasive about how he escaped. The bard gets the sense that Ahmesar's guilt over his brother is stronger than his resentment toward the Pathfinder.

Later on, the PC rogue, who noticed Ahmesar is conspicuously absent during the day, follows him at the crack of dawn. Succeeding her Stealth check, the rogue follows Ahmesar to a gnarled lightning blasted oak tree where he speaks a command word "Far bulaz" and the tree splits open, revealing stairs descending into hellish red light. Ahmesar descends below.

So the PCs now know about Ahmesar's motives, and that he is involved with some kind of nefarious magic, but so far it seems unrelated to the vampire.

Wait a second. That is a ravenloft adventure; is it published?

It sounds like what you are doing is really focusing on the core clues and how those can be analyzed. So the logic puzzle approach sounds like it works. I can also see this blending nicely with the ravenloft setting.

 

[Quickleaf]

Wait a second. That is a ravenloft adventure; is it published?

It sounds like what you are doing is really focusing on the core clues and how those can be analyzed. So the logic puzzle approach sounds like it works. I can also see this blending nicely with the ravenloft setting.

No, it's not published (yet); I submitted it to Dungeon during the last submission period, but it was rejected. I plan to re-submit it (either for 4e or 5e).

I've used the logic puzzle (automatic clues) paired with skill challenge/checks (additional helpful clues) "model" a couple times, and it works quite nicely in my games.

 

[Gilladian]

I think allowing for failure is important in a mystery though. If the players are assured the clues, that can take away some of the excitement.

But for me the fun of a mystery is hunting down the right clues then putting them together. Even if you dont have all the clues, you can still explore the setting of the mystery. I think i prefer location,event and character driven mysteries rather than scene driven ones for this reason.

I trimmed your post a bit, hope you don't mind - Yes, there does have to be room for failure - but it should be AFTER they have the clues or IF they simply fail to make use of them. A PC who says "I know Fred told us that XYZ was true, but I don't think it means anything" is different from "Did Fred say XYZ or ABC?" especially if the reason they are confused is that they took two weeks off between game sessions, and they just can't read their handwritten notes from the previous week!

Exploring the scene and the world, the clues and the characters that the mystery is placed in is 80% of the fun. The interaction of the players is the rest. I think we're really in the same place, or close to it... the mystery/plot isn't the main feature of the game; it just SEEMS like it!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I trimmed your post a bit, hope you don't mind - Yes, there does have to be room for failure - but it should be AFTER they have the clues or IF they simply fail to make use of them. A PC who says "I know Fred told us that XYZ was true, but I don't think it means anything" is different from "Did Fred say XYZ or ABC?" especially if the reason they are confused is that they took two weeks off between game sessions, and they just can't read their handwritten notes from the previous week!

Exploring the scene and the world, the clues and the characters that the mystery is placed in is 80% of the fun. The interaction of the players is the rest. I think we're really in the same place, or close to it... the mystery/plot isn't the main feature of the game; it just SEEMS like it!

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.