Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 5957794" data-attributes="member: 85555">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.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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification