D&D General No Fixed Location -- dynamically rearranging items, monsters, and other game elements in the interests of storytelling

[Lanefan]

You have declared that my motive for "throwing clues into their faces" (a perjorative in it's own right), is because they didn't do something I wanted them to.

OK then: what would be your motive for, if they fail on three clues, giving them a fourth?

(for these purposes, let's assume that to begin with three was all they were going to get)

 

[Lanefan]

Pardon? They got it wrong several times to get to clue 4, and they might get it wrong again. If they got to clue four you can reasonably assume some player investment in figuring things out, so leaving them hanging isnt a 'good thing' no matter what your investment in the fiction. There's no player action being invalidated here, no matter how hard you try to ignore the larger conversation.

But you're still not allowing them to fail outright.

Just because they're invested in trying to figure things out doesn't give them any sort of right to assume they will succeed in doing so.

Put another way, leaving them hanging is a good thing if that's where the situation had led. It's just like real life that way: looking in the wrong place ain't gonna find you what you want.

The flip side: when by sheer luck they solve something without even trying, do you then somehow make it more difficult for them? (equally as bad IMO)

 

[Lanefan]

no. That is your twisted bad motive version.

my actual motive is to ensure my players have the most enjoyable game experience possible

And by "most enjoyable game experience possible" do you mean "succeed at whatever they try"? Because IME players tend to like succeeding. Doesn't mean it should be guaranteed.

 

[Lanefan]

Of course, this varies depending on the challenge, which is why systems like Pathfinder allow people to "take 20" in tedious situations where success is inevitable, but it may take a while.

You just had to bring that awful rule up, didn't you.

Take-20 is the death of the entire exploration, challenge, and mystery-solving side of the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK then: what would be your motive for, if they fail on three clues, giving them a fourth?

(for these purposes, let's assume that to begin with three was all they were going to get)

So essentially my notes show only 3 clues. Why might I decide during the session to give them a 4th? The simple answer is that I think giving them the 4th clue will make their game experience better.

Though I think what you want to know is: Why might I arrive at that conclusion? A few possible reasons, it's been a while since there's been a really important development in the plot. I can tell my players are wanting a change in direction and this clue will provide it. Etc.

 

[Lanefan]

A proactive element, on the other hand, might be a henchman who knows information the clues might be hinting toward. If necessary, I can have said henchman attack the party (presumably with a small force of his own), so that the players have the opportunity to defeat and interrogate him.

And if they just kill him, what then?

 

[FrogReaver]

And by "most enjoyable game experience possible" do you mean "succeed at whatever they try"? Because IME players tend to like succeeding. Doesn't mean it should be guaranteed.

no, I do not mean succeed at whatever they try. I don't know why you would proscribe that strawman-esque reasoning to any person that's ever walked the earth. It's so far out there it's absurd.

 

[FrogReaver]

And if they just kill him, what then?

I'm not the person you quoted, but in that scenario I imagine the henchman begging for his life in such a way that the players would be intrigued enough to interrogate him.

If they pass on the interrogation that's fine. There's infinitely more ways I can deliver a clue. Or if they are going all out murder-hobo tonight then maybe I forget the clue and just throw some juicy random encounters their way tonight - maybe one or 2 of them are potentially new plot hooks to see if something else sparks their interest more than what they currently are doing.

 

[Lanefan]

no, I do not mean succeed at whatever they try. I don't know why you would proscribe that strawman-esque reasoning to any person that's ever walked the earth. It's so far out there it's absurd.

Reading the last two pages of this thread where multiple DMs either want to move the key clue to where the PCs will find it or keep giving them more clues until one sinks in, "succeed at whatever they try" is a pretty easy conclusion to arrive at.

Tell me they can fail as well as succeed. Tell me they can come back to the King and report they didn't rescue the Princess because (unknown to them, of course) they missed the main clue to her kidnappers' location due to searching the Duke's desk instead of the Chamberlain's. Tell me they can't get to the Throne of Antioch because they didn't find the throne room key in the haunted cavern and the door won't open any other way.

Then we'll be able to talk.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not the person you quoted, but in that scenario I imagine the henchman begging for his life in such a way that the players would be intrigued enough to interrogate him.

Could do...if the hench is a) alive and b) conscious; neither of which are guaranteed.

If they pass on the interrogation that's fine. There's infinitely more ways I can deliver a clue. Or if they are going all out murder-hobo tonight then maybe I forget the clue and just throw some juicy random encounters their way tonight - maybe one or 2 of them are potentially new plot hooks to see if something else sparks their interest more than what they currently are doing.

If they're going all-out murder-hobo but are still interested in the original adventure hook then they'll get exactly as far in that adventure as murder-hoboing will take them.

You don't need to change a thing until-unless they turn their back on that adventure, or fail outright at it.