Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 6877461" data-attributes="member: 53980">That will be the case if you say, "You see a corpse wearing really nice boots." On the other hand, if you throw a few red herrings into the mix, it won't.For example, "You see the corpse of a nondescript man lying dead in the road. His clothing is ripped and blood-stained, but you note that he seems to be wearing a nice pair of boots. A worn looking staff lies next to him. There is a scarred tree that juts from a collection of grey stones nearby that you think might have been a wall, long ago." It's not much extra work, but now you're rewarding the players for being able to separate the chaff from the wheat. They'll likely be immediately suspicious of an ambush and want to investigate the pile of stones. If they still remember the corpse and his boots after satisfying themselves that they're in no immediate danger, I'd say that 's worthy of a reward.Certainly, this approach may distinguish scenarios where there is something to find from those where there isn't (because of the level of detail), but IMO that's a good thing. There are few things more annoying to me as a DM than the players spending 10 minutes investigating a room that contains nothing pertinent, and which I only put there for the sake of completeness. As long as you include sufficient red herrings, there is a challenge involved; picking up on and remembering the clues they are given.</blockquote>