Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 9288310" data-attributes="member: 6801252">My take on the supposed contradiction between Don't Prep Plots and Three Clue Rule, is that Three Clue Rule is arguably value neutral in regards to Don't Prep Plots. There's an obvious throughline where you could bludgeon the players with the three clues to ensure they get at least one of them and can solve a mystery in an adventure that is that mystery in a traditional plot structured fashion, and the article even alludes to doing so,  but the article also works well outside that context. Its simple enough to create a scenario, notice that there's an implicit mystery, and then prep some clues so that there's information pointing at the truth of the matter, without having counting on a sequence of events ending in that mystery being solved. But, in a scenario, a mystery can play multiple roles: For example, I might prep a town with a local lord who isn't very popular, and things have been particularly tense because there's been a rash of mysterious murders, and a local firebrand is using it to criticize the local lord, which is creating unrest-- there's a detective hired by the lord to look around town to try and solve the mystery too. Looking at that scenario, I also add elements that could point toward a culprit following the three clue rule as a best practice.  At runtime the players find some of the clues, and realize they could solve the mystery, but instead destroy the clues so that the lord can't use the success politically to avert what appears to be a coup on the horizon, they don't care that there's a serial killer on the loose, just about taking down a tyrant. At runtime the players ignore the clues and offer to the lord to take care of this pest for him, they don't care about the mystery, they just go for an obvious pay day by assassinating the firebrand (or kidnapping him, or whatever). At runtime the players find the clues and choose to solve the mystery, but do so claiming to be working for that local firebrand to give them credibility when they take down the culprit. At runtime the players find the clues and choose to solve the mystery, but they trade the information to the local lord in exchange for a favor. At runtime the players don't find the clues and skip town, the situation resolves however I'd have decided it would if they do nothing, they might hear about it later, and it might have consequences for something else. At runtime the players don't find the clues but they hang around for a while doing other stuff, perhaps just using the settlement for downtime, the serial killer eventually targets one of them because I think the serial killer would, or because I'm bored and want to spice things up, or because a player has requested that their character die so they can introduce a new one. At runtime the players don't find the clues but they hang around for a while doing other stuff, perhaps just using the settlement for downtime, I describe the political fallout accordingly as they hang around and witness it happen.At runtime the players realize its a serial killer, but become copy cat killers, which results in them and the original culprit trying to one up each other as the law tries to close in. At runtime the players solve the mystery but decide to work with the killer, becoming accomplices. At runtime the players give the detective information because they decide they like the guy, and want to see him succeed, making him a kind of pet NPC, especially if he's a cute kobold or something. At runtime the players give the detective deliberately bad information, making him look like a fool when the killings don't stop. At runtime the players give the detective accidentally bad information because they misinterpreted the clues, making him look like a fool when the killings don't stop. </blockquote>

Verification