D&D 5E When it comes to clues, it’s better to error on the side of “obvious” rather than “subtle."

[Fauchard1520]

It’s easy to think of your players as inattentive, unwitting goofs that miss important details to their own detriment. After all, there's a reason that "the three clue rule" is a thing. Players are guaranteed to blow up the first clue before misinterpreting the second. They need the extra chances!

But beyond the pithy rule, I think it's important for GMs to remember the logic behind it. Your player aren't dummies. It's just that the solutions to riddles seem obvious when you already know them. I've got a case in point written up below the comic, but the lesson is in the title: When it comes to clues, it’s better to error on the side of “obvious” rather than “subtle.”

What do you think? Have you ever missed vital information in an encounter? Did you manage to overcome your oversight? And most importantly, did your DM offer enough info to make the mystery solvable?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

The thing about putting clues into your stories is that what may be obvious to you, with your full GM knowledge, may be a complete mystery to the players. So err on the side of obvious. It'll still be a deep occult mystery to the players.

One thing you can do if the players miss your clues is to show them what the clues meant afterwards, in a Chekov's Gun sort of way. So, say you were leaving clues that there's a vampire in the neighbourhood. The players miss your clues. Ah well, that's okay. Just have a liked NPC show up drained of blood or vamped.

 

[payn]

I prefer subtle clues that offer multiple ways forward. If its get the clue or the game stalls, or worse, the PC/party dies thats just crap gaming.

 

[Umbran]

My favorite game for mysteries doesn't even have characters roll to find clues - finding them is automatic.

Figuring out what they mean, that's the test.

 

[Umbran]

The thing about putting clues into your stories is that what may be obvious to you, with your full GM knowledge, may be a complete mystery to the players. So err on the side of obvious. It'll still be a deep occult mystery to the players.

Yeah. The person who writes the thing knows where all the clues are, and what they mean. It is not nearly so obvious when all you have is the clue. Doubly so when the GM has not telegraphed that there's anything that has clues about it happening.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Yeah. The person who writes the thing knows where all the clues are, and what they mean.

I've seen a few modules where I'm not sure that the writer even knows what the clues are, what they mean, or even how important plot elements work!

 

[overgeeked]

My favorite game for mysteries doesn't even have characters roll to find clues - finding them is automatic.

Figuring out what they mean, that's the test.

Agreed. Call of Cthulhu 7E is the best.

 

[overgeeked]

I really like the Alexandrian for clue-based advise. The three-clue rule is just the start. Node-based design is amazing. Don’t make the players roll to find clues, it’s a terrible idea. Give them the clues. The hard part is sorting what they mean. There should be no question what the clue is. A scrap of paper with the address you want them to go to is the most subtle you should get. And even then they’ll still go to the wrong place.

 

[Don Durito]

Finding the clues is not the issue. Gumshoe and the like provide mechanical solutions, but the basic principle is not too difficult - don't gate necessary clues behind rolls.

But it's figuring out what a clue means which may be the real stretch. Ultimately if everything is obvious and the players never figure anything out then it won't feel like a mystery. I'll second the poster above; the Alexandrian has some good writing on this topic.

Having reduncancy in clues is a good way forward. If you need the players to actually solve something or put something together, don't make it so that the game stops until they do. Maybe they have enough to put everything together, but there are still more clues to find (and they know this because there are still leads to pursue). Therefore the game keeps moving - eventually everything will be obvious, but the players will feel clever if they've figured everything out before then.

So the players need to go to location B to find out they need to get to location X. Maybe at location A there is a clue which might lead clever players to location B. But if not, there is a link to location D. If they go to location D, they can find more clues to location B. There might even by a clue which will take them to location X.

The key though is too make the sure the locations interconnect in a web rather than a continuously branching tree. The players may not visit every location you prep, but you don't want a structure in which at every decision point half of your prep becomes wasted.

 

[Imaculata]

When I designed a Call of Cthulhu campaign for my group, I made sure to spread lots of clues all over the campaign, all tying to the central plot. This would guarantee that the players would always stumble upon a clue that would allow them to progress, regardless of where they chose to go.

Then on top of that, I added some automatic progression of the plot with each day. Even if the players missed every clue, and were basically picking their nose every day and doing not much else, the plot would still progress. The main threat would still reveal itself eventually, whether the players managed to stop it in time or not. And with each day, the situation would escalate, to urge the players to take action.