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

[Paul Farquhar]

You usually need to have multiple clues pointing in the same direction, since the players are not Sherlock Homes, they are bound to miss some. If they don't know there where other clues they can still go away feeling smug.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Costs of the mystery, puzzle, etc. being too easy: some brief disappointment by someone or other that the thing was solved immediately.

Costs of the mystery, puzzle, etc. being too hard: reaching a story impasse, DM having to provide additional hints on the fly, arguments over whether DM made it impossible, etc., etc., etc.

Mysteries are great for secondary content that the players can unlock or miss without it mattering, but if it matters make it obvious or work in a failsafe. And remember that clues that nobody has mentioned in multiple sessions probably don't count anymore.

Alternatively don't have a set solution, and just wait for the players to do something clever and make that answer the question.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Be also prepared to have players find all the obvious clues, then one of them say "naaaah, it can't be the murderer. It had a mobile, the weapon in his room, recently had a fistfight with the victim about a purportedly stolen brooch that was found in his room as well... It's obviously a setup. The culprit must be John". At this point you try to remember John, a random NPC butler you vaguely mentionned 3 sesssions ago, as the players all concur that John it must be with 100% certainty. In these situations, I found it's better to roll with it if you can. Sure, the plot will be less airtight than when you designed it, but as the players will be convinced they are right, any "proof" will be taken as the proof they ARE right and not scrutinized as thoroughly as they would when confronted to a clue before they had their main "suspect".

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on how you want to use the clues. If they're something that aren't necessary, but makes the rest of the adventure easier, then it doesn't have to be obvious (it rewards clever players). If you have a series of clues that slowly reveal information, the first few clues should be rather obscure, with them slowly becoming more and move obvious as they go on. If it's a single, necessary clue it should be a sledgehammer over the player's head.

 

[cmad1977]

Be also prepared to have players find all the obvious clues, then one of them say "naaaah, it can't be the murderer. It had a mobile, the weapon in his room, recently had a fistfight with the victim about a purportedly stolen brooch that was found in his room as well... It's obviously a setup. The culprit must be John". At this point you try to remember John, a random NPC butler you vaguely mentionned 3 sesssions ago, as the players all concur that John it must be with 100% certainty. In these situations, I found it's better to roll with it if you can. Sure, the plot will be less airtight than when you designed it, but as the players will be convinced they are right, any "proof" will be taken as the proof they ARE right and not scrutinized as thoroughly as they would when confronted to a clue before they had their main "suspect".

In this regard I have done this in moments when the players not only unraveled my “plan” but then, while talking/planning amongst themselves, mention holes or threads that I’d missed!
In my head: “facepalm, they’re right! Jimmy could NEVER have done the thing! Good thing they’ve come up with a better culprit!”

 

[Oofta]

In my games some clues are hidden or only revealed based on the PC's actions, others are not. In addition, if the players are having issues following the bread crumbs I'll give them appropriate ability check.

What I will never do is gate progress behind solving a clue. A clue may lead to a quicker solution, it may mean a better resolution, but there will always be a path forward.

Sometimes an "Aha I figured it out!" is great, but a "F*** that's what that note meant!" can be just as fun.

 

[MattW]

"If it can go wrong, it WILL go wrong." (Murphy's Law)

Players are going to overlook or misunderstand clues. Therefore, the GM has to make sure that the plot can progress even if the players are going down some weird tangent.

The GM must never be afraid to be unsubtle. When in doubt, have someone threaten the PCs. The players will soon start paying attention and processing information.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

You know, in just about every puzzle or mystery, one of the players really has come up with the answer within ten minutes, then said "nah, that can't be it" before circling back to it an hour later!

Be also prepared to have players find all the obvious clues, then one of them say "naaaah, it can't be the murderer. It had a mobile, the weapon in his room, recently had a fistfight with the victim about a purportedly stolen brooch that was found in his room as well... It's obviously a setup. The culprit must be John". At this point you try to remember John, a random NPC butler you vaguely mentionned 3 sesssions ago, as the players all concur that John it must be with 100% certainty. In these situations, I found it's better to roll with it if you can. Sure, the plot will be less airtight than when you designed it, but as the players will be convinced they are right, any "proof" will be taken as the proof they ARE right and not scrutinized as thoroughly as they would when confronted to a clue before they had their main "suspect".

 

[Nefermandias]

Your player aren't dummies.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Kinematics]

It's not just IC knowledge (ie: the GM knows where and what all the clues are), it's OOC knowledge — things the GM knows a lot about IRL, but the players do not.

I have a friend who's massively well-versed in Victorian-era culture. He could make up riddles that are super obvious if you have that type of knowledge, but are utterly opaque if all you know is modern culture. Likewise, I'm really good at math. Math-based riddles that are incredibly obvious to me are completely unrecognizable to most others at the table. I know people who are obsessive about military hardware, able to tell that a WW2 ship is "wrong" because one of the guns is in the wrong place. If you don't have that degree of knowledge, even explaining it after the fact isn't going to make it something you could figure out on your own.

And then there's the split between what you know and what your character knows. Maybe your wizard is a mathematical savant, but you don't even remember high school algebra. Things your character should be able to recognize and puzzle out fairly easily, you would miss entirely.

If you want to leave clues, you have to make sure that:

• Understanding the clues doesn't depend on the fact that you already know everything behind the screen
• Understanding the clues doesn't depend on your exceptional knowledge of a subject
• Understanding the clues doesn't depend on the player being as well-versed in a topic as his character

And of course, as in the OP's example, don't forget that what you see in your mind's eye is not the same as what everyone else sees. It's very easy for a player to see the "world" in front of him in a way completely different than what the GM, or even the other players, sees. I've seen this happen at least once in pretty much every game I've ever played or run.