Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8316794" data-attributes="member: 6687260">Finding the clues is not the issue.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I'll second the poster above; the Alexandrian has some good writing on this topic. Having reduncancy in clues is a good way forward.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Maybe at location A there is a clue which might lead clever players to location B.&nbsp; But if not, there is a link to location D.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 8316794, member: 6687260"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification