this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
27 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
3397 readers
10 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hit your players over the head with multiple clues, and make sure that it's hard to get dead-ended.
The following is a ttrpg classic that I periodically reread: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule
Ya I think he's said something about replacing that advice with node-based adventure design or something, but this article by itself has helped me improve tons of mystery scenarios by itself that I think the advice works as is.
It's not that he replaced it, it's that he built on it. The Reverse Three Clue Rule used in his node-based design articles ("if the players have at least three clues, they'll draw at least one conclusion") is a corollary, not a refutation of his previous advice.
The main way it's changed since he wrote this article (and since he wrote his Node-Based Design series, for that matter) is that he distinguishes between clues and leads, which he didn't at the time.
Ya, that makes sense. They seemed pretty similar in concept, I probably just misremembered something he said.
Good point. Node based design works particularly well for mysteries.
I think the general suggestion for having lots of redundant clues is still relevant, regardless of how the GM plans the adventure.