Subtle clues for tracing a covert operation

[wobner]

I am wondering if anyone has encountered any good media(movies, games, or whatever) that utilize subtle clues in revealing the perpetraitor(actual or framed) of a covert operation. To elaborate

In a medieval-ish scenario i have, a group of rebels were supplied weapons that, after their defeat, were meant to be traced back to a rival lord. there were supposed to be clues that are obvious without being blatant, if that makes sense. The question is what were those clues. So far i have the following:

->The cache of weapons is singularly large. The rebels weren't well funded enough to acquire that amount in that quality, so that tips everyone off that someone armed them, i.e. most of them should have been armed with pitchforks, shovels and sharpened sticks, not quality spears.

->The town is near a border with said rival lord

->The weapons could be traced via hand wave to the wagon drivers, who may or may not be complicit, though aren't going to be knowledgeable regardless. their routes however would seem to trace back over said border.


none of this is conclusive, or more importantly sufficient(in my oppinion) all it really establishes is the weapons came from the rival lands if you accept the word of the drivers, supported only by proximity, but not that the rivals had anything to do with personally supplying them,(especially since in this scenario, they didnt, they're being framed). only that someone supplied them. so enter the next factor

->The body of a man was meant to be left with the defeated rebels. He is a lower ranking associate of the rival lord, and so not well known, the tip off is that he is well fed, and clearly had something of an easy life(a capable warrior, but not as caloused(or in the same ways) and sunburnt as your typical farmer), and generally doesn't fit in with the rebel rabble. So while it may take time to find out who he is, it is clear he is someone, he shouldn't be there, and will be missed, and more importantly, identified by someone as belonging to the rival faction eventually, especially with them having his corpse to show around, rather than a general description.


So i am wondering what other clues could concievably be left, causing even this isn't definitive, just probably enough. I ask, having just watched the last episode of "Into the Badlands"(suprised it doesn't have its own thread yet), which despite wanting to hate(and there being so much to hate) i can't help actually liking. They are so horrificly blatant in the clues they leave behind when trying to frame someone that it is only tolerable because they are equally bad when attempting to actually be covert(infact, alot of it just doesn't make sense) Ofcourse i see the same thing in just about every show i watch, but this one is fresh in my mind. and i can't for the life of me now think of any good ones.

in the shows defense though, I am honestly having trouble coming up with useable clues that are , as i said, obvious without being blatant. Even the body strikes me as almost too blatant, but then if i saw this somewhere else. he would be the kings son, carry a dagger from the crown jewels, a tatoo or birthmark, and likely his name written on his underwear as well, so relatively speaking, a low level noble of little fame IS subtle.


some things i considered

->unusual markings, traceable to rival factions culture, appearing on the weapons, was just way too obvious. Noone is going to stamp "made by your enemies" and expect to be covert(i'm looking at you "into the badlands")

->unusual materials in their manufacture doesn't make sense, what could not only be unusual, but unusual without being outrageously expensive that it would be supplied to the rebels. what could be unusual that wouldn't be readily exported so it could be found anywhere else anyway. and really, they are neighboring lands, i have a hard time accepting that it couldn't be found natively in both areas, unusual or not, especially if its used in weapons and not horribly expensive.

->correspondence on a body, this was just way too much. undoubtedly correspondence would exist, royal seals and all, but i can't justify it being on the body of someone at the site of the failed rebellion to be found. Like i said, this low ranking body is troubling enough to me. Whoever is there wouldn't be someone who had such correspondence, and even if they did, how could they be so foolish as to bring it with them. who would believe it wasn't a frame job?

->Ethnicly speaking the two sides are the same in my scenario, and honestly, how hard would it be to find a collaborator if you were that obviously different in appereance, and sharing a border there is bound to be immigration. So that kind of connection doesn't work either.


It you go out of your way to remove any reasonable connections for the purposes of being covert, what could remain to form a believable connection?

->I guess if you had a regional diety you worshipped, you might keep the charm without thinking. On its own it means nothing, there is bound to be immigration and spill over, but it would be another straw on the camels back.



I guess i am happy with what i have, it should have been enough of a pretext, convincing, but am curious now if anyone has seen any good examples in media of this being done, as i can't for the life of me seem to recall any?(not just in regards to weapons smuggling/fermenting rebellion, but any clandestine operations) Real world would be welcome too, as long as it doesn't violate rules, although what pops into my mind is the cold war, which might be helpful even if its modern, but probably does violate the rules and was a bit of a joke. There was hardly even a token effort to conceal most of what went on that i am aware of.(although that may be because i am unaware of the good ones)

Or anyone have any good justifications for what i am dismissing as too blatant.

[Brother Oni]

some things i considered

->unusual markings, traceable to rival factions culture, appearing on the weapons, was just way too obvious. Noone is going to stamp "made by your enemies" and expect to be covert(i'm looking at you "into the badlands")

->unusual materials in their manufacture doesn't make sense, what could not only be unusual, but unusual without being outrageously expensive that it would be supplied to the rebels. what could be unusual that wouldn't be readily exported so it could be found anywhere else anyway. and really, they are neighboring lands, i have a hard time accepting that it couldn't be found natively in both areas, unusual or not, especially if its used in weapons and not horribly expensive.


With the former, have some swords found in the weapons cache. If the players think to take the sword apart, they find a stamp on the tang which is for a smith not found in the region, but who's goods could be imported via the rival's territory.
As for the justification, the people supplying the coup had to sub-contract out to get all the weapons they needed, those contractors had to sub contact out themselves and so on, until you end up with some idiot at the end of the chain who just bought some swords off a merchant.

While you've discounted unusual materials, how about unusual construction, or some subtle feature that with a high enough knowledge roll would lead the players in the right direction? Each maker has their own quirks or way of doing things, which to people who know what they're looking for, would be obvious. Examples could include the binding on a sword's grip (pattern, clockwise/anti clockwise, level of overlap etc) or the way an axe/spear head is attached to the shaft (riveted or hammered on, etc) and have these features unique to a particular smith found in enemy territory.

Suppose your players find in the cache, a large batch of irregularly made seaxs (single edged blades), typical weapons of poorly armed rebels. On closer inspection, the seaxs are indeed comparatively poor quality weapons, but they have the exact same defect, as if somebody intentionally put it in to give the illusion of poorly armed rebels; for example, the steel had a little too high carbon content, making them slightly brittle, but they're all exactly brittle to the same degree as if they were mass produced rather than made by individual smiths working at a hidden makeshift forge.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I really want to help you here, because it seems like an opportunity to create a complex web of clues (which would be good for implementing nested/parallel 'sets of three'), but... I can't seem to wrap my head around the situation or figure out exactly what it is you're asking for.

You seem to be focussing on clues that can be found with the bodies of the rebels, but I don't see why you have to limit yourself to that. Also, if you want to leave clues for your players, there has to be more than one possible solution at the outset, which they then narrow down to the correct one. Otherwise the whole thing falls down.

Hmm... Would it be possible at all to outline things a bit more clearly? Something like:

Key Players
Lady Alice. Target of rebellion. Recently increased taxes in order to pay for high-quality roads to be built across her lands.
Lord Bob. Possible supporter of rebels. Motive: improved road system will divert commerce away from his lands. Unique trait: has a lot of surplus weapons from a recent war.
Lady Carol. Possible supporter of rebels. Motive: revenge for past insults. Unique trait: distant relative of Mallory.
Lord Dave. Possible supporter of rebels. Motive: taking orders from a higher power. Unique trait: married a princess from a distant land.
Mallory. Rebel leader. Hates taxes.

That would help me to understand what's going on. Then we can start to think about how to create clues. Maybe Lord Dave brought in exotic weapons (leaving a paper trail) to try to frame Lord Bob, because they've been squabbling over marriage contracts. Perhaps there are widespread rumours that Lady Carol and Mallory have been in contact recently. Maybe two of these neighbouring lords were working together? Maybe the rebels tried to emulate a tactic Lord Bob used in the war, because he sent one of his strategists to advise them.

[LibraryOgre]

Closer to the Heart (http://amzn.to/1TFAkCJ), by Mercedes Lackey, actually goes into something very similar. Weapons of one kingdom start showing up in the rebellion of another. Tracking it down, they find that an officer of the Guard showed up with a seemingly legitimate purchase order, and showed up in gem country soliciting contributions, etc. Very difficult to trace, because the money used was untraceable (gems that the mine owners had not reported, for their own purposes), and the work orders were legitimatish.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I really want to help you here, because it seems like an opportunity to create a complex web of clues (which would be good for implementing nested/parallel 'sets of three'), but... I can't seem to wrap my head around the situation or figure out exactly what it is you're asking for.

You seem to be focussing on clues that can be found with the bodies of the rebels, but I don't see why you have to limit yourself to that.

Wobner's trying to figure out how to do a scene from a TV Show better (Into The Badlands, AMC, Sunday nights, frequently painful dialogue but good fight scenes). Among other things not mentioned is that the setting has lots of banditry and wandering nomads, so there'll be a fair amount of dead people getting looted of their weapons, making that clue rather useless.

Coinage is often a good clue, and a detail that's generally ignored in games.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Coinage is often a good clue, and a detail that's generally ignored in games.

This is true, but it's dependent on the setting. The neighbouring lordships that the OP described sound like they would use the same coinage. Perhaps paper money would be better for incriminating people? A promissory note signed by this-or-that Lord could provide more of a clue.

[BannedInSchool]

Wobner's trying to figure out how to do a scene from a TV Show better (Into The Badlands, AMC, Sunday nights, frequently painful dialogue but good fight scenes). Among other things not mentioned is that the setting has lots of banditry and wandering nomads, so there'll be a fair amount of dead people getting looted of their weapons, making that clue rather useless.
If you have weapons supposedly as evidence then they're necessarily not in the possession of those to whom they belong. If they're not always in their original hands then they're not longer evidence that that's who had them when the crime was committed. Having it in your hand proves someone else could have used it. :smallwink:

[wobner]

Thank you all for the feedback, i really appreciate it.


Wobner's trying to figure out how to do a scene from a TV Show better (Into The Badlands, AMC, Sunday nights, frequently painful dialogue but good fight scenes). Among other things not mentioned is that the setting has lots of banditry and wandering nomads, so there'll be a fair amount of dead people getting looted of their weapons, making that clue rather useless.

Coinage is often a good clue, and a detail that's generally ignored in games.

my sincere apologies, I'm not actually trying to recreate one of their scenarios, its actually something i've been working on for awhile, and been hung up on this part in particular, i regret the confusion. I mentioned "into the badlands" as merely the most recent attempt i've seen to do something *similiar*, and the only one I could recall at the time(i really wish i knew why i actually liked that show, its so bad), plus watching it got me focused on this part of the story. I've since started going through my dvd, game and book collection, but am still largely coming up short for inspiration, much less parallels(which speaks poorly of my choices in games, dvds and books).

but as other examples, I remember the story of "operation mincemeat", perhaps better known as the movie "The man who never was", the dead man the british dressed as an officer and dumped off the coast of spain with fake intelligence documents to convince the germans they weren't going to invade through siciliy in world war 2. Rewatched the godfather and looked up the wiki's for the book(never read it), although alot of that was just asumptions and hand waves.

so really inspiration, anything in the venue of (well done, preferably, but anything) covert operations and manipulations. I know they are out there but i either haven't had the good fortune of encountering them or my addled brain isn't remembering them.


I really want to help you here, because it seems like an opportunity to create a complex web of clues (which would be good for implementing nested/parallel 'sets of three'), but... I can't seem to wrap my head around the situation or figure out exactly what it is you're asking for.

You seem to be focussing on clues that can be found with the bodies of the rebels, but I don't see why you have to limit yourself to that.


Because i am an idiot... well, I got tunnel vision anyway. Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely right, there is no reason to have all the clues in a nice neat pile at the site of the battle, a huge mistake on my part. all that is neccessary is for there to be enough to justify further investigation and provide leads, to imply something. So already you've been a big help.

and my apologies again, i have a strong inclination not to blab the whole thing even when asking for help. To elaborate a bit more on the situation as it currently stands(feel free to critique)

Province (A) has been nasty to its people for some time, which has led to unrest. now they are looking to wipe out a large number of the more prominent dissidents before things get out of control, and they are hoping for such a one sided and great victory as to make themselves look invicible and the rebels who survive, incompetent. The way they want to do it is to implicate Province (B) in starting the whole rebellion which they hope will discredit the rebellion as well, but also they hope this will get their allies, and the enemies of (B) to band with them against (B) and any allies (B) can hold onto.

Its important to note, the whole thing is supposed to be a bust. The rebels were meant to lose, but through the actions of the actors, they presumably win. Thus the clues are not so much meant to be followed but followable. The goal of the clues are to provide believability to the scenario, immersion and ambience, and also to show that there is a schemer afoot, someone with obviously grand plans who is now likely very angry.
Although a scenario this introduces, is what do the actors do with the evidence, assuming they can secure it from the rebels, since it leaves open the possibilities for blackmail or manipulation on their own if they don't choose to destroy it.

Also, a hurdle i find myself tripping over, is that because the goal of the evidence is not to convince (A), but allow (A) to convince (C), (D), (E), etc. it has to be a little more *convincing*, especially since anything (A) finds(or rather would have found) by itself is likely to automaticly be suspect, atleast in my eyes. So anything (A) could have tricked someone else into finding would have been a real boon in my eyes.


So, (A) had the weapons made in province (B) and smuggled into their own territory through a 3rd party with shared interests, leaving as much of a trail behind as they thought they could get away with. The weapons, spears in the current incarnation, were actually made shorter and yet heavier than those used by (A)'s forces, as well as a little awkward(the shafts were wider, harder to grip being one thing), giving the rebels a serious, but not apparent, disadvantage. The idea was the weapons would serve to bolster the confidence of the rebels, attracting a greater number to a given spot, and embolden them to be rash, where they then would be slaughtered in what should be a one sided battle, since (A) was smuggling the weapons to a spot where they felt they could make the most tactical use of the land against the rebels, yet making it look like the rebels chose the spot themselves.



With the former, have some swords found in the weapons cache. If the players think to take the sword apart, they find a stamp on the tang which is for a smith not found in the region, but who's goods could be imported via the rival's territory.
As for the justification, the people supplying the coup had to sub-contract out to get all the weapons they needed, those contractors had to sub contact out themselves and so on, until you end up with some idiot at the end of the chain who just bought some swords off a merchant.

While you've discounted unusual materials, how about unusual construction, or some subtle feature that with a high enough knowledge roll would lead the players in the right direction? Each maker has their own quirks or way of doing things, which to people who know what they're looking for, would be obvious. Examples could include the binding on a sword's grip (pattern, clockwise/anti clockwise, level of overlap etc) or the way an axe/spear head is attached to the shaft (riveted or hammered on, etc) and have these features unique to a particular smith found in enemy territory.

Suppose your players find in the cache, a large batch of irregularly made seaxs (single edged blades), typical weapons of poorly armed rebels. On closer inspection, the seaxs are indeed comparatively poor quality weapons, but they have the exact same defect, as if somebody intentionally put it in to give the illusion of poorly armed rebels; for example, the steel had a little too high carbon content, making them slightly brittle, but they're all exactly brittle to the same degree as if they were mass produced rather than made by individual smiths working at a hidden makeshift forge.


I hadn't considered identifiers concealed by the construction. I really like the tang one, definitely some things to think on. however i would point out that again that implicates only the region, not the rival, which admittedly may be me being too demanding of my clues. and is another straw atleast
As you can see(now, that is) i've actually used the flawed construction for different reasons. although yours is still a possibility


Closer to the Heart (http://amzn.to/1TFAkCJ), by Mercedes Lackey, actually goes into something very similar. Weapons of one kingdom start showing up in the rebellion of another. Tracking it down, they find that an officer of the Guard showed up with a seemingly legitimate purchase order, and showed up in gem country soliciting contributions, etc. Very difficult to trace, because the money used was untraceable (gems that the mine owners had not reported, for their own purposes), and the work orders were legitimatish.

Thank you, i will definitely have to give that a look.


Okay, i've checked this several times now, everything looks right, but my browser and internet provider are giving me grief. if anyones quote got butchered or mangled, i sincerely apologize. its already tried to eat this post twice, so i have my worries.

make that 3 times.

[Darth Credence]

The Man in the High Castle is doing a pretty good job at getting things across without stating them flat out. Not exactly on topic, but could give you ideas as to how to proceed. The thing that strikes me the most from that is that if you pay attention, you know exactly what the Trade Minister and the German are doing, as well as why they are doing it, but they certainly haven't said it explicitly. (ETA: I finished the series last night, and they do spell it out in episode 9.)

More specifically to your situation, I would think about natural elements. Like a spice that is common in one region but non-existent in the other, and the smell of it could be a clue. Slight differences in species from area to area might mean something, especially if you can have things that have transferred over. For example, elm trees often have seed sterile microspecies located in specific areas. If most people just think elms are elms, but the royal forest in the neighboring land is the only place to find the 'crown elm' that has a slightly elongated tip on the leaf, then the presence of a fragment of a 'crown elm' leaf could be a clue.

[Fri]

If this is for an rpg campaign, I currently don't have specific advice on the clues itself, but I do have general advice on the whole mystery part, because almost all the games I GMed revolve around mystery investigation and such.

1. No need for red herrings. The players will do that by themselves. Seriously. No matter how tempting to give some red herrings, just don't. Because once the players think they found a clue, they will pursue that clue to the end of the earth and do any impressive narrative/logic-kungfu necessary to fit any other clue/hints you gave to fit to their original assumption. If you really need to give them red herring, have it clear really soon that it's red herring by... dunno, putting clear "nope, this isn't the clue you're thinking of" sign, or making them wrong as part of your game from then. Like, they failed to solve the mystery, and now the game is about them running away from enemy since they missed their chance or something.

2. Remember the three clue rule. If you need them to arrive at a certain conclusion, always give them three clues leading to it, so at least they can stumble into one. For example, if you want them to end in a conclusion that a werewolf is killing people in town, you can give bite marks, strange footprints that change/disappear into something else, and story about a mysterious noble family with hidden secret and howling from their mansion, or something. It might seem overmuch, but believe me, you need it. And the three clues isn't pointing to the end of the mystery, mind you, but three clues point to whatever conclusion they need to make next.

This is assuming a traditional mystery game of course, and not something like Gumshoe where the players can make up their own conclusion using their investigation tokens or whatnot.

[wobner]

The Man in the High Castle is doing a pretty good job at getting things across without stating them flat out. Not exactly on topic, but could give you ideas as to how to proceed. The thing that strikes me the most from that is that if you pay attention, you know exactly what the Trade Minister and the German are doing, as well as why they are doing it, but they certainly haven't said it explicitly. (ETA: I finished the series last night, and they do spell it out in episode 9.)

*snip*


Specific examples would be nice, but general inspiration is actually EXACTLY what i am after. I actually had written that show off(man in high castle), have to give it a look. Like i said i rewatched the god father(half tempted to buy the books), Watching the Expanse(again tempted to buy the books), watching into the badlands, watching game of thrones(could never read those door stops), anything i can think of(even if a little silly), and even dug a few old games out, and started diving through wikipedia on vietnam, korea, cuba, afghanistan, basically "the cold war", also world war one and two, warring states period, warring kingdoms, war of the roses, etc. although most of that never delves into the more clandestine aspects.

So really anything you can suggest is appreciated.


If this is for an rpg campaign, I currently don't have specific advice on the clues itself, but I do have general advice on the whole mystery part, because almost all the games I GMed revolve around mystery investigation and such.

1. No need for red herrings. The players will do that by themselves. Seriously. No matter how tempting to give some red herrings, just don't. Because once the players think they found a clue, they will pursue that clue to the end of the earth and do any impressive narrative/logic-kungfu necessary to fit any other clue/hints you gave to fit to their original assumption. If you really need to give them red herring, have it clear really soon that it's red herring by... dunno, putting clear "nope, this isn't the clue you're thinking of" sign, or making them wrong as part of your game from then. Like, they failed to solve the mystery, and now the game is about them running away from enemy since they missed their chance or something.

2. Remember the three clue rule. If you need them to arrive at a certain conclusion, always give them three clues leading to it, so at least they can stumble into one. For example, if you want them to end in a conclusion that a werewolf is killing people in town, you can give bite marks, strange footprints that change/disappear into something else, and story about a mysterious noble family with hidden secret and howling from their mansion, or something. It might seem overmuch, but believe me, you need it. And the three clues isn't pointing to the end of the mystery, mind you, but three clues point to whatever conclusion they need to make next.

This is assuming a traditional mystery game of course, and not something like Gumshoe where the players can make up their own conclusion using their investigation tokens or whatnot.

Thats something i was considering, not "needing them to arrive at a given conclusion", but trying for a more sand boxed approach.
Side (A) gave the weapons to the rebels, but is framing Side (B). So what if the actors don't figure it out? what if they either miss the clues, or misinterpret them. Assuming the evidence was, as stated, obvious but not blantant, or too well concealed. would the actors be upset, or thrilled, to find out later that they went the wrong direction and are actually helping the big bad evil guy?
From a story telling aspect its ofcourse intriguing, and is the kinda thing i would expect in some of the more elaborate character backgrounds, but from a playing aspect, I can't guess. They didn't lose anything for the trickery, and does make for a more involved story, doesn't it? now the actors have a real nemesis.
And, as you and others have said, players provide their own red herrings, so hoping that they see only these two outcomes that (B) is guity, or that (A) is doing a frame job may be wishful thinking. certainly the 3rd option, the rebels got the weapons themselves, is a likely outcome.