Detective work seems too difficult for my players

[Jon_Dahl]

The PCs are trying to find a missing gnome. As I have mentioned in a previous thread, a gnome NPC went to meet her estranged daughter, but she was missing. When he tried to look for her, he went missing as well. This all happened pretty quickly, within two weeks.

What has actually happened is that the village sage is a wizard and a Vecna cultist. He and his ex-wife decided to kidnap the gnome's daughter because she was unpopular in the village and there were no gnomish community in the village (no one to miss her, really). The ex-wife, who is a cleric of Vecna and lives in another village, gets to keep the daughter. She intends to sacrifice the daughter when all the astrological signs are aligned right. Later on the gnome came and he asked too many questions so the sage kidnapped him too. He keeps him alive because they are both wizards and the sage wants to learn more about gnomish magic. The village is mostly evil and chaotic (a coincidence, mostly), so no one cares but has happened. No one has asked where the gnomes went and no one has a clue.

What the PCs know:
- The daughter was a deputy sheriff in the village. She went missing all of a sudden. No one liked her, no one cared.
- The gnome, a wizard and an inventor, came to look for his daughter and went missing. No one knows anything about him and no one cares.

The PCs came to the village and went to meet the sheriff and asked about the deputy sheriff. He said that he doesn't know, he doesn't care and apparently she just took off one morning. At least her place was empty (the wizard had emptied her house to make it appear that she had just left). Then the PCs used gather information to ask about the daughter, but it failed. Then the PCs gave up. They left the village.

I used Three Clues method here, but all the clues require player activity!! None of them appear automatically without any effort!!
1. The daughter had gone missing before the gnome had arrived, so maybe he had been asking "too many questions"? If the PCs ask too many questions, maybe they will face the culprits (This is true: too many questions and the cultists attack)
2. Asking around from the key people of the small village. Sage's charisma is low and his bluff sucks. He can be caught with sense motive pretty easily.
3. Successful Gather information DC 20 roll. Some villagers remember that the gnome was last seen going to meet the sage.
4. The sheriff is lawful evil and he can be bribed to investigate the case. He will rough people up and find a clue that the people suspect the sage is behind all this. Everyone is too scared to tell this to complete strangers (the PCs) but they are more afraid of the sheriff than the sage.

Now the campaign is totally halted, but I'm ok with this. I don't want the players to succeed automatically. I don't want to treat my players like they are dumb kids. They should be able to use their wits to succeed. No gifts, and nothing too obvious!

[Venger]

Sounds like a fun plot. You've clearly invested a lot of time in the backstory and motivations and stuff.

It sounds like this is an original adventure, and not a module. Is that right?

If that's the case, is there a particular reason you set a specific mechanical skill DC that's tied to your party going around and talking to people instead of them roleplaying out talking to people?

It sounds like you wanted them to look into the disappearance of the daughter/deputy sheriff and then pick up the trail from there.

From what you've related, they asked the sheriff and he told them there's nothing suspicious about her disappearance. They then went to her house and it backed up what the sheriff told them. After that, they asked around town and didn't learn anything.

In that circumstance, it makes sense for them not to "give up" exactly, but for them to figure either there's nothing suspicious going on and they're investigating down the wrong avenue, or that the clues they were looking for couldn't be found in the village and they should look elsewhere.

you mention not wanting to give plot advancement without player activity/effort, but it sounds like your players have put forth those things and been told there isn't any info to be found.

you mention the alexandrian's three clue rule, but this seems like exactly the kind of problem it is designed to solve.

here, the DC 20 gather information check (that's really high) is the chokepoint. from a roleplay perspective, the pcs were following what it sounds like is your intended course of action, but because they didn't hit a set skill dc, the plot was unable to move forward. this seems to run counter to your ultimate goal.

1) doesn't seem especially likely to yield further results. the pcs asked questions and didn't get anywhere, so there isn't a reason for them to do it again. if the cult is kidnapping people, maybe the pcs could witness or find evidence of them doing it again. if there is a second disappearance, they're less likely to chalk it up to chance, or they will probably at least suspect someone in the village

2-3) again, if they did not succeed doing this, they're going to reason their numbers aren't high enough, which is probably true

4) this avenue has promise. if the party only spoke with him in passing, then you could have him run into them and say he might be able to help them out if they would bribe him with something. then they would have a reason to believe he was being less than forthcoming with them when they spoke to him initially.

[Khedrac]

Not all players are suited to or enjoy detective scenarios.
Further, for those that do enjoy it, if they are not thinking in the same direction as the GM it can be nearly impossible to work out what the hints they are supposed to be looking for are.


The PCs are trying to find a missing gnome. As I have mentioned in a previous thread, a gnome NPC went to meet her estranged daughter, but she was missing. When he tried to look for her, he went missing as well. This all happened pretty quickly, within two weeks.

What the PCs know:
- The daughter was a deputy sheriff in the village. She went missing all of a sudden. No one liked her, no one cared.
- The gnome, a wizard and an inventor, came to look for his daughter and went missing. No one knows anything about him and no one cares.


1. The daughter had gone missing before the gnome had arrived, so maybe he had been asking "too many questions"? If the PCs ask too many questions, maybe they will face the culprits (This is true: too many questions and the cultists attack)
There is a lot of supposition in this clue. Also it is normal in investigations not to tip people off to early so they don't know you are coming.
I would expect people to go round asking questions, but the PCs may think they did this - they did a Gather Information check - what is that other than going round asking questions? (Remember it takes 1d4+1 hours to make a typical check.)

2. Asking around from the key people of the small village. Sage's charisma is low and his bluff sucks. He can be caught with sense motive pretty easily.
See above on the GI check (you might have been better off disallowing it as it needed roleplaying). Also remember that you, the DM, make the Sense Motive checks for the players - and do any of them actually have ranks? As a Wisdom based skill most of the classes with decent ranks either have no wisdom or no spare skill points to put into it.

3. Successful Gather information DC 20 roll. Some villagers remember that the gnome was last seen going to meet the sage.
That is quite a high DC and you said the players tried a GI check. Few low-level adventurers have a decent chance of making this.
Never hang an investigation adventure on a fairly hard skill-check.

4. The sheriff is lawful evil and he can be bribed to investigate the case. He will rough people up and find a clue that the people suspect the sage is behind all this. Everyone is too scared to tell this to complete strangers (the PCs) but they are more afraid of the sheriff than the sage.
Sorry, I thought this was a list of clues. The PCs have no way of knowing that the sherriff needs bribing to do his job.

If the villagers are all too afraid to talk then this should come out in the description of the village and its inhabitants e.g. "the peasant seems reluctanct to say anything and hurries off as soon as you turn to your companion to check their reaction" and "the sherriff seems big and tough and more than happy to chat; he also seems to lazy to get out of his chair without a compelling reason" and "the sherriff says 'strangers come and strangers go, what is that to me?'".


Now the campaign is totally halted, but I'm ok with this. I don't want the players to succeed automatically. I don't want to treat my players like they are dumb kids.
Have someone who has run away from the village be in the next village. They won't know what happened, but can fill in background on who is who in the village (but still be too scared to specify why they ran).


They should be able to use their wits to succeed. No gifts, and nothing too obvious!
You mean, like the sherriff doing the investigation for them?

All that said, big kudos to you for even trying this. I find investigation adventures can be really hard to run, let alone write well. I have seen several worse than your description, and at least you are trying to rescue yours.

Edit: in searching the house, surely the Sage missed something that might have told the party what the gnome was doing before disappearing?

[Jon_Dahl]

There is a lot of supposition in this clue. Also it is normal in investigations not to tip people off to early so they don't know you are coming.
I would expect people to go round asking questions, but the PCs may think they did this - they did a Gather Information check - what is that other than going round asking questions? (Remember it takes 1d4+1 hours to make a typical check.)



Come to think of it, I think I phrased this poorly. I meant it more like this:
"Ok, so we know that the daughter had gone missing earlier; then the gnome went there to look for her and went missing too. If we try to figure out when the gnome had done and we try do the same things, maybe we can find him/them?"
Does this make more sense?

[Jon_Dahl]

Edit: in searching the house, surely the Sage missed something that might have told the party what the gnome was doing before disappearing?

I tried to think about this but I couldn't figure anything out. Some things are just easier said than done.

[Jon_Dahl]

Sounds like a fun plot. You've clearly invested a lot of time in the backstory and motivations and stuff.

It sounds like this is an original adventure, and not a module. Is that right?



Thank you :)
I've written it all, so it's original. You are right.

[Fizban]

I used Three Clues method here, but all the clues require player activity!! None of them appear automatically without any effort!
You have misunderstood the actual intent of a three clues policy. The players must find three clues, in total, in order to have a somewhat decent chance of figuring it out, not just one clue out of three. Even then it does not matter how many clues you have devised if you don't put them in front of the players, if they don't find the clues that means you hid them to well. In fact, the first three clues shouldn't require a roll at all, while you have two skill checks, a "guess what I'm thinking," and a trigger you'd only trip if they'd done the other two.

Did they ask for an investigation? Unless they did, it is your job to make sure the clues appear before them. This is not "treating them like dumb kids" or giving them "gifts," it is DMing for the group you have.

I don't want the players to succeed automatically. I don't want to treat my players like they are dumb kids. They should be able to use their wits to succeed. No gifts, and nothing too obvious!
As I have said in every previous thread, this is the problem. An adversarial approach where the players are expected to jump through hoops they don't even know are there in order to accomplish things they don't want to do. Your players clearly aren't interested in investigating or doing any number of things via brains rather than brawn. Unless you run a game they can play or teach them how to play this one, nothing's ever going to work.

[Sliver]

Gather Information is a bad skill. It's either used to hand out plot critical details, in which case it can halt adventures if nobody invested in it (which is often the case), or it's useless because the DM planned for the playersr to play out asking people specific questions, so he gives little to no clues regarding anything relevant, leading to people not investing in the skill.

Three of your points depend on the players asking around:

1) Ask people questions
2) Ask specific people questions
3) Ask generic people questions through Gather Information, with a rather high DC on a skill that people rarely invest in.

Then the fourth point depends on the players knowing more than was offered regarding a specific NPC. Even if they know that he doesn't care about the gnome, they don't know that he isn't doing his job. They don't know his alignment, and they don't know whether a bribe would work or not. Did they try to Diplomacy with the sheriff?

The idea is good, don't get me wrong, but you need to prepare hints that aren't basically a variation of the same action.

As for what could they find? Well, the place is mostly C or E, right? Well, if the deputy wasn't, maybe she held a long of suspicious people and activities, and hid it in her home? A Search check will allow the PCs to find it, and you throw in the sage and a couple of red herrings for the PCs to go through. Or perhaps anything that's small and sentimental, something of little value that a stranger would miss but the owner of the trinket wouldn't leave behind. A small toy, reminding her of her father, perhaps?

Allow for Diplomacy when the group talks to the sheriff. A great success means that he is convinced to help them for free, moved by their words and conviction and feeling bad by how easily he abandoned his deputy, while a normal success means that he implies that "gifts" might sway him to help.

Knowledge (Local) or Knowledge (Religion) could help point fingers at the ex-wife. Religion to know that there's a reason to kidnap a person - sacrifice them to Vecna when the time is right. Local to know that there's a cleric of Vecna nearby.

Listen might allow them to hear muffled screaming or crying from the gnome the sage keeps, or of someone else complaining that they can't sleep because unusual noises coming from the sage's house.

If the party has anyone with Scent, then they could pick up on the unique odor of a gnome, or the deputy's perfume, or maybe the father is smoking or has some other unique stench to him that they can pick up.

Basically, look at the abilities the party has and ask yourself how can those abilities be used to obtain a hint. Remember that puzzles are hard when you can't read the DM's mind, so what seems obvious to you, might not be. 4 clues that depend more or less on the same thing won't advance the adventure unless they figure out that one thing.

[Darth Ultron]

I used Three Clues method here, but all the clues require player activity!! None of them appear automatically without any effort!!


Now the campaign is totally halted, but I'm ok with this. I don't want the players to succeed automatically. I don't want to treat my players like they are dumb kids. They should be able to use their wits to succeed. No gifts, and nothing too obvious!

Your not doing a mystery in the right way so it can be solved. Your ''clues'' are not even clues, your game world seems to be ''no one knows anything or cares about anything'', and your really doing the classic ''As DM I know all the information, and have told them nothing...and I don't get why they have not solved the mystery. I could have solved it in seconds(because I know all the details).

The PC's found no clues and left, this is a natural reaction.

You might want to decide if your doing a mystery for the players to solve or one for the characters to solve as they are very different games. And it does depend on your players too. Where they expecting to roll and solve the mystery? Or did they want to do CSI:D&D?

Ok, some gnome girl was grabbed as she was an easy target, yet at the same time she was ''going to the sage for some reason''? And no one knows anything, yet lots of people saw her walking towards the sages tower? So why did she go to the tower and why did the whole town see her do it again? That seems to make no sense. She randomly went to the tower, and randomly got kidnapped?

Then evil sage gets her out of town, robs her home and no one anywhere sees and thing and no clues are left?

Then papa gnome comes along ''asks too many questions'' and the sage grabs him too? Even though ''no one knows anything and no one cares?'' So, the sage could have just done nothing, right?

And just ''why'' are the PC's even looking for the gnome(s)?

Always be careful with absolutes like ''everyone hates the gnome''. Really? Everyone? That right there is a red flag to ''just walk out on this game''.

1.Asking too many questions is not a clue.
2.Asking people is not a clue.
3.Gathering information is not a clue
4.That the sheriff can be bribed is also not a clue.

Some clues would more be:

1.Evil gnome deputy has never missed work before...ever. Even though everyone hates her she still comes into work every day and enforces the evil laws. So...it's odd that she ''just left'', even more so as did not say anything AND left some items in her guard station house locker INCLUDING a old hand written letter from her mother.

2.SOMEONE saw evil sage clean out the house....LIKE the evil next door old nosy woman who was glad the gnome everyone hated was gone. And the sage, not being an expert cleaner LEFT clues at the house like broken items or missed something.

3.EVERYONE remembers papa gnome and how ANNOYING HE WAS WITH HIS QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME and how he said ''I'm not leaving this town until I find my daughter!''.....and then he vanished.

[Telok]

Some simple solutions that don't require the players to make a correct decision (I've had this issue too).

1) Kidnap one of the PCs. Choose someone who is a good roleplayer and inventive, or a character that doesn't need gear. The escape should be pretty straight forward and within 24 hours.

2) The corrupt sheriff feeds false info to the PCs to get them to take out one of his rivals. Or maybe he wants some girls dad dead so he can "protect" and marry her. By coincidence the victim is a Vecna follower and has some clues in his diary, on his calendar, with his holy symbol, in the shrine... It's the quantum clue, where ever they look is where the clue is.

3) The PCs probably have lots of magic items. Magic items are valuable. Steal one. Call for all the right perception checks, ask about sleeping arrangements, don't pick the scout/listen skill guy, don't steal the fighter's sword or the wizard's spellbook. And remember to make sure they find a clue. Some hair, a scrap of clothing, footprints to identify, magic auras left behind.

[Jon_Dahl]

If that's the case, is there a particular reason you set a specific mechanical skill DC that's tied to your party going around and talking to people instead of them roleplaying out talking to people?

Yes, I want skills to matter. In my game, people must have a great variety of skills, since I have four people and they are allowed to have hirelings and NPCs with them.


I would expect people to go round asking questions, but the PCs may think they did this - they did a Gather Information check - what is that other than going round asking questions? (Remember it takes 1d4+1 hours to make a typical check.)

The players know that this can be retried. I wouldn’t understand if their PCs suddenly decided that it can’t be retried. That would make no sense. They have sometimes spent weeks taking 20 in a GI check.


Also remember that you, the DM, make the Sense Motive checks for the players - and do any of them actually have ranks?

I don’t know. I never look at their sheets, which they carry with them. SM is a class skill for two of the PCs, so they must have ranks there.


Sorry, I thought this was a list of clues. The PCs have no way of knowing that the sherriff needs bribing to do his job.

Then the fourth point depends on the players knowing more than was offered regarding a specific NPC. Even if they know that he doesn't care about the gnome, they don't know that he isn't doing his job. They don't know his alignment, and they don't know whether a bribe would work or not.

It is a clue, I just didn’t explain it very well in the OP. The sheriff has just lost his deputy, and he has very few, and he says that he could give a flying f about the missing sheriff, who was one of the people of the village he is protecting and the loss means nothing to him. He obviously isn’t a good guy! And if the sheriff is obviously not a nice person, what could that mean and how could that be exploited. Come on… Think. I’m not asking you to read my mind. I’m asking you to think.


The players must find three clues, in total, in order to have a somewhat decent chance of figuring it out, not just one clue out of three. Even then it does not matter how many clues you have devised if you don't put them in front of the players, if they don't find the clues that means you hid them to well. In fact, the first three clues shouldn't require a roll at all, while you have two skill checks, a "guess what I'm thinking," and a trigger you'd only trip if they'd done the other two.

Yes, I’m asking them find the clues. And I didn’t hide them too well. I think as a DM, I can expect players to do something. I’m willing to make ex tempore changes in the plot if they had a stupid idea and wanted to go with that. Something like: “Let’s yell ‘GNOME GNOME WHERE ART THOU? for one week and let’s see what happen!” I would adjust the story so that some progress would happen.


Did they ask for an investigation? Unless they did, it is your job to make sure the clues appear before them. This is not "treating them like dumb kids" or giving them "gifts," it is DMing for the group you have.

They were offered a very clear and obvious investigation job, and the mission-giving NPC made it crystal clear that it would be an investigation by using the exact words “this is an investigation” which all the NPCs and the player heard clearly. They took the job and they can ask for more details from the mission giver is they want. So maybe they should do something? I don’t know. Really, I don’t know.


As I have said in every previous thread, this is the problem. An adversarial approach where the players are expected to jump through hoops they don't even know are there in order to accomplish things they don't want to do. Your players clearly aren't interested in investigating or doing any number of things via brains rather than brawn. Unless you run a game they can play or teach them how to play this one, nothing's ever going to work.

This is true. But did they take the mission, then?


As for what could they find? Well, the place is mostly C or E, right? Well, if the deputy wasn't, maybe she held a long of suspicious people and activities, and hid it in her home? A Search check will allow the PCs to find it, and you throw in the sage and a couple of red herrings for the PCs to go through. Or perhaps anything that's small and sentimental, something of little value that a stranger would miss but the owner of the trinket wouldn't leave behind. A small toy, reminding her of her father, perhaps?


2.SOMEONE saw evil sage clean out the house....LIKE the evil next door old nosy woman who was glad the gnome everyone hated was gone. And the sage, not being an expert cleaner LEFT clues at the house like broken items or missed something.

Ok, I will do this. I will even give them this for free, without any checks. “Look, the daughter left this golden bracelet behind. I think it’s strange that she had hidden this bracelet and didn’t take it with her… What’s the sense in that? But anyway, here you go. Have a nice day!”


Allow for Diplomacy when the group talks to the sheriff. A great success means that he is convinced to help them for free, moved by their words and conviction and feeling bad by how easily he abandoned his deputy, while a normal success means that he implies that "gifts" might sway him to help.

I promise that I will allow them to try to make the sheriff friendly (or helpful). The initial attitude is Indifferent. Helpful = Great success. Friendly = Normal success.


Knowledge (Local) or Knowledge (Religion) could help point fingers at the ex-wife. Religion to know that there's a reason to kidnap a person - sacrifice them to Vecna when the time is right. Local to know that there's a cleric of Vecna nearby.

Wouldn’t you think that the players would need to actively use their skills to figure this out, as in “I want to spend some time thinking about the possible motives for her disappearance”? Does it make sense if these things just pop into their heads? I could do that, but I hope you realize that this seems awfully random? They have already left the village and suddenly: “OH GUYS, I JUST REMEMBER SOMETHING!” I could do that, but… really?


Listen might allow them to hear muffled screaming or crying from the gnome the sage keeps, or of someone else complaining that they can't sleep because unusual noises coming from the sage's house.

Agreed. When they go they, I will allow them a Listen DC 20 check (whispering through a wall, plus distance penalties, plus possible distraction penalties if they aren’t focused on listening).


If the party has anyone with Scent, then they could pick up on the unique odor of a gnome, or the deputy's perfume, or maybe the father is smoking or has some other unique stench to him that they can pick up.

No scent.


Basically, look at the abilities the party has and ask yourself how can those abilities be used to obtain a hint. Remember that puzzles are hard when you can't read the DM's mind, so what seems obvious to you, might not be. 4 clues that depend more or less on the same thing won't advance the adventure unless they figure out that one thing.

They are all purely combat characters.



1.Evil gnome deputy has never missed work before...ever. Even though everyone hates her she still comes into work every day and enforces the evil laws. So...it's odd that she ''just left'', even more so as did not say anything AND left some items in her guard station house locker INCLUDING a old hand written letter from her mother.

For some reason, I don’t like this clue.


3.EVERYONE remembers papa gnome and how ANNOYING HE WAS WITH HIS QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME and how he said ''I'm not leaving this town until I find my daughter!''.....and then he vanished.

Ok, one of the NPCs will say that.



1) Kidnap one of the PCs. Choose someone who is a good roleplayer and inventive, or a character that doesn't need gear. The escape should be pretty straight forward and within 24 hours.

None of them are good.


2) The corrupt sheriff feeds false info to the PCs to get them to take out one of his rivals. Or maybe he wants some girls dad dead so he can "protect" and marry her. By coincidence the victim is a Vecna follower and has some clues in his diary, on his calendar, with his holy symbol, in the shrine... It's the quantum clue, where ever they look is where the clue is.

The village is corrupted and he can have all the help he wants. Outsiders aren’t welcome to help him.


3) The PCs probably have lots of magic items. Magic items are valuable. Steal one. Call for all the right perception checks, ask about sleeping arrangements, don't pick the scout/listen skill guy, don't steal the fighter's sword or the wizard's spellbook. And remember to make sure they find a clue. Some hair, a scrap of clothing, footprints to identify, magic auras left behind.

Ok, I will have a pickpocket (level 3 rogue, lawful evil) from the village speak with the sheriff (good friends!) and the sheriff thinks the PCs are rich morons. The pickpocket approaches the PCs and the PC who rolled GI in the village, can now roll an Int check 15 to see if he remembers his face from the tavern. The rogue will then try use Sleight of Hand to steal a very valuable magic ring that one of the PCs has. Normal chances of success. Once the PCs caught him, he will tell that sheriff and the sage are both bad guys, in order to receive leniency. “I’m evil, but they’re the worst!”

Good enough?

[Fizban]

Yes, I’m asking them find the clues. And I didn’t hide them too well.
Yes, you did hide them too well. I repeat myself: two behind skill checks, one that required guessing what the DM is thinking, and one that wouldn't appear unless you fulfilled the invisible conditions. Not a single one of those clues is guaranteed to make it's way to the players, it should be no surprise that none of them did, let alone three.

They were offered a very clear and obvious investigation job, and the mission-giving NPC made it crystal clear that it would be an investigation by using the exact words “this is an investigation” which all the NPCs and the player heard clearly. They took the job and they can ask for more details from the mission giver is they want. So maybe they should do something? I don’t know. Really, I don’t know.
So the answer is no then: the players did not as the DM for an investigation adventure. The DM put an investigation mission in front of them, so they responded like a reasonable gaming group and accepted, which is not the same thing. Then the DM expected them to jump through invisible hoops instead of making sure they would find the clues required to complete the mission.

Wouldn’t you think that the players would need to actively use their skills to figure this out, as in “I want to spend some time thinking about the possible motives for her disappearance”? Does it make sense if these things just pop into their heads?
That is literally the entire point of a skill check. You roll dice to have your character do something that you yourself cannot do. That includes knowledge, diplomacy, in 5e they even made Investigate it's own skill. This is like saying "oh, you can't just roll a skill check to track someone, you have to figure out where they're going first."

They are all purely combat characters.
Can't take a hint can you?

[Sliver]

It is a clue, I just didn’t explain it very well in the OP. The sheriff has just lost his deputy, and he has very few, and he says that he could give a flying f about the missing sheriff, who was one of the people of the village he is protecting and the loss means nothing to him. He obviously isn’t a good guy! And if the sheriff is obviously not a nice person, what could that mean and how could that be exploited. Come on… Think. I’m not asking you to read my mind. I’m asking you to think.

You are the one coming here for help. You came up with an investigation plot for players that are looking for a combat oriented game, considering both their characters and described behavior. You are the one poorly explaining the interaction that they had with the sheriff. You are the one that needs to think.

I also doubt that you know what a clue is, considering you believe "the cultists attack if the PCs ask questions" is a clue. Succeeding in a SM check against the Sage isn't a clue, either. The sheriff isn't a clue either. All of these simply give away the solution. Only that the gnome went to meet the Sage is kind of a clue, and a big one at that. Everything else is simply the solution. If they trigger any of them, there is nothing else left to investigate.

Maybe I'm reading into it, but when you come in asking for help, telling us "come on, I'm asking you to think" and respond to input as "yeah, I'll use it", "I don't like it" or "it doesn't fit my setup" without showing any thought process of your own and just respond with "well, they accepted the quest, so they should show more initiative" to "maybe they aren't interested in investigation quests" just annoys me and leaves an impression that you are the one unwilling to think.

We don't know why they aren't doing anything. They are your players, you are the one that's supposed to know them. If you don't, then communicate with them, not us.

Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear in my post, so I'll explain further: The response of "he is obviously not a nice guy, he obviously doesn't care about doing his job properly, and he obviously doesn't care about his deputy, which obviously mean that he can be bribed to actually do his job properly. Obviously. Come on... Think! Use that noggin of yours! It's not mind reading. All my bad guys have the same motivations. It's obvious that all of them seek bribes. How can you think that it's me expecting you to read my mind, when it's all so obvious. Can't you just think?!" That response? Yeah, that same one. I didn't appreciate.

From your previous threads, the one where instead of talking to a player that kept with remarks that you didn't like so you enjoyed killing off his character with a poorly thought of trap that you plan to be easily handled by a set of specific actions from a player that never pulls through, starts showing me a trend. You don't know your players, and you aren't willing to communicate with them.

[Jon_Dahl]

I don't see your point, Sliver, because I'm getting plenty of valuable help and I'm thankful of it. I'm sincerely planning to use maybe a third of the stuff people have suggested so far.

[Darth Ultron]

They are all purely combat characters.

Like others have said, you are never going to get a ''good detective investigation adventure'' out of pure combat characters. And to try to shoehorn them into one will always be a disappointment.

How exactly did you expect them to ''combat'' their way through and investigation anyway? Even more so as you insist they must roll play, but they lack the roll playing in game abilities?



For some reason, I don’t like this clue.

This is a role playing clue for the players to figure out the mystery, not a roll playing clue to move the game along. The idea is that the gnome would have something in her locker at work (that the evil sage could not get too) that would be a ''red flag'' of ''odd she left town without this''. And you could do the same with papa gnome: like he payed for a room at the inn for 30 days, but ''suddenly'' left on day 6.

It's always fun to look at the adventure plot as you saw it:

1.So the PC's want to find the gnome(s) and they have no clues or leads or anything.
2.The PCs were to, very boringly, talk to every ''important'' person in town and ask about the gnome(s) and IF and only If they made a skill check they would discover evil sage was lying.
3.Ok, lets say they ''discover'' the evil sage was lying. Er, well, so what: he is evil and evil people lie. But lets say they ''guess'' for no reason the sage took the gnome, as it's their only clue. How did you expect them to get the information? Torture?
4.Then head over to town #2, finally have some good combat encounters with the cult and save the gnome(s)!

[Jon_Dahl]

Like others have said, you are never going to get a ''good detective investigation adventure'' out of pure combat characters. And to try to shoehorn them into one will always be a disappointment.

How exactly did you expect them to ''combat'' their way through and investigation anyway? Even more so as you insist they must roll play, but they lack the roll playing in game abilities?



They still have lots of skill points and those skill points must be in relatively non-combat skills. That's how I'd see it.


This is a role playing clue for the players to figure out the mystery, not a roll playing clue to move the game along. The idea is that the gnome would have something in her locker at work (that the evil sage could not get too) that would be a ''red flag'' of ''odd she left town without this''. And you could do the same with papa gnome: like he payed for a room at the inn for 30 days, but ''suddenly'' left on day 6.

It's always fun to look at the adventure plot as you saw it:

1.So the PC's want to find the gnome(s) and they have no clues or leads or anything.
2.The PCs were to, very boringly, talk to every ''important'' person in town and ask about the gnome(s) and IF and only If they made a skill check they would discover evil sage was lying.
3.Ok, lets say they ''discover'' the evil sage was lying. Er, well, so what: he is evil and evil people lie. But lets say they ''guess'' for no reason the sage took the gnome, as it's their only clue. How did you expect them to get the information? Torture?
4.Then head over to town #2, finally have some good combat encounters with the cult and save the gnome(s)!

I see, it makes sense. What if I have an NPC find a bracelet that used to belong to her and it's odd that she left without her bracelet? What actually has happened is that she had hidden her bracelet because of thieves, but the wizard had no chance of finding it (no ranks in Search). The NPC specifically says that leaving without this item (the bracelet) makes no sense at all. Would this work?

[Khedrac]

They still have lots of skill points and those skill points must be in relatively non-combat skills. That's how I'd see it.
Lots? - 3.5 is very short on skill points for most classes, and even most rogues find they have more skills than points.

Sense Motive and Gather Information are two skills typically ignored or only have a couple of points invested as other skills are mandatory.

What classes is your party composed of?

[Segev]

You're on the right track, but the reason your "three clues" method isn't working is because you say "it requires player action." That isn't a bad attitude in general for players to advance the plot, but you're undermining the purpose of the "three clues" method when you do it this way. The purpose of the "three clues" is to be three hints as to what the PCs can do. They shouldn't require PC action beyond "showing interest" to find. You need not call them out as "clues," but they shouldn't require players to successfully engage in specific actions to find. Their whole purpose is to serve as hints that a) there's something to find and b) where to START looking. Your "clues" are more "hooks." Things that, once the players bite on the bait that is a real clue, they'll be drawn into.

Let's look at your hooks and how we can build clues to them.


1. The daughter had gone missing before the gnome had arrived, so maybe he had been asking "too many questions"? If the PCs ask too many questions, maybe they will face the culprits (This is true: too many questions and the cultists attack)
The leap of logic to "maybe he asked too many questions" isn't somthing reasonable to expect the players to figure out.

However, this is a great one! You can actually build two "clues" into it:

1a) If the players ask around, even a low Gather Info check would reveal what the gnome was asking about, and to whom. They can then chase down who HE talked to, or ask around about the same things, drawing them into the plot.

1b) Merely making a Gather Info check can qualify as "asking too many questions." They're specifically looking into this, and didn't take "nothing happened, she just ran off" as an answer. Therefore, I would take merely MAKING a Gather Info check trigger the cultists attacking. Alternatively, make a failed Gather Info check trigger this.


2. Asking around from the key people of the small village. Sage's charisma is low and his bluff sucks. He can be caught with sense motive pretty easily.Again, they tried this with Gather Info. What I would suggest is that you make one of the results of a Gather Info check be a list of people they have figured out might "know something." This list should include the Sage, so they know they need to talk to him personally.


3. Successful Gather information DC 20 roll. Some villagers remember that the gnome was last seen going to meet the sage.This one ties back to the other two. Technically, this and the prior one are the same "hook." By gating the hook behind succeeding at a Gather Info check, you've made a potentially insurmountable barrier to their investigation. I would lower this DC (after all, why is it a DC 20 just to learn who the gnome talked to?), and I'd then make this tie in to 1b by having FAILING at this Gather Info roll trigger cultist attack based on "asking too many questions."


4. The sheriff is lawful evil and he can be bribed to investigate the case. He will rough people up and find a clue that the people suspect the sage is behind all this. Everyone is too scared to tell this to complete strangers (the PCs) but they are more afraid of the sheriff than the sage.This isn't a clue. It's something a clue could put them onto, if they had a clue as to it. I'd make a lower Gather Info roll result than the above result in "the sheriff has a reputation for only bothering with cases for those who are willing to bribe him."


It's a cool mystery, and you did well coming up with the avenues you could think of for them to solve it. The one problem is that you didn't provide clues to lead them to the hooks. If your clues require the players to already know where to start looking, and then to succeed at looking for it, they're not going to do the "three clues" job.

On the other hand, failure CAN be an option! It just sounds like you are unsatisfied with their failure in this case, so you need to provide more solid ways of "entering" the investigation, better bait for your hooks. They've already shown interest, so they're not shunning your plot hooks, but they can't find the next ones, so you need clues that they can only miss if the players don't realize what they've seen. (That's why "three clues:" Players WILL miss at least one.) "Clues," though, need to be "free." Not necessarily obvious, but they need to be something the players are shown for the simple price of having TRIED to find something.

[Sliver]

I don't see your point, Sliver

Yes, I can see that you completely missed what I'm trying to say. I'm not asking you to read my mind, but come on... Think!

[Jon_Dahl]

Yes, I can see that you completely missed what I'm trying to say. I'm not asking you to read my mind, but come on... Think!

I tried it to no avail. Thank you.

[Darth Ultron]

Would this work?

That works.

[martixy]

You have misunderstood the actual intent of a three clues policy. The players must find three clues, in total, in order to have a somewhat decent chance of figuring it out, not just one clue out of three.

Er... WTF?
:confused:

In what world does that even remotely make sense?

[GrayDeath]

I any World where players cannot read the DM`s Mind? ^^



As someone who once upon a time, when I started DMing, was very much in need of such a hint, and didn`t get it (which led my otherwise very satisfied players to the conclusion my uests were needlessly complicated) let me elaborate:

Your players need to find at least three different clues because :

1 might be overlooked, 2 might be interpreted as contradicting each other, three allow an educated guess at the very least.

Example:
Ogres are fleeing the villages they have been attacking for no directly apparent reason.
The villages themselves have started getting rid of their old and weak,k but the PC`s can find no signs of them being sacrificed to the ogres.
The local Mayor, who has been Mayor for less than a year, seems (disturbingly) very competent and did hint that they actually dont need any help when questioned.

Three clues to him actually being a powertful Evil Whatsitsname in Disguise that might allow the players to figure zthat out.

Now imagine they only found the first and the second, and had not made sure there were no sacrifices. Completely different "situation" from their PoV.

See it as not quite literal triangulation. ;)

[martixy]

Excuse my surprise, as I've always seen it to mean "you need 3 clues, cuz your players will probably miss the first two".

I just can't imagine the "you need 3 clues, cuz finding just one is way too easy anyway" interpretation to ever work.

[Segev]

Excuse my surprise, as I've always seen it to mean "you need 3 clues, cuz your players will probably miss the first two".

I just can't imagine the "you need 3 clues, cuz finding just one is way too easy anyway" interpretation to ever work.

I may be misinterpreting what I'm reading, but I don't see anybody suggesting "finding just one is too easy." They're all saying that "just one isn't enough for players to reliably find and understand them well enough to pursue something."

[Telok]

1) Kidnap one of the PCs. Choose someone who is a good roleplayer and inventive, or a character that doesn't need gear. The escape should be pretty straight forward and within 24 hours.

None of them are good.

Yeah, that's the problem. Without RP and any creativity investigations just don't work well. The last time I tried to run one it fell to impatience. While one person was doing the first Gather Info check the others split up to do breaking and entering, assault and intimidation of the victim, and arson of the crime scene (I didn't understand that).

I just admitted that it wouldn't work and we went on to the next set of stuff to kill.

[Fizban]

Er... WTF?
:confused:
In what world does that even remotely make sense?
Players are not Sherlock Holmes, they will most likely overlook (even after finding it) or misinterpret multiple clues before understanding one. If you only make three clues and they don't find all three, there is little chance they'll figure it out. This article, http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule, I believe is what most people reference. If you don't read the whole article it sounds like yeah sure three clues whatever, but that's not how it works. Most people take this as "three ways to find the guy," but that's actually coming up with three possible conclusions. Each conclusion needs three clues of it's own. It continues to explain that if you want a mystery to work, you need to be permissive in clue finding and sometimes just beat them over the head with it.

This all runs directly counter to Jon_Dahl's style of gaming, which expects the players to doggedly jump through invisible hoops with no information.

Let's go over this again in more detail:

1. The daughter had gone missing before the gnome had arrived, so maybe he had been asking "too many questions"? If the PCs ask too many questions, maybe they will face the culprits (This is true: too many questions and the cultists attack)
2. Asking around from the key people of the small village. Sage's charisma is low and his bluff sucks. He can be caught with sense motive pretty easily.
3. Successful Gather information DC 20 roll. Some villagers remember that the gnome was last seen going to meet the sage.
4. The sheriff is lawful evil and he can be bribed to investigate the case. He will rough people up and find a clue that the people suspect the sage is behind all this. Everyone is too scared to tell this to complete strangers (the PCs) but they are more afraid of the sheriff than the sage.
#1 is an event trigger
#2 is a note that the culprit personally has a low bluff skill if they run into him
#3 is actually a clue: the missing person was last seen with X
#4 is a note that the sheriff will solve the case, but only if they pay him

That's one clue, which requires a skill check.

So what do we actually need to set this up? First you need to figure out intended routes of investigation and conclusions, since currently there is at most one method of investigation and one clue. Routes based on party information: ask around town, visit daughter's house. Conclusions: the wizard kidnapped the gnome. We only have two routes and we want to have some clues involve skill checks, which means there will be more redundancy than the example on The Alexandrian, which had three conclusions that could be used to reach the finale in different ways compared to the one available here.

Ask around town: the villagers clearly avoid talking about the wizard.
-Ask about the gnome: the gnome was last seen with the wizard, the gnome was asking lots of questions about the wizard, the gnome was seen snooping around the wizard's house.
-Ask about the wizard: the village fears the wizard, the wizard's ex-wife visited around the same time the daughter disappeared, the wizard bought a bunch of rope.
The house: a blank, expended scroll in the same style the wizard carries, dropped spell components, a diary entry about the wizard being nicer than the other villagers.

Is that all very direct? Yes, it's not a particularly complex mystery, most of the backstory in the OP doesn't matter, and without any actual series of events there's almost nothing to investigate. Most importantly, with 9 possible clues we can actually justify putting some of them behind skill checks. The diary is slightly hidden, the spell components are easy to miss, but the blank scroll is right there and anyone can tell you where it came from. The villagers don't want to talk about the wizard (obviously fearing him), fewer people know about the ex-wife, and fewer still know about the rope (higher DCs). Everyone knows the gnome was asking questions, fewer know he was snooping or last seen with the wizard.

No matter what, each route of investigation turns up at least one clue that the players must not miss, for a total of three minimum clues shoved under their face: wizard's scroll, town fears wizard, gnome was asking about wizard. That sends the party after the wizard to confirm their suspicion, which could happen any number of ways.

[EldritchWeaver]

I don’t know. I never look at their sheets, which they carry with them. SM is a class skill for two of the PCs, so they must have ranks there.

This is a big problem. You can't just assume that someone has certain abilities which are required to solve a problem. You have to know that it is actually possible. Even better, allow for unconventional approaches. This helps cover any gaps you still have left in your overall plot.


This is true. But did they take the mission, then?

You stated your players have combat-oriented characters. That's an indication that they are more interested in fighting than in roleplay. Or in creative problem solving. Which also likely means that they aren't putting any effort in providing plot hooks or creating these themselves. They simply might not know that they could have skipped this adventure. Instead they see the rails and enter the plot train, because obviously that's what they are supposed to do.

[icefractal]

I think the problem is that you came at this from a "what would logically happen" standpoint. But in a village where nobody, including the sheriff, gives a damn about what happens to anyone, the logical thing to happen is that the disappearances remain unsolved forever. And hey, that's exactly what happened! :smalltongue:

You're saying that the players gave up too easily, but consider that from their perspective, the information they received was identical to the information they'd receive if they were barking up the wrong tree and the gnomes disappeared somewhere entirely outside the village.

For example, what if they decided that the gnomes were attacked by wolves and started searching the forest?
1) They ask a local woodsman, and he says he doesn't know if any gnomes were there and doesn't care.
2) They search the forest, and find zero signs of any gnomes or gnome tracks.

At that point, would you rather that they accept the gnomes aren't in the forest and look elsewhere, or should they spend several more sessions searching the forest in different ways?

[Elder_Basilisk]

Replying to various discussions in this thread:

1. Icefractal's analogy is good but incomplete. If you think the gnomes are in the forest and the forester doesn't care and says he didn't see them (and sense motive doesn't reveal anything suspicious about the woodsman) and you can't find any tracks, then the reasonable thing to do is to stop looking in the forest. However, the next line of questioning is:
A. Why do we think he went to the forest anyway? OK, people in the last town saw them walking to the forest. Do we think they were lying or mistaken? No. OK, so is there an inn somewhere between Lasttown and the forest? Maybe we can ask there if someone saw the gnome? OK, someone did. So, let's check the road from the inn to the forest for signs of a struggle. Hmmm. No signs of a battle. We can search for tracks again. Maybe we have a dog (did we get something with the gnomes' scent when we started this mission?) Do we have any magic that can help? Divination or scrying maybe. Or maybe we can use magic to ask the animals.

Just because one line of investigation hits a dead end due to poor rolling doesn't mean that the game is over. Or at least it shouldn't.


2. The "bad guys jump you for asking too many questions" technique is just straight-up bad storytelling. In the glory days of Living Greyhawk, that ploy was a staple of "investigative" adventures and usually served to cover up the fact that the writer did not have any more idea how to get from "investigate this" to "find that" than the underpants gnomes know how to get from "steal underpants" to "profit."

It doesn't make sense. Why do the bad guys try to jump the heavily armed adventurers who are investigating their misdeeds and getting nowhere. If the bad guys do nothing, the adventurers can't figure it out and go away. The only way for the adventurers to figure it out is for the bad guys to jump them.
It also eliminates the significance of investigation. If "find the clue on the bad guys' corpses after the Obligatory Thug Attack" is not the only way to get from A to B but rather the backup plan in case you can't figure out how to get from A to B, it renders investigation and skills moot. You can't fail the adventure through investigative incompetence; you can only fail by being bad at combat. That is a bug, not a feature. (It's also one of the (many) problems with 4e style skill challenges). If it's an investigative adventure, the investigation should matter.

3. The adventure, as described, is a bit more of an anti-investigation adventure than an actual investigation. Investigation is written to get you nowhere. Here's what we have:


What the PCs know:
- The daughter was a deputy sheriff in the village. She went missing all of a sudden. No one liked her, no one cared.

This seems rather questionable. The sheriff loses one of his deputies and no-one cares? Not even the sheriff? Not even the other deputies that end up having to pick up her shifts? Just because they didn't like her, doesn't mean they won't be annoyed and that there's nothing to see here or nothing to discover through investigation.

There should be something for players to find out here: "That annoying, stuck-up prick of a gnome seemed like she had a head on her shoulders. She was always on time for her shifts. Always insisted we do things by the book no matter how much of a pain in the ass it was. And then she just up and leaves and I get stuck pulling double shifts and graveyard duty. She's probably three towns over, banging that psycho we brought in the week before. It's always the 'good' girls who fall for the bad boys."

And she was "kidnapped." Where and how did that happen? What was the gnome doing at the time? Was she on duty? Then people would remember, "she went on patrol down by the logging camp and never came back." The PCs should be able to follow her route and get a search/perception/tracking check to find signs of a struggle (and possibly follow the tracks from there if they're really good) or find a witness or use speak with animals/plants, etc to find out information even if there are no human witnesses. If she'd gone home, then there might be signs of a struggle there. The bad guys "cleaned up" but it's easy to miss something, so they might have left a clue behind--if only some scorch marks on the wall or a broken lock on the window.

Later you say that she was last seen going to see the sage? Presumably this wasn't part of her duties or at least she hadn't told the sheriff what she was doing/why she was going there. So, what was she doing, and was that where she was jumped or was she jumped on her way back?


- The gnome, a wizard and an inventor, came to look for his daughter and went missing. No one knows anything about him and no one cares.

This one is a little fairer. OK, someone came through the town and then went missing. No one would really care, but some of them should remember a gnome who was asking questions about his daughter. Gather info here, but it shouldn't be a difficult DC--after all, the gnome was asking everyone questions, so everyone should remember. Even if the gather info somehow fails, it would probably come up in conversation with the sheriff. Presumably he asked the sheriff and even if the sheriff can't be bothered to investigate, he's got no real reason to lie. "Yeah, there was another little gnome with a ridiculous mustachio who came through here last week, asking questions about his daughter. She left without telling anyone, so I guess he must've kept going and looked for her in the next town."


The PCs came to the village and went to meet the sheriff and asked about the deputy sheriff. He said that he doesn't know, he doesn't care and apparently she just took off one morning. At least her place was empty (the wizard had emptied her house to make it appear that she had just left). Then the PCs used gather information to ask about the daughter, but it failed. Then the PCs gave up. They left the village.

This is what I mean by "anti-investigation." The PCs can go to her house and "there's nothing here, move along." There should be something. Did the gnome get her deposit back? (If she put down a deposit which is entirely possible--it sounds like a relatively modern setting (possibly in faux-medieval drag). If she cleaned the place up but didn't collect her deposit, that's a red flag.

Presumably when the bad guys "emptied her house," they did didn't cast disintegrate on all her stuff, so it had to go somewhere. Did they burn it? Maybe the PCs can find their tracks or where they burned it or some of the stuff that fell off the wagon/fell out of the box. Did they sell it? If so, the PCs should have a chance to buy it. "Hey, I heard you guys been askin round bout that gnome chica. You gots some gnome friends then? Well, I got some stuff that may interest you. Maybe you wanna buy a gnome table and a box of gnome ballad LPs? No, they ain't stolen. They fell off the back of a wagon...." After all, there aren't other gnomes in the village so who else will the fence sell the stuff to? In game terms, offer to buy, sense motive to figure out they were probably ill-gotten goods, and a diplomacy or intimidate check to get the guy to sell the PCs who he got the stuff from.

Also, as before, it's hard to really thoroughly clean up a place, so this is fertile ground for clues--signs of a struggle, a pet that she didn't take with her (and could tell what happened if you can speak with animals), a hidden stash under a floorboard (either the gnomes' life savings, a backup weapon and potion of healing or a journal gathering evidence of the sheriff's corruption (after all, there has to be some reason she stays in a town where she has no friends, there are no other gnomes, and everyone actively dislikes her) the clue is that whatever the stash, it's the kind of thing that she wouldn't leave behind if she left willingly), or even that the place is so clean that the gnome either needed to have had help (which she didn't because she has no friends) or use magic (which she doesn't know), meaning that someone else used magic to tidy up the scene of the crime. (Spellcraft, Perception/Search, or profession: maid DC 15).


I used Three Clues method here, but all the clues require player activity!! None of them appear automatically without any effort!!
1. The daughter had gone missing before the gnome had arrived, so maybe he had been asking "too many questions"? If the PCs ask too many questions, maybe they will face the culprits (This is true: too many questions and the cultists attack)

Obligatory Thug Attack as plot-driving escape route. Bad idea for reasons discussed above. But in this case, it doesn't seem like you decided what "too many questions" is. Certainly, one gather information check wasn't enough because if it had been, the PCs would have been jumped. Not a good idea and not a clue because you don't seem to have determined what would trigger it.


2. Asking around from the key people of the small village. Sage's charisma is low and his bluff sucks. He can be caught with sense motive pretty easily.

A good clue, but there's no particular reason for the PCs to talk to the sage (it would be different if something pointed them that way, but otherwise it's just a "hit all the named NPCs/numbered buildings at random until something comes up" scenario. That's not a clue or investigation--that's the kind of tedious BS that gather info is supposed to cover for). Also, if this is where the gnome was jumped, there might be physical clues--a broken window or a dagger that she dropped in the flower garden. If so, perception as well as sense motive should provide the PCs' some clues.


3. Successful Gather information DC 20 roll. Some villagers remember that the gnome was last seen going to meet the sage

And this is the bit that takes the PCs to the sage. Gather Info, DC 20, or go home. It's not really a separate clue; it's the first step to clue 2.


4. The sheriff is lawful evil and he can be bribed to investigate the case. He will rough people up and find a clue that the people suspect the sage is behind all this. Everyone is too scared to tell this to complete strangers (the PCs) but they are more afraid of the sheriff than the sage.

I'm of two minds about this. One, having a backup plan for the PCs to pay money for the investigation to go away and skip to the combat may be a good idea and a nice out for letting PCs "win" even if they can't investigate.

However, it's the sheriff's job to investigate and it's his reputation/prestige on the line because she was his deputy. (You think you can just rub out my deputy and walk away like nothing happened? Apparently, the answer is, "yes, you can" but that's not something most Lawful Evils would be happy with). Usually, he would want to investigate if he thought there were something there and would crack heads if he thought there were any heads to crack because the gnome disappearing has made his life more difficult. (She's his deputy and since he doesn't like her, she must do something useful for him, otherwise he wouldn't pay her. And if she does something useful for him and is now not doing it, that's going to be inconvenient). So, it doesn't make much sense for the Sheriff to be the one you need to bribe to do the investigation. It might make more sense to have a bounty hunter or tracker make the offer directly.

Also, you say that everyone is too scared to rat out the sage to strangers (which is why the gather info DC is so high)--there should be some kind of sense motive check to indicate that people are frightened to talk about it. If the PCs fail the gather info check but make the sense motive, they should be able to bribe or intimidate people into telling them that the gnome was going to the sage. After all, that's what the sheriff was going to do if they hire him.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Haven't actually read the thread yet but I'll just leave this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) here. Very useful idea.

[icefractal]

In the glory days of Living Greyhawk, that ploy was a staple of "investigative" adventures and usually served to cover up the fact that the writer did not have any more idea how to get from "investigate this" to "find that" than the underpants gnomes know how to get from "steal underpants" to "profit."Oh man, bad memories. I remember one LG adventure where we solved the mystery after talking to the first witness - as in, knew who did it, had enough evidence to justify searching their house, could have solved it right there. But we were told that to get full xp, we'd have to go talk to all the other witnesses anyway. And then after the third or fourth some thugs jump us, and are found to conveniently be carrying a letter saying something like "Make sure you kill those meddling investigators. Signed, [name of murderer]." So the adventure actually negated our deduction retroactively. :smallyuk:

I think that was one of the things that turned me off organized play, come to think of it.

[EldritchWeaver]

Haven't actually read the thread yet but I'll just leave this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) here. Very useful idea.

Ironically, that's what the OP claimed to have used in the first place.:smallsigh:

[Zanos]

Ironically, that's what the OP claimed to have used in the first place.:smallsigh:
Did anyone confirm whether or not OP has read the article? It pretty much explains within itself why OP is having issues. It seems like he heard of the method but didn't actually study it.

I did read much of the thread, and I'll also say something I don't think anyone else has mentioned. Are you sure the character care? They went to town looking for a missing person, everyone said people leave the town without saying anything all the time, and everything is normal. Then they leave. They don't seem particularly fixated upon this issue to begin with.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you for the constructive criticism. It is duly noted for future adventures. At the moment, however, I have to deal with this situation at hand. Luckily I have plenty of good advice here so here's what I will do:

They will most likely tell everything to the gnome that gave the mission in the first place, right? So she will go there (to the village) and talk with people and search the house. She will talk with the PCs again and tell them that she found a hidden bracelet in the daughter's house, so it doesn't make any sense that she left without it. She spoke with the sheriff and she felt threatened for some odd reason, although he didn't say anything bad. She will note that she has met several corrupted sheriff's and he had a look of one.

If the PCs return to the village:

Talking with the sheriff will most likely require a diplomacy roll: The initial attitude is Indifferent. Helpful = Great success, he will be cheap and highly efficient. Friendly = Normal success, normal cost and normal results (which will be good enough and help the story along).

If they leave the village empty-handed: I will have a pickpocket (level 3 rogue, lawful evil) from the village speak with the sheriff (good friends!) and the sheriff thinks the PCs are rich morons. The pickpocket approaches the PCs and the PC who rolled GI in the village, can now roll an Int check 15 to see if he remembers his face from the tavern. The rogue will then try use Sleight of Hand to steal a very valuable magic ring that one of the PCs has. Normal chances of success. Once the PCs caught him, he will tell that sheriff and the sage are both bad guys, in order to receive leniency. “I’m evil, but they’re the worst!”

I will also have all the stuff Segev suggested:


1a) If the players ask around, even a low Gather Info check would reveal what the gnome was asking about, and to whom. They can then chase down who HE talked to, or ask around about the same things, drawing them into the plot.

1b) Merely making a Gather Info check can qualify as "asking too many questions." They're specifically looking into this, and didn't take "nothing happened, she just ran off" as an answer. Therefore, I would take merely MAKING a Gather Info check trigger the cultists attacking. Alternatively, make a failed Gather Info check trigger this. Note: there has to be at least three failed GI rolls!

Visiting the sage's house has the possibility of hearing the gnome inventor making noise in the cellar.

Am I ready to proceed?

[Deadline]

Talking with the sheriff will most likely require a diplomacy roll: The initial attitude is Indifferent. Helpful = Great success, he will be cheap and highly efficient. Friendly = Normal success, normal cost and normal results (which will be good enough and help the story along).

What happens if they fail the diplomacy roll? How do you progress the story?


The pickpocket approaches the PCs and the PC who rolled GI in the village, can now roll an Int check 15 to see if he remembers his face from the tavern.

What happens if they fail the Int check? How do you progress the story?


The rogue will then try use Sleight of Hand to steal a very valuable magic ring that one of the PCs has. Normal chances of success. Once the PCs caught him, he will tell that sheriff and the sage are both bad guys, in order to receive leniency. “I’m evil, but they’re the worst!”

What happens if the PCs don't catch him? How do you progress the story?


Visiting the sage's house has the possibility of hearing the gnome inventor making noise in the cellar.

What happens if they don't hear the gnome? How do you progress the story?


Am I ready to proceed?

That depends. If your answer to all of the "How do you progress the story" questions above is, "I don't", then no, you are probably not ready to proceed.

[Jon_Dahl]

What happens if they fail the diplomacy roll? How do you progress the story?

Dead end in this case.



What happens if they fail the Int check? How do you progress the story?

The PCs can interrogate him and find out that he was from the village.



What happens if the PCs don't catch him? How do you progress the story?

The PCs must use the means provided by D&D magic and other in-game resources to find a stolen item. Shouldn't be too difficult.



What happens if they don't hear the gnome? How do you progress the story?

Dead end in this case.

[Jon_Dahl]

That depends. If your answer to all of the "How do you progress the story" questions above is, "I don't", then no, you are probably not ready to proceed.

It's not necessary to progress the story. The story can end.

[Segev]

It's not necessary to progress the story. The story can end.

While failure is always a viable option, the reason it's being treated as non- in this case is that the course leading to it still seems to be "they didn't roll well enough." Again, that's fine if you want to go that way, but just be aware that it's not really "detective work" being "too difficult for [your] players" at that point, but the DCs barring their path being too high.

[EldritchWeaver]

It's not necessary to progress the story. The story can end.

The following is your plan exaggerated and satirized:

GM: "Roll a d20."
Player rolls a 4.
GM: "Sorry, that is too low. No adventure for you. Come back next week!"
GM burns his stack of notes.
GM: "I don't need them anymore!"
Players leave and never return.

[Zanos]

The following is your plan exaggerated and satirized:

GM: "Roll a d20."
Player rolls a 4.
GM: "Sorry, that is too low. No adventure for you. Come back next week!"
GM burns his stack of notes.
GM: "I don't need them anymore!"
Players leave and never return.
If you keep a stack of notes for anything other than the world and the people in it, you're wasting your time. You're probably also trying to write a book rather than play a tabletop. The extent of my pre session notes is just reminders to myself of what the environment the PCs are in is like.

It's also okay for a certain task to not be suited to the PC'S, there's plenty to do.

[dascarletm]

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, but this is what I do in my investigation games.

1. I don't put set clues down for them to find. I let the players investigate as they see fit.
2. Any clue they investigate that has a roll associated will give varying degrees of information. A low roll, a medium roll, and a high roll.
3. I sort of track these as though they generate points. Finding an easy clue gives 1 pt., a medium gives 2, and a high gives 3. They need X points to get to what they are looking for.

[Deadline]

It's not necessary to progress the story. The story can end.

Then why this thread? You seem to want it to not end, and are apparently baffled as to how your PC's have failed to follow it.

If you want to lessen your confusion, take a look at their sheets and see if anyone has the skills you want to use. Then check to see what their odds of making your rolls are. That will tell you how likely they are to succeed on these rolls, and hopefully that can clear up at least some of your confusion. My guess is that a DC 15 or DC 20 roll these skills are probably in the 5-15% success range for your group of combat oriented characters.

But my point is, if you gate your entire story behind a couple of dice rolls, you probably shouldn't be surprised when it falls flat when the players fail those rolls.

[Jon_Dahl]

Then why this thread?



Because I don't want it to end that easily.

[Deadline]

Because I don't want it to end that easily.

Then stop putting absolute failure conditions into your mysteries? Don't make success or failure hinge on a couple of skill rolls that your players likely have very little chance of succeeding on. If it's a plot you want to run, make it so even the failure conditions progress the mission in some way.

For an example, PCs are investigating a series of murders. Success on various conditions will lead them to finding the next victim before the murderer strikes again, and thus saving that victim. Failure means that the victim is killed, adding to the pile of evidence needed to find the murderer. Complete failure at every step of the investigation still means an encounter with the murderer, but the murderer gets the drop on them and he's left a large number of victims in his wake (all of which could have been prevented if the PCs had succeeded more than they failed). The PCs still stop the murderer (assuming he doesn't TPK them), but it's a pyrrhic victory at best.

Fail forward, is what I'm saying.

Edit - From the looks of the thread, you've gotten a lot of good suggestions for continuing. My main point in suggesting you weren't ready to proceed is that you need to plan on how the mission progresses if/when the PCs fail at every turn (because past history about your group suggests that as the likely outcome), rather than simply shrugging and going "oh well, guess that adventure is out the window". Once you've gotten that in mind, I'd say you are ready to proceed.

[Jon_Dahl]

Then stop putting absolute failure conditions into your mysteries? Don't make success or failure hinge on a couple of skill rolls that your players likely have very little chance of succeeding on. If it's a plot you want to run, make it so even the failure conditions progress the mission in some way.

For an example, PCs are investigating a series of murders. Success on various conditions will lead them to finding the next victim before the murderer strikes again, and thus saving that victim. Failure means that the victim is killed, adding to the pile of evidence needed to find the murderer. Complete failure at every step of the investigation still means an encounter with the murderer, but the murderer gets the drop on them and he's left a large number of victims in his wake (all of which could have been prevented if the PCs had succeeded more than they failed). The PCs still stop the murderer (assuming he doesn't TPK them), but it's a pyrrhic victory at best.

Fail forward, is what I'm saying.

Edit - From the looks of the thread, you've gotten a lot of good suggestions for continuing. My main point in suggesting you weren't ready to proceed is that you need to plan on how the mission progresses if/when the PCs fail at every turn (because past history about your group suggests that as the likely outcome), rather than simply shrugging and going "oh well, guess that adventure is out the window". Once you've gotten that in mind, I'd say you are ready to proceed.

I guess my only idea is to try to do the stuff that I have mentioned in my message yesterday. If all that fails, and the players aren't willing to do anything proactively, the mission has failed, like so many missions before. To be honest, I absolutely hate the idea of "failing forward", but I respect that it's part of your style. In my opinion, It lessens the player agency. I would get pissed off if I were a player and the same stuff would just keep coming up and coming up no matter how much I tried to ignore it. Let the players fail. I solemnly vow to cooperate with the players if they try something creative to complete the mission. All in all, failing (because of bad rolls or poor decisions) and not trying something creative will cause the mission to fail. In my games it has always been like that and I'm afraid it will always be like that.

[Deadline]

I guess my only idea is to try to do the stuff that I have mentioned in my message yesterday. If all that fails, and the players aren't willing to do anything proactively, the mission has failed, like so many missions before. To be honest, I absolutely hate the idea of "failing forward", but I respect that it's part of your style. In my opinion, It lessens the player agency. I would get pissed off if I were a player and the same stuff would just keep coming up and coming up no matter how much I tried to ignore it. Let the players fail. I solemnly vow to cooperate with the players if they try something creative to complete the mission. All in all, failing (because of bad rolls or poor decisions) and not trying something creative will cause the mission to fail. In my games it has always been like that and I'm afraid it will always be like that.

I feel like you are missing the point of what I mean by "fail forward". It isn't "the players succeed no matter what", it's the antithesis to "this mission is completely unused if the players fail a skill roll". You plan your mission with failure in mind. If the players fail, then what logically follows that continues the mission path? It's not a binary pass/fail gated on a skill check. Just because the players failed at every step of the mission doesn't mean there isn't a conclusion to the mission (failures have conclusions, just like successes have conclusions). I guess I'm saying that the PCs should totally be allowed to fail, just that failure doesn't always have to mean that the mission is over (make them face the consequences of their failure!). And because of the failure, every future step of the mission gets worse in some way. It doesn't remove player agency any more than your method does. Logical consequences are important. As others have mentioned, you have a mission point surrounding "if the PCs ask too many questions." They've been doing that, it's literally what a Gather Information check covers. And generally, nefarious individuals don't simply hide and hope the PC problem goes away or that they get bored and wander off. They tend to be more than a bit proactive about their personal security. Whether that is a threat delivered to the PCs to back off, or just trying to kill them, the bad guy generally is going to take some sort of proactive action.

You can continue to avoid this sort of design and stick with a couple of binary pass/fail rolls, but it sounds like you are frustrated with the outcome you are getting from that, and you are fooling yourself if you think it's entirely on the players. I hope you find some success with the suggestions this thread has provided. And I wish you luck, because if this is the same group that failed so spectacularly against a Hellcat, you've got your work cut out for you. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

"Fail Forward," as Deadline is proposing it, is less "hand-holding the hapless players to their participation trophy," and more "the world keeps moving no matter what the PCs do; if they fail, the bad stuff keeps happening." Generally speaking, if the PCs are interested in stopping the "bad stuff," they will hear about another incident and feel like it's a failure...but they'll go to try to figure out if there's anything they can do about it.

For your case, specifically, John_Dahl, I strongly suggest rethinking these "if they don't make this roll, they don't get anything" blocks in your paths. The idea that the players are "not putting forth effort" if they hit all these stone walls and get nothing is an unfair assessment of them.

Consider it this way: if they decide to go to the next town over, where neither gnomes nor the sage have had any dealings, and proceed to investigate vigorously, not giving up no matter how many "nope, you don't find anything" hints you throw at them, are they doing it right or wrong, in your book? How long should they keep trying at apparent dead ends before they're doing it "right" rather than "not putting forth enough effort?"

[Jon_Dahl]

"Fail Forward," as Deadline is proposing it, is less "hand-holding the hapless players to their participation trophy," and more "the world keeps moving no matter what the PCs do; if they fail, the bad stuff keeps happening." Generally speaking, if the PCs are interested in stopping the "bad stuff," they will hear about another incident and feel like it's a failure...but they'll go to try to figure out if there's anything they can do about it.

For your case, specifically, John_Dahl, I strongly suggest rethinking these "if they don't make this roll, they don't get anything" blocks in your paths. The idea that the players are "not putting forth effort" if they hit all these stone walls and get nothing is an unfair assessment of them.

Consider it this way: if they decide to go to the next town over, where neither gnomes nor the sage have had any dealings, and proceed to investigate vigorously, not giving up no matter how many "nope, you don't find anything" hints you throw at them, are they doing it right or wrong, in your book? How long should they keep trying at apparent dead ends before they're doing it "right" rather than "not putting forth enough effort?"

Yes, I think I get it. But these failures usually contribute to the world becoming a less safer place in general, such as in this case the cultist of Vecna will become stronger, which will have an effect in the future.

It's not "if they don't make this roll, they don't get anything", because I'm always willing to play along if the players have some idea, especially something I hadn't considered. I give the players some default options and these options in this thread are what the world has to offer per se.

It's just that I see this "How do I progress a story" pretty pointless. I have an adventure, I'm willing to cooperate with the players if they want to defeat all the bad guys and "win" the adventure, but other than that, the adventure is there and the players fail if they are to fail.

I'm not able to answer your last question. I'm just going to give the players lots of possibilities which they can use to defeat the cultists and save the gnomes.

[Segev]

Sounds like you've got a plan! I'd be interested in seeing you return to this thread to report how it goes. :smallsmile:

[Jon_Dahl]

Sounds like you've got a plan! I'd be interested in seeing you return to this thread to report how it goes. :smallsmile:

Thank you :) I'm sure that there will be nothing interesting to report, because I'm sure that they will fail. I can smell it. But I will tell what happened, anyway.

[Deadline]

Yes, I think I get it. But these failures usually contribute to the world becoming a less safer place in general, such as in this case the cultist of Vecna will become stronger, which will have an effect in the future.

That's good! Do the players have any knowledge or awareness that this sort of thing is happening? I ask because it may motivate them to pursue further adventure hooks more rigorously.


It's not "if they don't make this roll, they don't get anything", because I'm always willing to play along if the players have some idea, especially something I hadn't considered. I give the players some default options and these options in this thread are what the world has to offer per se.

You've already shown that if given the choice, your players won't actively engage. Relying on them to do so without changing anything seems like folly.


It's just that I see this "How do I progress a story" pretty pointless. I have an adventure, I'm willing to cooperate with the players if they want to defeat all the bad guys and "win" the adventure, but other than that, the adventure is there and the players fail if they are to fail.

This is a totally legit thing to do! But based on the fact that you came here apparently frustrated and wanting help to not do this exact thing (You even said "Because I don't want it to end that easily." a few posts ago), you seem at odds with yourself. So I offered suggestions on a method you could use to keep things going without handholding the PCs to a guaranteed success.

If you are set on adamantly not changing things and hoping beyond hope that your players will somehow magically change and start reacting the way you want them to, I think you are going to be continually disappointed. But please do post how things turn out. The Hellcat thread was delicious. :smallbiggrin:

[Jon_Dahl]

Alright, so we had a session yesterday. The mission-giver NPC said to the PCs that she would send an investigator the village and tell the PCs what she finds (if anything). This mission would take at least 14 days (it took 7 days to reach the village on horseback). The PCs said that they were OK with this, but they spent the entire session doing other stuff and now they decided to visit the village again. 10 days have passed since the NPC investigator was sent and now she's coming back as the PCs are leaving to visit the place. So the PCs decided not to care what the investigator has found, but instead they restart the investigation right after the investigator had investigated the village, but she can't tell them the results as the PCs have left without any notice. I don't know what to think.

[EldritchWeaver]

You could make the players end up meeting her on the way to the village. The PCs stay overnight at an inn or maybe at open rest place used by travelers, where the investigator surprisingly meets them. Considering that investigations take some time, I don't think the investigator manages to do this within exactly 14 days, but requires a few days to finish the work. So they could even meet the person in the village themselves, if you are willing to extend that far.

I'm not sure what you told your players about the reason you used an investigator. So I don't know why your players would decide they don't need to wait for the results. If you were open enough to admit that you presented them an unsolveable puzzle in the first round and this is your way to fix this, you should remind them about this and that they are about to screw up the plot. If you merely said that you provide them an alternative avenue to give them the information a silver platter, then possibly the NPC hiring the PCs might intervene, reminding them that this goes against the agreement. But without further information, it is difficult to provide a solution for your problem.

[Telok]

They find the gutted corpse of the investigator nailed to a tree outside of town?

Remember, people who aren't given the proper last rites may come back as undead.

[Darth Ultron]

Is there some reason the investigator can't run into the PCs? Even just bump into them anywhere?

Or how about sending a messenger? Like some one with a scroll?

Or what if the investigator left a scroll with ''npc x'' to give to the PCs?

And if all else fails....you always have magic: ''a paper hawk flies over, and unrolls itself into a scroll'' and even ''an illusion of the investigator appears and says...."

[Jon_Dahl]

The PCs have no clue what the investigador looks like vice versa.

[Swaoeaeieu]

The PCs have no clue what the investigador looks like vice versa.

is there a reason you are making it harder on yourself as a DM? if the investigator is hired by the questgiver and the questgiver has talked to the party about the investigator, i dont see a reason why the questgiver hasnt informed one of the sides about the apearance of the other.

[Segev]

is there a reason you are making it harder on yourself as a DM? if the investigator is hired by the questgiver and the questgiver has talked to the party about the investigator, i dont see a reason why the questgiver hasnt informed one of the sides about the apearance of the other.

At the very least, did you remind them OOC that they would miss the investigator who has the details they need? Perhaps the players aren't on the same page as you.

[Jon_Dahl]

At the very least, did you remind them OOC that they would miss the investigator who has the details they need? Perhaps the players aren't on the same page as you.

One of the players told the others that they are waiting for the mission-giver NPC to inform them how to proceed, but the rest disagreed about everything. I let them to talk in peace while I checked what homework I had for today and I stopped listening to their conversation which took quite a while. Then they announced that they were leaving for the village. Since reaching that decision had been so incredibly difficult for my players, I didn't want to say anything because that might have meant another 15-minute interplayer negotiation.

Furthermore, I think I should respect that the PCs have effectively decided that the investigator is useless/not that useful. Having them receive help from the investigator would be railroading, but at least she has taken bracelet from the house.

[Swaoeaeieu]

One of the players told the others that they are waiting for the mission-giver NPC to inform them how to proceed, but the rest disagreed about everything. I let them to talk in peace while I checked what homework I had for today and I stopped listening to their conversation which took quite a while. Then they announced that they were leaving for the village. Since reaching that decision had been so incredibly difficult for my players, I didn't want to say anything because that might have meant another 15-minute interplayer negotiation.

Furthermore, I think I should respect that the PCs have effectively decided that the investigator is useless/not that useful. Having them receive help from the investigator would be railroading, but at least she has taken bracelet from the house.

so the investigator took the only clue. and will now not meet the party? how is that a good thing? having the investigator catch up with them is even a usefull way to show he isnt usefull. if you make them believe he found them with all his investigative skills.

[Segev]

One of the players told the others that they are waiting for the mission-giver NPC to inform them how to proceed, but the rest disagreed about everything. I let them to talk in peace while I checked what homework I had for today and I stopped listening to their conversation which took quite a while. Then they announced that they were leaving for the village. Since reaching that decision had been so incredibly difficult for my players, I didn't want to say anything because that might have meant another 15-minute interplayer negotiation.

Furthermore, I think I should respect that the PCs have effectively decided that the investigator is useless/not that useful. Having them receive help from the investigator would be railroading, but at least she has taken bracelet from the house.

I'm sorry, Jon_Dahl, this seems like passive-aggressive smugness. "Man, my players talked incessantly and FINALLY came to a (wrong) decision, but reminding them OOC of something they may have forgotten but which would be important is just too much trouble because I don't want to deal with them talking still more, so I'll just let them look like idiots for not remembering this one detail and make sure that they have no chance of recovering from the mistake I'm not giving them a chance to remember they're making based on my inner monologue's timetable."

You weren't even participating or paying attention. That's fine, to a degree, but to then just assume they're willfully ignoring something this crucial that their PCs would have more on the top of their minds and which other NPCs would have interest in keeping them from forgetting...AND deliberately using it to make it literally impossible for them to resolve it (while insisting there's no way they could possibly meet up en route)...

You're setting them up for failure, and then throwing your hands in the air that they find "detective work" to be "too hard." You said you expected them to fail; now it looks like you're taking every step you can to ensure your expectation is met.

[icefractal]

As the GM, you are the PCs eyes, ears, and other senses. Also to an extent their memory, because of the gap between sessions. Obviously, you won't do as good a job at this as reality itself - nobody can. That's why it's crucial to correct the players when there's a failure of understanding. Letting them stumble and then laughing about it is pretty much communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood (https://xkcd.com/169/).

And ok, you might want smarter players, or more attentive ones, or ones who prioritize the game more highly. Which is fine - go recruit some. But with the players you have, if you tell them something and they don't understand it, then you failed at communicating it to them.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm sorry, Jon_Dahl, this seems like passive-aggressive smugness. "Man, my players talked incessantly and FINALLY came to a (wrong) decision, but reminding them OOC of something they may have forgotten but which would be important is just too much trouble because I don't want to deal with them talking still more, so I'll just let them look like idiots for not remembering this one detail and make sure that they have no chance of recovering from the mistake I'm not giving them a chance to remember they're making based on my inner monologue's timetable."

You weren't even participating or paying attention. That's fine, to a degree, but to then just assume they're willfully ignoring something this crucial that their PCs would have more on the top of their minds and which other NPCs would have interest in keeping them from forgetting...AND deliberately using it to make it literally impossible for them to resolve it (while insisting there's no way they could possibly meet up en route)...

You're setting them up for failure, and then throwing your hands in the air that they find "detective work" to be "too hard." You said you expected them to fail; now it looks like you're taking every step you can to ensure your expectation is met.

I'm sorry if I seem passive aggressive or smug. To be honest, I expect them to return back to the mission giver, who will then give them clues. I don't see why the NPCs have to run after the PCs, since it seems almost certain that the PCs will eventually return to the mission giver. There is no failure here: just wild goose chase since the PCs deliberately and willingly want to do that. Nothing will be lost. I promise that the mission giver will wait, patiently, with the bracelet and all, as long as it takes.

Usually when the players make plans, I let them do that in peace and concentrate on something else for a moment. This gives me a short pause and I think I really need that during the game. It makes me tire easily to listen to players talk off-game for 15 minutes and I'm not able to participate. I don't like that. Does that make sense?

And they were reminded perfectly well by one of the players. I had nothing to add. He told the other players exactly how the situation was.

But really, there is no failure here. I'm serious.

[Segev]

Okay. I'd still suggest giving them opportunity, if any of them (perhaps the guy who reminded the others that the investigator should be on his way back) look, to maybe notice the investigator. The more you reward any effort that MIGHT work, the more likely you are to get efforts geared towards working (rather than flailing about).

Sorry if I seem scolding. I just...didn't know how to say that any more gently. Please do let us know how it goes as it goes forward!

[Swaoeaeieu]

i agree with Segev, while not trying to be scolding.
but if you let them go about their way, only to wait for them to return, what does that teach the players? you want them to do better in investigation in the future i asume. So why no bend the way things work out a little? that way you reinforce that if the players take initiative and try stuff out, they can get results. Maybe they notice the investigator, maybe he is in trouble for asking to much questions and the pc's come about just in time to safe him.
playes learn by rewarding their behaviour, you want them to try more, think about things and take action. would be ashame if they do that now and nothing happens.

there is certainly a failure here. if the players go on a detour that takes days and has no result. that is a very uninteresting couple of minutes. thats playtime no one is getting back.

[TheifofZ]

I'd just like to make a note as to how this situation has come about:

You, as the DM, never look at the player character sheets, and then you, as the DM, assume they have certain skills or spells on those sheets.
You, as the DM, wrote a short adventure that heavily relies on the use of a very small set of specific (and very niche) skills available to several of your players. Key word there is 'available'. Again, you didn't check their sheets to see that they actually -had- those skills.
Now you, as the DM, cannot be bothered to gently correct player's misconceptions or misunderstandings simply because you don't want to have them discuss the proper course of action again.

As I see it, much of this is simply due to not being aware of what was on your player's sheets, and then an unwillingness to sit and discuss actions and plans with them. Blaming them for a 'lack of effort' when you can't be bothered to put in the effort to literally just check their sheet or even pay attention to their discussions is a bit hypocritical, I think.

[Segev]

if you let them go about their way, only to wait for them to return, what does that teach the players? you want them to do better in investigation in the future i asume. So why no bend the way things work out a little? that way you reinforce that if the players take initiative and try stuff out, they can get results. Maybe they notice the investigator, maybe he is in trouble for asking to much questions and the pc's come about just in time to safe him.
playes learn by rewarding their behaviour, you want them to try more, think about things and take action. would be ashame if they do that now and nothing happens.

there is certainly a failure here. if the players go on a detour that takes days and has no result. that is a very uninteresting couple of minutes. thats playtime no one is getting back.This is a good point. If you want the players to learn to put effort in, their efforts need to be rewarded. "We got nothing until we asked the NPC to send an investigator. And then we got nothing until we went back to the NPC to see what the investigator found," is going to teach them, "We can't do anything in investigation plots except wait for the NPCs to have all the information to hand us. Anything we try will fail and we just waste time trying."

[Jon_Dahl]

I see. What do you suggest?

[Psyren]

You're on the right track, but the reason your "three clues" method isn't working is because you say "it requires player action." That isn't a bad attitude in general for players to advance the plot, but you're undermining the purpose of the "three clues" method when you do it this way. The purpose of the "three clues" is to be three hints as to what the PCs can do. They shouldn't require PC action beyond "showing interest" to find. You need not call them out as "clues," but they shouldn't require players to successfully engage in specific actions to find. Their whole purpose is to serve as hints that a) there's something to find and b) where to START looking. Your "clues" are more "hooks." Things that, once the players bite on the bait that is a real clue, they'll be drawn into.

Let's look at your hooks and how we can build clues to them.


The leap of logic to "maybe he asked too many questions" isn't somthing reasonable to expect the players to figure out.

However, this is a great one! You can actually build two "clues" into it:

1a) If the players ask around, even a low Gather Info check would reveal what the gnome was asking about, and to whom. They can then chase down who HE talked to, or ask around about the same things, drawing them into the plot.

1b) Merely making a Gather Info check can qualify as "asking too many questions." They're specifically looking into this, and didn't take "nothing happened, she just ran off" as an answer. Therefore, I would take merely MAKING a Gather Info check trigger the cultists attacking. Alternatively, make a failed Gather Info check trigger this.

Again, they tried this with Gather Info. What I would suggest is that you make one of the results of a Gather Info check be a list of people they have figured out might "know something." This list should include the Sage, so they know they need to talk to him personally.

This one ties back to the other two. Technically, this and the prior one are the same "hook." By gating the hook behind succeeding at a Gather Info check, you've made a potentially insurmountable barrier to their investigation. I would lower this DC (after all, why is it a DC 20 just to learn who the gnome talked to?), and I'd then make this tie in to 1b by having FAILING at this Gather Info roll trigger cultist attack based on "asking too many questions."

This isn't a clue. It's something a clue could put them onto, if they had a clue as to it. I'd make a lower Gather Info roll result than the above result in "the sheriff has a reputation for only bothering with cases for those who are willing to bribe him."


It's a cool mystery, and you did well coming up with the avenues you could think of for them to solve it. The one problem is that you didn't provide clues to lead them to the hooks. If your clues require the players to already know where to start looking, and then to succeed at looking for it, they're not going to do the "three clues" job.

On the other hand, failure CAN be an option! It just sounds like you are unsatisfied with their failure in this case, so you need to provide more solid ways of "entering" the investigation, better bait for your hooks. They've already shown interest, so they're not shunning your plot hooks, but they can't find the next ones, so you need clues that they can only miss if the players don't realize what they've seen. (That's why "three clues:" Players WILL miss at least one.) "Clues," though, need to be "free." Not necessarily obvious, but they need to be something the players are shown for the simple price of having TRIED to find something.

I agree with everything posted here. In particular, "a failure still moves the story along" is essential; you should never put yourself in a position where you have to fudge a roll because the PCs failing means the story stops.

I love the idea that if they make their Gather Information checks, they get a list of people to question further, and if they fail, they get attacked (for being too nosy/obvious) but the attackers' personal effects can also provide a lead. Not only does this make sure you always keep the story moving, it also means that the players get what they want - the social players who invested in GI at the expense of combat skills get to avoid the fight, and the combat players who neglected it in favor of things like Spot and Tumble get to put those skills to use instead. It's win/win, and great design.

[Segev]

I see. What do you suggest?

Have something enable them or the investigator to run into each other and recognize each other. Whether you go with the idea that the investigator is in trouble/dead (which might make sense since you had "if the PCs ask too many questions, the cultists attack" as an option when the PCs were looking into it) or you give the investigator some obvious tell or even just change your mind and have the investigator know what the PCs look like, them meeting the investigator on the way back can be a small reward for a small bit of proaction. Them rescuing the investigator, or discovering his corpse and having to figure out what the clues that are still on his corpse are, would also be a reward for proaction because they would have waited longer to find out he's never coming back.

I normally wouldn't recommend something quite so heavy-handed, but after the string of "nope, nothing" rewards for their efforts, giving them some positive feedback for taking action is important right now.

Look back over the adventure so far, especially towards the start, and ask yourself what, if anything, the PCs did that were steps towards the kinds of proactive choices you would have wanted them to make. At a minimum, they took the quest. They went to the town. They asked around.

For every action that even points in roughly the right direction, you should give them something that changes because they took action. It doesn't have to be much, but it should let them know that their actions are meaningful. Nothing encourages players to stop bothering to do anything but find the NPC who will solve the problem for them faster than everything they think to try coming up with absolutely nothing. Failures should be informative, not stonewalling, whenever possible. Even going the WRONG direction should at least give them a hint that they're barking up the wrong tree. (Heck, "I got nothing at all for trying this" is often a hint of that in and of itself...which is probably why your players assumed they couldn't do anything in town to investigate the mystery.)

[Jon_Dahl]

Have something enable them or the investigator to run into each other and recognize each other. Whether you go with the idea that the investigator is in trouble/dead (which might make sense since you had "if the PCs ask too many questions, the cultists attack" as an option when the PCs were looking into it) [...] discovering his corpse and having to figure out what the clues that are still on his corpse are, would also be a reward for proaction because they would have waited longer to find out he's never coming back.

I've thought about this long and hard, so I will have the bad guys kill the investigator before the PCs arrive. They already have captured so enough people that they are starting have problems with logistics and from now on they will just kill people without hesitation. The investigator found the bracelet, which belongs to the daughter and it has the name of her father inscribed inside, and later that day the investigator got killed by the sage for being too vocal about her finding. The villagers found the investigator from a pond (The sage didn't bother to hide the body that well, because it was raining and he had migraine at that moment) and they buried the investigator and put her stuff in a chest, which they are happy to hand over to the PCs. Naturally the villagers haven't checked the bracelet. The villagers can also tell the PCs that the investigator said that she had found proof that the investigator had been kidnapped, but no one had listened that well, since the villagers are mostly evil and/or chaotic, they couldn't care less if some outsider had gone missing or kidnapped: gone is gone.

[Segev]

Wow, nasty little town. But that sounds like it'll give the players some reward for taking action. From their perspective, they would have waited and waited until it was clear the investigator was not just late but actively missing. Now they've found this sooner.

Good luck! :smallsmile:

[Jon_Dahl]

Things didn't go that well.

The PCs arrived to the village and went straight to the House of Thirsty Ones (a tavern). The innkeeper was a different guy than the one who had been there previously (two weeks ago). The previous innkeeper had been a human but this new guy was an elf. The Battle Sorcerer thought that this was very dubious and tried to interrogate the elf, but the elf didn't like his attitude at all. The elf said that he had been the owner of the inn for 9 years and that's it. The BS told his companions that he suspects the elf. Two of the PCs (a cleric of Pelor and a multi-class character) suffered from schizophrenia so one of them had to roll a will save against a psychotic episode since the BS was fueling his paranoia. The roll failed and a severe schizophrenic episode kicked in. The cleric was convinced that the BS was right and that the innkeeper was actually something a lot worse than just 'suspicious', so he struck the elf with searing light. The elf died. The multiclass character healed the elf back to full health but the cleric struck the elf again and he went to 0 hp. Now the party barbarian and the multiclass character both grappled with the cleric who tried to finish the elf off. The BS interrogated the critically wounded elf. The elf knew nothing. The cleric escaped from the grapple and killed the elf. Then the party barbarian accidentally killed the cleric (because I have houseruled non-leathal damage to be deadlier than in RAW).

Now the corrupt sheriff came and asked 15 to 40 gp from each of the PCs so that the situation could be settled. They said "No" and tied the sheriff up. They confronted the entire village who had gathered around the tavern and the sheriff said that everyone should cooperate. The party barbarian tried diplomacy to calm everyone down but he failed so badly that everyone fled the scene. The PCs left the village with their kidnapped sheriff.

The sheriff was interrogated while his mind was scanned with detect thoughts and they found out that he didn't know about the fate of the gnome and his daughter, and that the sheriff strongly suspected that the sage had something to do with the disappearances. In addition, they detected that the sheriff was indeed evil.

They took the sheriff to the capital, where the sheriff told the city guard story about the murder of the innkeeper and how he was captured. Since the PCs had good connections and the murderer had been killed by one of the PCs, the PCs were forgiven but they were given an official warning not to kidnap sheriffs anymore and they were strongly advise to obey the law in the future.

The PCs went to the village again and this time they were disguised. They went to talk with the sage and asked him about the gnome and his daughter. He clearly lied and radiated evil and his hidden familiar radiated evil as well. They thanked the sage for his time and paid him. They went to ask about the gnome's daughter from the villagers and they told them that she hadn't been a popular member of the society (for no particular reason, they just didn't like her face) and that she had disappeared. One of the villagers noted that the PCs were "city people" just like the woman who had arrived to the village about two weeks ago and she had asked lots of questions about the gnomes. After a couple of days she had been found murdered. The PCs thanked the villagers and went back to the city. They informed the mission-giver NPC about the situation and she was devastated to hear that the woman, her principal investigator, had been murdered. The PCs gave up the mission.

[icefractal]

They went to talk with the sage and asked him about the gnome and his daughter. He clearly lied and radiated evil and his hidden familiar radiated evil as well. They thanked the sage for his time and paid him. O_o
It seemed like things were going forward (if a bit messily) up to that point, and then - huh? Did the players not notice the lying/radiating evil, or did they just decide to trust him anyway?

Also, what was the deal with the elf?

[Swaoeaeieu]

also, i am not very suprised things go wrong when you give not one but two players a weird flaw that gives them even more reason to murderhobo then players already have :P

[Segev]

Sounds like it was going okay until they up and gave up. What provoked that choice?

[Eladrinblade]

Detective work seems too difficult for my players

t. every DM ever

[Jon_Dahl]

Sounds like it was going okay until they up and gave up. What provoked that choice?

While in the capital, they had a conversation on how to continue. They had no ideas.

[Jon_Dahl]

O_o
It seemed like things were going forward (if a bit messily) up to that point, and then - huh? Did the players not notice the lying/radiating evil, or did they just decide to trust him anyway?


I honestly don't know.


Also, what was the deal with the elf?

He had little baby girl, the first half-elf born in that village, so he had a stand-in innkeeper every now and then.

[Segev]

Well, my condolences to you and your players. I wish your whole group better luck with the next adventure.

[Swaoeaeieu]

He had little baby girl, the first half-elf born in that village, so he had a stand-in innkeeper every now and then.

so in the adventure where the players allready had trouble staying on track. you introduced this detail for what reason exactly? i get wanting to make a fleshed out, detailed world and all. But this seems like a way to make players more paranoid then you need them to...

[icefractal]

I honestly don't know.I mean, did they detect the evil aura and/or successfully discern that the sage was lying, or was there just an aura (that they could have detected but didn't) and a lie (that they could have seen through but didn't)?

If it's the former - I dunno, maybe your players are defective? :smalltongue: Or at least extremely inattentive.
If it's the latter - see the advice earlier in the thread re: if you make progress dependent on making a roll, don't be surprised when that fails and no progress occurs.

And yeah, realistically the facts are just there and there's no guarantee you'll find them if you don't look well enough. But, realistically many crimes go unsolved, so only go fully realistic if you're ok with "the PCs found nothing and gave up" as an outcome.

[Sliver]

so in the adventure where the players allready had trouble staying on track. you introduced this detail for what reason exactly? i get wanting to make a fleshed out, detailed world and all. But this seems like a way to make players more paranoid then you need them to...

Some DMs feel that red herrings are fun and essential to a good intrigue plot. It seems like "my players are having trouble with my plot and keep misinterpreting or missing clues" isn't enough for some DMs to decide to skip on the red herring.

[Ualaa]

Going back a little ways, but done already is done.

If the group can meet with the investigator, and the investigator can pass along the clues they found... at least some clues, that move the plot along, even if the PCs still need to investigate further to solve the mystery... then the group meets the investigator and the story moves on.

If the group cannot meet the investigator, because they don't know who the investigator is, and the investigator doesn't know who they are, and perhaps they're taking differing routes so won't cross paths on the road... then the investigator should not have recovered the bracelet, which is one of the essential clues. Why remove an essential clue, if the PCs aren't going to be given the clue. The objective is to solve the mystery.

In the case of not meeting the investigator, the investigator was enough of a pain in the butt to have made an impression. People remember the investigator and some of the things they remember point the PCs at least in the direction of the next clue. And preferably point them towards several of the clues, since up to that point it seemed like they were missing the clues, for whatever reason.



Do the players enjoy a find the clues and solve the mystery type of game?

Part of your job is to craft an adventure which will let each of your players shine.
If they all love kicking in the doors, and killing anything that moves, and that's all they way... an avenue to release the frustrations of real life, without going to jail for it... then give them that style of game.
If they do like to solve things with their heads (player intuition/knowledge/investigation), then by all means give it to them.
That said, you have to enjoy the game too... if mindlessly killing everything that moves, without having a story, plot, theme, development over time, etc... is not fun for you, but it is for your players... there is no point in continuing with the current group.
You both need to have fun, for it to be worthwhile doing.



As an aside... I don't really like puzzles.

It isn't so much that I don't like them, because I do.
It is how they're done in D&D/Pathfinder.

The player says I dropped out of high school in grade 10, so am not that smart.
But my wizard has an Intelligence of 22, a Wisdom of 18, and a Charisma of 18.
He is a genius in knowledge and knows where to go for answers, how to ask in a way that people want to be helpful.
I cannot do a fireball myself, but if I were my character I could.
Just like I cannot remember a 15 digit number, but my character could easily remember a 50 digit number.
My character is better at solving stuff than I am.

The same as the 5'6" and 150 pound guy, would be dead in a fight against a Grizzly Bear or a Tiger, even with a medieval longsword.
But their character, with a STR score of 24 and that sword, will down the Grizzly in a couple of rounds, without breaking a sweat.
And if the 12th level fighter can perform that feat of combat prowess, despite being a smallish and relatively weak (in D&D terms) in real life... then my Wizard with the INT/WIS/CHA scores should be equally adept at his thing.

So on the one hand, you have a puzzle or riddle or mystery.
You want the PLAYERS to solve the mystery, because otherwise where is the adventure.
But if their CHARACTERS cannot solve it easily, which given their mental prowess would be the case, they're being ripped off.
Especially if you allow the 17th level Fighter to defeat a Tiger that ambushes him.

For the sake of consistency, if the smart Wizard cannot solve the puzzle in 10-15 minutes of concentration, because the player is not as smart and wise as his character, then the Fighter shouldn't be able to defeat a Tiger with 10% of their hit points and attack values equal to what they had 12 levels ago, because the player wouldn't survive in the wilderness with a 12 lb sword against a Tiger that surprises them in waist high grass.

[Jon_Dahl]

I mean, did they detect the evil aura and/or successfully discern that the sage was lying, or was there just an aura (that they could have detected but didn't) and a lie (that they could have seen through but didn't)?

If it's the former - I dunno, maybe your players are defective? :smalltongue: Or at least extremely inattentive.
If it's the latter - see the advice earlier in the thread re: if you make progress dependent on making a roll, don't be surprised when that fails and no progress occurs.

And yeah, realistically the facts are just there and there's no guarantee you'll find them if you don't look well enough. But, realistically many crimes go unsolved, so only go fully realistic if you're ok with "the PCs found nothing and gave up" as an outcome.

They successfully discerned the lie and successfully detected that the sage and the hidden creature were evil. All this was clear to the players.

Edit: sorry, I had misread your earlier message.

[Sliver]

You know, the part with the tavern red herring made me realize that you probably haven't read the article that was linked by Kelb at the top of the second page. A shame, because it's a good one, and could have helped you.


COROLLARY: RED HERRINGS ARE OVERRATED

Red herrings are a classic element of the mystery genre: All the evidence points towards X, but its a red herring! The real murderer is Y!

When it comes to designing a scenario for an RPG, however, red herrings are overrated. I’m not going to go so far as to say that you should never use them, but I will go so far as to say that you should only use them with extreme caution.

There are two reasons for this:

First, getting the players to make the deductions they’re supposed to make is hard enough. Throwing in a red herring just makes it all the harder. More importantly, however, once the players have reached a conclusion they’ll tend to latch onto it. It can be extremely difficult to convince them to let it go and re-assess the evidence. (One of the ways to make a red herring work is to make sure that there will be an absolutely incontrovertible refutation of it: For example, the murders continue even after the PCs arrest a suspect. Unfortunately, your concept of an “incontrovertible refutation” may hold just as much water as your concept of a “really obvious clue that cannot be missed.)

Second, there’s really no need for you to make up a red herring: The players are almost certainly going to take care of it for you. If you fill your adventure with nothing but clues pointing conclusively and decisively at the real killer, I can virtually guarantee you that the players will become suspicious of at least three other people before they figure out who’s really behind it all. They will become very attached to these suspicions and begin weaving complicated theories explaining how the evidence they have fits the suspect they want.

In other words, the big trick in designing a mystery scenario is to try to avoid a car wreck. Throwing red herrings into the mix is like boozing the players before putting them behind the wheel of the car.

Who knows what was going through their heads. You can ask them, but we can't. Maybe by the time they gave up, they simply didn't care anymore. Maybe they were afraid that it's another red herring, the fact that a guy radiates evil. I mean, why should he? He's a wizard! He doesn't have the Aura class feature like a cleric does, so he shouldn't radiate evil. Must be some evil artifact that he is carrying or some other random detail, and the DM just wants to mess with us again.

[Jon_Dahl]

Is it necessary to call it a red herring? I was just making the world a bit more alive. I'm not denying that it was a red herring, but I'm just asking if it's necessary to call it one.

[Swaoeaeieu]

Is it necessary to call it a red herring? I was just making the world a bit more alive. I'm not denying that it was a red herring, but I'm just asking if it's necessary to call it one.

i think its an adequate word for this situation. you made this thread to help with a detective adventure, one of the most prevailant advises was to give them more then enough hints that can lead to the right conclusion. And here you are including something that leads them to the wrong one.

[Sliver]

I'm not denying that it was a red herring, but I'm just asking if it's necessary to call it one.

Fine, we will call it a Crimson Clupea or something. Happy?

[icefractal]

They successfully discerned the lie and successfully detected that the sage and the hidden creature were evil. All this was clear to the players.Wow. All I can think of is:
A) The players meant to go investigate him later, but then forgot by the time they got back to the city. Maybe designate one player as the chronicler and have them take notes, for which they get a little bonus xp if they do it right.
B) The players got so frustrated by failure (the spy being dead and it being their fault, most recently) that they just gave up. Too late for this particular mystery, but they next one might work if it's less opaque at the start.
C) These players are not capable of deduction. Sorry.

[Telok]

Eh, I saw something similar this weekend. It's pretty much down to players who don't have either the experience or the patience to do anything but move from fight to fight. After about ten minutes of no combat he wandered off and found a bunch of demons to get killed on.

Essentially your players ignored the other investigator, ignored the evil people lying to them, and started a bar fight over the fact that there was a different bartender than last time.

I have to say it. Sometimes railroading is not a bad thing.

I'm not saying to hardline them onto a path and never let them deviate. But if you want anything other than combat you'll have to go with really obvious clues and a hard to avoid path. If they suddenly get motivation and want to go do something else you let them go, that's the behaviour to reward. But go ahead and have the bad guys send minions and threats, drop maps with the hideout marked on them, and maybe give them a short term NPC who can do the main investigation while they play bodyguards and assistants.

[Jon_Dahl]

Should I give up? The players have given up so should I just respect that and leave it there? I was thinking that the NPCs could auto-resolve the case later on, when the gnomes are already dead, and inform the PCs that the case has been closed and everyone is dead. The PCs could then ask the NPCs how the case was resolved and then I could speak using the NPC's voice to explain how to solve kidnappings.

[Swaoeaeieu]

well the evil mage had a plan right? since he is not being stopped his plan will continue without interference. So maybe do another adventure first, then new arives that township X has suddenly been the spawning ground of numerous waves of undead demons with the plague! the party will recognise the townname, or you remember them of it.

if you still want to do a detective adventure, maybe search for a premade one in dragon magazine or something like that. You can adapt it to your setting and maybe pick up a little about providing hints and a structured mystery.

but in all cases, idd say this chapter is over. there will be consequenses of this particular outcome, but trying to force them back once more to solve the same riddle they have already ignored twice now will feel really forced for everybody.

But i cant stress this enough: DONT LEAVE IT THERE! do not ignore this, do not leave it alone because it didnt work. analyse what went wrong in your eyes, ask the players what they thought, write down what happend and since you did the whole bartender thing to make a real-ish world. everything that happend, or did not happen will have consequenses in this world. If the players want to ignore an obviously evil town with very evil plans, let them ignore it. but towns like this never have evil plans that end at the town limits, eventually, this ignored problem will bite them in the behind.

[Segev]

Going forward, use this as the seed for a later adventure where the plan has advanced. They may or may not have thwarted it if they'd solved this mystery, but now they have another shot because it's grown into something less subtle. But it's also more powerful as a threat.

I would also try simpler plots for a while. Ramp up complexity as you see what the players can handle.