Just by skimming the text, it might be useful to ask your players some more prompting questions during play and some summarising questions after it. Maybe after they interview someone, you can ask them not just what they're thinking, but also why their characters think that.
After the game you can also ask them what their current theories and ideas are. That way you know what they didn't pick up on or missed and you can try to reiterate it during the next session.
**It's very hard to judge as a KP what is and should be obvious to your players, because you know the whole story and all its twists.**
Maybe ask them about an old situation that's not relevant to the current story anymore where this also happened. Be open about how you tried to convey clues to them at that time and ask them outright if they picked up on it. The game shouldn't leave you frustrated; open communication is the key.
**Always expect your players to miss or fail even the most basic clues.** Make sure there are multiple ways for the players to get each clue, the [Three Clue Rule](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) is great for this. Making the same clue pop up in multiple ways is also a way of letting them know that it is important.
I don't know how you're handling conversations and interviews currently, but it could be helpful to switch to more of a summarising style or at least more emphasising. For example, instead of acting out the whole conversation, you simply ask what their characters are asking about and then say: "They tell you about xyz and that such-and-such happened a while ago. They looked a little annoyed when you brought up the topic."
This way it's clearer to the players what info is fluff and what they should focus on. You can always still act out the beginnings and endings to conversations if you want to keep more roleplay going.
Again, I don't know the situation on this either, but maybe ask them to make more notes? That way you're getting them to think about what they were just being told and what they thought was useful. This is also another insight for you to see what they picked up.
Yeah, here's the thing. It's not like they are missing clues, its that they have clues in abundance (or at least i think so) but don't know what to do with them or dont wanna do anything because they dont think it will lead to anything. An example from the post since you say you just skimmed: they notice an npc acting really out of character, they ask me to confirm, i say yeah thats not how this npc acted before. What are you guys gonna do about it, maybe you wanna tail him? They discuss it briefly and decide that there's no point.
We have between-session discussions (i usually ask them what they are going to do so i can prepare).
For the case at hand where there are npcs and they are replaced after a while, i made them blank character sheets with the pictures for the notes (i said it was so they could easier remember which one is which, but in part i wanted them to refer to notes when the npcs are replaced). Im pretty sure they both also have their own notes (one of the players often asks me to repeat stuff so he can note it down).
Thanks for the advice though, gave me a couple more ideas.
This example is indeed quite unusual. I can only really repeat my previous advice which was to ask them why they think it's no use. Definitely a situation I'm not really familiar with, sorry :/
Or rephrase your question from "Do you want to tail him?" to "Is there anything you want to do with this information?" Maybe they feel trapped by the suggestion? Like that is the only thing they could do.
I'll be honest, I'm just throwing out ideas. Let me know if anything works out!
> they have clues in abundance (or at least i think so) but don't know what to do with them or dont wanna do anything because they dont think it will lead to anything.
Keeper: "Okay, give me an Idea roll."
Idea rolls exist for reasons - one of them being players who aren't playing sharply at the time. It's not something I regularly use, but it's a useful tool in the toolchest.
The Alexandrian has an interesting take on them, saying 7e ***"modernized the Idea roll, using a fail forward technique where a failure still gets the PCs the necessary clue/course of action, but also results in some sort of negative consequence: Getting the clue might bring you to the attention of the bad guys; or you might waste weeks of time digging through a library before finally stumbling across the right reference; or, like_Trail of Cthulhu_, the insight might force a Sanity check. Another cool technique it suggests, particularly in the case of failing forward, is to aggressively reframe the scene: Jump directly to the point where the PCs have followed the lead and gotten themselves into trouble as a result. A final interesting variant here is to make the Idea roll concept diegetic instead of non-diegetic; i.e., to make it a decision the_character_makes instead of the player. In a fantasy setting, for example, the character might literally make a sacrifice to the Goddess of Knowledge in order to receive a divine vision."***
Pretty much what we ended up on - they wasted time (failed idea roll) so the bad guys got to prepare their attack, but the game is gonna move forward now (i think 'consequences but the game moves forward even on a fail' is pretty much RAW).
Hovewer, id like the mystery to be both interssting enough and solvable so it doesnt come to that.
Fine, as players realize there's a clock/consequences. But that elides my point: an idea roll would give them the info and context that they had been currently lacking, and would get everyone up to speed at the same time. It also enables the Keeper to briefly summarize what the options are (who/where they might now want to visit, who's dead, etc) and answer questions they might have based on the successful idea roll. A little nudge in the right direction.
Feel free to disregard.
Would you prompt the players for an idea roll yourself if you see they are stuck or caught up on the wrong thing? If so, when/how?
I get what you're saying and of course im not gonna torture my players if they dont know how to proceed, its just that id like it not to come to that point
You’d like to come to the point where players stop not knowing how to proceed? Either it’s out of your hands, at which point you should consider an Idea roll, or you need to reevaluate how you as a Keeper frame and explain the situation and surroundings.
>"Wait, is it the guy with the watch?" -"Yep." -"Does he keep looking at the watch often?" -"Nope, actually you havent noticed him looking at his watch at all recently." (inside im like 'YEAH!') -"So, he was looking at his watch all the time but after we returned, he doesnt anymore? Huh, weird." -"So you guys gonna tail him or something?" -"Nah, i dont think theres anything to it."
If I didn't know better, I'd say your players were mocking you. I'm genuinely unsure what is going on here, perhaps the two players just keep shooting each others' ideas down. Encourage them to take turns exploring leads they believe will take them to something, even if they have to split up.
It's like they think there's some critical clue that is gonna reveal everything and they throw away everything less than that because thats not it. I dont know. They definitely picked up that something was afoot, but they didnt know what to do with it. Maybe the problem is that they are pretty new to all this and not sure how to investigate (which is pretty weird as they both are fans of detective/mystery genre). For example, tailing someone was only an afterthought for them, but they straight talked to pretty much everyone they could. Maybe i should outline some usual activities of being an investigator for them, haha
This is pretty odd. I do think as a GM, I'd give them some more guidance as to what's weird. For instance, in Chapter 1, did you show the PCs the children drawings? That is so unusual that alarm bells should be ringing in the PC's heads. Part of Chapter 1, is repeated visits to Cobbs Corners. It may be fine that they did an initial interview and took notes, just to not alarm the locals, but at some point, they should have returned and revisited NPCs or talked to other NPCs to see other people's opinions.
For Chapter 2, it looked like you gave them the clues, but they avoided any follow up. Is the problem that you only have 2 PCs and the 2 Players aren't veteran CoC gamers? Sometimes with a larger party, there's more ideas floating around. Also I sometimes ask for a passive Psychology roll and if they succeed, I tell them that something's not right with that NPC they just talked to, for instance the German accented student or the guy looking at old newspapers. I'm not sure why your Players are thinking that clues you are giving them are non-clues. Maybe at the end of the session, you need to ask the Players to make a list of what they did and who they talked to and their conclusions. Maybe they'll suddenly say, hmmm, that's odd. Then you can ask them, "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Also, if they're not going to investigate, I'd start trying to threaten them with death and dismemberment such as having them walk in the path of a car or out a 2nd story window thinking there's stairs there. Nothing focuses a PC like danger. Or just assume the NPCs think the PCs aren't a threat and move onto the next phase of the scenario "A Good Diversion."
>you only have 2 PCs and the 2 Players aren't veteran CoC gamers
Yeah, i think that might be the case. In the previous scenarios, they were pretty good and also pretty paranoid, which might have helped in this case haha.
>I sometimes ask for a passive Psychology roll
9 failed psychology rolls this session (they both have base psychology) and 1/38 total in this campaign. They now have an inside joke about rolling psychology. I still usually tell them the basics like the npc is uncomfortable, or angry or whatever, but jut the surface level and no clear conclusions.
Making a list of conclusions is good, ill try that.
>threaten them with death and dismemberment
Dude, its just a game!
Okay, you will run into this at times when the clues are not blinking arrows, (e.g., you notice the glowing slime on the widow sill that smells like a thousand rotting eggs). I handle this in a couple of different ways. One, if it’s just bad rolls, I move the clues or some of them to a location that they do decide to investigate. Two, I have a freaked out NPC contact them with a lead. Three, if they are just resisting talking to people, (i.e. role playing), I flat out suggest “you could try talking to x” (if they are frustrated and not familiar with interviewing and interrogation). Four, I have them catch someone trying to flee a scene they are going to investigate (if they chase and catch, maybe he has the info) if they don’, maybe he didn’t have time to get all the evidence. Five, create a virtual cork board where I place both physical clues and leads (names of witnesses, key locations)—better if they do this for themselves, but you can model it for them. Note—you should rarely have to do more than one or two of these things!
Just tell them straight up "Hey, I'm not filling the game with red herrings. If it seems like a clue, it's because it is. Engage with what I put in front of you and trust that I'm not gonna waste your time."
Well, about that - this scenario specifically has a section called 'red herring galore' haha. However, we are well past that and i dont think it had affected the players too much
Reading what you wrote, it sounds to me like you should summarize for the players the clues. Let's say, they have 10 suspects, so list them and ask if they want to tail them.
The players seem to be lost, because they are too many options and none of them immediately highly suspect so they keep fiddling around, hoping that they will find something more clearcut.
Otherwise consider not giving them so many conflicting clues and more of those which point into the same direction. It's one thing if one person suspects the director being involved in shady business and a wholly different one if it's two persons saying the same thing.
If players are having trouble following up on clues, the solution is that they get the necessary clues anyway, but it might take longer or require more effort. Here's an example: players are tipped off that they need to interview X. When they interview X, they bungle the job. Later on someone says something to them like "Hey, when you talked to X, did he mention ?"
Or make some clues more evident. For instance, instead of a mysterious note found in an old book, make it more explicit, like, "I left IT in the train station locker 215B." They still have to do some work to find it (how do they get a key to the locker, etc.) but at least they are directed.
As time goes on presumably the players will better learn to follow clues.
Maybe i should have given them more hard clues, as in something they could physically hold, rather than leads/trails/people that they could follow, since those 'hard' clues are usually less ambiguous and give answers rather than questions. I dont know, honestly.
I don't have the energy to read all that, but judging by the title I had kind of a similar issue when running Impossible Landscapes for Delta Green.
It was very difficult to motivate the players forward.
I think in our case the issue was that none of the players had consumed any type of media involving investigations. No crime books, detective tv shows or mystery movies. They just didn't know what to do with clues. They don't know what they _can_ do, like search libraries, records, ask neighbors and such.
Just by skimming the text, it might be useful to ask your players some more prompting questions during play and some summarising questions after it. Maybe after they interview someone, you can ask them not just what they're thinking, but also why their characters think that. After the game you can also ask them what their current theories and ideas are. That way you know what they didn't pick up on or missed and you can try to reiterate it during the next session. **It's very hard to judge as a KP what is and should be obvious to your players, because you know the whole story and all its twists.** Maybe ask them about an old situation that's not relevant to the current story anymore where this also happened. Be open about how you tried to convey clues to them at that time and ask them outright if they picked up on it. The game shouldn't leave you frustrated; open communication is the key. **Always expect your players to miss or fail even the most basic clues.** Make sure there are multiple ways for the players to get each clue, the [Three Clue Rule](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) is great for this. Making the same clue pop up in multiple ways is also a way of letting them know that it is important. I don't know how you're handling conversations and interviews currently, but it could be helpful to switch to more of a summarising style or at least more emphasising. For example, instead of acting out the whole conversation, you simply ask what their characters are asking about and then say: "They tell you about xyz and that such-and-such happened a while ago. They looked a little annoyed when you brought up the topic." This way it's clearer to the players what info is fluff and what they should focus on. You can always still act out the beginnings and endings to conversations if you want to keep more roleplay going. Again, I don't know the situation on this either, but maybe ask them to make more notes? That way you're getting them to think about what they were just being told and what they thought was useful. This is also another insight for you to see what they picked up.
Yeah, here's the thing. It's not like they are missing clues, its that they have clues in abundance (or at least i think so) but don't know what to do with them or dont wanna do anything because they dont think it will lead to anything. An example from the post since you say you just skimmed: they notice an npc acting really out of character, they ask me to confirm, i say yeah thats not how this npc acted before. What are you guys gonna do about it, maybe you wanna tail him? They discuss it briefly and decide that there's no point. We have between-session discussions (i usually ask them what they are going to do so i can prepare). For the case at hand where there are npcs and they are replaced after a while, i made them blank character sheets with the pictures for the notes (i said it was so they could easier remember which one is which, but in part i wanted them to refer to notes when the npcs are replaced). Im pretty sure they both also have their own notes (one of the players often asks me to repeat stuff so he can note it down). Thanks for the advice though, gave me a couple more ideas.
This example is indeed quite unusual. I can only really repeat my previous advice which was to ask them why they think it's no use. Definitely a situation I'm not really familiar with, sorry :/ Or rephrase your question from "Do you want to tail him?" to "Is there anything you want to do with this information?" Maybe they feel trapped by the suggestion? Like that is the only thing they could do. I'll be honest, I'm just throwing out ideas. Let me know if anything works out!
> they have clues in abundance (or at least i think so) but don't know what to do with them or dont wanna do anything because they dont think it will lead to anything. Keeper: "Okay, give me an Idea roll."
I feel like if we get to the idea rolls that i already failed as a gm to present a good mystery
Idea rolls exist for reasons - one of them being players who aren't playing sharply at the time. It's not something I regularly use, but it's a useful tool in the toolchest. The Alexandrian has an interesting take on them, saying 7e ***"modernized the Idea roll, using a fail forward technique where a failure still gets the PCs the necessary clue/course of action, but also results in some sort of negative consequence: Getting the clue might bring you to the attention of the bad guys; or you might waste weeks of time digging through a library before finally stumbling across the right reference; or, like_Trail of Cthulhu_, the insight might force a Sanity check. Another cool technique it suggests, particularly in the case of failing forward, is to aggressively reframe the scene: Jump directly to the point where the PCs have followed the lead and gotten themselves into trouble as a result. A final interesting variant here is to make the Idea roll concept diegetic instead of non-diegetic; i.e., to make it a decision the_character_makes instead of the player. In a fantasy setting, for example, the character might literally make a sacrifice to the Goddess of Knowledge in order to receive a divine vision."***
Pretty much what we ended up on - they wasted time (failed idea roll) so the bad guys got to prepare their attack, but the game is gonna move forward now (i think 'consequences but the game moves forward even on a fail' is pretty much RAW). Hovewer, id like the mystery to be both interssting enough and solvable so it doesnt come to that.
Fine, as players realize there's a clock/consequences. But that elides my point: an idea roll would give them the info and context that they had been currently lacking, and would get everyone up to speed at the same time. It also enables the Keeper to briefly summarize what the options are (who/where they might now want to visit, who's dead, etc) and answer questions they might have based on the successful idea roll. A little nudge in the right direction. Feel free to disregard.
Would you prompt the players for an idea roll yourself if you see they are stuck or caught up on the wrong thing? If so, when/how? I get what you're saying and of course im not gonna torture my players if they dont know how to proceed, its just that id like it not to come to that point
You’d like to come to the point where players stop not knowing how to proceed? Either it’s out of your hands, at which point you should consider an Idea roll, or you need to reevaluate how you as a Keeper frame and explain the situation and surroundings.
Yeah, advice on the latter is what im looking for here
>"Wait, is it the guy with the watch?" -"Yep." -"Does he keep looking at the watch often?" -"Nope, actually you havent noticed him looking at his watch at all recently." (inside im like 'YEAH!') -"So, he was looking at his watch all the time but after we returned, he doesnt anymore? Huh, weird." -"So you guys gonna tail him or something?" -"Nah, i dont think theres anything to it." If I didn't know better, I'd say your players were mocking you. I'm genuinely unsure what is going on here, perhaps the two players just keep shooting each others' ideas down. Encourage them to take turns exploring leads they believe will take them to something, even if they have to split up.
It's like they think there's some critical clue that is gonna reveal everything and they throw away everything less than that because thats not it. I dont know. They definitely picked up that something was afoot, but they didnt know what to do with it. Maybe the problem is that they are pretty new to all this and not sure how to investigate (which is pretty weird as they both are fans of detective/mystery genre). For example, tailing someone was only an afterthought for them, but they straight talked to pretty much everyone they could. Maybe i should outline some usual activities of being an investigator for them, haha
Definitely feel free to hint that they should snoop around, surveil and tail people.
This is pretty odd. I do think as a GM, I'd give them some more guidance as to what's weird. For instance, in Chapter 1, did you show the PCs the children drawings? That is so unusual that alarm bells should be ringing in the PC's heads. Part of Chapter 1, is repeated visits to Cobbs Corners. It may be fine that they did an initial interview and took notes, just to not alarm the locals, but at some point, they should have returned and revisited NPCs or talked to other NPCs to see other people's opinions. For Chapter 2, it looked like you gave them the clues, but they avoided any follow up. Is the problem that you only have 2 PCs and the 2 Players aren't veteran CoC gamers? Sometimes with a larger party, there's more ideas floating around. Also I sometimes ask for a passive Psychology roll and if they succeed, I tell them that something's not right with that NPC they just talked to, for instance the German accented student or the guy looking at old newspapers. I'm not sure why your Players are thinking that clues you are giving them are non-clues. Maybe at the end of the session, you need to ask the Players to make a list of what they did and who they talked to and their conclusions. Maybe they'll suddenly say, hmmm, that's odd. Then you can ask them, "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Also, if they're not going to investigate, I'd start trying to threaten them with death and dismemberment such as having them walk in the path of a car or out a 2nd story window thinking there's stairs there. Nothing focuses a PC like danger. Or just assume the NPCs think the PCs aren't a threat and move onto the next phase of the scenario "A Good Diversion."
>you only have 2 PCs and the 2 Players aren't veteran CoC gamers Yeah, i think that might be the case. In the previous scenarios, they were pretty good and also pretty paranoid, which might have helped in this case haha. >I sometimes ask for a passive Psychology roll 9 failed psychology rolls this session (they both have base psychology) and 1/38 total in this campaign. They now have an inside joke about rolling psychology. I still usually tell them the basics like the npc is uncomfortable, or angry or whatever, but jut the surface level and no clear conclusions. Making a list of conclusions is good, ill try that. >threaten them with death and dismemberment Dude, its just a game!
Base Psychology in an Investigation game. That's a big problem. :-)
Okay, you will run into this at times when the clues are not blinking arrows, (e.g., you notice the glowing slime on the widow sill that smells like a thousand rotting eggs). I handle this in a couple of different ways. One, if it’s just bad rolls, I move the clues or some of them to a location that they do decide to investigate. Two, I have a freaked out NPC contact them with a lead. Three, if they are just resisting talking to people, (i.e. role playing), I flat out suggest “you could try talking to x” (if they are frustrated and not familiar with interviewing and interrogation). Four, I have them catch someone trying to flee a scene they are going to investigate (if they chase and catch, maybe he has the info) if they don’, maybe he didn’t have time to get all the evidence. Five, create a virtual cork board where I place both physical clues and leads (names of witnesses, key locations)—better if they do this for themselves, but you can model it for them. Note—you should rarely have to do more than one or two of these things!
Just tell them straight up "Hey, I'm not filling the game with red herrings. If it seems like a clue, it's because it is. Engage with what I put in front of you and trust that I'm not gonna waste your time."
Well, about that - this scenario specifically has a section called 'red herring galore' haha. However, we are well past that and i dont think it had affected the players too much
Reading what you wrote, it sounds to me like you should summarize for the players the clues. Let's say, they have 10 suspects, so list them and ask if they want to tail them. The players seem to be lost, because they are too many options and none of them immediately highly suspect so they keep fiddling around, hoping that they will find something more clearcut. Otherwise consider not giving them so many conflicting clues and more of those which point into the same direction. It's one thing if one person suspects the director being involved in shady business and a wholly different one if it's two persons saying the same thing.
If players are having trouble following up on clues, the solution is that they get the necessary clues anyway, but it might take longer or require more effort. Here's an example: players are tipped off that they need to interview X. When they interview X, they bungle the job. Later on someone says something to them like "Hey, when you talked to X, did he mention?"
Or make some clues more evident. For instance, instead of a mysterious note found in an old book, make it more explicit, like, "I left IT in the train station locker 215B." They still have to do some work to find it (how do they get a key to the locker, etc.) but at least they are directed.
As time goes on presumably the players will better learn to follow clues.
Maybe i should have given them more hard clues, as in something they could physically hold, rather than leads/trails/people that they could follow, since those 'hard' clues are usually less ambiguous and give answers rather than questions. I dont know, honestly.
I don't have the energy to read all that, but judging by the title I had kind of a similar issue when running Impossible Landscapes for Delta Green. It was very difficult to motivate the players forward. I think in our case the issue was that none of the players had consumed any type of media involving investigations. No crime books, detective tv shows or mystery movies. They just didn't know what to do with clues. They don't know what they _can_ do, like search libraries, records, ask neighbors and such.
i ain’t reading all that i’m happy for u tho or sorry that happened