Subtle Clues Fail to be Picked Up

[Super Squirrel]

As a GM and in one occasion as a player having a conversation with a GM, I have noticed something. Subtle clues are rarely, if ever picked up by the players. In some cases even what one would consider an obvious clue is missed by players.

Here is a good example of what I'm refering to:
A while back in my Champions game, I announced that the players had all been invited to a charity dinner. The guests were all randomly assigned to different tables through the convention hall. One of the players I described his table as being shared with three Swedish scientists. Two of whom begin debating over whether or not the player (Voltage) could be used as a power generator.

Now I thought the clue here was something someone would pick up on. Why would a random seating arrangement put three swedish scientists at the same table as a superhero? The player never suspected a thing.

[Egyptoid]

oh my gosh yes I couldnt reply fast enough on this one.

Most players have to be spoonfed and railroaded through storylines.
when they complain about being led around, I remind them of things
they missed. It used to be my fault, as a GM poorly describing things.
But I know now I've gotten better, but perception still lags.

[Lamrok]

Now I thought the clue here was something someone would pick up on. Why would a random seating arrangement put three swedish scientists at the same table as a superhero? The player never suspected a thing.

I just pull out my marker, walk to my whiteboard and write "three swedish scientists at the same table as a superhero." That lets the group know that this is indeed a clue and should be considered as such.

I've played in enough games, and missed enough clues as a player to understand that clues that are obvious to GMs are often invisible to players. Clues that are blindingly obvious to players are often based on a misunderstanding of what the GM said. If I make a list of the clues on the board, players can look at them, review them, and make logical leaps that are, more often than not, correct. In real life - it is easy to sense when things are out of place and suspicious. In a Role-playing game, separating signal from noise is much, much harder.

[Barton]

I ran in a Champions game where the GM would give us hints, we picked up on all of them, except some were false leads. Sometimes leads can be false ones.
In my game some leads are picked up and some are not. Some leads must "shown" to the players. I only "show" leads when needed to advance the plot.

[tesuji]

Now I thought the clue here was something someone would pick up on. Why would a random seating arrangement put three swedish scientists at the same table as a superhero? The player never suspected a thing.

Well, why would the random robbery of a wrestling promoter just happen to put the bad guy within close proximity of the nephew of the guy whose car he was about to jack and kill?

Why would bank robbers just happen to be robbing the same bank our intrepid hero is in (in his secret ID) right at that moment so often?

Why would our hero's reporter friend keep getting into trouble when most of the other reporters he knows rarely do?

Coincidences are rife within the comics genre, many much larger than the one you describe.

Honestly, depending on the situation, as a player, I might not be suspicious much at all, and even be looking at this as an opportunity, a GM-plot hook opportunity to make new contacts, as opposed to a Gm provided trap setup.

But, without more direct knowledge of the GM in question and his track record, i really could no decide how i would take it.

However, I really must say that if the nature of the runs and history and such is that such an innocuous meeting of interesting people is meant to be understood as a sign of danger, the degree of paranoia that would raise would IMO (for me) get in the way of some decent roleplaying. I have certainly had Gms where, if the character is not on your sheet its pretty much a bad guy/trap and where making friends or even casual conversation or more extensive contact with people was ALWAYS a bad move, but i didn't game with them for long.

[AliceTheOwl]

I've played in too many games, now, where I was supposed to pick up on a clue but it buzzed on by. I might've swatted it, but never even thought twice about it.

I hate turning to my dice to solve these things, but I'll usually end up rolling INT or Deduction or some other related skill so the GM can spoon-feed me.

It's not that I'm dumb (at least, I hope not). It's that I'm not a detective who knows all the right clues to look at. I don't have an incredibly deductive mind. I take most things at face value.

So to Josh's question, I say :tonguewav .

[Super Squirrel]

Well, see that's just it. I suspect it is a GM perception thing. To me the swedish scientist seemed almost too obvious. Notice that I never described who was sitting at the other tables and I made a big deal about how two of the scientists were talking over Voltage while the third privately offered to make Voltage some personal equipment if he came by his office. There are other examples that I can't think of right now.

I was more curious if others saw it in their games. I certainly don't blame this on the players.

[Greywind]

One of my players regularly kept notes and after a session would go home and put it into a comp file, which was his character's journal. He got tired of the note taking, deciding that he was intelligent enough to pick up the clues spread around figure them out for himself.

Later, after several missed plot hooks that came back and bit the group in the ass, he started his notes and journal up again.

The plots don't stop if the heroes miss the clues.

[Super Squirrel]

One of my players regularly kept notes and after a session would go home and put it into a comp file, which was his character's journal. He got tired of the note taking, deciding that he was intelligent enough to pick up the clues spread around figure them out for himself.

Later, after several missed plot hooks that came back and bit the group in the ass, he started his notes and journal up again.

The plots don't stop if the heroes miss the clues.
That is why I want players to keep notes. They would be surprised how much they miss because of this approach.

[Vondy]

Unless your players are very familiar with your style and the way you think, or are unusually perceptive, subtle goes over about as well as a brick. In your example, the player may of thought you were providing a humorous vinette, or a tone setter, and dismissed it as being nothing more than that. One way of making sure they pick up a sublte clue is the clue them in to the fact that its important indirectly: either by having something in the scene be "off," or by alluding to it (less than subtly) later. And they won't only miss "clues" if they get the idea you're being subtle. They'll also decide things that weren't clues were clues - often with wild theories abounding.

[Super Squirrel]

They'll also decide things that weren't clues were clues - often with wild theories abounding.
Most of the time I tell them they are chasing the breeze when they do that. Other times I'll just beat my head into the table until they catch on. There are sometimes when neither method works. In these cases, I just create something for them to find but have it unrelated to what they are after so that they feel like they closed a branch of investigation.

I remember in one case, connected to the above example. Voltage has been focusing on his school work for a while (the player has been playing different characters for a bit). The University calls and reports that Voltage never showed up for his finals. The players investigate and can't find him anywhere.

The players go to his room and one player thinks to check his email. His last read email points back to a date two months before finals. So the players wonder how he could be missing for two months and not be noticed. The find out papers had been turned in up until finals in which case he never showed up. But not one professor recalls seeing Voltage.

The players at first completely skipped over the fact that Voltage had papers turned in even though he had been established as having not been in his room or scene by anyone for two months. Later, the players recall that Voltage had a meeting with a Sweedish scientist. One player thinks to check back at the Charity dinner and finds out that the seating arrangements had been altered externally. Another clue from the room where Voltage had his appointment indicates that there had been heavy equipment that was quickly vacated. The players ask who owned the building and what name the building was registered under. Now the building is owned Duchess Enterprises. The name is the scientist who was registered at the party. The players have also at this point had the school papers sent off to be analyzed by a linguist and a forensic expert. The forensic expert indicates it was printed by a new model of printer systems for big coorporations. The company has sold exactly five of these high quality printers. They contact all five companies. The one owned by Duchess Enterprises is reported as having been stolen. The players promptly declare this path a dead end and go onto something else. :ugly:

What they end up doing instead is tracking down the listed address from the scientist whose name they already know is fake. The address belongs to an old man who is senile. So, the player promptly begins to terrorize the old man insisting he is hiding something. This is where I begin banging my head on the table.

Anyway, FINALLY the linguistic report gets back on the paper. It indicates the paper would have required at least six linguists working together or a very high powered computer. The paper was clearly designed to match Voltage's writting style and be dumbed down enough to match his C+/B- grade level. But there were enough items obvious to a linguist to give away the fact this paper was artifically fabricated.

The players declare the investigation a complete dead end for now and go on with the game.

Note, details of this story are subject to slight inaccuracies.

[Markdoc]

Heh, funnily enough we played a one-off game last weekend while we were in London, with an old university buddy.

It was a current day modern detective setting. All the clues whizzed by us, too :(

As a GM who LIKES to run complicated conspiracy themes, I've found that clues have to be obvious and so do plots.

From my GM's rules for managing players:

#9. As GM, you have access to all the information in the game, and you have been thinking about it. Your players don’t and probably haven’t been. Thus, what looks like a simple plot to you may be totally opaque to them. This doesn’t mean they are morons. As a general rule, you should keep plots fairly simple and linear. You can throw in a few red herrings, and your players will generate more on their own, so what seems to you embarrassingly bare-bones, will seem like Byzantine intrigue to them.

A large part of the problem is that players are totally dependant on the information you feed them. That means that what you see as a standout clue, they might often see as less important than a detail you added "for color" - to them it's all "stuff that the GM said."

To take the example given - if the player is not thinking about Voltage at all, then having three scientists talking about Voltage might not trigger any "this is important" vibes.

There is a fine line unfortunately between making something obvious enough for players to react to and laying it all out there for them to see.

Here are some tricks I use.

1. Set them up in advance. By this I mean give them something to direct their attention. For example, if you want them to investigate a corporation or a person (later on) have them obviously involved in something else where the players are also directly involved. It can be something totally unrelated to the story arc, but it sets them up in the players mental landscape. Seperating the incidents in time makes it look less like a set up.

2. Give them back up. Having an NPC or three around who can offer helpful ideas can get things moving again. So that they do not become a crutch, my helpful NPCs are usally deficient in many things the players can do and are not always available. They are also not always right and usually instead of having an answer, they can suggest places to look for one. That's enough.

3. Provide a few really obvious clues - but place them in non-obvious places so the players don't feel they are being spoonfed (well, not too much). If they have to work hard to get a clue, that's good enough to give them a feeling of accomplishment. Once they are running in the right direction they are more likely to pick up on subtle clues - because they will be looking for them.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

I think its generally a gm perception thing. We have a godlike view of the situation. In fact, we designed it so its going to seem obvious to us but might be incredibly obscure to the player. Other factors can be the time gap (What might have just happen to the player characters, seeing a particular symbol for example) might have "happened" last week to the players so it loses some of its immediacy and thus importance. This is particularly true in PBEM games.

OTOH, sometimes your players can surprise you. I thrown out what I thought were totally obscure clues that they latched into immediately, a few times to the extent of short circuiting the planned scenario. One case was when the figured out a certain club was a vampire nest/hangout by the fact the bathrooms were totally clean and almost unused (even the basins were dry) despite it being an all night club and the fact it was approaching dawn when they checked.

[tancred]

I think it is a GM perception thing. Markdoc said it particularly well.

As a player, I know I have missed what seemed, in retrospect, obvious clues. But they didn't strike any of the players as obvious at the time.

As a GM, the most annoying thing is when the players seize on some minor detail you made up on the spot. Not intended as a red herring, just some minor flavor point that the players demand an answer for.
And the next thing you know, they've decided it's the big clue. And they're off and running.

If you mostly improvise anyway (which I do), you can go with the flow. But you have to be careful when making up stuff on the spot, because you just cannot predict what the players will grab and run with.

[tesuji]

Notice that I never described who was sitting at the other tables...


As an aside, this might be part of the problem, in two ways.

First, it denies to the players the info they need to contrast "whats this table like" and "whats the other tables like?" If each of the character were at a different table, some filled with vapid starlets and intolerable rich dudes and smarmy politicos but this one table had three out of place scientists, perhaps the only scientists in the room or even better, three of the four scientists in the room and all together with V but the fourth scientist over at another table looking bored... or maybe there is a last minute seating snafu which happens to put V in with these three geeks...

You need a context to put something into in order to find it out of sorts.

Second, its not uncommon for a Gm to run "only the important stuff" and the player can draw conclusions about "why is this important" and frankly its fairly easy to see these guys as "soon to be victim" or "soon to be ally" just as easily as "soon to be threat." Even if he did use superleap to get to the conclusion that "these guys arranged to sit with me" unless they do something to tip their hand, it might just be an ego flattering kind of thing. "Why wouldn't they?" might well go thru the mind of an overconfident or self-happy hero.



... and I made a big deal about how two of the scientists were talking over Voltage while the third privately offered to make Voltage some personal equipment if he came by his office. There are other examples that I can't think of right now.



Again, that sounds like an opportunity, not a scene which would lead me to conclude "uh oh, bad guys here."

While i would expect some reasonable caution, i would not expect my players to get alarm bells going off in their heads about the scenes you describe. if they did, then i would be worrying if i was making the universe too "everything is out to get us" harsh and by dint of that turning them against interaction with my NPCs as "people" instead of "adversaries."

[Supreme Serpent]

Sometimes it's hard to seperate the clues from the fluff. The only things you know as a player is from info the GM feeds you, and any one thing is often unlikely to set off alarms. Additional clues that link things together are useful. Like have characters see a short news blurb about a blackout in Stockholm or new Swedish research lab opening in town. Later, when they're digging into Voltage's disappearance, they find out the bit about the Swedish scientists. Hopefully a connection is made "wasn't there something else about Sweden recently?".

As a player, I'm usually in one of three states regarding mysteries.

1) No idea what's going on. Either no clues that make sense, or so many potential clues flying around like a cloud of bats, with so many potential ways they could fit together, it's almost impossible to find the right one. Additional note - in more "fantastic" genres like supers, this is especially problematic, when possible reasonings that involve clones, time travel, alternate dimensions, mind control etc. are all reasonable possibilities. :help:

2) Think I know what's going on, even possibly who's behind it, but unsure as to how to stop it/get sufficient evidence, etc.

3) Know very quickly exactly what's going on, that X person is a villain in disguise, etc. Especially with some fellow GM's, I can often spot things/figure out the key element/critical thing pretty easily. Now, when I do this I have two options. a) ruthlessly exploit this to try to expose/catch villain, stop plot, etc. or b ) have my character continue to act as though they didn't immediately see the big picture the way I, the player did. Continue on the date with the vampire, show up for the obvious trap, etc. and play along with what seems to be helping the GM to tell a more entertaining story. A lot of the time, I'll go with b ). :)

As a GM, I've felt your pain though, and have seen what I thought were obvious clues, literally with drawings of locations needed to go to, get horribly misinterpreted. My most painful personal example is my "PSI involved in gang war on the docks" interpreted by players as "Aliens at Disneyland". :weep:

Some "player training" might be useful. Point out to the players that info you have readily available is likely important. If they have a "random" encounter and you already have their name, etc. this is likely someone of future importance to the scenario or campaign. If you look aside for a moment and obviously pull something out of thin air, they're probably throwaway. Similarly if you have pre-prepared drawings, photos, etc. of people/places/items they are more likely to be the lost Incan magic relic and less likely to be just some piece of jewelry someone bought in Acapulco.

[Vanguard00]

I was chuckling as I read through this thread. Too many memories of being both the frustrated GM and the clueless player. I definitely agree that what's obvious to some ain't so obvious to others.

However, as a GM I've learned to adapt. I've often presented a mystery, or at least mysterious plot hook, with at least a clue or two floating around. What always amuses me is that players will indeed find something you didn't intend to be important, and then focus on that thing. So I simply turn it into a clue, as well. Sometimes the players give me better ideas than I had. For example, maybe the senile old man lived next door to some scientist guy (perhaps one of the ones the PCs were looking for).

Of course, from what SS described it's not as though the players are missing subtle clues. They're just missing clues, subtle or not.

[AliceTheOwl]

Hey! I resent that remark!

I catch a good percentage of the clues, especially in the Champions game he's talking about. That big list of investigation? I wasn't even there at that session, and none of it was shared with me or my character.

Also, I have a history of stumbling across the solution no matter what in all the games I've played. It seems no matter how on-target my investigation (or not), I arrive there at the last second. When my thinking-through and arrangement of clues yields the same response as happening to stumble across the right building, why bother doing all that work?

I guess the answer is: to keep the GM from having to do the hand-holding, spoon-feeding work. But when I'm playing for a few hours of relaxation, why SHOULD I suddenly have to do mental aerobics if I'm just going to pick up on the wrong clue or blunder onto whatever I was being pointed at, anyway?

It's frustrating.

[Chris Goodwin]

There's a long lived idea in RPGs that in order to surprise the character, you have to surprise the player.

Advice: If the character would notice the clue, give the player the clue. You the GM know everything about the scene, but the players only know what you tell them. It's all filtered through you, and we all know that players are notorious for missing the subtle stuff and fixating on the pointless stuff. So don't be afraid to say "You notice that..." or "It occurs to you that..."

(SteveD on RPG.net calls it "pixelbitching". It's the idea that, in old-school graphic adventures, the one item you need in order to get past the scene is the size of one pixel, is the same color as the surrounding pixels, and you need to click on *exactly* *that* *pixel* or you're stuck all day.)

[J. Chamberlin]

I liked that idea of writing down the important stuff on a white-board;

I mean, your more than welcome to put red herrings up there, and its a quick and easy way for everyone, players and GMs alike, to remember exactly what clues/potential clues they've so far picked up. I know I like to play characters that are sharper than myself - for them, it should be as simple as looking up to a white board and saying "OH! Swedish scientists! Right, right...".
If that seems like spoonfeeding, maybe it is, but there are ways around that. Don't write the clues up until the PCs actually encounter that clue, and don't write it unless your group needs it. If the PCs uncover a red herring, throw that up there alongside the other clues and let the characters investigate whichever they think is the most important - the other clues will still be waiting for them.

Of course, my game table tends to get pretty smoky pretty quick, so maybe spoonfeeding can work sometimes.

j

[tancred]

Chris, the first computer game I ever played had a problem very like that.
King's Quest 4, you had to Search (type in the command "Search") to find all the necessary items to complete the sub-quests that led up to the main quest.

Except for one item. This one particular item, you couldn't "Search" for. You had to type "Look" while standing in the right spot.
Wasted hours of playing time, then finally broke down and bought the hint book, only to find that "Look" was the solution.
Was so infuriated I never finished the game.

Your point about giving the players what the characters would notice is good; I'm going to put that on my list of things to remember.

[Super Squirrel]

Well it looks like some people are giving me some good ideas for how I can make clues more obvious to the player and less subtle. This is what I was looking for. Of course, I could also use some advice for being a player with a GM who doesn't use techniques. :)

[John T]

I've often found it handy to not only provide the players with plenty of clues, but also an equal (or greater) number of purely random details, especially on the fly.

I had a group trying to solve a locked-room murder in a JI/CoC game. The victim had smeared a fair amount of blood on one wall "in his death throes"... y'know, the one that has the concealed passageway behind it. :D

Player: "What's the smear shaped like?"

Me: *blink* ... (quickly make a quick sketch of what I think a random blood smear would look like, hand it to player)

The scenario continues on, with several other clues passing by, and all the while the player is obssessing over this sketch. Good thing too, since after the second round of his picking it up, turning it around, looking at the map of the grounds where the investigation was going on, even HOLDING IT UP TO A WINDOW so he could see the image REVERSED, I decided it was a map... which of course was the critical clue that finally cracked the case. :slap:

John T

[gewing]

Unless your players are very familiar with your style and the way you think, or are unusually perceptive, subtle goes over about as well as a brick. In your example, the player may of thought you were providing a humorous vinette, or a tone setter, and dismissed it as being nothing more than that. One way of making sure they pick up a sublte clue is the clue them in to the fact that its important indirectly: either by having something in the scene be "off," or by alluding to it (less than subtly) later. And they won't only miss "clues" if they get the idea you're being subtle. They'll also decide things that weren't clues were clues - often with wild theories abounding.


My old ref kept on creating plotlines that we had NO IDEA what the heck he was trying to do.

And then the uber competant NPCs ended up saving the day. Most of the BEST times in the games were inter player, iirc.

[Samuraiko]

I've often found it handy to not only provide the players with plenty of clues, but also an equal (or greater) number of purely random details, especially on the fly.

That's for sure. I've seen what John does with "meaningless" details in his "Legend of the Five Rings" game.

Let's see...

One PC misses the subtle hints of what marks a person lost to the Shadow... which leads to the death of the PC's Lost Love.
An NPC knows EXACTLY what we need to know about the bad guys, and no one ever thinks to ask WHY they know that... which leads to a PC spending the whole of Winter Court learning about the Shadowlands from an akutenshi.
Details that crop up during some very hectic conversations with the Crab patrols while running around the Shadowlands that most people forgot... and then we had no idea what to do when the Oni we were looking for got the drop on us.

After a while, I was making notes, and a good thing, too, because when we found ourselves in the middle of a HUGE battle on the Wall, Nasami and the others got jumped by a frickin' ENORMOUS Oni (imagine a 15' eel with legs, spikes, claws, and a breath weapon like mustard gas) and Nasami was the only one who had been paying attention to the last Crab patrol that had returned after fighting one...

Small wonder that John's official epithet in that game was "f***ing bastard".

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko

[ZootSoot]

I have missed subtle clues because I have given the benefit of the doubt to GM who sometimes trips over his own ideas (in this case a client new the name of a vacationing assistant even though I had not supplied it to him, I noticed but ignored it thinking it was an oversight by the GM who made such oversights fairly frequently). If the characters don't pick up on the clue then they don't pick up on it, usually there will be other clues and those might lead them back to the ones they have overlooked. Also, use those dice to give the characters a chance that the players don't have. Usually characters have a wide area of competence not shared by their players.



ZootSoot

[Vondy]

My old ref kept on creating plotlines that we had NO IDEA what the heck he was trying to do.

And then the uber competant NPCs ended up saving the day. Most of the BEST times in the games were inter player, iirc.

I had one player who was very clear headed about plots and clues and what was happening, and one player who would leap to fantastical conclusions, often based on weird tabloid and movie plots he was projecting onto my game in the same group. And sometimes he'd just lock into the insignificant like a rabid dog and not let go. The problem was, weird projectionist player usually had more of a following among the other players in terms of convincing them to pursue his wild "leads" than the player who generally had laser-vision in terms of everything that was going on. After a while, I got so tired of the main group running off in wild directions while two or three characters conducted the "real investigation" that I started coming up with some truly bizarre plot twists to keep the group together.

I remember one scene where these two players were the only ones with players present:

The players find the body of a freshly murdered enemy agent. Its clear from the circumstances someone else got to him before they could question him. From the set-up of the room they piece together the fact he had been sitting at the kitchen table having coffee and rye with his killer (he obviously knew them!) before they shot him in the head, point-blank, across the table. There was bubblegum-pink lipstick on the cup that wasn't his, and on the cigarette stub (chesterfields, incidentally) that was facing the shooter's seat. Next to the "guests" saucer is a matchbook the killer used to light their cigarette from the BLUE PARROT nightclub that had the victim's address written inside. Careful examination reveals a long platinum blond hair wedged into a crack in the chair.

None of this was terribly subtle. Laser vision player concludes: we're looking for leads on a PLATINUM BLOND wearing BUBBLEGUM PINK LIPSTICK at the BLUE PARROT. Sure, it could have been a crossdresser, or a wig, or a crossdresser in a wig, but essential thesis was sound. And the killer could be headed back there. Time was of the essence. Laser vision player announces: "To the Blue Parrot!"

Weird projectionist player insists they search the victim first. Laser vision player, impressed with weird projectionsists uncharacteristic thoroghness, approves wholeheartedly. He later told me, since the victim had stolen classified documents they wanted to retrieve, that weird projectionist player might have been looking for them. I thought the same thing.

WP: "What's in his pockets?"
GM: "Which pockets?"
WP: "His pants pockets."

--his coat was hanging on the coat rack (as described). Laser vision goes to check it. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

GM: "Just knick-knacks. Normal pocket stuff. Nothing important."
WP: "But what, exactly?" (It seems he decided "nothing important" was me being coy)
GM: "Two dimes, a nickel, and three pennies. Some string and a pack of gum." (there that should do it)
WP: "What kind of gum?"
GM: "...Big Red?" (I had been chewing it earlier in the game...)
WP: "What?! No one chews Big Red. Its a clue!" (and he's dead serious)
LV: Drops his forehead into his hand with a groan.
GM: Sits in stunned silence, staring at the pack of BIG RED next to his dice.
WP: "Are there newstands around here? Corner groceries? Places people could buy gum."
GM: "Yeah..."
LV: "Why?"
WP: "You know how dave is. This is a clue. We need to follow up on this right now!"
LV: "We need to go to the Blue Parrot..." (gives me a desperate look) "Otherwise the killer could get away. We'll follow up on the Big Red after that."
WP: "No! This is time critical!" (he's getting upset)
LV: (exasperated) "Fine. I'll call the team and head to the Blue Parrot. You check the stores for Big Red!"

So now weird projectionist is off searching for clues related to Big Red chewing gum while the rest of the team is heading like madmen to the Blue Parrot... the thing is, he was so rabid about pursuing the clue after all reason would indicate it was a dead end (not to mention the other players all shaking their heads and telling him: "its not a clue, dammit"), that I finally gave up and had a mousy old woman who watched everything in the neighborhood drop some information I otherwise wouln't have given out just to get him back on track. Ugh!

It became a running joke in my group. When one of the players would come up with something completely unrelated to the plot (so much so that I couldn't twist it in), I would just say: "Big Red." That would be enough to tell them they were on the wrong track.

[sinanju]

So now weird projectionist is off searching for clues related to Big Red chewing gum while the rest of the team is heading like madmen to the Blue Parrot... the thing is, he was so rabid about pursuing the clue after all reason would indicate it was a dead end (not to mention the other players all shaking their heads and telling him: "its not a clue, dammit")...

In our gaming group, the GMs typically would simply tell the player with a seriously wrong-headed idea "Okay, you're out following up your leads," and then pay attention to the other group. If the Big Red player asked about what his character was doing, the GM would repeat that he was "following up on his leads." Eventually the GM would tell him that he'd found nothing of consequence. If he wised up, he could rejoin the other PCs. If he clung to his misperceptions, he could continue to investigate...and sit out more of the game while the GM gave the other players his attention.


It became a running joke in my group. When one of the players would come up with something completely unrelated to the plot (so much so that I couldn't twist it in), I would just say: "Big Red." That would be enough to tell them they were on the wrong track.

Good one.

[Vondy]

In our gaming group, the GMs typically would simply tell the player with a seriously wrong-headed idea "Okay, you're out following up your leads," and then pay attention to the other group. If the Big Red player asked about what his character was doing, the GM would repeat that he was "following up on his leads." Eventually the GM would tell him that he'd found nothing of consequence. If he wised up, he could rejoin the other PCs. If he clung to his misperceptions, he could continue to investigate...and sit out more of the game while the GM gave the other players his attention.



Well, the characters following the main lead did get 90% of the stage time and I did tell him more than once he'd found nothing important (and so did the other players!). He was just... like this. And it was kind of fascinating, in a terrifying way, to see how far he'd take it.

[teh bunneh]

Von D-man's story reminds me of one of my own experiences as a player.

In a low-fantasy/horror game, signs indicated that the stars were right and an ancient demon-god was going to rise from the sea and devour civilization. Our heroes were running around trying to prevent this. A vital clue falls into our hands: The elder god can awaken only when there is a total eclipse of the moon. Our team's "weird projectionist" comes up with this brilliant plan to stop the destruction of the world:

"We must blow up the moon!"

(Because, logically, if there is no moon there can be no eclipse of the moon). :rolleyes:

He hung on to this idea for-frickin'-ever. Not only did all the other players tell him it was a stupid idea (even if it were even possible), but the GM took him aside and told him to drop it. He wouldn't. Even when we were in the middle of the big climactic fight with the evil cultists, he kept saying, "We should have blown up the moon, and then this wouldn't be happening!"

Bill.

[Supreme Serpent]

Von D-man's story reminds me of one of my own experiences as a player.

In a low-fantasy/horror game, signs indicated that the stars were right and an ancient demon-god was going to rise from the sea and devour civilization. Our heroes were running around trying to prevent this. A vital clue falls into our hands: The elder god can awaken only when there is a total eclipse of the moon. Our team's "weird projectionist" comes up with this brilliant plan to stop the destruction of the world:

"We must blow up the moon!"

(Because, logically, if there is no moon there can be no eclipse of the moon). :rolleyes:

He hung on to this idea for-frickin'-ever. Not only did all the other players tell him it was a stupid idea (even if it were even possible), but the GM took him aside and told him to drop it. He wouldn't. Even when we were in the middle of the big climactic fight with the evil cultists, he kept saying, "We should have blown up the moon, and then this wouldn't be happening!"

Bill.

If the player was doing this to be funny, even if the character was serious, that could be great. I'd be laughing pretty hard seeing this in a movie. If the *player* was irate and genuinely upset, that's another thing altogether.

[Cybertooth]

As a GM and in one occasion as a player having a conversation with a GM, I have noticed something. Subtle clues are rarely, if ever picked up by the players. In some cases even what one would consider an obvious clue is missed by players.

Here is a good example of what I'm refering to:
A while back in my Champions game, I announced that the players had all been invited to a charity dinner. The guests were all randomly assigned to different tables through the convention hall. One of the players I described his table as being shared with three Swedish scientists. Two of whom begin debating over whether or not the player (Voltage) could be used as a power generator.

Now I thought the clue here was something someone would pick up on. Why would a random seating arrangement put three swedish scientists at the same table as a superhero? The player never suspected a thing.

Once, and I do mean "once," (okay, maybe a little more than that) I actually rolled up my battlemat and whacked a player who had missed an obvious clue, even after I repeated it with "emphasis" on the clue.

Of course I was young back then and wouldn't dream of doing something like that now (although sometimes I wish I could).

[arcady]

Sometimes you can slap them upside the head with a clue and they just walk on by.

I put things that make no sense into my games all the time, and it always amazes me when they miss it for something more mundane or something they're fixated on instead.

Recent 'something wrong with this picture' moment:


...
They arrive, responding to his page, only to find him at least a day dead with an odd chill in the room (we're in a tropical zone here). None of the PCs have questioned the facts of that much yet... there are some problems in that scene:

he was shot through the neck with an arrow from a rooftop seemingly three blocked away through closed shutters. A first arrow had had a large weight attached to it, with magical residue, and blown open the shutters and smashed a hole into the cabinet behind his head. The scholar was still in his chair facing the window despite the possible sound of that, never having moved for when the second arrow followed from the same archer. PCs never even noticed when I gave them this bit of illogic.

[Storn]

Remember, as a GM, you have the WHOLE picture. Seeing how all the puzzle pieces of the plot fit together makes it SO much easier.

Players do not. They are literally blind, holding different parts of the elephant.

Players have to sift through what is; setting, NPC motivations, ambience elements and what clue to focus on. And all of this in a shared, imaginary space. It is NOT easy thing to do.

And maybe, just maybe, Voltage's player was simply not grabbed or interested in teh conversation between the Swedish scientists. Just because YOU think it is a great subplot hook, doesn't mean the player does.

This is why, in paraphrasing Arcady, players latch onto something "mundane". They latch on, because they find it interesting. Or plausible. Or both.

[Lonewalker]

If the player was doing this to be funny, even if the character was serious, that could be great. I'd be laughing pretty hard seeing this in a movie. If the *player* was irate and genuinely upset, that's another thing altogether.

I was in the same game that Bill mentioned. Unfortunately, this player had (and probably still has) a rep for being kind of clueless. He literally did think that this was the best option available to us. Never mind that it was a fantasy game and that we had no capability of getting to the moon, let only destroying it.

Thankfully, he tumbled into a water-filled pit of pirahna during the final scene and was devoured alive. We mourned him for a few minutes then struck his name from our historical records. :slap:

(Our party mage also fell into the water. He drowned and was eaten. The player never did figure out that her frail character shouldn't be carrying a full sized fishing net and half a library of ancient mystical tomes. But that's another tale of cluelessness...) :rolleyes:

-Lonewalker

[greymankle]

Well as I player I know I've missed clues before. The most recent destructed the whole campaign. We were in a dark champs game.
Our PC's had a wierd dream-like experience. Everyone was involved in the dream and we "rescued" (well half the group rescued, half left to die) a woman. The PC's that stayed "died" in the dream. After the dream we were talking to some NPC's and supposedly the NPC said "well she's real", "I can take you to her" or something to that effect. I was very happy with this plot line and was jones-ing to go about but never heard the NPC say that. I thought the dream was a dead issue, for now. Anyway later on that session a PC left and the whole thing kinda fell apart.

5 PC's in the room, nobody heard the DM say anything to that effect. Maybe OOG conversations hid it or we didn't hear it. So sometimes plot gets lost in the shuffle even though it would be interesting to some players. Granted there was a lot of outside RL stuff that may have ended the game too but the discussion, read arguement, about whether or not the NPC said something kinda nailed it shut.

[CrosshairCollie]

Sometimes, even the obvious clues fail to be picked up.

In one old (OLD) D&D game, the DM was running a vaguely Indiana-Jones-ish scenario, where we were in a trap-filled old temple. No monsters, just trap after trap. It was an old Elvish ruin, and an inscription on the front door said something VERY similar to:
"Use a key straight as an arrow to gain entrance," and they keyhole was small and round.

Now, putting this together, you'd think they wouldn't have to debate for 15 minutes to figure out that all you have to do is jam an arrow into that 'keyhole' and the door would open, right? RIGHT?! :slap:

[Worldmaker]

I dole out two levels of information. The first is the general "this is what people can see on first glance" that is given to everyone. Specific information on what each character notices is sent privately to those players and is based on their character's actions, intelligence, and so on.

In the private messages, I can get slightly coy with one player character (Intelligence 13) using vague language and not emphasizing any one piece of information, while still giving them what they need to know, while another player character (Intelligence 30) I give specific clues and even indicate some possible interpretations of those clues.

The player then feeds the information back to the rest of the group.

This is, of course, a technique best used in PBEM.

[Rune]

Although subtle clues are often missed, they still have a role. They can foreshadow an event or provide the heroes a clever way of avoiding a problem. Since they are likely to be missed, they are not useful as a primary hook to the next scene of a story.

[Slim_McCoy]

"We must blow up the moon!"

(Because, logically, if there is no moon there can be no eclipse of the moon). :rolleyes:

He hung on to this idea for-frickin'-ever. Not only did all the other players tell him it was a stupid idea (even if it were even possible), but the GM took him aside and told him to drop it. He wouldn't.

Had one of these in an old Mechwarrior game. We have technical superiority, they have numbers ('Mechs vs WWII era tanks). Doofus latches onto the idea of dropping I-beams onto the battlefield from our dropship to soften them up.

We explained that there were 3 problems with this plan:

1) We don't have any I-beams, or any way to acqiure them.

2) We've already engaged the enemy, and since I-beams can't be aimed, they're as likely to hit us as them.

3) The engagement will be over before the dropship can be prepped for launch, assuming that we had any I-beams to drop (which we don't) and had a clear target zone (which we don't)

To make a short story long, every time his turn came up during the combat, he kept asking about the progress that the dropship crew was making with the I-beams.

<shakes head> Some people's kids...

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

In the low fantasy game i play in, we've gone from both extremes. Sometimes the GM will have to spoon fed us answers (hmmm it says 1000 as a unit of measure, that couldnt' possibly mean 1000 paces!), Sometimes beat us with the obvious stick (one character has a flask called "Shiney Willy" which was an empty drinking flask he talked to when he was lonely because he was a recovering alcholic. And sometimes we just sit around for 2 hrs eating after the session nit picking every little thing. That works best, because it has the most pizza