The Alexandrian Three Clue Rule

10/1/2019 The Alexandrian » Three Clue Rule
Three Clue Rule

May 8th, 2008
Mystery scenarios for roleplaying games have earned a reputation for
turning into unmitigated disasters: The PCs will end up veering wildly JUSTIN ALEXANDER
About - Bibliography
off-course or failing to find a particular clue and the entire scenario Acting Resume
will grind to a screeching halt or go careening off the nearest cliff. The
players will become unsure of what they should be doing. The GM ROLEPLAYING
will feel as if they’ve done something wrong. And the whole evening GAMES Gamemastery
will probably end in either boredom or frustration or both. 101
RPG Scenarios
RPG Cheat Sheets
RPG Miscellaneous
Dungeons & Dragons
Ptolus: Shadow of the
Spire
Check These Out

Essays
Other Games
Reviews
Shakespeare Sunday
Thoughts of the Day
Patrons
Open Game License
Archives
Archives
Here’s a typical example:
Select Month
When the PCs approach a murder scene they don’t search outside
the house, so they never find the wolf tracks which transform into the
tracks of a human. They fail the Search check to find the hidden love Search
letters, so they never realize that both women were being courted by Twitter
the same man. They find the broken crate reading DANNER’S
Lead Developer MEATS, but rather than going back to check on the local butcher they
Print Edition - PDF Edition spoke to earlier they decide to go stake out the nearest meat
processing plant instead.
As a result of problems like these, many people reach an erroneous
conclusion: Mystery scenarios in RPGs are a bad idea. In a typical
murder mystery, for example, the protagonist is a brilliant detective.
The players are probably not brilliant detectives. Therefore, mysteries
are impossible.
Or, as someone else once put it to me: “The players are not Sherlock
Holmes.”
Although the conclusion is incorrect, there’s an element of truth in
this. For example, in A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes is
investigating the scene of a murder. He discovers a small pile of
ashes in the corner of the room. He studies them carefully and is able
to conclude that the ashes have come from a Trichinopoly cigar.
Now, let’s analyze how this relatively minor example of Holmesian
deduction would play out at the game table:
(1) The players would need to successfully search the room.
(2) They would need to care enough about the ashes to examine
Author them.
PDF Edition (3) They would need to succeed at a skill check to identify them.
(4) They would need to use that knowledge to reach the correct
conclusion.
That’s four potential points of failure: The PCs could fail to search the
room (either because the players don’t think to do it or because their
skill checks were poor). The PCs could fail to examine the ashes
(because they don’t think them important). The PCs could fail the skill
check to identify them. The PCs could fail to make the correct
deduction.
If correctly understanding this clue is, in fact, essential to the
adventure proceeding — if, for example, the PCs need to go to the
City Supplement 1: Dweredell nearest specialty cigar shop and start asking questions — then the
City Supplement 2: Aerie clue serves as chokepoint: Either the PCs understand the clue or the
City Supplement 3: Anyoc PCs slam into a wall.
Rule Supplement 1: Mounted Chokepoints in adventure design are always a big problem and need
Combat to be avoided, but we can see that when it comes to a mystery
Adventure: Complex of Zombies scenario the problem is much worse: Each clue is not just one
Adventure: The Black Mist chokepoint, it’s actually multiple chokepoints.
Spells of Light and Darkness So the solution here is simple: Remove the chokepoints.
Mythos Audio Library: Call of THE BREAD CRUMB TRAIL
Cthulhu
thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule 1/12
Tweets by @hexcrawl
Justin Alexande
@hexcrawl
Me: I have no time and a

professional reading list
that's literally 100+ books
long.
My Brain: You should re-

read the Wheel of Time.
Me: ...
3m
Justin Alexande
@hexcrawl
Page 340: When we say

'plot' we don't mean that
the GM should railroad
anyone.
Page 343: Our example of

how to design a scenario
will require two of the PCs
to have a very speciﬁc ﬁght
For the GUMSHOE system (used in The with each other and decide
Esoterrorists, Fear Itself, and The Trail of Cthulhu), Robin D. Laws to split up.
decided to get rid of the concept of needing to find clues. In each
“scene” of an investigation scenario, there is a “clue”. It’s
automatically assumed that the investigators will find this clue. Me:
This removes three of our four chokepoints, leaving only the
necessity of using the clue to make the correct deduction (i.e., the
deduction which moves you onto the next “scene” where the next
clue can be imparted). And, in the case of the GUMSHOE system,
even this step can be tackled mechanically (with the players
committing points from their character’s skills to receive increasingly
accurate “deductions” from the GM).
This is a mechanical solution to the problem. But while it may result in
a game session which superficially follows the structure of a mystery 8h
story, I think it fails because it doesn’t particularly feel as if you’re
playing a mystery.
Embed View on Twitter
Laws’ fundamental mistake, I think, is in assuming that a mystery
story is fundamentally about following a “bread crumb trail” of clues.
Recent Posts
Here’s a quote from a design essay on the subject:
The Fudging
I’d argue, first of all, that these fears are misplaced, and arise
Corollary: Not All Dice
from a fundamental misperception. The trail of clues, or bread
Rolls Are Mechanics
crumb plot, is not the story, and does not constitute a pre-
scripted experience. What the PCs choose to do, and how they Smart Prep: The
interact with each other as they solve the mystery, is the story. Exposition Drip
As mentioned in The Esoterrorist rules, we saw this at work GM Don’t List #9:
during playtest, as all of the groups had very different Fudging
experiences of the sample scenario, as each GM and player
Ptolus: Running the
combo riffed in their own unique ways off the situations it
Campaign – Post-It
suggested.
Mapping
But, in point of fact, this type of simplistic “A leads to B leads to C
leads to D” plotting is not typical of the mystery genre. For a relatively In the Shadow of the
simplistic counter-example, let’s return to Sherlock Holmes in A Study Spire – Session 20F:
in Scarlet: The Ghost Appears
WATSON: “That seems simple enough,” said I; but how about
the other man’s height?” Recent Comments
HOLMES: “Why, the height of a man, in nine cases out of ten, ruprecht on GM Don’t
can be told from the length of his stride. It is a simple calculation List #9: Fudging
enough, though there is no use my boring you with figures. I had
Justin Alexander on
this fellow’s stride both on the clay outside and on the dust
Dissociated
within. Then I had a way of checking my calculation. When a
Mechanics – A Brief
man writes on a wall, his instinct leads him to write above the
Primer
level of his own eyes. Now that writing was just over six feet
from the ground. It was child’s play.” Rabbiteconomist on
This is just one small deduction in a much larger mystery, but you’ll GM Don’t List #9:
note that Holmes has in fact gathered several clues, studied them, Fudging
and then distilled a conclusion out of them. And this is, in fact, the Jack V on The
typical structure of the mystery genre: The detective slowly gathers a Fudging Corollary:
body of evidence until, finally, a conclusion emerges. In the famous Not All Dice Rolls Are
words of Holmes himself, “When you have eliminated the impossible, Mechanics
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
BigKahuna on
What is true, however, is that in many cases it is necessary for many
Dissociated
smaller deductions to be made in order for all of the evidence
Mechanics – A Brief
required to solve the mystery to be gathered. However, as the
Primer
example from A Study in Scarlet demonstrates, even these smaller
deductions can be based on a body of evidence and not just one clue Justin Alexander on
in isolation. Alexander’s Rule
This observation leads us, inexorably, to the solution we’ve been Alien@System on GM
looking for. Don’t List #9: Fudging
THE THREE CLUE RULE Marcus on
Alexander’s Rule
Whenever you’re designing a mystery scenario, you should invariably NthDegree256 on The
follow the Three Clue Rule: Fudging Corollary:
For any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include at least three Not All Dice Rolls Are
clues. Mechanics
Why three? Because the PCs will probably miss the first; ignore the uriele on The Fudging
second; and misinterpret the third before making some incredible Corollary: Not All Dice
leap of logic that gets them where you wanted them to go all along. Rolls Are Mechanics
I’m kidding, of course. But if you think of each clue as a plan (the PCs
will find A, conclude B, and go to C), then when you have three clues
you’ve not only got a plan — you’ve also got two backup plans. And
when you realize that your plans never survive contact with the
players, the need for those backup plans becomes clear.
In a best case scenario, of course, the players will find all three clues.
There’s nothing wrong with that. They can use those clues to confirm
their suspicions and reinforce their conclusions (just like Sherlock
Holmes).
In a worst case scenario, they should be able to use at least one of
these clues to reach the right conclusion and keep the adventure
moving.
And here’s an important tip: There are no exceptions to the Three
Clue Rule.
“But Justin!” I hear you say. “This clue is really obvious. There is no
way the players won’t figure it out.”
In my experience, you’re probably wrong. For one thing, you’re the
one designing the scenario. You already know what the solution to
the mystery is. This makes it very difficult for you to objectively judge
whether something is obvious or not.
And even if you’re right, so what? Having extra clues isn’t going to
cause any problems. Why not be safe rather than sorry?
EXTENDING THE THREE CLUE RULE
If you think about it in a broader sense, the Three Clue Rule is
actually a good idea to keep in mind when you’re designing any
scenario.
Richard Garriott, the designer of the Ultima computer games and
Tabula Rasa, once said that his job as a game designer was to make
sure that at least one solution to a problem was possible without
preventing the player from finding other solutions on their own. For
example, if you find a locked door in an Ultima game then there will
be a key for that door somewhere. But you could also hack your way
through it; or pick the lock; or pull a cannon up to it and blow it away.
Warren Spector, who

started working with Garriott on Ultima VI, would later go on to design
Deus Ex. He follows the same design philosophy and speaks
glowingly of the thrill he would get watching someone play his game
and thinking, “Wait… is that going to work?”
When designing an adventure, I actually try to take this design
philosophy one step further: For any given problem, I make sure
there’s at least one solution and remain completely open to any
solutions the players might come up with on their own.
But, for any chokepoint problem, I make sure there’s at least three
solutions.
By a chokepoint, I mean any problem that must be solved in order for
the adventure to continue.
For example, let’s say that there’s a secret door behind which is
hidden some random but ultimately unimportant treasure. Finding the
secret door is a problem, but it’s not a chokepoint, so I only need to
come up with one solution. In D&D this solution is easy because it’s
built right into the rules: The secret door can be found with a
successful Search check.
But let’s say that, instead of some random treasure, there is
something of absolutely vital importance behind that door. For the
adventure to work, the PCs must find that secret door.
The secret door is now a chokepoint problem and so I’ll try to make
sure that there are at least three solutions. The first solution remains
the same: A successful Search check. To this we could add a note in
a different location where a cultist is instructed to “hide the artifact
behind the statue of Ra” (where the secret door is); a badly damaged
journal written by the designer of the complex which refers to the
door; a second secret door leading to the same location (this counts
as a separate solution because it immediately introduces the
possibility of a second Search check); a probable scenario in which
the main villain will attempt to flee through the secret door; the ability
to interrogate captured cultists; and so forth.
Once you identify a chokepoint like this, it actually becomes quite
trivial to start adding solutions like this.
I’ve seen some GMs argue that this makes things “too easy”. But the
reality is that alternative solutions like this tend to make the scenario
more interesting, not less interesting. Look at our secret door, for
example: Before we started adding alternative solutions, it was just a
dice roll. Now it’s designed by a specific person; used by cultists; and
potentially exploited as a get-away.
As you begin layering these Three Clue Rule techniques, you’ll find
that your scenarios become even more robust. For example, let’s
take a murder mystery in which the killer is a werewolf who seeks out
his ex-lovers. We come up with three possible ways to identify the
killer:
(1) Patrol the streets of the small town on the night of the full moon.
(2) Identify the victims as all being former lovers of the same man.
(3) Go to the local butcher shop where the killer works and find his
confessions of nightmare and sin written in blood on the walls of the
back room.
For each of these conclusions (he’s a werewolf; he’s a former lover;
we should check out the butcher shop) we’ll need three clues.
HE’S A WEREWOLF: Tracks that turn from wolf paw prints to human
footprints. Over-sized claw marks on the victims. One of the victims
owned a handgun loaded with silver bullets.
HE’S A FORMER LOVER: Love letters written by the same guy. A
diary written by one victim describing how he cheated on her with
another victim. Pictures of the same guy either on the victims or kept
in their houses somewhere.
CHECK OUT THE BUTCHER SHOP: A broken crate reading
DANNER’S MEATS at one of the crime scenes. A note saying “meet
me at the butcher shop” crumpled up and thrown in a wastepaper
basket. A jotted entry saying “meet P at butcher shop” in the day
planner of one of the victims.
And just like that you’ve created a scenario with nine different paths
to success. And if you keep your mind open to the idea of “more
clues are always better” as you’re designing the adventure, you’ll find
even more opportunities. For example, how trivial would it be to drop
a reference to the butcher shop into one of those love letters? Or to
fill that diary with half-mad charcoal sketches of wolves?
The fun part of all this is, once you’ve given yourself permission to
include lots of clues, you’ve given yourself the opportunity to include
some really esoteric and subtle clues. If the players figure them out,
then they’ll feel pretty awesome for having done so. If they don’t
notice them or don’t understand them, that’s OK, too: You’ve got
plenty of other clues for them to pursue (and once they do solve the
mystery, they’ll really enjoy looking back at those esoteric clues and
understanding what they meant).
COROLLARY: PERMISSIVE CLUE-FINDING
The maxim “more clues are always better” is an important one. There
is a natural impulse when designing a mystery, I think, to hold back
information. This is logical inclination: After all, a mystery is
essentially defined by a lack of information. And there’s a difference
between having lots of clues and having the murderer write his home
address in blood on the wall.
But the desire to hold back information does more harm than good, I
think. Whenever you hold back a piece of information, you are
essentially closing off a path towards potential success. This goes
back to Garriott’s advice: Unless there’s some reason why the door
should be cannon-proof, the player should be rewarded for their
clever thinking. Or, to put it another way: Just because you shouldn’t
leave the key to a locked door laying on the floor in front of the door,
it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be multiple ways to get past the
locked door.
With that in mind, you should consciously open yourself to permissive
clue-finding. By this I mean that, if the players come up with a clever
approach to their investigation, you should be open to the idea of
giving them useful information as a result.
Here’s another way of thinking about it: Don’t treat the list of clues
you came up with during your prep time as a straitjacket. Instead,
think of that prep work as your safety net.
I used to get really attached to a particularly clever solution when I
would design it. I would emotionally invest in the idea of my players
discovering this clever solution that I had designed. As a result, I
would tend to veto other potential solutions the players came up with
— after all, if those other solutions worked they would never discover
the clever solution I had come up with.
Over time, I’ve learned that it’s actually a lot more fun when the
players surprise me. It’s the same reason I avoid fudging dice rolls to
preserve whatever dramatic conceit I came up with. As a result, I now
tend to think of my predesigned solution as a worst case scenario —
the safety net that snaps into place when my players fail to come up
with anything more interesting.
In order to be open to permissive clue-finding you first have to
understand the underlying situation. (Who is the werewolf? How did
he kill this victim? Why did he kill them? When did he kill them?)
Then embrace the unexpected ideas and approaches the PCs will
have, and lean on the permissive side when deciding whether or not
they can find a clue you had never thought about before.
COROLLARY: PROACTIVE CLUES
A.K.A. Bash Them On the Head With It.
Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the players will work
themselves into a dead-end: They don’t know what the clues mean or
they’re ignoring the clues or they’ve used the clues to reach an
incorrect conclusion and are now heading in completely the wrong
direction. (When I’m using the Three Clue Rule, I find this will most
often happen when the PCs don’t realize that there’s actually a
mystery that needs to be solved — not every mystery is as obvious
as a dead body, after all.)
This is when having a backup plan is useful. The problem in this
scenario is that the PCs are being too passive — either because they
don’t have the information they need or because they’re using the
information in the wrong way. The solution, therefore, is to have
something active happen to them.
Raymond Chandler’s advice for this kind of impasse was, “Have a
guy with a gun walk through the door.”
My typical fallback is in the same vein: The bad guy finds out they’re
the ones investigating the crime and sends someone to kill them or
bribe them.
Another good one is “somebody else dies”. Or, in a more general
sense, “the next part of the bad guy’s plan happens”. This has the
effect of proactively creating a new location or event for the PCs to
interact with.
The idea with all of these, of course, is not simply “have something
happen”. You specifically want to have the event give them a new
clue (or, better yet, multiple clues) that they can follow up on.
In a worst case scenario, though, you can design a final “Get Out of
Jail Free” card that you can use to bring the scenario to a satisfactory
close no matter how badly the PCs get bolloxed up. For example, in
our werewolf mystery — if the PCs get completely lost — you could
simply have the werewolf show up and try to kill them (because he
thinks they’re “getting too close”). This is usually less than
satisfactory, but at least it gets you out of a bad situation. It’s the final
backup when all other backups have failed.
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.
COROLLARY: NOTHING IS FOOLPROOF
You’ve carefully laid out a scenario in which there are multiple paths
to the solution with each step along each path supported by dozens
of clues. You’ve even got a couple of proactive backup plans
designed to get the PCs back on track if things should go awry.
Nothing could possibly go wrong!
… why do you even saying things like that?
The truth is that you are either a mouse or a man and, sooner or
later, your plans are going to go awry. When that happens, you’re
going to want to be prepared for the possibility of spinning out new
backup plans on the fly.
Here’s a quote from an excellent essay by Ben Robbins:
Normal weapons can’t kill the zombies. MicroMan doesn’t trust
Captain Fury. The lake monster is really Old Man Wiggins in a
rubber mask.
These are Revelations. They are things you want the players to
find out so that they can make good choices or just understand
what is going on in the game. Revelations advance the plot and
make the game dramatically interesting. If the players don’t find
them out (or don’t find them out at the right time) they can mess
up your game.
I recommend this essay highly. It says pretty much everything I was
planning to include in my discussion of this final corollary, so I’m not
going to waste my time rephrasing something that’s already been
written so well. Instead, I’ll satisfy myself by just quoting this piece of
advice from it:
Write Your Revelations: Writing out your revelations ahead of
time shows you how the game is going to flow. Once play starts
things can get a little hectic – you may accidentally have the evil
mastermind show up and deliver his ultimatum and stomp off
again without remembering to drop that one key hint that leads
the heroes to his base. If you’re lucky you recognize the
omission and can backtrack. If you’re unlucky you don’t notice it
at all, and you spend the rest of the game wondering why the
players have such a different idea of what is going on than you
do.
As we’ve discussed, one way to avoid this type of problem is to avoid
having “one key hint” on which the adventure hinges. But the advice
of “writing out your revelations ahead of time” is an excellent one. As
Robbins says, this “should be a checklist or a trigger, not the whole
explanation”.
What I recommend is listing each conclusion you want the players to
reach. Under each conclusion, list every clue that might lead them to
that conclusion. (This can also serve as a good design checklist to
make sure you’ve got enough clues supporting every conclusion.) As
the PCs receive the clues, check them off. (This lets you see, at a
glance, if there are areas where the PCs are missing too many
clues.)
Finally, listen carefully to what the players are saying to each other.
When they’ve actually reached a particular conclusion, you can check
the whole conclusion off your list. (Be careful not to check it off as
soon as they consider it as a possibility. Only check it off once they’ve
actually concluded that it’s true.)
If you see that too many clues for a conclusion are being missed, or
that all the clues have been found but the players still haven’t figured
it out, then you’ll know it’s probably time to start thinking about new
clues that can be worked into the adventure.
THE FINAL WORD
Basically, what all of this boils down to is simple: Plan multiple paths
to success. Encourage player ingenuity. Give yourself a failsafe.
And remember the Three Clue Rule:
For any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include at least three
clues.
FURTHER READING
Don’t Prep Plots
Node-Based Scenario Design
Gamemastery 101
Three Clue Rule – Three Clue Rule –

Part 1:The Players Part 2: The Bread
Three Clue Rule –

Part 3: The Three
Filed under: Roleplaying Games Comments (66) Article tags: gumshoe, random gm
tips, scenario design, three clue rule
66 Responses to “Three Clue Rule”
1. Justin Alexander says:

If you enjoyed this article, you may want to check out Prep Tips for
the Beginning DM, Don’t Prep Plots, and Node-Based Scenario
Design to take your scenario design to the next level.
The Three Clue Rule came about as a direct result of The Masks of
Nyarlathotep. Read about it here.
January 28th, 2011 - 11:36 pm
2. Fred Fnord says:

How do you keep a role-playing gamer in suspense?
Another good one is “somebody else dies”. Or, in a more general
sense, “the next
part of the bad guy’s plan happens”. This has the effect of
The idea with all of these, of course, is not simply “have something
happen”.
You bastard.
In other news, I find it’s often more fun to put in one clue, and
assume that the players *won’t* find it. Have there be good
consequences if they do, but mostly just expect them *not* to skip the
two optional encounters that drives the point home in a way that even
they can’t miss. That way, when they do find it, they’re justly proud of
themselves.
February 4th, 2011 - 2:31 pm

LOL. I’ve fixed the essay.
Re: “Clues you don’t expect them to find.” Absolutely. This is
something I also touch on in Node-Based Scenario Design: In a
breadcrumb-style design, a dead-end or a missed clue is a disaster.
Something has gone terribly wrong. But once you loosen things up,
dead ends are fine; leads can fail to pan out and there will still be
other leads to pursue. And, as you say, as long as it’s not crucial you
can deliberately make it harder to find — easter eggs and “scenario
boosts” can be fun.
4. Porthos says:
GREAT read. This will definitely help me running games. Thanks for
taking the time to think it through and write it up!
5. The Three Clue Rule | Jasper's Rantings says:
[…] just wanted a hard link reference to this article concerning
running mysteries in RPGs. The Three Clue Rule This entry was
posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Order of
the Stick […]
March 2nd, 2011 - 6:48 pm
6. Jason says:
So, how would one go about scaling this principle up, so to speak?
Say the whole campaign is based on several layers of secrets and
conspiracies that the players are supposed to unravel.
In my case, it’s two big factions of divine-level bad guys that are
fighting against each other. One side is commonly thought to be the
altruistic gods of the world, and they have devoted a lot of effort to
hide the very existence of the other side (the actual gods, who’ve
gone completely insane during their imprisonment). Would trying to
drop hints about both revelations at once be asking for a train wreck?
Would I be better off guiding the group toward solving only one part of
the mystery at a time? Or would I be inviting even more trouble
presenting the big mystery in discrete chunks due to players thinking
the first part was the whole story, or worse that the second part
means the first was simply wrong?
November 23rd, 2011 - 5:33 pm

You want Node-Based Scenario Design.
The second act of my current campaign revolves around two largely
unconnected arcs. I talk about how using a “second track” like this
can actually be a really effective way to add complexity to a scenario
without necessarily burying the players in insoluble mysteries here.
If you’ve got a really huge conspiracy, what I’d suggest is trying to
figure out how you can “chunk” that into a series of smaller mysteries
which can be successfully resolved. This will both help with
comprehension and also help the players feel like they’re actually
accomplishing something instead of just getting lost at sea.
November 23rd, 2011 - 5:52 pm
8. Glenn P. says:
Three-Clue Rule??? Only THREE???
Ha! I suggest SEVEN!!!
April 2nd, 2012 - 3:15 pm
9. Eric says:
I really appreciate you writing this article – I always had such a hard
time running any kind of “mystery” adventure, because clues I
thought were obvious or at most challenging proved impossible, and
PCs just ended up going to an inn and starting a brawl until I made
the bad guy walk in.
July 18th, 2012 - 4:06 pm
10. rogue_pirate says:

Your article has almost certainly been a game-saver! I’ve been stuck
with writer’s block for *months* trying to figure out how to DM an
investigation-style segment of my game with my players without it
being the boring find-a-clue-and-have-the-DM-tell-you-what-it-means
or straight skill challenge methods we’ve used in the past. They’ll all
be very grateful to you in the months ahead!
November 13th, 2012 - 2:49 pm
11. qbauer says:

This — and the node-based article — is one of the best articles I’ve
ever read on adventure design. Really fantastic stuff. I hope you got
paid for it.
12. Scott says:

Played the L2 Assassins Knot D&D module by leonard lakofka. It was
all red herrings. When looked at in a normal real world context when
three residents of Garotteton show up in Restenford and the baron is
murdered that night and three clues pointing to the three visitors are
at the murder site it screams frame-up. But Dungeons and Dragons
adventurers are used to simple clues and rumours whose only
function is to push them towards the “Dungeon”. I played this module
twice and then tried Dming it. Never got close to solving it as a player
and couldn’t drag the party I was dming for near a solution. they killed
a couple of assassins by mistake and a whack of innocent residents.
If I ever find a party willing to try it again will try your 3 clue method.
Starting with interviews of the locals from the three locales the
murder suspects visited. I don’t know if it will work but I’ve got a hate
on for that module and I know at least three bored parties who feel
the same about it, ever since their eviction from the Lendore Islands.
I want the mystery to work and I think the prevalence of red herrings
and lack of other clues were why it didn’t.
March 5th, 2013 - 10:19 am
13. D.A Lascelles says:

A lot of good advice in here and a well written article.
I’ve played and run mysteries in live action roleplay and a lot of the
same issues apply. In LRP it is even worse than tabletop. In tabletop
the players are usually a coherent party who are working together so
they usually share clues when they find them (having them sitting
around the same table all the time helps) but in LRP there can be 15
– several thousand players on the field and there are often factions
involved (where a person from faction A will not share info with
faction B because they do not trust them…). So a single clue can
easily be lost – held onto by one player and kept hidden so that it is
never matched with other clues and conclusions drawn.
So, in LRP you may need even more than three clues for each
mystery point.
One way I have seen investigations done well in LRP was using
coloured tags or ribbons with codes on them. A ref prepares a site
where something has happened with these ribbons and if you have
‘investigation level 1’ you will have a book of codes that translate the
codes on the green ribbons, if you have level 2 you can also translate
the blue ones and if you have level 3 the red ones and so on.
So, using the examples given above, a referee may prepare a murder
scene with:
A green ribbon which tells the player reading it that it is some form of
ash
A blue ribbon which says the ash is from a cigar
A red ribbon which tells them that the ash is from a specific type of
cigar only purchased from a particular shop.
And there may be many such clues prepared like this – the more you
can do the better. The fact that there is a ribbon of any colour on
something tends to eliminate the ‘the players will miss this’ aspect.
Players without the required skill get very good at ignoring ribbons
but those who have them will spot them and investigate them and
therefore get the information they should based on how good a
detective they are. And in many cases if they have say level one,
they may go ‘Hmmm, this seems to be some form of ash’ and then
call over the more experienced detective with level 2 or 3 to see what
they think…
It works really well… though does require a lot of advanced prep to
prepare the ribbons.
March 12th, 2013 - 3:48 pm
14. Grom says:

Regarding your section on red herring, Sherlock Holmes has another
excellent quote regarding the fallacy of jumping to conclusions. Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Scandal in Bohemia
“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one
begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
People are all too willing to satisfy themselves with a bad answer
quickly than make a great effort for a correct one.
April 16th, 2013 - 1:57 pm
15. Day 16: Investigation and Mysteries says:
[…] to get hints as to how to interpret those clues they have found.
Other systems recommend the “three clue rule,” which involves
seeding the same “clue” into three different incarnations, […]
October 17th, 2013 - 9:12 pm
16. Oren Leifer says:

This is a really important corollary. If you don’t follow it close enough,
either you have to railroad players, which is no fun for anyone, or you
have player manage to wander out of the plot. I actually had players
once wander entirely out of a plot, get interested in the society of a
hastily-build world, and decide, instead of solving the murder mystery,
to cause societal upheaval and revamp the society. Just, whatever
you do, make sure there are lots of clues and a reason for players to
want to stay focused on the mystery instead of the setting itself.
December 12th, 2013 - 11:59 am
17. Review: Eureka (from Engine Publishing) | Keith Davies — In My
Campaign - Keith's thoughts on RPG design and play. says:
[…] to The Alexandrian for Justin’s Three Clue Rule to resolve this,
it’s better to plan for multiple ways of getting certain information to the
[…]
18. Plot Hook Distribution | Drraagh's Desktop says:
[…] get the plot point you need at that time. The Alexandrian
introduced me to the Three Clue Rule in
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-
clue-rule where a player could fail sufficiently enough that they may
never find, or understand the […]
April 16th, 2014 - 1:59 am
19. My personal rules for GMing (that I still keep forgetting all the time) |
Spriggan's Den says:
[…] Three Clue Rule: Very good advice. Obvious connections
between things are only obvious if you already know what they are.
To players who don’t already know the whole backstory of an
adventure, even the most obvious clue that should lead them to their
next task might not be obvious at all. So if you want the players to
make a conclusion about something and act on it, always place at
least three clues that can be found by the PCs. Worst case scenario,
they find all three clues and think them terribly obvious, but they still
understand what they have to do next. But very often they won’t and
even if they completely fail to find one clue and draw a totally wrong
conclusion from the second one, there’s still a good chance they will
find and correctly interpret the third one. […]
April 22nd, 2014 - 10:15 am
20. My favorite articles on Gamemastering | Spriggan's Den says:
[…] Three Clue Rule by The Alexandrian […]
April 23rd, 2014 - 2:28 pm
21. Miscellany | Department V says:
[…] the Three Clue Rule from The Alexandrian, a GUMSHOE […]
May 3rd, 2014 - 6:22 am
22. d47 says:

Three Clue Rule discussed on Happy Jacks podcast.
http://www.happyjacks.org/hjrp1207/
July 4th, 2014 - 8:02 pm
23. — #Теория — Правило Трёх Улик (перевод) says:
[…] С оригиналом статьи Вы можете ознакомиться здесь. […]
August 25th, 2014 - 6:34 am
24. Structured Fantasy » Blog Archive » Design Resources says:
[…] The Three Clue Rule […]
October 12th, 2014 - 8:46 am
25. RPT#660: The Adventure Checklist Part II - Roleplaying Tips says:
[…] excellent approach is the 3 Clue Rule: “For any conclusion you
want the PCs to make, include at least three […]
June 8th, 2015 - 8:18 am
26. Player Tricks: Solving RPG Mysteries | System sans Setting says:
[…] and/or is trying to lock the PCs into only one avenue of
investigation; see this post of mine and this from The Alexandrian for
ideas on how to break those habits), or it’s just that the players don’t
realize […]
August 3rd, 2015 - 11:03 am
27. Bobo says:

This was phenomenal. I’ve begun writing my own scenarios, and this
rule will prove invaluable.
There have been many investigative scenarios I’ve played over the
years, and I’ve loved some and despised others. Generally, I couldn’t
really express what the problems were in the latter category, and now
I feel I have a lexicon to discuss them intelligently.
Chokepoints are a concept of primary importance in interactive
storytelling media.
October 5th, 2015 - 1:03 pm
28. Adventure’s Checklist | From the Brain of Ronnie Roberts says:
November 12th, 2015 - 7:00 pm
29. Aeryk says:

I love your articles man. I’ve come to many of the same conclusions
simply throught trial and error in DM’ing, but I love how you’ve really
expanded upon these ideas and analyzed them. Thanks!
December 14th, 2015 - 8:54 pm
30. A Regra das Três Pistas, parte I – O problema com aventuras de
mistério | dadosmalditos says:
[…] Texto original de Justin Alexander, publicado em 8 de maio de
2008 no blog “The Alexandrian” Traduzido e adaptado por Thales
Ramon […]
January 21st, 2016 - 9:47 pm
31. AceOfSpade says:

I once had a player litteraly walk on a clue and the party still
managed to miss it. It wasn’t a choke point in the plot, in fact it wasn’t
even a mystery scenario but still! You’ve got three adventurers
walking in the mud, one of them in heavy armor, his weight make the
hidden bones of previous adventurer crack. They should have got
info about the monsters in the area from that, and a nice little magic
dagger…
The party’s reaction? “We’re under attack!” And when no attack
came, because they weren’t in fact under attack (seriously where did
they get that idea) they simply resumed walking. I was bewildered.
Seriously, when something crack under my foot my first reaction is to
look down…
January 27th, 2016 - 11:16 am
32. Falando sobre RPG #28 – Não prepare enredos | Cogumelando says:
[…] DAS TRÊS PISTAS: Eu já escrevi um artigo bastante específico
sobre a Regra das Três Pistas. Basicamente essa regra diz: Para
qualquer conclusão que você quer […]
33. Thirteen Trap Signs… Or Are You Just Paranoid? – AnarchyDice
says:
[…] it should be enough for clever players, but I treat my trap hints
like I treat my mysteries, with a three clue average. Often times, the
players are too curious and too impatient to stop and investigate
every clue, […]
34. Obsidian Portal - Thursday Feature - Plotting a Mystery - Words In
The DarkWords In The Dark says:
[…] Three clue rule states: For any conclusion you want the PCs to
make, include at least three clues. In addition, each of these clues
should be available to the party through more than one way each.
[…]
35. The Uses of Uncertainty | Ludus Ludorum says:
[…] Justin Alexander’s The Three-Clue Rule […]
March 14th, 2016 - 11:56 pm
36. RPT#692: Triage 101: Five Ways To Get Players Unstuck Without
Forcing Them - Roleplaying Tips says:
[…] This article by Jason Alexander provides a wonderful idea: […]
March 19th, 2016 - 11:13 am
37. The Evil They Do – Strange Flight says:
[…] technique for this is to use a variation of The Three Clue Rule :
(for every conclusion you wish the players to reach you need to
provide at least three clues that […]
March 27th, 2016 - 4:21 am
38. Ryyme says:

On May 4th you Tweeted:
“Writing the boring shit that I need to finish before I can write the
exciting bits.”
As a long time editor I have heard this many times to which my
response is always:
“If it’s boring to you, the writer, I can guarantee you it will be boring to
me, the reader.”
May 7th, 2016 - 12:29 pm

Possibly so. But RPG manuals are utilitarian. You don’t need to find
an index thrilling to read. And the one page summary of character
creation is useful, but not that exciting for me to write.
May 7th, 2016 - 11:12 pm
40. Dark Heresy Travellerized | gameystuff says:
[…] Three Clue Rule […]
August 17th, 2016 - 6:25 am
41. J.L. Duncan says:

Great posts don’t age.
Thank you for posting this.
I was referred while reading Beneath the Banshee Tree which a link
to this post is featured. I also read a decent GURPs supplement a
number of years ago (“Mysteries,” I think) which gives a good outline
of running mystery style RPG, but this post is the best I’ve seen on
the subject.
I use a different rule, but the principle is the same I call it: Eight is
Great. Keep in mind I don’t write or play mystery style RPGs so the
eight (clues) rule is for putting a mystery within a space opera or
fantasy RPG. That is, it may take a bit before the PCs realize that
they’re in a mystery…
September 4th, 2016 - 10:53 pm
42. Isikyus says:

I’ve wanted to run mystery/investigation adventures since before I
took up D&D (well, Pathfinder), and this (along with node-based
structure) is the advice I needed to make it work.
I have a feeling this is one of those ideas that seem simple but is
actually really deep. It gripped me the first time I read it, but my first
attempts to use it didn’t really work, as my clues were nowhere near
obvious enough (nor were the players motivated to follow up on
them).
To future readers of this comment: I would strongly recommend
following The Alexandrian and reading through some of the
adventures that use the Three Clue Rule; this gave me a much
clearer understanding of how to apply it.
December 8th, 2016 - 4:16 am
43. Chekov’s Prophecy – AnarchyDice says:
[…] event you plan to foreshadow absolutely must have a minimum
of three leading clues. As the Alexandrian puts it, your players will
miss one clue, ignore the second, and misinterpret the third before
making a […]
January 20th, 2017 - 7:35 pm
44. Systems for Investigative RPGs | The DM's Apprentice says:
[…] session, or campaign. Even D&D or Pathfinder. The best advice
for doing so is to follow the Three Clue Rule, as outlined here. (On a
side note, I’ve found The Alexandrian blog to be extremely helpful
with regards to […]
January 24th, 2017 - 1:32 pm
45. SunlessNick says:

Necromancy, I know. But it’s a great article.
One observation regarding red herrings, if you make a deliberate
one, it’s probably worth making it a subplot. If a suspect has clues
pointing in their direction, then have them still up to something shady,
or at least would rather not see disclosed; that way, if the players
follow the false trail, they still have *a* success at the end, even if it’s
not *the* success. And a lot of the classic mysteries are packed with
subplots.
January 29th, 2017 - 6:55 am
46. 127: I’ve Got a Bad Feeling About This | Looking For Playable Video
Games says:
[…] my usual research (procrastination) habit of browsing rpg
subreddits, I came across an article (linked here) about the Rule of
Three Clues and how it could be used to tie narrative to mechanic.
Seeing as […]
March 9th, 2017 - 1:30 pm
47. icekatze says:

hi hi
Three clues are good, more might be better, but sometimes too many
is dithering.
In some of my recent games, I’ve tried to play up the issue of point of
view, where each account given is colored by the actor’s own point of
view. Not quote red herrings, but by doing it consistently enough, I’ve
found it does keep the players on their toes rather than fixating on
one pet theory. By slightly twisting each of the many accounts with a
point of view, you can give a whole lot of information, and sometimes
players end up being really good at pattern recognition.
One disclaimer: I find it helpful to never try to trick the players.
Tricking the player characters is fair game, but like the difference
between perfidy and a ruse, never give any out of character
encouragement for the ruse, if you as a game master want to
maintain trust between you and your players.
Even saying something like: “You see this scene in front of you, but
something doesn’t sit right about it.” can provide the characters with
the knowledge that they shouldn’t take it at face value. Though it will
differ from group to group.
However, in addition to providing three paths to success, I think it is
important sometimes to allow for failure. At some point along the line,
the game master may end up going from “trying to make the story a
success,” straight to “I’m dithering about the action you chose, and
am doing everything in my power to stop it.” If a game master beats
their players over the head with clues and they refuse to take the hint,
sometimes it might be better to let them be the agents of their own
story and go from there.
I’m currently running a game where I gave the players all kinds of
opportunities to unravel the big bad’s plot and save the world. They
decided to skip all of those, so now we’re eight days past doomsday
and things are really starting to get interesting.
April 12th, 2017 - 12:19 am
48. Gamosopher says:

Cool video referencing this article, and others from your blog. The
general approach is very good, I think : doing a mystery adventure is
NOT like reading a mystery novel or watching a mystery movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBK6RYrtNss
June 23rd, 2017 - 11:13 am
49. 149 Lapse Between Game Sessions - Gaming and BS RPG Podcast
says:
[…] Skanes offers up a helpful blog run by Justin […]
July 18th, 2017 - 12:06 pm
50. Tales of the Hungry GM #1: Preparing L5R “Legacy of Disaster” –
Abstract Reality says:
[…] That just leaves the footprints leading from the window to the
daisho stand. This is a valid clue because, if followed, it can lead the
players right to Wachimasu (another major node). However, as stated
by The Alexandrian, […]
July 20th, 2017 - 12:26 am
51. On The Case – Aboard The Airship says:
[…] back to those clues. Take a look at this article about an idea
called the Three Clue Rule which talks about clue placement for
player encounters. The idea is that there will be multiple […]
September 19th, 2017 - 12:37 pm
52. Jhansenhimself says:

My favorite thing about using this technique (and your node-based
scenario design) is the way my player’s eyes ABSOLUTELY LIGHT
UP when they find the clue that clinches the mystery for them. It
doesn’t even matter how pivotal it is – finding the mechanism that
opens a secret door, figuring out who murdered Lord Fancypants,
finally uncovering the world-shaking conspiracy the entire campaign
was built on – it all gives them a level of enjoyment that’s incredibly
gratifying to see, and it invests all of us in the game and the story
much more than any other technique I’ve tried.
It’s also been really useful in reducing preparation time while
paradoxically increasing verisimilitude. Because all I really need to
know is the clues and the basic description of the area they’re located
in (as well as the basic personalities and knowledge of any NPCs
found there), I can just prep those mechanics and then improvise the
details in-game depending on what the players are interested in. This
also allows me to incorporate player input while building the scene,
which gives them a no-pressure way of contributing some world-
building now and again.
So I guess this is all to say: Thank you!
September 21st, 2017 - 3:23 pm
53. Clues As Fate Aspects – Telling Stories Together says:
[…] one comes from The Alexandrian, and I’ve gotten some mileage
out of it. Simply put, for each thing you want the players to […]
November 1st, 2017 - 8:34 am
54. Common Problems in 4e D&D Adventures – Campaign Under
Deconstruction says:
[…] The Alexandrian also had articles for addressing these issues
which begin here. […]
November 4th, 2017 - 11:37 am
55. Cómo evitar frustraciones – Attack of Opportunity says:
[…] Vamos a examinar un poco más en detalle el método de las tres
pistas que vi una vez en the Alexandrian (el link no está funcionando,
no se porque). Primero: para cada desafía en particular debe […]
February 23rd, 2018 - 4:08 pm
56. Railroad vs. Sandbox – ThinkDM says:
[…] to scatter clues wide. One of the best articles you can read on
this is Justin Alexander’s Three Clue Rule, which […]
July 7th, 2018 - 7:53 am
57. Information Pathways – Yet Another DMs Blog says:
[…] you’ve not already ready The Three Clue Rule by The
Alexandrian, you absolutely […]
September 21st, 2018 - 7:57 am
58. The four levels of success - The Impossible Emporium says:
[…] and. This is a fumble, critical failure, or similar. Here’s where The
Alexandrian’s Three Clue Rule becomes critical as it can avoid the
impassible roadblock. So still resolve the disaster of action […]
October 10th, 2018 - 10:08 pm
59. Dungeon Masters, Instead of Plots, Prepare Secrets, Clues, and
Leads | DMDavid says:
[…] Blogger and game designer Justin Alexander has a rule for giving
clues: […]
October 30th, 2018 - 6:01 am
60. Kryminalne zagadki Novigradu – scenariusz do FAE – Castelviator
says:
[…] starałem się uwzględnić rady ze znakomitego bloga The
Alexandrian, w szczególności tego i tego tekstu, a także chęć
zapewnienia graczom możliwie dużej swobody […]
December 16th, 2018 - 4:31 pm
61. Carl Hoopingarner II says:

This just took a HUGE amount of anxiety of a new DM, I’ll thank you
again (I’m also a Patron) I only wish I had more time in a day so I
could read all of this sooner than I do have time for.
February 27th, 2019 - 10:12 am
62. Information Pathways – The Elder Nerds says:
[…] we go any further, if you’ve not already ready The Three Clue
Rule by The Alexandrian, you absolutely must. I cannot agree more.
What I have to say is meant to expound on […]
March 21st, 2019 - 7:18 am
63. How to have a Courthouse session - Tribality says:
[…] is an NPC the players want to help, let them do the investigation
themselves by making use of the Three Clues Rule. The players get
to feel like professional detectives and, if successful, can get some
future […]
March 26th, 2019 - 8:00 am
64. The Adventure Checklist Part II — RPT#660 - Roleplaying Tips says:
July 4th, 2019 - 12:59 am
65. Caleb says:

This is probably the best DM advice I’ve ever come across. Some of
it I’ve painstakingly deduced over years of DMing. I’d like to highlight
the point that sometimes the players will come up with something
much more clever or interesting that you came up with when it comes
to solving a problem or getting past a challenge. Maybe that brilliant
solution won’t actually work for some reason that only you know, but
as far as the players know, their solution is a genius one that should
work. Let me be clear… *Make it work* Whatever you have to do,
move Earth and stone to make their solution actually work and to be
just as brilliant as they thought it was when they thought of it.
Dynamically change things accordingly, as needed. And here’s the
most important part… *Never* tell them that you changed things to
make that solution work. You may feel proud of doing it to make the
session more fun and make the players feel like genius detectives,
but as soon as you tell them that it shouldn’t have worked and you
moved heaven and hell to make it work, you’ve cheapened the
scenario and made the players feel like dumb zombies that you just
move stuff around for to make them feel smart. Don’t do it.
July 13th, 2019 - 11:21 am
66. Andrea Martin says:

I translated the article in Italian and I add the reference to this original
post. I hope you will appreciate it.
The article can be found at this address:
https://criticointerrastraniera.blogspot.com/2019/08/la-regola-dei-tre-
indizi.html
If there are problems, I can remove the post.
September 2nd, 2019 - 3:29 am
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Submit Comment
Please check this box to pass your Turing test and confirm that
you are not a spammer
Copyright © The Alexandrian. All rights reserved.

The Alexandrian Three Clue Rule

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Alexandrian Three Clue Rule

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

10/1/2019 The Alexandrian » Three Clue Rule

Three Clue Rule

Check These Out

Me: I have no time and a

My Brain: You should re-

Page 340: When we say

Page 343: Our example of

Warren Spector, who

First, getting the players to make the

Three Clue Rule – Three Clue Rule –

Three Clue Rule –

1. Justin Alexander says:

2. Fred Fnord says:

3. Justin Alexander says:

7. Justin Alexander says:

10. rogue_pirate says:

11. qbauer says:

12. Scott says:

13. D.A Lascelles says:

14. Grom says:

16. Oren Leifer says:

22. d47 says:

27. Bobo says:

29. Aeryk says:

31. AceOfSpade says:

38. Ryyme says:

39. Justin Alexander says:

41. J.L. Duncan says:

42. Isikyus says:

45. SunlessNick says:

47. icekatze says:

48. Gamosopher says:

52. Jhansenhimself says:

61. Carl Hoopingarner II says:

65. Caleb says:

66. Andrea Martin says:

S-ar putea să vă placă și