Blog | Notes App

Most GMs plan one or two routes through them with no backup. When the players step off, there's no good way to bring them back into the fold.

Why Your Clue Isn't Getting Through

Justin Alexander at The Alexandrian identified the GM's core design blind spot: "You already know what the solution to the mystery is. This makes it very difficult for you to judge whether something is obvious or not."

When you build the mystery, you move through the clues like you're doing a crossword with the answer key open. Players come to that same material cold, mid-session, while also managing their HP and spell slots and remembering they need to question the innkeeper before he closes up for the night.

Each individual clue also fails more often than you'd expect. For a single clue to land, players have to: search the right location, care enough to examine it, succeed on the relevant skill check, and then draw the correct inference. Four separate failure points on one piece of information. Any of them breaks the chain.

Mike Shea (Sly Flourish) puts a number on it: "keep in mind that players only grasp about half of what you reveal." Not because they aren't paying attention, but because live play is noisy and layered, and you're competing with six other things happening at the table simultaneously.

So: one clue has four ways to fail, and players absorb roughly half of what gets through anyway. You need a redundant structure by default.

The Three-Clue Rule: Knowing It Isn't Enough

The three-clue rule is the community's canonical fix: for any conclusion you want players to reach, plant at least three separate clues pointing to it. Many GMs have heard of it.

And yet the sessions still grind to a halt. Knowing the rule and building a session that actually uses it are two different skills.

The gap in practice: GMs apply the rule to the final reveal and forget to apply it to every intermediate conclusion along the way. A well-constructed mystery is a chain of revelations leading up to the ending, and each link in that chain needs its own redundancy. If players need to figure out the servant was lying before they can get to the locked study, "the servant is lying" needs three clues of its own, just like the final reveal does.

Map it out. Take each intermediate conclusion and ask: what are three ways players could reach this, whether through a different location, a conversation with someone else, or a different skill approach? If you can only think of one, that's your chokepoint. That's where the session will stop.

What Investigation Session Prep Actually Looks Like

Start with the villain, then work out to the clues. What did the villain actually do? Write out the timeline: their movements, what they left behind, any witnesses. Clues exist because of what happened. This keeps them grounded and consistent regardless of what order players encounter them.

Map your conclusions, then build redundancy into each one. List every conclusion players need to reach to solve the mystery. For each one, ask how a player could get there through a different location, a different NPC, or a different skill. What you want is three separate routes to the same inference, each one usable on its own. If all your paths go through the one witness who can disappear, you don't have redundancy yet.

Make clue presence independent of dice rolls. This EN World thread on investigation adventures landed on this independently: the clue should always be there. The roll determines how the player gets the clue. They might find it cleanly, find it with complications, find it with only part of what they need, or find it at a cost. Failing a Perception check shouldn't make the bloodstain disappear. It might mean they find it but misread its position, or make noise that alerts a guard. The clue stays in the world. The roll shapes the experience of finding it.

This also solves the dead-end-from-a-failed-roll problem. If no roll can permanently close a path, every failure produces complications rather than dead ends.

Ask: what happens if they miss this? For every critical clue, have a fallback. Say the key evidence is a letter tucked in the steward's desk. If they never search the desk, can the cook mention overhearing an argument about that letter? Can the steward slip up under direct questioning? Joseph Krausz calls this the "living mystery": a situation still unfolding rather than a static crime scene with clues nailed to the floor. Players have constant new entry points even if they missed the first wave.

The Problem Nobody Names: Players Don't Know They're Closing In

Even a well-prepped mystery can stall for a reason that's harder to fix in advance.

The Failure Tolerated blog names it: "in investigations, players know they should look for clues, but generally don't have a strong grasp on when they're closing in." In combat, players track the state of the fight in real time. They know which character is down or low on resources, and where the enemy can still hurt them. Investigation has no equivalent feedback loop. Players are working through fog with no sense of whether they're five feet from the exit or five hundred.

Your job is to give them a visible signal that the shape of the problem is changing. Say the players have just questioned the steward and gotten stonewalled. Next scene, the steward's wife pulls one of them aside with a warning. She doesn't hand over the answer; she just makes it clear that something real is happening and the steward is scared. The table doesn't know where that leads, but they feel the momentum which is enough to keep them moving.

Before the session, try picking two or three moments and think about what might change in each. GMs who attempt to improvise this usually struggle.

A Pre-Session Checklist for Investigation Prep

If you're running an investigation session this week, verify these before you sit down:

- [ ] Every key conclusion has at least three paths to it (different locations, NPCs, skill approaches) - [ ] No single die roll can permanently close a path; clue presence stays independent of the roll - [ ] You have a fallback for every critical clue: where does it surface if they miss it? - [ ] The villain is still doing things; the situation keeps unfolding while the players investigate - [ ] You've identified two or three moments that will show players they're making progress

That last one is the easiest to skip in prep and the hardest to improvise live.

Your Prep Notes Are a Clue Map

Treating prep notes as a clue map rather than a scene list changes how the whole structure works. Investigation session notes look different from combat notes. Instead of tracking initiative or spell slots, you're tracking whether each conclusion is still reachable and where the redundancy is getting thin.

One approach worth trying: a simple grid with revelations on one axis and clue sources on the other. During the session you mark which clues have landed. If two of three paths to a critical conclusion are already closed, you know to surface the third before you hit a wall. It turns a mental juggling act into something you can glance at mid-scene.

You can build that grid inside Inkless's Session Planner: drop Toolbox cards for each key clue, use Scene lanes for the locations they live in, and work the Prep Checklist to mark which paths are still open as play unfolds.

A more visual version is in the works: a collaborative board where the nodes already know your NPCs, your locations, and your players' theories. Same campaign data, in red-string form.