tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2142757627515553170.post5823767626568619494..comments2024-03-13T19:35:26.748-07:00Comments on Transitive Property of Gaming: Brainstorming about Observation checksrbbergstromhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04642655645136452700noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2142757627515553170.post-83574845749840935212013-07-25T13:23:48.989-07:002013-07-25T13:23:48.989-07:00Another option is the "clue spectrum". ...Another option is the "clue spectrum". Come up with a range of information for each clue. When they search an area, they roll. They'll automatically get the base information, but more successes gets them more details. Here's an example: <br />"You find ashes"<br />"You find cigar ashes"<br />"You find the ashes of a dwarven cigar."<br />"Philo Pharynxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14785954267292226321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2142757627515553170.post-21599335652837905512013-07-24T10:55:37.401-07:002013-07-24T10:55:37.401-07:00I agree with Gumshoe and Spirit of the Century. Cl...I agree with Gumshoe and Spirit of the Century. Clues are meant to be found. Investigation games can be massively frustrating even with all the clues, leaving some out can wreck the game.<br />One option I've been using in some of my personal games is to not create clues. Instead, if a clue could exist and a player rolls well I just make up a clue. In a Victorian monster hunter game one Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com