mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/scrape_r_rational.git
synced 2026-09-10 12:35:53 +08:00
111 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
111 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
## The "Three Clue Rule" in RPGs (have at least three clues to any conclusion the players must make)
|
||
|
||
* Author: u/EliezerYudkowsky *Godric Gryffindor**
|
||
* URL: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule
|
||
* Score: 52
|
||
|
||
* Created: 2016-03-28T20:05:15
|
||
|
||
### Post:
|
||
|
||
[Link to content](http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule)
|
||
|
||
### Comments:
|
||
|
||
> **u/ajuc** [+13] (11 hours later)
|
||
>
|
||
> The first The Witcher game had huge investigation quest that required you to find every clue, and not to be misleaded by false paths. Most people I know (me included) - had finished that quest wrongly (blamed one of the innocent people, entered a trap set by the criminals).
|
||
>
|
||
> It was even assumed that the player won't get it I think, so the unhappy path was still fun and not a total failure state in the bigger context.
|
||
|
||
> **u/abcd_z** [+4] (13 hours later)
|
||
>
|
||
> So how would this be best applied to rational fiction? Or is it even applicable?
|
||
|
||
>> **u/ZeroNihilist** [+9] (18 hours later)
|
||
>>
|
||
>> Rational fiction often has an element of mystery. The same applies, except you have to be more blunt because people might have to trawl through tens of thousands of words to find your clues and it's non-interactive.
|
||
>>
|
||
>> Even in serial fiction you can't easily tailor your breadcrumbs to the understanding of every specific reader; some are going to be mistaken, some confused, and some correct.
|
||
>>
|
||
>> Consider *Significant Digits*, which is wrapping up soon. It has lots and lots of hints sprinkled throughout the whole text, and nothing significant is ever hinted at just once. Readers were able to predict major plot points (e.g. the true identity of certain characters, their plans) because a thorough reading of the text revealed the well-placed signposts.
|
||
|
||
> **u/None** [+4] (a day later)
|
||
>
|
||
> And now I need to seriously adjust my plans for the next session I DM. This couldn't have been posted at a better time for me, so thank you, I expect to be able to finish it tomorrow, which probably will end up to be Sunday morning
|
||
|
||
> **u/itisike** [+3] *Dragon Army* (5 hours later)
|
||
>
|
||
> >And just like that you’ve created a scenario with nine different paths to success.
|
||
>
|
||
> Um. Isn't this 27?
|
||
|
||
>> **u/NasalJack** [+3] (6 hours later)
|
||
>>
|
||
>> How so?
|
||
|
||
>>> **u/itisike** [+3] *Dragon Army* (6 hours later)
|
||
>>>
|
||
>>> Each point has three ways to complete, so there's 3\*3\*3.
|
||
>>>
|
||
>>> A path sounds like it includes everything that's needed, so it can't be 3+3+3, as each would only include one of three.
|
||
|
||
>>>> **u/NasalJack** [+3] (6 hours later)
|
||
>>>>
|
||
>>>> There are 3 bits of evidence that prove who the killer is, and each of those pieces of evidence has 3 clues directing the players towards it. 3*3=9.
|
||
|
||
>>>>> **u/itisike** [+2] *Dragon Army* (6 hours later)
|
||
>>>>>
|
||
>>>>> But those aren't paths. Those are pieces.
|
||
|
||
>>>>>> **u/NasalJack** [+6] (6 hours later)
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> So what are you saying are paths then? Because my interpretation was that with clues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and evidence that proves the killer A, B, C there would be 9 paths.
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 1->A->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 2->A->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 3->A->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 4->B->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 5->B->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 6->B->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 7->C->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 8->C->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> 9->C->confront killer
|
||
>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>> But if you're saying that the trail of clues that the players following isn't what determines their "path", then where are you getting these 27 different paths from?
|
||
|
||
>>>>>>> **u/itisike** [+2] *Dragon Army* (6 hours later)
|
||
>>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>>> I had thought you needed A, B, and C to continue, so if each has three ways to get to it there are 27 ways in total. Now I'm not so sure.
|
||
|
||
>>>>>>>> **u/NasalJack** [+3] (6 hours later)
|
||
>>>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>>>> I don't think you need A, B, and C to get to the end anymore than you need 1, 2, and 3 to be able to find A in the first place. But if A, B, or C isn't obvious enough on their own then the players can always find one of the others to reinforce the intended conclusion.
|
||
|
||
>>>>>>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+6] *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (7 hours later)
|
||
>>>>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>>>>> As an aside, I love that we can have conversations like these here and it's not particularly extraordinary.
|
||
|
||
>>>>>>>>>> **u/NasalJack** [+2] (a day later)
|
||
>>>>>>>>>>
|
||
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it's nice to have a disagreement on reddit that doesn't have to turn into some full blown argument that ends up having nothing to do with whatever the disagreement was in the first place.
|
||
|
||
>>>> **u/Lugnut1206** [+2] (21 hours later)
|
||
>>>>
|
||
>>>> Formatting ate your \*, don't forget backslashes.
|
||
|
||
>>>>> **u/itisike** [+1] *Dragon Army* (21 hours later)
|
||
>>>>>
|
||
>>>>> Fixed.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|