People have been digging my #TTRPG advice and #RPGDesign posts (thank you for all the kinds words!), so I decided to dig into another pain point for a lot of players and GMs: mysteries! It's a topic I'll return to, but here's the first post.
https://thoughtpunks.com/handling-mysteries-in-tabletop-roleplaying-games/
I'm really curious how people receive this series, especially since some of the key points of advice are directly contrary to some received wisdom (or at least really popular responses to mystery problems).
@thoughtpunks The three clue rule has to be one of the most widely misunderstood pieces of advice out there. It's not that players need to find three clues to progress, it's that the GM needs to prepare a minimum of three clues per fact in order to be reasonably sure they'll find at least one. Also, contrary to popular belief, the original article did NOT advocate doing this to the exclusion of understanding the overall situation or improvising new clues.
1/2
@thoughtpunks Also, I cringe whenever people's advice about mysteries is some variation on "roll with the players' theories", especially when it's suggested that doing otherwise is railroading (as opposed to, say, *actually having a real situation under the hood of the mystery*). This is *exactly* what I mean when I complain about mystery-shaped games where there is no truth.
2/2
@pteryx I remember your complaints and quest to find something that fits the shape you're looking for. Out of earnest curiosity, how has that been going? What thoughts have you been having lately?
On the 3 clue rule, I hear you but you know how things take on a life and meaning of their own in the wild. I could write a 3 part series about how PbtA is widely misunderstood (and misused as a fill-in-the-blank template system). 
But yeah, here I was responding to the popular conception and advice.
@pteryx on the railroading part, based on your response I might need to revise that for some clarity. It's not that you lack a solid mystery under the hood. The advice is meant to prevent the scenario design from only allowing one path to the solid mystery.
@thoughtpunks Perpetuating a misunderstanding doesn't actually help solve the problem, though.
As for my own efforts, I was going at a fast clip right up until the election happened, which frankly slammed me into an emotional wall. I've been focusing on trying to make sure I can survive a societal collapse instead since then, and I consider that to have an obvious ticking clock associated with it.
I hope I can get back to it in the coming year.
@pteryx I'm sorry to hear you hit that wall. But I understand with everything going on. I hope the new year gives you some breathing room to get back into the things you enjoy more.
@pteryx FTR, I added a note to the railroading section to help clear up that there can be a solid mystery behind the curtain and it's about not forcing a single straight line. I also revised the language slightly to make it clear that I'm addressing the popular misconception of the three clue rule.
@thoughtpunks Moving on to Part 2, I absolutely agree that active investigation is important! One of the things I'm including in my system is the ability to choose between three tiers of actively searching a room with different advantages and disadvantages. Another is that I'm assuming "everyone jumps in with their own roll" is a feature, not a bug.
@pteryx I really tried to provide a good variety of advice. I'm just really filling out the blog right now, with a backlog of notes. Some of the advice may be more helpful/relevant than other bits for any given person, but I'd like to think there's a little something for most people in the series!
@thoughtpunks Concerning leaving loose ends open, that technique should come with a warning: some players consider leaving any sort of loose end dangling to be a completely unacceptable loss condition, not an exciting setup for future stories. One of the biggest problem players I ever had was someone with this mindset.
@thoughtpunks Moving on to Part 3, I see another place where you say something that reads like buying into the "there is no truth" principle: the "Embrace Player Theories" point under How To Build Adaptable Mysteries. Like before, it reads as though you're advocating for changing the solution to fit the theories (as opposed to, say, trying to figure out if there's *any* way a clue could exist at Location X).
@pteryx this is really good and valuable feedback and I appreciate you!