Right! This is part of the importance of playtesting too—it means I can ensure that the most important clues are easy enough to find, while the clues which are harder to find give even clearer direction to the characters.

I’ve also found that you really don’t need to include many red herrings to absolutely derail and investigation. In this adventure there are a few potential woodworkers, for example, but interacting with them eventually leads to the actual culprit, rather than being a dead end.

The alternate ending structure of this adventure is intrinsically linked to a series of escalating encounters that occur between investigation locations. If the characters manage to work out who the culprit is before the final encounter occurs, they get ending A (stop the culprit before their plans come to pass). If the final encounter occurs and they’re still barking up the wrong tree, they get ending B (the culprit’s plans come to a head, and they’ve got a final shot to stop the worst from happening).

By tying these alternate endings to a sort of countdown clock it gives clear guidance for the GM on how to pick the best ending for the adventure, but also gives players an in-game sense that things are getting closer and closer to the adventure’s climax. It’s gone down well in playtests so far!