Assuming the latter, here are my answers:

1. Red Herring game-play is not considered wasted if it turns out that it was (a) the result of misdirection on the part of the villain trying to throw opposition off the track; or (b) a third party trying to take advantage of, or undermine, whatever the real villain is up to; or (c) a thrid party trying to enhance their reputation by claiming credit for something they didn’t do. In these cases, it just makes the world more believable. More complicated, but more interesting.

2. The answer to this depends on exactly who was the target of the red herring, and why. But in essence, it’s the same problem as you encounter in a more linear mystery when the players have no idea where to go next. If anything, the red herring can provide a road map to the real mystery, if the target of the red herring knows who was really responsible. The key is not to have the players back up so much as go forward!

3. Red herrings are always avoidable – players can be too thick to pick up on the misdirection, or so smart they see through it. This is a preliminary contest between the PCs and whoever was responsible for the red herring – sometimes they win, sometimes they don’t.

4. It was – fun for both the players and for the GM (though at different times). It also has another advantage: it buys time for the bad guy’s plots to mature and be that much harder to overcome (if the villain is trying to misdirect the blame). That means that a relatively simple and straightforward plan can pose a significant challenge for powerful and experienced PCs.

First, is red herring gameplay deemed as wasted, especially for groups who can’t game often.

Second, does the red herring leave the players with no idea what to do next? Some gamers are not good at backing up, and if forward progress stops they get stumped.

Third, was the red herring avoidable? If not, then it’s a contradiction in terms.

Fourth, was it fun?

I read a blog post recently (can’t remember where – if anyone knows drop the link here) that said red herrings played out poorly in games. Sounds like you have some answers.

In your recap of session 12, You refer to the PCs following a “feint” trail in the rain. Now, obviously, you meant ‘faint’ and that’s the way I interpreted it when I read the post, but afterwards, the possible interpretations if you took the use of the word ‘feint’ literally began assaulting my GM-radar. Feint – a misleading or misdiretion motion, statement, or action, designed to prompt a response that exposes a vulnerability to exploitation (not a dictionary definition, but suggestive). So what if the PCs have followed a ‘false’ trail to their friend’s place of captivity, in a move designed to commit them to some future course of action that will leave them vulnerable? Who might have provided a false trail, and why did it seem to actually lead to their missing friend? Who is playing games, and who is the intended target? Is it the PCs, or have they gotten swept up in some scheme of Orcus’s, or is this another convoluted chess game between one Demon Prince and a rival, with the PCs as pawns – or possibly disruptions? How much of what Orcus said, and showed, and seemed to show, during session 13, can actually be taken at face value? There’s much food for thought there….

Rafe’s last blog post..Survival of the Scrawniest

@Mike – looking forward to that blog post. In Carnus, I’m treating treasure differently than I have in other campaigns. Maybe I should treat that in a post as well.