Para citar HP: MoR :
"You wouldn't go along with that and neither would I," said Harry.
"This is our world, we don't want to break it. But imagine, say,
Lucius thought the Conspiracy was your tool and you were on his side,
Dumbledore thought the Conspiracy was my tool and I was on his side,
Lucius thought that you'd turned me and Dumbledore believed the
Conspiracy was mine, Dumbledore thought that I'd turned you and Lucius
believed the Conspiracy was yours, and so they both helped us out but
only in ways that the other one wouldn't notice."
Draco did not have to fake being speechless.
Father had once taken him to see a play called The Tragedy of Light,
about this incredibly clever Slytherin named Light who'd set out to
purify the world of evil using an ancient ring that could kill anyone
whose name and face he knew, and who'd been opposed by another
incredibly clever Slytherin, a villain named Lawliet, who'd worn a
disguise to conceal his true face; and Draco had shouted and cheered
at all the right parts, especially in the middle; and then the play
had ended sadly and Draco had been hugely disappointed and Father had
gently pointed out that the word 'Tragedy' was right there in the
title.
Afterward, Father had asked Draco if he understood why they had gone
to see this play.
Draco had said it was to teach him to be as cunning as Light and
Lawliet when he grew up.
Father had said that Draco couldn't possibly be more wrong, and
pointed out that while Lawliet had cleverly concealed his face there
had been no good reason for him to tell Light his name. Father had
then gone on to demolish almost every part of the play, while Draco
listened with his eyes growing wider and wider. And Father had
finished by saying that plays like this were always unrealistic,
because if the playwright had known what someone actually as smart as
Light would actually do, the playwright would have tried to take over
the world himself instead of just writing plays about it.
That was when Father had told Draco about the Rule of Three, which was
that any plot which required more than three different things to
happen would never work in real life.
Father had further explained that since only a fool would attempt a
plot that was as complicated as possible, the real limit was two.
A maneira como você evita furos de enredo é ter planos muito simples. Para ser justo, esses planos não precisam parecer simples, mas eles precisam ter não mais do que duas coisas "dar certo". (Incidentalmente, a identificação desses pontos cruciais resulta em tempos excelentes para o envolvimento do PC.) Planos como o que você articulou em sua pergunta, os planos "Passo 1, Passo 2, Passo 3", tão ridicularizados por estrategistas militares competentes porque eles são vulneráveis a momentos da lógica do frigorífico. Como os inimigos são propensos a pensar em seus planos de uma maneira completamente diferente ... não os torne muito complexos.
Em vez disso, concentre-se na logística. Os dois passos não precisam ser fáceis, mas ao descobrir a trilha logística necessária para realizá-los, você tem toda a sua "elaboração" e complexidade, que vai apoiar duas e apenas duas coisas.
Do ponto de vista de "escrever o enredo", não escreva o que vai passar. Em vez disso, dê as intenções de seus NPCs que moldarão suas ações. Ao dar-lhes intenções, mas sem bloqueá-las na etapa 1, a etapa 2, a etapa 3 planeja ... você permite que o mundo ressoe nas escolhas e acidentes do jogador.
Como nota adicional, use a prisão do PC com muita parcimônia. Geralmente não é divertido e muito difícil de configurar sem ser pesado com isso.