# Why Aren't Designers Using The GUMSHOE System?



## Christopher Helton (Dec 8, 2015)

This is a test comment, because the system seems to hate me.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 8, 2015)

Robin D. Laws resume includes a number of games that are 're-writes' of classic games - so we have Trail of Cthulhu instead of Call of Cthulhu, HeroQuest instead of RuneQuest - and collaborative efforts where he made systems with other creators Feng Shui, Over The Edge and so on. 

While certain systems have been developed by other writers, like Ken Hite and the Gumshoe system, he's not really set his name against a particular setting, which is what resonates more with some gamers. Feng Shui is the closest to this, although it must be noted that this is a very post-modern mish-mash of genres and the original core mechanic wasn't actually his.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 8, 2015)

True, but I don't think that has anything to do with what I just said.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 8, 2015)

Probably the main reason developers aren't constructing games with the rules engine is that it isn't popular enough with their expected player base.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

[MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] is about to put out Timewatch.  So, there's one designer using it.

I think, however, that you overestimate how many games are really published at all.  By my count there are already 7 GUMSHOE games out there, and Timewatch will make 8.  How many more systems do you really expect there to be using one system core?

To answer the question, we should note that GUMSHOE is really designed to handle mystery/investigation/procedural style games.  It is at its best when you have a "problem/mystery of the week" kind of adventure design.  It doesn't do dungeon crawling well, for example, and isn't designed for particularly rules-detail-heavy combat.  All in all, it is a system that does what it does pretty well (I'm about to use Ashen Stars for a campaign for my group), but what it does isn't necessarily what everyone wants to do.  And that's okay.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

I always have a funny feeling with these sort of columns. I find them pertinent and interesting, at the same time they do not touch me as we have very little time and monetary resources to buy, learn and test various gaming systems.


----------



## Dahak (Dec 8, 2015)

To me, the reason is twofold (in addition to all of Umbran's spot-on comments):

1. The game's method of handling clues/procedures feel more like guidance of which experienced GMs are already aware.

2. The system and its GURPS-esque number of skills isn't really aimed at beginners. 

The kind of people who need those kinds of procedures and advice tend to also need a more entry level game.


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 8, 2015)

I am not a game designer and I haven't played much gumshoe but here are my thoughts on the system.
I agree that many systems are designed with a non-trivial chance of failure to find an important clue but you don't need a whole new system to change this. Instead just adjust your favourite system slightly and it's all good. In the example you give of testing the blood for silver the party has to notice/pay attention to the blood (auto success based on play action) have the skill (player design) and ask to use the skill. In D20 you simply make the DC for using chemistry to discover the silver in the blood 0. That's the whole investigative system done. You don't need a whole new system to do that just a different attitude to making clues available. 
If you want to make it a bit more complicated maybe have 
DC 0 (success but problem) the blood has silver but you botched the test so it takes 4 hours to find out 
DC 10 (simple success) the blood has silver and it takes half an hour to find out 
DC 20 (great success) the blood has silver and traces of chloroform and it takes a half hour to find out

Now I agree with the philosophy behind the system which is along the lines of "if it's important for the players to be able to find something don't leave it up to the dice to decide if they do" but this is just an issue of poor adventure design not game design. All those dungeons with important rooms behind secret doors you are meant to find to have more fun. Madness.

I have read and tried to absorb the Gumshoe philosophy (again I am still no aficionado) and I do think it's clever so when I run these dungeons I decide if the door is a bonus or a necessary lead. If it leads to a secret treasure room that's not that important I might leave a chance of failure but otherwise my secret door location chart is more like
Perception DC
0 after 10 minutes of loud searching you discover a section of the wall is hollow with a corridor behind, you can't figure out how to open it but you could probably force it open (door found, negative consequence of time and noise)
20 after a few minutes searching you find a secret door, it appears to be able to be opened by pushing first against a spot about 2 foot above the floor and pivoting it (success)
25 as 20 plus the dust around the door indicates it hasn't been opened in many months, maybe a year and the scratches on the floor suggest something heavy was dragged in or out some time in the distant past (success plus).

The truth is that the non trivial chance of failure should be reserved for certain things that are trivial to the plot. IMO This actually was the way it was in old school gaming when your character had no skills. It was all about what you did.
DM "you see in the room a dead Orc covered in a filmy substance, a small wooden chest and on the opposite wall a door" (3 auto success perception rolls)
Player "before going in I look carefully at the ceiling and the corners of the room"
DM "you see in one corner of the roof a thick web and a large black spider" (auto success based on action)
- cut to combat-
Player "right now I examine the chest"
DM "it's locked" (auto success)
Player "I search the Orc for a key"
DM "you find it" (auto success)
Etc etc.

There may be something more to the system other than just a way to adjust the philosophy behind finding clues but if that's all there is (and its important) you don't need a whole new system IMO.


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 8, 2015)

Dahak said:


> To me, the reason is twofold (in addition to all of Umbran's spot-on comments):
> 
> 1. The game's method of handling clues/procedures feel more like guidance of which experienced GMs are already aware.
> 
> ...




I feel that RPGs are entering an age of refinement and polishing. That many of the new games are more about helping codify best practices that many experienced GMs and players already use these days.

I put *Fate *and *Apocalypse World* in this category as well..


----------



## pedr (Dec 8, 2015)

I think GUMSHOE, like the various Cortex Plus games, is an interesting development in the game design sphere where influences from narrowly-focused "indie"/story games are being developed into larger and slightly more general games. GUMSHOE can be implemented in different ways, and each contains particular mechanical additions and choices to make it easier to run and play the particular type of game. Mutant City Blues would actually be a pretty poor system for running a game of vampire conspiracies and spycraft.

Where designers are interested in an investigation and inter-character relationship game, GUMSHOE is a good choice - it's probably the only system deliberately designed to make that kind of game easy to run. Evil Hat is currently developing Bubblegumshoe, which is basically the Veronica Mars (or Brick) RPG. But as mentioned there's a limited market for those kinds of games, so it's not surprising that it doesn't get used as much as Apocalypse World or Fate.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

Dahak said:


> 1. The game's method of handling clues/procedures feel more like guidance of which experienced GMs are already aware.




 I think the "codify best practices" comment from Von Ether is a good response to this.  Experienced GMs are aware of the issues, and they either have to lay it on thick (with things like the Three Clue Rule) or actually defy the system they are playing to be *sure* the players get the required information.  That's silly to have to do. 

Plus, codifying the practice is a good way to not have to wait for the new GMs to make mistakes for several years before they figure it out.  Why make them reinvent the wheel?  Just give them the wheel in the product!



> 2. The system and its GURPS-esque number of skills isn't really aimed at beginners.




Ashen Stars has an alternate skill system that has fewer skills that has gotten some fine recommendations.  Which suggests that GUMSHOE doesn't *need* to have loads of skills.  Though, to be honest, a broad list of skills is there to support the procedural style, which is in part defined by having specialists in various areas.  If everyone can do nigh everything, it isn't much of a procedural.

Ashen Stars *also* has a way to deal for those who might shoot themselves in the foot with a fully open large skill system - they strongly recommend that the characters take roles (one shipboard, one planetside) and give the skill minimums for each role.  You buy your skills for your roles first, and then flesh out the characters with what remains.  The effect is almost class-like.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 8, 2015)

I think it is a well designed system. I've been putting out investigative style adventures for about six years and one of the things I've noticed is people have very different sets of preferences when it comes to those. If my table and audience were slightly different I might use the system. Gumshoe handles it well for people who want a particular style of mystery adventure. The reason I don't use it, is it doesn't quite fit my style of running such a game. I am not big into scenes and I like mystery adventures that have the risk of failure to them (so non-zero chance of failure is something I generally like in games). But I have read it, and I've run it. I enjoy reading Laws and I've certainly been influenced by some of his design.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Dec 9, 2015)

I like reading Gumshoe games, but I doubt I could ever get my players to go with a game using the system. I mean, they're hardwired to play D&D, and every rule that's not the same as the D&D rules would have to be re-explained every session. I have this same problem with a lot of Indie games, sadly--and I doubt whether I'm alone in this.

Best to steal the parts I like as D&D houserules (and boy howdy have I), and then move on.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Dec 9, 2015)

I think the reason is that Gumshoe is specifically targeted at running investigations, while I feel that something like Fate or World have a lot more options. If the designer wants to create a game that's anything other than weekly investigations, they are probably not going to use Gumshoe to do it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 9, 2015)

Actually, after reading the first half of the article, the main thing I was wondering what: "What the heck is Gumshoe?"  Obviously it's some kind of RPG system.  I would wager it has something to do with investigation, given the name "gumshoe" was a nickname for a detective.

After reading the second half, I still have no idea what Gumshoe is, or what the rule system is like beyond "If you're skilled in a thing you can't fail."  Which, aside from "rolling until you win" which really isn't that common practice anyway, seems to be the biggest complaint in this article.  

So Mr Article Author (whose name I can't actually find on the article, maybe I need a skill for Author Finding!), if you want to know why more people aren't using the Gumshoe rules, I'd say the answer is quite simply: because most people have no idea what Gumshoe even _is_.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

Sometimes, when you ask a question in a headline, it is a rhetorical one that is not meant to be literally answered.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 9, 2015)

I was going to do a longer response on pointlessly pointless twee game systems with oxymoronic automatic resolution mechanics, but I thought these made the real point. 



goldomark said:


> I always have a funny feeling with these sort of columns. I find them pertinent and interesting, at the same time they do not touch me as we have very little time and monetary resources to buy, learn and test various gaming systems.






shidaku said:


> Actually, after reading the first half of the article, the main thing I was wondering what: "What the heck is Gumshoe?"  Obviously it's some kind of RPG system.  I would wager it has something to do with investigation, given the name "gumshoe" was a nickname for a detective.
> 
> After reading the second half, I still have no idea what Gumshoe is, or what the rule system is like beyond "If you're skilled in a thing you can't fail."  Which, aside from "rolling until you win" which really isn't that common practice anyway, seems to be the biggest complaint in this article.
> 
> So Mr Article Author (whose name I can't actually find on the article, maybe I need a skill for Author Finding!), if you want to know why more people aren't using the Gumshoe rules, I'd say the answer is quite simply: because most people have no idea what Gumshoe even _is_.


----------



## Wrathamon (Dec 9, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> I was going to do a longer response on pointlessly pointless twee game systems with oxymoronic automatic resolution mechanics, but I thought these made the real point.




ouch


----------



## gribble (Dec 9, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I am not a game designer and I haven't played much gumshoe but here are my thoughts on the system.



The main issue with the approach you outlined, is that it pretty much eliminates niche protection. If you set the DC too low (such as in the DC 0 examples you give), then any player can find the important clue tied to (for example) a Religion check, making the cleric feel like he is superfluous in an area where he should shine. Set it high enough so that characters other than the cleric will have a hard time discovering it, and once again you'll have a (perhaps low, but certainly non-zero) chance the cleric will fail and the plot will stall. Sure you can introduce house rules, like requiring training in the relevant skill (and although commonly used, this has been a house rule in the last couple of editions of D&D) but then you can no longer claim "D&D handles this already".

For things like knowing about religious stuff, the cleric really shouldn't fail, for guiding a group through the wilderness to an ideal observation spot the ranger really shouldn't fail, for sneaking up behind some suspicious characters and eavesdropping on their conversation the rogue shouldn't really fail, etc. (you can assume a caveat that there might be times it's appropriate for these things to fail due to the needs of the story). Conversely, the non-cleric/non-ranger/non-rogue really shouldn't have much of a shot normally at succeeding in these sorts of things.

Gumshoe does this really well - if your explosives expert looks around the scene of a crime, he automatically uncovers the important information (e.g.: the explosive seems to be an obscure type which is only available to the military) , and no-one else has a chance of uncovering it. He also has the option of getting less crucial, but still useful information (e.g.: there are some components of a short range receiver - clearly the bomb was detonated remotely from a nearby location). It makes experts in certain areas really feel like they should, without rendering their expertise irrelevant by making it possible for anyone to get the info.

As for why it isn't more widely used? I agree with those saying it probably isn't well known enough. People may have heard of NBA or ToC, but most probably don't know the name of the common system is Gumshoe. Of those that do, most probably don't know that it is an Open System - I knew about Gumshoe, but didn't realise it was open until reading this article, so thanks for that!


----------



## Matchstick (Dec 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] is about to put out Timewatch.  So, there's one designer using it.
> 
> I think, however, that you overestimate how many games are really published at all.  By my count there are already 7 GUMSHOE games out there, and Timewatch will make 8.  How many more systems do you really expect there to be using one system core?
> 
> To answer the question, we should note that GUMSHOE is really designed to handle mystery/investigation/procedural style games.  It is at its best when you have a "problem/mystery of the week" kind of adventure design.  It doesn't do dungeon crawling well, for example, and isn't designed for particularly rules-detail-heavy combat.  All in all, it is a system that does what it does pretty well (I'm about to use Ashen Stars for a campaign for my group), but what it does isn't necessarily what everyone wants to do.  And that's okay.




I agree with Umbran for the most part.  GUMSHOE does what it does very well, and has covered most of its bases with the released settings.  About the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I'd like to see from GUMSHOE would be a Dresden type Urban Fantasy setting, and I'm not totally sure Mutant City Blues doesn't fill that niche somewhat (though it doesn't have magic).  

I should add that NBA is a great example of something much more than "mystery of the week" with regards to GUMSHOE.  The "conspyramid" is a really great way to lay out a campaign, and it's a GUMSHOE/NBA thing.


----------



## trancejeremy (Dec 9, 2015)

As far as I know, GUMSHOE was written as a response to a perceived problem in Call of Cthulhu. Namely, that players would need to find a clue to progress along the investigation. On a failed roll, no clue, so they are stuck.

However, I think that problem could have been fixed by simply borrowing the Take 10/Take 20 rule from d20/3.x (and after all, BRP was basically originally D&D house rules), where skills are automatically successful unless there is some consequence of failure, because it assumes you can just re-roll until you make it. 

But really, I think the core problem was something of a straw man. Most Call of Cthulhu Gms simply fudged dice rolls to keep the investigation going.

So I think GUMSHOE was largely an answer to a problem that didn't really exist. I'm sure it has its fans, but it seems like a lot of trouble to learn a fairly convoluted new system when existing systems are essentially just as good and more familiar. Other than that supposed innovation of not requiring rolls for investigation, it doesn't exactly offer anything interesting, IMHO.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I like mystery adventures that have the risk of failure to them




GUMSHOE in no way, shape, or form, guarantees that the characters will work out the mystery.  It merely gives confidence they'll find all the clues - figuring out what they mean, and taking the right action in response, is not guaranteed.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Dec 9, 2015)

Thanks for the article.

Could someone list the settings which already use GUMSHOE?

Are there any non-modern, non-investigative settings which use GUMSHOE?

This may sound like a odd question, but could GUMSHOE be used to run an entire campaign in the D&D Multiverse or Golarion...a campaign which included the usual fantasy tropes of dungeon-delving?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> GUMSHOE in no way, shape, or form, guarantees that the characters will work out the mystery.  It merely gives confidence they'll find all the clues - figuring out what they mean, and taking the right action in response, is not guaranteed.




I understand that (I've played the game). I meant at the task resolution level I like failure to be a possibility in a mystery. And for missing clues. It's a matter of taste. Some people really like what Gumshoe does for mysteries, but there are still plenty of people out there who want to roll for these things or deal with any potential pitfalls more at the adventure design level.


----------



## gribble (Dec 9, 2015)

I think the rulebooks themselves sum it up best. In the source material that the game is trying to emulate (mystery books/shows, spy thrillers, crime procedurals, etc.), when do you ever see the protagonists standing around, scratching their heads saying "we've examined everything as thoroughly as possible, but we can't find any clues that point the way forward"? Never. They always find tons of clues, and then scratch their heads asking "what does it all mean"? Gumshoe just takes that approach and creates a system that makes it always happen that way in games. 

Can you fudge a sort of similar result in other games? Sure, I guess you can, by stretching and house ruling the system. But if the investigation is the main (or a core) part of the game, then why should you? Isn't it better to be using a system that just works that way?

I think looking at Gumshoe as a system which solves the "PCs can fail to find the core clue leading to the next scene" problem, you're selling it short. Yes, it does do that, but the real strength of the system is about bombarding the players with clues and letting them figure out what it all means. It's not about the one tracking check to follow the bloody footprints, it's about also noticing the dumpster with the open lid, or the unusual smell in the area, or the figure watching suspiciously from a nearby window. I.e.: provide a whole bunch of important clues, and let the players figure out when they need to expend resources to stretch and uncover more information.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

double post


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> True, but I don't think that has anything to do with what I just said.




The point is that, in my experience, gamers don't really buy into systems - they holistically buy into _games_ that either have a built in setting or implied setting. FATE made much of it's marketing waves on the previous incarnation, Spirit of the Century. Apocalypse World is actually a game with a setting. Other companies and game designers then sought out the system for other settings and this is how their fanbases grew. 

The problem that I was trying to explain for Robin D. Laws is that many of his game systems, like Gumshoe, are applied to established settings. The established fans don't necessarily want another system for their preferred game, and as such it can stall the word of mouth process a little.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 9, 2015)

I would like to add that a zero chance of failure is no more accurate a representation of investigative skill than an above-zero chance.  Beyond that, most games I play in are a compromise.  When you are _skilled enough_ that failure would only occur an inordinate fraction of the time, game masters will typically award you the result anyway.  Second, "rolling until you win" is almost non-existent at tables I've played in and is typically looked down upon as annoying and disruptive to gameplay.  There are set bounds of _reasonable_ chances of failure and how many attempts you get at figuring out a solution.  There are mechanics to literally Help with success.  

Doctors, even highly trained ones, still make mistakes.  Chemical engineers make mistakes.  Many of the most educated people in the world _have a chance to fail_ even at what they are best at.  

If Gumshoe is not about mechanical resolution and more about the player's ability to figure out the mystery, then we don't even really need a rule set.  Develop a vignette that includes some quandary and have your players "figure it out" using their own brain power.

So, to me, it sounds like everything Gumshoe offers exists by basically implementing "good table manners" and "reasonable game mastering" procedures in any greater-than-zero-chance-of-failure game.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I would like to add that a zero chance of failure is no more accurate a representation of investigative skill than an above-zero chance.  Beyond that, most games I play in are a compromise.  When you are _skilled enough_ that failure would only occur an inordinate fraction of the time, game masters will typically award you the result anyway.  Second, "rolling until you win" is almost non-existent at tables I've played in and is typically looked down upon as annoying and disruptive to gameplay.  There are set bounds of _reasonable_ chances of failure and how many attempts you get at figuring out a solution.  There are mechanics to literally Help with success.
> 
> Doctors, even highly trained ones, still make mistakes.  Chemical engineers make mistakes.  Many of the most educated people in the world _have a chance to fail_ even at what they are best at.
> 
> ...




I do think the game offers a solution that works for a lot of people. I make investigative games that don't use a Gumshoe-like mechanic. You can fail skill rolls for clues in my games. And I get feedback from a lot of different kinds of players. There are definitely groups and gamers out there for whom missing clues through failed skill rolls presents a big issue at the table. I think Gumshoe is a good solution for them. On the other hand, I also hear from players who don't like the Gumshoe approach, and the problem it presents from a design standpoint is you kind of have to pick one way or the other (and either path will please some and displease others). Most of the people who buy our games are in the 'roll for clues' camp. But I do play with a person who is very into Gumshoe, and have played it myself. Laws was definitely responding to a real complaint people had. It's just the the solution isn't necessarily going to work for every group; it has to be the right fit. I think it is actually a bit of a fundamental divide around expectations at the table with mysteries (a lot of which comes down to what exactly is the group trying to emulate or capture at the table).


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

Role-playing games aren't about realism, that was one of the points of my article.


----------



## gribble (Dec 9, 2015)

IMO: experts having a chance of failure at something that others couldn't reasonably even attempt isn't actually a good model of reality. For example - I'm a software developer by trade. I can do things that I literally would have zero (i.e.: not even a miniscule) chance of failing at, that most people I know outside of the field couldn't even attempt. If there is a good reason why I might fail (e.g.: outside forces working against me), then Gumshoe handles that scenario too. I'm pretty sure that is generally applicable across medical and other fields as well. Certainly I can think of lots of other examples like the history buff who recalls without fail the exact date of a particular event they are familiar with whereas I'd struggle to place the year, or the architecture student who identifies with 100% accuracy the style and time period of a building I look at and think "that's got three stories and a roof".

But that's kind of beside the point, which I think a lot of these posts are missing. If you want a game that simulates that kind of "reality" (and I use that term loosely), by assuming that every PC has a chance at failing at everything, then Gumshoe isn't for you. Alternatively, if you want something completely freeform, where everyone describes down to the nth degree exactly the actions they're taking, and the GM just narrates results without ever rolling dice, Gumshoe isn't for you. But if you want a game that emulates the source material very well, and the abilities of your _character _(it's important to distinguish this from the abilities of the _player _and the things they might ask) have a direct impact on the success (or not) in uncovering clues, then it might be the game for you.

It isn't freeform or dependent on you having to perfectly describe what your character is doing to succeed, it has a tight and elegant set of mechanics behind it which are tailor-made for the investigative genre and don't have to be shoehorned or modified to work.

So to answer an earlier question - would I recommend it for standard dungeon crawling D&D? No, I wouldn't. Perhaps for something like an Eberron adventure which chronicled the stories of a fantasy private eye/investigator, that what certainly wouldn't be your typical dungeon crawling D&D experience!


----------



## darjr (Dec 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> GUMSHOE in no way, shape, or form, guarantees that the characters will work out the mystery.  It merely gives confidence they'll find all the clues - figuring out what they mean, and taking the right action in response, is not guaranteed.




I don't think it even does that. The players skill is involved here. They still need to figure out the right skill to use at the right time and right place. The players need to engineer that. It's still a game with a chance that they won't find that clue, but this time it's not because of a failed roll after they've done everything else right.

GUMSHOE doesn't hold your hand. As a player you need to engage and work the investigation. 

That was always my blockage with GUMSHOE. I had to get that clue by four.

 I live for the extemporaneous actions of the players, and in other games a failed roll can lead to all kinds of fun and wacky player actions and schemes. 

So in a non GUMSHOE game the players would need to find some other way into the dungeon after they failed to find the key to the portcullis or unlock it, either break it or search for another entrance or wait in ambush for someone with a key. Sure, the thief could have picked that lock, but they failed. If they want in they'll have to work the problem. Shoot, maybe they'll find a catapult and build a parachute, good luck. I LOVE that stuff.

The issue may be that the thief may have spent months with the designers of the lock and the smith's that forged it and even bribed the gatekeeper for a look at the keys to get a better idea of how to pick the lock. Then the failed roll can kill a mood. But in a D&D game, for instance, the players can and do resort to violence to get in. That probably isn't in the theme of a noir investigative game. There the options may be much more limited and maybe should be.

GUMSHOE has an expectation that the players will do the work to find that clue before the test. It's part of the investigation theme after all. Not ambushing the police officer who has a key, or resorting to explosives, or a wrecking ball. So the fun happens up front in GUMSHOE, even the extemporaneous fun, and whats more is it tends to drive that up front game play in the theme of a contemplative careful investigation.

In a long winded way I agree with what Umbran said earlier.


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 9, 2015)

gribble said:


> The main issue with the approach you outlined, is that it pretty much eliminates niche protection. If you set the DC too low (such as in the DC 0 examples you give), then any player can find the important clue tied to (for example) a Religion check, making the cleric feel like he is superfluous in an area where he should shine. Set it high enough so that characters other than the cleric will have a hard time discovering it, and once again you'll have a (perhaps low, but certainly non-zero) chance the cleric will fail and the plot will stall. Sure you can introduce house rules, like requiring training in the relevant skill (and although commonly used, this has been a house rule in the last couple of editions of D&D) but then you can no longer claim "D&D handles this already".




My point wasn't that other, unmodified game systems already handle this but that with a minor modification they can. Therefore my view is that rather than play a whole different system just to gain the benefits that can be gained by just a minor modification to your current system make the minor modification. In your knowledge religion example just make it a trained only roll.

You seem to have missed my point about making DC 0 the discovery of the most basic stuff needed to proceed with the plot but higher DC's give extra fruit or avoid negative repercussions. If the characters are meant to understand that if they say the religious incantation they can go through the secret trapdoor into the lower dungeon make the chance of finding the trapdoor and the incantation 100% - maybe the knowledge that there is probably a vampires lair below only 70% on the religious knowledge and the chance of not waking the skeletal guardians only 40% on the find secret trapdoor. Therefore you get both the ability to proceed with the adventure no matter what your skills success rate but the advantage of getting something extra if you roll well.

dont get me wrong I am not trying to dismiss this advice as prosaic. It's great and for many systems was missing (call of Cthulhu was/is a classic for having a chance to miss the vital clue- for me now it's easy enough to make the stated spot or library research chance the chance you find it quickly and quietly, anything higher and you took extra time, alerted someone or the like ). But for me the investigative system can be used easily enough in other systems (yes, with some house ruling).


----------



## darjr (Dec 9, 2015)

I think there is more to it than that. It isn't just the automatic success that makes GUMSHOE. Though I recognize that it was the main part of Mr. Laws epiphany. The system is designed to encourage the players to do investigative work before when they traditionally would have done the test.

Though I'm no GUMSHOE expert. 

I do agree that many of those things could be incorporated into other games.


----------



## Ghal Maraz (Dec 9, 2015)

TraverseTravis said:


> Thanks for the article.
> 
> Could someone list the settings which already use GUMSHOE?
> 
> ...





So, as of now, the GUMSHOE games from Pelgrane Press are:

- The Esoterrorists, now in 2nd edition, which is the original GUMSHOE game; it does world conspiracy, esoteric mistery, arcane horror, X-Files mash-up where players are secret (anti-)conspiracy investigators fighting belief-horrors-made-real by conspiracy theorists worldwide;
- Fear Itself, a personal horror game of world madness ideal for no-survivor one-shots or longer campaigns delving into the underling fictional mythology;
- Trail of Cthulhu, now heading towards 2nd edition (AFAIK), written by Cthulhu (and all-around) scholar Kenneth Hite, the now archetypal Mythos investigation game, which somehow also helped influence the rules revision of Call of Cthulhu 7th edition; it can be played both Pulp-style (more action-oriented) and Purist style;
- Mutant City Blues, wherein players are super-powered law-enforcers specialised in mutants' crimes, with the game offering both the procedural and the action aspects;
- Ashen Stars, where PCs are investigative freebooters in a sci-fi setting, with the games centering around mistery, ships encounters, ship maintenance and veering a lot towards a Star Trek-style kind of mistery resolution;
- Night's Black Agents, an occult spy games of elite secret agents battling against the international conspiracy of vampires' hidden agendas and cobweb;
- Lorefinder (which is what you are really asking for!), which adapts the high-fantasy theme and mechanics of Pathfinder to a more investigative approach, in a licensed rule crossover between the d20 system and the GUMSHOE system;
- the Kickstartered TimeWatch, detailing the time-preserving missions of a specialised chrono-police moving around time and space to keep reality real (or something like that);
- the announced Tales of the Quaesitores (working title), a GUMSHOE approach to the world of Ars Magica, where players are (often magic-weaving) investigators of Hermetic crimes in the magical Europe of the Middle-Age;
- the upcoming The Fall of Delta Green, set in the Delta Green fictional/RPG world, focusing his angle on the years during which the 'official' Delta Green undercover operation was dismantled, following a series of scandals and exposures (Delta Green is a black-ops anti-Mythos government agency, which later goes 'rogue’, in the years after this game).

These are/will be all Pelgrane Press games, except (I guess) the Ars Magica one, which I infer will be an Atlas Games product.

it must be noted that the GUMSHOE games bolster not only the ad-hoc investigative system that gives the line his name, but also an impressive lineup of games designers extraordinaire and some award-winning supplements, like Bookhounds of London for Trail of Cthulhu and The Zalozhniy Quartet and The Dracula Dossier for Night's Black Agents.


----------



## delericho (Dec 9, 2015)

Why Aren't Designers Using The GUMSHOE System?



Christopher Helton said:


> The concept at the heart of Gumshoe is one that has bothered me in a lot of fantasy games that I have run or played over my many years of gaming. That simple phrase: “I search the room.” Forgive my French, but the one thing that I dislike most about RPGs is the tendency towards “pixelbitching.”




Here's a question: do I _really_ need an entire game system just to avoid pixelbitching?

I've played GUMSHOE. I do like the game. But the major thing the system offers is a solution to a problem I just don't have, which means that the system itself isn't a draw. I'll happily play "Trail of Cthulhu", or "Night's Black Agents", or whatever else because I'm interested in those games, but I won't seek out GUMSHOE simply on its own merits.


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra (Dec 9, 2015)

I like the Gumshoe system overall because it allows narration of who discovers the clues on the team. I cant tell you how many times in other games the party has come to a locked door or have some arcana riddle and since no one can roll DC 20, I guess we should just leave, or just make the player roll over and over until they get it (waste of time and pulls away from game immersion).

My biggest thing is logically dumb, I know this, but I just wish I was rolling more dice. 
All you ever roll is a standard d6 in GUMSHOE. That's half of what you roll in a game of Monopoly. I like rolling dice in my RPG. Even only using 4 in FATE seems like an improvement....now to be clear, I dont want to be rolliing 36 d6 like in Warhammer for an attack, but when only using a d6, I feel like I might as well just draw out paper chits from a hat (old skool style!) or just flip a coin. 
(PS I know I just jumped gaming systems into boardgames with Warhammer and Monopoly, but the idea was that my resistance is because of the single die rolling, and there is a spectrum that I personally enjoy about that).


----------



## Ghal Maraz (Dec 9, 2015)

I should add to my previous post:

There is 'Against the Unknown', which is the first 3rd-party GUMSHOE hack (by Porcupine Publishing), and a 'streamlined' one at it, being a game of veteran occult detectives.

Evil Hat has quite some time ago announced two games:
- Revengers should be quite a heavy hack of the system, for a game centered around mistery-solving ghost detectives;
-Bubblegumshoe should be the teenaged detectives, Veronica Mars GUMSHOE game.


Also, Laws and Hite made reference to an upcoming 1v1 GUMSHOE game, yet undisclosed and untitled.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> I was going to do a longer response on pointlessly pointless twee game systems with oxymoronic automatic resolution mechanics, but I thought these made the real point.




That's a bit mean-spirited, TerraDave.


----------



## callinostros (Dec 9, 2015)

Combat. For me the system falls apart when it comes to combat. My players like to do some role-playing and the one game I did run of Gumshoe (Ashen Stars) they definitely enjoyed. However, they also like to run combats and that is Gumshoe's weak point. To me it is anemic and lack-luster. 

While Gumshoe does what it was designed for, and does it better than anyone else, it is not a complete system for me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

gribble said:


> IMO: experts having a chance of failure at something that others couldn't reasonably even attempt isn't actually a good model of reality. For example - I'm a software developer by trade. I can do things that I literally would have zero (i.e.: not even a miniscule) chance of failing at, that most people I know outside of the field couldn't even attempt. If there is a good reason why I might fail (e.g.: outside forces working against me), then Gumshoe handles that scenario too. I'm pretty sure that is generally applicable across medical and other fields as well. Certainly I can think of lots of other examples like the history buff who recalls without fail the exact date of a particular event they are familiar with whereas I'd struggle to place the year, or the architecture student who identifies with 100% accuracy the style and time period of a building I look at and think "that's got three stories and a roof".




One thing the game really got right in my view is the idea that people really should think about when rolling is necessary. I tend to take this more on a case by case basis. I think you are right that there are going to be instances where someone who is an expert is really not going to fail barring exceptional circumstances, and if there is a chance of failure for fairly routine matters, unless the system is incredibly granular you can end up with some ridiculous situations. The example I like to give is a person failing to make coffee 30% of the time, or getting into an accident 1 in 10 days they drive to work. Some of those issues can probably be resolved by talking about what failure actually means, but I think just knowing you don't always have to roll when something is a foregone conclusion is a useful idea.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand that (I've played the game). I meant at the task resolution level I like failure to be a possibility in a mystery. And for missing clues. It's a matter of taste.




Yes it is.  And I don't argue with the difference in taste.  I was raising the point only because your statement was general, and those not familiar with GUMSHOE might have gotten the wrong idea.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> One thing the game really got right in my view is the idea that people really should think about when rolling is necessary.




I think that this is a key point. For me, unless something is adding some dramatic tension to a what is happening, there's really no need to roll the dice. Characters have a game's equivalent of high ratings in skills for a reason, and that reason isn't to stand around in a lab and wonder what they are looking at. Gumshoe, like a growing number of games, just codifies those things that delay and waste time for people in games.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I would like to add that a zero chance of failure is no more accurate a representation of investigative skill than an above-zero chance.




Okay, so who gave you the idea that it was intended to be an accurate representation of real-world skill use?  




> If Gumshoe is not about mechanical resolution and more about the player's ability to figure out the mystery, then we don't even really need a rule set.  Develop a vignette that includes some quandary and have your players "figure it out" using their own brain power.




Who is "we"?  

Again, as mentioned before, the vignette approach works great for experienced GMs doing their own adventure design, for a one-off.  "We" get the experience by *screwing it up*, and seeing the result, and then adjusting.  So, this position comes out like, "since an experienced GM can handle this cleanly, we can let the new GM and their players suffer" - kind of like saying that today's doctors should have internships that don't allow them proper sleep, because all the previous doctors suffered lack of sleep, so everyone else should do it the same way.  Game design including institutionalized hazing?  Really?

Remember that the vignette construction is not obvious under most rulesets.  In most games, the natural way to set up a mystery is just to apply the nominal skill system of the game - which can leave the party at a loss on bad die rolls.  You have to have foresight of the pitfalls in order to come to the vignette solution.

In addition, what if you want a *campaign* worth of these things?  Then, don't you want a system that supports the desired behavior, rather than having to work around the system for most of your adventures?  I should instead use a system that's designed for detailed combat and dungeon crawling, and subvert the game's design to get what I really want?  Why not just have a tool that does the job?



> So, to me, it sounds like everything Gumshoe offers exists by basically implementing "good table manners" and "reasonable game mastering" procedures in any greater-than-zero-chance-of-failure game.




This is like saying, "all D&D offers is a whole lot of spells," (because, if you flip through the rulebook, this is something one is apt to notice) and thereby dismissing the game as not having a decent overall structure or mechanics in general.  This one mechanical detail is not the whole of the GUMSHOE system.  It is merely the most striking one to most folks first observing it.  This is only one element of the system, not "everything it offers".


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's a bit mean-spirited, TerraDave.




I guess you are right, there is sometimes a fine line between being clever and being a jerk. 

It was my rapid, if not so cleaver, reaction to the article.... Of course some people don't play 'cause they really don't like it. You have to know if you ask you are going to get negative answers. And the article has its own hints of wrong-bad-funism and your way of playing is wrong and this is better. 

Some of us like chance in our games. Some of us like simulationist nods, even if the overall situation is implausible. Some of us like puzzles where failure is very much an option. Some of us see excess predictability as a bad thing. 

I am guessing its not just me. In the early days for 5E play testing, Monte Cook kept mentioning this autosuccess mechanic (no check needed if DC is below relevant ability score). I am pretty sure it was in an early version of Next. It was rejected by the fans. 

But I guess I should not be mean about it.


----------



## lyle.spade (Dec 9, 2015)

*Combat's the weakness, and one other thing*



callinostros said:


> Combat. For me the system falls apart when it comes to combat. My players like to do some role-playing and the one game I did run of Gumshoe (Ashen Stars) they definitely enjoyed. However, they also like to run combats and that is Gumshoe's weak point. To me it is anemic and lack-luster.
> 
> While Gumshoe does what it was designed for, and does it better than anyone else, it is not a complete system for me.





I agree completely. I'm running NBA/Dracula Dossier right now and I think combat, even the special NBA adaptations, is weak. One of the problems evident in combat, and mirrored across the system, is the high level of player understanding of the many options associated with various skills, such as cherries and special uses of skills seemingly out of their regular context. Yes, a player only needs to know these things related to his skills, but in a 4-player group each character has a ton of skills, which makes for a long list of special circumstances and potential uses. Add to that the fact that the system, mechanically, does not offer much for detailed combat, if that's what a group wants at a given point in a game.

The combat mechanics work, but at times they feel flat, and require a great deal of description on our part. That's cool, of course, but for players who seek a little more detail provided by the system, it's lacking.

My other point with GUMSHOE, and maybe this is more a function of my group and how I'm running it, is that our table talk and narrative is very different from that in other games. For example, one of my PCs is a hacker extraordinaire, and thus relies on figuring out virtually everything via the Web. And so that PC rarely interacts with any NPCs - he just sits and asks questions and then riffs on my answers and repeats. Instead of either dropping into gamespeak and acting out a dialog, talk around the table is more along the lines of "my PC finds out this, then does this based on it, then finds out that, then goes to this place and finds out X, and Y, and Z...." It's all 3rd-person narrative, and very much told as a summary rather than as being in the moment.

This is very different for me, as I have typically run and played games in which 1st person speech between PCs is the norm, with 3rd person used to describe physical movement, placement, and the like.

Our GUMSHOE sessions tend to feel more like Cliff's Notes summaries of such activity rather than the activity itself. I think this is in part a function of the deluge of clues that the system promises players, and their expectation of having and wanting to work through them. Sessions feel more like brainstorming meetings at work than stories-in-the-making. I think it's also due to my relative inexperience running the system - perhaps if I push the players to interact more as characters rather than them using their characters more as pawns, this would change. Still, the guarantee of clues, and the need to work through them, changes the focus of activity around the table.

In truth, after running the system for several months, I think it's okay - not great, nor outstanding, nor "meh." It has a lot of potential, and it works famously as an idea, and unfortunately a little less well in practice. Maybe the fact that it's so different from most other systems in its core assumptions and the mechanics that seek to actualize them is what makes it a challenge to run, and thus makes it less attractive as a system of choice for designers.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I think that this is a key point. For me, unless something is adding some dramatic tension to a what is happening, there's really no need to roll the dice. Characters have a game's equivalent of high ratings in skills for a reason, and that reason isn't to stand around in a lab and wonder what they are looking at. Gumshoe, like a growing number of games, just codifies those things that delay and waste time for people in games.




That make sense. I basically agree, except the qualifier for me is probably believability rather than dramatic tension, but I think in both cases knowing when to roll is super important. This is one of the reasons I think it is useful to at least check out Gumshoe even if you don't run the system. It will get people thinking. 

Another reason it's useful is creating a sense of being there. When I play in an investigative adventure, I think what I like is actually solving the mystery and feeling like I am there on the scene. Rolling for certain things all the time (like social skills) when the actions you take would suggest success just ought to happen, can feel weird to me (like if the GM insists you roll to ask a witness who is cooperating fully some basic questions about what happened....what you say in character almost doesn't matter).


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> It's all 3rd-person narrative, and very much told as a summary rather than as being in the moment.




I don't think that I've used the first person in a game since the early 90s. But then, I also studied literature, so my default is probably going to be to make it sound like something I'm reading, rather than a movie or a TV show.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 9, 2015)

OK.

I haven't even tried to publish a game although I have hacked quite a few. But when choosing a system to hack from I have to ask myself two questions:
1: Is this game trying to do something worth doing?
2: Does it do it well?

And the answer to point 1 I'm afraid is, so far as I'm concerned, a resounding "NO!"

What does Gumshoe claim to do? DM-as-God approach to telling detective stories. This is not something I want to do for the following reasons.
1: Occasionally running a detective story is fun. But it's not what I would want to do all the time. I probably don't want a full RPG set of rules for it. (A Fate plugin on the other hand would be lovely).
2: Because of the nature of the clues getting handed out I need to pre-plot what all the clues are. In other words to run Gumshoe properly I need to start off by writing a locked-room detetctive story. And it needs to be locked room mystery because otherwise the clues aren't finite in the same way.

So. For the above reasons I can't see myself wanting to either play or run Gumshoe - it requires a very DM heavy type of game that I'm neither comfortable with nor interested in running.

Now, now we've established that it doesn't do what I have much use for a game to do, let's ask whether it's good at its job. And I see the following reasons why not.
1: It's too fiddly for the results; I don't need to learn a new system to handle that. 
2: Solving pixelbitching in locked room mysteries doesn't provide me with anything that useful.
3: The combat sucks.
4: Good adventures in my experience are like good meat - best cooked rare. It doesn't help me run the detective games I might want to run; it gives me a structure to run a set type of detective game. Which is not a problem but falls far short of what I think it's intended to do.

There are some people it works well for. I'm not one of them and that's why.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> And the article has its own hints of wrong-bad-funism and your way of playing is wrong and this is better.




Actually, I think that you'll see that I went out of my way to talk about my style of play in the article, rather than talking about how others play. A game, or method of play, not working for me, or working for our group, doesn't have anything to do with how others play or their games.

If you read the first piece I wrote, I talked a little bit about my gaming history. I've been doing this since 1979, and I have played a number of different games. I am pretty open about not being a big D&D fan, in fact I've never touched entire editions of the game. A lot of that has to do, probably, with the fact that I'm not a huge fan of fantasy, so those games don't appeal as much to me. Give me a good super-hero or horror game, and I'm good.

I was brought on here specifically to write about games that aren't D&D/Pathfinder, so that's what my articles are going to be. Play style is very important to how I approach games, so there's going to be discussions about what I think works, and what I think doesn't work. That's the nature of being a critic. But, when I write something I write it from my perspective, which may be one where things that work for some people don't work for me. That isn't an attack on how those other people play.

I think one of the major problems with tabletop RPGs as a community is that too many people think that talk of other perspectives are, somehow, an attack on their own, when it is really just pointing out other views.

The question of the title was rhetorical, it wasn't actually meant to be answered. This article is what we call a "think piece" in journalism. The idea was to bring attention to something, in this case the Gumshoe system, and to get people to think and talk about it.


----------



## lyle.spade (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't think that I've used the first person in a game since the early 90s. But then, I also studied literature, so my default is probably going to be to make it sound like something I'm reading, rather than a movie or a TV show.




It's always interesting to hear how other folks run their games. We try to do a lot of in-character dialog, even though it can be difficult. We use gamespeak a good amount at the table in the 5e game I'm running, and we use it a lot when we interact via our Obsidian Portal site between live sessions.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

lyle.spade said:


> It's always interesting to hear how other folks run their games. We try to do a lot of in-character dialog, even though it can be difficult. We use gamespeak a good amount at the table in the 5e game I'm running, and we use it a lot when we interact via our Obsidian Portal site between live sessions.




It took a couple of the people in my current group a little while to get used to it, but they have (I guess). I will set up a scene by describing what they say. When people talk I'll say "He says" or "She says" and then say what they say. I'll describe how they look, or any emotions they might see, and move on.

I'm not a fan of accents or funny voices. I just move on from them.


----------



## lyle.spade (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I'm not a fan of accents or funny voices. I just move on from them.




Some people can pull those off and they work; most can't. I avoid them, too.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Dec 9, 2015)

Ghal Maraz said:


> So, as of now, the GUMSHOE games from Pelgrane Press are:
> 
> - Lorefinder (which is what you are really asking for!), which adapts the high-fantasy theme and mechanics of Pathfinder to a more investigative approach, in a licensed rule crossover between the d20 system and the GUMSHOE system;




Thanks Ghal Maraz!


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Dec 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, this position comes out like, "since an experienced GM can handle this cleanly, we can let the new GM and their players suffer" - kind of like saying that today's doctors should have internships that don't allow them proper sleep, because all the previous doctors suffered lack of sleep, so everyone else should do it the same way.  Game design including institutionalized hazing?  Really?




Well said Umbran!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't think that I've used the first person in a game since the early 90s. But then, I also studied literature, so my default is probably going to be to make it sound like something I'm reading, rather than a movie or a TV show.




I've always leaned toward first person I think. It is interesting how different people can be on this front. When you say third person does that mean all dialogue is filtered through the GM, with players describing their intent but the GM ultimately describing the interaction (rather than speaking in character directly to NPCs), or is it more to do with the framing of said dialog ('I say' versus 'he says').


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> What does Gumshoe claim to do? DM-as-God approach to telling detective stories.




I have no idea how you get this.  The DM is not any more God in GUMSHOE than in any other system.

Moreover, there's not need for it to be a "locked room" mystery.  For any mystery, most of the universe holds little to no useful information for the detective.  The useful clues are only found in particular places, or from particular people.  To design the adventure, the GM has to figure out what those places and who those people are.  This is not terribly different than making up the rooms in a dungeon you have to go through to find the BBEG.  But, instead of having physical 10'x10' corridors marking the path between rooms, there are lines of reasoning leading from one to the other.  And no, the path between the clues does not need to be linear.

I've seen some rather nice maps of GUMSHOE adventures based on this premise - instead of dungeon rooms, you have locations with clues, lined less by physical paths as where the clues point.  

Mind you, GUMSHOE isn't just about mysteries.  While we tend to think of "procedural" in terms of "police procedural", and connect that with a crime with an unknown criminal to be identified, that's actually a very narrow idea of "procedural".  More generically, a procedural is a fiction in which a problem is discovered, investigated, and dealt with in one chunk.  This can be a typical police crime procedural, of course.  But, There are medical procedurals.  And many episodes of Star Trek can be considered science procedurals.   We can look at Firefly as a space-western procedural.  Anything that can be likened to "problem of the week" can be a procedural.  You don't need to create a closed-door mystery every week - you just need to create something the PCs don't understand and don't know how to deal with.

Ashen Stars, for example, is set up to do Space Opera procedurals.  You have a spaceship and its crew, and they face a different problem each adventure.  Sometimes it is about crimes, but other times it is about weird sciencey stuff, or about complicated diplomatic situations the PCs don't understand fully to start with.  And, like Trek, or Firefly, or Babylon 5, there's an A-plot and a B-plot going on, which may not be related.  In fact, it may be that the nominal mystery of the week is the B-plot, really there as a frame in which some character development plotline is going on.

And, no, the combat system is not terribly deep in its tactical design.  But, that leaves it open to a bit more pulpy improvisational action scenes, with the PCs doing more to gain advantage by thinking up things to do with stuff in the scene than referring to their sheet for what bonuses they get.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Dec 9, 2015)

I use GUMSHOE the same way I use FATE: as a toolkit that is best layered over a more robust core mechanic, like Pathfinder or WH40KRP (or D&D5).  I'd never design for just GUMSHOE because it doesn't feel like a game to me.  That's a preference, mind you, not a criticism.  

I think both GUMSHOE and FATE are important parts of today's roleplaying landscape, I own multiple products from each line, I make use of them frequently, and I am very glad they exist, but no, you'll never see a GUMSHOE product from me.


----------



## Guyanthalas (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> ...
> The idea was to bring attention to something, in this case the Gumshoe system, and to get people to think and talk about it.




Looks like you nailed it on that front. 

I appreciate the article. I'm very much the stereotypical "D&D Fan Boy" in the sense that I yell loudly and get grumpy when someone talks about using a different system. That being said, it sounds like its worth pursuing a read just to see how I can try and hack some of this into my D&D games.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't think that playing a number of different systems is a bad thing. On the bookshelf in my office I have all of the Cypher System core books, a couple of Fate Books, a copy of Dungeon Crawl Classics that a friend gave me at Gen Con, Fantasy AGE, Savage Worlds and Lankhmar, Tenra Bansho Zero, a mess of stuff for Stormbringer, my old AD&D 1e books, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades and Amazing Adventures, a bunch of Lamentations modules, 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, a mess of Palladium books, Dungeon World and Whitehack.

And of course, Night's Black Agents.

Some of these are for play, some of these are fodder for various posts, and some of these are for inspirational purposes.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't think that playing a number of different systems is a bad thing. On the bookshelf in my office I have all of the Cypher System core books, a couple of Fate Books, a copy of Dungeon Crawl Classics that a friend gave me at Gen Con, Fantasy AGE, Savage Worlds and Lankhmar, Tenra Bansho Zero, a mess of stuff for Stormbringer, my old AD&D 1e books, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades and Amazing Adventures, a bunch of Lamentations modules, 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, a mess of Palladium books, Dungeon World and Whitehack.
> 
> And of course, Night's Black Agents.
> 
> Some of these are for play, some of these are fodder for various posts, and some of these are for inspirational purposes.




I think playing different games is always good. I generally have one core system I will stick to for a regular campaign but try to play one-shots or small campaigns of other games from time to time. For a while we had one day a month set aside called Weird Sunday, where we would just deliberately play games that were outside our comfort zone.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

As I get older, I am less enamored with unending campaigns. I'd rather have a campaign with a finite concept that has a beginning, middle and end point, usually about 4-5 months in length.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> As I get older, I am less enamored with unending campaigns. I'd rather have a campaign with a finite concept that has a beginning, middle and end point, usually about 4-5 months in length.




What do you find appealing about that length and structure? 

My tastes vary a lot when it comes to campaign length. As a GM sometimes I do a 2-6 month finite campaign. I did something like that last year. But my current campaign is a year in and shows no sign of slowing down. I find when I do my mafia campaigns, those tend to be linked  2-6 month deals (a bit like seasons of the sopranos or something, sometimes with years between each one). If I had to pick though, I guess the long term campaign would still be my preference. I like the breathing room it afford me.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

It takes up less time. None of the people in our group are kids anymore, and we've all got jobs and families. When we can go a week or two without getting together, than can derail a game.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> This is like saying, "all D&D offers is a whole lot of spells," (because, if you flip through the rulebook, this is something one is apt to notice) and thereby dismissing the game as not having a decent overall structure or mechanics in general.  This one mechanical detail is not the whole of the GUMSHOE system.  It is merely the most striking one to most folks first observing it.  This is only one element of the system, not "everything it offers".




Let me cut right down to this point because this point relies on the same fallacy that the article does: that we know what's in the system.  As I stated with my first post, I have no idea what Gumshoe is like beyond the fact that if you're skilled in something you apparently have a guaranteed chance of success.  I *still* have no idea what is in Gumshoe beyond that, because nobody, not you, not the author, not anyone who has replied to me has taken a moment to explain how Gumshoe is different as a whole system from another other game.

And no, please don't say "well you could look it up", because while I _can_ look it up, that really won't help me get an idea of what people who've actually played Gumshoe feel make it stand apart from other systems.

So let me go back to my original point: I have no idea what Gumshoe is, this article didn't tell me why it's worth using or how it's different apart from this one feature, and that is likely why "designers" aren't using it, because they have no idea what it is.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

You could always click the links at the beginning of the article. One leads right to the Gumshoe SRD, while the others go to links about a couple of the games. No need to look anything up!


----------



## gribble (Dec 9, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> You seem to have missed my point about making DC 0 the discovery of the most basic stuff needed to proceed with the plot but higher DC's give extra fruit or avoid negative repercussions.



No, not at all. My point was that unfortunately in d20, a DC 0 check has other unfortunate repercussions. What you're essentially saying by making a DC 0 is that anyone can do it - perhaps not as well as some other characters with skill, but any schmuck in the team can find out. That makes what skills you're actually good at completely irrelevant for the purposes of finding the critical clue - my Fighter with -1 perception skill can spot the crucial clue just as easily as your Rogue with +8. Sure, the rogue may have done it a bit faster/better or with some extra bonus information, but if the rogue wasn't there at all the group still would have succeeded.

This is emphatically *not* what Gumshoe does. Experts do shine, and everyone at some point will be able to use their key abilities to do something that few or no other PCs in the group can do.

So yeah, if you're playing a D&D game, with a bit of investigation now and then, your approach is totally serviceable. But it isn't equivalent at all for a game which focuses on investigation as one of the key activities. Just like I wouldn't use Gumshoe to run a dungeon crawling campaign, I also wouldn't use D&D to run an investigation focussed campaign.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> Role-playing games aren't about realism, that was one of the points of my article.




There are a lot of gamers who actually do try to inject realism (or as much as prudent) in to their games and do not subscribe to the idea that RPGs are an emulation of fiction or narrative. I don't know if I'm a pro-realism gamer myself, but i do disagree with the idea that RPGs/games are about emulating the storytelling process, and in fact think we're at a point now where games have demonstrated that they work best when they move away from this process of emulation, allowing the game to focus on emergent experiences that are a product of the player/GM interactions at the table which would never, ever emerge normally in the course of a book or film's creation.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> It takes up less time. None of the people in our group are kids anymore, and we've all got jobs and families. When we can go a week or two without getting together, than can derail a game.




I don't think it's a kids thing, or even a family thing, but a question of how one parts out your time. Both of my groups are all average ages 40-58 and I have a wife and 4 year old child (late in life, age 44 here) but my wife and I worked out some sanity-saving rules to insure we both get "me" time in to do what we want...which happens to be gaming for both of us, on different nights. Most people I know who game are at least 30 and the ones who have the hardest time actually gaming tend to have bigger issues that would prevent them from enjoying any hobby or pastime, not just gaming. 

Anyway....net result is my groups are mostly middle aged, and they all like lengthy campaigns, and spend a lot of time lamenting the good old days when campaigns lasted forever. This is an inversion for me...from my college days on I was used to making a campaign last exactly one semester because I had no guarantee my barrel of players would be around afterward. It wasn't until I got older and focused on my time management better that long term campaigns became feasible.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm not talking about the storytelling process, so that point is moot. No gamer ever wanted to play George Smiley, when James Bond was an example. Often what games mistakenly identify as "realism" is in fact just a greater amount of verisimilitude. They don't want the realism of firearms or combat, they want what looks like that realism.


----------



## Christopher Helton (Dec 9, 2015)

camazotz said:


> I don't think it's a kids thing, or even a family thing, but a question of how one parts out your time.




Gaming is a social activity for me, not the primary focus, so time management isn't really an issue for me.


----------



## Darmath (Dec 9, 2015)

I can't answer the question of why people don't use it more often. What I will observe is that the system is designed to deliver procedural-type adventures, as others have mentioned. Who is the bad guy? What are they doing? How can we stop them? Gathering information. I've thought about adapting it to fantasy, but that feels like a bad fit, because fantasy stories aren't procedurals. As for your observations about skills, skills are basically verbs the game gives players to interact with the story world. So, the system should know what the story world is (which is a challenge for generic systems such as GURPS) and then give the player only those verbs needed, no more and no less. Because when a player is confronted by a challenge in the world, they will look down at their character record looking for suggestions as to how they might try to solve this challenge. In other words, whether they can 'fight' or 'cast a spell' or 'sneak', etc. Verbs


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 9, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I am not a game designer and I haven't played much gumshoe but here are my thoughts on the system.
> I agree that many systems are designed with a non-trivial chance of failure to find an important clue but you don't need a whole new system to change this. Instead just adjust your favourite system slightly and it's all good. In the example you give of testing the blood for silver the party has to notice/pay attention to the blood (auto success based on play action) have the skill (player design) and ask to use the skill. In D20 you simply make the DC for using chemistry to discover the silver in the blood 0. That's the whole investigative system done. You don't need a whole new system to do that just a different attitude to making clues available.
> If you want to make it a bit more complicated maybe have
> DC 0 (success but problem) the blood has silver but you botched the test so it takes 4 hours to find out
> ...




I think you summarized the issue very accurately here. A problem with Gumshoe (and FATE, and other systems of similar nature designed to fix specific issues certain gamers may have) is that they are often addressing a technique, not a rule, but in the way it is done the two get conflated. This creates weird problems....where the rule system is now advocating a play style that is highly specific and may not jive well when someone knows there is an easier way to do it with other systems. Trail of Cthulhu, for example, says a lot more about the fact that Call of Cthulhu could use some suggestions and rules on how the GM can adjudicate skill checks and clue finding rather than anything about the system.

ToC also includes a sort of barter system for finding clues which I've not really warmed to and feel is a bit tireless. As GM I like the ability to just hand the clues out that need to be provided and I like leaning on skills to help players who may not know enough about a subject to fill in the clues themselves....if I provide an elaborate set of clues that points to a solution which only someone with real world medical knowledge could solve, for example, then I feel in ToC I would be facing a greater wall in which my players lack the knowledge to piece together the clues I've provided...whereas the CoC mechanics will at least allow me to have them make a medical skill roll to see if their character would know something the player might have no clue about.....literally.

Now, my above example assumes I wouldn't apply the same logic to ToC that I would to CoC and simply provide the clue....but here's where I think it gets funny. What games really need is a sense of control/contribution by the player. In ToC I suppose the control is bartering points for clues. In CoC the control is rolling skill dice to see if you succeed. The system that I will prefer is the one which gives the GM the most "hidden control" to make sure the desired outcome is achieved. In ToC I admit I'm not totally clear on what level of control the GM has outside of handing out the clues as fast and frequently as possible....but I am in the middle of trying to read through ToC right now, so maybe it will grow on me. But in CoC, I absolutely know I can give a modifier to success to the player's skill check, or I can house rule something in regarding a fail forward on his roll, or I can play it straight and let the dice fall where they may, and simply use an NPC or some other element in the plot to reveal the required information through a different channel. 

I suspect in the end ToC will be much the same.....a recent campaign was played and ended locally, and one of my regular players was in it. She admitted she loved the game, but said after ten sessions she still had no idea how the game played out mechanically as none of it made any sense to her, nor was it explained...and she also never rolled dice, so she was entirely unclear how anything was actually resolved. My guess? The GM was probably keeping controls very close, and probably was winging the hell out of it....and keeping the players more in the dark, not less, helped greatly. That's exactly how veteran CoC GMs do it, too. So I'm not sure how much difference there really is, ultimately.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> Gaming is a social activity for me, not the primary focus, so time management isn't really an issue for me.




I think of time management a lot because I have a career that could easily subsume my personal life if I allowed it....I mostly meant that of those who I know who'd like to game more, gaming is one of many social avenues available, so it often falls to the wayside because the requisite buy-in requires more time and effort than a lot of other social activities.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 9, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I'm not talking about the storytelling process, so that point is moot. No gamer ever wanted to play George Smiley, when James Bond was an example. Often what games mistakenly identify as "realism" is in fact just a greater amount of verisimilitude. They don't want the realism of firearms or combat, they want what looks like that realism.




Sure, that's about my take on it as well. There is a segment of gaming out there that I think would disagree with us, but I also think they are confusing verisimilitude with realism.


----------



## gribble (Dec 9, 2015)

shidaku said:


> So let me go back to my original point: I have no idea what Gumshoe is, this article didn't tell me why it's worth using or how it's different apart from this one feature, and that is likely why "designers" aren't using it, because they have no idea what it is.



I'm not going to give you a precis of the whole rules, but in a nutshell, it emulates the "procedural" (thanks Umbran!) style of story telling, i.e.: the kind of story where there is some underlying mystery/problem to solve, which requires a structure of "get to the bottom of what is going on", followed by "resolve it". E.g.: a typical CoC story, where strange things happen and we follow the slow, creeping discovery of eldritch horrors; or the X-files, where some strange event occurs and we then investigate what is behind it and try to prevent it happening again; or a spy story, where you're trying to get to the bottom of some sinister plot against the "good guys" and put a stop to it. I'm sure you get the idea. It's designed to emulate that media, not any sort of "real world" simulation. E.g.: it emulates CSI, not "The first 48 Hours". Much like that media it isn't about struggling to uncover clues, but more about having the right people in the right place to find the clues (doesn't fail) and then figuring out how they clues all fit together to solve the problem (can fail).

It does this by breaking skills out into two categories - investigative and general - and each category works differently. Investigative skills are used to resolve the "get to the bottom of what is going on". Each PC has skills they are expert in. Each investigative scene has one or more critical clues, each of which is associated with one or more skills. Any PC who is an expert in an associated skill, who is present and asks to use that skill will automatically uncover the critical clue, and can spend points from a limited pool for that skill to uncover additional bonus clues (if available).

The key things are that although the mechanics (at their core) are pretty simple, it manages something that other games don't to well IMO - it allows experts to shine with no chance to fail to uncover the important clues in their areas of expertise, without making those experts redundant (like the DC 0 approach for d20 does). Crucially, it also isn't just a vignette, where players narrate what they do and success/failure is determined by how well/thoroughly the players describe the important bits - it actually has a mechanic behind it which takes into account *character* skill. Sure, you can still describe the actions and make it more of a vignette if that's your thing, e.g.: "My bomb disposal expert picks through the rubble, looking for any signs of a device. I work out where the centre of the blast is and spend more time there, working my way out from there in a spiral" or you can much it much more task focussed, e.g.: "Can I use Explosives to uncover any clues?".

Once the PCs have got to the bottom of what is going on (either at the scene or adventure level), they need to resolve the implications, and this is where things like chases, combat, etc. are resolved. As others have noted, if detailed combat is your thing, then Gumshoe probably isn't for you. Largely the system is roll a d6, try to hit a target number (typically 4 or 5). Each point you spend from an appropriate general skill adds 1 to the roll. I agree with comments that the combat system is a bit simplistic for my tastes, even with the NBA additions. Personally I like a houserule I read somewhere to instead roll and extra d6 for each point you spend and take the highest result. At least that way you're rolling more dice...

Anyway, as someone pointed out, it does require a lot of GM work to set up all the clues... but then *any* good investigative scenario requires that. What it does well is that the rules structure pretty much requires you (and helps you) to put together a good mystery. That's where it shines. 

I would absolutely hate to run something like the Dracula Dossier with a d20 system... I just don't think it'd work - you either make the solving of the mystery:
a) Inconsequential - i.e.: just by dint of turning up and making a series of DC 0 checks you solve it
b) Divorced from character skill - i.e.: it becomes a series of narrative vignettes which are entirely dependent on player skill and knowledge
c) Open to failure - i.e.: someone could fail a crucial check and the group is hit with a brick wall.

Gumshoe is the only system I'm aware of which prevents all three of the above.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 9, 2015)

camazotz said:


> There are a lot of gamers who actually do try to inject realism (or as much as prudent) in to their games and do not subscribe to the idea that RPGs are an emulation of fiction or narrative. I don't know if I'm a pro-realism gamer myself, but i do disagree with the idea that RPGs/games are about emulating the storytelling process, and in fact think we're at a point now where games have demonstrated that they work best when they move away from this process of emulation, allowing the game to focus on emergent experiences that are a product of the player/GM interactions at the table which would never, ever emerge normally in the course of a book or film's creation.



It's probably worth making the distinction between Realism (verisimilitude - how much something is like real life) and Simulation (internal consistency - how well the rules present the world as a believable place).

I don't see much of a call for Realism in games, mostly because the real world doesn't have laser swords or dragons in it, but Simulation is one of the most important aspects of a traditional RPG system. The rules of an RPG exist to provide an objective model for entities within the game world, and tell us how they interact with each other, so we can resolve conflict without bias. The "story" that happens is just the account of whatever events take place around the PCs or as a result of their actions.

If you tried to emulate narrative elements, then you would be introducing bias into the system, which defeats the whole point of having an objective resolution engine.


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 10, 2015)

gribble said:


> No, not at all. My point was that unfortunately in d20, a DC 0 check has other unfortunate repercussions. What you're essentially saying by making a DC 0 is that anyone can do it - perhaps not as well as some other characters with skill, but any schmuck in the team can find out. That makes what skills you're actually good at completely irrelevant for the purposes of finding the critical clue - my Fighter with -1 perception skill can spot the crucial clue just as easily as your Rogue with +8. Sure, the rogue may have done it a bit faster/better or with some extra bonus information, but if the rogue wasn't there at all the group still would have succeeded.
> 
> This is emphatically *not* what Gumshoe does. Experts do shine, and everyone at some point will be able to use their key abilities to do something that few or no other PCs in the group can do.
> 
> So yeah, if you're playing a D&D game, with a bit of investigation now and then, your approach is totally serviceable. But it isn't equivalent at all for a game which focuses on investigation as one of the key activities. Just like I wouldn't use Gumshoe to run a dungeon crawling campaign, I also wouldn't use D&D to run an investigation focussed campaign.




By "expert" you mean someone who has a point in the skill, what another system might call trained in the skill right?
So a gumshoe character turns up at a scene and the player says I use the following skills in which I have a point or more: a, b, c, d, e, f, g what clues do I uncover?
A d20 character turns up at a scene and the player says I am trained in a, b, c, d, e, f, g what do I uncover.

This part is identical IMO (I get you won't agree)

To get extra info:
The gumshoe player then says I spend a point, do I get more information (they have a limited resource mechanic)
Th d20 character says I roll at +8 and get a 17 do I get more information (they have a chance mechanic)

This bit is different.

I guess we are just going to disagree about the scale of difference and that the gumshoe mechanic is such that it adds a lot to an investigative campaign or that you lose something significant if you use d20 (or other) mechanics to run an investigation focussed campaign.


----------



## innerdude (Dec 10, 2015)

I bought Night's Black Agents SPECIFICALLY for the GM advice, e.g., the "conspiracy pyramid," the way to handle scenes, building the plot of a "procedural" campaign, etc.

Oh, and the artwork is pretty neato too. 

I may at some point end up running the game system itself, but for the most part I'm using it as inspiration to port into Savage Worlds.

To me, I think there's some very valid points being made about how it's probably unnecessary to build an entire system around investigative mechanics. Looking at NightBA (I'm sorry, abbreviating it as "NBA" is confusing for this American, due to the National Basketball Association), I've already begun extrapolating the principles of scene/clue setup and modifying them to suit Savage World's basic skill system. Many of the interesting content in NightBA is highly adaptable to any system based on GM preparation and delivery, and the skilled use of "fail forward" principles.

But having not played the system itself, I can't really compare NightBA to anything else. And I do think that if a GM doesn't set the proper expectations for a GUMSHOE based system, players may find themselves at odds with it.

I'd say the following movies/books are akin to the flavor and vibe NightBA is trying to give: 


Blackhat
Rising Sun
Insomnia
The books of Daniel Silva (the Gabriel Allon series)

So if a player thinks they're getting into a game of _Die Hard_ but the style ends up closer to _Blackhat_ or _Rising Sun_, of course there's going to be conflict.


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> By "expert" you mean someone who has a point in the skill, what another system might call trained in the skill right?
> So a gumshoe character turns up at a scene and the player says I use the following skills in which I have a point or more: a, b, c, d, e, f, g what clues do I uncover?
> A d20 character turns up at a scene and the player says I am trained in a, b, c, d, e, f, g what do I uncover.



Not really, no. In a d20 system, a character having one rank (or being "trained") in a skill, generally denotes some level of training, but not expertise. That typically requires focus on a skill and/or expenditure of feats (depending on the version of D&D). In 5e, this is a bit less true as training is much more binary, though there are still things like a Rogues "expertise" and feats that differentiate between someone who knows a bit about something and a true expert.

In Gumshoe, training in an Investigative skill represents true expertise, to the level where there is literally no chance for someone to fail to get the important clues in an area of expertise. Again, it models the genre, it doesn't try to simulate "reality". In genre, there really aren't dabblers - you have experts, and you rely on them when it comes to their areas of expertise.

You seem to be completely missing the point. What you propose does a great job at saying "the group will get the core clues, and the experts may get some extra clues" - I don't debate that at all. However, by setting DCs to 0, what you're actually saying is the group will *all *get the core clues - i.e.: each and every one of them will be able to uncover the core clues and the presence and actions of the experts is *irrelevant *to whether the group gets the core clues or not.

This is *completely *different from what Gumshoe does. Yes it is similar in that it also says "the group will get the core clues, and the experts may get some extra clues", but it does this by also saying "the experts, and their presence and actions, are what determines that the group gets the core clues". That is the missing ingredient from your outlined approach for d20. Without that core ingredient, the rolls and skills are completely irrelevant for the core clues. It's all dependent on _player _actions and not _character _skill. 

And if you try to introduce some dependency on skill, then you necessarily introduce some chance that those skilled characters will fail. Unless you make it dependent on whether or not the character has training (i.e.: at least one rank) in the skill, even if the skill can normally be used untrained. Then you run into a whole new kettle of fish in that some of the party will have no useful investigative skills... (think your 8 Int fighter/barbarian/etc. with 1-3 skill points per level), and hence won't be able to contribute to the investigation at all. Conversely, just by sheer number of skill points rogues and wizards will be the uber characters in the campaign, and the poor fighters/clerics will be relegated to supporting roles. It'll result in very wonky builds, where no-one wants to actually be an expert at anything, and instead would rather spread their skill points around as many different skills as possible, just so they can get a chance to roll. And pity the poor bards, which usually have an ability granting them a bonus to untrained skills... this will be all but unusable in in most investigative scenarios which will now require training, even though logically they should be really good at it. This one "simple" houserule would have a number of knock-on effects.

Now imagine a campaign where a large part of the action is investigation... no thanks, I'll stick to Gumshoe for that sort of campaign.



werecorpse said:


> To get extra info:
> The gumshoe player then says I spend a point, do I get more information (they have a limited resource mechanic)
> Th d20 character says I roll at +8 and get a 17 do I get more information (they have a chance mechanic)
> 
> This bit is different..




I don't think you give the difference enough credit. For Gumshoe, the *players *get to determine when it is important for them to get additional clues. For d20, it's completely in the hands of chance. This is not only very different for the players, but also for the outcome of the campaign.

It's a bit like saying instead of wizards choosing when they want to cast spells, they *always* have to make a d20 + level + spellcasting stat roll to see if they're able to or not. Certainly makes them feel a lot less like experts, and could have drastic results on the outcome of the campaign (you could easily have a TPK if the wizard failed to cast spells at crucial times, or if the adventure assumed access to certain types of magic and the spellcasting failed).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2015)

camazotz said:


> There are a lot of gamers who actually do try to inject realism (or as much as prudent) in to their games and do not subscribe to the idea that RPGs are an emulation of fiction or narrative.




So, if I don't subscribe to the idea that a Honda Civic is designed to drive on a road, and I take it off-road into the woods, do you think I'll end up with a satisfactory experience?

Whether a particular game is an emulation of something is part of the game design.  You don't get to declare that RPGs aren't emulations.  You don't even get to declare that RPGs shouldn't be emulations - because you don't rule the world and get to determine what others play.  You get to declare that you would prefer not to play or design games that are emulations.



> in fact think we're at a point now where games have demonstrated that they work best when they move away from this process of emulation




No, we aren't.  Really.  Because you cannot say this until you can point to an objective measure of "RPG working well".  That is, to significant part, a matter of taste, and there is no measure for that.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 10, 2015)

gribble said:


> This is *completely *different from what Gumshoe does. Yes it is similar in that it also says "the group will get the core clues, and the experts may get some extra clues", but it does this by also saying "the experts, and their presence and actions, are what determines that the group gets the core clues".



Out of curiosity, what happens if the expert isn't present? Say, the party split up, and down path A there is totally a clue that any trained botanist would recognize in an instant, but the botanist went down path B? Or what if there isn't even a botanist in the party? 

Unless I'm missing something (which is why I'm asking), those seem like pretty obvious failure modes.


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 10, 2015)

I can see this is futile. You say you can't model expertise in another system and gumshoe has cracked that difficult conceptual nut. Fine. I don't believe it's so hard. 

"The experts their presence and action are what determines that the group gets the core clues" -that's the missing ingredient? That isn't modelled? That's the player saying My character has a point in ballistics, chemistry and explosives what clues do I get. 

By introducing some dependency on skills you don't have to say there is a chance of failure - the no failure philosophy is IMO the crucial element of the system. No failure can be modelled by just saying if you are an expert in X skill (which I model as being you have a point, 5 ranks, a certain class, a background trait, 50% or more skill, d6 in the skill or whatever your system of choice uses) then you get the clue. It's that simple. It doesn't have to have any knock on effects. Remember the purpose is to give the players the clues - that's what it is all about. That's why the system exists. If you can achieve this in another system you have achieved the goal.

You are right, playing a character with no investigative skills whatsoever in a game revolving around investigation would be less than ideal. But this is a campaign management not game system issue.

I Conceded that there was a difference between rolling to see if you get more detailed clues and being able to choose when to spend the limited resource - it's different. I get that. I don't think it's better or worse. (And your wizard example is off - d20 wizards get some spells that automatically succeed and some that a roll determines success - so do they feel like experts? I reckon they feel more like experts than the guy who can't even cast spells)

I understand that you will stick to gumshoe for investigative scenarios - I will continue to play them in Savage Worlds, BRP and d20 and use the gumshoe philosophy on how to make clues available.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 10, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Out of curiosity, what happens if the expert isn't present? Say, the party split up, and down path A there is totally a clue that any trained botanist would recognize in an instant, but the botanist went down path B? Or what if there isn't even a botanist in the party?
> 
> Unless I'm missing something (which is why I'm asking), those seem like pretty obvious failure modes.




The advice in _Ashen Stars_ is the GM should consider folding or spindling the scene to allow some other ability to gather the clue. 



> If the consequence of failure is that a character fails to get a piece of crucial information, success should be automatic provided that the character has the ability in question, and the player thinks to ask for it. (Even at that, you may need to improvise during play if no player steps up to claim the needed clue, bending the details of the scenario so that the same information can be garnered with a different ability, possibly by another player.)


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Out of curiosity, what happens if the expert isn't present? Say, the party split up, and down path A there is totally a clue that any trained botanist would recognize in an instant, but the botanist went down path B? Or what if there isn't even a botanist in the party?
> 
> Unless I'm missing something (which is why I'm asking), those seem like pretty obvious failure modes.




This sort of thing isn't really addressed mechanically, except to say that core clues are typically pretty general information that may apply to more than one skill (and/or may be attainable at more than one scene), and the mechanics encourage a good balance of skills across the group. Much like in D&D you will probably have a hard time if your party doesn't include a cleric (or other leader in 4e), you'll probably have a hard time in Gumshoe if you have a lot of missing investigative skills.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 10, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I can see this is futile. You say you can't model expertise in another system and gumshoe has cracked that difficult conceptual nut. Fine. I don't believe it's so hard.
> 
> "The experts their presence and action are what determines that the group gets the core clues" -that's the missing ingredient? That isn't modelled? That's the player saying My character has a point in ballistics, chemistry and explosives what clues do I get.
> 
> ...




It is easy enough in assign DCs such that an "expert" -- at whatever level you consider expertise starts -- will pick up clues: assign a DC of 1 + (minimum skill to be considered an expert) and a requirement the skill must be trained.  An expert will always find a clue; occasionally a hobbyist can succeed as well.

Really, the biggest problem with the d20 system (and most other level gated systems)  is that inexperienced characters (with a few exceptions) simply aren't experts.


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> No failure can be modelled by just saying if you are an expert in X skill (which I model as being you have a point, 5 ranks, a certain class, a background trait, 50% or more skill, d6 in the skill or whatever your system of choice uses) then you get the clue. It's that simple. It doesn't have to have any knock on effects.
> 
> You are right, playing a character with no investigative skills whatsoever in a game revolving around investigation would be less than ideal. But this is a campaign management not game system issue.



I guess having played and run both systems (including a metric ton of D&D), I just can't agree with your opinion that there is no difference. I can see all sorts of differences. But if you don't, that's fine. Enjoy whichever game(s) you enjoy. I just know that I wouldn't personally use D&D to run a "procedural" campaign. Can you make it work? Sure, but even the relatively simple tweaks you outline I can see having a number of knock on effects, that would IMO have a big effect on the system and campaign. I've outlined a few above.

Why would I try and do that when I have a system that is designed from the ground up to run exactly that sort of campaign?

The "no investigative skills" thing *isn't* a campaign management issue (unless of course you consider the choice of system part of campaign management, which based on your comment above you don't), it's *totally *a system issue. D&D is set up to allow characters which have no investigative talent. That's fine, because it's not a system that is designed for telling investigative stories, it's designed for "dungeon crawlin' fools", so any character you can make using the system, without constraints, should be competent for exploring dungeons, fighting monsters and looting their corpses.

Similarly, it is literally *impossible* to make a character in Gunshoe who can't contribute to investigations as well as any other character. It's inherent to the system. Players can make up whatever characters they like, without constraints, and they will be appropriate to play in an investigative campaign, and have a real and meaningful impact on the story and the challenges faced. That simply isn't possible with D&D, without a lot of houserules and careful vetting of character creation and advancement. Again, can you do it effectively enough? Probably, with a bit of effort, but what's the point? If I want to tell that sort of story, I'm much better served by a system which is designed for that sort of story.



werecorpse said:


> And your wizard example is off - d20 wizards get some spells that automatically succeed and some that a roll determines success - so do they feel like experts? I reckon they feel more like experts than the guy who can't even cast spells.



You're confusing the example. I play a lot of D&D, I understand the concept of saving throws and attack rolls for spells. I'm not talking about that - the wizard still has complete freedom to choose an appropriate spell from his repertoire (will saves targeting brutes, fort saves targeting the mages, AoEs targeting the minions, etc). I.e.: he gets the choice of which spells to expend and when.

What I'm talking about is a flat chance that that spell simply wasn't available. Or perhaps a better example would be if, rather than choosing a spell, the caster had to randomly select a prepared spell to cast. I.e.: whether or not he had the ability to bring his powers to bear was dependent on chance, not his choice of which spell to cast. *That's *the difference between rolling for additional clues or expending resources to choose when to get them.



werecorpse said:


> I can see this is futile. You say you can't model expertise in another system and gumshoe has cracked that difficult conceptual nut. Fine. I don't believe it's so hard.



PS: I didn't say any such thing. What I actually said (really *implied*, but no point in splitting hairs) is that Gumshoe does a really good job of modelling a bunch of investigators, expert in a number of fields, working together to solve a mystery. The d20 system doesn't. Ergo, if you're running that sort of game, the Gumshoe system is a much better choice than d20. So far I've given tons of examples of how the Gumshoe system does this, and tons of counter examples of how the d20 system fails to do it as well (if at all). You're right - this probably is futile.

Ultimately, if you don't like the Gumshoe system, or have a strong preference for the d20 system regardless of the type of campaign/story you're telling, that's fine. That's your opinion and choice, no harm, no foul. I know people like that - hell, I even play with them regularly. You can even twist the d20 system, or constrain your campaign and the choice of the players within it to make it work for a style of campaign it isn't suited to. As long as you're all enjoying that, that's also fine. But please don't come out and say that the Gumshoe system isn't any better suited to that style of campaign than d20. Those kinds of statements are simply not true, at least IME.


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 10, 2015)

gribble said:


> I guess having played and run both systems (including a metric ton of D&D), I just can't agree with your opinion that there is no difference. I can see all sorts of differences. But if you don't, that's fine. Enjoy whichever game(s) you enjoy. I just know that I wouldn't personally use D&D to run a "procedural" campaign. Can you make it work? Sure, but even the relatively simple tweaks you outline I can see having a number of knock on effects, that would IMO have a big effect on the system and campaign. I've outlined a few above.
> 
> Why would I try and do that when I have a system that is designed from the ground up to run exactly that sort of campaign?
> 
> ...



I find it difficult to respond to your comments, I am not great at cut and paste forum stuff so I am trying to number my responses to address your comments. 
1. None of the so called knock on effects to incorporating an auto success investigation method into other systems need exist.
2. You might choose to use the other system with an investigative overlay because you enjoy the other aspects of that system. Equally you might find those other aspects get in the way of your immersion and stick with pure Gumshoe.
3 having or not having investigative skills is IMO campaign management (your bolded absolutes appear as if you beleive you are stating fact). You tell the players this will be an investigative campaign using say D20 or BRP. They design their characters accordingly. Just like you might say this campaign is set on a spaceship, or interacting with royalty while exploring ancient ruins, set in a post apocalyptic New York - all of which they can take on board during character design and advancement.
4. I don't want to focus only on D&D although it is the game I have played the most. IME it can be used for more styles of game than "Dungeon Crawling Fools" but that's up to you.
5. I didn't think in Gumshoe every character must by design be able to contribute as well as every other character. IF they can why does anyone feel special? My experience is that some characters had just chosen the wrong skills - like any other game.
6. I didn't say adding in the auto success into a d20 system won't take a bit of effort, it does. Not much and without any knock on effects IME but it does require a bit of effort.
7. I don't agree that Gumshoe is a much better choice than d20 for running an investigative game- none of your examples established this.
8. Your initial example of the d20 wizard appeared to be to show what it would feel like to not be an expert in d20. This is what I responded to. I don't understand what this example is addressing - that making a "better than basic clue finding system" based on chance rather than on limited resource mechanic is akin to a system where you don't get to choose what spell you use in a particular circumstance? I don't get it.
9 I never said I have a strong preference for d20. I said that the primary element of the gumshoe system can be incorporated into other systems without too much trouble. I have done it.
10. Please don't come out and say that gumshoe is better suited to an investigative style of campaign - oh wait a minute, of course you can its not a fact, its just your opinion. IMO and IME it isn't.


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I find it difficult to respond to your comments, I am not great at cut and paste forum stuff so I am trying to number my responses to address your comments.



1) Ok, let's pick two examples from the approach you outlined (two examples I gave earlier that have been ignored): your change will encourage players to play rogues and wizards more than fighters and clerics, and your change will encourage players to spread their skill points as thinly as possible. Are you honestly saying that if the players turned up with a D&D party entirely composed of rogues and wizards, and all of them had spread all their skill points out across as many skills as they could, that it wouldn't upset the campaign or the d20 ruleset at all? That you wouldn't have to go through and re-scale all your DCs (because you suddenly had no "experts"), or expect that the party would fail to hit high DCs more often than the system assumes? Or replan combat encounters because you have no tanks or healers in the party? How do you handle the player (we all have one in our groups), who says "I don't care if it's an investigative campaign, I really want to play an 8 Int fighter so I'm going to"?
3) No, in Gumshoe it really isn't. There is no "campaign management" needed. Every PC will have a suitable spread of investigative skills, without any outside management needed. You can't say the same thing about D&D for an investigative campaign. At the very least you need to say to the players "We're going to be playing an investigative campaign, make your characters appropriately", which will (effectively) take a whole swathe of player options off the table. With Gumshoe you just say "make a Gumshoe character" and you can guarantee it'll work and be able to contribute in an investigative campaign. If you don't understand this point, I have to question if you have ever even played Gumshoe, and if you have whether you understood the system.
4) Of course it can - but that is the default campaign mode, what the rules are designed to model, and what they're best at modelling. Just because I *could* run a dungeon crawl with Gumshoe, it doesn't mean I'm under any illusion that it'd be the best system for that type of game, or even that it'd be a good fit for hat type of game (it wouldn't, on both counts).
5) That's like saying "In D&D, I don't think every character should be able to contribute in combat as well as every other character, If they can why does anyone feel special?". It's because although they all contribute *equally* (in terms of impact), they do it in different ways - the fighter by tanking, the wizard by blasting big groups of minions, the rogue by sneak attacking the big bad and the cleric by buffing and healing. It's exactly the same in Gumshoe - just because all characters contribute equally to solving the mystery, it doesn't necessarily follow that they all contribute in the same way. The face talks to people and gathers "human intel", the forensic scientist anaylses the physical evidence, the hacker gathers signals intelligence, and the ex-soldier spots potential hiding places and movements of people. But they all contribute equally (in terms of impact) to solving the mystery.
8) The example was to illustrate the difference between a character being able to choose when to expend effort/resources, vs. being randomly able to do so. Nothing more, and had nothing to do with illustrating expertise. You seemed to think it was a relatively minor thing, but IME it is not.
9) If you think this, then you have misunderstood the "primary element" of the Gumshoe system. Hint: as I've said multiple times, it isn't about the group solving the mystery (or even finding clues) without chance of failure.
10) My position is that a system specifically designed for running investigative campaigns is (shock horror), better for running investigative campaigns than a system that isn't specifically designed for running investigative campaigns (and in fact is designed for very different campaigns). It's hardly a controversial position. You haven't established anything which would make me doubt that position, based on my experience. In fact, all you've done is confirm it.


----------



## kalil (Dec 10, 2015)

gribble said:


> 10) My position is that a system specifically designed for running investigative campaigns is (shock horror), better for running investigative campaigns than a system that isn't specifically designed for running investigative campaigns (and in fact is designed for very different campaigns). It's hardly a controversial position. You haven't established anything which would make me doubt that position, based on my experience. In fact, all you've done is confirm it.




A game can fail to deliver on its stated design objectives. IMHO gumshoe sets up a set of admirable design objectives including spotlight sharing and support of investigation games. Then it presents a set of game mechanics that are (IMHO) clunky, counter-intuitive and fails to achieve the design objectives. The low level of market penetration the gumshoe system has achieved (despite being quite well supported with cool game worlds and well-written adventures) leads me to believe that I am not alone in feeling this way.

I personally select other game systems for running investigative games, despite being quite aware of the gumshoe system, simply because I don't think gumshoe is a particularly good system even for the specific types of games it aims to support.


----------



## rabindranath72 (Dec 10, 2015)

I agree with the OP. GUMSHOE games have become my "go to" games when I run scenarios that involve some kind of clue-gathering process. I am currently running an hybrid Fear Itself/Ashen Stars scenario set in the Alien "universe", strongly inspired by the Alien: Isolation game; it's working like a charm. 
And previously, I have used Fear Itself to run a scenario inspired by The Thing. Again, a huge success, and actually one of the absolutely best campaigns I have ever run in the last 30 years.

Besides the clues-gathering paradigm shift, GUMSHOE games also sit well with me because the mechanics are generally very straightforward and simple; you get well-rounded characters by using only one set of descriptors (Abilities) whereas in other games, like Call of Cthulhu, you get ability scores AND skills, or ability scores, skills, feats/traits etc. In some games, e.g. CoC, some of these elements do not even interact with each other; that's more degrees of complexity than some players like, or need. The resource management intrinsic to the use of Abilities is also something which added a lot of depth to our games.

The system is also eminently adaptable, you can mix and match elements from each of the games without any problems (for example, I have used some advanced firearm rules from Night's Black Agents in my Alien: Isolation game).

So...yes, GUMSHOE games have replaced a host of other games I used to run in the past, and our enjoyment of the different genres/settings has become bigger and bigger.


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

kalil said:


> A game can fail to deliver on its stated design objectives.



Oh sure, of course, though no-one in the thread you're quoting has brought that up.

I'm curious though, why do you have this opinion? It certainly doesn't match my experience with the system, and despite some criticism (mainly around combat and action sequence resolution), it's the first time I've ever heard someone say it doesn't do a good job of running a procedural investigative type game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I have no idea how you get this. The DM is not any more God in GUMSHOE than in any other system.




The One True God of Roleplaying is the Holyhock God. But being less flippant the DM is more God in GUMSHOE than in most other systems because of the procedural nature of GUMSHOE. When the DM is encouraged to dictate the procedure, that's tying the PCs agency to the railroad tracks so to speak.



> Moreover, there's not need for it to be a "locked room" mystery. For any mystery, most of the universe holds little to no useful information for the detective. The useful clues are only found in particular places, or from particular people. To design the adventure, the GM has to figure out what those places and who those people are.




And here's where we run into our first problem - one that amongst other things undermines the genre of detective fiction. If we read almost any detective series then we discover one thing. What the great fictional detectives consider to be clues are ones that bypass lesser mortals. Sherlock Holmes can make clues out of things Inspector Lestrade wouldn't think to question. And in order to set the number of clues in any situation short of a locked room mystery the GM needs to start from the position that they know more about the situation than both the players and the PCs - and will realise all the questions both players and PCs would think to ask. I've a smart, knowledgeable, and creative group of players and I _know_ they are going to surprise me with what they ask for any mystery and where they discover clues.

The limiting of clues and the limiting of detectives means that our detective isn't taking part in detective fiction at all. Drop the idea that Gumshoe is a detective game and pitch it as almost pure (and sometimes Constantine-style) noir as opposed to dark detective and it works better, right to the more overwhelming power than normal of the DM.

And we also have in Gumshoe to me the statement that cripples The Dying Earth RPG (also by Robin Laws) for me. "I'm going to stab that guy because I might need to use my banter later."



> This is not terribly different than making up the rooms in a dungeon you have to go through to find the BBEG. But, instead of having physical 10'x10' corridors marking the path between rooms, there are lines of reasoning leading from one to the other. And no, the path between the clues does not need to be linear.




"There are lines of reasoning leading from one to the other." In short the DM needs to either (a) predict the lines of reasoning that the players will use or (b) ban the players from using other lines of reasoning. Controling where PCs can walk is a whole lot less railroady than controlling how they can think. And that's even if you control where the PCs can walk by throwing them into a steam train, closing shutters over the windows, and welding the doors shut.



Christopher Helton said:


> I'm not talking about the storytelling process, so that point is moot. No gamer ever wanted to play George Smiley, when James Bond was an example.




Please don't say "No gamer ever..." Because there are some exceptions to almost every condition.


----------



## Torg Smith (Dec 10, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> I guess you are right, there is sometimes a fine line between being clever and being a jerk.
> 
> It was my rapid, if not so cleaver, reaction to the article.... Of course some people don't play 'cause they really don't like it. You have to know if you ask you are going to get negative answers. And the article has its own hints of wrong-bad-funism and your way of playing is wrong and this is better.
> 
> ...




Actually auto success is quite prevalent in all games that I have read. They have all said not to roll on opening a normal door or walking across the street. You as a GM will most likely decide whether something is challenging enough to warrant a die roll. If you skip the die roll you are giving an auto success.

After Umbran's first comment in this thread, I had to check out the rules for a possible system for an Android setting from FFG. While I did not care for the single D6 task resolution, I did very much like the section on how to cover investigation.

The auto success that I had seen in there was talking about what you should include in the description of the scene. The players then choose how they want to investigate the scene. There is nothing to stop you from having the PCs roll for some tough obscure clue to find with a general skill.


----------



## Torg Smith (Dec 10, 2015)

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't think that playing a number of different systems is a bad thing. On the bookshelf in my office I have all of the Cypher System core books, a couple of Fate Books, a copy of Dungeon Crawl Classics that a friend gave me at Gen Con, Fantasy AGE, Savage Worlds and Lankhmar, Tenra Bansho Zero, a mess of stuff for Stormbringer, my old AD&D 1e books, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades and Amazing Adventures, a bunch of Lamentations modules, 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, a mess of Palladium books, Dungeon World and Whitehack.
> 
> And of course, Night's Black Agents.
> 
> Some of these are for play, some of these are fodder for various posts, and some of these are for inspirational purposes.




I think reading tons of different systems is great. I do not believe one system can work for all types of games. I have purchased dozens of games. I think they are good for inspiration. They give you ideas on how to deal with different situations. I look for rules that reflect the flavor I want with less hose ruling.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> But being less flippant the DM is more God in GUMSHOE than in most other systems because of the procedural nature of GUMSHOE. When the DM is encouraged to dictate the procedure, that's tying the PCs agency to the railroad tracks so to speak.




Okay, you're way off the mark on what "procedural" means, in terms of genre.  Genre name comes from TV cop shows, and the cops tend to follow a predictable procedure to get through a case.  

In the RPG case, however, it isn't like the GM is making up a specific procedure the PCs will need to use to get through the scenario - as I noted before, laying out the mystery really isn't all that different from laying out a dungeon - the GM places stuff, and the characters interact with it.  The GM isn't dictating specific procedure any more than the DM with a dungeon is dictating how the players deal with the dungeon.  They get to approach it however they wish.  Will the players settle into a fiarly predictable procedure they find works for them?  Probably.  But then, in the dungeon, the players do the same - there's a marching order, general tactics the players use, and so on.  Thos eare determined by the players based on what's effective for them, not by the GM.

Yes, it is assumed that the players *will* approach the scenario.  But that's not the GM playing the role of a vain, autocratic god - the GM has the player's buy in on the general premise before play begins.



> And here's where we run into our first problem - one that amongst other things undermines the genre of detective fiction.




Well, if you have an issue with the mystery genre as a whole, that's not a critique of the game - that's a critique of the genre.



> If we read almost any detective series then we discover one thing. What the great fictional detectives consider to be clues are ones that bypass lesser mortals. Sherlock Holmes can make clues out of things Inspector Lestrade wouldn't think to question. And in order to set the number of clues in any situation short of a locked room mystery the GM needs to start from the position that they know more about the situation than both the players and the PCs




Yes.  But then, since when in *any* game does the GM not know more about he scenario than the players?  The GM, of course, knows everything about what actually went down in the event.  They know who was present, they know what physically has happened, and where, and what evidence of the events remains behind.  



> and will realise all the questions both players and PCs would think to ask.




Not an issue. This isn't old-school D&D, where in searching a room, the player is expected to tell the GM explicitly every single thing they look at, and the GM only gives information to very specific questions.  It is more like 3e - "I search the room" - and the player then gets *everything* they might get, without asking targeted questions.  If the player is in a place, and tries to use an investigative skill, they get the base information.  If they spend points, they get any bonus material available.  The player doesn't have to ask specific, pointed questions to get information, so the GM doesn't have to be ready with answers to specific, pointed questions.  The player expected that there'd be fingerprints?  So what?  Lots of times the universe defies expectations.  Again, like the dungeon - if the player sneaks into the room, and asks if there are goblins, the GM doesn't have to scramble to figure out if there are goblins - either the GM put the goblins there, or she didn't.

This is very Holmesian, really.  Holmes doesn't speculate about what he might find, and search for specific pieces of information.  He takes in the entire space, and happens to notice some bits that are clearly relevant, and everything else is dross he may discard.  He doesn't continue probing because he expects some thing *should* be there - he finds what he finds, and is so good that he knows he didn't miss anything useful. 



> The limiting of clues and the limiting of detectives means that our detective isn't taking part in detective fiction at all.




Incorrect - it means that our detective isn't taking part in detective *reality*.  Detective reality is about the process of finding clues.  Detective fiction is about the process of dealing with clues once you have them, because the process of finding them is, in reality, tedious.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 10, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> It's probably worth making the distinction between Realism (verisimilitude - how much something is like real life) and Simulation (internal consistency - how well the rules present the world as a believable place).
> 
> I don't see much of a call for Realism in games, mostly because the real world doesn't have laser swords or dragons in it, but Simulation is one of the most important aspects of a traditional RPG system. The rules of an RPG exist to provide an objective model for entities within the game world, and tell us how they interact with each other, so we can resolve conflict without bias. The "story" that happens is just the account of whatever events take place around the PCs or as a result of their actions.
> 
> If you tried to emulate narrative elements, then you would be introducing bias into the system, which defeats the whole point of having an objective resolution engine.




True. And if verisimilitude/simulation were more in demand then I'd imagine GURPS would be far more popular right now rather than a stable niche.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, if I don't subscribe to the idea that a Honda Civic is designed to drive on a road, and I take it off-road into the woods, do you think I'll end up with a satisfactory experience?
> 
> Whether a particular game is an emulation of something is part of the game design.  You don't get to declare that RPGs aren't emulations.  You don't even get to declare that RPGs shouldn't be emulations - because you don't rule the world and get to determine what others play.  You get to declare that you would prefer not to play or design games that are emulations.
> 
> ...




On my first point I'm not arguing for the idea, merely pointing out that a lot of gamers do strive for a level of realism in their gaming. 

On the second point, I'm expressing my opinion that gaming is unique in it's ability to produce results that are unscripted and unanticipated, and that this process leads to something unique which does not reflect scripted fiction very well at all. Discussion on this tends to lead into the concept of railroad design and all that vs. sandbox gaming and so forth, but one of the reasons I feel that the unscripted elements of RPGs are so unique is precisely because you can't determine the desired outcome of a given scenario or situation, something static fiction does not do well. I do feel that RPGs which try to emulate the results of static fiction can be fun in short bursts, but will start to feel hollow....this could be a side effect of my having gamed for far, far too many years now not to be able to peek behind the emerald curtain and know what's going on, though.

Anyway....I'm not trying to enter an argument to convince you of anything, and discussion so far suggests we would probably be better suited to a more friendly discussion on one's preferences. I tend to lean heavily on the "gaming enjoyment is a subjective experience" side of the fence, and do not argue for objectively defined beliefs on the issue. I do think it's hard to disagree with the idea that a very core and unique feature of RPGs is the emergent experience concept, though....and that such experiences are not as meaningful when the game tries to script process and direction too tightly (railroads).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 10, 2015)

camazotz said:


> True. And if verisimilitude/simulation were more in demand then I'd imagine GURPS would be far more popular right now rather than a stable niche.



GURPS has a lot of problems. A focus on too much simulation, at the expense of playability, is one of them. A focus on too much verisimilitude, at the expense of fun, is another one. I'm not sure that either is the _biggest_ problem with GURPS.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2015)

camazotz said:


> On my first point I'm not arguing for the idea, merely pointing out that a lot of gamers do strive for a level of realism in their gaming.




And I have no problem with that.  It was stated more like it was assertion of fact, than matter of taste, though, and that's what I took issue with.



> On the second point, I'm expressing my opinion that gaming is unique in it's ability to produce results that are unscripted and unanticipated, and that this process leads to something unique which does not reflect scripted fiction very well at all.




I think you're putting far too much focus on the idea that we're taking some cues from scripted fiction.

Let me try it this way - we play games that are "epic fantasy" and "science fiction" and "noir" and "steampunk" and "urban fantasy" - these are *all* genres of scripted fiction.  We borrow tropes and themes from scripted fiction all the time!  There's not a lot of difference between having a game in which a fighter can fight, or a mad scientist can produce mad science effects and having a game in which a top-notch investigator can act like one.  Each type calls for a different set of mechanical supports.

But, this has nothing to do with "scripting".  In a D&D game, there may be a BBEG, with a plan to do something nasty, and the PCs choose to try to stop the plan, and work their way through the maze-like dungeon to reach the BBEG and do something about him.  The way they reach the BBEG is not scripted, but the PCs have a set of tools at their disposal (in D&D, they are mostly combat-related), and it is reasonable to figure the players will use those tools.  You don't expect the fighter to have any real problem dealing with any individual goblin, though.  

In GUMSHOE, the PCs have different tools.  The maze isn't of physical walls*, but of information.  The path isn't scripted, but you expect the PCs to use the tools they have to work their way to it.  And you don't expect the investigator to have any problem finding any individual clue.

In neither case is actually getting to the BBEG and dealing with them assured, or a foregone conclusion. 






*Usually.  We are focused on mysteries for the moment, but there are science and adventure procedurals as well, and in those a physical maze could well come up.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Out of curiosity, what happens if the expert isn't present? Say, the party split up, and down path A there is totally a clue that any trained botanist would recognize in an instant, but the botanist went down path B? Or what if there isn't even a botanist in the party?
> 
> Unless I'm missing something (which is why I'm asking), those seem like pretty obvious failure modes.




Usually, the party has more than one person who can use the most common investigation skills, and there is often some overlap between investigation skills to allow access to some information.  So, complete inability to get the basic clues is less likely.  The person with less expertise in a given area won't have as many points to spend on extra-bonus information, but that information is not supposed to be *required* to get through the adventure.  

And, when the basic requirement is that the expert be present, being permanently blocked is unlikely. "Hey, Joe!  We went over to the Old Man's cabin, and Jane got the blood samples we needed.  Out back, near the blood spatters, there were some really weird looking rock formations!  You might want to check them out!" will often be enough to clear the failure.  

In cases where there's significant time pressure, you'd expect the players to be very careful to spread themselves out so that sub-teams are still likely to be successful.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> You don't expect the fighter to have any real problem dealing with any individual goblin, though.
> .




You don't, but if you had a system where the Fighter couldn't miss hobgoblins at all, some players might have issues with that even if it could be said to be a solid reflection of source material (though some would love it!). I think this gets to some of the disagreements people have around a system like Gumshoe. A lot of times people speak of Gumshoe like it is the best tool for investigative adventures. That's where people probably get a bit finicky--if it isn't for them, but they also happen to love mystery adventures and it sounds like the Gumshoe method is being presented as the ideal tool for any mystery campaign (the OP wasn't saying that, but I think in these discussions people tend to jump to that conclusion pretty quickly because it's a conversation that has been had many times). For many players and GMs running investigative adventures, Gumshoe is exactly what they need, because it answers a real problem they encounter in play . But there are other ways to approach investigations, and they some players don't like the whole can't miss a clue thing. For some people the possibility of missing the clue is an important part of play. I think where most of it comes from is around exactly what elements from the source of inspiration players except to be present. 

Importantly, the existence of both types of game does not present a threat to either one. Gumshoe flourishing and attracting attention is good for the hobby because it creates more choice and people who might be turned off by a Call of Cthulu style adventure, might find something under the Gumshoe system much more enjoyable (which can only bring more people into the hobby). Knowing what tools are out there, what systems are the best fit for which group, these are the things that I think matter for making it easier for people to get into RPGs.


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In cases where there's significant time pressure, you'd expect the players to be very careful to spread themselves out so that sub-teams are still likely to be successful.



And it's worth pointing out that you'll generally know the types of skills that will be required beforehand. A bomb site in the middle of a city, you're going to want to make sure your explosives/science, architecture/urban terrain, probably medical/forensic and similar guys will be present. You can make some reasonable assumptions going in about what sport of skillsets will typically be needed for a particular scene (assuming you have time to prep).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 10, 2015)

gribble said:


> And it's worth pointing out that you'll generally know the types of skills that will be required beforehand. A bomb site in the middle of a city, you're going to want to make sure your explosives/science, architecture/urban terrain, probably medical/forensic and similar guys will be present. You can make some reasonable assumptions going in about what sport of skillsets will typically be needed for a particular scene (assuming you have time to prep).



So you're not supposed to catch players completely off-guard? If there's a bomb site in the middle of a city, there shouldn't be a mysteriously-misplaced flower which any trained botanist would be able to trace back to the culprit, but which would go completely unnoticed to anyone else? Or should you warn the players, before the game, that they'll need a botanist?

Of course, that raises the other question: what if there is no clue? From a logic-problem standpoint, _missing_ a clue looks a lot like there _not being_ a clue in the first place. Are the players expected to meta-game, and assume that the GM wouldn't include a puzzle that was unsolvable with the available information? Or should they be comfortable with the idea that they won't always have sufficient information, because such is life?


----------



## gribble (Dec 10, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> So you're not supposed to catch players completely off-guard? If there's a bomb site in the middle of a city, there shouldn't be a mysteriously-misplaced flower which any trained botanist would be able to trace back to the culprit, but which would go completely unnoticed to anyone else? Or should you warn the players, before the game, that they'll need a botanist?
> 
> Of course, that raises the other question: what if there is no clue? From a logic-problem standpoint, _missing_ a clue looks a lot like there _not being_ a clue in the first place. Are the players expected to meta-game, and assume that the GM wouldn't include a puzzle that was unsolvable with the available information? Or should they be comfortable with the idea that they won't always have sufficient information, because such is life?




Well, no more or less than in other games. Smart players in most games will be able to figure out what they're walking into before they walk into it, and prep accordingly (unless it's important to the story that they be taken unawares).

The flower/botanist thing (note that botany isn't typically an investigative skill, but point taken), in Gumshoe at least, would be best used as a bonus clue for a scene. Generally it should be reasonably obvious to players (just like in any other game) what skills are applicable, especially for the core clues. Otherwise you run the risk of either players missing clues or the game turning into players running down a long list of skills ("I use a, I use b, I use c...") in every scene, which isn't much fun for anyone.

Alternatively, if the flower is the core clue and for whatever reason the botanist isn't present, I'd normally pick the character with the highest outdoor survival, or notice, or even pharmacy/chemistry and say that they notice the flower seems unusual or out of place, and then describe how the botanist later analyses it and provides the clue. That way the botanist character doesn't miss his time in the spotlight.

I don't understand the second part of the question... if there aren't any clues... then you're not really playing an investigative game. Note that in Gumshoe clues cover a fairly broad spectrum, technical, knowledge and interpersonal (the persuasion/deception/etc. checks used to uncover information in other games). If you mean what happens if someone uses a skill and there is no clue for that skill, then the GM narrates something to the effect of "you find no information".

Again, emulating the genre, why would players assume that their characters are incompetent and miss important clues? That almost never happens in the related media, and when it does it tends to be important to the mystery - i.e.: the fact they missed it is usually a clue in itself. Sherlock or James Bond just don't randomly miss a certain proportion of clues due to "reality" or probability.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> You don't, but if you had a system where the Fighter couldn't miss hobgoblins at all, some players might have issues with that even if it could be said to be a solid reflection of source material (though some would love it!).




And again, for like the third time I've said in this thread alone, I know and acknowledge that, and I don't have an issue with it not being a particular person's thing.   That's a-okay by me.  You don't even have to justify it.  Just don't like it, that's cool.

But, if you do give a justification for why you don't like it, and that reason doesn't seem to match with reality, I think it is fair to note and discuss it.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Dec 11, 2015)

I think investigation style matters can be easily resolved by a GM by providing half answers on a fail (but the minimum required to move forward in some way, perhaps with some related setback?), and better/fuller answers with better rolls. 

I read the opening post but don't fully understand how Gumshoe varies from the above. 

Cheers


----------



## werecorpse (Dec 11, 2015)

I just can't keep up with you gribble. I will have another crack at trying to get across my opinion.
1) you say that porting the "auto success" to D&D will result in a preponderance of rogues & wizards. I assume you mean 3e & iterations of 3e? I disagree. The cooperative style of game means that as long as the party covers most stuff you are good to go. It may cause people to spread their points out more- although this may prevent them from getting the extra clue. Maybe, but the system otherwise massively rewards specialisation of skills so a bit of pressure the other way is no big deal IMO. This comment seems largely irrelevant to other versions of D&D and to other game systems.
3) your comment that gumshoe as a system doesn't require campaign management because it's in built is irrelevant to the fact you can deal with the problem of players designing characters that don't suit the campaign in other systems by telling them it's gonna have a focus on investigation and these are the rules - like you avoid a player making an aquatic elf rogue in a desert city scenario. Yes it limits options but D&D has a bazillion options. Almost any time you describe the type of campaign to people you reduce their options.
4) I agree gumshoe isn't designed for a dungeon crawl. My only point is that what I consider the prime idea of gumshoe mechanic (the auto success for important clues) can be modelled in other game systems and it works.
5) ok I misunderstood what you were getting at. I accept that gumshoe characters all start with the same amount of investigative points (that's a rule iirc). To the extent you consider this to be a crucial element of the system you are right it cannot be easily ported across the 3e D&D. I wasn't  talking about that part of the rules. Savage worlds or BRP may better emulate this element of the rules - but as it wasn't what I was talking about ill move on.
8) OK it can be more than a minor thing but again IMO the major element I consider to be the auto success part (I note this is essentially what the OP says as well)
9) again - major part is the auto success system. I don't want to port across anything else.
10) the stated design objective is irrelevant to whether or not the "primary element" can be modelled in other games.

I have no problem with you playing gumshoe exclusively for your investigation style games and D&D for your dungeon crawling. My games tend to have a bit of both. Maybe this "it works well for investigation but not for X" is why it doesn't get much growth. Im sure Gumshoe has many other elements and nuances of the game that extended play would reveal. I'm not a fan of the limited resource mechanic for determining if you get an extra clue but I did really like the auto success  I'm just saying I have found it relatively easy to port across the auto success system (no other systems that may exist within gumshoe) to other games. I'm not saying such games are identical in play style to a pure gumshoe game, or that they are better at modelling detectives. I'm just saying the auto success clue detection system can be used in other systems without too much effort.


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra (Dec 11, 2015)

What about the just rolling one d6.....no one else bothered by that?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And again, for like the third time I've said in this thread alone, I know and acknowledge that, and I don't have an issue with it not being a particular person's thing.   That's a-okay by me.  You don't even have to justify it.  Just don't like it, that's cool.
> 
> But, if you do give a justification for why you don't like it, and that reason doesn't seem to match with reality, I think it is fair to note and discuss it.




I might have misunderstood your exact point then. Was there a particular thing in his explanation you found didn't match the reality (I was getting hung up on the fighter killing the hobgoblin).


----------



## gribble (Dec 11, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I'm just saying I have found it relatively easy to port across the auto success system (no other systems that may exist within gumshoe) to other games. I'm not saying such games are identical in play style to a pure gumshoe game, or that they are better at modelling detectives. I'm just saying the auto success clue detection system can be used in other systems without too much effort.



Ok, I think I see where the conversation went off the rails... without putting words in your mouth, you're saying that the only part of Gumshoe you see value in is the auto-success mechanism, ergo by adding that to another system you're getting everything you need out of Gumshoe anyway?

In that case all good. Although of course I agree you can add automatic successes to *any* game system (well, you might struggle with something like Dread... but I digress), I still maintain that a) doing this to a system that isn't designed to handle it will introduce unforseen complications and consequences; and b) doing this alone doesn't make that ruleset anywhere near as good for investigations as Gumshoe. Gumshoe is about way more than just automatic successes on core clues and stretches for bonus clues - it also ensures everyone can contribute meaningfully, shares the spotlight, makes the PCs seem like expert sleuths, introduces more resource management, etc.

And it's all those reasons, not just the auto success mechanism which makes it makes it superior to other systems for procedural investigation type stories, IMO.

But hey, if you get what you need from your systems of choice by tacking on an auto success mechanism, great! Just seems like a needlessly clunky and clumsy way of doing it that won't actually realise most of the benefits Gumshoe brings to the table, IME. I can totally see this being fine for a standard D&D campaign with a bit of investigation (i.e.: 80% standard D&D stuff, 20% investigation), but I wouldn't want to do it for a typical Gumshoe style campaign (which is much closer to 50% investigation, 50% other stuff).


----------



## gribble (Dec 11, 2015)

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> What about the just rolling one d6.....no one else bothered by that?



Oh, absolutely! Although some people like it's simplicity, plenty of others are turned off by the very simple d6 + spend vs. difficulty for the action scenes.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan. It's tolerable when the cherries and thriller rules from NBA are used, but far from my favourite system for resolving action scenes. I just love it for the investigative stuff. As mentioned earlier, I like a houserule where a spend gives you an extra d6 per point rather than a bonus to the roll. Although I like auto success for investigation, I'm not such a big fan for action sequences (which typically are actively opposed by either opponents or circumstances). I feel like for those, even experts should have some chance of failure. Plus the houserule lets you roll more dice, which IMO just feels better.


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra (Dec 11, 2015)

Thanks Gribble.... I like that idea!


----------



## gribble (Dec 11, 2015)

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> Thanks Gribble.... I like that idea!



Cool - though I have to confess I didn't come up with it, I stole it from somewhere else. Probably someone on the Pelgrane forums, but I can't recall or else I'd give due credit.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I might have misunderstood your exact point then. Was there a particular thing in his explanation you found didn't match the reality




Yah - the implied assertion that somehow GUMSHOE suffered from being drawn from scripted media.  The goblin came up in explaining that investigators getting clues easily is not really any different than fighters cutting through minor monsters easily, and in neither case does it indicate a scripted nature to the play.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 11, 2015)

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> What about the just rolling one d6.....no one else bothered by that?



The d6 resolution is just a matter of taste, but I can see the merit. It's not much different from a d20, in a world where all modifiers went in increments of 3. It's just a question of how far you want to get bogged down in details.

What bothers me about Gumshoe is the spending mechanic. I don't understand what that exactly represents within the game world, or how the characters are supposed to be aware of it.


----------



## gribble (Dec 12, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> What bothers me about Gumshoe is the spending mechanic. I don't understand what that exactly represents within the game world, or how the characters are supposed to be aware of it.



Like any such resource management mechanic, it represents expenditure of extra effort. I.e.: in character, the PCs choose when to expend more effort, doing things quicker or more thoroughly than usual. Each time they do this they exhaust themselves a little, meaning they have less reserves to call upon until they have had a chance to recharge their batteries. 

I'm surprised this would be difficult to comprehend, given that pretty much every RPG has some element of this (including D&D in the form of spell slots and hit points).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 12, 2015)

gribble said:


> I'm surprised this would be difficult to comprehend, given that pretty much every RPG has some element of this (including D&D in the form of spell slots and hit points).



Neither HP nor spell slots represent effort or exhaustion, in D&D. Spell slots are discrete packets of magical energy which can be discussed by wizards, each of which corresponds directly to the casting of a single spell (of a certain complexity); and HP are a direct measure of beaten-up-ed-ness.

The closest analogue to generic fatigue, as a resource, would probably be the barbarian's rage-per-day limit. Even that's just one thing, though. As I understand Gumshoe, you have separate resources for each of your skills, so you could expend all of your Science effort but still have a full pool of effort for Carousing (or whatever; I have no idea what the different skills actually are, since I've never seen the book anywhere).

I mean, _effort_ isn't something which is easily segregated or quantified. I've never seen any other game attempt such a thing.


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 13, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Neither HP nor spell slots represent effort or exhaustion, in D&D. Spell slots are discrete packets of magical energy which can be discussed by wizards, each of which corresponds directly to the casting of a single spell (of a certain complexity); and HP are a direct measure of beaten-up-ed-ness.
> 
> The closest analogue to generic fatigue, as a resource, would probably be the barbarian's rage-per-day limit. Even that's just one thing, though. As I understand Gumshoe, you have separate resources for each of your skills, so you could expend all of your Science effort but still have a full pool of effort for Carousing (or whatever; I have no idea what the different skills actually are, since I've never seen the book anywhere).
> 
> I mean, _effort_ isn't something which is easily segregated or quantified. I've never seen any other game attempt such a thing.




Both sub-systems are just constructs and their definitions of what they truly represent and how they've been manipulated over the years have changed in DnD and other games.

HP have long been more abstract than that, representing fatigue, tiny scratches along with more serious cuts and such. HP have even been another source of magic paying a perament cost in HP for special abilities and such. 

Spell slots have been used for a variety of other uses over the years trading them in for other effects or just as a multiplier for a spell point system.

And the CR system is based on the assumption that HP and Spell Slots are a group resource that should be whittled down by 25 percent or so after a solid encounter.

 In other games, like Fate and Genre Division that offer alternative uses for a "HP" system that can be used for Mental Stress, Magic or Fatigue. 

The Cypher System takes this to the Nth degree and strips out attributes and turns your stats into a pure resource pools and/or limits on how to spend them for successes in skills or combat.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 13, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> Both sub-systems are just constructs and their definitions of what they truly represent and how they've been manipulated over the years have changed in DnD and other games.



You could choose to say that HP and spell slots are incredibly nebulous abstractions, but doing so creates difficulty with aligning player knowledge to character knowledge. The easiest way to reconcile these is to just say that spell slots are exactly as quantifiable within the game as they are outside of it, and HP is just a measure of beaten-up-ed-ness. In spite of weasel words suggesting that you _could_ abstract them, the game has never suggested or required that you _should_.

Spending resources, in the manner of Gumshoe or The Cypher System, requires you to abstract them out to (what I would consider) an unacceptable degree before they bear any correlation to the narrative.


----------



## kalil (Dec 13, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> The Cypher System takes this to the Nth degree and strips out attributes and turns your stats into a pure resource pools and/or limits on how to spend them for successes in skills or combat.




And just like gumeshoe the Cypher system has gained very little following despite being well supported with gorgeous products and well-known writers. Numenera made a minor splash when it arrived but the Strange went into the water like a professional diver: without a ripple...

I think that for many gamers (like myself) the overly generalized and abstract spend mechanic is a massive turn-off. I LOVE the Numenera setting, but unfortunately I would need to scrap the system entirely and make something new from scratch before I could enjoy the game.


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 13, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> ...  In spite of weasel words suggesting that you _could_ abstract them, the game has never suggested or required that you _should_.



Pg. 196, Player Handbook. "Hit Points represent a combination of physical and _mental durability, the will to live, and luck._ Italics mine for what I consider an abstraction/weasel words.



Saelorn said:


> You could choose to say that HP and spell slots are incredibly nebulous abstractions, but doing so creates difficulty with aligning player knowledge to character knowledge.



YMMV, but for my perspective that would be player impressions to GM/Game Designer goals. All the examples I gave have been used to turn spell slots into another resource. If anything, compared to Ars Magica, I find spell slots to be most common abstract method. 

I spent literal hours having PCs discussing mystical metaphysics in Mage. To my knowledge, PC Mages can't even directly discuss the concept of spell levels as they relate to class levels in character. 

This doesn't mean that I think spell slots are a bad design. In fact they are a classic that have stood the test of time. But to me, they are a quota/resource system for spells (or a safety net for GMs who fear players that would abuse a more granular spell point system.) Other games have done better efforts to link PCs to the powers they want to gather and manipulate.







Saelorn said:


> Spending resources, in the manner of Gumshoe or The Cypher System, requires you to abstract them out to (what I would consider) an unacceptable degree before they bear any correlation to the narrative.




Between this and your signature, we can agree to disagree. We have different expectations in our gaming and neither one is badwrongfun. 

If you feel that you have to have the last word, then do so. But I'd rather that we fist bump over the fact that we both love to roll dice and move on.


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 13, 2015)

kalil said:


> And just like gumeshoe the Cypher system has gained very little following despite being well supported with gorgeous products and well-known writers. Numenera made a minor splash when it arrived but the Strange went into the water like a professional diver: without a ripple...
> 
> I think that for many gamers (like myself) the overly generalized and abstract spend mechanic is a massive turn-off. I LOVE the Numenera setting, but unfortunately I would need to scrap the system entirely and make something new from scratch before I could enjoy the game.




I agree, which is a shame. One of many things holding back the possibility of professional DMs is a system that would offer a lot of player crunch but be much easier on the DM (at least until we can give DMs a mocap suit with huge suite of CRPG tools.) 

4e was one extreme and the Cypher System is pretty much the other.


----------



## gribble (Dec 13, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> The closest analogue to generic fatigue, as a resource, would probably be the barbarian's rage-per-day limit. Even that's just one thing, though. As I understand Gumshoe, you have separate resources for each of your skills, so you could expend all of your Science effort but still have a full pool of effort for Carousing (or whatever; I have no idea what the different skills actually are, since I've never seen the book anywhere).
> 
> I mean, _effort_ isn't something which is easily segregated or quantified. I've never seen any other game attempt such a thing.



It seems the conversation about other systems and effort/fatigue has been pretty well thrashed out, but I just wanted to point out that this makes a great deal of sense - especially in the example you gave. Imagine a research scientist hard at work in a university lab all day - I imagine by the end of the day he'll be completely mentally exhausted and not wanting to look at another equation. But he'll still be ready and able to chuck on his glad rags, kick off his shoes and spend the night partying and dancing (aka Carousing).

Many similar examples could be made around people relaxing after a marathon while reading a book, or even someone coming home from a hard day at work and doing part-time study. Humans as a whole are great at being "too exhausted" to do one thing while still having reserves of energy for something else.

Another good example of this kind of thing in a game system is 4th edition D&D, particularly the martial powers. The fighter can only swing his sword a certain way once per day, but he can swing it a slightly different way once per 5 minutes (encounter) and yet another way almost indefinitely. Great example of a system segregating and quantifying effort.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 13, 2015)

gribble said:


> It seems the conversation about other systems and effort/fatigue has been pretty well thrashed out, but I just wanted to point out that this makes a great deal of sense - especially in the example you gave. Imagine a research scientist hard at work in a university lab all day - I imagine by the end of the day he'll be completely mentally exhausted and not wanting to look at another equation. But he'll still be ready and able to chuck on his glad rags, kick off his shoes and spend the night partying and dancing (aka Carousing).



I can see where you're going with that, so maybe it's just a matter of degree. Since single-task-fatigue is so much harder to directly observe than physical health or generic exhaustion are, it's weird to try and operate with the knowledge of how much more Science or Carousing you have left before you need a break. It wouldn't be _much_ different from tracking Rages or Bardic Inspiration, though.

Not that it makes me any more accepting of Gumshoe or Cypher System, mind. Now it just makes me more critical of late-edition D&D.


gribble said:


> Another good example of this kind of thing in a game system is 4th edition D&D, particularly the martial powers. The fighter can only swing his sword a certain way once per day, but he can swing it a slightly different way once per 5 minutes (encounter) and yet another way almost indefinitely. Great example of a system segregating and quantifying effort.



The thought did occur to me, but I wanted to avoid a flame war. Suffice it to say, plenty of people have a problem with that implementation, for precisely the reason I suggested.


----------



## gribble (Dec 13, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Not that it makes me any more accepting of Gumshoe or Cypher System, mind. Now it just makes me more critical of late-edition D&D.
> The thought did occur to me, but I wanted to avoid a flame war. Suffice it to say, plenty of people have a problem with that implementation, for precisely the reason I suggested.



Sure, you asked for examples though (or at least implied that examples didn't exist, which amounts to the same thing). Ultimately, it seems to me it's something you enjoy or something you don't. While plenty of people have a problem with a "resource spending" implementation... equally plenty of people don't and in fact prefer it. Personally, although I prefer a bit of randomness in my roleplaying, I also like the idea of resources which are under the players control to spend or not, and in play I've found the system works really well.

For me at least, Gumshoe does a great job of running games which emulate the investigative/procedural genre, certainly a much better job than similar efforts I've experienced with other systems. And I'm at least passingly familiar with a large number of systems - by which I mean I've played/run at least a handful of sessions - from all versions of D&D/d20 through all versions of WoD, Rolemaster, CoC/BRP, FFG Star Wars, Savage Worlds, All versions of Warhammer Fantasy/40k RPGs, Dungeon World, IKRPG, Cortex and of course Gumshoe (among many others that I can't recall off the top of my head). As with any RPG however, individual tastes will vary (as they should - it'd be an awfully boring world if everyone like the same thing)!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2015)

kalil said:


> And just like gumeshoe the Cypher system has gained very little following despite being well supported with gorgeous products and well-known writers. Numenera made a minor splash when it arrived but the Strange went into the water like a professional diver: without a ripple...




Well, to a large extent, anything that isn't D&D goes roughly the same way.  The barrier to real popularity is large for any game, and failing to make it over the hump doesn't necessarily say much about the mechanics.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, to a large extent, anything that isn't D&D goes roughly the same way.  The barrier to real popularity is large for any game, and failing to make it over the hump doesn't necessarily say much about the mechanics.




Yeah. Even Pathfinder isn't a household name. The movie industry has room for a thousand household names.  The RPG industry had room for one, and even that is equal to a D-list movie property.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 14, 2015)

...OR the Cypher System?


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 14, 2015)

Did someone say Cypher System is the other end of the spectrum to 4E for ease of DMing? Are you sure? I have found it far and away the easiest, esp as you don't roll and NPCs are even simpler than D&D stat blocks. Not only that, it is the first sustem (other than probably Savage Worlds) where I feel comfortable creating creature/NPC stats on the spot. Basically, choose a level. If they are good at something treat them as a level higher for that. If the have a weakness. 1 level lower for that. Normally, I feel the need to write stats out, but with Cypher, I haven't bothered for many and it worked fine.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 14, 2015)

Connorsrpg said:


> Did someone say Cypher System is the other end of the spectrum to 4E for ease of DMing? Are you sure? I have found it far and away the easiest, esp as you don't roll and NPCs are even simpler than D&D stat blocks. Not only that, it is the first sustem (other than probably Savage Worlds) where I feel comfortable creating creature/NPC stats on the spot. Basically, choose a level. If they are good at something treat them as a level higher for that. If the have a weakness. 1 level lower for that. Normally, I feel the need to write stats out, but with Cypher, I haven't bothered for many and it worked fine.




Rules-light systems have their place, sure. And ease of use is certainly one of their selling points. It's not a measure of quality, though; it's a taste thing.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 14, 2015)

Oh, totally agree with that Morrus. I read upthread about it being the polar opposite to 4E for DM prep. Anyway, I am glad there is a lot of talk about other games. I for one too would have ignored other systems in days gone by, but I have looked into several in recent years and have liked what I saw. Unfortunately, I am also guilty of not knowing the GUMSHOE system, so I just commented on another system I recently discovered and thought there would be a lot more material for.


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 14, 2015)

Connorsrpg said:


> Did someone say Cypher System is the other end of the spectrum to 4E for ease of DMing? Are you sure? I have found it far and away the easiest, esp as you don't roll and NPCs are even simpler than D&D stat blocks. Not only that, it is the first sustem (other than probably Savage Worlds) where I feel comfortable creating creature/NPC stats on the spot. Basically, choose a level. If they are good at something treat them as a level higher for that. If the have a weakness. 1 level lower for that. Normally, I feel the need to write stats out, but with Cypher, I haven't bothered for many and it worked fine.




My apologies, I wasn't implying that Cypher was harder. I was just saying that they took two completely different tracks to provide asymmetrical play. Wasn't passing any judgement on those tracks.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 14, 2015)

[MENTION=15582]Von Ether[/MENTION]. Oh cheers, now worries. Misunderstanding now understood.  I certainly was not flaming either. I thought you meant 4E had easy creature stats and Cypher did not. I haven't seen an easier system, especially on the fly. But thanks for clarification. Yes, the 2 have taken some very different approaches.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 14, 2015)

kalil said:


> And just like gumeshoe the Cypher system has gained very little following despite being well supported with gorgeous products and well-known writers. Numenera made a minor splash when it arrived but the Strange went into the water like a professional diver: without a ripple...
> 
> I think that for many gamers (like myself) the overly generalized and abstract spend mechanic is a massive turn-off. I LOVE the Numenera setting, but unfortunately I would need to scrap the system entirely and make something new from scratch before I could enjoy the game.




Seems like it is more than a minor splash to me. I am hearing from lots of people who play cypher and still see plenty of threads on it online. It didn't dethrone D&D or pathfinder but that was never what anyone expected (D&D and pathfinder are long and a ad&D type system has always dominated the hobby----in the 90s WW came close to being a serious contender for that spot, but for the most part the success of new games isn't measure by whether they reach D&D level success).


----------



## Jabborwacky (Dec 14, 2015)

Gumshoe is one of my newest favorites in terms of RPG systems. One thing crime dramas and horror have in common is that creating them is a fairly cerebral task, whereas most other types of RPG adventures are designed almost by algorithm. It requires a lot less originality to create a fun dungeon delve than a fun horror or investigative game. The simplicity of the Gumshoe system helps the GM focus on his horror/investigation story, but it is still a very unique challenge.

Edit: I will say this, though. "Fear Itself" at the very least didn't age well, if not being outright contradictory on its intended design goals. The introduction of the book says its about putting ordinary people into horrific situations, but then goes on to define movie cliches like the "sexy girl" and "brains" characters as starting points for people to build their characters around. That kind of defeats the purpose because those aren't ordinary people. There are other issues I have with the book as well, but most can thankfully be ignored. The sample adventure is definitely not a selling point. So I'm seeing decent products and then ones like Fear Itself that barely pull average at best. That could also play into the lack of popularity.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Okay, you're way off the mark on what "procedural" means, in terms of genre. Genre name comes from TV cop shows, and the cops tend to follow a predictable procedure to get through a case.




Ah, no. The pitch made was that the problem GUMSHOE solves is that of detective fiction. This I feel is a slight bait and switch from "GUMSHOE does detective stories" to "GUMSHOE does procedural stories". And my answer to that is "the new definition of what GUMSHOE does is that it lays naked a method of storytelling that makes me turn my TV off when the story shows its skeleton too regularly."

And frankly adding a structure as clear as GUMSHOE to a procedural story would be like adding a clock to an episode of HOUSE and a known number of pointless tests.



> as I noted before, laying out the mystery really isn't all that different from laying out a dungeon - the GM places stuff, and the characters interact with it.




And this is what makes dungeons like Keep on the Shadowfell so terrible. That you are meant to solve them procedurally rather than logistically and via short-circuiting or finding the loot. Part of the point of good dungeons like Caverns of Thracia is that you can jump from level to level and explore or not as you choose.



> Yes, it is assumed that the players *will* approach the scenario. But that's not the GM playing the role of a vain, autocratic god - the GM has the player's buy in on the general premise before play begins.




But the GM needs in many ways more buy-in for GUMSHOE than other games. It's not just the genre, it's the methodology.



> Well, if you have an issue with the mystery genre as a whole, that's not a critique of the game - that's a critique of the genre.




I don't. What I have a problem with is filler stories - it's a great way to pad episodes out to reach the old Syndication Threshold for a US TV show (100 Episodes) but frankly I'd rather my RPGs not concentrate on filler episodes. And even the filler not show its structure so nakedly.



> Not an issue. This isn't old-school D&D, where in searching a room, the player is expected to tell the GM explicitly every single thing they look at, and the GM only gives information to very specific questions. It is more like 3e - "I search the room" - and the player then gets *everything* they might get, without asking targeted questions.




And that this is a bad expectation is my _point_. In order for the GM to give everything the players might all think of we need to artificially circumscribe player knowledge (both IC and OOC) and creativity to cut them down to the level of the GM in that field. We're at that point working in a universe that might as well be as silly as that of NCIS where two people typing at the same keyboard makes it easier to deal with a hacker just because that's what the GM thinks works. We're cutting the conversation out of RPGs.

And almost as bad, we're running classic silly logic puzzles here. That the crime should be soluble based on the GM's thought processes. Again the game doesn't fit the premise.



> This is very Holmesian, really. Holmes doesn't speculate about what he might find, and search for specific pieces of information. He takes in the entire space, and happens to notice some bits that are clearly relevant, and everything else is dross he may discard. He doesn't continue probing because he expects some thing *should* be there - he finds what he finds, and is so good that he knows he didn't miss anything useful.




I'd argue that a true Holmesian RPG would be almost pure illusionism. That Holmes inductive methods mean that you present Holmes the clues, he tells you who the murderer was, and that turns out to be it. But that's a sidenote.

And Holmes absolutely does probe because he expects things should be there. After all, possibly the classic clue is "Why didn't the dog bark".


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> The easiest way to reconcile these is to just say that spell slots are exactly as quantifiable within the game as they are outside of it, and HP is just a measure of beaten-up-ed-ness. In spite of weasel words suggesting that you _could_ abstract them, the game has never suggested or required that you _should_.




This is completely 100% wrong.

First, any game where an orc can pound on you with an axe for a full minute and get as lucky as it's possible to get in no way has physical hit points. You can not have hit points work at all other than as abstract results. Second, although people may have ignored the rules as written according to Gygax' DMG (p61), hit points are abstractions of endurance, luck, and magical protection.“Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical–a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered–it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.”
​


----------



## Umbran (Dec 15, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Ah, no. The pitch made was that the problem GUMSHOE solves is that of detective fiction. This I feel is a slight bait and switch from "GUMSHOE does detective stories" to "GUMSHOE does procedural stories".




In this thread, post #6, I said, "To answer the question, we should note that GUMSHOE is really designed to handle mystery/investigation/procedural style games."  So, I'm pretty sure the issue here isn't a bait-and-switch, since all this has been present in the thread since the first page.



> And my answer to that is "the new definition of what GUMSHOE does is that it lays naked a method of storytelling that makes me turn my TV off when the story shows its skeleton too regularly."




And, again, in that same post, I noted, "All in all, it is a system that does what it does pretty well (I'm about to use Ashen Stars for a campaign for my group), but what it does isn't necessarily what everyone wants to do. And that's okay."  

So, you know, we have already recognized it isn't for everyone.  Again, on the first page.  If you're going to be a constructive part of the conversation, and you want to be critical, it would help a lot if you got up to speed on the points we've already covered, rather than making us retread stuff from just a few pages back. 



> That you are meant to solve them procedurally rather than logistically and via short-circuiting or finding the loot. Part of the point of good dungeons like Caverns of Thracia is that you can jump from level to level and explore or not as you choose.




GUMSHOE games aren't typically about exploration or gathering loot, either.  It seems like a poor fit for you.  

Oh, and most "procedure" is logistics, summed up and standardized for maximum effectiveness and efficiency.  "Police procedure" is a real thing for good reasons.



> But the GM needs in many ways more buy-in for GUMSHOE than other games. It's not just the genre, it's the methodology.




How difficult that is to get is less about the game, and more about the players.  Getting you to buy looks like it'd be like pulling teeth without anesthetic.  Meanwhile, I'm doing character generation with a table of players tonight who, when offered five different games to choose from (including D&D) dove right at Ashen Stars.



> And that this is a bad expectation is my point. In order for the GM to give everything the players might all think of we need to artificially circumscribe player knowledge (both IC and OOC) and creativity to cut them down to the level of the GM in that field.




Well, here we need to note a few things.  We are talking about a game of mystery fiction, not mystery real-life.  In real life, detectives and people solving problems do this as their full-time jobs.  They have days and weeks to consider and probe.  And the real world is largely parallelized, such that one person working through some ideas doesn't stop other people on their team.  Much of real-life detective work is intensely tedious and time consuming.

Meanwhile, we are at a table for only a few hours a week, maybe, and all resolution of actions is serialized through one GM, who is expected to help keep up some level of dramatic tension to the whole thing.

So, yes, we take some shortcuts in order to make it come out as a reasonable play experience.  We really don't have time for players (who are *not*, in the real world, typically experts on the things their characters are experts in) to go through the full thought process of real-world investigation.  



> We're at that point working in a universe that might as well be as silly as that of NCIS where two people typing at the same keyboard makes it easier to deal with a hacker just because that's what the GM thinks works.




What, never heard of pair programming?  It's a pretty common practice today... 

(Just in case you missed it, that's a joke.  A truth, but a joke, regardless.)



> We're cutting the conversation out of RPGs.




No.  We are *moving* it.  And the game is pretty clear about this - the game takes as its basis that the act of interpreting information is more interesting to the players than he act of finding data.  If you're not on board with that, the game isn't for you.  Have fun playing something else, instead. 



> And almost as bad, we're running classic silly logic puzzles here.




Who is the "we"?  Maybe that's what is going on when you work with the system (you have worked with it, right, and aren't criticizing it on theory alone), but that's not what's going on at my table.  Maybe you ought to stop passing judgments on things you're not experiencing, hm?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 15, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> First, any game where an orc can pound on you with an axe for a full minute and get as lucky as it's possible to get in no way has physical hit points. You can not have hit points work at all other than as abstract results. Second, although people may have ignored the rules as written according to Gygax' DMG (p61), hit points are abstractions of endurance, luck, and magical protection.



Weasel words. He tried saying that it was about luck and magic and whatnot, but the actual rules of the game never supported the ability to cause HP loss without inflicting physical damage to do so. You couldn't curse or dispel your way through HP, or anything. The only things that dealt HP damage were things that caused actual physical injury.

Also, you're taking things out of context. If you just stand there and let the orc wail on you with an axe, then you're just dead outright, as though you'd been Held and someone slit your throat. HP assume that you're trying to avoid attacks, which is why you can get hit ten times without dying - because none of those hits is anywhere vital.

If you want, you can feel free to say that your luck and magic and whatnot are _why_ none of those attacks is anywhere vital - they are _why_ you can take ten hits to the meat without dying - but things get silly very quickly if you try to suggest that those "hits" didn't _actually_ "hit" anything.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Weasel words. He tried saying that it was about luck and magic and whatnot, but the actual rules of the game never supported the ability to cause HP loss without inflicting physical damage to do so. You couldn't curse or dispel your way through HP, or anything. The only things that dealt HP damage were things that caused actual physical injury.




The weasling is coming from your side. Hit points have never reflected physical damage in any meaningful way. When you are 1hp above 0 then guess what? You are fully functional. You aren't hurt, bruised, scorched, and in too much pain to move. You've taken at most cosmetic damage. Hit points therefore do not and can not do actual physical damage.

And then there's the recovery time. Even 1E AD&D recovery times max out at about the time to recover from running a marathon. Hit point recovery is not in any meaningful way like recovering from actually being badly hurt.



> Also, you're taking things out of context. If you just stand there and let the orc wail on you with an axe,




Which is not what you are doing. My case is that the orc gets as lucky as it is orcishly posisble to get and the PC gets as unlucky as it's possible to get. It is _physically impossible_ for an orc to kill an fighter in his underwear that is fighting back in a minute after about first level. The orc can never be that lucky - meaning that supernatural levels of luck must be protecting the fighter.



> HP assume that you're trying to avoid attacks, which is why you can get hit ten times without dying - because none of those hits is anywhere vital.




And to assume that the orc is as lucky as mathematically possible either means you're made of something tough as steel or that you have supernatural levels of luck protecting you.

Hit points do not in any meaningful way behave like damage. They behave like plot armour.



> If you want, you can feel free to say that your luck and magic and whatnot are _why_ none of those attacks is anywhere vital - they are _why_ you can take ten hits to the meat without dying - but things get silly very quickly if you try to suggest that those "hits" didn't _actually_ "hit" anything.




They get even sillier if you try to claim anything other than luck, plot armour, and miraculous flesh wounds. The orc with the axe can _be as lucky as possible_ and still get nowhere.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In this thread, post #6, I said, "To answer the question, we should note that GUMSHOE is really designed to handle mystery/investigation/procedural style games." So, I'm pretty sure the issue here isn't a bait-and-switch, since all this has been present in the thread since the first page.




And not in the OP or the normal sales pitch for GUMSHOE which makes it about clues and investigations. Yes, I'm saying your answer is more accurate than the way it is pitched. 



> GUMSHOE games aren't typically about exploration or gathering loot, either. It seems like a poor fit for you.
> 
> Oh, and most "procedure" is logistics, summed up and standardized for maximum effectiveness and efficiency. "Police procedure" is a real thing for good reasons.




I work in a hospital. Logistics are good. Stories are normally written about when systems fail not when they succeed.



> How difficult that is to get is less about the game, and more about the players. Getting you to buy looks like it'd be like pulling teeth without anesthetic. Meanwhile, I'm doing character generation with a table of players tonight who, when offered five different games to choose from (including D&D) dove right at Ashen Stars.




I might buy in for a one-shot. Or I might buy in for a good GM (I personally think that Feng Shui 1 is an awfully designed game and would rather play Wushu any day of the week - except with one of the players I play with who's great at running Feng Shui). 



> Who is the "we"? Maybe that's what is going on when you work with the system (you have worked with it, right, and aren't criticizing it on theory alone), but that's not what's going on at my table. Maybe you ought to stop passing judgments on things you're not experiencing, hm?




I have worked with it - I was even one of the Ashen Stars playtesters. 

And I'm not experiencing what's going on at your table. But that Feng Shui GM I mentioned earlier? Part of the way he makes the system sing is that he ignores about half the rules (most of which were left out for FS2 to be fair). What's going on at your table may or may not be what the book says (most games are like that).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 15, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> And then there's the recovery time. Even 1E AD&D recovery times max out at about the time to recover from running a marathon. Hit point recovery is not in any meaningful way like recovering from actually being badly hurt.



I've never claimed that you're _badly_ hurt. I'm just saying that every hurt is _physical_. The system doesn't really do "badly hurt, but still alive"; it's an inherent limitation in the model. It's a concession so that we end up with a playable system.

I'll also note that the fighter _probably_ isn't standing there in his underwear. The default assumption of the system, just like how the fighter is actually fighting back, says that the fighter is _probably_ wearing armor during combat. Just about anyone that the system could care to model is either wearing armor (like a fighter) or supernaturally tough (like a dragon) or is some flavor of magic (like a wizard or monk).



Neonchameleon said:


> They get even sillier if you try to claim anything other than luck, plot armour, and miraculous flesh wounds. The orc with the axe can _be as lucky as possible_ and still get nowhere.



That just places an upper bounds on the contribution from luck, relative to skill and toughness. No matter how lucky that orc is, it's not possible to be lucky enough to overcome the supernatural durability of a level 3 paladin wearing armor.

Plot armor is right out, though. Maybe plot armor is why that 8-point axe hit didn't kill you, but if you couldn't look down and _see_ some physical injury that corresponded to the impact of a weapon, then you wouldn't know that you needed a poultice or a healing potion or whatever to recover from it. You'd have fighters walking around with 3/50 hit points, thinking that they're just fine.


----------



## gribble (Dec 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> What, never heard of pair programming?  It's a pretty common practice today...
> 
> (Just in case you missed it, that's a joke.  A truth, but a joke, regardless.)



Wildly off topic, but reminds me of the classic software development / project management joke: "You want a baby in a month? Ok, bring me 9 women."


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Dec 16, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> GURPS has a lot of problems. A focus on too much simulation, at the expense of playability, is one of them. A focus on too much verisimilitude, at the expense of fun, is another one. I'm not sure that either is the _biggest_ problem with GURPS.




In GURPS' defense some would argue (i.e. GURPS fans) that what you're labeling a problem is a feature in their eyes. I'm in the middle, because these days I prefer speed and efficiency so lean toward BRP or Savage Worlds for my generic universal gaming (trying to absorb Cypher, too) which means that even though I ran GURPS continuously back in the nineties and early 00's I just have no time/stomach for it anymore....and it's precisely because those features I used to love now look like bugs to me.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2015)

gribble said:


> Wildly off topic, but reminds me of the classic software development / project management joke: "You want a baby in a month? Ok, bring me 9 women."




Yeah, I know.

Though, actually, Pair Programming done well has some interesting effects - it doesn't actually speed development itself, but done properly it generally leads to decreased bug counts - you';re essentially getting very detailed code review and editing by another person as you write it.  The result being that if you are constrained on QE, pair programming can actually get you to delivery more quickly.

But, as you said, this is wildly off topic.


----------



## xiombarg (Dec 16, 2015)

So, I'm late to the party here, so if in reading the eight pages of comments I missed something, please let me know. I tried to make sure my perspective wasn't mirrored here already.

The first question the OP asks its why it's not as popular as he thinks it should be, and then goes into the virtues. Amusingly, and proving my tastes are not that of the majority, for the worse or for the better, my issue with Gumshoe was in a lot of ways it didn't go far enough in terms of the virtues the OP mentioned, plus some other factors that I don't _think_ anyone has mentioned...

I was very excited when I first heard about Gumshoe. I've seen pixelbitching and I hate it, and I've seen games stall over a lot of stupid stuff. I got a copy of Night's Black Agents, and was even more excited. Super spies vs. vampires! What could be more cool?

Then I read it, and grew a bit concerned. And then I ran it, and it utterly flopped, and I became very concerned indeed. Now, this is all based on one experience, admittedly a bad one, so serious grain of salt, but this is the issue we had was one of resource management and a very binary view of skills.

I've run and played a lot of Nobilis, and so had my players, so the sort of resource management in the game didn't pose a problem in the abstract. It's just that burning a lot of your resources seemed to do so very little, and it was very easy to f*ck yourself by burning resources at the wrong time or in the wrong way.

Auto-success is great! Except, it's not clear if just the core clues are supposed to be enough, or if the players are expected to spend the points to get more/better clues at the "right"moments, and how the players are supposed to know where those points are and/or how I'm supposed to communicate when those moments are to the players as the GM, and whether I'm actually supposed to do this in the first place. This was the case even with the sample scenario in the book and the Zalozhniy Quartet, where in theory this stuff should have been spelled out better.

In Nobilis, spending even a single miracle point can be amazing, and if your stat is high enough, you can do some pretty amazing stuff with no spend at all. Now, no one was expecting to be like gods, but they _were_ expecting to be competent investigators and spies.

The binary nature of the investigation skills did not make the players feel like competent investigators. It seemed that any chemistry expert was as good as any other. This was especially true because higher levels in the skill didn't really mean higher levels of competence, it just meant more book-keeping: It gave you more of a resource you could manage to get better results, but that didn't mean you generally got better results if you didn't spend the resource at all. It didn't feel like you were a better chemist. If felt like you were a *luckier* chemist, except that unlike rolling for luck or getting the very clearly spelled out (in its own way) results of a Nobilis miracle, you had to risk a very, very limited resource to have even a *chance* at a reward. So, from our perspective, the investigation system combined the worst aspects of auto-success and rolling: All the risk of rolling with none of the potential of reward, all the worry coming from not knowing what was going on or if one was using one's resources correctly, and all the feeling of sameness where all experts were equal. 

This weird system design methodology was even more pronounced in the non-investigation skills, which were somehow still weirdly binary, AND you didn't even have auto-success! If you had a high rating in a skill, that didn't mean you were more likely to succeed. It meant you could *sometimes* be more likely to succeed by spending points. So, all the worry and risk and uncertainty of the investigation system, without even the guarantee of minimum competence. WTF?

Yes, yes, in both these cases you're way better off than someone with a 0 in the skill, but then all super-spies are going to be able to shoot a gun, right? Shouldn't a super-spy who is especially good at guns be able to *consistently* out-perform one who is simply competent, rather than just do something cool once in a while?

I understand this is supposed to be about spotlight sharing. But characters have so little points, and the scale is so delicate, that it seemed more about everyone failing all the time. The attempt to make it so the competent character can't hog the spotlight made it so they couldn't even *have* the spotlight but once in a blue moon... And once everyone had blown their points, until refresh, NO ONE can have the spotlight, as everyone is a bumbling incompetent. 

At least in Fate, which the players (and I) were also familiar with, if you are out of Fate points, you're still Superb at the skill you put most of your points into, rather than suddenly being merely "not completely terrible".

All the additional options, the cherries and the different additional things you could spend on, plus the different weird ways  you could use investigative abilities to improve your chances on a general ability, only make this WORSE. It became less and less clear what actions a competent character could reasonably expected to succeed at and how you could make the system allow them to succeed more than once at any given thing.

I mean, looking at the publicly-available files linked in the article to remind myself I'm not insane here, you're not supposed to tell the players the difficulty of an action, "to force players to decide how much they want to commit to the situation, with the gnawing emotional dissonance that comes from the possibility of making the wrong move." 

Except, why is this emotional dissonance supposed to be fun? I can see it being fun if it's about the fictional situation and what the right thing to do is on a moral level, or even in terms of a calculated risk, but it's not uncertainty about the situation... It's being uncertain how to use the system optimally!

To use Night's Black Agents as an example, finding out a bunch of weird things about vampires, and then being not sure how to proceed or what the best method of defeating them based on the data you've gathered, that's fun. Not being sure how to ensure you can successfully shoot a thug or even if it's worth doing so is not fun, especially if your character is supposed to be a super-spy who is good at shooting people.

System mastery in D&D 3.5, while not easy, at least has an obvious path. Gumshoe, on the other hand, uses two completely different systems with similar, but not identical, philosophies, and then provides several different ways they interact where it is extremely unclear what is a good choice in any given situation, even after you've sat down and done the math.

In short, we found it very difficult to enjoy a system where it seemed like being competent for five minutes meant being incompetent or mediocre for the rest of the adventure. Being awesome isn't just being awesome _once_. I feel like if something is your character's thing, maybe you should at least be able to be awesome at it _twice_ in a given adventure. I'm not sure why that's asking so much, or why the design seems hell-bent on making sure the players are exhausted all the time. 

Returning to Fate again, when the players are f*cked, the GM can Compel their Aspects to cause even more trouble but gain them needed Fate points, and/or the players can act in accordance with their Aspects to get said points. In Gumshoe, you only get points back over time, or if you were really clever, you bought a cherry refresh that only kicks in when you geek out about something, which is extremely limiting in the extreme.

And before anyone pixelbitches our understanding of the system or makes all sorts of suggestions, consider if those suggestions are actually in the rules, make intuitive sense, or are encouraged in any way by the rules text, because if we have to modify the game to make it work like it sounds like it's supposed to, then there's no reason not to take the approach that several people have advocated in these comments and import certain types of auto-success into another system where characters actually have a baseline level of competence without burning extremely limited resources. 

I mean, at first blush, I feel like we would have done much better using Fate with a longer list of investigative skills and an auto-success rule a bit more robust than the fail forward / succeed at cost methodology that's already in Fate...


----------



## gribble (Dec 16, 2015)

xiombarg said:


> And before anyone pixelbitches our understanding of the system or makes all sorts of suggestions, consider if those suggestions are actually in the rules, make intuitive sense, or are encouraged in any way by the rules text, because if we have to modify the game to make it work like it sounds like it's supposed to, then there's no reason not to take the approach that several people have advocated in these comments and import certain types of auto-success into another system where characters actually have a baseline level of competence without burning extremely limited resources.



First, I'm not really familiar with Fate, so I can't really comment too much on differences or similarities between the two.

But I do think, from reading your post, that perhaps you're not quite playing the system as intended. To start with there are no wasted investigative spends. Either the GM will offer them when available, or if the player asks and there isn't an available clue for that skill (and the GM can't make one of the other available clues fit), then no points are spent.

The investigative spotlight sharing is all about the differences in skill rating. If two players have Chemistry 1, then they will seem the same (as they should, right?). But a player with Chemistry 2 will have either the opportunity for better clues (they can get 2 point spend clues that a PC with Chemistry 1 simply can't get) or more frequent non-core clues (they can find two separate 1 point clues whereas the player with Chemistry 1 can only find one clue). The rules also encourage giving more of the core clues to the player with the higher rating. In games I've played they have certainly felt "more expert".

I'm not sure why you think that it's not possible to auto-succeed on general skill checks... there is no "1 automatically fails" rule, so perhaps that is where you are confused? Normal target number is a 4, so a 3 point spend will automatically succeed. A 2 point spend will only fail on a one. For an expert (generally considered to start at 8+ in a general skill), they will be able to have 2-3 automatic successes, or 4+ "almost a sure thing" successes. Also remember that general pools typically refresh much faster than investigative skills, and most experts (8+) will have cherries which allow them to partially refresh general skills within a scene. Certainly the difference between someone with skill 8+ and someone with no skill (or even someone with a mediocre skill like 4) - has been noticeable in games I've played. The no skill guy really is relying on luck to succeed (approx 50% of the time against standard difficulty), the mediorce guy generally has one or two good checks in him, and the expert generally has enough auto successes (or near enough) to seem like an expert through the whole scene.

Finally, you state that players shouldn't be told the difficulty... which is only part right. The rules advocate not giving the exact target number to players, but it also strongly advocates giving them narrative cues as to whether the task is easy (3 or less), average (4) or difficult (5+), to give them an idea of whether they want to spend points, given the stakes involved in the roll.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Dec 17, 2015)

After 35+ years of gaming, I have found that I can run any sort of campaign/adventure under almost any ruleset.  I can run an investigative game using Pathfinder, D&D, Savage Worlds, BRP, Toon, WoD, Wild Talents, or any other rule system because I don't make finding the clues and solving the mysteries dependent on die rolls.  The cleverness and persistence of the players is what leads to success in investigative/mystery games when I run them.

I prefer to use the ruleset the players like the best and adapt the details of the campaign to take advantage of that system, when necessary.  Since most players these days seem to be averse to learning more than one or two systems, I have found that many of them are more open to non-combat (or low-combat) campaigns if they don't also have to learn a new set of rules.


----------



## jayoungr (Dec 18, 2015)

gribble said:


> No, not at all. My point was that unfortunately in d20, a DC 0 check has other unfortunate repercussions. What you're essentially saying by making a DC 0 is that anyone can do it - perhaps not as well as some other characters with skill, but any schmuck in the team can find out.



That assumes the DM allows anyone and everyone on the team to make the roll.  It's quite within the DM's purview to say only the person who's trained in (say) Medicine can make the roll to check for silver in the blood.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2015)

Which comes down to, "We don't need a rule to do that!  We can just {reconstruct the same rule in the other ruleset}"


----------



## jayoungr (Dec 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Which comes down to, "We don't need a rule to do that!  We can just {reconstruct the same rule in the other ruleset}"



If that's directed at me, I'm only pointing out a possible solution to *gribble's* objection.  Not knocking GUMSHOE at all; I've never played it, but I think it sounds interesting.


----------

