Hacking GUMSHOE for a skill challenge

[Balesir]

You should play it however you please, of course, but I don't think what I'm suggesting needs to break free from in-game logic - it's just a consequence not a determinant. For instance, one circumstance that seems to me most likely to precipitate an encounter with the summoned creature is spending time poking around for clues. I don't know about you, but I always seem to spend more time fossicking about when I fail to find what I'm looking for than I do when I find it - hence I generally think of failures in "search" type tasks meaning that more (game) time has been expended than for successes.

On actions generating successes - I agree 100%. Rituals and powers, especially, can be used to acquire successes just as much as skill rolls can in skill challenges I run. Other things may not even be "successes" - but still happen when the characters reach a certain place/do a certain thing.

Another thing I use is that successes might, in addition to moving incrementally towards an overall goal, provide opportunities to get 'bonuses' such as treasure (if it's searched for), incidental information or sundry recharges (if certain actions are taken pursuant to the opportunity being presented).

 

[Ratskinner]

I have a PDF of Trail of Cthulhu but haven't read much of it, so my GUMSHOE-fu is a bit weak.

But my understanding is that in GUMSHOE checks for secondary clues consume resources. The nearest analogue to that in 4e is the skill challenge - the failures are the player "resource" which, once expended, mean no more retries.

Yes, GUMSHOE PCs spend their skill points to uncover bonus/secondary clues. Having no really good analogue is the stumbling block for converting GUMSHOE to D&D. Even the GUMSHOE/Pathfinder mashup, Lorefinder, just re-works the d20 skill system to replace most of it with a fairly standard set of GUMSHOE investigative skills and rules, and lets you use d20 for combat/action resolution. The "reset" for investigative skills in GUMSHOE is by scenario, not scene. Generally, the different approaches don't match up very well. I tend to see a 4e Skill Challenge as better corresponding to a whole investigation, rather than one scene, due to stakes-setting, etc. GUMSHOE zooms in on that process a lot more (although only for one type of challenge). I can't say I've really tried it in practice with 4e/skill challenges, so ::shrug::.

 

[Ratskinner]

Here's how the whole thing has come together...

That looks really nice, to me.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] Ah I see. You're thinking of the summoned elemental as a wandering encouter with increasing odds of encountering it with increased time. Whereas I'm thinking of it as operating under strict instructions that only have to do with one area. Both are good.

About interpreting successes...Yes my "secondary clues" are checks to gain extra information. However, I eschewed the "X number of successes" as a scene-closer because its not relevant to the model I'm using...where overall success depends on the players ability to deduce what the clues mean. I'd expect the scene to end on e the players visit each area and get its "core clue" (plus any "secondary clues" they pick up along the way). Then it's up to them to interpret this rightly or wrongly, with both having in-game implications for how the PCs approach the Wild Hunt.

As an aside, this is one of several investigative skill challenges in the adventure that involve tracking and gathering information on the Wild Hunt. While I like the GUMSHOE model, I'm keeping an eye out for other models that might make sense in these scenarios:

• Black Rose Manor: A noblewoman who lost her husband to the Wild Hunt years ago has used Vistani magic to free him, but her husband is not the same person he once was, will turn to dust when the Wild Hunt leave the world at winter's end, and seems to draw Peryton flocks to the manor. The villagers are agitating that something be done, and if PCs can't resolve the situation the villagers will mob the manor.
• Inn on the Moors: A storm-wracked inn whose quirky patrons are trapped inside while riders of the Wild Hunt swarm outside. Meanwhile a murderer and some doppelgängers are trapped in the inn. If the PCs can't puzzle out why the Wild Hunt is so hostile to this inn and what's up with the doppelgängers, the murderer will kill enough patrons to frighten the rest into fleeing and being taken by the Wild Hunt.
• Berserkers in Lambeurs: Berserkers of the Nic'Epona tribe (the tribe of the barbarian PC) have conquered the northern town Lambeurs with their firbolg and wild hunt hound allies. If the PCs don't free the berserkers from the influence of the Wild Hunt soon, then the tribe's warriors join the Wild Hunt as riders.
• Murkroot Trade Moot: PCs need to acquire information on the Wild Hunt's curse from a shadow fey market. This might combine a trading challenge with an investigative challenge.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yes, you're right they need the clues. But (on the limited resource model) they can't get more rolls in the challenge. I'm not sure of the best way to handle that at the table.

One option is to go metagame - "No more checks, guys." Another is to go ingame - narrate the situations such that, after they get the core clues, they don't have time to look for additional clues, or get bundled on by external forces to the next site.

I should try this at my own table one day to see how it can be made to work!

I would say:

Core clues are automatic...you roll whatever it is or perform a triggering action and you get that information failure is not an option, additional bonus clues are only revealed when you make a difficult or better roll on a relevant skill/action (which may be the same one). Generally speaking, the party should get one crack at a skill in each area, but I could see a case for some areas allowing for repeat checks of different nature, if more than one suitable task is available.

So, for example, you might have an area where with some Dire Wolf tracks as a clue. Performing the Nature or Survival check always reveals a set of tracks and the direction they head off to, if you beat a DC of 21 (or whatever) you also know that the tracks are of 6 large canines, if you beat a DC 28 (or whatever) you also know that the look like they are being ridden or otherwise heavily burdened.

I'm not sure if the standard skill challenge DCs would be the best to use or not, but they'd be where I'd start.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] Yep, for greater variety I didn't follow GUMSHOE in that regard. Core clues as I've adapted them are not tied to any particular skill, or skills at all. In some cases they're automatic (eg. a spellcaster goes to the creek and right away they sense the ley line has been drained). In other cases a ritual or role-playing or exploration (a simple search in GUMSHOE) might learn the core clue.

In 4e I think the designers missed an opportunity in calling them "skill challenges". IMO they should have been "<adjective> challenges", each with a somewhat different system on top of a similar core. So there would be chase challenges, infiltration challenges, investigation challenges, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, GUMSHOE PCs spend their skill points to uncover bonus/secondary clues. Having no really good analogue is the stumbling block for converting GUMSHOE to D&D. Even the GUMSHOE/Pathfinder mashup, Lorefinder, just re-works the d20 skill system to replace most of it with a fairly standard set of GUMSHOE investigative skills and rules, and lets you use d20 for combat/action resolution. The "reset" for investigative skills in GUMSHOE is by scenario, not scene. Generally, the different approaches don't match up very well. I tend to see a 4e Skill Challenge as better corresponding to a whole investigation, rather than one scene, due to stakes-setting, etc. GUMSHOE zooms in on that process a lot more (although only for one type of challenge). I can't say I've really tried it in practice with 4e/skill challenges, so ::shrug::.

Rituals definitely are GLOBAL resources (IE you never 'recharge' the money spent on them, its always an opportunity spent). Any other resource you would buy is likewise, though money isn't necessarily the greatest way to measure resource expenditure in all cases it isn't TOO bad. Time can of course also be a similarly irreplaceable resource (so for instance an investigative scene could be framed with limited time available to carry out the investigation, hunting for extra clues in one place can prevent a chance to find others). There could be other elements of 'opportunity', pressing a landowner to allow a search might close the door to the chance to gain some benefit from the same person later (IE negative favor). Social standing, honor, or other intangibles could also be risked/expended to find added clues.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Ratskinner Yep, for greater variety I didn't follow GUMSHOE in that regard. Core clues as I've adapted them are not tied to any particular skill, or skills at all. In some cases they're automatic (eg. a spellcaster goes to the creek and right away they sense the ley line has been drained). In other cases a ritual or role-playing or exploration (a simple search in GUMSHOE) might learn the core clue.

In 4e I think the designers missed an opportunity in calling them "skill challenges". IMO they should have been "<adjective> challenges", each with a somewhat different system on top of a similar core. So there would be chase challenges, infiltration challenges, investigation challenges, etc.

yeah, that makes sense, 'challenges' are the general thing, and you could have a few different basic templates that spin the core rules in slightly different ways. A lot of people have tried to come up with 'skill challenge templates' and to some extent a few archetypal SC types do exist, but I think your presentation works better than 4e's. The chase, the journey, the negotiation, the investigation, that would probably cover it, but maybe we've missed one or two. Others like survival, puzzle, craft, disable, etc mostly follow one of the more basic types. So a survival is basically a journey (in fact travel by itself without some element of survival or navigation really isn't a challenge). An interrogation is basically a type of negotiation. A race is just a chase where either side can lead. Solving most puzzles is at base a type of investigation, etc.

 

[Quickleaf]

yeah, that makes sense, 'challenges' are the general thing, and you could have a few different basic templates that spin the core rules in slightly different ways. A lot of people have tried to come up with 'skill challenge templates' and to some extent a few archetypal SC types do exist, but I think your presentation works better than 4e's. The chase, the journey, the negotiation, the investigation, that would probably cover it, but maybe we've missed one or two. Others like survival, puzzle, craft, disable, etc mostly follow one of the more basic types. So a survival is basically a journey (in fact travel by itself without some element of survival or navigation really isn't a challenge). An interrogation is basically a type of negotiation. A race is just a chase where either side can lead. Solving most puzzles is at base a type of investigation, etc.

I have been thinking of doing something along the lines of what you're suggesting for quite some time. I think the best thing is to look at games that do that subsystem the best setvice and incorporate those ideas into the challenge rules. Some examples..

Exploration - The One Ring
Heists - Fiasco, Leverage
Investigation - GUMSHOE

I'd be curious what systems work really well for:

Chases
Negotiation
Stealth/Infiltration

I forgot to mention this, but I think adding new uses for action points is me way to distinguish these scenes. For example, I'm allowing a "Get a Clue" use of action points in investigations to get a secondary clue without needing to roll. In a heist I could easily see this instead being "All Part of the Plan."

 

[Balesir]

About interpreting successes...Yes my "secondary clues" are checks to gain extra information. However, I eschewed the "X number of successes" as a scene-closer because its not relevant to the model I'm using...where overall success depends on the players ability to deduce what the clues mean.

Actually, I think in a way you are - after 12 successes I think they'll run out of clues to find! That's as good an "end of scene" as any, I think; after that it's up to the players to mull it over and decide what to believe/what to do, but the immediate "challenge" part is over (for now).

P.S. - I think fitting Action Points into Skill Challenges (or <activity> challenges) is a fine idea. I have no really good recommendations for chases, negotiations or infiltration, I'm afraid - although the new Traveller 5 has some interesting ideas for "personals" (negotiation, networking and persuasion tasks) I haven't tried it out, yet.