• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Why Aren't Designers Using The GUMSHOE System?

I was re-reading Night’s Black Agents by Kenneth Hite and Pelgrane Press for a review for this site, when I was stopped in my reading by what I thought was an important question (which I ask in the headline). Why aren’t more designers making games around the Gumshoe system created by Robin Laws? Robin Laws is a very smart man who thinks a lot about role-playing games. Now, I don’t always agree with where his lines of reasoning take him, as a designer, but that doesn’t take away from the man’s brilliance. I will admit that I wasn’t as impressed with the Gumshoe system at first blush, but as I have put more experience with the system under my belt, that has changed and my appreciation for what Laws did in the rules has grown.


I was re-reading Night’s Black Agents by Kenneth Hite and Pelgrane Press for a review for this site, when I was stopped in my reading by what I thought was an important question (which I ask in the headline). Why aren’t more designers making games around the Gumshoe system created by Robin Laws? Robin Laws is a very smart man who thinks a lot about role-playing games. Now, I don’t always agree with where his lines of reasoning take him, as a designer, but that doesn’t take away from the man’s brilliance. I will admit that I wasn’t as impressed with the Gumshoe system at first blush, but as I have put more experience with the system under my belt, that has changed and my appreciation for what Laws did in the rules has grown.

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.” For those who may not be familiar with this term, it basically applies to having to state that you’re searching every inch of a room and looking out for cracks, crevices and any weirdly discolored patches that you may encounter in the flickering torchlight. It also refers to those “locks” that are pointless mini-puzzle games that require you to figure out the right combination of up-down-up that will unlock a door, or activate device. I hate those things.

One of the central concepts of a Gumshoe game is to get rid of that idea, and let you get to the meat of the scenario at hand. In game design in the 90s, we saw a rise of role-playing games with highly detailed skill systems. Pages and pages and pages of skills, with specialties and sub-skills all detailed. One of the high points of this style of game design would probably be GURPS from Steve Jackson Games. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t bashing that style of design. I played the heck out of games like GURPS in the 90s. Just about everything that I wanted to play was ported into GURPS via the multitude of supplements that the system had. The problem arose with this school of design in that, while you were still assumed to be creating highly competent characters (at the higher point totals for GURPS characters, at least), the way that the skill systems worked your “highly competent” characters always had a non-trivial chance of failure when a player attempted to do anything.


As games touting their “realism” became more and more prevalent in the 80s and 90s, this trend for designing skills followed. All of those years of characters trying to do something cool, and instead doing something disappointing. You see this idea made fun of in various D&D memes around the internet, and I think that game design is finally getting around to fixing this idea. Gumshoe isn’t the only one doing this, not by far, but it is one of the only systems that is putting “fixing” investigation in RPGs in the center of the design.

But Gumshoe doesn’t catch the imagination of game designers in the same that Fate or Apocalypse World seems to be doing. I’m not saying that Gumshoe is better than either of those systems, in fact I’m supposed to by playing my first Powered By The Apocalypse game next month. There are always going to be game systems that catch on with designers, and those that get left behind. Gumshoe seems to have a devoted following, and a number of successful games, including the earlier mentioned Night’s Black Agents and Trail of Cthulhu among them. Pelgrane Press has a growing number of Gumshoe powered games, but for a system that has been released under both the OGL and a Creative Commons license it just surprises me that we don’t see more designers chewing on this system for their own worlds, like we do with D20, Fate or Apocalypse World (or any other number of free-to-use game systems out there).
Maybe Pelgrane Press is doing such a good job with their games that designers don’t need to remake the wheel. I know that there was talk of a Ars Magica/Gumshoe mashup at Atlas Games at one point, but I haven’t seen anything about that in a while.

At this point, you’re probably wondering one of two things, maybe even both. First, why does it matter what systems people use? Second, why is Gumshoe so cool?


The first question has a simple answer for me, and it lies in why I started writing for this site. Diversity in games is always a good thing. I like the idea of having a toolbox of different games, so that I can use the game, or system, that works best with what I want to do. Yes, I can just get a high level of system mastery with one game and use it for everything that I want, but that isn’t really how I roll. You get a different feel for a fantasy world when playing D&D, or when playing Stormbringer, and I like that. I want a game to reflect a world, and I want a world to be a good fit for how the mechanics of a game works. When I play a pulp game with Fate, and one with Troll Lord Games’ wonderful Amazing Adventures, the characters have different feels to them, and how they can interact with their worlds are different. Sometimes those differences are what I am looking for when I run, or play, a game.

Now, why do I like Gumshoe is a more complicated question to answer.

First off, it gets rid of the idea that a competent character has a non-zero chance of failure. That’s a HUGE idea, when you look at the stream of design that hit its height in the 90s (and still shows up at times in more contemporary game designs). If you look at role-playing games from the idea that they are supposed to simulate what you see in the stories/movies/comics that we all read, this brings what happens in a game much closer to what we see in the fictions that we are trying to emulate.

One thing, the “zero to hero” games, which cover a lot of the level-based games out there, most of which draw upon some strain of D&D as their influence, are not a counter argument to why there should be a “whiff” factor in RPG design. You can argue many things about the “heroic journey” of these games, but mostly the idea of them is that your character is on the journey to get to be that competent character. Using a first level D&D character to refute Sherlock Holmes or Tony Stark (sometimes they’re even the same person) isn’t proof that competent characters shouldn’t be doing competent things. It just means that different characters should be able to do different things.

I think that our recent Classic Traveller game would have been more interesting for the players if the game had been designed like Gumshoe. Too many times the momentum of our game was interrupted because a character who should have been able to do some sort of action couldn’t. Definitely not a slam on old school game designs. In most other aspects, the design of Classic Traveller is a hallmark of how simple and elegant older school game mechanics can be. If your idea of fun is overcoming adversity through fumbled dice rolls, then the task resolution of Classic Traveller will be your thing. I just think that, in the case of our group, this held us back in some ways.

So, again, what makes Gumshoe so great? I keep talking about where other games fall down. In a Gumshoe game, characters have what are called Investigative Abilities. But, what does this mean? At the core, the Investigative Abilities in a Gumshoe game let you get to the heart of the matter, because getting a piece of necessary information shouldn’t be dependent on a dice roll. Now, there are still contingencies for getting this information: your character has to be one the scene, they have to have a relevant ability and they have to tell the GM of the game that they are using it. In Night’s Black Agents an example of this is “I use Chemistry to test the blood for silver.” Obviously the character has an important reason to ask this question (perhaps it is a way for people to protect themselves from vampiric attacks, by dousing themselves with silver), and the next step of the characters (and the story) probably hinges on the results. In a game where there are non-zero chances of success, time can be wasted in a game session in rolling the results of this over and over to figure out if the answer given to a character is correct or not. What Gumshoe posits is that, if a character is a chemist, and demonstrates competency in their Chemistry ability, time shouldn’t be wasted in rolling until you get a high enough of a result to be able to tell if the GM is telling the truth or not.

This idea also assumes something important: a role-playing game isn’t a competition between the GM and the players. If the information is important to the story, and the characters have the relevant knowledge, don’t waste time in the reveal. While I’m sure that some gamers have fun with those hours spent in a chemistry lab testing, and retesting blood samples, others would have much more fun getting past the blood tests and getting to the point where they get to fight vampires. I know that I would.

But all of this brings me back to my initial point of this piece. Why aren’t more designers using the Gumshoe rules for their games? Maybe they just aren’t as familiar with the rules, which is entirely possible. But becoming more familiar with these rules is why I wrote over a thousand words for this piece. It does mean that I will, hopefully, have to explain less in my review for Night’s Black Agents, but that is really only secondary. What we see often in gaming writing is people writing what they know, talking about the games that they know and figuring out how to make them fit into other situations. Sometimes, instead of talking about how a screwdriver can be used in different situations, we should talk about why a pair of pliers are also useful.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kalil

Explorer
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Explorer
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.
 

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.

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

First Post
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.

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

First Post
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

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.
 

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.
 

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.



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.

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).
 

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.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top