• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Darmath

First Post
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
 

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.

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.
 

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.
 

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

Explorer
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.
 

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

Adventurer
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

Legend
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.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top