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

callinostros

Explorer
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.
 

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

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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

5ever, or until 2024
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

Adventurer
Combat's the weakness, and one other thing

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.
 

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).
 

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.
 

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.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top