• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

log in or register to remove this ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In cases where there's significant time pressure, you'd expect the players to be very careful to spread themselves out so that sub-teams are still likely to be successful.
And it's worth pointing out that you'll generally know the types of skills that will be required beforehand. A bomb site in the middle of a city, you're going to want to make sure your explosives/science, architecture/urban terrain, probably medical/forensic and similar guys will be present. You can make some reasonable assumptions going in about what sport of skillsets will typically be needed for a particular scene (assuming you have time to prep).
 

And it's worth pointing out that you'll generally know the types of skills that will be required beforehand. A bomb site in the middle of a city, you're going to want to make sure your explosives/science, architecture/urban terrain, probably medical/forensic and similar guys will be present. You can make some reasonable assumptions going in about what sport of skillsets will typically be needed for a particular scene (assuming you have time to prep).
So you're not supposed to catch players completely off-guard? If there's a bomb site in the middle of a city, there shouldn't be a mysteriously-misplaced flower which any trained botanist would be able to trace back to the culprit, but which would go completely unnoticed to anyone else? Or should you warn the players, before the game, that they'll need a botanist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
 

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

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


Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top