Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doctor Futurity" data-source="post: 7688767" data-attributes="member: 10738">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.</blockquote>

Verification