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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 7688910">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.</blockquote>

Verification