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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gribble" data-source="post: 7688914" data-attributes="member: 12430">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.</blockquote>

Verification