Jump to content
stepanxol

About clues and point spends

Recommended Posts

vincentVV

JustinAlexander - hm.. It starts to look like creating ToC scenarios is more complicated than creating, say, CoC ones. You have to feel the balance and to understand what clues are worth a spend and what clues can be obtained by simply aplying a skill. And this complication grows not from the rechier plots but from the basic mechanics.

 

The_Tatterdemalion_King - I remember those checks but I still can't get their conection to the topic. =(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
csmithadair

JustinAlexander - hm.. It starts to look like creating ToC scenarios is more complicated than creating, say, CoC ones. You have to feel the balance and to understand what clues are worth a spend and what clues can be obtained by simply aplying a skill. And this complication grows not from the rechier plots but from the basic mechanics.

It does take a little getting used to, but one thing to keep in mind is that most clues should be free. Of course, core clues are required to be by design, but plenty of the rest of the clues should simply be free, as long as the Investigators are actively doing something to find them. Point spends of one or two points to get a clue can be sprinkled throughout, and they should generally be something that is just a bit special (usually meaning it provides spotlight time). They can also be good for clues that provide some extra information that doesn't help get you to the climax but instead helps you better survive it. Another option is that it allows the Investigators to bypass other scenes, providing an alternate path (either safer or providing some other benefit).

 

If you really enjoy letting your players spend their Investigative points to get benefits other than clues, minimizing preset point spends on clues in your scenario writing really helps. Otherwise, players after a while may hold back from spending for benefits, under the expectation that there are vital clues they'll need to buy with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

As Christopher says above, the easiest way of working out whether a clue needs a point spend is to consider if the players absolutely need to get it to advance to a future scene in the scenario; in which case it's a free Core Clue.

 

If it's not necessary to be a Core Clue then it might have a point spend associated.

 

Anything that helps to understand the motivations of the antagonists or helps understand the plot should probably cost points.

 

If it's just providing a bit of trivia, colour or atmosphere without helping to illuminate the plot then it should probably be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vincentVV

Thanks to Tony Williams I re-thought my approach to ToC and studied it more closely. I intend to run a ame in a near future using ToC rules with minimum changes (more lethal damage to spice it all up, some minor changes in skill list and no pillars/sources because I don't understand their function at all). Yet I still have a question about spends. Yes, again. =)

 

It looks like ToC is very demanding to Keepers: the Keeper has either prepare many things beforehand or be a very educative person. An example:

In an old grotto under an abandoned church the players find an ancient figurine depicting a strange octopus-like creature with wings on its and tentacles on its face. The players gain the core clue: the same figurine was in Dr. Williamson's house! (it provides the players with a destination to move forward). But the players have not finished yet...

Player 1: I use History on this.. thing.. to find out about the same things being used in the past.

Keeper: Hmm.. You remember some stories and legends about local natives worshipping such thing.

Player 2: I use Geology to examine the thing.

Keeper: ok. It is made of a green stone, a deep sea-green color, very hard and heavy.

Player 2: ok, I've got it, but what is a material?

Keeper (remembering green stones he knows) well.. malachite?

Player 2 who knows more about stones: no, it can't be, because <blah-blah> but ok, let it be so. I also use my chemistry on it.

Keeper: Uh.. It looks like it is.. made of stone?

Player 2: ok, i see. I also use my Streetwise to find out about who can own the same thing.

Keeper: you remember a photo from a newspaper about a Triad leader. There was the same figurine in his cabinet!

Player 2: can I make a spend to find more about him?

Keeper: yes, of course. ,<blah-blah..>. So, ok. Are you going to dr. Williamson?

Player 1: no! Why should we? I vivsit a nearest reservation!

Player 2: And I try to get in touch with a local Triad.

Keeper: <horrifyed, pulling his hair out> WHAT???

 

so, 2 problems I see:

1) The keeper has to be ready for use of specific abilities which bring out specific (and unexpected!) information. If players start to investigate something egypt-like knowledge of Kleopatra, Ramzes and pyramids will surely be not enough to answer all possible questions after using different abilities.

2) letting the players get additional information in unexpected ways can lead the whole adventure pretty much off-road. While it is quite a common thing in RPGs and Keepers should be ready for it, ToC makes the possibility of derailing higher and more real.

 

IMHO, of course. Is it really so or do I miss something as usual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Tatterdemalion_King

It looks like ToC is very demanding to Keepers: the Keeper has either prepare many things beforehand or be a very educative person.

This is true for virtually all investigative games: the Keeper has to know at least as much about the world as their players. Or just be quicker at googling things.

 

so, 2 problems I see:

1) The keeper has to be ready for use of specific abilities which bring out specific (and unexpected!) information. If players start to investigate something egypt-like knowledge of Kleopatra, Ramzes and pyramids will surely be not enough to answer all possible questions after using different abilities.

When it comes to general subjects, it's a good idea to just go through each of the abilities and see if there's any gaps in your knowledge you can fill with general references before play. When it comes to specific clues or objects, you can prepare simply by remembering who made the thing, what they made it with, where it was made, how it got to where it was, who moved it, and what their attitude about it was.

 

2) letting the players get additional information in unexpected ways can lead the whole adventure pretty much off-road. While it is quite a common thing in RPGs and Keepers should be ready for it, ToC makes the possibility of derailing higher and more real.

I suggest that, to get comfortable with running GUMSHOE, you try to run a scenario by preparing all the facts and forensic connections but leaving the rest to player questioning. You'll want to think of connections between facts in GUMSHOE as more like a web than a railroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

You are actually allowed to say to a player "That's not a relevant piece of information" !!! ( on the meta-level sometimes it's just best to tell the players they're going off-track ).

 

I also think you are over-worrying about ToC players using their abilities exhaustively - in my experience players tend to use "expected" abilities in scenes that the scenario generally covers the answers to. Anything they start going off-piste on is usually not too hard to improvise about or reign in.

 

Remember to stress to the players before the game begins that they are not allowed to say, "I use ability X". They have to say, "I use ability X to achieve Z" - that should calm them down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rylehNC

Me as Keeper: you use your Streetwise contacts, but after spending several hours, you've hit a dead end.

 

Player 2: And I try to get in touch with a local Triad.

Keeper: <horrifyed, pulling his hair out> WHAT???

 

It would have been my fault for mentioning the Triad! Never be afraid to say "based on your expertise, you can dismiss this avenue of inquiry." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vincentVV

When it comes to general subjects, it's a good idea to just go through each of the abilities and see if there's any gaps in your knowledge you can fill with general references before play. When it comes to specific clues or objects, you can prepare simply by remembering who made the thing, what they made it with, where it was made, how it got to where it was, who moved it, and what their attitude about it was.

 

I suggest that, to get comfortable with running GUMSHOE, you try to run a scenario by preparing all the facts and forensic connections but leaving the rest to player questioning. You'll want to think of connections between facts in GUMSHOE as more like a web than a railroad.

This looks like I have to review all my school and university knowledge "just in case" (O_o). That's.. to much I think for just a game. I agree that the GM has to know his world better, but improvising in a fantasy world is much easier than in realistic one.

 

You are actually allowed to say to a player "That's not a relevant piece of information" !!! ( on the meta-level sometimes it's just best to tell the players they're going off-track ).

 

I also think you are over-worrying about ToC players using their abilities exhaustively - in my experience players tend to use "expected" abilities in scenes that the scenario generally covers the answers to. Anything they start going off-piste on is usually not too hard to improvise about or reign in.

 

Remember to stress to the players before the game begins that they are not allowed to say, "I use ability X". They have to say, "I use ability X to achieve Z" - that should calm them down a bit.

That's the point that changed my whole view of ToC to the positive angle, so I will pretty sure not forget about it, thanks! =)

 

And saying "this is not relevant"... well, It looks like bad textures in a computer game. You see a path in a forest but can't go there because it's just a piece of texture. =)

 

Me as Keeper: you use your Streetwise contacts, but after spending several hours, you've hit a dead end.

Well, that looks like a real option which at the same time will not ruin the gameplay! Great! =)

 

It would have been my fault for mentioning the Triad!

Yeah and that's what I also saw as a problem - by answering players' questions it is easy to ocasionally give them too many red herrings which even the Keeper is not ready to deal with!

 

Never be afraid to say "based on your expertise, you can dismiss this avenue of inquiry."

uuhhh.. This sounds like hard railroading. Not an option. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

P.S. regarding your proposed home-brew ideas about your ToC game:

 

1. Higher damage - I wouldn't adjust the weapon damage modifiers, just use the Purist rule option that an investigator can only have a maximum 12 Health rating.

You could also use the "Lethal Firearms" optional rule but I find that can be very debilitating.

 

2. Sources of Stability - there isn't much to understand; they are NPCs the player creates that they are assumed to be spending time with in-between adventures that are the reason their lost Stability points regenerate. They exist to give the investigator some back-story but also for the purpose of a Keeper to work into scenarios to threaten them as a way to damage an investigator's Stability

e.g. an investigator has a weird dream that Deep Ones are encircling his parents' house ( and the parents are 2 of his Sources of Stability ) - he wakes up in a cold sweat and must pass a Stability test or lose 2 points.

Sources of Stability is an optional rule anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rylehNC

And saying "this is not relevant"... well, It looks like bad textures in a computer game. You see a path in a forest but can't go there because it's just a piece of texture. =)

 

uuhhh.. This sounds like hard railroading. Not an option. =)

 

I refute the assertion that everything in a game setting has to have importance. The Keeper has just as much a right to be entertained - and should have the prerogative to say "I haven't prepared for this" or that something isn't important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

I've had players thank me when I've made it obvious a path they were beginning to go down was a useless rabbit hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rylehNC

This is an aside, but it's only railroading to me when the choice the Keeper deprives you of is meaningful. Saying "You book a room in a hotel" is different than "there are two hotels, but the 'no vacancy sign' is on at the Squamous Arms and none of the residents there will give up their room for any price. And the police are rousting anyone who sleeps in the park - but not arresting them....the Gilman House is open, however."

 

And when a Keeper shuts down an avenue of investigation by invoking the PC's abilities, it's an implicit acknowledgment that there is no deception involved. The players don't have to take the word of an unreliable GMPC, or suffer due an environmental factor beyond their control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vincentVV

P.S. regarding your proposed home-brew ideas about your ToC game:

 

1. Higher damage - I wouldn't adjust the weapon damage modifiers, just use the Purist rule option that an investigator can only have a maximum 12 Health rating.

You could also use the "Lethal Firearms" optional rule but I find that can be very debilitating.

 

Well, maybe you are right, but GURPS approach to weapon damage looks more interesting to me, because it can make even a common knife qiute a lethal weapon. Anyway I'm not 100% sure about it and will try several approaches to find more suitable. =)

 

2. Sources of Stability - there isn't much to understand; they are NPCs the player creates that they are assumed to be spending time with in-between adventures that are the reason their lost Stability points regenerate. They exist to give the investigator some back-story but also for the purpose of a Keeper to work into scenarios to threaten them as a way to damage an investigator's Stability

e.g. an investigator has a weird dream that Deep Ones are encircling his parents' house ( and the parents are 2 of his Sources of Stability ) - he wakes up in a cold sweat and must pass a Stability test or lose 2 points.

Sources of Stability is an optional rule anyway.

 

Hm... An idea about a dream is rather interesting. I would only have mad some changes: you can recover lost stability points in-game, if you rolepley an episode with your source.

Although roleplaying dull and pointless scenes of usual life can be something most player would not like very much. Well, I think my games eill not lose too much without this rule.

 

I refute the assertion that everything in a game setting has to have importance. The Keeper has just as much a right to be entertained - and should have the prerogative to say "I haven't prepared for this" or that something isn't important.

 

It's a question of metagaming. When the Keeper provides the players with a colorful photo of an NPC - it's a sign *IMPORTANT* for them no matter how they try too not metagame. =) The same here. I think the players should figure out what is really important themselves.

 

This is an aside, but it's only railroading to me when the choice the Keeper deprives you of is meaningful. Saying "You book a room in a hotel" is different than "there are two hotels, but the 'no vacancy sign' is on at the Squamous Arms and none of the residents there will give up their room for any price. And the police are rousting anyone who sleeps in the park - but not arresting them....the Gilman House is open, however."

 

And when a Keeper shuts down an avenue of investigation by invoking the PC's abilities, it's an implicit acknowledgment that there is no deception involved. The players don't have to take the word of an unreliable GMPC, or suffer due an environmental factor beyond their control.

 

So, which example with the hotel is less railroady? =) They both lead to the same result after all, the second a little more discriptive maybe.

 

One more thing about spends.

I really don't like the cyclopean idea of 4-5 types of clues, integrated in game mechanics. It makes quite a mess to me and the players will be messed up even more IMHO.

I ended up with simplifying the idea.

1) The players get the obvious clues without anything - no ability required, no spends. After all, you don't need to be a chemists to feel the smell of gas or to be a cop to find a dead body with a note pinned to its chest with a ritual dagger.

2) The players may use abilities to analyze what they've found or to find something specific. To get a deeper insight. Use medcine to find out that the person was killed with a single blow or use something suitable to make some presumtions about the author of a note. Or use chemistry to realise that the gas is not the natural one although it looks smells very close.

3) The players spend points to influence the game.

- to hurry up something (research, postal delivery, lab examination etc.)

- to introduce NPCs connected to their characters who can help and be used by a Keeper later;

- to get even more information about the clue. "You smell hard and suddenly remeber your uncle told you that while he was working at a gas station he was afraid of a so called "Blue gas" which is twice more toxic than the usual one, although it can appear only with a suitable circumstances". Or "You realise that the dead body is a perfect example of a one-blow kill you studied at a police academy. It will really be no problem to you to deduct the killers height, handedness, his position twards the victim and so on..." Well, something like that.

 

That's all. 2 types of clues (no-ability using and ability-using) and several ways to spend. Simple to understand to everybody (including myself) and simple to use. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBSteve

A couple of things:

- if players are well-educated about certain points, then use their knowledge. Ask them which Roman was in power when the 9th Legion was lost, or which tube station is nearest to the British Museum

- also, you only need to stay ahead of the characters for the next couple of hours. If you're playing online it's easy to Google British alchemists of the 16th Century, but otherwise the next best thing is a list of names. You can add pretty much all the other details between sessions.

- red herrings can be fun if you give them relevance. Sure Mrs Miniver wasn't actually a cultist, she just happened to be in the pub at the same time, but when the PCs follow her up, they learn that she's the head of the local coven of witches and they have seen some very strange goings on in the woods during their ceremonies. She might not like to talk directly about them, coven rules, but if someone were to join the group, then it would be fine. Just sign here in this black book.

- improvising is a skill that is useful for all GMs, even those who just run other people's material. There are many places you can find good material on how to do, such as Graham Walmsley's Play Unsafe or Stealing Cthulhu (or even some of my writing), or back to source with Impro by Keith Johnstone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Tatterdemalion_King

This looks like I have to review all my school and university knowledge "just in case" (O_o). That's.. to much I think for just a game. I agree that the GM has to know his world better, but improvising in a fantasy world is much easier than in realistic one.

I find the real world has the advantage over any fictional one in that the real one actually fits together. That said, I also read and watch a lot of true crime and mystery stuff when I'm not gaming, so I've absorbed a lot more than someone who's just doing research for the game.

 

I find designing stuff for fantasy worlds real hard without being able to fall back on RL cultures or history though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

One more thing about spends.

I really don't like the cyclopean idea of 4-5 types of clues, integrated in game mechanics. It makes quite a mess to me and the players will be messed up even more IMHO.

I ended up with simplifying the idea.

 

2) The players may use abilities to analyze what they've found or to find something specific. To get a deeper insight. Use medcine to find out that the person was killed with a single blow or use something suitable to make some presumtions about the author of a note. Or use chemistry to realise that the gas is not the natural one although it looks smells very close.

 

That's what GUMSHOE calles a Zero-Point Clue ( or a Core Clue if it leads to a new scene in the scenario )

 

3) The players spend points to influence the game.

- to hurry up something (research, postal delivery, lab examination etc.)

- to introduce NPCs connected to their characters who can help and be used by a Keeper later;

 

That's what GUMSHOE calls a Benefit

 

- to get even more information about the clue. "You smell hard and suddenly remeber your uncle told you that while he was working at a gas station he was afraid of a so called "Blue gas" which is twice more toxic than the usual one, although it can appear only with a suitable circumstances". Or "You realise that the dead body is a perfect example of a one-blow kill you studied at a police academy. It will really be no problem to you to deduct the killers height, handedness, his position twards the victim and so on..." Well, something like that.

 

That's what GUMSHOE calls a Point-Spend Clue

 

1) The players get the obvious clues without anything - no ability required, no spends. After all, you don't need to be a chemists to feel the smell of gas or to be a cop to find a dead body with a note pinned to its chest with a ritual dagger.

 
To put it crudely - "Well, durr..." - this is expected to happen in any investigative RPG (  including GUMSHOE ).
 
----
 
Congratulations, you have either:
 
1. Understood GUMSHOE
 
or
 
2. Re-invented GUMSHOE
 
or
 
3. Both of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Tatterdemalion_King

and should have the prerogative to say "I haven't prepared for this" or that something isn't important.

Yeah, but then the players respond with "We've decided its important, so hurry up and prepare it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustinAlexander
It's a question of metagaming. When the Keeper provides the players with a colorful photo of an NPC - it's a sign *IMPORTANT* for them no matter how they try too not metagame. =) The same here. I think the players should figure out what is really important themselves.

 

This can manifest in more ways than photographs, though. For example:

 

Players: What's this guy's name?

GM: ... Joe?

 

And even when I became more confident in providing names on-the-fly, I've had players who would twig (or think they were twigging, which is often just as damaging to immersion) to the prepped vs. non-prepped status of something based on whether or not I checked my notes before answering certain types of questions.

 

There are a few ways of addressing this.

 

First: The metagame con job. Whether something is in my notes or not, I check my notes. I've also trained myself to use "checking my notes" as a way of taking a beat to figure out why my off-the-cuff improv is going to be. I also keep a list of "generic names" and, when I need to name an NPC, I'll glance at that list (which is both useful for keeping me from falling into repetitive defaults AND also constitutes "checking my notes"). If the photographs are a serious issue for your group, consider printing off 10 male and 10 female photos. When you need to improv an NPC, grab a photo for them.

 

Second: Obfuscate through prep. Conversely, do the opposite by over-prepping. Include photos for virtually every NPC (regardless of their relative importance) and the players won't be able to use the existence of a photo as a way of determining the relative importance or unimportance of an NPC. When I'm using NPC graphical handouts, whether or not an NPC gets a handout often has more to do with whether I was able to find an appropriate photo than it does with whether or not they're the key element of a scenario. (You could also deliberately do that: If

 

Third: Prep and run your games in such a way that your players learn that "unprepped" and "off-the-expected-course" are not synonyms for "wrong way". This can take some time and effort, but I've had unimportant and unprepped NPCs become long-term focal points of entire campaigns on enough occasions, for example, that my players no longer bother distinguishing between prepped and unprepped content (either consciously or unconsciously) because it's a distinction without meaning in terms of how the game plays out.

 

Thanks to Tony Williams I re-thought my approach to ToC and studied it more closely. I intend to run a ame in a near future using ToC rules with minimum changes (more lethal damage to spice it all up, some minor changes in skill list and no pillars/sources because I don't understand their function at all). Yet I still have a question about spends. Yes, again. =)

 

It looks like ToC is very demanding to Keepers: the Keeper has either prepare many things beforehand or be a very educative person. An example:

In an old grotto under an abandoned church the players find an ancient figurine depicting a strange octopus-like creature with wings on its and tentacles on its face. The players gain the core clue: the same figurine was in Dr. Williamson's house! (it provides the players with a destination to move forward). But the players have not finished yet...

Player 1: I use History on this.. thing.. to find out about the same things being used in the past.

Keeper: Hmm.. You remember some stories and legends about local natives worshipping such thing.

Player 2: I use Geology to examine the thing.

Keeper: ok. It is made of a green stone, a deep sea-green color, very hard and heavy.

Player 2: ok, I've got it, but what is a material?

Keeper (remembering green stones he knows) well.. malachite?

Player 2 who knows more about stones: no, it can't be, because <blah-blah> but ok, let it be so. I also use my chemistry on it.

Keeper: Uh.. It looks like it is.. made of stone?

Player 2: ok, i see. I also use my Streetwise to find out about who can own the same thing.

Keeper: you remember a photo from a newspaper about a Triad leader. There was the same figurine in his cabinet!

Player 2: can I make a spend to find more about him?

Keeper: yes, of course. ,<blah-blah..>. So, ok. Are you going to dr. Williamson?

Player 1: no! Why should we? I vivsit a nearest reservation!

Player 2: And I try to get in touch with a local Triad.

Keeper: <horrifyed, pulling his hair out> WHAT???

 

I guess I don't really see how this is different from any other game. (I would never ask, "Don't you want to do this other thing?" obviously.) Players ask questions about the game world, you answer them. Players propose actions, you tell them how those actions turn out. What, exactly, do you find remarkable about it?

 

(I'm particularly baffled at the GM pulling out his hair because the PCs are following a really obvious clue that he has just given them. If you don't want a Triad member to have one of these statues, why did you just say that a Triad member has one of them?)

 

I ended up with simplifying the idea.

1) The players get the obvious clues without anything - no ability required, no spends. After all, you don't need to be a chemists to feel the smell of gas or to be a cop to find a dead body with a note pinned to its chest with a ritual dagger.

2) The players may use abilities to analyze what they've found or to find something specific.

3) The players spend points to influence the game.

 

As Tony says, you have successfully summarized the way GUMSHOE works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vincentVV

I thought about a little different approach to investigative spends. Maybe it will be useful to someone and will help to understand the spend mechaics.

 

First, I don't like the word "clue". It distracts. Let's say, players obtain information. And in each case the information is presented in layers.

 

The first layer is an obvious information.

 

You have found an old worn book, written in foreign language. According to pictures - it is some kind of medical book.

Or

You have found a strange stone figurine.

 

The second layer is knowledge-specific information - you need a skill to get here.

(Medcine) The book is a surgery manual

(Languages) The book is written in Dutch

(History) The book is dated 1916 - a WW1 period

or

(Archeology) The statue is of Polynesian origin

(Geology) the statye is made of jade.

 

The third layer is a deeper-insight information, acquired by point spending

 

(Medcine) The pictures in a book discribe surgical experiences, forbidden since 1724

(Occult) Some pictures bear occult symbolism in them - the position of limbs, the picture of scars etc.

(Language) You can translate a book by stating that you have studied Dutch (well, most part of it)

(History) The book is a reprint of an older book, the author of a book is Benjamen VanDaalen, an 18 century genius surgeon, exiled for his "Inhuman practices"

Or

(Archeology) The statue is of pre-polynesian period! Maybe as far as prehistoric period!

(History) The same themes can be met in some statues from central Africa and North America.

 

And so on.

 

1) Obvious information

2) Skill information

3) Point-spend information.

 

That's all. You don't have a 1-point or 2-point-spent information. Each point spent gives you another piece untill you stop or untill the Keeper has no more.

 

Thinking this way it is easier (at least for me) to prepare clues.

 

Well, you still can make a spend to gain an advantage (to translate the book in 3 days, not in 3 weeks, or to find a fellow archeologist who would know more about the statue), but the basic premise is written before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

Pelgrane has the February See Page XX up and in this article:  http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/see-page-xx-gumshoe-says-yes/  Robin makes an interesting comment about Non-Core Clues:

 

"Instead point expenditures give you special extra spiffy benefits above and beyond access to vital clues. In early GUMSHOE scenarios you sometimes got especially impressive information that didn’t directly impact the case, or gained the standard clue in a particularly impressive way. Over the years we’ve put that thought aside in favor of practical benefits to the character. You might learn how to kill a creature more easily, cement an alliance with a helpful GMC, convince an angry bystander not to slug you, and so forth."

 

So it looks like the idea of paying Investigative pool points for Non-Core Clues is fading from the rules and you should just pay for Benefits now.

 

The distinction of Core and Non-Core Clue is now just to flag to the Keeper which clues the party really have to get for the scenario to run to completion rather than which clues need points spent to obtain them.

 

Makes for simpler, clearer rules. I think Simon of Pelgrane has said this in the recent past somewhere too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBSteve

I do tend to be pretty generous with 0 point spends especially if the player takes the initial cue and roleplays interest in the subject, and to a certain extent depending on their rating. But I still may ask for a point for lots of information or very recherché material.

 

So someone with a high Occult rating might well know where Crowley is in early 1931 (Berlin it seems) but to find understand and use a ritual from Liber 418, I'd ask for a spend.

 

It's similar for benefits. For example, I'll let a player with High Credit rating get into most places, but it it's a private members club, they'll have to dredge up an old contact, and probably pay a point too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
numtini

So it looks like the idea of paying Investigative pool points for Non-Core Clues is fading from the rules and you should just pay for Benefits now.

 

At least the first release of Yellow King does away with levels in investigative skills entirely. Instead, you just get two pushes to be used as you'd like through the game to gain a benefit associated with an investigative skill. I don't know if I'm jiggy with the new combat system, but I like the lack of point spending. I think it makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vincentVV

An interesting observation.

The first official (afaik) adventure, The dying of St. Margaret, is written without any spends at all! It uses just the basic "use skill - get the clue" mechanics to move the plot.

 

On the other hand, scanning through other ToC adventures I realise that the soend mechanics is usually treated as the author sees fit, and usually it is used to get things, which can be got anyway by a simple skill use. Looks like many authors don't know how to use this mechanics themselves. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nclarke

You do know that the GUMSHOE mechanics changed over time with each iteration of a new rulebook so the rules in the original Trail are a bit different from those in say Esoterroriosts 2nd edition in terms of play.. So it isn't a surprise to see slightly different ways of writing and adventure in early scenarios compared to later ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vincentVV

err.. I'm talking about only ToC adventures, not Esoterrorists or plain GUMSHOE.

How many editions does ToC have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.