You got GUMSHOE in my D&D!

[Grynning]

Hey all. We normally post over in Homebrew, but since this article is more about alt systems I thought I'd drop it here. This week our blog article is about how to use GUMSHOE's innovative skill system to improve your D&D games:
http://forgotmydice.com/index.php/2016/05/23/mysteries-incorporated/

[Knaight]

It's interesting, but I notice that a major part of the GUMSHOE system is missing, and that's skill depletion. For bonus clues in GUMSHOE you generally have to roll, and the skills involved represent points you can spend as bonuses to that roll, slowly depleting and representing the trail going cold. On top of that, the +6 bonus is pretty boolean, whereas a roll for bonus clues wouldn't be.

So, I'm curious as to the decisions to both drop the depletion element and to drop the roll. Why those decisions?

[Griss The Gnome]

I wrote the article I'll answer your question. There are two main reasons.

First, Delta Green RPG showed me the way, in that game they effectively gave you the same thing at 40% skill and 60% skill with no skill depletion (Didja notice that 40% and 60% are like +4 and +6... cuz thats the reason I arbitrarily picked those numbers, if you think it should be higher do it. It was slightly higher for a time, but then I changed my mind.). If it's good enough for Delta Green (and therefore Call of the Cthulhu) it's good enough for D&D.

Secondly adding skill depletion would have been a tacked on subsystem, D&D is not a rule light game like GUMSHOE is. So adding more things to keep track of is not something I'm interested in doing. Plus the focus of D&D isn't clues and investigation, it's combat and being a big damn hero. I think it would put the wrong focus on things, but that is me.

However if you would like to play a game that has a more in-depth skill system like GUMSHOE, I'd suggest that you grab yourself a copy of Lorefinder and convert it to 5th. You can find the link in the last paragraph of the review.

[Knaight]

First, Delta Green RPG showed me the way, in that game they effectively gave you the same thing at 40% skill and 60% skill with no skill depletion (Didja notice that 40% and 60% are like +4 and +6... cuz thats the reason I arbitrarily picked those numbers, if you think it should be higher do it. It was slightly higher for a time, but then I changed my mind.). If it's good enough for Delta Green (and therefore Call of the Cthulhu) it's good enough for D&D.
In the context of Delta Green it makes a fair amount of sense, but it just seems to conflict with the proficiency system, in that all variation between Proficiency and +6 and between +6 and up vanish for the automatic skills. It just seems like proficiency granting core clues plus a roll for bonus clues would be a stronger mechanic if maintaining the core D&D design.


Secondly adding skill depletion would have been a tacked on subsystem, D&D is not a rule light game like GUMSHOE is. So adding more things to keep track of is not something I'm interested in doing. Plus the focus of D&D isn't clues and investigation, it's combat and being a big damn hero. I think it would put the wrong focus on things, but that is me.
Fair enough. I figured it was something like that, but it couldn't hurt to ask.


However if you would like to play a game that has a more in-depth skill system like GUMSHOE, I'd suggest that you grab yourself a copy of Lorefinder and convert it to 5th. You can find the link in the last paragraph of the review.
It does sound cool, and if I were at all attached to the d20 system I'd probably be all over it. As is, it looks more like contaminating GUMSHOE (a system I have a lot of respect for) with Pathfinder.

[Griss The Gnome]

It does sound cool, and if I were at all attached to the d20 system I'd probably be all over it. As is, it looks more like contaminating GUMSHOE (a system I have a lot of respect for) with Pathfinder.

Just pretend it was written for 3.5. I actually own the book I like it quite a bit. Like it almost made me think about playing Pathfinder... but then I was like why am I thinking that when I own the Dracula Dossier, and conned 4 people into playing it.

I'd love it if they redid it for 5th, I think with the right setting the system could handle it. I envision a gritty CSI Sharn game in Eberron, or something along those lines.

[MaxWilson]

Hey all. We normally post over in Homebrew, but since this article is more about alt systems I thought I'd drop it here. This week our blog article is about how to use GUMSHOE's innovative skill system to improve your D&D games:
http://forgotmydice.com/index.php/2016/05/23/mysteries-incorporated/

That's a good, thought-provoking article. Thanks for sharing.

[Griss The Gnome]

Sharn Guard: Look there Horatio, it's greater Ghallanda dragon mark.
Horatio: Looks like this dead halfling (puts on sunglasses) didn't get the Hospitality he was due.
YEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHH


Sorry I said CSI out loud, even three years cancelled you can't kill Horatio one liners... it's a mind virus.

[JellyPooga]

I kinda like this. It's always been a problem of investigative style games like Call of Cthulhu and Dark Heresy that if the players botch the roll at the wrong (right?) time, the game can grind to a halt. In a game where exploration is a key feature, like D&D, the game might not falter on botched rolls, but entertaining setting or plot elements can be missed, obfuscating the setting designers effort and reducing the overall fun everyone is having.

For 5ed D&D, however, I'd like to see a slightly more granular distinction than "Not Proficient", "Proficient" and "6+ mod".

1) I'd remove Proficiency as a qualifying factor. Base everything on the total skill modifier; this both streamlines the qualifying factor and allows a party to skip "covering all the bases" by making sure that at least someone has Proficiency in all the key skills.

2) I'd allow (force?) the party to pool their collective modifiers for everyone present. For simplicity, I'd have this be a simple "add them up" kind of deal. Got two players with a +2 modifier? The Party has a +4 modifier. This represents the collective effort of the party and can also include the deleterious effect of, for instance, having an idiot piping up with stupid ideas derailing your train of thought, or the un-charismatic Barbarian belching in the noblemans face when the Bard is trying to sweet talk him.

3) This just leaves the "breakpoints" for success. My gut instinct is to go for something like;

-ve modifier = Total failure: Misleading information from investigation, NPC's angered or dismissive in a social encounter, get lost in the woods, etc. BAD consequences.
+0 to +4 = Simple failure: No consequences
+5 to +7 = Success: You get the info, clue, etc.
+9 to +11 = Great Success: You get the "Bonus"
+12 or more = Extraordinary Success: You not only get the Bonus, but something more; you find a hidden pouch of coins, the noble introduces you to his merchant friend who agrees to give you a discount, that sort of thing.

This distribution encourages players to A) not dump stats and B) play to their strengths (e.g. not bringing a fur-clad barbarian to a noblemans ball, actively telling those incompetent at searching to go do something else for a while, etc.). It also allows for C) Expertise to shine a little, but also not obfuscate the benefits of working as a team.

An examples:

Wizard level 1; Int 16 Proficient in Arcana. Mod +5. Unless he's got idiots distracting him and "trying to help", he knows his stuff. He gets the Success.
Wizard level 9; Int 20, proficient in Arcana. Mod +9. Working alone in his tower, this guy is starting to uncover the deeper secrets of his trade. He always gets the "bonus" unless some numpty keeps butting in with superstitions and and folk-lore. He also knows a little about everything else (+5 mod for all other Int-based skills).
Wizard level 20; Int 20, proficient in Arcana. Mod +11. Even working with an entire group of morons, all of whom are trying to speak their piece or are standing around drooling on the grimoire he's trying to decipher, this guy is a pro of the highest caliber.

To get the "Extra Bonus", this Wizard needs a little help; A half-way competent Apprentice would do the trick (even if it's just to keep the morons at bay whilst the master gets the thinking done), but studying the Tome of Clear Thought to raise his Int to 22 would also allow him to qualify.

[Knaight]

Just pretend it was written for 3.5. I actually own the book I like it quite a bit. Like it almost made me think about playing Pathfinder... but then I was like why am I thinking that when I own the Dracula Dossier, and conned 4 people into playing it.

Contaminated by Pathfinder, contaminated by 3.5, tomato, tomahto. That is a heck of an endorsement though.

[Joe the Rat]

Perception looks lonely in the dual-category set. It could use friends. Like Medicine (stabilizing downed creatuers AND playing Quincy, M.E.), Intimidation (Stand Down vs. Bad Cop), Performance (to entertain as well as lighten mood... or provide insight into music-related clues), Deception (opposed rolls to lie and whatnot), Animal Handling (Which does a better job of modeling Animal Behaviorist than Nature does), and Investigate (for traps).

Also, does jack-of-all-trades count as proficient or not? That would affect how well they can bring their surprisingly broad lore to bear on investigations.

Separately, I'm contemplating having Knowledge proficiency allow Passive Knowledge checks. Setting a DC 16 for connecting Bonus clues reaches your goal here (+6 mod for auto success) but still allows the nonproficient-but-clever and/or lucky roller a chance to have encountered the connecting bit of trivia.
Except for the one elf. I just assume he rolls a nat 20 on History checks. He always rolls nat 20's on History.

[JellyPooga]

Also, does jack-of-all-trades count as proficient or not?

This is one among a few abilities that are the reason I suggest making the "pass" qualification based on your total modifier rather than proficiency. There's Class features (Jack-of-All-Trades, Remarkable Athlete), Spells (Guidance) and at least one Feat (Observant), not to mention the implications of what Dis/Advantage might have (of which there are many qualifying abilities/effects).

[MaxWilson]

I kinda like this. It's always been a problem of investigative style games like Call of Cthulhu and Dark Heresy that if the players botch the roll at the wrong (right?) time, the game can grind to a halt. In a game where exploration is a key feature, like D&D, the game might not falter on botched rolls, but entertaining setting or plot elements can be missed, obfuscating the setting designers effort and reducing the overall fun everyone is having.

But, what's the difference? Whether they miss your game elements due to botched rolls or because someone in the party dumped Int (was yammering superstition in the wizard's ear, etc.), either way the DM needs to plan for the possibility that the party will fail. Unless you're suggesting that the DM vet the elements in advance against the PCs' so that he knows the party will pass--in which case, why bother with a system more complicated than passive scores? You're just making more work for the DM, and making it possible that his plans will go awry again if somebody brings a friend with a dumb barbarian.

The thing I found most thought-provoking in the article wasn't the manner in which skill proficiencies are employed; it was the idea of simply giving the players all the information in the area, automatically, up front. It's kind of the opposite of the way you run traps (tends to be a dialogue where the DM ensures there is more to see if you look closer at the right things) and maybe there's a reason for that: a trap scene is self-contained and the players know when they've either found a treasure or set off a trap, but an investigation scene is open-ended and won't be resolved in a single scene, and yet you need to make sure the players know when it's time to move on to the next scene. Having a guarantee at the metagame level that "you guys have definitely not missed any important information here" is one way of handling that. Worth thinking about certainly.

[JellyPooga]

The thing I found most thought-provoking in the article wasn't the manner in which skill proficiencies are employed; it was the idea of simply giving the players all the information in the area, automatically, up front.

Yet the rules proposed by the article are dependent on at least one character in the party having proficiency in the relevant skill to find that information. No proficiency, no info. You still have to plan for the contingency of not finding that Clue.


These are clues that players will always find if they have proficiency in a skill.

My system is no different from the rules suggested in the article in essence, but also allows for non-proficient character(s) with sufficient innate ability, magical assistance and/or co-operation to succeed.

A dozen characters, none of whom are proficient in Perception and regardless of their Wisdom, active Spells, Feats and so on, could search an area and find zero Clues under the articles proposed system. Under my proposed alternative, so long as those characters can rustle up a combined Perception modifier of +5, by whatever means, they get the Clue.

Sure, it's a touch more complex, but there's a lot of abilities in 5ed, many of which should be applicable to these scenarios and I wouldn't want to see them wasted or ignored.

[Griss The Gnome]

Yet the rules proposed by the article are dependent on at least one character in the party having proficiency in the relevant skill to find that information. No proficiency, no info. You still have to plan for the contingency of not finding that Clue.

This is true, in my Shackled City game, between backgrounds and classes we actually had everything covered oddly enough. The GUMSHOE engine accounts for this by giving players skill points based on group size and not based on class or background. But the idea is the group will have everything with minimal overlap, but you do have to have the right skill at the right time for it to trigger. In my Night's Black Agent game it's easy, cuz it's set in the modern day, so all you gotta do is whip out your iPhone and take a picture, or video chat. In a fantasy or period game, if the group Scoobies, then sometimes you gotta play a scene where they fill in the party on what they find, and maybe have to return to a place so the correct person can get info.

But here is the thing, as a DM you have access to your players sheets, if your group doesn't have access to a skill, don't make clues up dependent on it. If your trying to encourage them to get it (like my Night's Black Agents group didn't have Geology until very recently), then just throw out a clue and ask "anybody got History." When people come back with nope go "oh well." It's kinda evil but it would work.

[JellyPooga]

But here is the thing, as a DM you have access to your players sheets, if your group doesn't have access to a skill, don't make clues up dependent on it.

This is all well and good when you're writing the adventure/campaign/scenario for a specific group, which you know ahead of time, but if you're writing an adventure that you intend to run for multiple groups or it's more of a sandbox where you don't know which, if any characters will be tackling a given problem, then you arrive back at the problem of having written material that isn't being used and/or characters botching the mission due to lack of proficiency.

I applaud the thinking behind the article; it makes a lot of sense to me. It's just that for 5ed D&D, I think the more granular approach is necessary in order to include the gamut of materials present and provide for the style of the game as a whole.

For a more rules-lite game like GUMSHOE or its derivatives, or for games like you suggest where that "proficiency" is easier to come by or accessible through alternative means (research, etc.), then the simpler less granular approach works; investigative games are typically less concerned with time and locale constraints than your average D&D site-based adventure. You can't well abandon the dungeon to go look up which colour dragon breathes poison gas, for example, just to solve the puzzle-lock to get the treasure...or rather, you could, but the consequences would (or should) be significant; a re-populated dungeon, wandering monsters/random encounters, the quest timing out and so forth.

[Griss The Gnome]

Also if you want to see a really really in-depth conversion of the GUMSHOE skill system into a d20 based game (and honestly the effort required to convert this to 5th would be minimal). Check out Lorefinder... thank gawd they didn't call it "Pathshoe."

EDIT - probably shouldn't call it minimal, as I was reading it I thought to my self "updating this to 5th wouldn't be all that hard, I hope they do it." But this is me remembering reading a RPG book 6 months ago.

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/109418/Lorefinder-GUMSHOE-Pathfinder-Mashup?site=&manufacturers_id=340&affiliate_id=514 928

[Griss The Gnome]

For a more rules-lite game like GUMSHOE or its derivatives, or for games like you suggest where that "proficiency" is easier to come by or accessible through alternative means (research, etc.), then the simpler less granular approach works; investigative games are typically less concerned with time and locale constraints than your average D&D site-based adventure. You can't well abandon the dungeon to go look up which colour dragon breathes poison gas, for example, just to solve the puzzle-lock to get the treasure...or rather, you could, but the consequences would (or should) be significant; a re-populated dungeon, wandering monsters/random encounters, the quest timing out and so forth.

Thats not how GUMSHOE works, you rarely research anything, unless of course it's like historical records, or like who owns the deeds. In that example you need to know what Dragon type breathes poison gas. In that case i'd tag the clue as a Nature or History clue. If none of my players have either skill, then yeah they'd have to go research that or roll an untrained check because that still exists. Nature would just give the information straight up, History I'd just make up some thing of like "as a child you remember your Nanny telling you stories of Brave Sir So-in-so who fought the Green Dragon that breathed gas."

But in basic d20 players can attempt to roll an untrained check vs a DC already set by the game, and you could ALSO still allow that. What GUMSHOE is saying, if somebody is proficient in the required skill, why have them roll. Rolling is an arbitrary construct designed to occasionally deny information. Instead design adventures that any bit of information the players can get, is useful and necessary.

Also I'd argue that while GUMSHOE is a lighter system than 5th Edition. D&D's complexity is in spells and combat, not in the skill system. Nights Black Agents has a lot more granularity in the skills than 5th does. If you have 8 points in an General skill you get a "cherry" which allows you to do something cool, like 8 points in drive allows you to boost any car you want without bothering to roll if you can hot wire it or break in. The skill list for Investigative skills is loads deeper, with such fun things as "Human Terrain," "B.S. Detector," "Cop Talk," "High Society," "Geology" and "Preparedness" which is loads of fun in that system.

[JellyPooga]

If none of my players have either skill, then yeah they'd have to go research that or roll an untrained check because that still exists.

Ah, I see. That's what I was missing. I assumed that this part of the skill system was being replaced wholesale; i.e. for the "investigative" skills, you couldn't roll to get the Clue if you weren't Proficient and that rolling skills were only those that involved some degree of risk (acrobatics, etc.).

[Griss The Gnome]

Ah, I see. That's what I was missing. I assumed that this part of the skill system was being replaced wholesale; i.e. for the "investigative" skills, you couldn't roll to get the Clue if you weren't Proficient and that rolling skills were only those that involved some degree of risk (acrobatics, etc.).

I've been thinking about posting a follow up where I show a example of how this works. I was just going to update the original article, but making it longer is probably a bad plan. Anyway I wanted to have that up on Thursday, but Tuesday I got sick and I'm just now felling better. I still might do it next week I got it sort of coming together in my head, but without being as timely I might not get to it. Plus I gotta put the final touches of my next article, and I had a last minute change to the RPG I wanted to review next month, so I gotta plow through reading a brand new RPG. So yeah, might not get to it.

On a weirder note, this article struck some sort of nerve. It got translated to a Russian and Hungarian RPG board, which is just fraking crazy.