Quote from: Simlasa;808199My main issue with Gumshoe (specifically ToC) is that it claimed to 'fix' things that weren't broken in the first place by adding extra mechanics.
Most games let you ask questions and get answers... use Skills/Backgrounds or whatever to suggest why you should have the more difficult to find answers. No rolling for the obvious stuff. I don't see any huge revelation.

It's the reason why I ultimately like the Gumshoe advice, but prefer % systems - it's easier for me to bolt the ideas onto a mechanic I like and am comfortable in, rather than deal with poor General Skills mechanic.

I guess the "revelation" I had is simply the elegance of the solution, at least I found it as such. That and I do like the Investigative Abilities Spend Mechanics (Mythos Points might be metagaming, but I did like the application of the skill as a Sanity - paid joker).

Quote from: CRKrueger;808201That's because you like Roleplaying.

I thought roleplaying got in the way of maximising the XP from the dungeon, or adventure gaming.

Quote from: Rincewind1;808202That and I do like the Investigative Abilities Spend Mechanics (Mythos Points might be metagaming, but I did like the application of the skill as a Sanity - paid joker).

Yeah, mechanically that's the bit I particularly DON'T like. But matters of taste and whatnot...

Quote from: jan paparazzi;808177I am still a bit in doubt wether or not I like an automatic clue find mechanic like Streets of Bedlam or Gumshoe has. I guess I have to try it to find out.

If it's not automatic, NOT finding a clue should NOT be a doorstopper. That's all.

Another way to go about it is to have the players roll for searching a room, but interpret the result in terms of how well they conduct their search, not if they find a clue or not. If they mess up, they still find the clue, but there will be unpleasant consequences to their bad rolling.

You can use different approaches for different (types of) clues in the same scenario.

Quote from: 3rik;808210Another way to go about it is to have the players roll for searching a room, but interpret the result in terms of how well they conduct their search, not if they find a clue or not.

It's simple enough to tie the results of a roll to how long it takes them to find the whatsit... then see if they're confident enough there's something to find to make it worth spending that long searching.
Then again, if there was nothing to find in the first place... it's all up to them how long they keep looking before they give up. I wouldn't have a great roll make a clue appear where there was none.

Quote from: Simlasa;808215It's simple enough to tie the results of a roll to how long it takes them to find the whatsit... then see if they're confident enough there's something to find to make it worth spending that long searching.
Then again, if there was nothing to find in the first place... it's all up to them how long they keep looking before they give up. I wouldn't have a great roll make a clue appear where there was none.

Erm yeah, I forgot to add that I was assuming there's actually a clue to be found. I'm not in the habit of moving clues around according to where the PCs are looking, though for some that may also be a valid option.

If they're looking in the wrong place and conduct a failed search, they won't find a clue and there will be unpleasant consequences to their failed roll.

Quote from: 3rik;808246If they're looking in the wrong place and conduct a failed search, they won't find a clue and there will be unpleasant consequences to their failed roll.

What sort of unpleasant consequences? And why are unpleasant consequences a consequence of a failed search in the wrong place? That seems like a non sequitur.

Quote from: 3rik;808210If it's not automatic, NOT finding a clue should NOT be a doorstopper. That's all.

Another way to go about it is to have the players roll for searching a room, but interpret the result in terms of how well they conduct their search, not if they find a clue or not. If they mess up, they still find the clue, but there will be unpleasant consequences to their bad rolling.

You can use different approaches for different (types of) clues in the same scenario.

So not a Gumshoe fan?

I'm going to be different and say InSpectres.

InSpectres avoids the problems with railroading vs. the game coming to a screeching halt for lack of finding a clue by simply not defining the solution to the mystery at all. The GM sets up the mystery, the players investigate.. and the rolls determine if what they think is happening is really happening. Everyone can wind up surprised.

It's intended for humorous supernatural investigation, like Ghostbusters, but the attitude of the players and GM will determine whether the mystery is ridiculious, mildly funny, or completely serious. To make it feel less like improv comedy, the GM can do more prep: define a couple suspects beforehand, clues that point to them specifically, and clues that *could* point to any of them. Investigations reveal which of the suspects is responsible, or whether it is more complicated (two responsible parties, one partially responsible, and other variations.)

Quote from: talysman;808312It's intended for humorous supernatural investigation, like Ghostbusters, but the attitude of the players and GM will determine whether the mystery is ridiculious, mildly funny, or completely serious. To make it feel less like improv comedy, the GM can do more prep: define a couple suspects beforehand, clues that point to them specifically, and clues that *could* point to any of them. Investigations reveal which of the suspects is responsible, or whether it is more complicated (two responsible parties, one partially responsible, and other variations.)

That sounds like fun, but it doesn't sound like "uncovering a mystery", more "making up something mysterious".

Quote from: Ladybird;808313That sounds like fun, but it doesn't sound like "uncovering a mystery", more "making up something mysterious".

I figured it was like a GM tossing something mysterious out to a group of imaginative and talkative players and then picking one or more of their ideas about what is really going on. While it can be fun, I agree that for me, the mystery has to already have a solution for me to be able to uncover the solution.

Quote from: Ladybird;808313That sounds like fun, but it doesn't sound like "uncovering a mystery", more "making up something mysterious".

It's both. There's a starting point (people going missing at night when walking through Scary Woods, for example) and players have the opportunity to make up details along the way, or be contradicted along the way. But there's a definite point at which the mystery is solved. You have to earn "dice" during the investigation. If you think you've solved the mystery, but you haven't reached the dice goal yet, it isn't solved, and you may encounter details that contradict your solution.

And, as I said, you *could* predefine a number of possible answers beforehand, with the rolls determining whether they are actually true or not. When you reach your dice goal, any fact that hasn't been eliminated is true.

Quote from: Bren;808321I figured it was like a GM tossing something mysterious out to a group of imaginative and talkative players and then picking one or more of their ideas about what is really going on. While it can be fun, I agree that for me, the mystery has to already have a solution for me to be able to uncover the solution.

I've got the Atomic Robo RPG (Hicks may hate me due to my being filthy euroscum, but fuck it, it's Robo), and there's a "brainstorming" mechanic in there (Characters discuss stuff and roll relevant skills, high roll gets to invent a fact that "fits" the current evidence).

Again, sounds fun, and fits the theme well (AR not really being an investigative game), but you're not really "uncovering" something.

Quote from: Bren;808253What sort of unpleasant consequences? And why are unpleasant consequences a consequence of a failed search in the wrong place? That seems like a non sequitur.

You can search any place, regardless of the presence of clues, and during such a search things can go wrong: you break stuff, leave trails, get caught, accidentally set the place on fire, etc. The players decide to search a place, that search can go wrong.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;808308So not a Gumshoe fan?

I have no need for it and dislike the investigation points pools or whatever they're called.

Quote from: 3rik;808337You can search any place, regardless of the presence of clues, and during such a search things can go wrong: you break stuff, leave trails, get caught, accidentally set the place on fire, etc. The players decide to search a place, that search can go wrong.

All those consquences can apply even if you are searching the right place and even if you make your search roll.

And a failed search or a search in the wrong place can just result in wasting some time when time is not even in particularly short supply.

I read what you were saying as the bad things were a consequence of  searching in the wrong location and/or failing the search roll. Did I misread you?