Quote from: Ladybird;732748I do like the investigation to be a proper challenge, but one that I can fail, rather than my character failing for me.

You make good points, but again I think it's a GMing technique thing. In games with "find clue" rolls I use them when people are generically searching a place but aren't very specific about what they are doing, and when they're not going to have the time or opportunity to completely take an area apart. If the clue is written on the back of a picture frame and a player says "I look on the back of the picture frame" I give 'em the clue direct; likewise, if the PCs have the time to go every tiny inch of a scene undisturbed and undistracted, they eventually find the clue.

In CoC specifically I think this is the result of a common misapplication of Spot Hidden, both in GMing and adventure design. The way it's written in my copy of 6th edition is as follows:

   This skill allows the user to spot a secret door or compartment, notice a hidden intruder, find an inconspicuous clue, recognise a repainted automobile, become aware of ambushers, notice a bulging pocket, or anything similar. This is an important skill in the game

To my mind, all the examples given there are the sort of thing where it is possible for someone to look directly at it and not realise the significance of what they are seeing - even competent people. A hidden intruder who's competent at hiding should have a chance to conceal themselves against someone who's similarly competent at spotting people; inferring something important from the bulge of someone's pocket is a downright Holmesian level of deduction; secret doors and compartments are designed to be overlooked; an inconspicuous clue suggests a clue which doesn't look especially interesting or relevant at first glance.

A competent investigator should, I agree, be able to find conspicuous clues on a quick search, especially if the player is searching in the right place. Equally. I would say that it is entirely valid for a competent investigator to fail to note an inconspicuous clue because I think "inconspicuous" implies something obscure enough that even skilled people could miss it if they happen to be unlucky or distracted.

Quote from: Rincewind1;732757As I said, I use CoC mostly because I dislike how ToC (and Gumshoe in general) handles General Abilities and Stability Checks (I like the split between Sanity and Stability, but I really don't like the way how you must spend your own Stability to risk a chance of avoiding more Stability, which for me, just breaks the mood of a horror scene). There's more different stuff - the way how you can use Spends to introduce things to a scene if I remember correctly, and Drive mechanic is really kind of iffy (it's basically Fate Core aspect, and I dislike how those things can be used to "smash" a player into railroading), but in general, the games are quite similar.

I like the "gambling stability" concept, it lets a character lose it by degrees, by trying to hold themselves together for so long until they snap. Also, as the numbers are smaller than CoC, it's more immediate, each point is more valuable.

There's no "spends to add stuff to a scene" in Night's Black Agents, outside of stuff like Preparedness (aka "the magic pockets ability"), but you can use superspy prose to get a quick point refresh if you've got enough in a general ability.

Quote from: Ladybird;732748Entire post

I think it's the idea of the three clue rule to prevent the GM having to step in to give the players a clue. That's why there are three clues. They can't miss them all. Failing three rolls in a row can happen, but isn't likely.

Quote from: Rincewind1;732757Because if you remember about one of the advices/rules in CoC handbook - that routine physical and intellectual actions don't need to be tested, in fact, even more complicated stuff does not need a roll if there's no opposition to said test, or there's no danger/stress/need of great concentration, the "core" of the play remains the same.

That's pretty much how I run CoC... no stress means no roll. If you've got all day to search a room you're pretty much going to find everything in it.

Quote from: Warthur;732747I think it's important here to make a distinction between "clues" and "facts" here.

Facts = pieces of information which the players can interpret to solve the mystery.

Clues = objects, which divulge (or at the very least suggest) facts.

Facts are true and real regardless of whether the players discovered the specific clues you'd thought up pointing to those facts. They are also capable of being discovered in more ways than you probably thought of when preparing an adventure. (For instance, if the PCs manage to come up with a way you hadn't thought of to convince an otherwise-secretive NPC to talk, they could end up diverging a whole bunch of facts.)

I don't know if this what meant for me, but ...
Sometimes I use an NPC who has some info and I use a backup of that same info on a note in a drawer. So if my players don't get the info during interrogation, they get a second chance getting while breaking into his house. Is that multiple clues? Or just the same clue?

Quote from: Simlasa;732768That's pretty much how I run CoC... no stress means no roll. If you've got all day to search a room you're pretty much going to find everything in it.

If it's easy of course. You don't roll for getting into the car either.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;732770I don't know if this what meant for me, but ...
Sometimes I use an NPC who has some info and I use a backup of that same info on a note in a drawer. So if my players don't get the info during interrogation, they get a second chance getting while breaking into his house. Is that multiple clues? Or just the same clue?

It's multiple clues pointing to the same information.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;732771If it's easy of course. You don't roll for getting into the car either.

And even if you do have to roll, such as during a car chase, and fail... it doesn't mean you go screaming off a cliff (which has me laughing as it reminds me of that scene in The Blues Brothers where the car full of Illinois Nazis falls out of the sky).

The best Conspiracy game is Amber.

Quote from: Warthur;732774It's multiple clues pointing to the same information.

Ok, I see. I ran some mystery adventures before and now I know all this it makes sense why I didn't find it a lot of fun. I did some WoD SAS scenarios AND they are fairly linear (which leads to railroading), AND often have one clue (often an address the characters have to visit or the name of an NPC) aka a potential chokepoint AND they have a pretty hard to follow story arc. So all factors to make it a disaster are there.

My favorite setting has always been Dark Matter, and while I like Alternity, and it's the system I used to run Dark Matter, I've been thinking lately of using Covert Ops (now that it's out), and elements of BBF to run Dark Matter instead. If not that, then I'd definitely use D101's The Company and elements of OQ2 to run Dark Matter. GenreDiversion 3 with stuff drawn from Stormrift might be an option too... hmm. Naw, I'll still with the CO/BBF path for now. Good thread though. I also like Terror Network, especially the agency info.

As for the Gumshoe tangent, never played it, and won't be upset if I never do. I had very little trouble running or playing investigative games, and I've played and run Dark Matter, played CoC, and run Miami Nights (the GenreDiversion 80's police procedural game from PIG).

Quote from: Benoist;732568You have multiple ways to find the information in question. For instance, finding evidence of blackmail could result from discovering the letters at the deceased's apartment, talking to his ex-wife, checking his bank account, talking to his accountant and friend of many years. You could discover he was part of a cult not only by finding the carton in the attic of his mansion, but by talking to his relatives, finding records of an event where he acted as the cult's face in the local newspapers, talking to an ex-member of the cult who knew he was part of it, and so on.

Investigation choke points are not only bad scenario game design, but also in many (not all) cases failures at modeling the complexities of our ties and interactions in real life, especially when talking about modern life in games like CoC, Vampire and so on.

This is it exactly. I think Pete Spahn gives the best investigative game advice I've read in Miami Nights. I think he's said before it's ok if I share it, so in Miami Nights Pete wrote:

QuoteNo Dead Ends: Handling Investigations

Investigations are an essential component of any Miami Nights story, yet they can be tricky to manage. Investigations should contain more than enough clues to point the characters towards the story's Climax. In fact, there can never be too many clues. Gamemasters are encouraged to drop clues everywhere - why place three when you can place six, eight, or even ten? Try to be flexible with clues. After all, you want the characters to succeed.

Pete gives plenty more great advice and guidance in Miami Nights as well. It has worked for me.

Quote from: Ladybird;732748So yeah, that's why I like Gumshoe; if you have a character with the right skills, and you follow the right leads, you get the clue, and then you can move on to working out what to do with it. You don't fail because the character had a dose of stupid pills that morning, or even succeed because they had some smart pills, your performance is based on roleplaying, investigation, and thought.

I do this without Gumshoe. As you say, "... why bother asking them to roll the dice?", so I don't. I assume the characters are competent and so if they look in the right places they find the clues. No rolling needed unless it's a specific type of situation, such as the clue being in a secret room. Then they are rolling to find the secret room. To counter that, as I said in my previous post, I make sure there are plenty of clues so that the progress of the game doesn't rely on the characters finding the secret room. What finding the secret room clue might do is advance the characters more quickly along the path, or perhaps allow the characters to avoid a potentially hazardous avenue that they would be led down by other clues if they didn't find the secret room clue. I love investigative games.

Quote from: Sigmund;733244I do this without Gumshoe. As you say, "... why bother asking them to roll the dice?", so I don't. I assume the characters are competent and so if they look in the right places they find the clues. No rolling needed unless it's a specific type of situation, such as the clue being in a secret room. Then they are rolling to find the secret room. To counter that, as I said in my previous post, I make sure there are plenty of clues so that the progress of the game doesn't rely on the characters finding the secret room. What finding the secret room clue might do is advance the characters more quickly along the path, or perhaps allow the characters to avoid a potentially hazardous avenue that they would be led down by other clues if they didn't find the secret room clue. I love investigative games.

The problem there of course if it makes all your suspects stupid.
I have been writing and running murder mystery weekends for years and it always annoys me that the murder has to be a bit of a twat for the guests to get the right answer. Now this is fine generally as most murders are done heat of the moment by twats, but I know if I ever planned a real murder it would be executed far more like Dexter than Scooby Doo.

Running tabletop investigations the most interesting clues are the ones the players ask for that you never thought of. Like getting the victim's phone records for the last 12 months.

Also in a lot of games the PCs have resources that the perps are simply unaware of, a mystic power, a super computer, underworld contacts or whatever. I ran a bunch of investigation scenarios in my strontium dog game and the party used their Precog's mutation to view the bank robbery cctv footage before the crime was committed and get a full breakdown of the games MO. Or to get information about the next victim before they were killed. Now obviously that is a bit beyond even Patrick Jane or Sherlock Holmes but the interesting thing is how you as GM react to the NPC plans being exposed and the NPCs being surprised as most classic investigations involve the opposite situation where the perp is the omniscient one.

Quote from: jibbajibba;733264The problem there of course if it makes all your suspects stupid.
I have been writing and running murder mystery weekends for years and it always annoys me that the murder has to be a bit of a twat for the guests to get the right answer. Now this is fine generally as most murders are done heat of the moment by twats, but I know if I ever planned a real murder it would be executed far more like Dexter than Scooby Doo.

Running tabletop investigations the most interesting clues are the ones the players ask for that you never thought of. Like getting the victim's phone records for the last 12 months.

Also in a lot of games the PCs have resources that the perps are simply unaware of, a mystic power, a super computer, underworld contacts or whatever. I ran a bunch of investigation scenarios in my strontium dog game and the party used their Precog's mutation to view the bank robbery cctv footage before the crime was committed and get a full breakdown of the games MO. Or to get information about the next victim before they were killed. Now obviously that is a bit beyond even Patrick Jane or Sherlock Holmes but the interesting thing is how you as GM react to the NPC plans being exposed and the NPCs being surprised as most classic investigations involve the opposite situation where the perp is the omniscient one.

I don't agree. You might think it makes them "stupid" when you haven't played that way, but at the actual table it doesn't come across that way at all. If it's too much of a stretch for you, then by all means, play whatever you want. I'm saying I don't need the kind of mechanics Gumshoe has to run or play an investigative RPG and have fun with it. If that means the "suspects" are "stupid", then I'm 100% down with that, although it's not how I would describe it.