Quote from: Malleus ArianorumBut anyway, if you think this is about never-ever-finding the one vital clue, you've misunderstood me. The reason spot checks broke CoC for me is because I want horror games to go rattling along the tracks at full steam and I want the monsters to be described in high Lovecraftian prose.

Then you shouldn't be playing CoC - if the monsters show up in that long enough to get a description you've already lost.

(Also, I'd hardly say that Lovecraft's stories went "rattling along the tracks at full steam", and this is the first time I've seen "Lovecraftian prose" used in a positive manner. )

I never ran into a problem with the PCs in CoC not finding clues.  Or any other game for that matter.

I always run into the problems of players who either:

A) Can't recognize a clue without me point-blank pointing out it is a clue,

B) Never tell the rest of the party about the clue, so the connections between clues are missed,

OR

C) Can't draw the right conclusions from clues to save their lives.

None of the editions - BRP, D20, Gumshoe - are going to fix that problem.  If your players aren't very good at mysteries, it just doesn't work that way.

Though I have to say, I've had the most fun if you get the right group of terrible mystery solvers - it becomes a "bumbling investigator" horror/comedy game.

Quote from: Warthur(Also, I'd hardly say that Lovecraft's stories went "rattling along the tracks at full steam", and this is the first time I've seen "Lovecraftian prose" used in a positive manner. )

Difference of opinion then. His works give me the feeling of vertigo and sensory overload. I think because he alternates between surreal details and blackouts... ...(thinks a bit)... ...which is exactly the experience in CoC provides through spot checks! The investigators alternate between total obliviousness and getting slapped with a hefty info-packet.

Hmm, next time, I'll try playing failed spot checks as sensory overload. "I opened the drawer, but that which I took for a key assumed a shape of grave and abhorrent significance which I dare not describe in any further detail, save that it was the YELLOW SIGN which is associated with the mad Arab Balbinus. No force could ever compel me to look again upon that impossible twisting mockery of all science, religion and geometry! So we got some explosives, went downstairs and opened a hole in the wall. Or rather, a "dark aperture" into the "cyclopean monolith."

As so often, my experience matches up with jgants's.

Spycraft: The D20 rules. Any RPG where you can survive gun-combat for more than two rounds doesn't deserve to call itself an espionage game (maybe in the James Bond sense, but the system doesn't handle heroics too well either).

Quote from: Illegible SmudgeThe grappling rules in nWoD. Of particular irritation when playing Werewolf. Actually, I've yet to see grapple rules in any game that don't suck.

I agree, WoD rules are crap for that, and so are most systems... without sounding like a fanboy for Palladium, Theirs often works out the best

aside from having to make conversions on the fly... they work pretty good, although it takes like 20 minutes to do a 3 min fight

having to upgrade my books because the systems changed, after years of memoorizing Thac0 charts...

version 2.5 ofo D&D 2nd Ed. did it for me... i wont touch anything D&D anymore, that includes anything that say D20 system

Hmmm probably the experience of playing a D&D 3ed Diablo mini campaign. The DM moved his Diablo character around on the computer screen to show where we were in the Dungeon. Wasn't the rules so much as how a lot of dungeon hacks get played, made me die a little inside

Silhouette Core - "Complexity" rating for skills.  Interesting in theory (2 dimensional skill value) but unusable in practice.

d20 Modern - base character classes.   So it's not exactly a rule, but... the base classes are horribly under powered.  You don't get to do anything interesting in that game until about level 4.

Savage Worlds - damage to Wild Cards (PCs, named opponents, etc...).

• If your target is not already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than your Target's Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, the target is "Shaken" (think: stunned, or dazed).
  
• If your target is not already "Shaken" (as above) and you do damage greater or equal to the target's Vitality+4, you cause 1 wound for each "Raise" (which is each increment of 4, greater than the target number) and your target is shaken.
  
• If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than their Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound. 2 shaken = 1 wound.
• HOWEVER! If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than or equal to their Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound BUT they are still just shaken.  In this case: 2 shaken <> 1 wound.
  

The lack of symmetry gives me fits.  It hurts to think about, even if it does indeed work (and well) in practice.

Quote from: architect.zeroSilhouette Core - "Complexity" rating for skills.  Interesting in theory (2 dimensional skill value) but unusable in practice.

d20 Modern - base character classes.   So it's not exactly a rule, but... the base classes are horribly under powered.  You don't get to do anything interesting in that game until about level 4.

Savage Worlds - damage to Wild Cards (PCs, named opponents, etc...).

• If your target is not already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than your Target's Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, the target is "Shaken" (think: stunned, or dazed).
  
• If your target is not already "Shaken" (as above) and you do damage greater or equal to the target's Vitality+4, you cause 1 wound for each "Raise" (which is each increment of 4, greater than the target number) and your target is shaken.
  
• If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than their Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound. 2 shaken = 1 wound.
• HOWEVER! If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than or equal to their Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound BUT they are still just shaken.  In this case: 2 shaken <> 1 wound.
  

The lack of symmetry gives me fits.  It hurts to think about, even if it does indeed work (and well) in practice.

I share your headache I hope that comes with an example. It reminds me of my own sometimes convoluted way of explaining things. One can learn though.

Quote from: architect.zeroSilhouette Core - "Complexity" rating for skills.  Interesting in theory (2 dimensional skill value) but unusable in practice.

We've used it quite a bit, and it worked out fine.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWarthur,

You've got a fair point. Those problems only occur with low spot/listen/library characters which is why my fix is to make sure that everyone has a maxed out spot, listen and library use.

The Computer Use fiasco wasn't hyperbole. I had 20% in Comp Use. (It was a beginning character, he was not a tech specialist and most of his points were tied up in spot, listen and library use. ) Nor is failing twelve such Comp Use rolls a freak occurrence, those odds are only (100%-20%)^12 or roughly 7%.

The missing-key fiasco wasn't hyperbole either. It was a series of very unlucky rolls (one in six thousand IIRC) but it was nothing otherworldly.

But anyway, if you think this is about never-ever-finding the one vital clue, you've misunderstood me. The reason spot checks broke CoC for me is because I want horror games to go rattling along the tracks at full steam and I want the monsters to be described in high Lovecraftian prose.

The biggest problem along these lines I've run into with poor GMs and poor players is the break between description of investigation and rolls for investigation.

Frex:  As a player in a Warhammer Fantasy game, I surveyed the ruins of the room the fight took place in, turned to the GM and said, "I walk through the room examining the rubble paying particular attention to the desk that got broken, taking each drawer out and looking under it and where it was."  The GM said, "roll your search."  I flubbed the roll, we missed the clue, and after the session the GM commented that half our trouble was missing the hidden compartment under one of the drawers in the desk.  That incensed me a bit as we'd specifically discussed examining for that.  But the roll dictated to him I missed it.

In similar situations, as a GM I've erred on the side of descriptions of investigation netting appropriate results with the option there that the players can just say, "we search," bounce the dice and take what happens.

As always, YMMV and I always play a heavy investgative way.  Too much Hammett growing up.