Trail of Cthulhu

[Kaiserjez]

I think the big question is really how easy is it to convert BRP to Gumshoe are the adventures?

Pretty easy to be honest, there's stuff for converting CoC to Toc in the back of the main book. That would be the biggest time consumer I reckon, statting up the npc's. Converting the actual adventures would be a piece of piss as all you've got to do is decide which investigative ability is relevent to get the clues in each scene.

[w00hoo]

all you've got to do is decide which investigative ability is relevent to get the clues in each scene.

Nope, that one phrase still sends shivers down my spine (in a bad way!) every time I come across it with regard to ToC.

[Avatar]

I think the big question is really how easy is it to convert BRP to Gumshoe are the adventures?

Pretty easy to be honest, there's stuff for converting CoC to Toc in the back of the main book. That would be the biggest time consumer I reckon, statting up the npc's. Converting the actual adventures would be a piece of piss as all you've got to do is decide which investigative ability is relevent to get the clues in each scene.

Apart from the fact that BRP Scenarios aren't broken down into fake scenes through which the Players are lead by the nose!

[Kaiserjez]

Apart from the fact that BRP Scenarios aren't broken down into fake scenes through which the Players are lead by the nose!

I don't really understand this arguement, whats the difference between having the skill needed and not needing to roll for it to get a clue and having the skill and needing to roll for it? You've already said that you wouldn't derail an adventure because a PC failed on a skill check, ToC takes out the need for GM fiat to keep a game on track.

ToC doesn't hinder any opportunities for roleplaying in a scene, in fact I would suggest the lack of stopping to roll some dice encourages it - and PC's can bring some of their social skills into scenes easily, I particualry remember running Esoterrorists at the Pompey club and having Mick Red do this very effectively.

Just because the players are automatically given all relevent information doesn't mean you're leading them by the nose, they still have to interpret what you give them and work out how it fits into the scenario as a whole. And remember that PC's can also spend points from their relevent pool to get more detail if they want to.

[w00hoo]

But, and correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, isn't the ToC mechanic basically a bit like playing 'Guess Who?' , you go to a scene, you try to work out which of your skill set would work with that scene. You 'spend' that bit of your skill set to get the clue and then go on to the next scene. OK, you've got all the roleplaying you fancy stuck in there too, but basically it's resource management because all of your skills are one use so you are trying to work out at what point 'spot hidden' might be more valuable to keep hold of than 'shoot pistol'.

[Kaiserjez]

But, and correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, isn't the ToC mechanic basically a bit like playing 'Guess Who?' , you go to a scene, you try to work out which of your skill set would work with that scene. You 'spend' that bit of your skill set to get the clue and then go on to the next scene. OK, you've got all the roleplaying you fancy stuck in there too, but basically it's resource management because all of your skills are one use so you are trying to work out at what point 'spot hidden' might be more valuable to keep hold of than 'shoot pistol'.

Nah, if you have the skill then you get the information automatically, you don't have to spend a point. Spending a point only comes in if you want to push for a little extra bit of info.

And general skills (basically things like athletics, shooting people etc) you can always roll for, spending a point from the pool gives a bonus to the roll. (General skils use a slightly different rule than the Investigative skills, with Investigative skills you always succeed, it's the level of success that relies on point spending, general skills there's always a chance of failure so you need to roll for them.)

Also skills aren't one use, if you've got the Art History skill at 4 that means you have a pool of 4 - ie, 4 uses of the skill to gain extra info.

[Baz King]

Apart from the fact that BRP Scenarios aren't broken down into fake scenes through which the Players are lead by the nose!

Fake scenes? What?

Lead by the nose? What?

Seriously. I don't understand you.

[DigitalMage]

Nah, if you have the skill then you get the information automatically, you don't have to spend a point. Spending a point only comes in if you want to push for a little extra bit of info.

So if scenarios were written in BRP so that the PCs automatically get the basic information and only need to make skill checks to "push for a little extra bit of info" would the GumShoe system "lose" one of its main selling points?

An adventure should never be written so that it would stall if a skill roll is failed - if the PCs are required to find a clue in order to progress the plot, then that should not require a test. Tests should be used to give a bit more information that will enable the PCs to overcome subsequent challenges more easily, be it a spot check to notice an ambush before it is sprung, a library use roll that uncovers information that circumvents the need to deal with a surly policeman or whatever.

I haven't looked at the GumShoe system, but it seems to have been designed around what I consider a fallacy - that in CoC a failed Spot Hidden or other roll will stall the game. If that is the case then that particular scenario was poorly constructed, it isn't a failure of the system. I imagine a scenario in ToC could also be written in such a way as to stall - for example a vital clue requiring a PC to have a specific investigative skill in order to get the basic info (and the PCs not having that skill).

I am not knocking ToC / GumShoe, it may be a great game and system in and of itself (as I said I haven't read it) but its biggest selling point seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

[w00hoo]

Also skills aren't one use, if you've got the Art History skill at 4 that means you have a pool of 4 - ie, 4 uses of the skill to gain extra info.

This may be the bit of it that I didn't understand when I played it.

Does that mean that you can always use 'Art History' to try and get a clue, but you can only use it 'intensively' four times (or once really really intensively) or that you can use it four times full stop?

My understanding when the rules were explained at the Con was that if I had 'Art History' as a skill I could use it once in one scene and if the clue could be found that way then I'd get the clue but wouldn't be able to use 'Art History' again in the adventure. My big issue with that was that it meant as you went through the adventure it was almost like your character forgot how to do more and more things because they'd already been used.

[w00hoo]

I am not knocking ToC / GumShoe, it may be a great game and system in and of itself (as I said I haven't read it) but its biggest selling point seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

I'm with you on that one.

The big example I've always seen quoted is;

'you're chasing a suspect down and alley and he climbs over the fence successfully and continues to run, you fail your climb roll and he escapes. The scenario is now at a dead end because you failed that roll.'

and I immediately think 'what scenario is so pivotal on one roll that failing it will screw it all up?'

I often feel, and ToC seems to be an excellent example of this, that a lot of systems are written to force inexperienced GM's to play better rather than to give experienced GM's something to work with. Probably because the assumption is that an experienced GM will just fix the problem in play and get on with dishing out teh awesome.

[DigitalMage]

'you're chasing a suspect down and alley and he climbs over the fence successfully and continues to run, you fail your climb roll and he escapes. The scenario is now at a dead end because you failed that roll.'

and I immediately think 'what scenario is so pivotal on one roll that failing it will screw it all up?'

Yeah, my latest D&D3.5 Eberron adventure (Pursuit into Darkness) is for the first half an investigative scenario where the PCs try to discover where a traitor has gone and what his intentions may have been. Right up front the PCs are told which way he went, so that if they fail all the other investigation they can simply head off in that direction and eventually catch up to him.

The investigation bit however gives some clues as to..
...where the traitor is eventually headed, and thus allow the PCs to go a different route and catch up to him sooner, meaning he and his allies are less prepared in the final battle (lower Encounter Level), and they avoid a whole other encounter which could have cost them blood, money or both (i.e. they go from A directly to C, missing out B).
...how best to defeat the traitor and his allies in that final battle.

Failed Search, Diplomacy and Spot checks in the investigation do not derail the plot, they just mean the PCs faces more challenges and more difficult challenges.

[Kaiserjez]

Does that mean that you can always use 'Art History' to try and get a clue, but you can only use it 'intensively' four times (or once really really intensively) or that you can use it four times full stop?

If you have the skill then you can always use it even if you've spent all of your points. You can spend points freely up to your skill level - so yes, 4 points in the skill means you can use it "intensively" four times.
I can't recall off hand at the minute if there is a mechanic where spending more than 1 point in a scene gives you more information, I'll check when I get home (it's been a while since I ran or played in a Gumshoe game).

[Lawbag]

I suppose what I meant was does the "flow" of a ToC adventure differ from a CoC one because of the change in system?

[pedr]

Also skills aren't one use, if you've got the Art History skill at 4 that means you have a pool of 4 - ie, 4 uses of the skill to gain extra info.

This may be the bit of it that I didn't understand when I played it.

Does that mean that you can always use 'Art History' to try and get a clue, but you can only use it 'intensively' four times (or once really really intensively) or that you can use it four times full stop?

My understanding when the rules were explained at the Con was that if I had 'Art History' as a skill I could use it once in one scene and if the clue could be found that way then I'd get the clue but wouldn't be able to use 'Art History' again in the adventure. My big issue with that was that it meant as you went through the adventure it was almost like your character forgot how to do more and more things because they'd already been used.

You essentially have a 'maximum' and 'current' score for each investigative ability (like hit points!).

If your maximum score is 1 or higher, you are very, very, very good at that thing. An 'Assess Honesty' rating of 1 or higher means that it's difficult to pull the wool over your eyes.

If there is a point in the adventure where someone is trying to block your investigation and/or make things significantly harder for you by lying to you, they'll fail, because you are very good at telling when people are lying.

If there is a point in the adventure where someone is concealing something slightly less important, but which would nevertheless be helpful for your investigation, you can spend that point of Assess Honesty, and reveal this person's lie as well. Even after you do this (so your 'current' Assess Honesty is 0, the previous paragraph still applies: your investigation will not be severely hindered by someone lying if you're around to figure out the lie. All you are prevented from doing now is getting additional, less 'useful' or 'important' clues - you will still obtain all of the necessary ones.

Essentially it's a gamist system, not an attempt at any kind of simulation. You are free to narrate the way in which these results happen 'in game' however you like.

To the wider point: I don't think it's necessarily that 'all BRP Cthulhu could get derailed by bad rolls'. The design idea is that the Investigators are exactly that - good investigators, and that the fun part of an investigation game is figuring out what on earth all the information means, and roleplaying the acquisition of that information, so the system ought to make the mechanics of gathering information as easy and seamless as possible - and give players a chance to choose what kind of less essential but still interesting information they particularly want to focus on collecting. So as long as someone is around who is skilled in doing something, you'll get the core clue because that makes it more fun to then give you the information to discuss and think about. If you build someone who really likes reading old books, then from time to time you'll find opportunities to get additional useful information through using libraries.

Having said all that, I've played the game once and found that it perhaps suffers from the fact that most Investigators are, at least at first, likely to disbelieve the evidence they collect. I found myself having a very plausible (if slightly incorrect) theory, but realising that my character wouldn't be at all likely to come up with it - and I think this made the investigation a little frustrating (though perhaps it actually made it more 'realistic'/'genre appropriate'.)

[Kaiserjez]

Failed Search, Diplomacy and Spot checks in the investigation do not derail the plot, they just mean the PCs faces more challenges and more difficult challenges.

Yeah but then you're an experienced GM Grant and know how to write a scenario and run a game well.
ToC is set up to allow inexperienced people to run games easily, whilst also having a quick, easy system that the more experienced amongst us can get a really good game out of too.
Just because I like ToC doesn't mean I will stop playing in CoC games - indeed I still enjoy CoC, I won't be running any though as I prefer Trail.
At the end of the day I'm sure we've all played in badly run games where a GM sticks to rules as written and sucks all the fun out of the game, ToC goes a long way to ensuring this doesn't happen.
Would a CoC die hard enjoy a game of ToC? I reckon he/she would, the same might not always be said for the reverse though. (IMO of course )