If any of you are familiar with how the Gumeshoe system (Nights Black Agents, Essoterrorists) works, would any of its tools fit well with the gritty investigation theme of Dark Heresy?

From what I understand, Gumshoe separates out normal and investigative skills. When you use an investigative skill, you never roll, and instead always find a clue or information. The reason to increase the skills is that higher numbers allow a player to get more pieces of information at once. That's the basic idea, yes?

I wouldn't mind something like that in DH. I've actually been thinking of a good way to run investigation and punch up the current clues and leads system. I think that you could easily adapt it as such:

When players use investigation to look for a clue, they will ALWAYS find it.

For 1 degree of success, a player will find 1 clue or lead

For 2+ DoS a player will find an additional helpful clue or lead

For 1 Degrees of Failure the player finds 2 clues or leads, but only one is relevant

For 2+ DoF, the player finds additional false leads or clues.

I think this would be a pretty simple way to run it and use the heart of Gumshoe (always find a clue, always move forward) but also enter the interesting idea of false leads and clues.

Mechanically they'd fit like the Eiffel Tower in your pocket. They're fundamentally different breeds of games in terms of mechanics. NBA doesn't have stuff like ability scores (or characteristics if you prefer), just to give an example.

Thematically, though? Absolutely. If I was going to play a Dark Heresy style 40K game with a bunch of my clones, I'm near certain I'd use NBA. Pretty much the only stuff the Gumshoe system does (and does really well), is the stuff that the 40K systems abjectly fail at: investigation, intrigue, spy stuff..

But as mentioned, that stuff is really the only stuff Gumshoe handles. The gunporn, skirmish combat & relatively high degree of simulation, all that stuff is stuff Gumshoe abjectly fails at.

I warmly recommend NBA, though. Just reading through the thing made me much better at running agent-centric campaigns. And though combining bits of each isn't easily doable, I have to say I am huuugely disappointed the DH2e dev team didn't steal like mad from the Gumshoe games. I very much expected them to lift lots of ideas from it. But then.. I expected a lot of other things too that I evidently shouldn't have.

I've heard good things about Gumshoe. As I recall, the DM advice section in the DH2 rulebook does include bits to the effect of "always make sure the players find a clue". As Simsum says, mechanically it might not work, but the approach to investigation codified in Gumshoe works very well for any game involving investigations.

Nimsim's thoughts I think aren't foreign to the current rule set. I think that the Logic skill (or something like it) suggest that the GM give you information if it's something your character would know. I might give it a shot!

EDIT: That whole post was way too long and involved for anyone to read. I'm going to take a second stab at it. Coming here shortly.

Okay, second attempt at this post! I'll keep it under eleven paragraphs this time.

I despise the Gumshoe investigation mechanics. In the decades of running RPGs, I think it might be the single mechanic I can pick out as the one I hate the most. And I'm pretty easy going with rules most of the time. I'll explain. There are a number of things I dislike strongly about the Gumshoe system (which I first encountered with Trail of Cthulhu which uses it). I dislike the way everything is a pool of points that you use up throughout the adventure so that someone could, e.g. spend all their Occult points and then suddenly not really have any Occult knowledge left. I dislike the way the Pool approach allows players to essentially buy success at any point in the first parts of the adventure, whilst simultaneously trying to resource manage enough left for the end, essentially binding a GM into structuring every adventure as low-danger, low-danger, low-danger, big climax. Of course that is how most adventures work, but I like to run an open system with a realistic feel and often that means a real feel of danger throughout the adventure. If the PCs mess up and blunder into a bad situation, I want the consequence of that to be "oh no! danger!" not "oh no! we might not have enough points left for the final encounter".

But these are side issues to the investigation mechanic which is what I truly loathe.

The Gumshoe investigation mechanic takes investigation out of the players' hands and puts it in the characters'. Here's an example of how I might run a game. The PCs are investigating a murder that was done last night in some dark storm. The players are questioning Dr. I M Guilty who says he was at home all night. In my normal approach, the players will have a think and then say: "I check if his coat is wet". I'll probably have mentioned a coat in amongst other background details when I described the room, though this isn't critical. The player gives the coat a little feel and says: "ah ha! he is lying!" If the players are struggling, I might give them a roll to see if they notice anything or have an idea, using whatever skill the game system provides for that, though it's a last resort. I always make sure to give the players everything they need for at least one way to work things out and if they think up another way to do it, that's fine by me too.

Now in Gumshoe, the players spend an investigation point and I say: "his greatcoat is wet". Zero thought. Maybe they spend multiple points and I tell them: "there's a knife with a chip in the blade in the kitchen draw". I despise this approach. Of course, sometimes players will not spend points and so would miss a vital clue (remember that in Gumshoe, the GM plans out in advance what clues are vital). So the system has a way of dealing with this - they're called "Necessary Clues". And you just give them this straight-up. They walk into the hall and you say: "a coat hangs on the wall, dripping slowly into a little puddle of water on the floor" or whatever.

So not only are you removing agency from the players, but the GM has to determine the path of the adventure in advance. You can muck around with it and make a flow-chart of clues if you want, but basically, the players are following your expected sequence of investigation because you are the one deciding what clues are significant and proactively foisting them on the players to send them in the right direction.

A clue is a clue because you recognize it's significance, not because you find it. Otherwise all detective stories would be walking around until you slipped on a photo of the murder. Whereas actually, the great detection stories have the clues in plain sight all along.

For GMs like me who don't like to have a "right direction" but like to give the players the ability to work out their own approach, this is anathema.

I hate it more than any other game mechanic I know. Because I don't mind when there's a wonky game mechanic that makes someone able to carry more than they should or a housecat kill a first level wizard or whatever. These I can work around and they're issues within the "playing" level of the game. But this is a mechanic that tells me as a GM how I should tell me story and structure an adventure. And that I can't forgive.

Knasserll

The "pool of points" sounds really bad. Based on your description, it short-circuts any natural progression of adventures. Personally, as a GM, I like to put in as much interesting action early in the adventure so people aren't bored out of their minds!

"I might give them a roll to see if they notice anything or have an idea ..."

I've forgotten that. I'm pretty sure that the Logic skill hints at using something like that.

Okay, so the solution sounds like as a GM to make sure players are gaining enough clues to keep the adventure moving forward. One way to do this, if people are utterly stuck, is to use the standard "make an XX tool."

I actually had a discussion of this on another forum for a while. A few people got really antsy and aggressive telling me I didn't understand it and then one of the authors came in and started making patronizing comments about how I'd succumbed to "popular misconceptions" and then proceeded to supply refutations to all the things I hadn't actually said. He was pretty patronizing. The thing that kept coming up was that people repeatedly stated how it was better than rolling a dice to see if you notice a vital clue, which can just bring the game to a halt if the roll is failed. Apparently according to some, that's a significant fault of the Call of Cthulhu / Basic Role-Playing system that Gumshoe is an answer to. But that's madness to me - who games like that? It's designed to fix a problem I've never had. Basically, Gumshoe is inextricably tied to a GM deciding on set "Clues" (capital 'C'). Whereas I only partly use such things. Someone described my approach to a game as a "20 questions approach" and the Gumshoe approach being a "Clue dungeon".

But yeah, the pool of points is really bad for how I want to game. The intent is that the game should simulate a horror or detective story . So players bump their way along a series of near scrapes and they can decide how near those scrapes are until they reach near the end, and they're trying to keep back pool points for the grande finalé. But it just doesn't work for me. I cannot threaten the players until such point as they are running low on pool. I mean I can, but to do so I must insert a challenge so great that their current pool is not enough, which means they then have no pool left for later on. And as I wrote, everyone diminishes to the point of equality. A character who has put lots of points into Atheletics will have done more athletic things in the adventure as a whole, but by the end of the adventure, they may have no more pool left in it than the book worm. Who in turn may have no more points in Occult than anyone else. Everyone sinks to the same level and becomes functionally indistinguishable. Well, except if they still have enough pool left to be different from each other which brings us full circle to my inability to credibly present threat in the story except at the end. Gumshoe / Trail of Cthulhu does what it sets out to do perfectly. And I loathe what it sets out to do - create a simulation of a detective story with Clues that a GM decides upon, rather than players using their own brains to come up with ways of making a fact significant or not.

My game works like this:

Player: I check his coat to see if it's wet.

Me: Why do you care about that?

Player: Because if it's wet then he was out in the storm last night.

Me: Ooh. Clever. Yes, it is indeed suspiciously damp.

Gumshoe system:

Player: I spend a point.

Me: You notice that there's a small pool of water under his coat where it is dripping.

Player: Hmmm. Why would that be significant? *thinks for a while*. Oh - you said there was a storm last night, so he must have been out in it.

And then in the Gumshoe system, the revelation should lead them onto the next scene where they can spend points for another clue. It's still a game of sorts - if the player doesn't work out from the wet coat that he was out in the storm, they might spend another point (or more) for extra clues... and then they might use them all up and have nothing but the GM-determined "Necessary Clues" to go on. But it's a very poor substitute for actual detective work, imo, and it stops me as a GM from having the fun of watching the players come up with their own approaches. The moment they buy a clue and I tell them "you detect the scent of a very exotic tobacco in the air", I've decided that the next step in solving the mystery is they go to the specialist tobacco seller they saw earlier and ask who buys it (where I think up the next clue). A.k.a. Clue Dungeon.

Gumshoe is a railroad. The game element in Gumshoe is whether or not you make it to the end of the rail road. But it's still a rail road. The book's suggestion for avoiding this is to create multiple paths through the adventure - like a flow-chart.

That to me is still horrible. I set up the characters, I set up what's happened and maybe some deadlines if appropriate and I do a final mental check to be sure that I can think of at least one way they might solve the adventure. Then we're good to go. I have no desire to run a Scooby Doo episode as my form of storytelling. But that's what Gumshoe necessitates. Indeed, is designed to do .

Oh, I could rant for hours about how much I loathe it...

(EDIT: Just to clarify, I do think up some "Clues" for my games. But they're a recourse to help me move things along if the players are really stuck or if I need to get them going at the start. The point is, I use them as a necessary fall back when appropriate. Gumshoe puts them up front as the way to do things)

I've never played Gumshoe but I doubt I would loathe it, but other than that, what you've posted is more or less my approach to investigations. I think the biggest problem I would have running Gumshoe is that it seems like you have to have the whole plot mapped out in advance. My much lazier approach is to map out only what I foresee the player's reasonably getting into that session, then in between sessions tying the strings together into what looks like a masterful plot.

My first homebrew DH campaign started with the nebulous task of hunting down and stopping a terrorist and ended with a complex political web between the Arbites, Mechanicus, criminal underclass, and hive nobility, and the terrorist turned out to be the players' own inquisitor, testing them. Almost all of it was fed to me by the players trying to suss out clues where none originally existed.

I've never played Gumshoe but I doubt I would loathe it, but other than that, what you've posted is more or less my approach to investigations. I think the biggest problem I would have running Gumshoe is that it seems like you have to have the whole plot mapped out in advance. My much lazier approach is to map out only what I foresee the player's reasonably getting into that session, then in between sessions tying the strings together into what looks like a masterful plot.

My first homebrew DH campaign started with the nebulous task of hunting down and stopping a terrorist and ended with a complex political web between the Arbites, Mechanicus, criminal underclass, and hive nobility, and the terrorist turned out to be the players' own inquisitor, testing them. Almost all of it was fed to me by the players trying to suss out clues where none originally existed.

Well... You can run an improvisational game with Gumshoe, but it's not well suited to it and rather than a normal improvisational game where you're quite reactive to the players (which gives you space and fuel to think and create with), you're having to be very proactive on the fly.

I actually did a really extreme version of the Lazy GM approach (which is really anything but) in that I made up the entire adventure on the fly in-session. Immensely stressful and not as good as when I'm prepped. I don't think I could have done this with Gumshoe very easily.

It sounds like there's a fair amount of overlap between our approaches in that we like to get a feel for the characters and events and work out the plot structure later or as we go along.

The thing with Gumshoe is whether you build the whole railroad at the start, or you're frantically laying tracks in front of the train as it speeds along, it's still fundamentally rail-roady in that the system requires the GM to be creating clues to advance players to the next clue.

Has anyone else given Gumshoe a shot? I might try looking at the Ashen Stars PDF to see how it compares to DH (there is also a complete conversion for gumshoe dark heresy floating around the net) and see how it looks. I can tell knasserl's play style is failed by the system, but what have other people's experiences been? I'd really like to see the investigation in DH codified a bit better. I was actually brainstorming an idea like this for it:

First, write up some questions of your investigation. Encounters are divided into social, combat, and exploration. Create a number of boxes for each category equal to the number of times you'd like to see those encounters in your investigation, then add one or two more boxes to each category. Make the total number of boxes divisible by the number of investigation questions. Each of those boxes represents a Clue. Players will go through an encounter and then once its over you write the clue they found in the box. Either tell or let the players figure out a lead or two. Have them draw a line for each lead to another box. Run that encounter and repeat the process. What if you want the players to have a social encounter and they draw a line to a combat encounter? Remember those extra boxes you added? Count those as surprises that suddenly lead the players to a different box, allowing you to surprise the players with twists and turns in expected encounters. Whenever players have gotten a number of clues equal to the number of boxes divided by number of investigation questions, make sure that the clues or leads they get will lead them to answering one of the questions now or at the end of the next encounter.

Using that system allows you to plan ahead and place all of the clues how you want. It also allows you to improvise and just follow the players' lead on clues. It also lets players end up with a cool little investigation map and helps keep their minds on the investigation at hand.

Has anyone else given Gumshoe a shot? I might try looking at the Ashen Stars PDF to see how it compares to DH (there is also a complete conversion for gumshoe dark heresy floating around the net) and see how it looks. I can tell knasserl's play style is failed by the system, but what have other people's experiences been? I'd really like to see the investigation in DH codified a bit better. I was actually brainstorming an idea like this for it:

First, write up some questions of your investigation. Encounters are divided into social, combat, and exploration. Create a number of boxes for each category equal to the number of times you'd like to see those encounters in your investigation, then add one or two more boxes to each category. Make the total number of boxes divisible by the number of investigation questions. Each of those boxes represents a Clue. Players will go through an encounter and then once its over you write the clue they found in the box. Either tell or let the players figure out a lead or two. Have them draw a line for each lead to another box. Run that encounter and repeat the process. What if you want the players to have a social encounter and they draw a line to a combat encounter? Remember those extra boxes you added? Count those as surprises that suddenly lead the players to a different box, allowing you to surprise the players with twists and turns in expected encounters. Whenever players have gotten a number of clues equal to the number of boxes divided by number of investigation questions, make sure that the clues or leads they get will lead them to answering one of the questions now or at the end of the next encounter.

Using that system allows you to plan ahead and place all of the clues how you want. It also allows you to improvise and just follow the players' lead on clues. It also lets players end up with a cool little investigation map and helps keep their minds on the investigation at hand.

Based on the above, you would probably find Gumshoe a passable fit for how you like to structure things. At least the Investigation side of things - based on other areas you've commented on DH2, you really wouldn't want the non-investigative mechanics included. I think the determinant factor for whether you like Gumshoe based on the above, would be whether or not you like its approach of buying clues. Gumshoe creates necessary clues (which PCs always receive) and ordinary clues which they can buy (until they run out of points). Your system above is actually more open-ended than Gumshoe in that the cap is only the actual number of clues and the successful completion of encounters.

So I think what would be good would be a thread then to focus on "GM tips for how to run a good Dark Heresy game." You don't always get material that good in the GM section of a book. You never get "here's how to actually create a scenario" .

I have some notes about how to build mystery scenarios, but they're cobbled from blogs and such.

So I think what would be good would be a thread then to focus on "GM tips for how to run a good Dark Heresy game." You don't always get material that good in the GM section of a book. You never get "here's how to actually create a scenario" .

I have some notes about how to build mystery scenarios, but they're cobbled from blogs and such.

Hmm... That's a lot harder than it sounds.

The Rule of Threes is kind of like the adventure design version of the fail-safe. The principle is that anything that must happen in your adventure, must have two alternatives. I guess the classic example is that if your PCs must roll to find a vital clue, you should leave 2 other clues lying around that will give them equivalent information, just in case they botch their rolls the first and second time.

My addendum to the rule of threes would be to never, ever allow your players to roll the dice if you're not fully prepared to deal with every possible outcome. Accidentally TPK'ing your players isn't the worst thing you can do to your players. The worst thing you can do to them (and to yourself) is to derail your collective vehicle for entertainment. A really good way to do that, is to allow the fiction to go places you, for whatever reason, aren't prepared to handle.

Don't kill yourself. Prep is your friend, if you do it right. You don't need the detailed floor plans and complete family trees for every last construction and person in a hive, to run an adventure there. Every time you think about something during prep, stop and ask yourself if it's actually important, if the players are likely to see it or give a toss about it, and if there's any way you could shave it down to a single sentence.

I've had a couple of friends just about kill themselves on prep when they sat out to GM for the first time, and there really is no reason to. If it takes you more than 2-3 hours, odds are most of your work is a complete waste that will never be used for anything at all.

Embrace life as a backwards fruitfly. When you design an adventure, pretty much regardless of what it is, you should start with the most imminent fail state and work your way back from that. Don't plan for a year's worth of campaigning. Even if you run rigidly on-rails sort of games, most of the fiction is going to be created spontaneously at the table by people who aren't you. The result is not something you can predict. Nobody can. So keep your planning confined to the immediate future. And plan backwards.

It's very hard to come up with a bunch of actors, their motivations, complex ways they interact, and goals they can achieve, in a way that is play friendly. Doing it the opposite way around, on the other hand, is fairly simple. Start with whatever the PCs have to prevent from happening, and then think about the things that has to happen for the PCs to fail. Those things are the skeleton of your adventure. As mentioned already, don't be overly eager to add meat to these particular bones. It is usually a better idea to create additional adventures, than it is to inflate one.

Get personal. The PCs should have their own agendas and relationships within the fiction. Give them opportunities to establish and express these things as often as you can without killing the pace for everyone else. If you have a large group, consider handing "personal ties" type NPCs off to some of your players, so your group can do several things at the same time.

Don't monologue. Exposition is great & stuffs, but remember you're there to play a game, not to recite a story. Most exposition is best shown, and most story is best handed out, not read aloud.

... I'm running out of steam, and uhm.. It's easier to give advice on more specific stuff.

The above in my book are:

Don't try too hard and There's more than one way to skin the cat.

I won't write about the first one as Simsum pointed it out really well. I would like to add however my two pence to the second.

Always think about the encounters in more than one way. Sure players can talk their way through to the archives of Administratum but maybe they could sneak past the security at night. Always prepare yourself for failure of the players. If they fail is it only the information they are losing? Was that information vital? If so then give them a chance to get it other way around. Maybe even give it through some NPC i.e. they tried to sneak in but they failed and got arrested. They don't want to blow their cover so they keep the inquisition status quite. In jail they are meeting a criminal which has this information. He'll give it to them if they get him out of jail. The info is still there. Players can still have it but the situation got more complicated.

I think one of the most important questions GM should ask himself is: What kind of game my players want to play? GM and session is mainly for players. Look at the characters your players have. What are the archetypes and what skills did they choose? If they went for combat then they want combat. If they went for social and connections they want intrigues and political gaming. Of course there can be a mix. That's even better because you can design you session in a way that will allow each character to shine. If you don't know who the players are, design the adventure with change in mind i.e. in order to get information about human traffic they need to convince one of the underhive scums to cooperate. You designed it for a social encounter but none of the characters are really social. Having said that, they are quite athletic and combat oriented. Change your encounter. The moment the acolytes come into the fighting pit, in which the ganger spends his hard stolen credits, he sprints out or pulls out a gun and starts shooting. His buddies join and we have a chase or a fire fight.

Sessions should be fun for players to play and in a second place for a GM to run. If only the GM is having fun then nothing is getting done, players aren't engaged and if it's a night session they will most likely fall asleep.

Don't be too smart. There is no point in coming up with enigmas that took you a week to create, especially if they are just one step on the long way to the adventure climax. Don't ever assume that players will come up with a solution in minutes. Remember the players have just few hours to play.

If the action is slow, the players aren't engaged, they are falling asleep/yawning put a guy with heavy stubber behind the corner or on top of the building and start shooting. Who is the guy? Why is he shooting? Who cares. There is action, players are awake and engaged again. You will come up with the answers later.

There are many ways to increase the pace. Heavy stubber is one way but you can also blow up a building or ram the players' vehicle.

When the dust settles the players are back in action and they can come back to melting their brains out on the mystery on the table.

There is one more advantage of the above. No matter the outcome you can progress the story. If the players succeeded throw them some more leads or clues to where should they go next i.e. ganger has nothing except lho sticks and matches from a night club, the ganger surrenders and pleads for mercy in exchange for information. If they fail move them were you want them to be. Maybe they got caught and are now hold by the cultist they were investigating or maybe they had to run away and hide in a building which you wanted them to find because it's a secret gathering place for the cult.

Don’t be afraid to steal ideas. You know a movie/book/game your players like. Steal the ideas from there. So what you are not original. The players will buy into the concept because they like it. No one will care the idea isn’t 100% yours.

Engage your players on more than one level. If players have to risk their lives give them a reason. Sure serving the inquisition should be enough but if you add more personal touch to it it’s even better. This is very good advice if you have players who like to create a rich background for their characters. Use that background. Maybe design whole stories around a single character. As long as the rest has a role to play and it’s not a one man’s show they will love it.

As Simsum suggested, norrow down the aspect of GMing you want to talk about. It'll be easier.

Stumbled on this thread while looking for a DH-OW conversion PencilBoy99 said he'd posted, but just popping in to say there was a DH Gumshoe version floating around (based on Esoterrorists 1e). It was up on the Dark Reign site, IIRC.

Also, knasserll has actually misunderstood the Gumshoe mechanic. Investigation points are spent for extra information - so long as you have ever had any points in a given investigation skill you can get basic clues related to that skill. You can't, in other words, run out of investigative ability. You do, however, have to ask to use the ability unless it's a 'Core Clue'. Essentially, it's just codifying what knasserll says s/he's doing anyway with having a fall-back.

Also, knasserll has actually misunderstood the Gumshoe mechanic. Investigation points are spent for extra information - so long as you have ever had any points in a given investigation skill you can get basic clues related to that skill. You can't, in other words, run out of investigative ability. You do, however, have to ask to use the ability unless it's a 'Core Clue'. Essentially, it's just codifying what knasserll says s/he's doing anyway with having a fall-back.

I haven't misunderstood it. There are two separate skill systems in the game: investigative and non-investigative. I have been discussing both aspects of the game. And you'll find that I actually reference "core clues" in my posts, though as it's been a while I mistakenly called them "necessary clues" though that is what they are and it's a better description to people who haven't played the game anyway. You fundamentally misunderstand my criticisms when you say that the inability to not be given a clue addresses them.

Also, knasserll has actually misunderstood the Gumshoe mechanic. Investigation points are spent for extra information - so long as you have ever had any points in a given investigation skill you can get basic clues related to that skill. You can't, in other words, run out of investigative ability. You do, however, have to ask to use the ability unless it's a 'Core Clue'. Essentially, it's just codifying what knasserll says s/he's doing anyway with having a fall-back.

I haven't misunderstood it. There are two separate skill systems in the game: investigative and non-investigative. I have been discussing both aspects of the game. And you'll find that I actually reference "core clues" in my posts, though as it's been a while I mistakenly called them "necessary clues" though that is what they are and it's a better description to people who haven't played the game anyway. You fundamentally misunderstand my criticisms when you say that the inability to not be given a clue addresses them.

You said:

"I dislike the way everything is a pool of points that you use up throughout the adventure so that someone could, e.g. spend all their Occult points and then suddenly not really have any Occult knowledge left."

But in ToC Occult is an Investigative Ability. You can't run out of Occult knowledge if you have the skill at all, even if you've spent all your points.

I'm not trying to persuade you that Gumshoe is the game for you. It obviously isn't, and it's been legitimately criticised for offering a mechanical solution to what's actually an adventure design problem which doesn't need a mechanical solution. But others might be interested, especially since there is a Gumshoe version of DH out there, and they should get accurate information about how the mechanics work.

As for the OP and anyone else interested, I have the Gumshoe hack for DH, so if you're interested PM me. It requires having at least one of the Gumshoe books (Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists 1e or Ashen Stars - Night's Black Agents would be a better base now, but this doc predates NBA's release) and, of course, DH.

Also, knasserll has actually misunderstood the Gumshoe mechanic. Investigation points are spent for extra information - so long as you have ever had any points in a given investigation skill you can get basic clues related to that skill. You can't, in other words, run out of investigative ability. You do, however, have to ask to use the ability unless it's a 'Core Clue'. Essentially, it's just codifying what knasserll says s/he's doing anyway with having a fall-back.

I haven't misunderstood it. There are two separate skill systems in the game: investigative and non-investigative. I have been discussing both aspects of the game. And you'll find that I actually reference "core clues" in my posts, though as it's been a while I mistakenly called them "necessary clues" though that is what they are and it's a better description to people who haven't played the game anyway. You fundamentally misunderstand my criticisms when you say that the inability to not be given a clue addresses them.

You said:

"I dislike the way everything is a pool of points that you use up throughout the adventure so that someone could, e.g. spend all their Occult points and then suddenly not really have any Occult knowledge left."

But in ToC Occult is an Investigative Ability. You can't run out of Occult knowledge if you have the skill at all, even if you've spent all your points.

I'm not trying to persuade you that Gumshoe is the game for you. It obviously isn't, and it's been legitimately criticised for offering a mechanical solution to what's actually an adventure design problem which doesn't need a mechanical solution. But others might be interested, especially since there is a Gumshoe version of DH out there, and they should get accurate information about how the mechanics work.

As for the OP and anyone else interested, I have the Gumshoe hack for DH, so if you're interested PM me. It requires having at least one of the Gumshoe books (Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists 1e or Ashen Stars - Night's Black Agents would be a better base now, but this doc predates NBA's release) and, of course, DH.

Fine. I picked a wrong skill - it's been a couple of years since I picked this up. Substitute "Mechanics" for "Occult", then. The mechanic's knowledge of car engines diminishes with use, but the occultist's knowledge of the occult does not. That's another Game > Believability aspect I dislike to be honest.

But I'm still not wrong - I wrote about spending more pool for additional clues which is how the game works. You get "Core Clues" for free so long as you have the ability - and I already wrote about how you get core clues automatically. What you don't get for free are the additional clues which you would buy with your pool, yes - even for Investigative abilities. All that Investigative abilities mean is that even if you've spent all the pool you still get the core clues, which is what I wrote in my earlier posts.

All of this is based on the Trail of Cthulhu book which uses the Gumshoe system. If there are any differences in this version of it to the original Gumshoe, then maybe we're at variance. But it's published by the same people and says it uses the Gumshoe system so I've assumed it to be the same. I've just pulled the book from the shelf to check my facts and it does have a section on spending points from your Investigative pool to buy additional clues.

I also found this passage in the book that really I should have just quoted verbatim rather than my epic-length posts.

Gathering Clues

Gathering clues is simple. All you have to do is:

1. Get your Investigator into a scene where relevant information can be gathered.
2. Have the right ability to discover the clue, and
3. Tell the Keeper that you're using it

above from Trail of Cthulhu, pg. 52.

Agreed - we're never going to see eye to eye on this. The above is anathema to me. But I don't feel that I have made any factual errors or misunderstood anything, which is what you accused me of. I was covering both Investigative and non-Investigative skills in my post. I didn't want to get the book out and picked Occult as a random skill in my example. I didn't check which it is. But even for Investigative abilities as I wrote, you still spend from a diminishing pool. You can just never run out of the ability to be given "core" clues for something because these are given pretty much automatically.

As I understand it, Core Clues are the ones the GM will take the initiative in giving to the players, but the basic use of an Investigative Ability, at the player's request, gets you more than that, then the expenditure of points gets you more still. I picked up on your example of Occult because you were talking about all the PCs ending up functionally indistinguishable, but even with all their points spent, a policeman with Cop Talk and Evidence Collection still has a very different skill set than a professor with Archaeology and Occult.

FWIW, each subsequent Gumshoe release explained itself better than the last (ToC was an early one). The forthcoming 2e of Esoterrorists would probably make the best 'base' for a DH hack. In the meantime, Pelgrane is about to release a Gumshoe SRD.

So much bias and misinformation in here.

Newsflash - Gumshoe does not remove the capacity of players or the GM to improvise in the same way you would in a 'traditional' RPG.

That's the central fallacy on which Knasserli bases his bias.

Your players decide to look for a 'clue' which you didn't 'put' there, and it seems like a good idea?

GO FOR IT. Robin Laws will not come to your house and beat you with a 2 x 4.

Want to make that a 'necessary clue' that moves the story forward? Again, no beatings.

All the Gumshoe system does is provide a logical narrative structure you CAN use if you WANT to. If your players want to go off on their own, just like a 'traditional' RPG that's for the GM to decide whether they are comfortable improvising and running with it or want to steer it back onto their own pre-conceived progress of events. It's a simple system and comments above suggesting it's 'hard' to improvise are utter nonsense. You'll take much longer statting things up on the fly in DH than you will in Gumshoe, that's for sure.

You don't need to create a 'detailed map' that must be meticulously followed. You can make your plan just as 'loose' as you want - it's just that if you desire a detailed investigation, it's easier to do that.

In addition, it does remove the ridiculous situation when there's a jacket that could contain a murder weapon, a phone that could have fingerprints, a computer that could have incriminating evidence on it and....

ROLL INVESTIGATION!

***

'Oops, critical fail. You spot none of the above. Let's now work out how your highly trained professional managed to do that!'

or

'Well done! You find ALL THE CLUES AT ONCE! Ain't you great!'

Which is fine and all, just rather abstracted and simple when you compare it to the detail most systems put into their combat.

All Gumshoe does is remove the 'oops' factor and allow the player to develop a character who can employ different kinds of skills to derive different results.

Bearing in mind, and this point may have been lost in the drama up-thread - a player still needs to use their brain and EMPLOY a skill at a relevant point. You don't do so, you don't get no clues. Despite what some people may suggest, it's not about 'handing' players clues. Just like real life, you may miss things the first time round, come to a dead end, then need to go back and see what you might have missed, or employ different skills to get different perspectives - as opposed to a magical one size fits all 'investigation' skill.

In the above example, you would need Notice.Forensics and Digital Analysis skills for example, if you wanted to get all the clues. Only have a few, then you get a more limited picture and need to look in other ways. Or you could spend more points, and get more fine-grained or deeper levels of analysis from the clues you do find. And maybe you don't bother spending points, carry on with your investigation and hit a dead end. Go back to that PC hard drive, spend an extra point or two and do a deeper level of analysis that finds hidden patterns in those incriminating emails you found before. Then it's cryptography time.

And here's the accurate version of Knasserli's example above:

My game works like this:

Player: I check his coat to see if it's wet.

Me: Why do you care about that?

Player: Because if it's wet then he was out in the storm last night.

Me: Ooh. Clever. Yes, it is indeed suspiciously damp.

Gumshoe system:

Player: I use my Notice skill and check his coat to see if it's wet.

Me: Why do you care about that?

Player: Because if it's wet then he was out in the storm last night.

Me: Ooh. Clever. Yes, it is indeed suspiciously damp. You notice that there's a small pool of water under his coat where it is dripping.

And then, in both games, you move the investigation on based on this fact that has now been established.

It's simply a narrative toolbox that makes things easier for the GM to build more detailed investigative missions - like it says on the box.

It's not a forcible 'clue dungeon' or anything like that - players have the same level of agency (arguably more) than a 'traditional' RPG.

You may want to do a Google search on 'Dark Heresy Gumshoe' and pick up the 1.1 version. You will need the base Gumshoe books if you want to play but if you read it, it may give you an idea of how it works.

I'm glad to see a rebuttal. What is your thinking on knasserl's issue with characters running out of points to spend and then reverting to baseline ability?

I'm glad to see a rebuttal. What is your thinking on knasserl's issue with characters running out of points to spend and then reverting to baseline ability?

If you mean for investigative skills, it makes no difference at all. You always operate at your 'baseline' no matter what - point spends are just optional tools for a GM to offer extra facets of information if they can think of one that's relevant or cool (or run with a player's idea).

If you mean for general skills, the pool system is meant to be another dramatic tool. Minor enemies/issues are meant to require little or no spend - it's the 'big' problems where you need the points. If a player makes truckloads of spends on minor issues and runs out before the 'big boss', that's when you have an evocative dramatic scene to refresh the pool.

The heroes make it to the doors of the castle, bloodied and exhausted. After an inspiring scene in which they connect with their heroic destiny to save the world, they refresh their pools and kick the door down, ready to kill the Evil Overlord.

Again, a narrative tool that in no way limits freedom any more than the following scenario in a 'traditional' RPG -

"make a dex roll to run across the rope bridge to the Evil Overlord's castle!"

"what's that, you all failed? GAME OVER YOU ALL CAN GO HOME NOW CYA."

yeah, no. Just as a 'traditional' RPG is a system that to a greater or lesser degree allows GM control to enable narrative continuity, Gumshoe is fully manipulable by anyone with half a brain.

It's pretty simple. Gumshoe is a system that has a greater than normal emphasis on investigative abilities and has lots of tools to help a GM run investigative scenarios as tightly or loosely as they like. That's what it says on the tin and that's what it does.

If that's not what you want, then unsurprisingly, you probably won't like it. It's a fairly simple and abstracted system, so if you want complexity and crunch, again, you probably won't like it.