Quote from: Stainless;565935There were six dogs on the loose, smart arse.

Always amazes me how people interpret things in the way it serves their agenda.

And that matters how?  If he makes the check, the dogs aren't there.  If he pushes and fails, suddenly one is, taint sweat.

Quote from: Darran;565148Scott is in fact one of the champion GMs on the UK con scene and usual runs plenty of games throughout the conventions that get often get over-subscribed. His game sign-up sheets are filled once they go onto the sign-up boards within seconds.

So the fuck what?

Quote from: JRR;566203And that matters how?  If he makes the check, the dogs aren't there.  If he pushes and fails, suddenly one is, taint sweat.

Last time I roleplayed, none of it was there. It was ALL a figment of my imagination. In fact, it was ALL consciously and calculatedly manipulated by me to make a roleplaying event. That's how it is and has always been. People seem to think roleplaying is an actual immutable series of causes and events and that by changing something you're somehow cheating reality. This way leads to madness and 4e-ism. Randomisation and dice rolling is still there in this mechanic.

If a Keeper creates a consequence to pushing a roll that is an obvious break is the suspension of disbelief, then it's a limitation of the Keeper, not the mechanic.

Roleplaying situation is unfolding. Player fails roll. Player asks to push the roll. Keeper thinks about what could be reasonable and believable adverse consequences should the push fail. Player re-rolls and go from there.

I accept Pundit's comment, what if the Keeper doesn't want to create an adverse consequence? I suppose, just like the current CoC, they just say, "Sorry it doesn't work, period". And the, if it's important to the game, just fudges it like everyone does.

Quote from: Stainless;566237I accept Pundit's comment, what if the Keeper doesn't want to create an adverse consequence? I suppose, just like the current CoC, they just say, "Sorry it doesn't work, period". And the, if it's important to the game, just fudges it like everyone does.

You are aware that you are validating CRKrueger's claim earlier that this kind of "fix" is basically trying to solve a problem of GMing skills, and thereby people, with yet-more-rules, correct? That these are actually not the only ways to handle skill rolls, and that the game might benefit from actual advice on the use of skills rolls to teach Keepers how to run them competently? Just asking.

Quote from: Stainless;565936This reminds me a lot about the creation of Mongoose Traveller. The grognards were up in arms and read everything in the negative. After it came out, some grognards stayed in their holes. Most saw that they had done a great job of revitalising the game and it still felt and played like Traveller (granted there are faults with the system).

And on what are you basing your estimates of "some" and "most?" Please, share with us your insights into the Traveller gaming commuity composition.

Quote from: RPGPundit;566162The big problem I would have with this setup would be if the GM is FORCED to let players "push", and MUST have some dire consequence.  What happens if he just wants to say "no"?

If the GM doesn't want to allow something then don't let the player roll in the first place.  I'm struggling to think of a good example as a Keeper where I'd specifically want only one skill roll made and further rolls would be abhorent.

As a Keeper, you're always in control of the story.  If you're allowing for the roll in the first place, you're accepting there can be a positive result for the player - whether he makes it on the first or second try shouldn't matter too much.  One of the perceived problems with CoC is there's too much Fail - this mechanic is a way of letting people succeed every now and then.  You could easily say to players in advance of a roll though "this is an all or nothing roll, you either make this in one roll, or you're screwed".

Quote from: Piestrio;565857So what did "pushing" the roll do?

Because in my game the dog arrives in x rounds (or xd6, or whatever).

What it sounds like is "the dog will arrive in 6 rounds unless the player 'pushes' their roll in which case it shows up now and I'll hand wave some BS as to why" which is putting story think ahead of the  milieu.

So you're happy with a dog arriving in (say) a random roll of 3d6 rounds, but unhappy if the result of a skill roll determines when it arrives?  In traditional games there's often a random number of baddies or rounds until something happens - this is just another way of doing that.

If you're still unhappy with the distance thing, other options for a failed push for the dogs example above could be:

When the dogs do get there (in 3d6 rounds), the character that "pushed and failed" is the first one they attack, as he's out in front.

The character gets it totally wrong or is turned around by the noises as he desperately turns this way and that trying to work out where they are in the dark, and inadvertantly heads deeper into the woods, or away from safety.

The character tries to get a bit closer to work out where the dogs are and ends up separated from the group (or gets left behind).

The inhuman howling starts gnawing on his mind as he thinks about nothing else (Sanity roll or straight loss of SAN).

The character stops paying as much attention to his surroundings and stumbles down a ravine (perhaps taking damage, or twisting his ankle and slowing him down for the inevitable chase scene later).


Horror stories are full of examples of people going into the cellar / off into the woods for a closer look when you know full well they should stay put.  Pushing rolls in CoC is a great way of playing into the horror tropes of wandering off saying "I'll be right back" and it all going wrong for the character.  Sometimes they're okay, but if they keep doing it, sooner or later, its all going to end in tears.

In many ways, Pushing is a way of saying "if you roll the dice again and fail, the game gives me permission to take the gloves off and fuck you up - only roll if you're okay with that".

Quote from: game.monkey;566267If



So you're happy with a dog arriving in (say) a random roll of 3d6 rounds, but unhappy if the result of a skill roll determines when it arrives?  In traditional games there's often a random number of baddies or rounds until something happens - this is just another way of doing that.

  ".

If i follow here i think the issue is the random roll coming from the pc and the pcs skill level. I do think there is a difference between tyat and an encounter roll of 3d6. I think people are having trouble understaning why the pcs decision to push would impact the arrival time of the dogs.

Love Call of Cthulu.

Hate 'Push'



My work is done









p.s.  Who'e idea was it to 'ruin' Call of Cthulu?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566271If i follow here i think the issue is the random roll coming from the pc and the pcs skill level. I do think there is a difference between tyat and an encounter roll of 3d6. I think people are having trouble understaning why the pcs decision to push would impact the arrival time of the dogs.

I see - well it doesn't have to - that was one example of the impact pushing might have from a game some dude played.  You could take one of the other examples I used above instead, its really up to individual Keepers on how they want to adjudicate "Bad Stuff" as a consequence - not really the rules telling you to teleport packs of dogs around if you don't like the idea.  (By "you" I mean "someone", not you specifically!)

The other thing is, if nothing is going to happen until the dogs turn up, does it really matter if its 3 rounds or 18?  Maybe if the characters have certain amount of time to get somewhere.  I'd reckon in most 'thulhu games though, the investigators are blindly wandering in places they shouldn't be looking for clues.  

I'm sure at some point in the past we've all been in a situation where a player is going to do something really dangerous or left field and as a GM you sort of say "Are you sure about that, because XYZ" or simply "Are you sure?" because it seems daft and/or lethal.  

Its not exactly the same, but its in the same sort of context for how a Keeper might handle things.  If you dish up nasty consequences every time a player pushes, they're soon going to be thinking twice before pushing in future.

Quote from: game.monkey;566267In many ways, Pushing is a way of saying "if you roll the dice again and fail, the game gives me permission to take the gloves off and fuck you up - only roll if you're okay with that".

I think you've inadvertently identified part of the problem. As a GM, and particularly when GMing a game of Cosmic Horror emphasising the insignificance of humanity, nobody needs the game's permission to take off the kid gloves. IMO, most issues being 'fixed' by new rules would be better attended to through providing good advice for GMs.

Quote from: Ladybird;566174Yeah. Taking the push should raise a complication. Failing the push should make it worse.

That's how I thought it worked. I stand corrected.

Quote from: The Butcher;566403That's how I thought it worked. I stand corrected.

It may do! I don't know for certain.

I just have faith that Chaosium, a company who hasn't fucked their system up in thirty years, knew what they're doing when they hired who they did, and knows what they're doing while they evaluate the manuscript.

Could be I'll be wrong, but let's wait and see.

Quote from: Ladybird;566432I just have faith that Chaosium, a company who hasn't fucked their system up in thirty years, knew what they're doing when they hired who they did, and knows what they're doing while they evaluate the manuscript.

I don't.

Quote from: Benoist;566434I don't.

Well, okay then.

Quote from: Benoist;566434I don't.

Nor do I.