The 'quick start' rules for the forthcoming 7th edition of Call of Cthulhu have been out for almost a year now. Has anyone here tried them out? If so, what are your impressions? How does 7e compare to pre-7e CoC?
Also, any links to informative reviews of the 7e CoC QS rules would be appreciated. Thanks! :)
Chaosium gave backers a free copy of the 7th Edition adventure Dead Light around Christmas, so I gave it a spin with the quickstart rules.
It's still essentially the CoC you know and love at heart, except all those attribute x5 rolls get precalculated. The most useful thing about the quickstart, to me, is that it gives parameters for quickly statting up a useful character who might not necessarily be 100% legal by the terms of the full character generation system, but isn't overwhelmingly competent or staggeringly incompetent compared to those who have gone through that. I'd certainly consider using it for pickup games or other circumstances where I'd want to slash back character generation time.
Quote from: Warthur;774322Chaosium gave backers a free copy of the 7th Edition adventure Dead Light around Christmas, so I gave it a spin with the quickstart rules.
L'Appel de Cthulhu does the same. Do they also replace the Luck and Idea rolls?
Here's hoping they cribbed more good things from it. :)
Quote from: Warthur;774322It's still essentially the CoC you know and love at heart, except all those attribute x5 rolls get precalculated. The most useful thing about the quickstart, to me, is that it gives parameters for quickly statting up a useful character who might not necessarily be 100% legal by the terms of the full character generation system, but isn't overwhelmingly competent or staggeringly incompetent compared to those who have gone through that. I'd certainly consider using it for pickup games or other circumstances where I'd want to slash back character generation time.
Now this is really interesting.
What about the whole iffy "roll again (or get a bonus, don't remember which) at the cost of more dire consequences if you fail"?
I explained the option to the players, they didn't actually take advantage of it as I recall.
I suspect the players in question would only go for that option if the result of simple failure is already unacceptable.
I'm currently playing in a CoC game that started before the Quickstart rules were released, so we're (mostly) playing by 6th ed rules. But even as brief as they are, the QS rules have been useful - they are by far the CLEAREST version of CoC rules that I've ever seen and I've played CoC for years. I look forward to the final version...
Nope. Read through them; was very disappointed by the design choices they made; didn't have any desire to run it for my group.
Having learned nothing from the failures of D&D4 and WFRP3, Chaosium decides to take the longest running stable RPG system and not only chase the New School into the Indie/Dramatic Logic design space even though there are already multiple Lovecraft games in that space, but also alter the core rules to limit full compatibility with BRP, the hallmark of all previous Chaosium games.
Just thought I'd help out Jon Peterson or whoever with their inquiry letter when they write the book Chaosium: Roadmap to Failure.
Quick guide to converting COC 7E to be compatible with the rest of BRP: Divide all attributes by 5. This is fast because you'll have already done so in order to work out your target number for especially difficult rolls.
Job done.
Less snarky reply: Pendragon deviates from BRP far more substantially than CoC 7E does, Prince Valiant even more so. So it ain't quite the universal hallmark of all preceding Chaosium games you think it is.
Quote from: CRKrueger;774367Having learned nothing from the failures of D&D4 and WFRP3, Chaosium decides to take the longest running stable RPG system and not only chase the New School into the Indie/Dramatic Logic design space even though there are already multiple Lovecraft games in that space
That's my impression of it as well. I've seen one of the designers speak of 'fixing' the game... so I think I'll just stick with the 'broken' version.
I've been running a Call of Cthulhu campaign using the 7th edition Quick-Start rules and using 6th edition where not otherwise specified.
I think making all of the stats percentile does help with clarity, but doesn't change much. There are definitely a few changes in combat - nothing too big. The quick-start didn't have much on Sanity, which I'm hoping will be clarified. Chaosium has always tended towards having tailored systems for their games rather than a generic system like GURPS, so that part is fine for me.
I was OK with the priority-pick-based character creation. It's nothing special but works fine.
The only story-gamish change is the option to "push" a failed roll and try again for success with very dangerous consequences if you fail. This is tempting and been used a few times in my campaign - once resulting in the death of a PC. This is a less immersive option, but it has been a fun one for us.
Quote from: Simlasa;774395That's my impression of it as well. I've seen one of the designers speak of 'fixing' the game... so I think I'll just stick with the 'broken' version.
Badda boom badda BINGO!
We already have a Cthulhu game that fixes a non-existent problem, no need for Chaosium to follow suit.
Quote from: CRKrueger;774367Having learned nothing from the failures of D&D4 and WFRP3, Chaosium decides to take the longest running stable RPG system and not only chase the New School into the Indie/Dramatic Logic design space even though there are already multiple Lovecraft games in that space, but also alter the core rules to limit full compatibility with BRP, the hallmark of all previous Chaosium games.
Don't forget the precedent set with the astonishing success of GURPS 4E when it decided to break compatibility with the vast library of high quality and compatible material that was the primary reason most people were interested in the game. (/s)
So, Dead Light has some conversion notes from CoC 7E to previous editions. You could fit them on a business card and many of them relate to the utterly minor modifications to the skill list that have accompanied every new edition.
I swear, you guys see "new edition" and immediately go into a D&D4/WFRP3 panic. Can't wait for the full rules to come out so we can have this discussion all over again with added facts.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;774456Don't forget the precedent set with the astonishing success of GURPS 4E when it decided to break compatibility with the vast library of high quality and compatible material that was the primary reason most people were interested in the game. (/s)
Steve Jackson still sells GURPS? :idunno:
Quote from: Warthur;774468I swear, you guys see "new edition" and immediately go into a D&D4/WFRP3 panic. Can't wait for the full rules to come out so we can have this discussion all over again with added facts.
I swear, you guys see "new edition" with a narrative mechanic and immediately go into a BFF swoon. Can't wait for the full rules to come out so we can have this discussion all over again to watch the dissembling dance about the facts of what the mechanics actually do. ;)
I've been guilty of referring to CoC7 as a 5-wheeled Audi.
Judging from the quickstart (which I haven't played, only read), it seems like a decent game.
The rule-changes are relatively minor and are easily ignored if that is what you want. That said, I don't see much point in many of them, and they move CoC away from the Big Gold Book and core BRP which is ..questionable IMO.
And those percentile attributes are still an eyesore.
Quote from: nharwell;774343I'm currently playing in a CoC game that started before the Quickstart rules were released, so we're (mostly) playing by 6th ed rules. But even as brief as they are, the QS rules have been useful - they are by far the CLEAREST version of CoC rules that I've ever seen and I've played CoC for years. I look forward to the final version...
That makes me very happy! The CoC rules have never been all that
unclear, but I'm looking forward to a slightly streamlined version.
I've never played CoC before, so I have no reference for the criticism about edition changes.
I'm going to run the Quickstart sometime in the near future, but I was hanging off on buying the main book because of the new edition coming out. Since the release date is still a bit fuzzy, is the 6th edition they are still selling a solid edition that would be worth picking up at retail price?
Quote from: snooggums;774794Since the release date is still a bit fuzzy, is the 6th edition they are still selling a solid edition that would be worth picking up at retail price?
Yes!
I'm not sure what 7th will eventually be like... or how well it will mesh with what's gone before. I'll remain doubtful/skeptical till it's out and investigated.
Right now 6th IS easily compatible with a MASSIVE amount of content stretching back to 1st edition. It's time-tested and NOT broken.
Quote from: snooggums;774794I've never played CoC before, so I have no reference for the criticism about edition changes.
I'm going to run the Quickstart sometime in the near future, but I was hanging off on buying the main book because of the new edition coming out. Since the release date is still a bit fuzzy, is the 6th edition they are still selling a solid edition that would be worth picking up at retail price?
6E is perfectly serviceable but the organisation of the book is a bit of a mess and it's not particularly nice-looking. I see a lot of people on forums who prefer 5.6E for its tidier design/layout, though AFAIK the organisation is not much different from 6E, so you'll still be doing some extensive page flipping.
What edition was the Games Workshop hardcover that came out in the 80's? Because that was about as close to perfect as an RPG can get. I never picked up any subsequent editions because I just didn't see how they could improve on it.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;774833What edition was the Games Workshop hardcover that came out in the 80's? Because that was about as close to perfect as an RPG can get. I never picked up any subsequent editions because I just didn't see how they could improve on it.
I think that was 3rd. I kind of regret not buying the hardcover that sat on the shelves of a used bookstore for a while in the early 90s. I did grab 5th for a pittance (something like $6), though, and I've acquired the BGB for BRP purposes, and Realms, Trail, Shadows and d20 for Cthulhoid purposes. I think I'm set.
And I don't even particularly like the Mythos. :)
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;774833What edition was the Games Workshop hardcover that came out in the 80's? Because that was about as close to perfect as an RPG can get.
I think the GW hardback was 3rd as well.
GW hardbacks from that era had a nasty tendency toward bindings that self-destructed the first time you opened them. Mine are in good shape but I'm a bit of zealot when it comes to taking care of books.
Not that you end up needing to look at the CoC rulebook much during play anyway (compared to the original Rogue Trader... try finding a hardback of that still in one piece!)
My feelings are mixed. On the one hand, why mess with something that's stood the test of time for 33 years? On the other hand, as long as they don't break backwards compatibility, I won't mind if they tidy things up a bit.
On the third tentacle, there's been a recent trend of wrong headed "let's change everything just because we can! Huzza!" initiatives that haven't ended well, and Chaosium does have a bit of a history of jumping on bandwagons just as they are about to tip off the road into a ditch.
Quote from: Simlasa;774865I think the GW hardback was 3rd as well.
GW hardbacks from that era had a nasty tendency toward bindings that self-destructed the first time you opened them.
My GW CoC has held up like iron after three decades.
Their edition of STORMBRINGER, however, fell to pieces if looked at harshly. Which is is a crying shame, because I remember it as being a beautiful, ahead-of-it's-time game in terms of presentation and graphics. The cover was just METAL as all fuck and popped out at you from across the room.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;774833What edition was the Games Workshop hardcover that came out in the 80's? Because that was about as close to perfect as an RPG can get. I never picked up any subsequent editions because I just didn't see how they could improve on it.
Did it have opposed
skill rolls in it? Though I
may have overlooked it, because stuff is not always easy to find in the book, 6E
apparently doesn't, except for using parry or dodge in combat.
Was the organisation of 3E better than 6E? While it is true that CoC generally does not require much rules referring, the one time I wanted to check up on the RAW concerning the consequences of permanent POW loss through spell casting, it took quite some page flipping to find all the information related to the subject.
Quote from: 3rik;774914Was the organisation of 3E better than 6E?
3e has no organisation and costs you 3d4 SAN ever time you look something up. On the other hand the second half of the book is every shred of support material they could find. It is truly marvelous.
Quote from: jadrax;7749193e has no organisation and costs you 3d4 SAN ever time you look something up. On the other hand the second half of the book is every shred of support material they could find. It is truly marvelous.
I recently came across a second-hand copy of 4E and picked it up. While there's loads of fun stuff in it that's not in any other edition - or so I have been told - that too suffers from a lack of organisation. If there's one thing I expect 7E to improve upon it's this.
My previous games involved a lot of investigation and stuff, but not mechanically supported by those games.
Does anyone think it would be better to spend money on some of the setting books for examples to use/adapt to 7th to spend the time getting a feel for overall play?
I get the themes and whatnot, so I'm wondering if the published adventures/campaigns/whatever they are called would be helpful for someone who hasn't really done an investigation themed game before.
Quote from: snooggums;775141My previous games involved a lot of investigation and stuff, but not mechanically supported by those games.
Does anyone think it would be better to spend money on some of the setting books for examples to use/adapt to 7th to spend the time getting a feel for overall play?
I get the themes and whatnot, so I'm wondering if the published adventures/campaigns/whatever they are called would be helpful for someone who hasn't really done an investigation themed game before.
YMMV but I don't think CoC - at least pre-7E -
mechanically supports investigative games much other than by there being investigative skills on the character sheet (Library Use, Spot Hidden and a bunch of specific knowledge skills).
Quote from: 3rik;775157YMMV but I don't think CoC - at least pre-7E - mechanically supports investigative games much other than by there being investigative skills on the character sheet (Library Use, Spot Hidden and a bunch of specific knowledge skills).
What other support would you like it to feature?
Quote from: 3rik;775157YMMV but I don't think CoC - at least pre-7E - mechanically supports investigative games much other than by there being investigative skills on the character sheet (Library Use, Spot Hidden and a bunch of specific knowledge skills).
An "Investigation System" where players just roll on a flowchart or whatever would pretty much strangle everything that makes CoC special in the first place.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;775232An "Investigation System" where players just roll on a flowchart or whatever would pretty much strangle everything that makes CoC special in the first place.
More advice on designing good mysteries for RPGs might be of use (not just for CoC), not creating bottlenecks and so forth. GURPS Mysteries is a good supplement for such things.
I don't think it's a 'problem' that needs more mechanics thrown at it.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;774833What edition was the Games Workshop hardcover that came out in the 80's? Because that was about as close to perfect as an RPG can get. I never picked up any subsequent editions because I just didn't see how they could improve on it.
That was the first edition of the RPG, which I agree sets a standard for a gamebook that to this day I've yet to see surpassed.
The 3rd edition of the wargame came out a year later, incorporating many of the elements of the RPG and the fleshed out background, and this edition is the primary one played by the Oldhammer community.
He's talking about Call of Cthulhu, Games Workshop published the 3rd edition both as a boxed set and a hardback. Here's the hardback cover he means I think.
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic554520_md.jpg)
Quote from: K Peterson;774357Nope. Read through them; was very disappointed by the design choices they made; didn't have any desire to run it for my group.
What did they change?
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;774899Their edition of STORMBRINGER, however, fell to pieces if looked at harshly. Which is is a crying shame, because I remember it as being a beautiful, ahead-of-it's-time game in terms of presentation and graphics. The cover was just METAL as all fuck and popped out at you from across the room.
Very true, but that's why Hastur invented glue.
If anyone is interested in Elric/Stormbringer or Old School Sword & Sorcery, you gotta hunt down the Stormbringer 3e by GW. So utterly badass and full of awesome.
Quote from: jadrax;7749193e has no organisation and costs you 3d4 SAN ever time you look something up. On the other hand the second half of the book is every shred of support material they could find. It is truly marvelous.
Also, very true. But I'm not sure what 3e has that 4e/5e/6e did not. From a "pack the goodies in the book" perspective, 3e was a huge leap from 1e/2e.
Quote from: The Butcher;775218What other support would you like it to feature?
None whatsoever. I was responding to snooggum. I just edited a quote into my post to clarify this.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;775232An "Investigation System" where players just roll on a flowchart or whatever would pretty much strangle everything that makes CoC special in the first place.
I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: Simlasa;775243More advice on designing good mysteries for RPGs might be of use (not just for CoC), not creating bottlenecks and so forth. GURPS Mysteries is a good supplement for such things.
I don't think it's a 'problem' that needs more mechanics thrown at it.
Possibly. Earlier scenarios certainly contain bottleneck investigative dice rolls if followed by the letter, but I agree that throwing "investigative mechanics" at this "problem", like Trail of Cthulhu made an attempt at, is neither desirable nor very helpful.
The best "support for investigative scenarios" I can think of is the 100+ page fluff-only French-language-only supplement on forensic science in the 1920s.
Quote from: Spinachcat;775305What did they change?
In short:
- Percentile characteristics
- Modifications to the Luck attribute (to act as a pool to "push" skill checks)
- the Build attribute (comes into play in close combat)
- Bonus and Penalty dice (much like 5e's Advantage and Disadvantage system)
- changes to various combat skills
- the addition of "Fighting Manuevers"
- different task resolution success levels
Quote from: K Peterson;775337In short:
- Percentile characteristics
- Modifications to the Luck attribute (to act as a pool to "push" skill checks)
- the Build attribute (comes into play in close combat)
- Bonus and Penalty dice (much like 5e's Advantage and Disadvantage system)
- changes to various combat skills
- the addition of "Fighting Manuevers"
- different task resolution success levels
With the exception of the modifications to Luck, these don't seem too bad to me.
Quote from: Akrasia;776147With the exception of the modifications to Luck, these don't seem too bad to me.
I haven't even looked at it, so I don't have an informed opinion, but just the idea of "Fighting Maneuvers" in
Call of Cthulhu makes me chuckle.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;776152just the idea of "Fighting Maneuvers" in Call of Cthulhu makes me chuckle.
Seems a bit silly to me... and the bonus/penalty dice... nope, do NOT want.
The 'push' mechanic was a situational thing we were doing already.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;776152I haven't even looked at it, so I don't have an informed opinion, but just the idea of "Fighting Maneuvers" in Call of Cthulhu makes me chuckle.
Here they are (from the quick start rules):
QuoteFighting Maneuvers
If a player describes a goal that is something other than simply inflicting physical harm then it can be resolved with a “fighting maneuver”.
A successful maneuver allows the character to achieve one thing, such as:
- Disarm an opponent
- Knock an opponent to the floor
- Seize and hold an opponent, whereupon the opponent must apply one penalty die to his or her actions until he or she breaks free.
A maneuver is treated the same way as a regular Fighting attack, using the Fighting (Brawl) skill. The opponent may dodge or fight back as usual. Compare the Build of the two combatants. If the character performing the maneuver has a smaller Build than their opponent then he or she takes a penalty die for each point of difference (to a maximum of two penalty dice). If an opponent exceeds the attacker’s build by three or more, any fighting maneuvers are ineffective; the attacker may be able to lay hands on their opponent, but lacks the strength and size required to take advantage of their grip.
Example: Brian attempts to push a ghoul out of a nearby window (a fighting maneuver). Brian’s Build is zero and the ghoul’s Build is 1, so Brian takes 1 penalty die on his attack roll. Brian rolls 02 and 22; he had a penalty die so must use the higher roll—a hard success (under half Brian’s Fighting skill). The ghoul is fighting back, and it rolls a regular success on its Fighting skill. Brian has achieved a better level of success and so his maneuver is successful—he shoves the ghoul through the window.
They seem fine to me, and I certainly can envision situations in a CoC game where they would come up.
I ran three session with the 7th edition starter rules. Didn't use the included adventure, just made my own.
The highlights were: we all really liked the difficulty being integrated into the skills/attributes themselves. That made it easy for me, at least, to simply ask for an Average this, or a Difficult that.
We didn't use the push mechanic. Wasn't really our thing. Didn't seem to miss much by not using it.
Fighting maneuvers was fun. My games always start Mythos light, and in my games investigators in the 20s are often getting into fisticuffs with the people they are investigating, or perhaps the rude chap at the speakeasy.
All in all it felt like CoC always did, seems perfectly compatible (well, perfectly enough). Just seemed more, precise I guess?
Too long didn't read: Liked the difficulty integration into skills, didn't use Push/Luck, liked the Fighting Maneuvers. Just seemed like a cleaner version of a game that we've been playing forever.
Quote from: K Peterson;774357Nope. Read through them; was very disappointed by the design choices they made; didn't have any desire to run it for my group.
What choices didn't work for you?
Quote from: RPGPundit;776384What choices didn't work for you?
Well, using the list of changes I provided above as examples:
- I don't like the Bonus and Penalty dice. To me, it's a stupid dice trick shamelessly borrowed from 5e. Maybe it's a great thing in 5e, but it seems like an odd fit with CoC. Broad task resolution modifiers are my preference.
- The change to the Luck attribute - It's not mentioned in the CoC7e Quickstart, but rather here: http://theunspeakableoath.com/home/2012/07/inside-call-of-cthulhu-7th-edition/. Luck can now be used as a pool to temporarily increase your skill level during skill checks. And, players can push rolls - re-roll at the risk of more dire consequences. Combine the two mechanics together... watch skill roll failure drop dramatically??
- Connections refreshing Luck - This reminds me of something from Trail of Cthulhu. Pillars, or something?
- Task Resolution success levels - This bothers me the least. But, it's annoying to see a character sheet loaded with extra columns so you can mark success levels for every skill. http://www.chaosium.com/call-of-cthulhu-7th-edition-character-sheet/
(P.S. I should note that in my prior post I confused luck with the push mechanic. It's been a while since I looked at the 7e Quickstart. I'd forgotten that they were separate).
Quote from: K Peterson;776427- The change to the Luck attribute - It's not mentioned in the CoC7e Quickstart, but rather here: http://theunspeakableoath.com/home/2012/07/inside-call-of-cthulhu-7th-edition/. Luck can now be used as a pool to temporarily increase your skill level during skill checks. And, players can push rolls - re-roll at the risk of more dire consequences. Combine the two mechanics together... watch skill roll failure drop dramatically??
I see this as a matter of "giving them enough rope". Drag down your Luck enough, and bad luck will ensue more and more often. Push and fail, and your situation will only get more desperate. I think it suits the Lovecraftian worldview quite well to make the characters wonder just how far they want to go out on a limb before scurrying back to the comparative safety of the familiar.
Quote from: Warthur;776525I see this as a matter of "giving them enough rope". Drag down your Luck enough, and bad luck will ensue more and more often. Push and fail, and your situation will only get more desperate. I think it suits the Lovecraftian worldview quite well to make the characters wonder just how far they want to go out on a limb before scurrying back to the comparative safety of the familiar.
Understandable.
For me, the Sanity mechanic itself emulates that worldview sufficiently. It acts as the
rope that PCs can hang themselves with. Dive into the knowledge and experiences that the Mythos exposes you to, and your situation will get more desperate. Shy away from the true knowledge, and you scramble back into the familiar and safe - at the cost of not uncovering the mystery, or slowing down the threat.
Standard skill tests... I guess I don't see the need to have the worldview modeled there as much. At least, not with 2 game mechanics that nearly guarantee success during every skill test. It's a little too meta for me.
Quote from: K Peterson;776583Standard skill tests... I guess I don't see the need to have the worldview modeled there as much. At least, not with 2 game mechanics that nearly guarantee success during every skill test. It's a little too meta for me.
You are assuming that people will use Luck and Pushing every skill test and I can tell you for a fact that as far as Pushing is concerned at least that is simply not the case.
Quote from: Warthur;776584You are assuming that people will use Luck and Pushing every skill test and I can tell you for a fact that as far as Pushing is concerned at least that is simply not the case.
Yeah, I haven't observed that at all in my 7e game using the Quick-start rules. Players are really wary of pushing because the consequences are terrible.
There is no spending of luck in the Quick-start, so I'm assuming that was an idea that was abandoned in the design process.
Quote from: K Peterson;776427Well, using the list of changes I provided above as examples:
- I don't like the Bonus and Penalty dice. To me, it's a stupid dice trick shamelessly borrowed from 5e. Maybe it's a great thing in 5e, but it seems like an odd fit with CoC. Broad task resolution modifiers are my preference.
Out of curiosity,
is it borrowed from 5ed? I know the quick start has been out for a year, which means they had to have written this before that - when did 5th edition first start floating around advantage and disadvantage dice?
One of the most common things I've heard people say in praise of CoC over the years is "The system gets out of the way". I think 7th edition will be fine as long as the Chaosium folks didn't become so enamored of clever mechanics that they made the system obtrusive
Quote from: Warthur;776584You are assuming that people will use Luck and Pushing every skill test and I can tell you for a fact that as far as Pushing is concerned at least that is simply not the case.
Perhaps not. It depends on whether your players are inclined to gamble on a regular basis.
Quote from: jcfiala;776596Out of curiosity, is it borrowed from 5ed? I know the quick start has been out for a year, which means they had to have written this before that - when did 5th edition first start floating around advantage and disadvantage dice?
The pdf of the CoC7e Quickstart that I have is from August of 2013. I think that is the correct 'release' date. That mechanic wasn't referenced in some 2012 articles that I've read (like the Unspeakable Oath one).
I'm not that tuned into the various 5e playtest packages that came out last year. But, I think that they started coming out in early 2013? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems to be more than a little coincidental.
Quote from: K Peterson;776616Perhaps not. It depends on whether your players are inclined to gamble on a regular basis.
Well, if you gamble a lot in a Lovecraftian universe then you get your face eaten on a regular basis. I don't see the problem.
Quote from: K Peterson;776583Understandable.
For me, the Sanity mechanic itself emulates that worldview sufficiently. It acts as the rope that PCs can hang themselves with. Dive into the knowledge and experiences that the Mythos exposes you to, and your situation will get more desperate. Shy away from the true knowledge, and you scramble back into the familiar and safe - at the cost of not uncovering the mystery, or slowing down the threat.
Standard skill tests... I guess I don't see the need to have the worldview modeled there as much. At least, not with 2 game mechanics that nearly guarantee success during every skill test. It's a little too meta for me.
That meta level is the whole point - the "awareness" of being in a Cthulhu story and being able to pull back out of your character and make choices not as the character to make the gameplay seem more like a Cthulhu story.
Which is why for me and mine, El Flusho de Mucho Gusto!
Quote from: Akrasia;776201They seem fine to me, and I certainly can envision situations in a CoC game where they would come up.
Yeah, that seems okay to me, too.
I see nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in the "pushing your Luck" mechanic.
I have nothing against gimmicky mechanics, but I truly don't see the point of this one.
Quote from: The Butcher;776743I see nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in the "pushing your Luck" mechanic.
I have nothing against gimmicky mechanics, but I truly don't see the point of this one.
Well, to be fair, there's nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in giving stats to Cthulhu, or having lists of spells, or having campaigns. Some degree of the original work has to be eased up on in order to make it a RPG.
In any case, given that the luck wasn't in the quickstart, I'm not going to worry if it's useful or not until I find out if it's actually in the game.
Quote from: jcfiala;776754Well, to be fair, there's nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in giving stats to Cthulhu, or having lists of spells, or having campaigns.
But HPL did create Cthulhu, and at least some of the spells described (most are probably by Derleth &co.); giving them stats is merely establishing that they exist and can be interacted with, within the framework of the game's shared fictional universe (albeit in massively asymmetrical terms, in Cthulhu's case).
Regarding campaigns, well, Randolph Carter did feature in more than one story. Why can't my PC?
Quote from: jcfiala;776754Well, to be fair, there's nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in giving stats to Cthulhu
Nobody in my games is ever going to go mano a mano with Cthulhu... so the stats are a bit moot and will remain off-stage.
These meta-rules though, are on-stage, fucking with my immersion... messing up the mood.
Quote from: The Butcher;776743I see nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in the "pushing your Luck" mechanic.
I have nothing against gimmicky mechanics, but I truly don't see the point of this one.
For me, the thing I like about it is this -
Sometimes, it feels properly horrific is things go terribly wrong just because of one slip up. i.e. You try to fix the car, but break it instead - and now you're stuck on the mountain overnight. You say the wrong thing to the professor and suddenly he's convinced you're a cultist and pulls a gun on you. etc.
Horror stories aren't fair. Sometimes bad things happen to people even when they do the right thing.
But even in a Lovecraftian game, as GM I still often feel bad about having unfair shit rain down on players due to a simple failed roll. For me, the 7e "push" mechanic helps with that. If a roll is pushed and failed, then I have no qualms about doling out horrible stuff to the PCs.
I'd agree that it's non-immersive, but my crowd for this game isn't a hugely immersive or serious bunch. Our game is full of meta-talk, dick jokes, and so forth.
Quote from: jhkim;776921But even in a Lovecraftian game, as GM I still often feel bad about having unfair shit rain down on players due to a simple failed roll.
Which is a claim I always hear about BRP in general... despite a failed roll NOT equating to 'unfair shit' rains down on players. A failed Drive roll does not mean the car bursts into a ball of flame and goes screaming off a cliff.
And yes... I know that's not precisely what you said... but it's a common mirepresentation that fuels the crowd that wants a softer friendlier CoC.
QuoteI'd agree that it's non-immersive, but my crowd for this game isn't a hugely immersive or serious bunch. Our game is full of meta-talk, dick jokes, and so forth.
Chaosium should put that on the 7e cover... 'Now with more dick jokes!'
Quote from: Simlasa;777013Which is a claim I always hear about BRP in general... despite a failed roll NOT equating to 'unfair shit' rains down on players. A failed Drive roll does not mean the car bursts into a ball of flame and goes screaming off a cliff.
And yes... I know that's not precisely what you said... but it's a common mirepresentation that fuels the crowd that wants a softer friendlier CoC.
It's something you see in general from lack of creativity. One of the reasons I avoid D&D critical hits/misses is because of player assumptions. Too often I hear "oh, my weapon flew out of my hand" or "oh, I stabbed myself (or my friend)" and I just want to stare at them and say, "... yeah, sure, why not."
There are a lot of assumptions that pass/fail rolls must equal extremes on a spectrum. Sometimes adequate is an option, especially when the stakes are lower. And given that the die is usually greater than 1d2, the lack of Degree of Success perspective is fascinating.
"Homer Simpson, roll to make cold cereal for breakfast... You fail." /cold cereal bursts into flames
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Simlasa;777013Which is a claim I always hear about BRP in general... despite a failed roll NOT equating to 'unfair shit' rains down on players. A failed Drive roll does not mean the car bursts into a ball of flame and goes screaming off a cliff.
And yes... I know that's not precisely what you said... but it's a common mirepresentation that fuels the crowd that wants a softer friendlier CoC.
OK, but what does this mean for 7e? My experience is that the 7e "push" rules allow CoC to be more
unfriendly, in that it encourages more horrendous results from certain failures. So a failed Drive roll after a push really does mean the car crashes or bursts into flame. For my current group, at least, I like this.
As for wanting a softer, friendlier CoC... I don't think there's a simple divide of wanting things friendlier and unfriendlier. The push rules allow for more successful skill rolls and also allow for more horrendous failure results. That's generally fine for me. I don't generally want PCs to seem incompetent. I want them to seem competent and die anyway.
Quote from: Simlasa;777013Chaosium should put that on the 7e cover... 'Now with more dick jokes!'
Heh. :-) Well, obviously, groups differ.
I also play in a monthly Call of Cthulhu campaign where the atmosphere is more serious, but my local weeknight crowd is more inclined to get off work, drink some beer, and have fun being torn apart by monsters.
Some games are serious, and some games come up with Old Man Henderson (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson).
Quote from: The Butcher;776743I see nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in the "pushing your Luck" mechanic.
I have nothing against gimmicky mechanics, but I truly don't see the point of this one.
This is probably the 7e addition of which I am the most wary. I'll try it out at least once, but I can foresee ignoring it in my games.
Fortunately, it looks to be easily ignored for those players who dislike it.
I don't believe CoC was ever intended to emulate Lovecraft's writing. It says "
roleplaying in the
worlds of HP Lovecraft" right there on the cover of 6E.
Quote from: K Peterson;776621The pdf of the CoC7e Quickstart that I have is from August of 2013. I think that is the correct 'release' date. That mechanic wasn't referenced in some 2012 articles that I've read (like the Unspeakable Oath one).
I'm not that tuned into the various 5e playtest packages that came out last year. But, I think that they started coming out in early 2013? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems to be more than a little coincidental.
Then again, it's not like it's a mechanic that's unique to D&D 5E either.
Quote from: K Peterson;776616Perhaps not. It depends on whether your players are inclined to gamble on a regular basis.
I'm wary of the "push" mechanic because of the tiresome OOC haggling with your players it might involve. Ignoring it, though, is easily done and will not render the game unusable or something.
This also goes for "spendable Luck" which I believe is going to be optional by default anyway. I don't really mind players being able to spend Luck points because it will not involve any OOC haggling and the Luck pool is limited so it can only be used so often until the PCs
literally run out of Luck.
Chaosium 'released' pdfs of the Keeper's Rulebook and the Investigator's Handbook to Kickstarter backers this afternoon. We'll see how the near-final product looks.
Heh. "Softer and Friendlier Call of Cthulu" Heh.
Quote from: K Peterson;777672Chaosium 'released' pdfs of the Keeper's Rulebook and the Investigator's Handbook to Kickstarter backers this afternoon. We'll see how the near-final product looks.
The PDFs certainly
look quite attractive. I'm not a fan of all of the art pieces (unsurprisingly, they range in quality), but the overall appearance of both books is very impressive. 7e is definitely the most attractive CoC produced by Chaosium.
Also, it's worth noting that the Keeper's book seems to include
all of the rules, so GMs will not need to purchase both books.
Quote from: Akrasia;777692Also, it's worth noting that the Keeper's book seems to include all of the rules, so GMs will not need to purchase both books.
That has been clearly stated from the start of the Kickstarter. The Investigator's book is the 7e equivalent of the old
1920s Investigator's Handbook.
Quote from: Akrasia;777692The PDFs certainly look quite attractive. I'm not a fan of all of the art pieces (unsurprisingly, they range in quality), but the overall appearance of both books is very impressive.
Yeah, not bad looking. At times the layout seems busy on some of the pages. And I find that the exaggerated white text on the chapter heading pages to be a little distracting.
I was happy to see that the
Spending Luck mechanic ended up as an optional rule.
There doesn't seem to be any of the dreaded re-recycled art from the board or card games. Looks better than what I've seen of the busy French edition, IMHO.
IIRC it had already been made public that the Spending Luck mechanic would be optional. They might as well have done the same with the Push mechanic as it looks just as easily ignored.
Quote from: 3rik;777698That has been clearly stated from the start of the Kickstarter.
Right. I knew that (and indeed brought it up in discussions ~1 year ago) but subsequently forgot. :o
I like that players have the option of picking up a rulebook without any 'secret' lore in it.
I find the shift to % abilities the most distracting change, but hopefully it will seem natural after a game or two.
Just by the by, since there was speculation about which edition was the nice hardcover: yes, it's the one someone posted a photo of that is the 3rd edition by Chaosium and Games Workshop from 1986. Happens to be the one I'm looking at right now so I just turned to the copyright page. It is a beautiful volume. All this Call of Cthulhu talk makes me want to get a campaign going.
Those changes to Call of Cthulhu for a 7th (?!) edition sound terrible. But I'm not into metagame stuff anyway. I'll just stick with my tried-and-true 3rd edition. It has never let me down.
Glad to hear Chaosium is still around. They deserve success. They made many games I have and enjoy: Call of Cthulhu (of course), Pendragon, Prince Valiant, Ghostbusters (with WEG), the vastly underrated Superworld...!
Quote from: K Peterson;777672Chaosium 'released' pdfs of the Keeper's Rulebook and the Investigator's Handbook to Kickstarter backers this afternoon. We'll see how the near-final product looks.
Dammnit Chaosium! Now I don't know if I should read the new Call of Cthulhu, or the new D&D! *shakes fist at heaven*
And of course they both come out on my daughter's third birthday, when I have family in town and cannot run away for fifteen hours and soak in the gaming goodness.
Truly, the life of the gamer dad is fraught with peril.
Quote from: 3rik;777708There doesn't seem to be any of the dreaded re-recycled art from the board or card games. Looks better than what I've seen of the busy French edition, IMHO.
IIRC it had already been made public that the Spending Luck mechanic would be optional. They might as well have done the same with the Push mechanic as it looks just as easily ignored.
Yeah, I suspect that as with my group for some it'll be a de facto optional rule due to players either forgetting it exists or being suitably wary of the consequences of failing on a push.
Quote from: Warthur;778341Yeah, I suspect that as with my group for some it'll be a de facto optional rule due to players either forgetting it exists or being suitably wary of the consequences of failing on a push.
It is interesting that it says specifically in the rules that a Push is NOT a re-roll. It is a second attempt. This makes it less metagamey than some people made it seem.
Quote from: 3rik;778493It is interesting that it says specifically in the rules that a Push is NOT a re-roll. It is a second attempt. This makes it less metagamey than some people made it seem.
The Push mechanic doesn't bug me... it's something we've pretty much been doing all along... "Want to try to pick that lock again? OK, but it's fragile and if you try again you might break it to where it's jammed shut"... "Forced into the dirt during the car chase? Want try to keep up the speed? OK, but if you fail you might lose control of the car." It's a situational thing though... you don't get second tries on everything.
Really, it's the other meta-game bits that bother me... though it sounds some can be easily ignored.
That leaves me wandering what 7e changes that I WILL like... what reasons for buying it, besides some new art.
Except for the x5 abilities it sounds mostly compatible with all the old materials... I'd hope.
Quote from: Simlasa;778509The Push mechanic doesn't bug me... it's something we've pretty much been doing all along... "Want to try to pick that lock again? OK, but it's fragile and if you try again you might break it to where it's jammed shut"... "Forced into the dirt during the car chase? Want try to keep up the speed? OK, but if you fail you might lose control of the car." It's a situational thing though... you don't get second tries on everything.
Really, it's the other meta-game bits that bother me... though it sounds some can be easily ignored.
That leaves me wandering what 7e changes that I WILL like... what reasons for buying it, besides some new art.
Except for the x5 abilities it sounds mostly compatible with all the old materials... I'd hope.
One thing I like is that the Occupation skill points aren't always 4xEDU (old version 20xEDU). If the occupation wasn't one that was based on going to college, then the skill points would be 2xEDU + 2xSTR or DEX... one or two times I think there was APP or POW in there too. So, you're no longer useless skill-wise if you end up with an 8 for EDU, although EDU is still important for skills. Was that in previous editions? (I remember something about the Investigator Handbook in 5th or 6th having something for Criminals, but it's been long enough that I couldn't say without looking it up.)
I also like that the money you have is linked to the Credit Rating you have - no longer would you have put 50 points in Credit Rating and rolled no money... or lots of money, and be sitting there with lots of cash but being ignored by the Rothschilds.
Still reading my way through.
Quote from: Simlasa;778509Really, it's the other meta-game bits that bother me... though it sounds some can be easily ignored.
Erm... like which ones? AFAIK the Luck and Push thing is about it, as far as "metagaming" goes.
Quote from: 3rik;778533Erm... like which ones? AFAIK the Luck and Push thing is about it, as far as "metagaming" goes.
The Push thing isn't meta for me... or at least depends on how you present it. I'd probably ditch the term 'Push' altogether and just offer the additional attempt when it seems warranted (as I've done previously).
Spending Luck is optional so it can just fuck off.
The Bonus/Penalty dice... those are still feeling a bit 'gamey' to me.
It does seem like Chaosium or Playtesters reigned in a good bit of what I'd heard rumored early on... some of the statements from the Designers had me thinking they wanted to turn it into some cross between Savage Worlds and Fate.
Still... the Keeper's book has a good bit of language that echoes the 'Just say 'Yes'' and 'Fail Forward' mindset... and there's this bit from the section on using Skills:
"If the player has rolled equal to or under the target set by the Keeper, their investigator has achieved the goal that was set and agreed before the roll.
The player should be encouraged to participate in describing the outcome. This can include aspects of the story beyond his or her investigator, such as the actions of non-player characters and the environment."
I'd just kibosh the PCs dictating what NPCs do or how the environment reacts... but still, it's there in the text... pestering me.
Things I do like, so far:
Chases sound fun.
Getting rid of the taxonomy of Mythos races... Servitor and Independent races. That always felt to be overreaching... trying to impose some hierarchy that's seldom in the source material.
Quote from: jcfiala;778523One thing I like is that the Occupation skill points aren't always 4xEDU (old version 20xEDU). If the occupation wasn't one that was based on going to college, then the skill points would be 2xEDU + 2xSTR or DEX... one or two times I think there was APP or POW in there too. So, you're no longer useless skill-wise if you end up with an 8 for EDU, although EDU is still important for skills. Was that in previous editions? (I remember something about the Investigator Handbook in 5th or 6th having something for Criminals, but it's been long enough that I couldn't say without looking it up.)
I also like that the money you have is linked to the Credit Rating you have - no longer would you have put 50 points in Credit Rating and rolled no money... or lots of money, and be sitting there with lots of cash but being ignored by the Rothschilds.
Still reading my way through.
Yeah, those are MASSIVE improvements. In particular, as much as ol' Creepy Howie loved his academic protagonists, hamstringing players because they rolled a miserably bad EDU roll has always been a problem and I'm so glad it's changed.
Quote from: Simlasa;778602The Push thing isn't meta for me... or at least depends on how you present it. I'd probably ditch the term 'Push' altogether and just offer the additional attempt when it seems warranted (as I've done previously).
As I read through the skills section, the Push thing really seems like it's less metagamey than it was before, too. Beyond the fact that the GM expressly has the ability to say if a push is possible, each skill describes what's involved in pushing. For instance, here's what it says for the first skill, Accounting:
QuotePushing examples: taking more time to review documents, visiting banks or businesses to validate findings; double checking the math and data.
Sample Consequences of failing a Pushed roll: discussions between investigators and third parties alert some enemy faction to the investigators' intentions; a vital part of the accounts is destroyed or lost (perhaps in their tired state the investigator spills coffee over them).
If an insane investigator fails a pushed roll, he or she might be found having partially eaten the documents.
That feels fairly sensible to me, really. (Well, aside from what an insane investigator might do, which tends to be a bit silly.)
But why is that even a mechanic?
I do this with pretty much every skill roll in every game ever. Sure, you can try again, but each attempt takes X amount of time. In D&D the consequences of taking another turn are already baked into the turn checklist (e.g. roll for wandering monsters) and in other games we use common sense (e.g. "for every time you roll to disable the security system, the guard gets a Perception roll." or something).
That's just common sense. If this is the much dreaded Push mechanic, I think I can live with it just fine, seeing as I have been doing it forever without thinking of it as "a mechanic". I'd file this under "GM advice" or something but that's just semantics. *shrug*
Quote from: jcfiala;778907Beyond the fact that the GM expressly has the ability to say if a push is possible, each skill describes what's involved in pushing.
Yeah, it's nice to have examples with each skill... if for no other reason than to dissuade the knuckleheads that want to claim any failed skill roll results in utter disaster.
The spilled coffee in that example seems a bit of a stretch, IMO... not directly related to Accounting (maybe get tired and mix up some numbers?)... though I could see having coffee-stained records being what led to an Accounting roll being required to begin with.
Quote from: The Butcher;778915But why is that even a mechanic?
Yeah, as implemented it's pretty much old news. The use of the jargon-word 'Push' just gives it a fancy-boy 'storygame' air (again, my suspicions of the designers' original intents creeping in).
Quote from: The Butcher;778915But why is that even a mechanic?
Dramatic Logic
The point isn't to have your character do what your character would do, and the world simply responds in kind. That's the first 6 editions of CoC.
The point is to have narrative tension chosen by the player, not the character, to further the story and make it feel more like a horror/thriller.
It sounds less Schrodinger's Cat than previously leaked, so I am happy about that. However it just sounds like any previous Risk mechanic, i.e. Called Shot, Risk, Raises, etc. I wonder if I am reducing its wording and effect incorrectly, but as it is it just sounds like a basic GM modifier tool to allow players to raise the stakes without warping the context. Basically keep it task resolution than conflict resolution.