Quote from: Peregrin;564581Is there an industry where re-designs are preferentially treated as separate lines by the majority of creators/producers?  It seems to me most re-boots and re-designs don't bother with cordoning off that stuff -- it either replaces or gets folded directly into the existing legacy line.

Video games used to be. Major shifts in sequel design usually had some sort of warning ahead of time. Granted there's plenty of exceptions, but spin-offs used to fill this function. Explains why major characters ended up being plastered across genres.

But times change... always for the worse.

Quote from: Opaopajr;564583Video games used to be. Major shifts in sequel design usually had some sort of warning ahead of time. Granted there's plenty of exceptions, but spin-offs used to fill this function. Explains why major characters ended up being plastered across genres.

But times change... always for the worse.

Plenty of exceptions (considering a lot of them are major titles like Final Fantasy, Doom, Quake, Fallout, Mechwarrior, Team Fortress) doesn't really tell me spin-offs filled this function a majority of the time.

I mean, CoC isn't exactly changing genres, here, even if some of the core procedures are changing a bit.  It more reminds me of the debates over the real-time vs turn-based in FF or people bitching about grenades being removed from Team Fortress or Fallout 3 being "Oblivion with guns."

Granted, these days most designers don't seem to concern themselves with fitting into a particular game genre or obeying all of a particular genre's established conventions.  But that's for good reason.

Reality is riddled with exceptions in just about everything. Nothing new. I'm noting trends, which with your last sentence basically agreed that things in video games have changed similarly.

And even if it isn't changing so drastically as to shift mechanics into an entirely different game genre, it would be worrisome to see them change for changes sake. There's cosmetic changes that are truly cosmetic (incorporating errata and text migration into modern printings), and then there are "cosmetic changes" that end with greater ramifications. The trouble with the latter is the damage is only visible after it is already done.

The easier solution is don't change what's perfectly OK, do the truly cosmetic, and go crazy wild on a new game. In the end it's even less work for them as well. It's an easy win-win.

And I don't find modern design of professional big name rpgs or video games all that much to write home about. So about your last sentence commentary, I disagree about a designer's good reason to ignore conventions. But then I'm thoroughly jaded and no longer a part of the modern commercial audience of most things from music and television to video games and rpgs. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: jcfiala;564273On the other hand, I've got to wonder if Chaosium encouraged them to give an interview about the changes so that they could surf the gaming forums and see how the changes are received.

This was just a seminar delivered to the attendees at Continuum 2012 by the authors of the new rules set commissioned by Chaosium.

Quote from: Opaopajr;564582Those nutters should be too busy porting over Les Années Folles

That was my suggestion when Chaosium asked for ideas about a special 30th anniversary project.  Instead we got a(nother) limited edition rulebook.  Yippee...

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;564503What 'failed movement' would that be? Making updates to a game's rules?  I don't get what you're talking about here.

Forgist Storygaming.  But I suspect you knew that already.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;564889Forgist Storygaming.  But I suspect you knew that already.

RPGPundit

Do you seriously believe that these people genuinely sat down and thought "i know what CoC needs...that thing that pundit keeps bitching about, what was it? Ah yes, forgist storygaming"

And what exactly, again, is forgist storygaming? You have NEVER defined your own terms for your stupid crusade.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564889Forgist Storygaming.

Out of interest, where are you getting your information from? I know Paul and Mike, and neither of them had anything to do with the Forge or favour that style of play. You obviously know something I don't.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564932You obviously know something I don't.

Do you know the definitions and differences between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution?

Quote from: reported summary of submitted systemImportantly, the 7th Edition rules call on the Keeper and the players to be explicit about what a skill roll means and what will be the consequences for succeeding or failing. That’s usually good advice in Call of Cthulhu, but it’s crucial in the system Mike and Paul have built.

In their system a player can “push” a failed skill or characteristic roll, getting a chance to try again by agreeing to more dire consequences for failure. If you push a skill, failing the retry won’t just mean you don’t get what you want, it means you also might encounter some new threat or dangerous trouble. Player-Keeper communication is key when the players have to decide whether it’s worth pushing a failed roll.

If the player is negotiating with the GM to determine the consequences of an action before the action occurs, and after failure can adjust the results by accepting consequences, the player is choosing to alter the narrative of the story outside his character's actions (the die roll).

This is called "Conflict Resolution" and has the player, for reasons dealing with the co-telling of the narrative, choose under what conditions the character succeeds or fails.  The player isn't immersing in the character at all, it's a story-based focus, not a character-based one.  Such a system is the dominant type of resolution favored and championed by the Forge.


TL/DR: Indiana Jones didn't decide to fail at his Detect Poison roll, yet succeed by accepting the complication of losing his monkey.  Lawrence Kasdan decided that when he wrote the screenplay.

Are you playing CoC to be a character or to be HP Lovecraft?

Quote from: CRKrueger;564939Do you know the definitions and differences between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution?

Yes, very well. This is slightly different from conflict resolution.

As you pointed out, conflict resolution requires negotiation as to what the outcome of a roll is. In this case, there is no negotiation. The GM only warns, usually in vague terms, that something bad will happen if the player pushes and fails. The player has no input in this.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564939Do you know the definitions and differences between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution?

Sheesh. Don't tell Pundit or he might suddenly "realize" that FATE isn't really a RPG.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564940Yes, very well. This is slightly different from conflict resolution.

As you pointed out, conflict resolution requires negotiation as to what the outcome of a roll is. In this case, there is no negotiation. The GM only warns, usually in vague terms, that something bad will happen if the player pushes and fails. The player has no input in this.

Ok, but the player is still choosing whether to Fail or "Succeed in an Interesting (in the Chinese fashion) Way".  They are making the choice as a player choosing to take the GM's offer to advance the story in a different way.  "Conflict Resolution Lite" is not Task Resolution (the method of the previous 30 years of CoC).

Maybe some people here would like a reprint of the first edition?

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;564966Maybe some people here would like a reprint of the first edition?

I would actually seriously consider buying exactly that.

Quote from: Benoist;564968I would actually seriously consider buying exactly that.

It certainly gave PCs a better chance at dodging, no matter the confusion regarding exactly when and how often it was allowed.