TheRPGSite

Recorded seminar about the upcoming 7th edition of CoC:

http://www.yog-sothoth.com/content/1105-Call-of-Cthulhu-7th-Edition-Authors-Seminar (http://www.yog-sothoth.com/content/1105-Call-of-Cthulhu-7th-Edition-Authors-Seminar)

So far the changes sound very good.

http://www.yog-sothoth.com/content/1105-Call-of-Cthulhu-7th-Edition-Authors-Seminar

Some sort of bullshit "luck" resource.

You can reroll a roll for "bigger consequences" (story-thinking bullshit there).

The Resistance Table is gone.

"fundamental rules changes"



Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Bonus: "Zeeee game remains zee same!" ugh.

Bonus2: oh also "connections" that "refresh luck" and "encapsulate the character concept" *weeps*

I could only listen to half before I wanted to vomit.

Why is that 'story-thinking bullshit' idea bad?

YMMV may vary as to whether we need a new set of rules, or whether you even want a new set of rules.

But why is this idea bad?

There are what, half a dozen previous version of CoC so I'm not surprised they are trying something different from what has gone before. Time (and sales, or lack of) will tell if it worked I guess. For everyone else (die hard fans) they have their older versions.

Did Call of Cthulu ever have a version different enough to spark an 'edition war' like certain other games, or has it been a more gentle path of revision and tweaking (like Tunnels and Trolls, onto version 7.5 and 8th upcoming)?

Quote from: Piestrio;563658Some sort of bullshit "luck" resource.

Luck stats can work okay as long as you keep them to like two or three uses (ever), make them expensive, and give them consequences for failure on a seperate fortune roll. I don't see a problem as far as that goes. The last card up your sleeve, sort of thing, for PCs only.

Players influencing the background events with meta discussion or buckets of fate points being used trivially, now that's bullshit.

As I understand it this is some people talking about the ideas they have submitted to Chaosium, and not something that has actually been approved?

That mobile phone interference was really irritating

Well, if it ain't broken don't fix it... but don't publish it again as a new edition either. So after them doing the, pretty much, same rulebook for 4th, 5th and 6th edition, I don't mind them trying something new and rocking the boat. No matter what, it's hardly likely that any new version of the CoC rules will ever challenge 5th Edition as my favorite version of the game.

Anyone seen this?

http://theunspeakableoath.com/home/?p=1024

Lots of interesting ideas in here, but I'm not sure how they'll all play out.

i like the "push" thing.  change of stats to percentiles is fine.  i'm mixed on the whole "luck" bit for now.  

since backwards compatibility is a huge thing, i trust chaosium to make the right calls in the end.  and if i end up not liking it, there's always my trusty 3e games workshop hardcover, which works just fine :)

Quote from: jadrax;563676As I understand it this is some people talking about the ideas they have submitted to Chaosium, and not something that has actually been approved?

No, this is based on the new rules set commissioned by Chaosium. The completed manuscript was submitted three months ago.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;563786No, this is based on the new rules set commissioned by Chaosium. The completed manuscript was submitted three months ago.

So 'Yes' then. Commissioned and Submitted != Approved.

Written summer of the interview at The Unspeakable Oath (http://theunspeakableoath.com/home/?p=1024).

Quote from: Part of the Summary at The Unspeakable OathImportantly, 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.

That's what we needed, the Forgeite CoC7 to go along with D&D4 and WFRP3.

Well. Thanks for changing the game, assholes.

But D&D4E and (I'm told?) WHFP3 are awesome, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Also, why are storygame elements in Call of Cthulhu--you know, the game based on the horror stories of HP Lovecraft--a bad thing? Sounds like it fits the genre.

Actually, I like the sound of those things, although I'd change the "pushing yourself" mechanic to:

* Player can make the usual dice roll, to represent the character doing things "safely" and within their limits
* Player can choose to roll twice instead, which represents the character pushing themselves, and the character will pay for it (Narratively or HP / Sanity wise)
* Decide before rolling. If you push yourself and pass on both dice, tough. If you push yourself and fail twice, tough. If you don't push and you fail, tough.

I'm sure it will work better in play than it sounds on the internet.

I dont have BRP (not counting the flimsy one in my original CoC box), but having straight up % for everything sounds like its not so much based on BRP. Can anyone comment on a comparision with BRP?

the only thing (i recall) that's not percentiles in BRP are the stats (STR, INT, etc.).  it's a simple matter to multiply by 5 to get the percentages, or the reverse if you wanted the ol' 3d6 versions.  not a big change, not like the (possibly) new luck mechanic & connections thing.

i'm fine with the push thing.  how many times have players blown a skill throw in an instance of great tension/drama/whatever, and asked, "can i try again?"  just another way of handling that sort of thing, IMO.  :idunno:

Eh, after 6 editions of pretty much exactly the same rules with new covers, I'm not surprised. Of course, I long ago ditched the COC rules system and converted by CoC games to my FASERIP hack, with a sanity system I enjoy a lot more than just "mental hit points". CoC was never about the system for me, it was about the best adventure modules in the industry.


Plus, I like WHFRP 3E. It's more old school than anything that's had the name Dungeons & Dragons on it for over a decade.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;563816Also, why are storygame elements in Call of Cthulhu--you know, the game based on the horror stories of HP Lovecraft--a bad thing? Sounds like it fits the genre.

Go to Storygames.com and announce The Mountain Witch, Second Edition using Gurps 4th Edition mechanics.  If that analogy doesn't help, don't have the time to explain it to you.

Merged the two CoC7 threads together.

Quote from: Benoist;563859Merged the two CoC7 threads together.

You missed one, there were three.  There's one about the author seminar (same topic).

Quote from: CRKrueger;563861You missed one, there were three.  There's one about the author seminar (same topic).

Oh yes I had missed it. Thanks, and fixed.

If backward-compatibility is king, why not include some of these more unusual changes as optional sidebars?  You'd be tossing bait out to the folks who like those sorts of mechanics, but you'd probably still get the sales from the CoC-heads who prefer it the old way.

Quote from: VectorSigma;563875If backward-compatibility is king, why not include some of these more unusual changes as optional sidebars?  You'd be tossing bait out to the folks who like those sorts of mechanics, but you'd probably still get the sales from the CoC-heads who prefer it the old way.

Because sales aren't the point, overwriting the older styles of play with the newer narrative styles is the point.

Hopefully Chaosium does the smart thing and not label this new thing as CoC 7e. Label it anything else and it'll be fine. Call it the Collect Call of Cthulhu, call it The Cthulhu Diaries, call it anything but CoC 7e.

And why would storygame elements be bad in CoC? Because horror is an already delicate genre. The absolute last thing I want (as Keeper and Player) is "Sharing the Speaking Stick" in any form whatsoever. I don't want some nub cashing in their glass beads during the Keeper's description of a cultist mass with "and you notice under their hoods they're all wearing Knicks caps!!! The HORROR!" or something equally jarring.

"My dilettante, as we explored the catacombs in combat gear, just realized she kept her purse! And it still has all her makeup! She uses her makeup compact's mirror to successfully temporary blind the chasing Ghoul as we flee!" *groan*

I read the summary at TUO; didn't check out the whole podcast...

From that, I get the feeling of a streamlined/simplified/less math version of the game.  Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but if a BRP based game (any iteration, all the way back to RQ1) is too math intensive or too much dice rolling for you... I don't think I'd want you in my game.  We're not talking advanced calculus here, but elementary school basic arithmetic.  What's the most complex calculation in the system?  Multiplying or dividing by a single digit, maybe?  Are there really people for whom that needs to be simplified?  I mean, the resistance table is replaced by something simpler... seriously?

This plus the luck and negative hit points elements all seem geared toward a more flashy combat intensive game than has been intended.  Not that you can't play that way, of course.  But if there is a style that is being projected, then people will tend to play that way.

All that being said, thirty years of back catalog is not affected one bit, and I could play for the rest of my life and never run out of material.  So I don't worry about this an serious edition war sort of way, but it does seem to be a viewpoint shift, and I think it will be interesting to see how much of that survives Chaosium's review.

Quote from: Opaopajr;563920And why would storygame elements be bad in CoC? Because horror is an already delicate genre. The absolute last thing I want (as Keeper and Player) is "Sharing the Speaking Stick" in any form whatsoever. I don't want some nub cashing in their glass beads during the Keeper's description of a cultist mass with "and you notice under their hoods they're all wearing Knicks caps!!! The HORROR!" or something equally jarring.

"My dilettante, as we explored the catacombs in combat gear, just realized she kept her purse! And it still has all her makeup! She uses her makeup compact's mirror to successfully temporary blind the chasing Ghoul as we flee!" *groan*

None of that stuff is in the game. There is no option for players to add narrative details.

Quote from: Opaopajr;563920Hopefully Chaosium does the smart thing and not label this new thing as CoC 7e. Label it anything else and it'll be fine. Call it the Collect Call of Cthulhu, call it The Cthulhu Diaries, call it anything but CoC 7e.

50 shades of cthulhu, anyone? :D

Quote from: Scott Dorward;563923None of that stuff is in the game. There is no option for players to add narrative details.

Thank sweet god. And keep it out, too!

Quote from: Opaopajr;563920And why would storygame elements be bad in CoC? Because horror is an already delicate genre. The absolute last thing I want (as Keeper and Player) is "Sharing the Speaking Stick" in any form whatsoever. I don't want some nub cashing in their glass beads during the Keeper's description of a cultist mass with "and you notice under their hoods they're all wearing Knicks caps!!! The HORROR!" or something equally jarring.

The problem you're describing lies not in storygame elements, but in playing with shitheads.

Quote from: CRKrueger;563807That's what we needed, the Forgeite CoC7 to go along with D&D4 and WFRP3.

5 years out of date...

O look, another one of my favorite games whose current edition I won't be supporting.

Quote from: Benoist;563815Well. Thanks for radically changing the hobby's most critically acclaimed game for the first time in 30 years, assholes.

FIFY, Ben.

I swear to God, Chaosium just wants to fail.

I'll be happy to vote with my wallet.

Hell, I think I'll start a CoC campaign just out of spite (any reason is a good reason to play CoC).

You know, nothing I've seen yet is any more radical than many games produced in the 1980's.

Quote from: The Butcher;563945O look, another one of my favorite games whose current edition I won't be supporting.

Quote from: Benoist;563815Well. Thanks for radically changing the hobby's most critically acclaimed game for the first time in 30 years, assholes.

FIFY, Ben.

I swear to God, Chaosium just wants to fail.

I'll be happy to vote with my wallet.

Hell, I think I'll start a CoC campaign just out of spite (any reason is a good reason to play CoC).

Heh. I don't say that often so... thanks for the fix. I think the correction is spot on.

Quote from: Silverlion;563947You know, nothing I've seen yet is any more radical than many games produced in the 1980's.

Agreed.  My thoughts based only on the summary, not on the podcast itself:

1) A few things I approve of wholeheartedly.  Consolidated fighting skills is great.  It never made sense to me that someone would be a crack shot with a shotgun but hopeless with a rifle.  Likewise, the lowered death threshold.  People died way too quickly in CoC - it grated with my sense of realism.  Yes, characters should die, but they should often do so by bleeding out and going into shock over a period.  

2) The percentile stats seems more-or-less neutral.  It seems like potentially reasonable streamlining that could make the game system easier to learn.  

3) I'm doubtful about the levels of success as written, since I suspect there are still going to be linear modifiers (like -10% or +20%).  The combination of full/half/fifth levels of success and linear modifiers is likely to produce unintended results.  James Bond 007 does this well, but lots of games do this poorly.

4) I don't mind a hero point or luck mechanic, but I am doubtful based on what I read in the summary.  I prefer luck to be only invoked as major events - whereas this sounds like players are deciding whether or not to spend 3 points for a +3% on a roll.  That's usually too fidgety or intrusive for my tastes.  

5) The connections I can't tell about - too much depends on implementation.  


Overall, I'm not hugely enthused - but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like it'll be much worse for my tastes than previous editions - just different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;563807That's what we needed, the Forgeite CoC7 to go along with D&D4 and WFRP3.

In what way is it Forgeite?

Quote from: Benoist;563815Well. Thanks for changing the game, assholes.

There are 6 other editions of CoC. The source material isn't any different. If this new edition isn't to your liking then play one of those. Really this is just assinine.

Oh, look. The git is going after the windmills again.

Good luck to you, buddy.

Quote from: The Butcher;563945O look, another one of my favorite games whose current edition I won't be supporting.



FIFY, Ben.

I swear to God, Chaosium just wants to fail.

I'll be happy to vote with my wallet.

Hell, I think I'll start a CoC campaign just out of spite (any reason is a good reason to play CoC).

What else could they do with a new edition of the game? Reprint the same stuff they have for seventh time? Is that worth bothering with?

Extraordinary how this board has less of a problem with FATE than these proposed changes.

I'm not sure about the whole connections thing, but so what? I have CoC5th edition if I need to play the game old school.

Also backwards compatibility isn't king: it's part of the design of the product (apparently, how effective it will be is another matter). If it were king there would be no point putting out a 7th edition.

Quote from: Silverlion;563947You know, nothing I've seen yet is any more radical than many games produced in the 1980's.

Exactly, you do not need but one poster screaming story games and the whole herd is panicking. I would guess that if CoC 1st edition was released today, the forum would be filled posts lamenting how story gamers have ruined their favorite author.

Quote from: Benoist;564063Oh, look. The git is going after the windmills again.

Good luck to you, buddy.

oh boo hoo, one of the 7 editions of call of cthulhu is going to be ever-so-slightly different.

poor baby.

Nice job breaking it, Chaosium fuckwads. It wasn't broken. IT DID NOT NEED FIXING.

You know, I think I agree. All this change stuff is more trouble than it's worth.

At least that's how I felt this morning as I set off on my penny farthing to the horse and carriage depot to arrange transportation in exchange for some magic beans.

Quote from: jhkim;564005Agreed.  My thoughts based only on the summary, not on the podcast itself:

1) A few things I approve of wholeheartedly.  Consolidated fighting skills is great.  It never made sense to me that someone would be a crack shot with a shotgun but hopeless with a rifle.  Likewise, the lowered death threshold.  People died way too quickly in CoC - it grated with my sense of realism.  Yes, characters should die, but they should often do so by bleeding out and going into shock over a period.  

2) The percentile stats seems more-or-less neutral.  It seems like potentially reasonable streamlining that could make the game system easier to learn.  

3) I'm doubtful about the levels of success as written, since I suspect there are still going to be linear modifiers (like -10% or +20%).  The combination of full/half/fifth levels of success and linear modifiers is likely to produce unintended results.  James Bond 007 does this well, but lots of games do this poorly.

4) I don't mind a hero point or luck mechanic, but I am doubtful based on what I read in the summary.  I prefer luck to be only invoked as major events - whereas this sounds like players are deciding whether or not to spend 3 points for a +3% on a roll.  That's usually too fidgety or intrusive for my tastes.  

5) The connections I can't tell about - too much depends on implementation.  


Overall, I'm not hugely enthused - but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like it'll be much worse for my tastes than previous editions - just different.

yep, that about sums it up for me, too.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;564090Nice job breaking it, Chaosium fuckwads. It wasn't broken. IT DID NOT NEED FIXING.

perhaps the sales on 6.whatever edition were flat/stagnant/just plain poor?   can't stay afloat with a "core" product selling like that.  pure speculation on my part, but chaosium's history speaks for itself when it comes to business matters. . . .

Quote from: jhkim;564005I'm doubtful about the levels of success as written, since I suspect there are still going to be linear modifiers (like -10% or +20%).  The combination of full/half/fifth levels of success and linear modifiers is likely to produce unintended results.  James Bond 007 does this well, but lots of games do this poorly.

The idea is that there will be no linear modifiers. If a roll should be made easier of more difficult, then this is done by applying one of more bonuses or penalties. A bonus shifts a result to the next highest type of success and a penalty shifts it down. This has proved pretty transparent in play.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564150You know, I think I agree. All this change stuff is more trouble than it's worth.

At least that's how I felt this morning as I set off on my penny farthing to the horse and carriage depot to arrange transportation in exchange for some magic beans.

Ha!  Nice one. :D

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564064What else could they do with a new edition of the game? Reprint the same stuff they have for seventh time? Is that worth bothering with?

Worked for the last 6 times.

They could keep the system and put out a lavish, high-production-values version like the French one. Even a few new mechanics wouldn't be entirely unexpected. But this... I just don't know. I see no merit in change for change's sake, anymore than I see in stagnation. And I have a hard time thinking of a classic game, that's almost universally loved across RPG fandom, from hipster storygamers to neckbeard grognards; that shaped RPG design like few others; that sees abundant support both from Chaosium and third parties; and that still gets tons of debate and play on and offline -- as "stagnant".

It's one of the few non-D&D games that makes the more casual people in my group genuinely go apeshit when a game is announced. "Hey you guys, I'm running a CoC one-shot" and guys who didn't show up for a session in 10 years appear at your doorstep with a six-pack of beer, a bag of crisps and Darth Vader t-shirt.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564064Extraordinary how this board has less of a problem with FATE than these proposed changes.

Cute generalization, but (1) I am not a FATE fan, and (2) I have no problem with it either (not my cup of tea, that's all). We're not all butthurt basement dwellers like yourself and Pundit.

The proposed changes introduce more abstract mechanics. And here I was thinking that, maybe, those of us who wanted a more abstract system for their Lovecraftian horror gaming were wll served by Trail of Cthulhu.

I just can't wrap my head around the motives for these changes. It can't be sales, because honestly, they strike me as too little to capture a new market, and just enough to risk alienating old fans. Looks like these two are just having a go at their ideal CoC. More power to them, but I'm not sure this is a game I'll be supporting.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564064I'm not sure about the whole connections thing, but so what? I have CoC5th edition if I need to play the game old school.

My feelings, more or less. I didn't buy 6e and I certainly won't be buying 7e for the same reason: I already have the game I want. I've had it for 14 years and it's probably the one RPG core rulebook I've got the most mileage out of, except maybe for the D&D RC.

I imagine there are a number of reasons for these changes.

There have been several new, Lovecraft focused games (heck, I am working on one too!), and they do seem to generate quite a bit of interest.

Also, since backwards compatibility is so good, long time players have little or no reason to buy a new version of the game.

Well, nothing's been changed yet.  These folks were hired to come up with a new edition, they turned it in... The folks from Chaosium have said that they're not going to use all of the changes.  So, y'know, it seems a little early to panic and call down fire and brimstone on the company yet.

And y'know... if they want 7th edition to sell, they need to change _something_ about it.  6th was just about the same as 5.5 which was just about the same as 5th, so if they want people to continue buying the game they need to come up with something different to encourage sales.  Either new rules, or a change to how information is presented or something... note how folks are fond of the D20 edition of Cthulhu just because of the advice on playing.

On 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.

The reason 1-6 CoC still sells is because no matter what version, I can use 10,000 pages of the highest quality supplements and adventures in the industry without alteration.

What Chaosium should do is make their entire catalog of adventures available both PDF and deadtree at less then Collector Edition prices for everything if they want to increase sales, not change the core system of the game from Task Resolution to Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: The Butcher;564236Worked for the last 6 times.

Ditto. What they're actually doing with this seventh edition, regardless of its individual merits, or lack thereof, is destroying the legacy of one of the true Classic role playing games of our era, one of the few that survived unaltered for more than thirty years, which isn't a bug, but a feature. This is what should have happened to OAD&D. This is what should have happened to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and a few other games besides.

The irony is that thanks to the OGL and retroclones, games like OAD&D are reaching the status of Classics by indirect routes (what with the republication of First Ed and the sucking up to the OSR WotC is engaging in right now for Next), while others have proven their enduring appeal to the masses quite clearly as well (like Vampire the Masquerade and its 20th anniversary edition which, by all accounts, was well received by the fandom).

Call of Cthulhu was in a position to be part of a select club of Classic role playing games. Hell, it was the King of Classics precisely because it had been kept in print unaltered all this time, unlike the others.

And now? Chaosium just decided that CoC really ought to be just another role playing game, after all.

Whether the fans will take the torch via the OGL, inspired by clones like OpenQuest, remains to be seen. I think they will, sooner or later. You don't kill a marvel of a game design like the original CoC. You just don't. AD&D proved it. Vampire proved it. Traveller proved it. Warhammer (or Zweihänder, rather) is hopefully about to prove it. And CoC will prove it as well.

Quote from: beeber;564153perhaps the sales on 6.whatever edition were flat/stagnant/just plain poor?   can't stay afloat with a "core" product selling like that.  pure speculation on my part, but chaosium's history speaks for itself when it comes to business matters. . . .

They should translate the French Appel de Cthulhu. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21747) PERIOD.

NOT fuck around with the core of the game's design.

I GUARANTEE YOU the sales would skyrocket if the translation was complete, faithful, and production values followed the original's.

The only issue I have is the Luck refresh. I'm not sure tying it to losing sanity works. Refresh mechanics depend on how long a game session lasts, as well as whether or not they can be engineered to reasonably include such opportunities.

Quote from: Benoist;564291They should translate the French Appel de Cthulhu. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21747) PERIOD.

NOT fuck around with the core of the game's design.

I GUARANTEE YOU the sales would skyrocket if the translation was complete, faithful, and production values followed the original's.

Evidence?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564307Evidence?

Ask the Editions Sans Détour for the sales numbers.

Of course, I know you moron won't and aren't able to, but if the guys behind CoC are curious, I'd encourage them to fucking ask, instead of wrecking more than thirty years of exceptional game design.

Quote from: Benoist;564309Ask the Editions Sans Détour for the sales numbers.

Of course, I know you moron won't and aren't able to, but if the guys behind CoC are curious, I'd encourage them to fucking ask, instead of wrecking more than thirty years of exceptional game design.

Well, don't ask me then, you tit! If you think i'm not able to do something, why ask me to do it? You really are a cretin.

Anyway I asked YOU for evidence, not an exercise in buck passing.

You haven't got any have you grandad. Why don't you sit yourself down and Ill fetch your slippers. It's always too cold, isn't it. Those bloody kids keep banging their football against the window!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564311You really are a cretin.

You are the Champion of Cretins. That should be your user title.

That, or "Git".

Quote from: Benoist;564313You are the Champion of Cretins. That should be your user title.

That, or "Git".

It should be, but isn't.

Calling me 'git' is like hitting someone with a dry sponge.

It's kinda like stating the obvious. I know.

Next time I'll just mention you have a hard on at the thought of killing Conservatives, and that's probably why you have your panties in a twist over this thread. "Oh noes! Reactionary gamers want to stop change! Conservative assholes! Got to shoot them down!"

Oops. I think I just did, didn't I?

Quote from: Benoist;564291They should translate the French Appel de Cthulhu. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21747) PERIOD.

NOT fuck around with the core of the game's design.

I GUARANTEE YOU the sales would skyrocket if the translation was complete, faithful, and production values followed the original's.

agree 100% :)

Quote from: The Butcher;564236We're not all butthurt basement dwellers like yourself and Pundit.

For the record, I live in a luxury 7th floor, 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom apartment with a living room that seats 20 people, a den, a very ample balcony, and a jacuzzi; with my wife, two cats, and a really top-notch roommate who rents our spare bedroom.

RPGPundit

Also, as OHT already pointed out, it takes a specially hilarious kind of Stupid, that Chaosium has been proven to have, to jump on the bandwagon of a movement years after it was proven a failure in really spectacular ways.  What can we expect from them next? Cthulhu Dragon Dice?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;564434For the record, I live in a luxury 7th floor, 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom apartment with a living room that seats 20 people, a den, a very ample balcony, and a jacuzzi; with my wife, two cats, and a really top-notch roommate who rents our spare bedroom.

RPGPundit

I thought you didn't read my posts.

Also, someone who's afraid of stalking shouldn't be leaving this sort of personal information where Google can find it.

Anyway, I stand corrected; you are a butthurt well-off guy. :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;564435Also, as OHT already pointed out, it takes a specially hilarious kind of Stupid, that Chaosium has been proven to have, to jump on the bandwagon of a movement years after it was proven a failure in really spectacular ways.  What can we expect from them next? Cthulhu Dragon Dice?

Pretty much what I thought when I heard that podcast.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564435Also, as OHT already pointed out, it takes a specially hilarious kind of Stupid, that Chaosium has been proven to have, to jump on the bandwagon of a movement years after it was proven a failure in really spectacular ways.  What can we expect from them next? Cthulhu Dragon Dice?

RPGPundit

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

Quote from: Lynn;564238I imagine there are a number of reasons for these changes.

There have been several new, Lovecraft focused games (heck, I am working on one too!), and they do seem to generate quite a bit of interest.

I've got no problem with Chaosium releasing a new Lovecraft-focused game with a different approach than Call of Cthulhu (e.g., more storytelling focused, more player-control of the "narrative," or whatever...).  But if they make those kinds of changes, they should do it as a different or variant game, not as a new edition of Call of Cthulhu.  They could call it "Tales of Cthulhu: the Call of Cthulhu Storytelling System" or "Calamari Rising" or "Cthulhu Next."

I like "Calamari Rising". It's got a nice Ring to it.

Quote from: Benoist;564291They should translate the French Appel de Cthulhu. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21747) PERIOD.

NOT fuck around with the core of the game's design.

I GUARANTEE YOU the sales would skyrocket if the translation was complete, faithful, and production values followed the original's.

Hell, yeah.  I think the traditional Call of Cthulhu rules aren't broke and don't need fixing, but a new edition with stellar production values would definitely ring my bell.  That French version is fantastic -- if only I knew French...

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;564510Hell, yeah.  I think the traditional Call of Cthulhu rules aren't broke and don't need fixing, but a new edition with stellar production values would definitely ring my bell.  That French version is fantastic -- if only I knew French...

It is truly awesome. Now go spam Chaosium with emails requesting them to hire me as the translator of the 30th French tome and let's get this bitch published! :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;564435Also, as OHT already pointed out, it takes a specially hilarious kind of Stupid, that Chaosium has been proven to have, to jump on the bandwagon of a movement years after it was proven a failure in really spectacular ways.  What can we expect from them next? Cthulhu Dragon Dice?

RPGPundit

You really do live in your own little world.

It's just a slightly different set of rules. That's it. You can either buy them, play them, and like them, or you can buy them play them and dislike them. 6th edition and back will all still exist. Anything else is just prejudice.

I have no idea what movement or bandwagon you actually believe is being used here, presumably again this is more of your bizarre prejudice.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;564506I've got no problem with Chaosium releasing a new Lovecraft-focused game with a different approach than Call of Cthulhu (e.g., more storytelling focused, more player-control of the "narrative," or whatever...).  But if they make those kinds of changes, they should do it as a different or variant game, not as a new edition of Call of Cthulhu.  They could call it "Tales of Cthulhu: the Call of Cthulhu Storytelling System" or "Calamari Rising" or "Cthulhu Next."

I wouldn't object to that and in fact wouldn't be surprised if that's what they did.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;564506I've got no problem with Chaosium releasing a new Lovecraft-focused game with a different approach than Call of Cthulhu (e.g., more storytelling focused, more player-control of the "narrative," or whatever...).  But if they make those kinds of changes, they should do it as a different or variant game, not as a new edition of Call of Cthulhu.  They could call it "Tales of Cthulhu: the Call of Cthulhu Storytelling System" or "Calamari Rising" or "Cthulhu Next."

Is 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.

Those nutters should be too busy porting over Les Années Folles than pissing around with such ideas of "improving" CoC! You have a backlog of work dammit! Dump CoC as evergreen POD/PDF and get to the real work already -- Cthulhu plushies, slippers, Cthulhu for President bumper stickers, and ports of non-English CoC product!

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. :D

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. ;)

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;564969It certainly gave PCs a better chance at dodging, no matter the confusion regarding exactly when and how often it was allowed. ;)

Gotta love that "common sense" thing people keep talking about. :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;564965Ok, 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).

You're still slightly out from how it works in play. Let me give you an example.

Your character is sneaking through a graveyard at night, trying to find out why bodies keep disappearing. The GM tells you that you hear a twig snap somewhere off to the left. You swing your flashlight round, trying to catch a glimpse of who or what made the noise, so the GM asks you to make a spot hidden. You roll and fail.

At this stage, you decide that you're willing to go all out, and run at speed through the dark towards the noise, your little flashlight waving around. The GM decides that this entitles you to push the roll, only if you're willing to take the risk that running through a dark graveyard involves. Sure, you say, and roll again.

The dice hate you and you fail hard. The GM says that you stumble over a broken gravestone and go tumbling. Your flashlight goes flying, and you only have the moonlight overhead now. The GM tells you that something you can't see is breathing heavily and moving in your direction.

At no point in this is the player setting stakes. He or she is simply throwing caution to the wind through role-playing.

I get the impression that you haven't quite got the right end of these rules from the summaries you've seen. I run games online every now and then. Would you be interested in a 7th ed game at some stage? It would be my pleasure.

Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564932Out 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.

"negotiating the stakes" is a concept directly born from storygaming that bears no relation to how regular RPGs are run.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;564964Sheesh. Don't tell Pundit or he might suddenly "realize" that FATE isn't really a RPG. :D

FATE does not involve any inherent "negotiation of stakes" in its task resolution.

I've run two campaigns using FATE at this point (one still ongoing), and not once did any of my players ever get to negotiate with me as to what would happen if they succeed vs. what would happen if they fail a roll.

RPGPundit

This 'negotiate the stakes' shit sounds like... shit. I don't want shit in my game. Nope, not buying it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565009FATE does not involve any inherent "negotiation of stakes" in its task resolution.

Then you're not using Consequences.

Glad your houserules are working for you, but FATE as written uses conflict resolution and definitely includes negotiating stakes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564998Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

A playtester, I believe.

Pushed rolls.

I already do this for important rolls but it is my decision not the players. A player might try to approach a problem from a different angle (for instance using a disguise to get past a bouncer rather than fast talk if the fast talk failed). or if the roll is close I might say you could try sneaking a bit closer with the associated risks and try again

Do we really need a rule to do this surely that is just being an experienced keeper and  perhaps made a note as an option but to make it a rule that a player can ask for?

Seems to me this will be manipulated to try and reduce the luck expenditure of a roll. (fail a roll by too much then take the risk and reroll so you can spend less luck succeeding.. You can threaten what you like for the second roll, I'll be using luck so there is no risk to me.)

Luck

I would much rather the investigators played a story rather then play resource management. When will you use the points?

The balance for using luck in this way is luck stat goes down so you fail more luck rolls. Only in my games I hardly ever use luck rolls

If I am to use this new mechanic it would seem that I would have to start using luck a lot more to create some negative aspect to using your points to enhance dice rolls.

This is a game changer for me and forcing me to roll dice more in order to keep balance from my minimalist approach.

It would be nice if luck was optional but as the author states

Quote"The only issue I see with making parts of the new rules optional is that they are integrated rather than modular; remove connections and luck spends no longer work, remove luck spends and there's no way of breaking ties, remove half and fifth skill values and levels of success become unwieldy, remove levels of success and combat won't work, and so on."

So it's all or nothing.

I have to start rolling more if I want to use nearly any part of the new rules and drastically altering the game my group plays.

If the new rules go through then that is fine I am more than happy to continue playing an earlier edition

Quote from: RPGPundit;564998Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

No, I don't work for Chaosium. As Jadrax mentioned, I've been playtesting the new rules for a few years, including using them to run games at conventions.

Also Paul Fricker is a friend of mine, and we game together fairly regularly. I know Mike fairly well too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565008"negotiating the stakes" is a concept directly born from storygaming that bears no relation to how regular RPGs are run.

There is no negotiation of stakes in 7th edition.

It's interesting that The Butcher mentioned Consequences from FATE. The fallout from failing a Pushed roll works in a similar way, except not as abstracted.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564998Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

RPGPundit

Scott 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.

Quote from: corban;565129Pushed rolls.

I already do this for important rolls but it is my decision not the players. A player might try to approach a problem from a different angle (for instance using a disguise to get past a bouncer rather than fast talk if the fast talk failed). or if the roll is close I might say you could try sneaking a bit closer with the associated risks and try again

I definitely see this as something that a player should be able to ask for, but only before they roll the dice (And I meant ask for with a reasonable explanation, not get automatically because they want it); have their character intentionally take a needless risk in order to roll twice and take the most preferable result, but they could fail anyway and they'll suffer consequences for taking the risk whatever happens. Any trying again after they fail the first time, like you said, is up to the GM, and would have it's own risks.

So, say, I'm making my XP rolls, and let's say this represents my character doing night classes in a science. I could roll as normal, and this represents them having an average work/life/study balance, trying to cram everything in. Or I could push it, roll twice, but that represents them concentrating so much on the learning that their relationship and their job suffers; succeed or fail, we'll have to deal with the consequences of that. Is a few extra percentage points worth their marriage? I'd say no; remember, that character has to go on existing in the game world after you're done with them.

Or let's say I'm being rushed by some gribbly monster, and I've got a gun (And have passed all my fear checks, etc). I could pop off a shot and then run, roll once, and that's that. Or I could wait until the monster gets closer, roll twice because I've had more time to aim, but that thing is going to get a bonus to hit me because I took a needless risk... if I miss, I'm fucked, and it's my own fault.

I really like making risk / reward calculations. This doesn't break character immersion for me, because it's a decision the character would have to take in the game world. Books or relationship, shoot or scoot, unsafe or safe.

I'm not keen on the luck mechanic, though. BRP already has a pretty good luck mechanic. It's called rolling the dice.

Quote from: CRKrueger;563915Because sales aren't the point, overwriting the older styles of play with the newer narrative styles is the point.

then don't buy it... wow, that's simple... you have 6.5 versions to play with already. You sound like Kevin Sembiedia

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564064What else could they do with a new edition of the game? Reprint the same stuff they have for seventh time? Is that worth bothering with?

Extraordinary how this board has less of a problem with FATE than these proposed changes.

I'm not sure about the whole connections thing, but so what? I have CoC5th edition if I need to play the game old school.

Also backwards compatibility isn't king: it's part of the design of the product (apparently, how effective it will be is another matter). If it were king there would be no point putting out a 7th edition.

I swear, some people would rather see a company go belly up then change.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;565156I swear, some people would rather see a company go belly up then change.

In this particular case, I'm afraid Chaosium might be more likely to go belly-up -- again -- if they change the system. If I was in charge, I'd invest on production values and aggressive marketing. I say this as someone who's just as attached to the old school layout and B&W illos as I am to the system: this book could use a facelift.

I mean, God damn it, Cthulhu is everywhere in pop culture nowadays. I don't think the system is what's keeping non-gamers from trying their hand at CoC; the rules are easy enough, task resolution a breeze, chargen isn't particularly involved, etc. I think a "flashier" book stands a decent chance of drawing more attention.

All speculation, of course. I wouldn't like to see any gaming company tank, let alone Chaosium. But they do have a track record of unfortunate business decisions and I'm afraid this might be one of them; after D&D 4e, I'm not sure this sort of change will succeed at drawing new players, or even at making old players spend more money.

Quote from: The Butcher;565231In this particular case, I'm afraid Chaosium might be more likely to go belly-up -- again -- if they change the system. If I was in charge, I'd invest on production values and aggressive marketing. I say this as someone who's just as attached to the old school layout and B&W illos as I am to the system: this book could use a facelift.

I mean, God damn it, Cthulhu is everywhere in pop culture nowadays. I don't think the system is what's keeping non-gamers from trying their hand at CoC; the rules are easy enough, task resolution a breeze, chargen isn't particularly involved, etc.

All speculaton, of course. I wouldn't like to see any gaming company tank (except Catalyst. Man, fuck those guys), let alone Chaosium. But they do have a track record of unfortunate business decisions and I'm afraid this might be one of them; after D&D 4e, I'm not sure this sort of change will succeed at drawing new players, or even at making old players spend more money.

I have to agree with butcher. I think most people on this site want to see Chaosium do well. Maybe they know something we don't but from my vantage point this looks like a bad idea. For me the strength pf the CoC brand has been its consistency over the years. Based on what little info I've seen so far it looks like they are trying to turn the game into something it is not. There are new mechanics out there, but I really have to ask whether stuff like luck or the proposed Push mechanic are a good fit for CoC (my initial reaction is they probably are not). Really you would be much better off keeping seven edition the same and maybe releasing an alternate version or a Savage Worlds edition. I just see this move as a big risk because the people who have been with CoC through 6 editions all seem pretty agitated by the proposed changes.

Quote from: Ladybird;565150I


I'm not keen on the luck mechanic, though. BRP already has a pretty good luck mechanic. It's called rolling the dice.

I have no issue with luck mechanics but they are setting dependant. Once you put a luck mechanic in the game, you are basically saying luck or karma is a thing in the setting. This can work for lots of games. But I don't think it is a good match for gritty settings. It certainly isn't something that I felt was missing from Cthulu.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;565156I swear, some people would rather see a company go belly up then change.

Unnecessary change is normally what leads to companies going belly up.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564973I get the impression that you haven't quite got the right end of these rules from the summaries you've seen. I run games online every now and then. Would you be interested in a 7th ed game at some stage? It would be my pleasure.

I would be interested in running a playtest here in Boston if they are still in that phase of development or intending to launch a new round of playtests. We have lots of CoC fans here and I also have a new group of players who never heard of the game before.

CoC has already had stuff like that. What else is the Idea roll, but a fudge?

These changes are really not a big deal.

There's nothing to suggest it will fail flat on it's face other than the wishful thinking of one or two crybabies.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;565237Really you would be much better off keeping seven edition the same and maybe releasing an alternate version or a Savage Worlds edition. I just see this move as a big risk because the people who have been with CoC through 6 editions all seem pretty agitated by the proposed changes.

There are already ORE (Nemesis), Gumshoe (Trail of Cthulhu), Savage Worlds (Realms of Cthulhu) and True20 (Shadows of Cthulhu) versions out there, not to mention the OOP and generally very well-regarded WotC d20 Call of Cthulhu.

The point being, people who don't like classic CoC already have plenty of options to get their Lovecraftian horror fix. If Chaosium wants to reach out and expand their fanbase, I'm all for it, but they might also want to retain their solid old fanbase. Publishing an alternate game ("Call of Cthulhu Next"?) and keeping the old stuff in print, and/or dual-statting future stuff... all sound like safer bets.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;565245I would be interested in running a playtest here in Boston if they are still in that phase of development or intending to launch a new round of playtests.

That sounds great, but I have no authority to bring in new playtesters. I'd suggest contacting Chaosium directly, as they are probably looking for playtesters now.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564973I get the impression that you haven't quite got the right end of these rules from the summaries you've seen. I run games online every now and then. Would you be interested in a 7th ed game at some stage? It would be my pleasure.

Wow, I somehow missed this.

If you're running it via post, I'm game! I want to see what the fuss is all about.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564973I get the impression that you haven't quite got the right end of these rules from the summaries you've seen. I run games online every now and then. Would you be interested in a 7th ed game at some stage? It would be my pleasure.

I'd love to try it out.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;565246CoC has already had stuff like that. What else is the Idea roll, but a fudge?

For that matter, expressing the "core attributes" in the same scale as the "skills" is a mechanical concept in Pendragon, another descendent of the BRP system, and opens up the GM's options for task resolution.

(Mathematically, it's very similar to "attribute x 5" in BRP, but it's much faster to have the number right there on the sheet. The multiple success levels per skill sound like they'll make a cluttered character sheet, but we'll see.)

Pendragon also has the traits thing, but I'm not sure how well it would translate over.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;565246CoC has already had stuff like that. What else is the Idea roll, but a fudge?

These changes are really not a big deal.

There's nothing to suggest it will fail flat on it's face other than the wishful thinking of one or two crybabies.

I am certainly not wishing for it to fall flat on its face. I understand that Chaosium needs to make money and a revision like this is certainly one way to try to grow the base. Like Butcher I just question the wisdom of this move (especially since there alternatives available for people who want the kind of system they appear to be shooting for) and its ability to achieve what they want. Maybe things are bit different in the UK. Here I just don't see CoC fans being on board for this, and I am not sure they will lure the trail of cthulu or realms of cthulu folk away. Granted we only have a glimpse of the rules and there seems to be some question over what the Push mechanic actually does. But what I am seeing appears like an akward attempt to stay relevant by emulating newer systems. I could be wrong, and I certainly wont fault them if they decide this is the best way to go since it is their business.

As a player these changes just don't strike me as adding anything to my experience of the game. Luck seems quite out of place to me and Push seems like an akward fit. I could be wrong though. I imagine they are easy enough to ignore either way.

Quote from: The Butcher;565256If you're running it via post, I'm game! I want to see what the fuss is all about.

Quote from: Sigmund;565260I'd love to try it out.

My plan was to use something like a Google+ hangout with Tabletop Forge, or maybe Skype, and run a one-shot as a single session. Would that suit you?

I could take 4-6 players. I prefer smaller groups, as it gives everyone a bit more spotlight time.

I haven't seen the point in buying a new edition since 4th. This has at least gotten me a slight bit interested.

I agree with GW, and that leaves me feeling slightly soiled.
I predicted that this edition would have some major changes.
If you bitched at me about it, please punch yourself in the cock. Helpful tip: get somebody else to hold the up the flap of protective fat, or balance it on a shelf or something while doing so.
I look forward to scrolling past many, many filibusters of grognardly entitlement in the months to come. Hopefully these will written, as they often are, by the same people who like to bitch about the entitled youth of today.

Quote from: Gib;565288I agree with GW, and that leaves me feeling slightly soiled.

I'm not responsible for your inability to control your own bodily functions.

I am always right.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;565333I am always right.

The sound of one hand, having sex.

CoC is one of my all-time favourite RPGs but I don't see me buying 7e.

I've got mixed feelings about the changes - some sound interesting (e.g. sanity) but I think the ethos behind the game system is completely different. It sounds like there's a lot more system.

For me, one of CoC's major strengths has always been how intuitive the rules are and the way they become invisible during play. 7e sounds as though it is abandoning this approach.

Quote from: Gib;565336The sound of one hand, having sex.

There's one Koan I'll never look at the same way again.

Quote from: Scott Dorward;565272My plan was to use something like a Google+ hangout with Tabletop Forge, or maybe Skype, and run a one-shot as a single session. Would that suit you?

I could take 4-6 players. I prefer smaller groups, as it gives everyone a bit more spotlight time.

Sounds good to me.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread. However, I played a CoC7th game, "Hounds of Love", GMd by Mike Mason at Continuum 2012. It was very recognisably CoC, but flowed much better IMO, had some great game elements that actually INCREASED the tension (e.g., pushing the roll), and was one of the best horror gaming experiences I've had; the rules went more to the background and the story came more to the fore.

Apologies to the grognards, but from what I heard at the seminar and experienced in play, I hope Chaosium go with it. Then again, I don't have as much time invested in CoC having come to it only a few years ago, and I'm now also steeped in Trail of Cthulhu, which CoC7th reminded me a lot of.

P.S. Another thing to look out for is Robin Laws "Hillfolk (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?cat=222)". I played a game with him and it was an absolute hoot. Much better than I expected.

Quote from: Stainless;565715I'm now also steeped in Trail of Cthulhu, which CoC7th reminded me a lot of.

See I have some problems with the approach of Trail of Cthulhu (which I own and read. Narrative logic, dissociated mechanics, etc etc). That's the reason why I stuck with CoC all these years despite the multiple variant games and spinoffs. I'm not against yet another take on Mythos gaming, but in my mind they should do the same thing Trail did (and did right): create its own game and property, separate from CoC itself.

Quote from: The Butcher;565031Then you're not using Consequences.

One of the two FATE games I ran (Starblazer) had consequences. And I don't see how those have fuck all to do with negotiating the stakes; they're just a type of damage mechanic, they're what the DM decides happens to you when you take enough damage.

Unless you're really trying to argue that "I'll scratch out these two points of damage and get a minor consequence, so I can stay conscious instead of being taken out" is the equivalent of "if I win the roll, then the Morgoth will suddenly realize that I'm his long lost half-brother and will hand me over rule of the grand duchy, even though none of that has fuck all with what you planned as GM, or made any sense at all in the setting, or was ever brought up before by my character in the game".

As for the other FATE game I was running, it didn't have consequences, it used Stamina points.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Scott Dorward;565143No, I don't work for Chaosium. As Jadrax mentioned, I've been playtesting the new rules for a few years, including using them to run games at conventions.

Also Paul Fricker is a friend of mine, and we game together fairly regularly. I know Mike fairly well too.

A few years? Shit, that is a lengthy development period!

So are you at liberty to tell us more clearly, was this a Monte-Cook-esque fuckup of saying things the wrong way and coming off sounding like you're doing something you're not?  Is this mechanic in fact something far more conventional and not a "storygaming" mechanic where the player gets some kind of narrative control over the world, but only his own actions?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Scott Dorward;565144There is no negotiation of stakes in 7th edition.

It's interesting that The Butcher mentioned Consequences from FATE. The fallout from failing a Pushed roll works in a similar way, except not as abstracted.

Can you explain that in more depth, perhaps with an example?
Does the GM choose the fallout, or the player? If it is the GM, is he constrained in what he can choose?

RPGPundit

In the game Mike Mason ran that I was in (Hounds of Love), there was a situation where the horror had already started and it was pretty clear that our dogs were pivotal to it. We thought we heard distant barking so one of the players asked to do a listen roll so he could work out where the sound was coming from. He failed the roll. Ordinarily, the rules would suggest the GM to say something like, "Sorry you can't hear anything more, or it's so distant that you can't get a direction from it." Instead, the player asked to push the roll and was told that if he failed again, something bad would happen. He agreed and failed again. The outcome was that suddenly, much closer than anticipated, one of the dogs appeared and attacked. The effect was to add a bit of trepidation and dread into the game with a sudden 'shock' when it all went wrong. It was actually very effective and I think added greatly to the genre simulation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565735Can you explain that in more depth, perhaps with an example?
Does the GM choose the fallout, or the player? If it is the GM, is he constrained in what he can choose?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Stainless;565749In the game Mike Mason ran that I was in (Hounds of Love), there was a situation where the horror had already started and it was pretty clear that our dogs were pivotal to it. We thought we heard distant barking so one of the players asked to do a listen roll so he could work out where the sound was coming from. He failed the roll. Ordinarily, the rules would suggest the GM to say something like, "Sorry you can't hear anything more, or it's so distant that you can't get a direction from it." Instead, the player asked to push the roll and was told that if he failed again, something bad would happen. He agreed and failed again. The outcome was that suddenly, much closer than anticipated, one of the dogs appeared and attacked. The effect was to add a bit of trepidation and dread into the game with a sudden 'shock' when it all went wrong. It was actually very effective and I think added greatly to the genre simulation.

If that's how it actually plays, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.  I think this might in fact be a case of the person doing the publicity fucking up in terms of how they were describing things.

RPGPundit

That's how one of the designers played it and was exactly how I interpreted their description of it from the seminar the previous day. It works well. The main issue will be with inexperienced Keepers giving either trivial or too extreme consequences for pushing the roll. It will need good Keepers advice and examples.

Also forgot to mention, that in this game was Pete Cakebread (of Cakebread and Walton) and Angus Abranson (of Cubicle 7 and now Chronicle City). Both are pretty experienced roleplayers and/or designers. Both appeared to have a good time and were complementary of the rules changes.

Quote from: Stainless;565749In the game Mike Mason ran that I was in (Hounds of Love), there was a situation where the horror had already started and it was pretty clear that our dogs were pivotal to it. We thought we heard distant barking so one of the players asked to do a listen roll so he could work out where the sound was coming from. He failed the roll. Ordinarily, the rules would suggest the GM to say something like, "Sorry you can't hear anything more, or it's so distant that you can't get a direction from it." Instead, the player asked to push the roll and was told that if he failed again, something bad would happen. He agreed and failed again. The outcome was that suddenly, much closer than anticipated, one of the dogs appeared and attacked. The effect was to add a bit of trepidation and dread into the game with a sudden 'shock' when it all went wrong. It was actually very effective and I think added greatly to the genre simulation.

Sounds like Schrodinger's dog.

Quote from: JRR;565825Sounds like Schrodinger's dog.

That's what I was going to say.

Quote from: JRR;565825Sounds like Schrodinger's dog.

He pushed the roll, so the character took longer trying to listen, giving the dog time to advance.

And if two people listen, one makes his check and the other pushes and fails, is the dog in two places at once?

Quote from: Ladybird;565835He pushed the roll, so the character took longer trying to listen, giving the dog time to advance.

So 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.

If the player wants to listen really hard and wait around that's totally fine. If the GM is changing game elements based on some "but the player really wants it" is story game BS and will lead to crappy games.

I'm going to need another non-time-based example (like a task that is either pass-fail at that moment, no subsequent retries). Because at the most charitable "pushing it" in this example is just another separate task roll at a later time period. Or, it's seen as Schrodinger's kitty-cat, forever in 'quantum potential' and only as valid as when the succeeding roll observes it.

Perhaps give an example of "pushing it" for a skill in combat where rounds are clearly delineated. If pushing it is a separate and later task roll then it'd occur in another round. If it's a weird "Schrodinger's reroll," then it'd occur within the same round. That would help clarify any questions I have for this mechanic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565731One of the two FATE games I ran (Starblazer) had consequences. And I don't see how those have fuck all to do with negotiating the stakes; they're just a type of damage mechanic, they're what the DM decides happens to you when you take enough damage.

Ummm, no. Not as written. They're alternatives to taking damage. Instead of ticking a box on the appropriate Stress track, you earn a temporary negative Aspect called a Consequence. Whether the GM or the player decides on the Aspect is irrelevant; it's still negotiating stakes.

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.

If the player wants to listen really hard and wait around that's totally fine. If the GM is changing game elements based on some "but the player really wants it" is story game BS and will lead to crappy games.

You might rule that pushing the roll means the character spends more time listening and trying to identify the noise outside, giving the dog time to arrive. The barking grows louder and closer as the unlucky PC realizes with dread that the bloodthirsty mutt is headed his way...

I don't know. Could work, maybe. I'm not a fan of metagamey stuff, but I'll reserve judgement until I've at least read the rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565767If that's how it actually plays, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.  I think this might in fact be a case of the person doing the publicity fucking up in terms of how they were describing things.

RPGPundit

The person doing the publicity might be a big fan of Forge stuff like Conflict Resolution and so was hyping it up as if it were.  

Similar thing happened with The One Ring.  People were hyping how it was so much like WFRP3, and the authors and publishers were trying to walk that back, because there's not a lot in common other than they both have Narrative influences in different ways.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565767If that's how it actually plays, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.  I think this might in fact be a case of the person doing the publicity fucking up in terms of how they were describing things.

RPGPundit

No, that's exactly how it was described. It's just you and your ignorance reading something into it that wasn't there.

Quote from: JRR;565825Sounds like Schrodinger's dog.

There were six dogs on the loose, smart arse.

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

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;565934No, that's exactly how it was described. It's just you and your ignorance reading something into it that wasn't there.

+1

This 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).

I would think that 'pushing' is a rule that can very easily be ignored, if you so wish. I don't think it's something that's dependent on other rules and so entwined with them that removing it would break the game.

Essentially it is a gimmick; if one wants to be assinine about it. But then so are lots of rules. It's a gimmick that exists not to simulate the reality of dogs and the distance to them of a potential listener, but to simulate the tension within the ensuing drama. What's wrong with that? Nothing, of course.

Quote from: Stainless;565789That's how one of the designers played it and was exactly how I interpreted their description of it from the seminar the previous day. It works well. The main issue will be with inexperienced Keepers giving either trivial or too extreme consequences for pushing the roll. It will need good Keepers advice and examples.

The 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"?

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;565901Ummm, no. Not as written. They're alternatives to taking damage. Instead of ticking a box on the appropriate Stress track, you earn a temporary negative Aspect called a Consequence. Whether the GM or the player decides on the Aspect is irrelevant; it's still negotiating stakes.

The way it works is that you take damage; and when you choose to take a consequence you are erasing a certain number of ticks (depending on the level of the consequence) from the stress track.  

I don't see how it can be "negotiating stakes" if its the GM that decides exactly what the consequence is.  If you're really defining "negotiating stakes" as "the player is free to decide whether to be Taken Out by too much stress, or accept an unknown consequence totally determined by the GM" as a "negotiation"?

Also, as I mentioned, not all versions of Fate use this damage system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;565908You might rule that pushing the roll means the character spends more time listening and trying to identify the noise outside, giving the dog time to arrive. The barking grows louder and closer as the unlucky PC realizes with dread that the bloodthirsty mutt is headed his way...

Except there, what happens if the PC "succeeds" at his push? Do the dogs magically retreat again?  This does seem like a fairly tricky mechanic that depends on a narrative rather than emulative universe.

Now, if it works in the sense that: "the Dogs are 60m away when the PC failed his first check to hear them and after that the PC can choose to "push" it by checking every increment as they get 20m closer, meaning that whether he succeeds or fails the subsequent checks, they'll still be closer", that'd be ok from an emulative point of view.  Of course, it would really mean that its not so much "pushing" it as "being allowed additional checks every x increment of time/distance/whatever".
On the other hand, if it works like: "the dogs are 60m away when the PC failed his first check, and after that the PC can choose to "push" it in which case if he fails again they'll be 10m from him and closing but if he succeeds they'll actually still be 60m away", that takes a bit more explaining as to how its not fucking with the concept of a virtual world.

I think this mechanic might be possible without wrecking things like emulation and immersion, but it will depend a tremendous amount on how its actually presented and what are the rules and limits for it.  The big problem I see with it is the idea that "if the PC makes the "push" then everything is still OK, but if he fails the "push" then everything is much more fucked up", because there its essentially saying that the PC's roll of the dice creates reality, rather than it being the GM who creates reality.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;566165I think this mechanic might be possible without wrecking things like emulation and immersion, but it will depend a tremendous amount on how its actually presented and what are the rules and limits for it.  The big problem I see with it is the idea that "if the PC makes the "push" then everything is still OK, but if he fails the "push" then everything is much more fucked up", because there its essentially saying that the PC's roll of the dice creates reality, rather than it being the GM who creates reality.

Yeah. Taking the push should raise a complication. Failing the push should make it worse.

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.

Quote from: Benoist;566434I don't.

Based on what? Your whiny complaining about a system you don't like nor understand? Get a life.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;566485Get a life.

No U.

Quote from: game.monkey;566267One 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.

Succeed "every now and then", huh?  The game survives 30 years, but now needs to be "fixed".

Quote from: game.monkey;566267So 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?

If my skill check is not "Dog Summoning" then yeah, I'm very unhappy.

Quote from: game.monkey;566267Horror 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.

Call of Cthulhu is a game of emulating Lovecraft's stories, not Horror Movies from TV Tropes.

So far I really fail to see what the goal of these changes are that doesn't fall into the traps we've seen other long-running RPGs fall into...

1. Change for the sake of change.
2. New kid stuff is kewler.
3. The game that may have existed longer then the new authors have been alive is flawed in some fundamental way.

On the whole I do not like either the new Push or Luck rules. At all. And not because it's resource management. A generic task retest rule would be far better then the Push rule we currently have. And I'd be a lot happier if Luck was spent before a roll instead of boosting one after,.

But guess what? I can easily make sure that's the case in the games I play :)

The new connections and insanity rules are brilliant however, in the way they can twist existing connections. For example, if your mom is a connection, then perhaps when you go further down the rabbit hole you keep her around Psycho style after she departs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565731Unless you're really trying to argue that "I'll scratch out these two points of damage and get a minor consequence, so I can stay conscious instead of being taken out" is the equivalent of "if I win the roll, then the Morgoth will suddenly realize that I'm his long lost half-brother and will hand me over rule of the grand duchy, even though none of that has fuck all with what you planned as GM, or made any sense at all in the setting, or was ever brought up before by my character in the game".

You do realize that there is not one RPG or Storygame in existence which does this. But whatever you need to do to this strawman to keep warm at night.

Quote from: Benoist;566238You 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?

ALL rules are there to 'fix' player & GM behavior.

And the difference between 'advice' and 'rules' for a GM is non-existent. Good advice and good rules are the same thing, and can be equally ignored or implemented.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566271I think people are having trouble understaning why the pcs decision to push would impact the arrival time of the dogs.

I totally get this. In addition, HOW is the character pushing their Listen skill in this particular example in the first place? By moving outside? By taking additional time? I'm assuming they are taking some kind of action which changes the situation, cause that's the only way it makes 'sense' to retest.

Quote from: game.monkey;566267So 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.

No, because this does something very different with the world. As GM, when I roll 3d6 rounds, where the dogs are is not determined in the universe UNTIL I roll.  From that moment on, they're there, and I know when they arrive, they become fixed in the world.
In this system, its not that the roll of the PC determines how long until they get there, its that his roll's success or failure can end up CHANGING where they are, they become "unfixed" in the world, and the world is thus no longer emulative.

QuoteIf 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).

These are all things I think would be fine, not as results, but as CONDITIONS to the push.  If the rule says "if the pc fails it means he ran very far ahead and gets attacked", that's even worse than the "quantum hound" situation, because it not only takes away agency from the GM, but from the player as well!
On the other hand, if the way it worked was like this:
1. Player rolls his normal "listen" check and fails
2. Player asks the GM to "push" it.
3. GM tells the player the condition under which pushing is possible ("sure, you could roll another listen check, IF you go deeper into the woods").
4. The result of the "push" roll determines just how far the PC went before he hears the hounds, meaning EITHER way he's closer to the determined location of the dogs, but if he fails he ends up being much closer and they can now take him by surprise.

That would be fine, I think.

QuoteIn 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".

And that there is my problem.  The GM in the cthulhu game shouldn't NEED permission to take the gloves off or fuck up the players.  The other side of your statement implies that if the PCs refuse to "push" they should somehow be entitled to be able to demand a certain level of security.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;566485Based on what? Your whiny complaining about a system you don't like nor understand? Get a life.

Chaosium does have a sad track record as a business. Read up on it (at least up to 2006) here (http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory3.phtml).

Quote from: Al Livingstone;566377IMO, most issues being 'fixed' by new rules would be better attended to through providing good advice for GMs.

Seconded. This has been my opinion for a long time. Trying to "foolproof" new GMs by shackling them with rules to compensate for them not doing their job right is not the way to train new GMs. It's just "player protection", removing the most important and unique aspect of RPGs by compromising the role of the GM. By sharing GMing responsibilities among players, it removes them from the ability to immerse in their characters and focus on their primary roles in the game.

Quote from: The Butcher;566581Chaosium does have a sad track record as a business. Read up on it (at least up to 2006) here (http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory3.phtml).

So then change might well be a good thing.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;566714So then change might well be a good thing.

You might want to ask WotC how's that working out for them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;566574No, because this does something very different with the world. As GM, when I roll 3d6 rounds, where the dogs are is not determined in the universe UNTIL I roll.  From that moment on, they're there, and I know when they arrive, they become fixed in the world.

For you.

Quote from: RPGPundit;566574In this system, its not that the roll of the PC determines how long until they get there, its that his roll's success or failure can end up CHANGING where they are, they become "unfixed" in the world, and the world is thus no longer emulative.

Again, for you.

As far as the players are concerned, these facts have not been established, and so whatever method the GM uses to establish them is just as emulative as any other.

And rolling 3d6 is not exactly emulative of anything to begin with. What about taking the dogs' speed and stamina traits into account? Wouldn't that have more to do with how soon they arrive as opposed to an arbitrary roll of 3d6?

Finally, if you're saying that the game is not emulative from the GM's point of view, well that's even more bizarre, because running an RPG involves dealing with all kinds of mechanics which support and thereby expose the emulation, breaking the illusion.

Seriously, are we saying that anything decided on the spot based on facts which haven't been established yet is a game breaker? Seriously?

Not "anything decided on the spot", but these "Quantum Hounds" would be.  

Anything in the world of the setting that can be decided, undecided and redecided depending on a dissociated and somewhat gimmicky mechanic would be game-breaking, yes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;567120Not "anything decided on the spot", but these "Quantum Hounds" would be.  

Anything in the world of the setting that can be decided, undecided and redecided depending on a dissociated and somewhat gimmicky mechanic would be game-breaking, yes.

RPGPundit

YOu really do have a tiny imagination don't you.

Based on one flaky example the entire mechanic is thus gimmicky and dissasociated even though you have never used it.

What a pedantic little peon you are.

Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

You could claim that discussing any RPG apart from D&D or Pathfinder is "weird" based on this kind of ignorance.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

It has been pretty popular around here.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

The RPGGeek game rankings are pretty much dominated by CoC.

I look forward to see the changes. If I like them, I will implement them. This far, what I've read sounds interesting.

If I don't like them, I will keep playing as I have always done. Those complaints about "ruining the game" are ridiculous and most probably unfounded.

What it is becoming clearer and clearer for me is that this and similar discussions are not about the quality of the rules or the game experience they provide. It's about a bunch of nerds claiming the property of a game's name, for fuck's sake, and whining like little bitches "If you want to change it, don't call it with the same name." Which is fucking hilarious. And sad.

Also, from now on, you can assume that I agree with everything the Butcher says unless I clearly state otherwise. The guy keeps winning threads as far as I can see, even if being a reasonable, non-hysteric poster is demodé around here these days. I swear it, I've never seen so many people trying to outpundit the Pundit.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

When I chanced upon my second gaming group, it was one of a handful of RPGs outside D&D (the others being MERP, Rolemaster, Star Wars D6 and later d20, GURPS and oWoD) that they were genuinely excited about, and played regularly.

I'd say it's the iconic horror RPG, much like D&D is the iconic fantasy RPG, or Traveller the iconic SF RPG. I consider these three the "holy trinity" of traditional RPGs.

Quote from: Imperator;567190Also, from now on, you can assume that I agree with everything the Butcher says unless I clearly state otherwise. The guy keeps winning threads as far as I can see, even if being a reasonable, non-hysteric poster is demodé around here these days. I swear it, I've never seen so many people trying to outpundit the Pundit.

:hatsoff:

Back in junior high and high school CoC was our go-to game for horror and also for two-fisted occult action ala Indiana Jones (the latter resulted in some fairly spectacular TPKs).

If they're going to finally make non-trivial changes to the game I hope the retain its main strengths:

1) Backwards compatibility. One of CoC's strong points is the large library of excellent support material.

and

2) In discussions about how CoC is awesome one of the most common things to hear is "The system gets out of the way." I hope the resist any urge to pile on complexity to the point that they lose that.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

It gets a fair bit of traction at cons in Denver, and I've run a few campaigns here.  There's a fair bit of discussion that pops up on the big purple as well - for instance, there's a thread there that's come back from the dead now that Pagan Publishing's 'Delta Green' and 'Delta Green: Countdown' books are available as pdfs for the first time.  (They're both really good books, but had been created by a small publisher years before the idea of RPGs as ebooks ever took hold.)

There's a lot of conversation at the Cthulhu-centric website/forum //www.yog-sothoth.com as well, so if you're interested in keeping up with Cthulhu roleplaying that's a good place to keep an ear open.

Quote from: The Butcher;566581Chaosium does have a sad track record as a business. Read up on it (at least up to 2006) here (http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory3.phtml).

But none of Chaosium's troubles business-wise were related to their RPG design.  They never produced crap games or supplements.  Instead, they simply made some very bad business decisions (viz. the deal with Avalon Hill, investing too heavily in the 'card game' fad of the early 1990s, etc.).

In terms of RPG-design, Chaosium has been remarkably solid for over 30 years.

Also, despite their problems, Chaosium never actually went under, unlike every other RPG company that started in the 1970s.

Quote from: Imperator;567190I look forward to see the changes. If I like them, I will implement them. This far, what I've read sounds interesting.

If I don't like them, I will keep playing as I have always done. Those complaints about "ruining the game" are ridiculous and most probably unfounded.

Quote from: Dimitrios;567205If they're going to finally make non-trivial changes to the game I hope the retain its main strengths:

1) Backwards compatibility. One of CoC's strong points is the large library of excellent support material.

and

2) In discussions about how CoC is awesome one of the most common things to hear is "The system gets out of the way." I hope the resist any urge to pile on complexity to the point that they lose that.

I agree with the sentiments expressed above.

My number one concern is cross-edition compatibility.  If this is maintained, then I can keep using my older CoC material with 7e (if I like 7e), or use new 7e-era material with a pre-7e version of CoC (if I don't like 7e).

Finally, I think it is important to keep in mind that none of these changes have been finalized yet.  My impression is that Chaosium would like to ensure the compatibility of CoC with the BRP goldbook.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

Weird.

My extraordinarily limited experience is not reflective of broader reality.

Quote from: Akrasia;567212But none of Chaosium's troubles business-wise were related to their RPG design.  They never produced crap games or supplements.  Instead, they simply made some very bad business decisions (viz. the deal with Avalon Hill, investing too heavily in the 'card game' fad of the early 1990s, etc.).

As much as I like Chaosium's general output and some of the ideas put forth for 7th edition, I've got to disagree with you here - Nephelim was a poor RPG design, because it was a game that didn't tell you what the heck you were going to do with it. It really reeked of trying to make another White Wolf game with their house system and not making it something someone would want to play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;566532Succeed "every now and then", huh?  The game survives 30 years, but now needs to be "fixed".

Yeah totally, every now and then.  Cthulhu has always suffered from a big bunch of skills and not many points split between them.  Even fairly good investigators tend to have some key skills at 30 - 40% meaning they fail more often than they succeed.

I don't see how you got to the second part of your statement from the first.  The game has survived sure - that's not "thrived" or "got bigger then D&D", its "scraped through some pretty lean years".  If you still want to use it as it was, you still can, your old editions won't explode.  Having a new edition that's the same as the last six seems pointless, so if there's going to be a new one, lets at least make it different.

The success of CoC has been entirely due to the proliferation and quality of its supplements in my view - in spite of the system - most people get a lot more out of all that goodness than the out of date and shonky BRP mechanics.

There are horrific 60's shopping centres up and down the UK that have survived 60 years.  That doesn't mean they're any good, or particularly great for thier purpose.  They really need knocking down and starting again.

I'd advocate the same for Cthulhu, but failing that a fresh lick of paint and filling in some of the cracks will have to do!  ;)

Quote from: Akrasia;567215Weird.

My extraordinarily limited experience is not reflective of broader reality.

iknowrite?

The next con in the west I think is Pacificon, not counting the Special Events (DCC by Goodman, and SW by the Lyons') PFS or LFR there are 15 RPG events currently listed. Three of them are
Cthulhu Pulp
Cthulhu D20
Call of Cthulhu 5th Edition

I've never seen a con without a CoC event, it's the one thing you can count on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;566532Call of Cthulhu is a game of emulating Lovecraft's stories, not Horror Movies from TV Tropes.

So far I really fail to see what the goal of these changes are that doesn't fall into the traps we've seen other long-running RPGs fall into...

1. Change for the sake of change.
2. New kid stuff is kewler.
3. The game that may have existed longer then the new authors have been alive is flawed in some fundamental way.

Ooops, missed this bit!

Yeah, the game should emulate Lovecraft, BRP isn't brilliant at that.  The characters in his stories don't often fail library use or miss important clues due to poor skills, they tend to succceed at all that kind of stuff.  The building of some tension in the stories also relies on things happening when dramatically important, not having strict dog positioning rules - the hounds turn up when its scary - from a roleplaying tension point of view, when players screw up a roll for example.

The guys who have written the changes have clearly stated they love the game and are trying to smooth down the rough edges.  Its not change for the sake of it, or a having new stuff because its cooler.  Its upadting an out of date system, because they love it and want the game to be better.

As mentioned previously, just because the game is old, that doesn't mean its mechanically good.  Lots of Keepers at conventions blatantly ignore most of the rules and do what they want anyway, so its hard to see what the hoo-hah is about regardless.

Quote from: Akrasia;567212But none of Chaosium's troubles business-wise were related to their RPG design.  They never produced crap games or supplements.  

Not yet...

Quote from: Akrasia;567212Instead, they simply made some very bad business decisions (viz. the deal with Avalon Hill, investing too heavily in the 'card game' fad of the early 1990s, etc.).

In terms of RPG-design, Chaosium has been remarkably solid for over 30 years.

I'm afraid the decision to revise their otherwise "solid" ruleset might have been borne out of a skewed business vision, one that's also been adopted by WotC (D&D 4e) and FFG (WFRP 3e).

Let's make one thing clear. I don't want CoC 7e to fail, whether I like it or not. I want Chaosium to stay alive and rockin' on. But based on the above-mentioned editions of D&D and WFRP, which (1) took the games ion directions that didn't interest me and most of my group; and (2) may not have been for the best, in business terms -- I do have something of a bad feeling about this.

Quote from: game.monkey;567221The characters in his stories don't often fail library use or miss important clues due to poor skills, they tend to succceed at all that kind of stuff.

This right here points to exactly the kind of incorrect assumptions I'm talking about.

Having important vital clues to an investigation be binary so if your players miss a single die roll and the world ends because no one notices the worn newspaper article stuffed in the back of a bible misfiled in a library- is bad GMing.

I don't need an entire new edition of Cthulhu (Trail) just to make sure that doesn't happen, the idea itself is ludicrous, and I sure don't need that new-school "fix GM stupidity through rules" crap added to the original.

Quote from: RPGPundit;566574The GM in the cthulhu game shouldn't NEED permission to take the gloves off or fuck up the players.  The other side of your statement implies that if the PCs refuse to "push" they should somehow be entitled to be able to demand a certain level of security.

Obviously a GM can do whatever he wants, he's always got bigger elephants.

It works as a tension building mechanic, because the player knows there's more riding on this roll - if he takes it voluntarily, it could lead to a whole world of hurt.

There's got to be some trust between GM and players.  If the players think the GM might just decide to kill them on a whim, you're going to struggle to bring any tension or that slim hope of survival, because they know whatever they do doesn't make any difference.  If they've got the illusion of some control, then they're going to be more bought in, and if they know by pushing its not GM Pundit being mean like usual, the frickin' rulebook says they should get screwed, and its their choice to do it anyway, then that adds a whole different aspect to the roll.

Sure players should get some security.  You read loads of Cthulhu tomes and you should lose sanity and go bonkers.  You choose not to read the tomes, your entitled not to lose as much sanity.  Your character gets in a fight with savage dogs and he might get mauled.  He hides up a tree and lets everyone else deal with them, he's probably not going to take the same damage.

If player choices don't make a difference - or importantly their perception is that they're not making a difference - you lose their trust and enjoyment of the game.  In our overwrought example the players are none the wiser about how many dogs are coming, or from where, so as a Keeper you can still say whatever you want about the outcome.  As long as the players are feeling like what they're doing matters, they're more invested in the game.

Characters in Cthulhu should feel helpless and insignificant - players should feel like they've got choices - even if they're unpleasant ones!

Quote from: game.monkey;567221Ooops, missed this bit!

Yeah, the game should emulate Lovecraft, BRP isn't brilliant at that.  The characters in his stories don't often fail library use or miss important clues due to poor skills, they tend to succceed at all that kind of stuff.  The building of some tension in the stories also relies on things happening when dramatically important, not having strict dog positioning rules - the hounds turn up when its scary - from a roleplaying tension point of view, when players screw up a roll for example.

The guys who have written the changes have clearly stated they love the game and are trying to smooth down the rough edges.  Its not change for the sake of it, or a having new stuff because its cooler.  Its upadting an out of date system, because they love it and want the game to be better.

As mentioned previously, just because the game is old, that doesn't mean its mechanically good.  Lots of Keepers at conventions blatantly ignore most of the rules and do what they want anyway, so its hard to see what the hoo-hah is about regardless.

If this is a problem for you then trail of cthulu already offers a mechanical solution. I guess my issue with these sorts of solutions is I want the players to be able to fail because of poor dice rolls. That is what makes it different from a short story or novel to me. so I don't reall see it as a problem I need a solution for. For me when I design an investigation, I account for the possibility of players missing the vital clues.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the gumshoe approach. i have run it and the game definitely does what it set out to do. But the decision to have or not have these sorts of mechanics drastically impacts gameplay and I think this may end up offering a style of play less in line with what classic CoC players expect or desire. So for me it isn't that these mechanics are bad on their own, it is that they are trying to fit mechanics to a game that are not a good match ImO (at least for much of the existing audience).

Quote from: jcfiala;567218As much as I like Chaosium's general output and some of the ideas put forth for 7th edition, I've got to disagree with you here - Nephelim was a poor RPG design, because it was a game that didn't tell you what the heck you were going to do with it. It really reeked of trying to make another White Wolf game with their house system and not making it something someone would want to play.

Fair enough.  I forgot about Nephelim.  Indeed, I know absolutely nothing about the game, except that it was published by Chaosium at some point.

Elfquest probably was a bit of a dud as well.

But neither of those games were the 'core' of Chaosium's RPG work.

Quote from: Akrasia;567215Weird.

My extraordinarily limited experience is not reflective of broader reality.

I don't have a limited experience.  Sure if I'd been playing with the same 6 guys since middle school in 76 you would have a point.   I haven't though.

Hell I've seen more people actually playing Aftermath then I have ever seen playing CoC.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567265I don't have a limited experience.  Sure if I'd been playing with the same 6 guys since middle school in 76 you would have a point.   I haven't though.

Hell I've seen more people actually playing Aftermath then I have ever seen playing CoC.

Wow, your personal, idiosyncratic experience of playing with more than 6 guys is really convincing!  Your anecdotal evidence clearly demonstrates that more people play Aftermath than CoC.

Keep digging that hole...

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Sommerjon;567265Hell I've seen more people actually playing Aftermath then I have ever seen playing CoC.

OTOH I've never seen anyone play Aftermath, whereas CoC is beloved of pretty much every roleplayer I've ever met.

What does this reveal? Only that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Quote from: game.monkey;567225There's got to be some trust between GM and players.  If the players think the GM might just decide to kill them on a whim, you're going to struggle to bring any tension or that slim hope of survival, because they know whatever they do doesn't make any difference.  If they've got the illusion of some control, then they're going to be more bought in, and if they know by pushing its not GM Pundit being mean like usual, the frickin' rulebook says they should get screwed, and its their choice to do it anyway, then that adds a whole different aspect to the roll.

Sure players should get some security.  You read loads of Cthulhu tomes and you should lose sanity and go bonkers.  You choose not to read the tomes, your entitled not to lose as much sanity.  Your character gets in a fight with savage dogs and he might get mauled.  He hides up a tree and lets everyone else deal with them, he's probably not going to take the same damage.

If player choices don't make a difference - or importantly their perception is that they're not making a difference - you lose their trust and enjoyment of the game.  In our overwrought example the players are none the wiser about how many dogs are coming, or from where, so as a Keeper you can still say whatever you want about the outcome.  As long as the players are feeling like what they're doing matters, they're more invested in the game.

Characters in Cthulhu should feel helpless and insignificant - players should feel like they've got choices - even if they're unpleasant ones!

So show me on the Cthulhu Plush where the bad Keeper touched you? :rolleyes:
Seriously, this is crap.  Not that players need choices or that trust should exist, but that you need special mechanics to give players choices and that trust can be given through rules.  Complete.Total.Crap.Full.Stop.  New School design at it's wrongheaded worst.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567281So show me on the Cthulhu Plush where the bad Keeper touched you? :rolleyes:
Seriously, this is crap.  Not that players need choices or that trust should exist, but that you need special mechanics to give players choices and that trust can be given through rules.  Complete.Total.Crap.Full.Stop.  New School design at it's wrongheaded worst.

Totally this. Not in reference to CoC in particular, but if there's one aspect of the "new school" attitude towards game design that puts me off it's the obsession with "If we could only get rid of these pesky social aspects of the game...then we'd really have something!"

If "assume a disfunctional group" is step one in your game design process, you've already failed IMHO.

Quote from: Akrasia;567228Fair enough.  I forgot about Nephelim.  Indeed, I know absolutely nothing about the game, except that it was published by Chaosium at some point.

Elfquest probably was a bit of a dud as well.

But neither of those games were the 'core' of Chaosium's RPG work.

IMO, the game where Chaosium really screwed the pooch was Dragon Lords of Melnibone.  (Also outside their core area, of course.)

Quote from: jcfiala;567218As much as I like Chaosium's general output and some of the ideas put forth for 7th edition, I've got to disagree with you here - Nephelim was a poor RPG design, because it was a game that didn't tell you what the heck you were going to do with it. It really reeked of trying to make another White Wolf game with their house system and not making it something someone would want to play.

I am not convinced that Nephelim's design was poor, rather the translation from the original French wasn't the best...  And quite a bit of useful stuff was left out. Like, um how to actually play it.

As to 7th Ed - I am pretty impressed at the changes, mind you I am biased as I know Mike and Paul very well.  Both are highly experienced players and keepers - their work as part of the Kult of Keepers is legendary and Paul is the chap who came up with Gatsby - so the changes are in good hands.

Mind you it is up to Chaosium to see if they do get adopted; which I hope they will.

Rik K-M

I'm a huge fan of Call of Cthulhu, huge, but I don't quite get the super praise for their supplements. I got, I guess, 30some books for Call and they are about as hit-and-miss as supplements from any other rpg company I've seen or read. Especially the newer of the books I own are, in my oppinion, nothing special or high quality, neither when it comes to layout or writing, and I have previously whined (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20683) about their lack of effort when it came to the 30th anniversary edition of Call.

That is why I'm just a little interested in this new edition - I like them to try something new - that will, hopefully, force them to not just grind out boring sourcebooks like Secrets of New York or flog Arkham county to death with more or less identical books about the same ol' small towns.

Quote from: Akrasia;567228Fair enough.  I forgot about Nephelim.  Indeed, I know absolutely nothing about the game, except that it was published by Chaosium at some point.

Elfquest probably was a bit of a dud as well.

But neither of those games were the 'core' of Chaosium's RPG work.

It's hard to say about Elfquest.  It was pretty darn popular, and did go on to have a second edition and at least one or two supplements, so I think it was selling alright.

Dragon Lords of Melniborne is a d20 misstep, but you can't throw a rock and not hit a company that tried a d20 conversion of one of their older games. :)

Ah, well.

Quote from: jcfiala;567218As much as I like Chaosium's general output and some of the ideas put forth for 7th edition, I've got to disagree with you here - Nephelim was a poor RPG design, because it was a game that didn't tell you what the heck you were going to do with it. It really reeked of trying to make another White Wolf game with their house system and not making it something someone would want to play.

Chaosium really screwed up on Nephilim, because it is actually a TRANSLATION of an original BRP game published by Multisim in France. It's one of the best BRP games out there, seriously. It's all about the occult, the fight against the Minor Arcana of humans trying to steal the Sapience (occult knowledge and wisdom) of the Nephilim, the research of lost artefacts and spells and knowledge throughout history, the quest for the Agartha, the state in which you will free your Pentacle (Nephilim are made of the magical energy fields of the elements, Fire, Water, Air, Earth and Moon which form a Pentacle, your heart and personality of sorts, which you then use to inhabit human -or animal- bodies) from the Fall of Atlantis and revert to the state of Kaïm.

NONE of the richness of the setting came through in the Chaosium version because the "translators"/redesigner thought the American public wouldn't understand the game and go for a more "hit Templars, get XP" paradigm. So they completely rebuilt the background on their version of the "American continent" and the result was CRAPTASTIC.

Fucking idiots.

Quote from: Benoist;567335NONE of the richness of the setting came through in the Chaosium version because the "translators"/redesigner thought the American public wouldn't understand the game and go for a more "hit Templars, get XP" paradigm. So they completely rebuilt the background on their version of the "American continent" and the result was CRAPTASTIC.

Here ! Here !!

Quote from: Al Livingstone;567280OTOH I've never seen anyone play Aftermath, whereas CoC is beloved of pretty much every roleplayer I've ever met.

What does this reveal? Only that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Exactly.  anecdote isn't data, yet you are trying to push your 'anecdote data' as being "more true" than mine.

Notice what I said originally.
"Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one."

Notice how I didn't say no one plays it.  I merely stated I've never seen people play it accept at Cons and rarely there.

Quote from: Benoist;567335Chaosium really screwed up on Nephilim, because it is actually a TRANSLATION of an original BRP game published by Multisim in France. It's one of the best BRP games out there, seriously. It's all about the occult, the fight against the Minor Arcana of humans trying to steal the Sapience (occult knowledge and wisdom) of the Nephilim, the research of lost artefacts and spells and knowledge throughout history, the quest for the Agartha, the state in which you will free your Pentacle (Nephilim are made of the magical energy fields of the elements, Fire, Water, Air, Earth and Moon which form a Pentacle, your heart and personality of sorts, which you then use to inhabit human -or animal- bodies) from the Fall of Atlantis and revert to the state of Kaïm.

Huh.

That's interesting to hear - I have a copy (And one of the sourcebooks), and frankly it looks like an unplayable mess. The game you described, the french version, sounds much more fun.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567366Exactly.  anecdote isn't data, yet you are trying to push your 'anecdote data' as being "more true" than mine.

No, I'm saying that both anecdotes are equally irrelevant.

Of course the idea that more people play Aftermath then Call of Cthulhu is ludicrous on it's face.  Compare numbers of supplements and editions, look up the con schedules for any con EVER.  The ones that even had Aftermath sure didn't have more events then Call of Cthulhu.  Check DTRPG stats.  Any metric you could possibly think of other then your asshole would prove the opposite.

It's like saying 'Well where I come from, we play Faro more then Bridge or Poker."  Unless you mean you and your friends in your basement, founding members of the butt-fuck nowhere Faro Association - it's BULLSHIT.

Either you're referring to a very small group of people, and are being a troll to draw a dishonest inference from there or it's simply a bald-faced lie from the get-go.  To either one, the answer is the same.


(https://nvzjpq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pldiLo7Rcr__I5DcHzVz3Vf__ZnU9BHfeiFA4l8fZHXAXHKMW966qfC1jh3bZbizsoUcErTdmLKk0DBK2CJz4fEAWuHmZuOvj/picard_gtfo.jpg?psid=1)

Quote from: CRKrueger;566532Call of Cthulhu is a game of emulating Lovecraft's stories, not Horror Movies from TV Tropes.

Yet it does a shit job of actually emulating those stories.

What CoC does is based on those stories, and it's enjoyable to play, but it's different.

Quote from: game.monkey;567221Yeah, the game should emulate Lovecraft, BRP isn't brilliant at that.  The characters in his stories don't often fail library use or miss important clues due to poor skills, they tend to succceed at all that kind of stuff.  The building of some tension in the stories also relies on things happening when dramatically important, not having strict dog positioning rules - the hounds turn up when its scary - from a roleplaying tension point of view, when players screw up a roll for example.

Or what the monkey said.

Quote from: Akrasia;567228Fair enough.  I forgot about Nephelim.  Indeed, I know absolutely nothing about the game, except that it was published by Chaosium at some point.

It's a French game, and the third edition is GORGEOUS! Though I don't think it's BRP based. I'll find out as soon as I learn more French :)

Quote from: Dimitrios;567284Totally this. Not in reference to CoC in particular, but if there's one aspect of the "new school" attitude towards game design that puts me off it's the obsession with "If we could only understand and take active advantage of social aspects of the game...then we'd really have something!"

Fixed your spelling.

Quote from: jcfiala;567331It's hard to say about Elfquest.  It was pretty darn popular, and did go on to have a second edition and at least one or two supplements, so I think it was selling alright.

It was also one of the most solid BRP games I have ever seen.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;567481It's a French game, and the third edition is GORGEOUS! Though I don't think it's BRP based. I'll find out as soon as I learn more French :)

The first two editions are BRP. The third is not, and this one in particular is a steaming pile of shit, actually, mechanically speaking, though gloriously presented in layout, as you mentioned.

Nephilim was crap (the english version at least, never read the french versions), but I do remember thinking the random past-life tables were cool.  Too bad the rest of the game sucked so awfully.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;567500Nephilim was crap (the english version at least, never read the french versions), but I do remember thinking the random past-life tables were cool.  Too bad the rest of the game sucked so awfully.

RPGPundit

Fuck that hurts to read this honestly. The game deserves so much better than this pile of shit of a translation. The second edition in particular has a shitload of possible incarnations and options within the incarnations themselves to choose not only who you got incarnated in, one or several people, but which occult events you participated in in that time period and how it affected your skills, your KA, your occult sciences (Magick, Kabbala and Alchemy) and your spells, pentacles, keys, formulas from there.

Quote from: Benoist;567555Fuck that hurts to read this honestly. The game deserves so much better than this pile of shit of a translation. The second edition in particular has a shitload of possible incarnations and options within the incarnations themselves to choose not only who you got incarnated in, one or several people, but which occult events you participated in in that time period and how it affected your skills, your KA, your occult sciences (Magick, Kabbala and Alchemy) and your spells, pentacles, keys, formulas from there.

Guess you have another game to start translating then.  :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;567575Guess you have another game to start translating then.  :D

Ha! :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;567500Nephilim was crap (the english version at least, never read the french versions), but I do remember thinking the random past-life tables were cool.  Too bad the rest of the game sucked so awfully.

RPGPundit

I bet you never even read it.

Just something else for you to moan and whine about.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567397Of course the idea that more people play Aftermath then Call of Cthulhu is ludicrous on it's face.  Compare numbers of supplements and editions, look up the con schedules for any con EVER.  The ones that even had Aftermath sure didn't have more events then Call of Cthulhu.  Check DTRPG stats.  Any metric you could possibly think of other then your asshole would prove the opposite.

It's like saying 'Well where I come from, we play Faro more then Bridge or Poker."  Unless you mean you and your friends in your basement, founding members of the butt-fuck nowhere Faro Association - it's BULLSHIT.

Either you're referring to a very small group of people, and are being a troll to draw a dishonest inference from there or it's simply a bald-faced lie from the get-go.  To either one, the answer is the same.

Reading comprehension isn't one of you strong suits is it?

Quote from: game.monkey;567221Yeah, the game should emulate Lovecraft, BRP isn't brilliant at that.  The characters in his stories don't often fail library use or miss important clues due to poor skills, they tend to succceed at all that kind of stuff.

No, the game should not emulate Lovecraft's stories - nor do I think it tries. What it does try to do (and succeeds at IMO) is to translate the atmosphere and events of the stories into a role-playing game environment.

Of course HPL doesn't write about characters in the book missing clues. Firstly, most of them are first-person narratives, and the characters would only be able to talk about the clues they found, since they wouldn't even know about the ones they missed. Secondly, the idea behind adding rolls to this game (like most RPGs) is to add some tension and excitement at the table while playing it (not the same as tension in a story!), and also to add some randomization to the game so that the outcome remains unpredictable. By giving the players the oportunity to miss some clues and not others, you are allowing the story of the game to emerge somewhat more organically. Natually, this doesn't emulate fiction - nor is it intended to. It's first and foremost a game that should generate fun and chills at the table. It's not designed to generate a short story that people can read afterwards - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: Thalaba;567587No, the game should not emulate Lovecraft's stories - nor do I think it tries. What it does try to do (and succeeds at IMO) is to translate the atmosphere and events of the stories into a role-playing game environment.

Of course HPL doesn't write about characters in the book missing clues. Firstly, most of them are first-person narratives, and the characters would only be able to talk about the clues they found, since they wouldn't even know about the ones they missed. Secondly, the idea behind adding rolls to this game (like most RPGs) is to add some tension and excitement at the table while playing it (not the same as tension in a story!), and also to add some randomization to the game so that the outcome remains unpredictable. By giving the players the oportunity to miss some clues and not others, you are allowing the story of the game to emerge somewhat more organically. Natually, this doesn't emulate fiction - nor is it intended to. It's first and foremost a game that should generate fun and chills at the table. It's not designed to generate a short story that people can read afterwards - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Whenever this subject comes up, I like to point out that, in early printings of the game, right below the title on the cover of the book it reads "Roleplaying in the worlds of H.P. Lovecraft." It's a small but critical distinction from "Roleplaying in the stories of H.P. Lovecraft."

I never played Call of Cthulhu to live out one of Lovecraft's stories (there's De Profundis for that), I played it to play in a world that felt like the same world as that in which Lovecraft's stories took place. It's a subtle difference, but it's the unltimate definer for me of why I dislike "Narrative"-based RPGs, despite those being all the rage these days.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567584Reading comprehension isn't one of you strong suits is it?

That's why when you lie you lie by implication, so that you can deny it, right?

Quote from: Sommerjon;567265I don't have a limited experience.  Sure if I'd been playing with the same 6 guys since middle school in 76 you would have a point.   I haven't though.

Hell I've seen more people actually playing Aftermath then I have ever seen playing CoC.

The second sentence itself means nothing if you play with your 6 friends, but ah, you don't just play with your 6 friends, according to you, you have "experience" that is not "limited".

So what exactly is your experience then, what is your selection size of players when you claim (trying not to laugh here) that you've actually seen more people playing Aftermath then CoC?

After spewing a long post on the thread at yog-sothoth, the thing I eventually came to realize is that I'm most confused with a marketing decision that might diverge CoC 7E from BRP BGB.  Those are the only two versions of BRP based games that Chaosium still controls, so I don't understand doing anything that would separate their mechanics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567614That's why when you lie you lie by implication, so that you can deny it, right?

Here's my 3 posts, show me where I am lying at.

"Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one."




"I don't have a limited experience. Sure if I'd been playing with the same 6 guys since middle school in 76 you would have a point. I haven't though.

Hell I've seen more people actually playing Aftermath then I have ever seen playing CoC."




"Exactly. anecdote isn't data, yet you are trying to push your 'anecdote data' as being "more true" than mine.

Notice what I said originally
'Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.'

Notice how I didn't say no one plays it. I merely stated I've never seen people play it accept at Cons and rarely there."

Quote from: CRKrueger;567614So what exactly is your experience then, what is your selection size of players when you claim (trying not to laugh here) that you've actually seen more people playing Aftermath then CoC?

Well let's see.
My parents moved twice after I started gaming
My time in the military which had me stationed in
Ft. Knox
Ft. Carson
Ft. Irwin
West Point
Ft. Lewis
Desert Storm
That doesn't include the 34 TDYs I did for the army and air force

Since then I've lived in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and currently Florida.

During all of that I have either been the organizer or a volunteer organizer for rpgs at
Rivercon
Marcon
Gencon
Origins
Capcon

So yeah I think I do have just a smidgen of experience.

See what you don't get is people can have different experiences.  CoC was never high on the radar.   It was always that game people would talk about, perhaps played a couple times, typically at a con.  From what I saw at cons was a system that wasn't filled all that frequently and had the games dropped or you had the group of guys who would show up and play their annual CoC game.
Aftermath on the other hand was a system we could relate to.  Post apocalyptic was far more our(military) bread an butter than a very niche horror system.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567133I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one.

Let's test this latter hypothesis:

RPGSite search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 216
RPGNet search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 937
ENWorld search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 173
Story-Games search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 67

The hypothesis doesn't seem to be true.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;567583I bet you never even read it.

Just something else for you to moan and whine about.

I owned it, read it, and tried to run it.  And your level of posting is very rapidly deteriorating.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Akrasia;567228Fair enough.  I forgot about Nephelim.  Indeed, I know absolutely nothing about the game, except that it was published by Chaosium at some point.

Elfquest probably was a bit of a dud as well.

But neither of those games were the 'core' of Chaosium's RPG work.

I love Elfquest. Don't know much about Nephilim either though. I don't get the complaint about BRP being "outdated" or "bad". As far as I'm concerned it's still the best RPG system yet made. Seems to me Chaosium is trying to fix something that isn't broken, but until I can see/play it I'm going to try to avoid judging cuz as has been pointed out, mechanics-wise Chaosium has always been pretty damn solid so I'm going to trust them until they prove otherwise.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;567715Let's test this latter hypothesis:

RPGSite search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 216
RPGNet search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 937
ENWorld search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 173
Story-Games search results for "Call of Cthulhu" for the past year: 67

The hypothesis doesn't seem to be true.

Holy shit dude.  What fucking part of IAren't you not getting?
DiD I say anything anywhere at fucking all about anything but my own goddamn experience?  That answer would be no by the fucking way.

Quote from: jcfiala;567331It's hard to say about Elfquest.  It was pretty darn popular, and did go on to have a second edition and at least one or two supplements, so I think it was selling alright.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;567481It was also one of the most solid BRP games I have ever seen.

Quote from: Sigmund;567750I love Elfquest.

Damn, I regret my offhand dismissal of Elfquest now!  :o  In fact, I 'm tempted to pick up the dusty box set that's been sitting in the 'Hairy T' (my LGS) for the past decade...

Quote from: jcfiala;567331I don't get the complaint about BRP being "outdated" or "bad". As far as I'm concerned it's still the best RPG system yet made. Seems to me Chaosium is trying to fix something that isn't broken, but until I can see/play it I'm going to try to avoid judging cuz as has been pointed out, mechanics-wise Chaosium has always been pretty damn solid so I'm going to trust them until they prove otherwise.

Not all the proposed changes may be implemented by Chaosium.  Possibly none of them will be.  So the final version of 7e quite possibly will be far less of a radical transformation that some people seem to be fearing.

(The changes actually don't strike me as all that horrible or even radical.  My main concern, as I've already stated, is that cross-edition compatibility is maintained.  I also would hope that it would be easily to ignore any rules that a group dislikes, as it is in current CoC.)

Quote from: Sommerjon;567816Holy shit dude.  What fucking part of IAren't you not getting?
DiD I say anything anywhere at fucking all about anything but my own goddamn experience?  That answer would be no by the fucking way.

Okay.  But if you realize that your own experiences and perceptions do not reflect the broader RPG scene, then why even bother expressing them in a thread concerning a RPG outside of your limited experiences?

I don't go into threads concerning White Wolf games (Vampire, Exalted, etc.) and tell people how I've never played those games or known anyone who did, and so find it 'weird' that there are threads on those games.  I realize that doing so would be either stupid or trolling.

Quote from: Akrasia;567851Okay.  But if you realize that your own experiences and perceptions do not reflect the broader RPG scene, then why even bother expressing them in a thread concerning a RPG outside of your limited experiences?

How do my own experiences not reflect the greater rpg scene?  There's like 40 people who have posted in this thread.  Is that somehow the 'broader rpg scene'?  

Quote from: Akrasia;567851I don't go into threads concerning White Wolf games (Vampire, Exalted, etc.) and tell people how I've never played those games or known anyone who did, and so find it 'weird' that there are threads on those games.  I realize that doing so would be either stupid or trolling.

"Weird.

I've only seen CoC played(rarely) at Cons and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one."

Is a benign statement.  I didn't come in with both guns blazing ripping the system.
But in true rpgsite fashion the horn was sounded, the wagons circled, guns aimed and fired.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567816Holy shit dude.  What fucking part of IAren't you not getting?
DiD I say anything anywhere at fucking all about anything but my own goddamn experience?  That answer would be no by the fucking way.

Yes, dumbfuck. You said, "...and the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one."

You'll note the complete absence of the word "I" from that clause.

At this point you'll probably claim that we should be talking about the use of the word "I" from earlier in the same sentence. Okay, fine. If we did that, this is what you'd be claiming to have written: "I've the only board that mentions it with any frequency is this one." Which would make you an illiterate dumbfuck.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567857How do my own experiences not reflect the greater rpg scene?

Um, because they are your own experiences.

Perhaps it is time for a basic statistics class?

Quote from: Sommerjon;567857There's like 40 people who have posted in this thread.  Is that somehow the 'broader rpg scene'?

I can't speak for everyone else who has posted in this thread, but anyone who claims that their own particular experiences are representative of the 'broader rpg scene' is an idiot.

To defend the relative popularity of CoC all one has to do is point to the obvious data: the long history of CoC, the many awards it's won over the years, the websites devoted to it, the threads devoted to it on many different fora, the numerous supplements that have been published for it over three decades, and so forth.

CoC is not D&D.  But to suggest that it's not as popular as Aftermath is almost as idiotic as thinking that one's particular experience with RPGs is representative of the broader community.

Quote from: Akrasia;567861Um, because they are your own experiences.


To defend the relative popularity of CoC all one has to do is point to the obvious data: the long history of CoC, the many awards it's won over the years, the websites devoted to it, the threads devoted to it on many different fora, the numerous supplements that have been published for it over three decades, and so forth.

Or for that matter to see how many competitors it has generated - Trail of Cthuhlu etc...