I just ran across Colonial Gothic and think its a really groovy, creative game. I am glad I picked it up and look forward to running it tomorrow, but I have to say parts of the rules are super rough, particularly for a 3rd edition. There are all kinds of ambiguously written rules and quite a few things that are just obviously dumb (like, some aimed shots have you take a -3 penalty to hit to gain a +2 damage ... in a combat system where you do 1 extra point of damage for every point by which your attack roll succeeds. Doh!). This is clearly a game where you need to take the good, ignore the durpy parts, and fill in with something rational wherever it seems needed.

Anyway, one thing just has me super confused. Some of the books list weapon damages as a base value and thats that. Others list weapon damage as a value followed by some large number in parentheses, like this: '4 (50)' or something like that. I can't find anywhere that explains what the parenthetical number means. Anyone out there understand how this works?

Edit: A related question: the 3rd edition rules make it pretty clear that you ADD to damage by the amount by which your to-hit roll exceeded its target value. But there is an example given where it really seems like they MULTIPLIED the damage by some value that seems to be based on how many extra success categories you achieved (where each success category represents a couple points on your to-hit roll). Maybe earlier editions did the latter and they just didn't fix it or something?

According to 2nd edition, the number in the parentheses indicates the maximum damage of that weapon, and the amount of damage that the weapon will automatically do on a dramatic success.  Not all weapons will have this maximum.

Not sure about the multiplication issue in your edit.  Hope that helps.

edit: I looked at Shadow, sword, and spell.  In that game (same system) it seems ranged weapons do not add successes for damage, they multiply.  So, a damage of 6 with 3 successes would do 18 damage ( melee or unarmed would still do 9).  This is not in the 2e Colonial Gothic book.  I'm guessing it was a correction in the 3rd edition without the corresponding text.

Maybe. I was guessing something sort of like that. From what I can tell there were substantial mechanical changes from edition to edition, without any careful explanation and with retention of inconsistencies in some details in the most recent edition. Based on the range in HP, the values of damage stats for weapons and, particularly, the value of armor in the game, I think it should almost certainly be played using the multiplication version, not the addition version. As far as I can tell, it is literally impossible for a moderately skilled combatant (say, +5 skill) to hurt someone wearing a chain shirt by firing a gun at them - even with maximum die roll results (double 12's). If you use the multiplication rule, that same attack would do 20-30 points of damage through armor, as it should (for reference, a typical person has 30-35 HP). There are a half dozen other quantitative issues (aimed shots; comparison of unarmed and armed damage, etc.) where the multiplication rule makes sense and the addition rule doesn't. I'd say the correct approach is that you should use the addition rule for any usually non-lethal attacks (fist, club, etc.) and the multiplication rule for any attacks with normally lethal weapons (guns and edged weapons)

Sounds like someone really needed a decent editor.

Yes, this is a really cool game with a surprisingly large and well produced line of books, riddled through with completely goofy ambiguities and inconsistencies in the concrete elements of event resolution. It is basically OD&D set in colonial America, with good art work.

How much of the setting material is adaptable to, oh, say Lion & Dragon or ACKS?

A lot of it. But, one of the things I like about the game is that its page count of the main rule books is mostly dedicated to things you can use in play. I am not crazy about the idea of replacing all that with replacement text for another system. A better idea, I would say, is to just ignore the mechanics details that the author couldn't seem to keep under control, and replace them with a page or two of clear house rules. The core 'engine' of the game system is more or less as good as any other you might replace it with. It just has bunch of very specific fuckwitery that crops up in the mechanics for damage and certain kinds of event resolution.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1030774A lot of it. But, one of the things I like about the game is that its page count of the main rule books is mostly dedicated to things you can use in play. I am not crazy about the idea of replacing all that with replacement text for another system. A better idea, I would say, is to just ignore the mechanics details that the author couldn't seem to keep under control, and replace them with a page or two of clear house rules. The core 'engine' of the game system is more or less as good as any other you might replace it with. It just has bunch of very specific fuckwitery that crops up in the mechanics for damage and certain kinds of event resolution.

Thanks! That time and place is one of personal interest for gaming, and has been for a while.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1029774... a few things that are just obviously dumb (like, some aimed shots have you take a -3 penalty to hit to gain a +2 damage ... in a combat system where you do 1 extra point of damage for every point by which your attack roll succeeds. Doh!)....

Just a guess via logic, but it seems to me this could likely mean you roll to hit at -3 and then if you hit, you apply damage as if you had rolled with a +2 rather than a -3.

As much as I like this game's setting material, the rules - at least upto 2nd edition - are in desperate need of severe editing for clarity and consistency. I haven't checked 3rd edition, which switched from a roll-under to a roll-over mechanic and supposedly fixed unclarities and inconsistencies.

I've thought of running it using Cakebread & Walton's Renaissance system, for which a couple of colonial era scenarios have been published.


Unfortunately the same issues seem to have been carried over to the scifi game Thousand Suns - second edition currently available from Grognardia Games - so referring to that didn't help either.

I can believe that 3E fixed some things; it is really pretty straightforward to grok the basic structure of the rules, and they are fine (though I am always critical of anyone publishing a new house system in an era when we all have literally hundreds of equivalent systems at our finger tips). I am not super experienced with the system yet, but my impression is that 3E has three issues now: 1) the editing was not sufficiently careful to remove statements that refer to prior edition rules; 2) there is no clear explanation of the changes from edition to edition, and a lot of the setting and character option material was written for prior editions; and 3) at least a couple of the rules that seem to be new to 3E are just unsound. Damage in particular can't be right - it is so reduced from prior editions that now it is basically impossible to kill someone by shooting them in the chest with a hand cannon at point blank range. This must be a play test issue or something, as the prior edition rule was fine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1030671Sounds like someone really needed a decent editor.

Editors are more expensive than writers or artists

Perhaps this link offers a solution to your liking:

Cthulhu 1776: Converting Colonial Gothic to Call of Cthulhu | Graeme Davis

Note that Sixtystone Press has a complete colonial Lovecraft Country setting in the pipeline. It's been a while since I read any news about it, though.

Quote from: 3rik;1031052Perhaps this link offers a solution to your liking:

Cthulhu 1776: Converting Colonial Gothic to Call of Cthulhu | Graeme Davis

Note that Sixtystone Press has a complete colonial Lovecraft Country setting in the pipeline. It's been a while since I read any news about it, though.

Looks like some cool setting appropriate material, but says nothing about the thread's focus

Quote from: Larsdangly;1031067Looks like some cool setting appropriate material, but says nothing about the thread's focus

Just convert the whole thing over to CoC and run it in that system.