A rundown of the core mechanic of Ctech, Framewerk.
Characters have Attributes and Skills. Attributes are rated on a scale of 1-10, and skills are rated 1-5. You use d10s
Whenever the Storyguide (referee) determines that it would be appropriate to have a character see if they could fail at something there is a Test. Each Test has a Degree and a Difficulty. Difficulty is the target number of the die roll in the test, and the Degree is just plain speak for roughly how hard a Test is. There are two sets of difficulties given, one is a set of value ranges grouped together by Degree, and the other is a single standard value for when the SG doesn't feel like taking the time to make a nuanced Difficulty. The standard diffuclties are 8, 12, 16, 22, 28, and 34.
When making a Test, the player determines the Base and Dice of the Test. The Base is just the Attribute associated with the Skill being tested. The whole attribute is used. The number of dice being rolled is equal to the rating of the skill, so 1 to 5 dice.
So far generally straight forward. But now for the poker dice.
So you roll your dice, but you don't get to add them all to your base. You have three options, depending on how many dice you are rolling.
You can always keep the highest die roll and add it.
If you keep the highest set of multiples, doubles and triples and the like, them all together.
Or if you are rolling 3 or more dice, you can keep the highest straight.
if you get 10 or more than the difficulty you have critically succeeded, doing what you wanted to do twice as well.
Looks simple right? I mean I don't play poker, but I understand the idea of this mechanic. I don't have an intuitive understanding of the probabilities of success in this context, but I could probably just go with the flow. I don't have the understanding of probabilities enough to go through and see if mathematically the system falls apart at the higher difficulties or not.
But now lets talk about rolling ones. If half or more of your dice roll ones, one die if you rolled one die or 3 dice if you rolled 5 dice (presumably 2 dice if you rolled 3), you have just critically failed, with results at least twice as bad as if you just failed. my probability math is weak, but I'm guessing it's 10% with die all the way to a 0.1% chance when rolling 5 dice. Which isn't bad, now that I think about it, but the rules don't address the possibility of both critically succeeding and failing on the same roll. Which takes precedence, failure or success.
Combat is basically the same, only the difficulty is determined by the defender's Test roll, with extra dice of damage awarded based on how the attacker beat the defender's number.
Re-examining the system, the poker dice mechanic isn't that terrible, but in my one attempt at using it, very unfriendly with people new to RPGs, somehow. It might be time for me to give it another go, but the poker dice thing just seems really gimmicky to me.
I'll add:
If you meet or beet the Difficulty Number you succeed.
If your total is below the Difficulty Number you fail.
Automatic Success = you can just "take a 7" on the roll and add that to your Attribute. If it beats the DN, you succeed. Otherwise, you have to roll.
Critical Failures trump everything. So if you happen upon one, you just Critically Failed, regardless.
Of course, if your Attribute +7 is over the DN, then don't roll! :-)
I think it's a fun mechanic.
I like it too. It provides reliable and easy to determine results, with the ability for amazing success. Something that is consistent with the genre.
I also really like how it interacts with Drama Points. You can spend them after you roll, but often they don't add to the result unless you get a match or a run. It can be very tense to use them.
When I ran it I allowed for two number runs as well, to be consistent with two number matches. This did boost success but actually helped avoid the system from dragging in combat.
Here is a list of books (and if I own them in physical copy or PDF)
Core Book (physical and PDF)
GM Screen - 4 panel - Landscape with color cardboard reference sheets (physical)
Dark Passions (physical)
Damnation View (physical)
Vade Mecum (physical)
Unveiled Threats (physical)
Ancient Enemies (physical)
Mortal Remains (physical)
CthulhuTech: Racial Insecurities – Fetch (will be ordering softcover with PDF)
CthulhuTech – Burning Horizon (will be ordering hardcover with PDF)
CthulhuTech – Hot Merchandise I – OP#1 - Adventure (PDF)
CthulhuTech – Hot Merchandise II – OP#2 - Adventure (PDF)
CthulhuTech – New Parents – OP#3 - Adventure (PDF)
CthulhuTech – Finding the Fallen I – OP#4 - Adventure (PDF)
Character Sheet (PDF)
World Map (PDF)
Quick Start (PDF)
Burning Horizon is well worth it, even if for just space capable mecha and PA.
I think you can get the Quick Start in POD too (it's the only thing I haven't grabbed yet).
If anyone is looking for Demo scenarios I did four that are ready to run and cover all aspects of game play (Parapsychics, Tagers, Engel Pilots and NEG).
Interesting.
Is anybody willing to write up one or two examples of how the system works for combat and for non combat/unopposed actions?
I did several extensive Fight examples back in 2007:
Personal Scale: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?368368-Let%92s-Fight-CthulhuTech-%96-Vitality-Phase
Vehicle Scale: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?368836-Let-s-Fight-CThulhuTech-Integrity-Phase
I also did a chapter by chapter read through here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?367576-Let%92s-Read-CthulhuTech-%96-Discovery-Phase
I also did an PBP game on RPGnet and can find the link if needed.
As said, I also did a series of ready to run Demo scenarios with Wildfire's consent. They use a simplified version of the system and contain everything needed to play. They highlight the primary genres and subsystems in the RPG:
Aeon Angelus Necronomicon, a "Evangelion" inspired Tragic Epic: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a33rh4q0atytexd/Aeon%20Angelus%20Necronomicon%20Evolution.pdf
Lambs of a Nameless God, an "Akira" inspired Survival Horror: https://www.dropbox.com/s/arleg7yp16ww4pn/Lambs%20of%20a%20Nameless%20God.pdf
To Kill A Lie, a "Ghost in the Shell" inspired Espionage Thriller: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1srqte389iq0yh7/ToKillALie2.pdf
Arnimor DUAL, a "Gundam SEED" inspired Military Drama: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d72k74ut63z5o1x/WRArnimorDUAL%20Plus.pdf
Well this thread has got me doing a re-look at CTech. I was originally going to mine the setting for a mecha game using BRP Mecha.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;804059Well this thread has got me doing a re-look at CTech. I was originally going to mine the setting for a mecha game using BRP Mecha.
I'll be honest. Do this anyway. The system really doesn't hold up well in play, it is too complex for the data returned. The writers really didn't seem to know what they were doing with it, and generally didn't do any research on a lot of things in their books. So best to do something cool with a system more elegant and mature.
Though I agree the system is not without it's flaws and it is a first effort, I think it plays a lot better than its critics suggest. As said, the reliable result range with possibility of huge successes, along with the engaging and risky drama point system do a lot to promote the right feel.
In addition, it gets a bunch of things right (for me at least) that very few mecha RPGs have managed. The focus away from constructing mecha and tactical combat to mecha action centred around their pilots is simply fantastic (especially when you add CTech's solid base for weirdness). It's balance of realism, OTT anime, and a dark and sexy future is pretty cool too, and not fleshed out in many mecha RPGs to the same extent as CTech.
It is also an easy to tinker with and speed up aspects without changing the underlying math. For example, we changed each d10 of damage and armour into 1 damage and divided Vitality/Integrity by 5. Scale issues are almost entirely resolved by using x5 rather than x50 between tiers too.
I also think that the setting is better for the genre than the common outcry would suggest. Yes, they made a handful of stupid calls when dealing with sexual issues, but I find the complaints piled on top of that are blown entirely out of proportion. The setting isn't intended to be most of the things that those critics insist (to the point of sabotaging any other discussuon of the setting) it must be.
I love the mechs, I love the idea, I have yet to try it. I too would maybe want to BRP it. Not because "muh CoC is bee-arr-pee", but because it would just make life easier (though the poker dice are groovy). I am torn. I love the mechs in CTech, I can dig it in general but what concessions or elements are going to be compromised by using another system with the fluff? If any?
Quote from: Skywalker;804061The focus away from constructing mecha and tactical combat to mecha action centred around their pilots is simply fantastic (especially when you add CTech's solid base for weirdness).
This is what I want. I am completely turned off by the "design your own mech" mentality. If I wanted to do that, I'd write the whole damn game not buy a book suggesting...... grrr!
Compromises includes the effort in conversion (made more difficult by its broad range of abilities and power levels), the dice system which allows for reliable result with huge successes allowing for that right balance of realism and cinematic, and engaging yet risky drama point system adding tension.
CTech's system does its job well. If you like BRP better and are willing to put in effort regardless, then BRP will be a good option. But if not, you really need to ask what does BRP add that CTech doesn't for a CTech game?
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;804063This is what I want. I am completely turned off by the "design your own mech" mentality. If I wanted to do that, I'd write the whole damn game not buy a book suggesting...... grrr!
Yep. And CTech is about the only mecha game that really puts the right amount of focus on the pilot as the character IMO, and doesn't bog down the game in need to fiddle numbers, mecha parts and mechanical bits.
Quote from: Skywalker;804066Compromises includes the effort in conversion (made more difficult by its broad range of abilities and power levels), the dice system which allows for reliable result with huge successes allowing for that right balance of realism and cinematic, and engaging yet risky drama point system adding tension.
CTech's system does its job we'll. If you like BRP better and are willing to put in effort regardless, then BRP will be a good option. But if not, you really need to ask what does BRP add that CTech doesn't for a CTech game?
It is balancing up
"knowing a system" + "converting and house ruling" versus "learning a new system".
In the space of a few posts I have convinced myself it is just easier to read the book and learn the damn system!
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;804068It is balancing up "knowing a system" + "converting and house ruling" versus "learning a new system".
Yep, which is a question you have to ask with any RPG :)
In comparison with BRP Mecha, I would add that CTech is a simpler, tailor made and has all the add ons that you would need to add to BRP in a single rulebook.
Quote from: Skywalker;804061Though I agree the system is not without it's flaws and it is a first effort, I think it plays a lot better than its critics suggest. As said, the reliable result range with possibility of huge successes, along with the engaging and risky drama point system do a lot to promote the right feel..
I've actually played it and that's why I'm criticizing it. Simply put, my experiences were not the same as yours. I've got a friend who isn't a game author, or really care as long as the game does what it says on the tin--and he was our GM, and basically ended the campaign solely because of the system. (We were mostly having fun, but that was in spite of the system, and more on his GMing skills.)
Quote from: Silverlion;804072I've actually played it and that's why I'm criticizing it.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to discount your experience :) No RPG is for everyone.
IMO unfairly treated on RPGnet and certain other boards, where some very valid criticisms have blown all other criticisms way out of proportions. So, I promote CTech hard where I can to allow people to hear some of the positives about the RPG that are normally drowned out.
And I am not saying you are doing that as FWIW I consider your opinions are genuine, considered and balanced :)
I also happen to own a lot of Cthulutech books (all of those avaible in print, I think) and I really dig the art direction. I will agree that the game system and its settings are not without flaw but I feel like Skywalker that some (otherwise valid) criticisms were blown out of proportion.
Quote from: Skywalker;804074And I am not saying you are doing that as FWIW I consider your opinions are genuine, considered and balanced :)
The sad thing is we ALL really loved the idea. I even did art for "patch" that our group belonged too, the Devil Dogs. I wish they'd gone in with some of the criticisms in mind and done a 2nd edition. Something a little tighter written, and fix most of the big issues. Alas, they seemed to have written it--published it, given it a little life than abandoned it for what are they doing now "The Void?"
I understand being a small press guy and trying to do multiple things, but even I'm doing a 2E of H&S :D
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;804063I love the mechs, I love the idea, I have yet to try it. I too would maybe want to BRP it. Not because "muh CoC is bee-arr-pee", but because it would just make life easier (though the poker dice are groovy). I am torn. I love the mechs in CTech, I can dig it in general but what concessions or elements are going to be compromised by using another system with the fluff? If any?
This is what I want. I am completely turned off by the "design your own mech" mentality. If I wanted to do that, I'd write the whole damn game not buy a book suggesting...... grrr!
Outside of BRP Mecha's mecha design rules, I also find myself adverse to mecha RPGs that are based around "build-a-mecha" conceits. It's not something I want to deal with as the GM or even as a player very much.
Quote from: Skywalker;804061Though I agree the system is not without it's flaws and it is a first effort, I think it plays a lot better than its critics suggest. As said, the reliable result range with possibility of huge successes, along with the engaging and risky drama point system do a lot to promote the right feel.
In addition, it gets a bunch of things right (for me at least) that very few mecha RPGs have managed. The focus away from constructing mecha and tactical combat to mecha action centred around their pilots is simply fantastic (especially when you add CTech's solid base for weirdness). It's balance of realism, OTT anime, and a dark and sexy future is pretty cool too, and not fleshed out in many mecha RPGs to the same extent as CTech.
It is also an easy to tinker with and speed up aspects without changing the underlying math. For example, we changed each d10 of damage and armour into 1 damage and divided Vitality/Integrity by 5. Scale issues are almost entirely resolved by using x5 rather than x50 between tiers too.
I also think that the setting is better for the genre than the common outcry would suggest. Yes, they made a handful of stupid calls when dealing with sexual issues, but I find the complaints piled on top of that are blown entirely out of proportion. The setting isn't intended to be most of the things that those critics insist (to the point of sabotaging any other discussuon of the setting) it must be.
Quote from: Skywalker;804066Compromises includes the effort in conversion (made more difficult by its broad range of abilities and power levels), the dice system which allows for reliable result with huge successes allowing for that right balance of realism and cinematic, and engaging yet risky drama point system adding tension.
CTech's system does its job well. If you like BRP better and are willing to put in effort regardless, then BRP will be a good option. But if not, you really need to ask what does BRP add that CTech doesn't for a CTech game?
The only thing I see that BRP Mecha does better than CTech is that it has guidelines for generating mecha using technical specs from what ever media that you are intending to emulate. Which is a plus if you want to run a mecha focused game based off of a niche or new show instead of using whatever is stock with the system you are using.
Quote from: Skywalker;804069Yep, which is a question you have to ask with any RPG :)
In comparison with BRP Mecha, I would add that CTech is a simpler, tailor made and has all the add ons that you would need to add to BRP in a single rulebook.
Well BRP's basic roll under your skill is a lot simpler and more intuitive than Framewerk, but I can see how all the various subsystems can make BRP more complex than CTech, especailly when adding in BRP Mecha's take on mecha combat, which I've never bothered using straight from the book anyways.
Quote from: Silverlion;804072I've actually played it and that's why I'm criticizing it. Simply put, my experiences were not the same as yours. I've got a friend who isn't a game author, or really care as long as the game does what it says on the tin--and he was our GM, and basically ended the campaign solely because of the system. (We were mostly having fun, but that was in spite of the system, and more on his GMing skills.)
Quote from: Silverlion;804060I'll be honest. Do this anyway. The system really doesn't hold up well in play, it is too complex for the data returned. The writers really didn't seem to know what they were doing with it, and generally didn't do any research on a lot of things in their books. So best to do something cool with a system more elegant and mature.
Can you give some specific system criticisms?
Other than my initial sour taste of the system with people, who are admitably new and hard to get engaged with tabletop RPGs, I find myself wanting to do a campaign based in space rather than on the Earth's surface, either against the Nazzadi, because they are notZentradi, or against the Migou, because fighting space bugs in space with giant robots should be fun right?
Quote from: Skywalker;804054As said, I also did a series of ready to run Demo scenarios with Wildfire's consent. ...
Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I may plunder for a demo run at a local con.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;804104... or against the Migou, because fighting space bugs in space with giant robots should be fun right?
Hells yes! :-) The CTech take on Migou, and the art that goes along with it, give a super creepy alien feel to them. Even if you use another system, you can plunder the artwork and setting.
Also, for a lighter system and Cthulu based hard sci-fi, check out The Void. Made by the same folks, uses a d6 dice pool.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;804104The only thing I see that BRP Mecha does better than CTech is that it has guidelines for generating mecha using technical specs from what ever media that you are intending to emulate. Which is a plus if you want to run a mecha focused game based off of a niche or new show instead of using whatever is stock with the system you are using.
CTech is specifically designed for its setting. If you want to go beyond that or build your own setting, then I can see real value in BRP Mecha. It's inherently better designed for that.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;804104Well BRP's basic roll under your skill is a lot simpler and more intuitive than Framewerk, but I can see how all the various subsystems can make BRP more complex than CTech, especailly when adding in BRP Mecha's take on mecha combat, which I've never bothered using straight from the book anyways.
And don't forget magic, psionics, monsters, shapechanging PC monsters and all the other stuff in CTech. Bringing that all together in BRP would increase the complexity.
Quote from: AxesnOrcs;804104Other than my initial sour taste of the system with people, who are admitably new and hard to get engaged with tabletop RPGs, I find myself wanting to do a campaign based in space rather than on the Earth's surface, either against the Nazzadi, because they are notZentradi, or against the Migou, because fighting space bugs in space with giant robots should be fun right?
Check out Burning Horizons. It contain a few space capable mecha and PA and a number of space based scenarios. My scenario, Arnimor DUAL, is space based and inspired by Gundam. The rules work fine as written for spaced based combat, and I found Burning Horizons to fill in any conceptual gaps I had.
Quote from: trechriron;804132Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I may plunder for a demo run at a local con.
I would love to hear how they go. They are all detailed (40+ pages), a challenge to run, and have downbeat endings. But they were an absolute blast (and I have heard back from several others how ran them to the same result) and even won some local awards.
Quote from: Silverlion;804098The sad thing is we ALL really loved the idea. I even did art for "patch" that our group belonged too, the Devil Dogs. I wish they'd gone in with some of the criticisms in mind and done a 2nd edition. Something a little tighter written, and fix most of the big issues. Alas, they seemed to have written it--published it, given it a little life than abandoned it for what are they doing now "The Void?"
I am hopeful that we will see Dead Gods before it finishes its run. And to be honest, at that point, I would happy with what I have.
It is a shame though about a 2e. I think it could have knocked things out of the park on KS, as CTech has lots of fans. But Wildfire had such a hard publishing run, and have lost some of their talent, that I am not sure they could pull off a 2e successfully.
I honestly love the mechanics of Cthulhutech. It's clean, makes sense and is easy to run. However...
I don't particularly find the underlying tone of anime-inspired, alien tentacle rape camps particularly compelling. The authors really turned me off their system when they defended design choices to promote explicitly unavoidable, sexual violence upon PCs as a part of "the story". The misogyny was unmistakeable, reeking of everything I disdain of a very small subculture of RPG fans.
Rape can be used as a story element, which can resonate powerfully with players. But like all thematic elements of a story, it should be used sparingly. Systemizing it is in bad taste, and is lazy, immature writing.
I don't think anyone would disagree that the adventures for Cthulhutech are just bad, with only some improvement in Burning Horizons. It was the main thing that motivated me to write my own demo scenarios TBH.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;804165... The misogyny was unmistakeable, reeking of everything I disdain of a very small subculture of RPG fans.
... Systemizing it is in bad taste, and is lazy, immature writing.
What were the elements you felt were misogynstic?
What system-ized the rape? It was part of an adventure, not even a wide-spread thing. Maybe the rape camps of the Deep Ones, but that's been in Cthulu-lore for a long time before CT did it.
EDIT: What I mean is: I don't see any RPG mechanics around rape or rape machines in the game. So what do you mean by "system-ized".
I hardly think it's fair to describe the writing in CT as lazy. It is a fun read with lots of detail. I must have browsed 100 pages of material last night and only the Fed Agent adventure with the slave girls being "objectionable".
There are a couple of other examples in the books which I think clearly warrant criticism. Then there are a number of other examples that getidentified but wouldn't cause issue if those 2-3 main examples weren't present.
But TBH this thread is about the mechanics and the issue with those examples has been thrashed to death, even in CTech threads where it isn't relevant (like this one). It would be cool to keep focus on the OP.
If its not taking the thread too much off topic, does the CTech setting have room for non mecha based campaigns?
Hmm... I ran a Cthulutech game for about five sessions when it first came out. The damn dice mechanic was awkward in play, hard to explain to players.
Though honestly I don't think that is what killed the game. My players were fairly mixed, and I don't think anyone really bought into the premise much. I did figure out quickly that mixing Taggers with ordinary people was a bad move. Maybe taggers plus power armor would work, but then you have to figure out how to balance a guy who transforms into power armor whenever he wants with a guy who has to carry a five ton suit of armor whereever he goes...
Didn't use the mechs at all, and I have to wonder how well you can balance traditional mechs with Engels. While I'm not entirely sure Taggers are superior to power armor (mini-mechs) straight up, clearly the Engels are superior to the mechs they share a scale with, RP drawbacks aside.
Quote from: Nexus;804232If its not taking the thread too much off topic, does the CTech setting have room for non mecha based campaigns?
Yes. The three main default styles of play are NEG Mecha, Elder Society Tagers and everything else. The first has the focus on mecha and includes a subfocus of Engels (powerful occult biomecha). The later two don't include mecha.
The last includes a range of character types, including sorcerers, parapsychics, powered armour pilots (as distinct from mecha) and a vast arrange of skilled individuals. My best game of CTech was an OIS police investigation campaign falling in this category, in which I played a highly skilled tech monkey. We never had Tagers or Mecha, and the other PCs consisted of the PC types I mentioned.
Of my four demo scenarios, mecha arent integral to either To Kill A Lie (Tagers) or Lambs of a Nameless God (parapsychics).
I keep seeing people say the 3 "core" modes of play can't mix. I played in a C-Tech game that lasted for almost 2 years and our group consisted of a tagger, a parapsychic, 3 mech pilots, 2 engle pilots and a few regular joe types. The GM bent the setting to accommodate it all, but mechanics-wise we were fine.
The pilots didn't always have their mechs or engles, but thanks to the way the system works they were still more than competent without them. When the shit did hit the fan we had different levels of battle going on at the same time.
For example, we raided a Deep One facility with our engles giving cover fire and keeping a scorpion mech busy while our mechs took on some of the smaller threats like the power armored cultists and the couple of mecha they had. The whole time the parapsychic and the regular soldiers went building to building freeing people and eventually disarming a bomb. Oh, and the tagger eventually broke off from the search and rescue group to engage a leviathan mech that came ashore.
Not everything was that grand of a battle, but like I said, even out of our mechs and engles, we were still competent soldiers so it never felt like we were suffering or forced to see every problem as a nail in need of hammering.
Quote from: rgalex;806907...
Not everything was that grand of a battle, but like I said, even out of our mechs and engles, we were still competent soldiers so it never felt like we were suffering or forced to see every problem as a nail in need of hammering.
Awesome. Sauce. Sounds like an epic good time!
Quote from: Skywalker;804275Yes. The three main default styles of play are NEG Mecha, Elder Society Tagers and everything else. The first has the focus on mecha and includes a subfocus of Engels (powerful occult biomecha). The later two don't include mecha.
The last includes a range of character types, including sorcerers, parapsychics, powered armour pilots (as distinct from mecha) and a vast arrange of skilled individuals. My best game of CTech was an OIS police investigation campaign falling in this category, in which I played a highly skilled tech monkey. We never had Tagers or Mecha, and the other PCs consisted of the PC types I mentioned.
Of my four demo scenarios, mecha arent integral to either To Kill A Lie (Tagers) or Lambs of a Nameless God (parapsychics).
Thanks! I was curious since I've usually seen Cthullutech referred to as the "Punch C'thullu in the Face with Mecha" game. I'm glad to hear there's more to it than that.
Quote from: rgalex;806907I keep seeing people say the 3 "core" modes of play can't mix. I played in a C-Tech game that lasted for almost 2 years and our group consisted of a tagger, a parapsychic, 3 mech pilots, 2 engle pilots and a few regular joe types. The GM bent the setting to accommodate it all, but mechanics-wise we were fine.
I agree. The only PC type that is inherently more powerful than the other PCs are Tagers, so including them in a mixed group can require some thought. Otherwise, mixing is just fine IME
Quote from: Nexus;806992Thanks! I was curious since I've usually seen Cthullutech referred to as the "Punch C'thullu in the Face with Mecha" game. I'm glad to hear there's more to it than that.
The anime shows that it draws on most are Evangelion, Guyver and Robotech. Those three roughly match the three main modes of play in Cthulhutech.
Of the three, only Evangelion is really "punch Cthulhu in the face with mecha" and even then the mecha are kind of like Mythos creatures themselves, so there is some interesting transhumanist and morality issues in there.
Guyver is human/Mythos creature hybrids punching Mythos creatures in the face, with lots of intrigue and infiltration. Robotech is shooting alien mecha with mecha, with lots of military drama.
Quote from: Nexus;804232If its not taking the thread too much off topic, does the CTech setting have room for non mecha based campaigns?
Yes. In fact its got several modes of play that don't mix well: Human investigative/Sorcerors and Psychics mostly. Tager (aka Guyver) scale, Power Armor Scale, and then Mecha Scale.
Quote from: Silverlion;807079Yes. In fact its got several modes of play that don't mix well: Human investigative/Sorcerors and Psychics mostly. Tager (aka Guyver) scale, Power Armor Scale, and then Mecha Scale.
Sorcerers and Parapsychics have similar exponential XP advancement, which is why they are criticised for not being compatible with Tagers which are front loaded. But without Tagers they should mix together fine.
As for vehicular scales, I agree that the scaling mechanic should have been less. I use a x5 rather than a x50 which helps a lot without needing to change stats. But I don't think that is what people refer to when they talk about PC types not mixing well. A mecha pilot can jump into power armour and vice versa (there is no PA scale FWIW). Again, only Tagers are an issue as they are expected to interact at a vehicular level and can only do so through limited hybrid damage.
Quote from: Skywalker;807117As for vehicular scales, I agree that the scaling mechanic should have been less. I use a x5 rather than a x50 which helps a lot without needing to change stats. But I don't think that is what people refer to when they talk about PC types not mixing well. A mecha pilot can jump into power armour and vice versa (there is no PA scale FWIW). Again, only Tagers are an issue as they are expected to interact at a vehicular level and can only do so through limited hybrid damage.
I was using scale to refer to "characters playable together in the same adventure without houserules" in general people in power armor are combat scaled differently than Tagers or plain humans. Outside the armor, they'd be fine in a human only game, but that defeats the point of playing a power armor/mecha pilot. The in game scales for damage etc are a mess, so badly that I think they compare to Palladiums MDC/SDC split. A smaller shift would improve that I think as you suggest.
I understand what you are saying but in my mind that's a comment that could be made with any RPG with military hardware in it. You wouldn't play Star Wars and expect PCs without ATSTs to contribute as well to direct combat as those with ATSTs.
It's worth noting that Powered Armour isn't purchased by PCs with XP or even a wealth resource in Cthulhutech. They are effectively allocated by GM based on the context. So if one PC has one and others don't then this is not the same as the fundamental PC compatibility (and often raised) issue of Tagers with their front loaded abilities (whilst all other PC types advance exponentially). I agree that Tagers present a compatibility issue if you run a mixed group in Cthulhutech, but it is its only PC compatibility issue.
Quote from: Skywalker;807204I understand what you are saying but in my mind that's a comment that could be made with any RPG with military hardware in it. You wouldn't play Star Wars and expect PCs without ATSTs to contribute as well to direct combat as those with ATSTs.
False equivilency, as no Star Wars game I am aware of had ATSTs front loaded as play options. The existence of military vehicles in an RPG does not mean the game is about playing tank drivers.
In Cthulu-tech, however you explicitly build a 'tank driver', along side the player making his slightly off-kilter psychic, and that other player making an ordinary schmuck who just learned his sister is being held by a Deep-One rape gang, and is motivated to save her despite his absolute lack of training with weapons or whatever.
QuoteIt's worth noting that Powered Armour isn't purchased by PCs with XP or even a wealth resource in Cthulhutech. They are effectively allocated by GM based on the context.
The only thing that keeps this from being a damn dirty lie is that it is, at best, deception through deliberate choice of context. True: You don't 'buy' power armor as a character resource in Cthulutech.
You DO however buy 'Tager' powers or Engle-Mechs, the Tager being a more problematic version of Power Armor, and the Engles being, well, Mecha. Do I need to cite a page number for you?
Thus the compatability issue is raised by the players in a way few other games do.
Never mind how messed up a game would be where one player is a Tager, another is an Engle Pilot, and the third guy?: He's got massive skills with a Power Armor suit, but only has a sweet trench coat and a pistol, since the GM never lets him have access to a PA suit.
Quote from: Spike;807496...
In Cthulu-tech, however you explicitly build a 'tank driver', along side the player making his slightly off-kilter psychic, and that other player making an ordinary schmuck who just learned his sister is being held by a Deep-One rape gang, and is motivated to save her despite his absolute lack of training with weapons or whatever.
...
Why in the fuck would you play a game like that? Why would you run it? Because the book said you could?
You can run D&D with 4 first-level magic users too. If you like playing personal horror where the theme is helpless manslaughter.
This argument is pure nonsense. You don't run the game with a mixed group unless the GM can find a way to give everyone something to do, work in the same team, and/or get equal screen time. Did you read the example above? Someone pulled this off in an epic manner. Since someone used the game to do just this, your argument seems bunk to me.
Maybe YOU don't want to run a game like this, so then YOU shouldn't. But trying to convince me that Cthulutech is somehow "broken" because you can run a mixed group is ridiculous. First, it CAN be done (see above). Second, it's not recommended in the book. Third, you shouldn't ever feel compelled to run a game in a way that you think it's not fun. The setting and system are quite useful and there's PILES of info/ideas/stuff in there to make all kinds of fun interesting games.
Personally I would not run a game of Cthulutech with a "mixed" group. There would be a theme (government agents, Tager team, Engel team...) and a somewhat focused reason all the characters are out in this dark world together.
Quote from: Spike;807496False equivilency, as no Star Wars game I am aware of had ATSTs front loaded as play options. The existence of military vehicles in an RPG does not mean the game is about playing tank drivers.
It's not really a false equivalence though. A space transport or a star fighter is even more powerful than an AT-AT or an AT-ST and space ships are something beginning characters routinely and fairly commonly start with in Star Wars. Depending on how the group handles what the other characters can do while the pilot flies their ship makes a big difference on whether or not that particular Star Wars campaign is fun to play.
Quote from: Spike;807496False equivilency, as no Star Wars game I am aware of had ATSTs front loaded as play options. The existence of military vehicles in an RPG does not mean the game is about playing tank drivers.
It's not a false equivalency. You go through the same process in Cthulhutech as you do in most Star Wars games in terms of PC options and making sure PCs are on the same page roughly (or understand the differences). If you don't, then you will hit the same issues in both RPGs.
As said, no PC in Cthulhutech starts with a mecha unless the GM allows one. And there are many other options in Cthulhutech and Star Wars other than a mecha or ATST driver/X-Wing pilot.
Quote from: Spike;807496You DO however buy 'Tager' powers or Engle-Mechs, the Tager being a more problematic version of Power Armor, and the Engles being, well, Mecha. Do I need to cite a page number for you?
I already said that Tagers are a compatibility issue and agree they can be purchased at PC creation.
The Engel trait you cite is for the Engel Synthesis Interface. It doesn't guarantee that you have ready access to an Engel in every session as they are significant military resources, even if you are synthesised with it. The drawback is designed to, and does, redress the imbalance between mecha pilots and Engel pilots, but it doesn't allow Engel pilots to somehow avoid the same restrictions that mecha pilots inherently have.
I do love how everyone jumped from AT-STs to Starships, as if that somehow voided my point.
To whit: No Star Wars game has ever made it possible for a character to simply own an AT-ST at character creation, much less made it easy. IF a GM wishes to GIVE an AT-ST to one player... for for that matter an X-Wing Fighter, and also happens to be spectacularly open minded about how and when it can be used, then it could be potentially unbalancing. This, however, requires going above and beyond in the pursuit of bad GMing.
For that matter, I'm comfortable saying that most Star Wars games make the handing out of Star Ships entirely a GM matter, and the default assumption is that whatever star ship there is carries the whole party. MOST Sci-Fi games these days go a step further and ensure that in 'ship fights' that most, if not all, players can contribute somehow. Star Wars has the classic trope of manning the turrets going in its favor in this regard.
Contrast Cthulutech: The decision to have, or not have, an Engle or a Tager is on the Player and it takes an experienced, competent GM with a firm hand on the tiller to prevent wildly unbalanced parties. Sure, we can all smugly assume we would never let our games go so crazy, but what about that new RPGer who heard about some game where he could 'punch cthulu in the face!', and decided to rope his friends into playing? They'll wind up with a Tager, two Engles and a guy in a trench coat who knows kung fu... and they may never game again.
Quote from: SkywalkerThe Engel trait you cite is for the Engel Synthesis Interface. It doesn't guarantee that you have ready access to an Engel in every session as they are significant military resources, even if you are synthesised with it. The drawback is designed to, and does, redress the imbalance between mecha pilots and Engel pilots, but it doesn't allow Engel pilots to somehow avoid the same restrictions that mecha pilots inherently have.
Read the last line of the trait again. Okay, the next to last line (since the actual last line simply directs one to the list of engles...). Here, I'll cite it for you:
Quote from: Cthulutech page 100On the other hand, he does now have one specific Engel that now obeys him absolutely.
Hmm... that pretty strongly implies he has the engel himself, doesn't it? It also suggests to me that 'The Military' can't simply send the Engel out with another pilot willy-nilly, rather like Evangelion I'd say. For good or ill, they are stuck with the pilot who has bonded to that particular Engel, unless they want to try and crate up an alien bio-cyborg for cold storage until that pilot dies while playing Sam Spade.
I'll also note that its a disadvantage, meaning it actually gives the player a point back for slowly going crazy. Slowly enough that if the GM simply doesn't let the players access their Engels then a certain subset of players would simply take it anyway for the 'free' point. You trade one disfunctional play problem for another.
Quote from: trechriron;807505Why in the fuck would you play a game like that? Why would you run it? Because the book said you could?
Because it takes an actively knowledgeable and experienced GM to prevent it from occurring naturally, since the tools to play 'a game like that' are given to the Players up front, rather than to the GM to parcel out depending on the game he wants to run?
Which is, after all, the nature of the complaint in the first place. No one I know of has objected to Mecha Rules in D20 Future, for example. Why? Because they are in a chapter devoted to Mecha-style play, seperate from the rest and implicitly optional.
Quote from: Spike;807844I do love how everyone jumped from AT-STs to Starships, as if that somehow voided my point.
To whit: No Star Wars game has ever made it possible for a character to simply own an AT-ST at character creation, much less made it easy.
If your point was only about AT-ST well OK. The only characters in Star Wars who use AT-STs are Imperial scout walker pilots. And Star Wars is almost never a game about walker pilots. That makes your point trivially true but irrelevant as a useful analogy to Cthulhu Tech where the it seems a large segment of the game can be about mecha pilots. In Star Wars the piece of heavy equipment that players are likely to see is a starfighter or light freighter. Which is why I mentioned those examples.
Quote from: Spike;807844For that matter, I'm comfortable saying that most Star Wars games make the handing out of Star Ships entirely a GM matter...
While you are comfortable saying that, you are also wrong.
If fact multiple templates for starting PCs in WEG Star Wars include space ships as part of the character's starting equipment. In the 2nd edition rules there are 16 total starting templates. Four templates start the game with a starship: the Brash Pilot who gets an X-wing, the Cynical Scout who gets a Scout Ship, the Smuggler who gets a YT-1300 freighter, and the Sullustan Trader who gets a light freighter. The decision to play one of those templates is up to the player in, I think, the exact same way as a decision in Cthulhutech.
QuoteContrast Cthulutech: The decision to have, or not have, an Engle or a Tager is on the Player …
Except it’s not a contrast.
Bren has covered the similarities between Cthulhutech and Star Wars RPGs handily.
Quote from: Spike;807844Contrast Cthulutech: The decision to have, or not have, an Engle or a Tager is on the Player and it takes an experienced, competent GM with a firm hand on the tiller to prevent wildly unbalanced parties. Sure, we can all smugly assume we would never let our games go so crazy, but what about that new RPGer who heard about some game where he could 'punch cthulu in the face!', and decided to rope his friends into playing? They'll wind up with a Tager, two Engles and a guy in a trench coat who knows kung fu... and they may never game again.
No one is disputing that Tagers are a compatibility issue. And we all seem to agree now that Powered Armour is not an issue either.
For Engels, having EIS to an Engel (which the player does choose) does not mean they necessarily have ready access to it. Engels are highly regulated, experimental war machines. There is pages of setting on how the NEG control how and when they are deployed. If the other PCs are all OIS agents in an arcology, the player would have to be a dick to expect to piloting an Engel other than on rare occasions.
This is also why the EIS trait is designed a drawback, not an asset (which is in contrast to the Tager asset). The EIS drawback is intended to grant the GM the ability to fuck with the PC due to the EIS generating greater insanity. I have had an Engel Pilot in a mixed PC game and the EIS has lots of interesting roleplaying possibilities outside of piloting an Engel.
As a drawback, it is not intended to grant the PC any greater access to the Engel they are bonded with than a PC with mecha pilot skill has to a mecha. So on those occassions that the PC does get to pilot an Engel, it will be at times when the other PCs are able to be equipped with similar mecha and military hardware.
So I don't see a substantive compatibility issue unless a player tries to suggest that the EIS drawback allows them the benefit of choosing when to pilot their Engel and they beleive they can do so frequently. IMO this a simple player issue that would be resolved by the kind of group discussion that others have mentioned above; the kind of discussion that is integral to any RPG with access to military hardware, such as Star Wars. This may not be readily apparent or easy for inexperienced GMs with problem players. But that is true of all RPGs, and not something unique to Cthulhutech.
Finally, it is not even a compatibility issue with other mecha. Engels are only marginally better than mecha mechanically, and the drawback along with Engel issue more than balance out the discrepancy (unlike the Tager asset).
Quote from: Bren;807864In Star Wars the piece of heavy equipment that players are likely to see is a starfighter or light freighter. Which is why I mentioned those examples.
Except a light freighter is more a 'group asset'. If you think that's wrong, I will be more than happy to elaborate why one players personal possession can and should be considered thusly, but I'm going to assume you aren't that pedantic or stupid.
QuoteWhile you are comfortable saying that, you are also wrong.
If fact multiple templates for starting PCs in WEG Star Wars include space ships as part of the character's starting equipment. In the 2nd edition rules there are 16 total starting templates. Four templates start the game with a starship: the Brash Pilot who gets an X-wing, the Cynical Scout who gets a Scout Ship, the Smuggler who gets a YT-1300 freighter, and the Sullustan Trader who gets a light freighter. The decision to play one of those templates is up to the player in, I think, the exact same way as a decision in Cthulhutech.
Except it's not a contrast.
Very well. I am wrong. And here I thought I might get tripped up by not double checking that abortion of a game Edge of Empire, when it was my WEG Starwars I should have been looking at.
Still, I will note that three of the four ships provided are clearly 'group asset' class ships. I will also note that an x-Wing isn't dynamically changing the battlefield when the pilot pulls it out of his ass in mid-gunfight and begins straffing cantina thugs, unlike the tager.
Of course, it seems everyone is willing to concede that the Tager is inappropriate for any game not focused on tagers, which sort of makes me wonder why we're all trying so hard to shave around the margins when it comes to Engel pilots and the like. Not that I mind, I enjoy a good argument.
Quote from: Spike;808077I will also note that an x-Wing isn't dynamically changing the battlefield when the pilot pulls it out of his ass in mid-gunfight and begins straffing cantina thugs, unlike the tager.
Your tager example is irrelevant to comparisons to an AT-ST which, like an X-Wing (and apparently unlike tagers), does not fit in a catina.
I really think you would have been better off never to have resorted to using analogies to Star Wars war machines as your analogy either does not fit Cthulhutech or it actually contradicts your point about Cthulhutech.
Is an analogy even necessary? Is anyone actually arguing that unrestrained, widely varying power levels can never cause problems in a game? Because I haven't seen that.
Quote from: Spike;808077Of course, it seems everyone is willing to concede that the Tager is inappropriate for any game not focused on tagers, which sort of makes me wonder why we're all trying so hard to shave around the margins when it comes to Engel pilots and the like. Not that I mind, I enjoy a good argument.
In a game where mecha (and other powerful options) are available to PCs, Engels don't pose an additional issue. As Bren says, RPGs with varying power levels (such as via military equipment) are always tricky. We all agreed with that. But this is not unique to Cthulhutech nor do Engels present an additional issue to Cthulhutech (the Engel drawback more than compensates for the marginal improvement of Engels over mecha IMO). So, I think the point being made is more that people don't see Engels as any more of an issue than the baseline that is common in similar RPGs.
Tagers are different and no one has disagreed with the issue there. They provide a power boost that is inherent in the PC and readily available that is not balanced by the asset it requires. It's like having a World of Darkness game where PCs can buy the vampire template for a few bonus points at character creation. It's a bigger deal than that.
Quote from: Bren;808078Your tager example is irrelevant to comparisons to an AT-ST which, like an X-Wing (and apparently unlike tagers), does not fit in a catina.
I really think you would have been better off never to have resorted to using analogies to Star Wars war machines as your analogy either does not fit Cthulhutech or it actually contradicts your point about Cthulhutech.
Is an analogy even necessary? Is anyone actually arguing that unrestrained, widely varying power levels can never cause problems in a game? Because I haven't seen that.
Actually... I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up the Star Wars mecha analogy in the first place. I mean, I've already admitted to being wrong once in this thread, and I need two more for the hat trick, but the number of times I think of AT-STs in the ordinary gaming day is pretty close to mathamatically zero (instead of metaphorically zero, which is, in any case accurate enough).
Likewise, the number of times I have thought of Cthulutech... or any Mythos game, and thought 'Hm... how is this like Star Wars', is also pretty much nil. I'd be more inclined to discuss how Rifts handles mecha and Power Armor, vis a vis Cthulutech, than Star Wars walkers/CT.
In general this has been a rather sad excuse for an argument. Lots of venom, though light on invective, but I'm relatively sure no one has any idea exactly what we are all going on about. I know I, for one, have already commented that I'm unclear why everyone agrees on a(the?) big point (Tagers), yet continues to go on as if we are debating something...
Quote from: Spike;808219Actually... I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up the Star Wars mecha analogy in the first place.
You're right. My bad. Skywalker brought it up as an example of another game system that managed different scales in play.