- I always play a Dilettante ($$$ + pick 4 skills + No responsibilities + Excuse to act like a cad)
- I try to put 89% (so I'm on the cusp of the +1d10 sanity) into Martial Arts AND Kick. Yep, my PCs kicks are more dangerous than getting stabbed.
- I also try to put 89% into Dodge, Pistols and Rifle (I prefer the Elephant Rifle to the Shotgun, 3d6+1d4 at all ranges vs. 4d6 at short range)
- I try to use every skill I can hustle in order to get more skill %. "Even though I only have 1% Arabic I try to talk to the Arab... Falafel?"
- My (deceased) PC once hired prostituted to do things like keep the car running and to distract professors and librarians by flashing their beaver in order to pull off hijinks.
- Somehow I also manage to make such munchkin powergamer PCs works as 1920s investigators, "I'm rich from the oil on my ranch! All I do is hunt!"
Yeah I love the old 1% skill.
Personaly I got the most laughs outa Helicopter pilot 1%, but almost anything with a 1% is funny.
LOL, your characters wouldn't last a session in my call of Cthulhu games. you'd sit around bored while the other players got to discover all the cool clues, and then when the shit hits the fan and you try to (heh) "kick it"....it would fucking eat out your brains and lay eggs in your neck hole.
My players don't get combat rolls against god-like beings.
My experience has been that most adversaries in CoC are human...
While looking for clues I tend to:
A) Rely on my brain instead of my character sheet
&
B) Ruthlessly try to use as many skills as possible to build them up; Spot Hidden doesn't stay at the starting value very long in CoC
Dynamite is a very Lovecraftian weapon against Mythos horrors. Just reread the end of "The Shadow Over Insmouth"
"The Horror at Red Hook" and "The Call of Cthulhu" can also prove instructive in the application of peace through superior firepower.
If I need to roll dice to figure out what's going on, I have already failed as a player.
Your character sounds remarkably similar to one of the most memorable CoC PCs of any of the campaigns I've ever run. He was the "king's distant cousin", had an officer's rank in the army on account of it, was a master sharpshooter, had no investigation skills, and lasted longer than a great deal of the standard "this is CoC so I feel obliged to have shit fighting skills" PCs. He even became a kind of by-word in our group for taking a rash decision in an awesome way, based on a number of times that he just shot a suspicious seeming guy in the fucking face shouting "I'm the king's cousin"!
Without a doubt, the stuff of legends.
You'd fit right into one of my CoC games. Or you know, most CoC games that aren't utter shit.
RPGPundit
If you play CoC straight, then you play a set of PCs with some kind of investigative skills and go on a whodunnit, following a series of mundane and occult clues and then die or go insane. Even if you happen to survive, you end up going insane anyway by researching those occult skills that you need to survive the game.
Far better to play a counter-character who you can actually enjoy playing.
Quote from: Planet Algol;491824- I always play a Dilettante ($$$ + pick 4 skills + No responsibilities + Excuse to act like a cad)
- I try to put 89% (so I'm on the cusp of the +1d10 sanity) into Martial Arts AND Kick. Yep, my PCs kicks are more dangerous than getting stabbed.
- I also try to put 89% into Dodge, Pistols and Rifle (I prefer the Elephant Rifle to the Shotgun, 3d6+1d4 at all ranges vs. 4d6 at short range)
- I try to use every skill I can hustle in order to get more skill %. "Even though I only have 1% Arabic I try to talk to the Arab... Falafel?"
- My (deceased) PC once hired prostituted to do things like keep the car running and to distract professors and librarians by flashing their beaver in order to pull off hijinks.
- Somehow I also manage to make such munchkin powergamer PCs works as 1920s investigators, "I'm rich from the oil on my ranch! All I do is hunt!"
Sigh... Thankfully, I do not have players like you in my CoC game...
Quote from: soltakss;491937If you play CoC straight, then you play a set of PCs with some kind of investigative skills and go on a whodunnit, following a series of mundane and occult clues and then die or go insane. Even if you happen to survive, you end up going insane anyway by researching those occult skills that you need to survive the game.
That is "straight" only inasmuch as its how the CoC Swine decided you must play CoC.
RPGPundit
Quote from: soltakss;491937If you play CoC straight, then you play a set of PCs with some kind of investigative skills and go on a whodunnit, following a series of mundane and occult clues and then die or go insane. Even if you happen to survive, you end up going insane anyway by researching those occult skills that you need to survive the game.
Far better to play a counter-character who you can actually enjoy playing.
Have you ever played CoC?
Quote from: RPGPundit;492025That is "straight" only inasmuch as its how the CoC Swine decided you must play CoC.
RPGPundit
they must have decided that before it was published and then wrote it into the game itself.
tricksy swine
Quote from: DavetheLost;491902Dynamite is a very Lovecraftian weapon against Mythos horrors. Just reread the end of "The Shadow Over Insmouth"
"The Horror at Red Hook" and "The Call of Cthulhu" can also prove instructive in the application of peace through superior firepower.
If I need to roll dice to figure out what's going on, I have already failed as a player.
Yeah. I think it's fine for people to prefer to play CoC without physical violence, demotions, or gun-play, but they aren't being very faithful to the source material.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Machinegun Blue;492048Have you ever played CoC?
About ten times, with the same results each time.
I've never had a character survive a single scenario intact. The one character who survived was hit by a cultist's spell and withered his arm and leg and he ended up in an asylum.
I have enjoyed some of the games, but the result is always the same, in my experience.
Quote from: soltakss;492063About ten times, with the same results each time.
I've never had a character survive a single scenario intact. The one character who survived was hit by a cultist's spell and withered his arm and leg and he ended up in an asylum.
I have enjoyed some of the games, but the result is always the same, in my experience.
Hmm, I've had ongoing campaigns that last years. Yes, character fatality is high, but moreso at the beginning when players are adjusting their playstyle from the D&d "I run up and hit it to my axe" to..."burn down the building without getting too close and run very far away".
Surviving CoC is never meant to be impossible, it's meant to be a challenge.
And if a GM wants an ongoing game, they shouldn't be having the players facing Old Ones their first time out. It's entirely possible to build to that point via slow exposure...in fact that's more in keeping with the Lovecraftian fiction that inspired the game.
It is true, that according to the original rules of Call of Cthulhu, it was inevitable that any character that survived would go insane (despite what Pundit claims about "swine").
There's more options than that in later editions.
Madness isn't even necessarily the end though. Just an excuse to break out
Insylum (http://kinginyellow.wikia.com/wiki/Insylum_RPG).
Quote from: TristramEvans;492049they must have decided that before it was published and then wrote it into the game itself.
tricksy swine
No, they wrote the game with the type of character the OP posted being a completely valid and supported choice. Lots of rules on combat, huge lists of guns, and no special implications in the text of the game saying "you have to play an effeminate university professor who investigates the occult and then curls up like a fucking pussy to die because the player thinks actual combat is somehow forbidden".
RPGPundit
It's been mentioned before in other threads, but if you're just reading the Call of Cthulhu book, it's entirely reasonable to interpret some of what the writer says as: Avoid combat, play a subtle investigator.
I think that there are "implications in the text of the game saying 'you have to play an effeminate etc. etc." It's an available reading.
I don't think it's the best reading - I think a careful reading shows that it's more of a warning that "not every single damn situation is resolved with a gun. Try some other stuff when it's more appropriate to do so." Which is not the same thing as "never use a gun, never enter combat".
But some people make that mistake - and it is, I think, an understandable mistake. But still a mistake.
Quote from: RPGPundit;492095No, they wrote the game with the type of character the OP posted being a completely valid and supported choice. Lots of rules on combat, huge lists of guns, and no special implications in the text of the game saying "you have to play an effeminate university professor who investigates the occult and then curls up like a fucking pussy to die because the player thinks actual combat is somehow forbidden".
RPGPundit
And a bunch of monsters that such things are meaningless against, however. I always got the impression those things were there because of the feeling of obligation in RPGs that they had to be there, and because for some people, it's about history porn. Knowing exactly what was available in that time period.
I'm not saying the Op's character is invalid, or that every character needs to be an "effeminent professor" as you say, in fact most of my Call of Cthulhu games take their cues from Hellboy and the BPRD more than anything, and I always add in some pulp action. But the structure of adventures in Call of Cthulhu (and as that gameline is generally known and famed for having some of the best, if not the best adventures, it would be silly not to use them even if, like me, a GM tends to heavily modify them to suit their own tastes and work in larger "subplots") rewards characters who have a diversity of skills and are not simply optimized for combat.
My general goal as a CoC GM is to make the investigative aspect of the game the funnest part for players, and I downplay combat as a solution to most problems. It exists, but in general, only maybe 1 out of every 5 sessions I run actually involves a combat, and as often as not it comes about because of player mis-steps. As such, a player who was primarily a combat munchkin, valid as a character choice or not, would not get most of the big "wins" of any given session and would basically have to hang around until a situation for combat presented itself while the other players took spotlight. I would also worry that this would encourage the character to
look for combat situations.
I had a session the week before last that ended up with 2 TPKs in the same night. And I've since heard from the players that was one of the most enjoyable adventures they ever had. As one of them put it: "the Awesome thing about this game is that when my character loses, I feel like I'm winning".
Some of that probably has to do with my homebrew sanity system that I replaced the abstract "sanity point loss" mechanic with, which I never felt had the right amount of impact in play. It uses Tarot cards instead, with specific effects based on the cards drawn, and for most people I've played with the times they are forced to "take a card" are actually the highlight of the session for them.
Quote from: RPGPundit;492095Lots of rules on combat, huge lists of guns, and no special implications in the text of the game[...]
I'd be more inclined to believe that the emphasis on combat rules and weapons lists comes from the fact that in 1980, that was just what everybody thought RPGs were supposed to do, regardless of the amount of combat in the source material.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492139I'd be more inclined to believe that the emphasis on combat rules and weapons lists comes from the fact that in 1980, that was just what everybody thought RPGs were supposed to do, regardless of the amount of combat in the source material.
I thought it was due to the default setting being 1920s-30s USA. Guns galore.
Neither tactics nor intrigue are % skills in CoC...
Quote from: soltakss;491937If you play CoC straight, then you play a set of PCs with some kind of investigative skills and go on a whodunnit, following a series of mundane and occult clues and then die or go insane. Even if you happen to survive, you end up going insane anyway by researching those occult skills that you need to survive the game.
Far better to play a counter-character who you can actually enjoy playing.
My experience and many others' seem to disagree with you. I have run several long term campaigns, and though mortaility is higher than in other games, your experiences don't add up to ours. And I don't fudge dice, I roll lots of published adventures and run the game pretty much by the book.
Quote from: TristramEvans;492123And a bunch of monsters that such things are meaningless against, however. I always got the impression those things were there because of the feeling of obligation in RPGs that they had to be there, and because for some people, it's about history porn. Knowing exactly what was available in that time period.
I'm not saying the Op's character is invalid, or that every character needs to be an "effeminent professor" as you say, in fact most of my Call of Cthulhu games take their cues from Hellboy and the BPRD more than anything, and I always add in some pulp action. But the structure of adventures in Call of Cthulhu (and as that gameline is generally known and famed for having some of the best, if not the best adventures, it would be silly not to use them even if, like me, a GM tends to heavily modify them to suit their own tastes and work in larger "subplots") rewards characters who have a diversity of skills and are not simply optimized for combat.
My general goal as a CoC GM is to make the investigative aspect of the game the funnest part for players, and I downplay combat as a solution to most problems. It exists, but in general, only maybe 1 out of every 5 sessions I run actually involves a combat, and as often as not it comes about because of player mis-steps. As such, a player who was primarily a combat munchkin, valid as a character choice or not, would not get most of the big "wins" of any given session and would basically have to hang around until a situation for combat presented itself while the other players took spotlight. I would also worry that this would encourage the character to look for combat situations.
I had a session the week before last that ended up with 2 TPKs in the same night. And I've since heard from the players that was one of the most enjoyable adventures they ever had. As one of them put it: "the Awesome thing about this game is that when my character loses, I feel like I'm winning".
Some of that probably has to do with my homebrew sanity system that I replaced the abstract "sanity point loss" mechanic with, which I never felt had the right amount of impact in play. It uses Tarot cards instead, with specific effects based on the cards drawn, and for most people I've played with the times they are forced to "take a card" are actually the highlight of the session for them.
Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate more on the sanity system? Also, I agree: CoC rewards, in my experience, a well balanced set of skills across the group.
Quote from: Imperator;492197Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate more on the sanity system?
Sure
Characters have a Psyche score or rank, which represents their current sanity, mental balance, or equilibrium, as well as a pool of "Stress Points".
Each character also has an ARCANA which is defined by one of the Major Arcana of the Tarot, providing a rough indication of that character's knowledge & experience with the Mythos & an overall comprehension of the nature of reality.
Starting characters may choose either The Fool (0) or The Magician (I) as their Arcana. Characters who start with The Fool (0) are people who have thus far led ordinary lives and have not been exposed to the supernatural. Characters who start with The Magus (I) have a background in the occult or have experienced the supernatural and are beginning to be aware of the "true nature of the universe".
Whenever a character in the game experiences an event that challenges their perception of reality, they draw a card from the deck. If numbered, the value of the card determines the amount of Stress points taken; if this amount surpasses the character's Stress Threshold (total Stress points), the character permanently loses a rank of Psyche and the Stress pool is refreshed. The Court Cards for each suit (Page, Knight, Queen & King) cost Stress of 11, 12, 13, and 20 points respectively, and each have individual temporary effects depending on the suit (Cups tend to involve things associated with dreams and consciousness, Swords have to do with a character's ability to reason and view things logically and rationally, etc). These are minor temporary effects, like passing out or entering shock, for the most part.
If one of the Major Arcana are drawn, it is compared to the character's current Arcana. If the card drawn is equal to or lower than the character's Arcana, it is discarded and the character suffers no ill effects. If the card drawn is of higher value than the character's Arcana, the character develops a Derangement, as determined by the specific card drawn. (In one game a character happened to draw the Death card at the wrong moment, and I described how he suddenly saw the flesh melt away from everyone standing near him and he perceived himself to be surrounded by cackling skeletons). I usually have players couch their responses to this in terms of "freeze", "frenzy", or "flight", taking a cue from Unknown Armies.
An exception to this is The Fool (0), which "trumps"
every other Major Arcana except The Magus (I). This represents the "protection" that ignorance provides mundanes and how a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
A character's Arcana is increased the more they are exposed to the world of the Mythos, so basically in any event where in the standard CoC system they would gain Mythos points.
It's also tied into the magic system, as a character's Arcana determines their ability to use spells.
Ex: Shaggy sees a g-g-g-ghost. His player draws a card from the deck, revealing it to be The Hermit (IX). As Shaggy's Arcana is The Fool (0), he discards with no effect. Though he may be scared, he's managed to rationalize away what he saw as simple illusions and his sense of reality is left intact. When Thelma later encounters the same ghost, however, she draws The Hanged Man (XII), which trumps her current Arcana; The Magus (I). She has seen something impossible that her mind cannot dismiss or cope with, and this encounter will have a lasting effect on her mental health.
Second Stage Mythos stories often involve directly fighting against the forces of the Elder Gods.
Check out stories by August Derleth, Robert Bloch, and especially Brian Lumley.
CoC Swine (to bandy about that term) who have 'decided' this is the 'proper' way to play the mythos must be ignoring the fact that half the material in the basic CoC manual (any edition) actually includes many, many articles pertaining to these works.
I encourage anyone who is playing CoC to actually read Lovecraft's stories, but realize he didn't really connect them all. There are two different sides to Lovecraft's writing - and CoC kinda mashed those together with the takes on the mythos by these different authors.
Then they claim it's "pure mythos" when they have no idea that such a thing never actually existed except in the minds of some of Lovecraft's correspondents.
Take Robert Howard, for instance - the first person to show us that A) Yes you can fight an Elder Thing and B) Yes, you can win then get drunk and go wenching afterward.
Hell, Lumley even let cripples get in on the fighting.
Quote from: TristramEvans;492213Sure
Characters have a Psyche score or rank, which represents their current sanity, mental balance, or equilibrium, as well as a pool of "Stress Points".
Each character also has an ARCANA which is defined by one of the Major Arcana of the Tarot, providing a rough indication of that character's knowledge & experience with the Mythos & an overall comprehension of the nature of reality.
Starting characters may choose either The Fool (0) or The Magician (I) as their Arcana. Characters who start with The Fool (0) are people who have thus far led ordinary lives and have not been exposed to the supernatural. Characters who start with The Magus (I) have a background in the occult or have experienced the supernatural and are beginning to be aware of the "true nature of the universe".
Whenever a character in the game experiences an event that challenges their perception of reality, they draw a card from the deck. If numbered, the value of the card determines the amount of Stress points taken; if this amount surpasses the character's Stress Threshold (total Stress points), the character permanently loses a rank of Psyche and the Stress pool is refreshed. The Court Cards for each suit (Page, Knight, Queen & King) cost Stress of 11, 12, 13, and 20 points respectively, and each have individual temporary effects depending on the suit (Cups tend to involve things associated with dreams and consciousness, Swords have to do with a character's ability to reason and view things logically and rationally, etc). These are minor temporary effects, like passing out or entering shock, for the most part.
If one of the Major Arcana are drawn, it is compared to the character's current Arcana. If the card drawn is equal to or lower than the character's Arcana, it is discarded and the character suffers no ill effects. If the card drawn is of higher value than the character's Arcana, the character develops a Derangement, as determined by the specific card drawn. (In one game a character happened to draw the Death card at the wrong moment, and I described how he suddenly saw the flesh melt away from everyone standing near him and he perceived himself to be surrounded by cackling skeletons). I usually have players couch their responses to this in terms of "freeze", "frenzy", or "flight", taking a cue from Unknown Armies.
An exception to this is The Fool (0), which "trumps" every other Major Arcana except The Magus (I). This represents the "protection" that ignorance provides mundanes and how a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
A character's Arcana is increased the more they are exposed to the world of the Mythos, so basically in any event where in the standard CoC system they would gain Mythos points.
It's also tied into the magic system, as a character's Arcana determines their ability to use spells.
Ex: Shaggy sees a g-g-g-ghost. His player draws a card from the deck, revealing it to be The Hermit (IX). As Shaggy's Arcana is The Fool (0), he discards with no effect. Though he may be scared, he's managed to rationalize away what he saw as simple illusions and his sense of reality is left intact. When Thelma later encounters the same ghost, however, she draws The Hanged Man (XII), which trumps her current Arcana; The Magus (I). She has seen something impossible that her mind cannot dismiss or cope with, and this encounter will have a lasting effect on her mental health.
Really really interesting. :) Thanks for posting it. Food for thought, certainly.
Quote from: soltakss;492063About ten times, with the same results each time.
I've never had a character survive a single scenario intact. The one character who survived was hit by a cultist's spell and withered his arm and leg and he ended up in an asylum.
I have enjoyed some of the games, but the result is always the same, in my experience.
Simon, it's one way to play it, but it's certainly not the only way.
Kind of like how Vampire can be about the moral challenges of subsisting on human blood to survive as an immortal, supernatural predator, but most people would rather have dark superhumans with katanas and trenchcoats and mirrorshades at night fighting each other.
Unlike Pundejo, I don't think either way is "right" or "wrong" (I do feel that the pulpy, dynamite-and-tommy-guns approach is underrated and underused in my own gaming group, though; their preferred way of playing CoC mirrors your own experience). A game, any game, is what you make of it.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492139I'd be more inclined to believe that the emphasis on combat rules and weapons lists comes from the fact that in 1980, that was just what everybody thought RPGs were supposed to do, regardless of the amount of combat in the source material.
And yet, every subsequent edition has held to the same rule.
Could it possibly be that in fact Lovecraft and co.'s stories are PULP stories and thus expected to have action? Could it be that in fact anyone who isn't a fucking retard and actually READ lovecraft, rather than making effete fantasies about what its probably like founded on their own struggles with masculinity and excessive love of emo music, knows for a fact that there's loads of actual action and fighting in his books, and it is not at all a requirement that protagonists, when encountering horrific things man was not meant to know, should curl up into a fetal position like a fucking pussy and die?
Do we need to repeat that Cthulhu IN "Call of Cthluhu" is beaten by RAMMING HIM WITH A MOTHERFUCKING SHIP?!
Yet there are Swine out there, and they could be called nothing else, that CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING IN THE GAME RULES
AND THE SOURCE MATERIAL, believe that so much as lifting a weapon to defend yourself in that game, much less having someone trained and capable of doing so, is to be strictly forbidden.
RPGPundit
There's always a player like Algol in CoC games. Not only do I consider them awful players, but morally questionable human beings and in line for a severe talking to.
But regardless, all the metagaming in the world doesn't do them any good when I GM.
Min-maxers are annoying in any system. It's just more crippling in Call of Cthulhu than D&D.
Quote from: RPGPundit;492483Could it possibly be that in fact Lovecraft and co.'s stories are PULP stories and thus expected to have action?
It certainly could be. It's been a long time since I've read the original Lovecraft and his stuff and the imitators are all swimming around in my memory, indistinguishable.
But as a general rule, RPGs still haven't broken away from the problem of being tactical wargames with tacked on skill systems. So if a game seems to focus heavily on combat and that's not the primary focus of the source material, I tend to assume that's the reason.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492503But as a general rule, RPGs still haven't broken away from the problem of being tactical wargames with tacked on skill systems. So if a game seems to focus heavily on combat and that's not the primary focus of the source material, I tend to assume that's the reason.
I'm not sure what the problem with that is.
Except maybe you're an art-school hipster pussy type who needs 'feeling', 'meaning' and 'drama' in every game he plays. Watching your friends pretend to be 'moved' would get old faster than getting my ballsack nailed to my gaming chair.
You should probably read some more Lovecraft. There's all kinds of fighting - just not a lot of winning.
Go play Vampire some more, then you can cry whenever someone punches someone in Elysium.
Leave the fighting of Elder Gods to people who don't see fighting as a problem.
*Sigh* Don't be a dick, Blackhand.
Take the Indiana Jones or James Bond movies. Actual physical combat is frequent, but it's just one type of action scene, amongst chases, sneaking, stunts, seduction scenes, interrogation scenes, research/investigation scenes, etc.
Most RPGs relegate all of that to simple pass/fail skill checks ("Magical Princess Tea Party") while combat is given the lovingly detailed AD&D treatment. It's out of synch with the genre. It's got nothing to do with your prissy-phobia.
Excuse My Supreme Dicklyness. It's because I'm a wargamer.
It has nothing to do with phobia. It has to do with contempt.
Which you started with your played down dig at tactical wargaming, which is basically the reason you're even on this site.
These games are essentially tactical wargames with tacked on skill systems.
Your statement of such there tried to play you like you were some sort of new-age intellectual-hipster Lovecraft-scholar who had traveled long exasperated miles to tell us something we didn't know and couldn't figure out on our own.
Don't try to make it more than it is, that's where my contempt stems from.
You might not have felt that way about your post, but I don't need some new poseur to tell me about these games and how I'm doing it wrong with my combats.
Roleplaying itself was a thing people did before these games. A lot of people today don't realize (or refuse to acknowledge) that gaming and roleplaying were two totally different and unrelated things prior to the late 70's. They did a lot of it at colleges under various guises, therapy and such.
Guess what happened when some wargamers (probably under the effects of your favorite narcotics) who had attended college decided to focus on individual soldiers in their wargame?
I'm not trying to write a movie script for my players to read, I want a fun and exciting game. Ever tried to emulate real horror in one of these games? It's difficult, not due to the setting or even the GM, but due to the players. Best you can get is some tension and maybe some forboding...real fear and horror are stretching your expectations a bit.
I think you must have hit a nerve, Daniel. Blackhand's douchebag has been punctured and has splattered all over the thread.
Quote from: two_fishes;492524I think you must have hit a nerve, Daniel. Blackhand's douchebag has been punctured and has splattered all over the thread.
Are you trying to say this thread wasn't flush with douchebag before I showed up?
That's fucking pretentious.
But I'm happy to see you're happy to see me.
Quote from: Blackhand;492523I'm not trying to write a movie script for my players to read, I want a fun and exciting game.
Not too far from where I'm sitting is a copy of Mayfair's DRAGONS!, which I believe to be hands down the most underappreciated supplement ever.
This sourcebook/module contains three separate mini-games: one where the players play out a sort of hidden information boardgame to see whether they beat a party of assassins hired to kill them to the next town, one where they have to navigate an obstructed river on a rickety raft while being bombarded by rocks, and one where they have to organize a town defense during a dragon attack.
Also nearby is the MX series of modules for the old TSR Marvel Superheroes RPG. Each module contains at least one minigame used to track the results of the character's actions. In one, there's a gameboard used to determine how close the characters are to being located and rousted by the anti-mutant forces. In another, there's a large scale strategic game where the players have to decide where to allocate forces and how to prioritize targets in the mutants vs. Sentinels war. In another, there's a minigame used to track the overall state of anti-mutant sentiment based on events in the campaign.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I haven't seen this in an official D&D product ever, nor has the idea caught in general in RPGs - having either one-off mini-games for specific scenes, or else a general set of mechanics for constructing such mini-games.
4E Skill Challenges try but fail, FATE 2.0 almost succeeds, FATE 3.0 has all the right mechanics but they're scattered across different games and have never been codified into a general set of rules.
You're all hat and no cattle, cowboy, because you're projecting your prissy-phobia somewhere it don't exist.
I'm just going to state that I have absolutely zero fucking interest in a Call of Cthulhu wargame. It's the most asinine idea I've ever heard.
Lovecraft's stories aren't free from combat but it' sure a hell of a lot too rare for me to describe his works as "pulp action" in general. I'm star\ing at the latest collection of stories that was released just last month (Eldritch Tales), and I cannot find an example of physical combat in more than 1 of the 55 stories in the volume thus far.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492528This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, I'm saying
I don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not sure how any of that's related to Cthulhu gaming.
Quote from: TristramEvans;492533I'm just going to state that I have absolutely zero fucking interest in a Call of Cthulhu wargame. It's the most asinine idea I've ever heard.
No one said anything about this.
However...that's a GREAT idea and I'm going to look into it.
Maybe a Dreamlands thing with hordes of ghouls and nightgaunts.
War of Cthulhu! Elder God vs Elder God!
Quote from: Blackhand;492534No one said anything about this.
However...that's a GREAT idea and I'm going to look into it.
Maybe a Dreamlands thing with hordes of ghouls and nightgaunts.
War of Cthulhu! Elder God vs Elder God!
Twinky vs Twinky
That's about as far from the spirit of the source material as one can get. Misewell play Pokethulhu.
Quote from: TristramEvans;492533I'm just going to state that I have absolutely zero fucking interest in a Call of Cthulhu wargame. It's the most asinine idea I've ever heard.
Lovecraft's stories aren't free from combat but it' sure a hell of a lot too rare for me to describe his works as "pulp action" in general. I'm staring at the latest collection of stories that was released just last month (Eldritch Tales), and I cannot find an example of physical combat in more than 1 of the 55 stories in the volume thus far.
Actually, I've played a two boardgames based on Lovecraft several times - notably the recent remake of Arkham Horror (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15987/arkham-horror) and Mansions of Madness (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/83330/mansions-of-madness). I wouldn't call them wargames exactly, and they also have damn little to do with Lovecraft's stories. Still, I kind of liked Arkham Horror as among the better of Ameritrash boardgames.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492503But as a general rule, RPGs still haven't broken away from the problem of being tactical wargames with tacked on skill systems. So if a game seems to focus heavily on combat and that's not the primary focus of the source material, I tend to assume that's the reason.
On the one hand, I do very much enjoy Lovecraftian and other scenarios with little or zero violence. However, I still disagree with the above that presumes that being a tactical wargame with skills is a
problem. It's 100% not a problem. It is a good thing that many people - including myself - enjoy. I wouldn't want all my RPGs to be tactical wargames, but RPGs don't have to be one or the other - they can be both, and indeed they are.
Quote from: jhkim;492549On the one hand, I do very much enjoy Lovecraftian and other scenarios with little or zero violence. However, I still disagree with the above that presumes that being a tactical wargame with skills is a problem. It's 100% not a problem. It is a good thing that many people - including myself - enjoy. I wouldn't want all my RPGs to be tactical wargames, but RPGs don't have to be one or the other - they can be both, and indeed they are.
It's kinda like those people who say D&D is all about combat, because that's what the majority of the space in the rulebook is devoted to (besides spell lists I guess). The theory being that if a game is focused on an area besides combat, the majority of rules will reflect that, which I've always thought was a bit of misnomer.
I view it as, combat's a situation where I want to have a strong , detailed system in place...the rest of the time I don't need that many rules, or rules get in the way of roleplaying. I'm not sure I agree "wargames with skill systems tacked" on is an accurate reflection of the hobby as a whole, but it's not something I specifically object to.
Quote from: TristramEvans;492546Twinky vs Twinky
That's about as far from the spirit of the source material as one can get. Misewell play Pokethulhu.
You can say that about everything that ever made it into the form of a game.
Quote from: TristramEvans;492555It's kinda like those people who say D&D is all about combat, because that's what the majority of the space in the rulebook is devoted to (besides spell lists I guess). The theory being that if a game is focused on an area besides combat, the majority of rules will reflect that, which I've always thought was a bit of misnomer.
I view it as, combat's a situation where I want to have a strong , detailed system in place...the rest of the time I don't need that many rules, or rules get in the way of roleplaying.
Exactly.
Quote from: jhkim;492549However, I still disagree with the above that presumes that being a tactical wargame with skills is a problem. [...] I wouldn't want all my RPGs to be tactical wargames, but RPGs don't have to be one or the other - they can be both, and indeed they are.
Permit me to clarify: the problem is that nearly all RPGs are essentially tactical wargames with a tacked on skill system. RPGs that provide a mechanical framework for any activity other than personal combat with the same level of detail are vanishingly few.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492559Permit me to clarify: the problem is that nearly all RPGs are essentially tactical wargames with a tacked on skill system. RPGs that provide a mechanical framework for any activity other than personal combat with the same level of detail are vanishingly few.
That's a personal preference you seem to be processing as an
actual problem.
What other systems do you really want to fuck with over and over (other than combat) that somehow won't make it tedious?
Some of those things you mentioned are in better context now, but really - do you want to do that every game you play? No, those are like special campaign mini games.
You don't need that in a basic rulebook for an RPG. You need detailed combat rules, because it's gonna happen. Every. Time.
Quote from: The_Shadow;492490But regardless, all the metagaming in the world doesn't do them any good when I GM.
So making a character with high skill% in Occult, Arabic, and the like for CoC
isn't metagaming?
Or do you use some sort of Traveller chargen to ensure there is no metagaming?
Quote from: TristramEvans;492546Twinky vs Twinky
That's about as far from the spirit of the source material as one can get. Misewell play Pokethulhu.
So you
haven't read the
Dreamquest of Unknown Kadath?
A lot of that argument is predicated on the notion that metagaming isn't good for anybody.
Metagaming is what happens when you're playing a game that people give a shit about. Any game. The players will think about it (a lot) if they like it. What the fuck is the problem with that?
It happens, and it's ok.
Quote from: Planet Algol;492627So you haven't read the Dreamquest of Unknown Kadath?
Thanks for pointing this out. I was going to say something about it, but he would just tell me what an asshole I am and how stupid the idea was.
Um... hey. If I may, a few posts back someone mentioned boardgames and the like. Just want to say that the idea of some type of board/card game where one player(s) play cultists trying to accomplish "x" and one player(s) play investigators trying to stop them might be pretty nifty, actually.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492559Permit me to clarify: the problem is that nearly all RPGs are essentially tactical wargames with a tacked on skill system. RPGs that provide a mechanical framework for any activity other than personal combat with the same level of detail are vanishingly few.
I would suggest that this would be better rephrased as:
The problem for me is that there are not enough RPGs that provide other activities with the same level of detail as personal combat. Notably, this rephrasing doesn't say that there is anything bad about the existence of many RPGs with tactical combat - because there isn't. Many people play them and enjoy them.
Quote from: Werekoala;492633Um... hey. If I may, a few posts back someone mentioned boardgames and the like. Just want to say that the idea of some type of board/card game where one player(s) play cultists trying to accomplish "x" and one player(s) play investigators trying to stop them might be pretty nifty, actually.
Imagine SJG's illuminati where the cultist plays his power structure face down, and the investigator gets special action tokens or something.
Quote from: Cranewings;492642Imagine SJG's illuminati where the cultist plays his power structure face down, and the investigator gets special action tokens or something.
Hrmm...
Yah, love Illuminati, still play it once a month or so.
Quote from: Werekoala;492643Hrmm...
Yah, love Illuminati, still play it once a month or so.
I'm pretty envious of that fact... Hail Eris.
Quote from: Planet Algol;492627So you haven't read the Dreamquest of Unknown Kadath?
Yep, I have.
I've read every published story by Lovecraft, including his ghostwritten stories, as well as the works of Robert Chambers, Lord Dunsany, Manly Wade Wellman, Clark Ashton Smith, Colin Wilson, and a host of modern writers who have contributed to the canon.
August Derleth I've always considered a bit of a hack, whose own ideas about the "Cthulhu Mythos" (a term he coined which Lovecraft didn't use) were contradictory to Lovecraft's premises.
Quote from: Cranewings;492645I'm pretty envious of that fact... Hail Eris.
HAIL ERIS!
(Proud Pope of the Discordian Church)
Quote from: Planet Algol;492626So making a character with high skill% in Occult, Arabic, and the like for CoC isn't metagaming?
Or do you use some sort of Traveller chargen to ensure there is no metagaming?
Tristam...
Quote from: Werekoala;492633Um... hey. If I may, a few posts back someone mentioned boardgames and the like. Just want to say that the idea of some type of board/card game where one player(s) play cultists trying to accomplish "x" and one player(s) play investigators trying to stop them might be pretty nifty, actually.
There is such a game: Escape from Innsmouth. I own it, and it plays pretty fun. One player is the human, the other 1-3 players are the deep ones trying to kill the human before he can round up his captured friends and escape from the city.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jhkim;492638I would suggest that this would be better rephrased as:
God's Teeth, it's 2011. Do I really have to put "IMHO" in front of every sentence?
I'm not even going to touch the whole "melee combat is
precious and
special and
so much more important than
anything else that could ever happen in an adventure game, so
of course it has to take up 75% of the rulebook" thing. I'm tired of buckshotting that canard.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492976God's Teeth, it's 2011. Do I really have to put "IMHO" in front of every sentence?
I'm not even going to touch the whole "melee combat is precious and special and so much more important than anything else that could ever happen in an adventure game, so of course it has to take up 75% of the rulebook" thing. I'm tired of buckshotting that canard.
What game are you playing? It's like 20 pages of the Pathfinder rule book, which is 600 pages. I don't remember it ever being a big part of the D&D rule books, not like spells or magic items or even skills from 3e on.
Quote from: Cranewings;492977What game are you playing? It's like 20 pages of the Pathfinder rule book, which is 600 pages. I don't remember it ever being a big part of the D&D rule books, not like spells or magic items or even skills from 3e on.
He's fighting canard with canard. It's the only way to be sure.
After jacking firearms and kung fu I like to dump skill % into Credit Rating. There's three reasons for this:
a) It can translate into starting $$$ and income. More money = more juice; you can solve a lot of problems by throwing money at it. My higher level AD&D PCs are generally broke, despite the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of experience gold pieces due to my fondness for the aforementioned tactic.
b) I've owned a lot of CoC scenarios and campaigns, and my impression is that Credit Rating was one of the more common social skills referenced to in the text. And yeah, having a high credit rating allows my PC has turned out useful for investigation tactics such as getting information by pretending to be interested in buying real estate or starting a business. Enjoying the benefits to being one of the 1% - actually both kinds of 1% (being oligarch and also, due to the violent, illegal lifestyle of the PC, being a outlaw despite any facade of respectability).
c) I absolutely love pumping an NPC for information in their office by making an appointment with them, and when in their office and in the act of sitting down reaching into the back pocket and saying "Excuse me but this dang wallet of mine is so big it's uncomfortable to sit on" while slapping his brick of a wallet, stuffed with cash, on the desk.
We had a Keeper who let us put a french 75mm field howitzer on the back of a flatbed truck - two of the group aced their engineering rolls (I think that was the skill; I don't have a rulebook handy) so there was no "gun tears itself loose of your ad-hoc mounting, impales the driver, explodes the rest of the ammo" type stuff going on, but it was very much an infrequently used weapon.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;492990We had a Keeper who let us put a french 75mm field howitzer on the back of a flatbed truck - two of the group aced their engineering rolls (I think that was the skill; I don't have a rulebook handy) so there was no "gun tears itself loose of your ad-hoc mounting, impales the driver, explodes the rest of the ammo" type stuff going on, but it was very much an infrequently used weapon.
The great thing about a howitzer is that it's not a weapon that impales...
Quote from: daniel_ream;492559Permit me to clarify: the problem is that nearly all RPGs are essentially tactical wargames with a tacked on skill system. RPGs that provide a mechanical framework for any activity other than personal combat with the same level of detail are vanishingly few.
Oh please... There was
Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Tunnels & Trolls, and
Chivalry & Sorcery from very early on... These were all level-based skills games with combat tacked into the skills system. Elegant (Except for C&S, which was totally for math nerds), and easy to play, our gaming group adopted these as alternatives to AD&D, and we actually played more skills based roleplaying games than regular D&D.
Quote from: GameDaddy;492994Oh please... There was Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Tunnels & Trolls, and Chivalry & Sorcery from very early on... These were all level-based skills games with combat tacked into the skills system. Elegant (Except for C&S, which was totally for math nerds), and easy to play, our gaming group adopted these as alternatives to AD&D, and we actually played more skills based roleplaying games than regular D&D.
:confused:
RuneQuest was
never "level-based".
Quote from: Aos;492979He's fighting canard with canard.
The best way to defeat a canard is with a full-blown urban legend. Simply using another canard will just lead to a stand off...
Quote from: Akrasia;493079The best way to defeat a canard is with a full-blown urban legend. Simply using another canard will just lead to a stand off...
Only welfare mothers enjoy 4e.
Quote from: Aos;493091Only welfare mothers enjoy 4e.
Lazy Satanic bitches.
Quote from: daniel_ream;492976God's Teeth, it's 2011. Do I really have to put "IMHO" in front of every sentence?
I'm not even going to touch the whole "melee combat is precious and special and so much more important than anything else that could ever happen in an adventure game, so of course it has to take up 75% of the rulebook" thing. I'm tired of buckshotting that canard.
It still sounds like you're trying to attack RPGs that other people like for not being what you want. Given three statements:
1) RPGs that emphasize combat are a problem and bad.
2)
In my humble opinion, RPGs that emphasize combat are a problem and bad.
3) I prefer RPGs that don't emphasize combat.
I think there's still a big difference between #2 and #3.
Not to mention that on a site where opinion is very often presented as fact, it's probably not a bad idea to make it clear that you know the difference.
Quote from: RPGPundit;492848There is such a game: Escape from Innsmouth. I own it, and it plays pretty fun. One player is the human, the other 1-3 players are the deep ones trying to kill the human before he can round up his captured friends and escape from the city.
RPGPundit
checked it out on boardgamegeek.com, looks cool!
innsmouth escape (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/32969/innsmouth-escape)
Quote from: Aos;493124Not to mention that on a site where opinion is very often presented as fact, it's probably not a bad idea to make it clear that you know the difference.
In brief:
If I say it, it is a fact.
If you say it, it is an opinion.
Quote from: Planet Algol;492993The great thing about a howitzer is that it's not a weapon that impales...
It is if it rips itself off the mountings and flies backwards through the rear of the driver's compartment :D
Quote from: Planet Algol;492988After jacking firearms and kung fu I like to dump skill % into Credit Rating. There's three reasons for this:
a) It can translate into starting $$$ and income. More money = more juice; you can solve a lot of problems by throwing money at it. My higher level AD&D PCs are generally broke, despite the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of experience gold pieces due to my fondness for the aforementioned tactic.
b) I've owned a lot of CoC scenarios and campaigns, and my impression is that Credit Rating was one of the more common social skills referenced to in the text. And yeah, having a high credit rating allows my PC has turned out useful for investigation tactics such as getting information by pretending to be interested in buying real estate or starting a business. Enjoying the benefits to being one of the 1% - actually both kinds of 1% (being oligarch and also, due to the violent, illegal lifestyle of the PC, being a outlaw despite any facade of respectability).
c) I absolutely love pumping an NPC for information in their office by making an appointment with them, and when in their office and in the act of sitting down reaching into the back pocket and saying "Excuse me but this dang wallet of mine is so big it's uncomfortable to sit on" while slapping his brick of a wallet, stuffed with cash, on the desk.
You're clearly quite a competent CoC player. Credit rating is extremely important.
Kung Fu, on the other hand, seems like a bit of a waste to me? Firearms skills are so much more useful.
RPGPundit
No matter what.
Kung Fu is applicable against any monster, anywhere and anytime.
This is the immutable law of all universes.
Quote from: Blackhand;493316No matter what.
Kung Fu is applicable against any monster, anywhere and anytime.
This is the immutable law of all universes.
The picture Benoist just posted on his Facebook is relavent to this contention, especially re: Cthulhu. I'd post it if I knoew how... :P
Quote from: Blackhand;492233Check out stories by August Derleth, Robert Bloch, and especially Brian Lumley.
Bloch gets a pass... but Derleth and Lumley are poison in the well AFAIC, and should be filtered out as thoroughly as possible.
Quote from: RPGPundit;492025That is "straight" only inasmuch as its how the CoC Swine decided you must play CoC.
RPGPundit
oh lord.
Martial arts plus kick equals 2d6 + db of non-impaling damage, ergo jacking up Kung Fu.
Quote from: Simlasa;493327Bloch gets a pass... but Derleth and Lumley are poison in the well AFAIC, and should be filtered out as thoroughly as possible.
Derleth and Lumley are worse than Lovecraft?
Thanks, I'll avoid them like the plague, then.
Quote from: soltakss;493532Derleth and Lumley are worse than Lovecraft?
Thanks, I'll avoid them like the plague, then.
You should make your own assessment of that situation.
Quote from: soltakss;493532Derleth and Lumley are worse than Lovecraft?
Thanks, I'll avoid them like the plague, then.
Derleth is pretty much schlock, yeah, and he also added some of his own ideas to the Cthulhu mythos, claiming at the time that he was expressing Lovecraft's true intentions, which were anything but (like dividing the Elder Gods up based on associations with the 4 classical elements of Air, Earth, Fire & Water).
It's worth noting here also that Lovecraft himself did appoint an official "successor" during his lifetime...which would be Robert Bloch, best known these days as the author of
Psycho.
If Lumley is the guy who wrote those Titus Crow books...then yeah, he's also really, really bad. His prose style is the equivalent of hitting oneself on the head with a brick for hours.
I find that with Lovecraft it's best to go backwards rather than forwards, to his own inspirations rather than his imitators. Robert Chambers, Arthur Machen, and Lord Dunsany I all highly recommend.
I think hitting myself in the head with a brick for hours would be preferable to reading Titus Crow again.
Quote from: Werekoala;493323The picture Benoist just posted on his Facebook is relavent to this contention, especially re: Cthulhu. I'd post it if I knoew how... :P
You mean my avatar here?
Quote from: Aos;493542I think hitting myself in the head with a brick for hours would be preferable to reading Titus Crow again.
Well, yeah, at least at the end of it all you'd still have a brick, which is somewhat useful.
Makes a good Hogswatch gift.
Quote from: Akrasia;493078:confused: RuneQuest was never "level-based".
thank you...
Quote from: TristramEvans;493541I find that with Lovecraft it's best to go backwards rather than forwards, to his own inspirations rather than his imitators. Robert Chambers, Arthur Machen, and Lord Dunsany I all highly recommend.
Yeah, imitators are generally weak... but the guys who can take HPL's themes and avoided the urge to merely name drop/catalogue the 'Mythos'... Ramsey Campbell, Karl Edward Wagner, Thomas Ligotti... Junji Ito... they can provide some ace stuff.
Quote from: Simlasa;493562Yeah, imitators are generally weak... but the guys who can take HPL's themes and avoided the urge to merely name drop/catalogue the 'Mythos'... Ramsey Campbell, Karl Edward Wagner, Thomas Ligotti... Junji Ito... they can provide some ace stuff.
Yeah, come to think of it, Joe R. Lansdale's Mythos stuff has been pretty awesome, sort of a spiritual successor to Manly Wade Wellman in a way.