Quote from: 3rik;733079While I haven't played it, I don't think even ToC aims at reproducing Lovecraft stories, though those with actual experience playing the game may correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know if it was a design goal, but the investigation system having no chance whatsoever of failing anything to do with investigation means that the players will get all the info the scenario designer wants them to have and then have the opportunity to spend points to get more.  When you combine this with how scenarios are organized you can reliably produce whatever story structure you want.

The scenarios are laid out with scene framing and organized by scene like a play or story that changes locations.

The times I've run it, it works, but rarely if ever does game play proceed in any other way than outlined in the scenarios scene-by-scene.  When you get the core clue and it obviously leads to going to a specific location or talking to a specific person, people tend to do that.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a story game rather than a role playing game as the players do indeed play their characters and describe what they do and you use the system to determine how what they describe turns out.  There's not a lot in the way of plot or story effecting mechanics and even points that are spent to get further information are a representation of their competency as investigators.

EDIT: A friend of mine runs a weekly Trail game and I sent him a message asking if the game ever goes off of the scene-by-scene framework, and he answered back that it hasn't yet and he's been running it since the game came out.  The guaranteed success of the system and the way clues create leads makes the scene by scene progression pretty obvious.  The group basically works through it like a flow chart.

Trail is sort of a perfect illustration of how ForumScavenger has it completely backwards.  In Call of Cthulhu, you very likely will not succeed regularly and it produces play where the result is unknown and variable and the group can go about things in whatever way they want.  In Trail of Cthulhu, you have a very high chance of success and play pretty much proceeds down the obvious path.  So obvious that the published scenarios literally have it spelled out "core clue scene 1" "core clue scene 2" "threat scene 1" and so on.

For me, part of the fun of Call of Cthulhu is not getting all the information and going into a situation unprepared and trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Quote from: 3rik;733079

It says right there on the cover of CoC 6E "Roleplaying in the worlds of H.P. Lovecraft" , not "reproducing the stories of H.P. Lovecraft".

:forge:

While I haven't played it, I don't think even ToC aims at reproducing Lovecraft stories, though those with actual experience playing the game may correct me if I'm wrong.

It certainly provides a mechanical framework more designed for such, yes - especially the Drive mechanic, which I am very wary of.

Quote from: NathanIW;733094I don't know if it was a design goal, but the investigation system having no chance whatsoever of failing anything to do with investigation means that the players will get all the info the scenario designer wants them to have and then have the opportunity to spend points to get more.  When you combine this with how scenarios are organized you can reliably produce whatever story structure you want.

The scenarios are laid out with scene framing and organized by scene like a play or story that changes locations.

The times I've run it, it works, but rarely if ever does game play proceed in any other way than outlined in the scenarios scene-by-scene.  When you get the core clue and it obviously leads to going to a specific location or talking to a specific person, people tend to do that.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a story game rather than a role playing game as the players do indeed play their characters and describe what they do and you use the system to determine how what they describe turns out.  There's not a lot in the way of plot or story effecting mechanics and even points that are spent to get further information are a representation of their competency as investigators.

EDIT: A friend of mine runs a weekly Trail game and I sent him a message asking if the game ever goes off of the scene-by-scene framework, and he answered back that it hasn't yet and he's been running it since the game came out.  The guaranteed success of the system and the way clues create leads makes the scene by scene progression pretty obvious.  The group basically works through it like a flow chart.

Trail is sort of a perfect illustration of how ForumScavenger has it completely backwards.  In Call of Cthulhu, you very likely will not succeed regularly and it produces play where the result is unknown and variable and the group can go about things in whatever way they want.  In Trail of Cthulhu, you have a very high chance of success and play pretty much proceeds down the obvious path.  So obvious that the published scenarios literally have it spelled out "core clue scene 1" "core clue scene 2" "threat scene 1" and so on.

For me, part of the fun of Call of Cthulhu is not getting all the information and going into a situation unprepared and trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Odd - I've ran a lot of ToC (about 30 games?) and I haven't really used the scene framework (the one time I tried flashbacks, my players looked at me as if I started to smell of fish ). So a lot depends on a GM and players.

All the BRP/percentile roll-over love in this thread, especially from people who's opinions I give a shit about, warms my black heart

Quote from: Rincewind1;733095Odd - I've ran a lot of ToC (about 30 games?) and I haven't really used the scene framework (the one time I tried flashbacks, my players looked at me as if I started to smell of fish ). So a lot depends on a GM and players.

Were you designing your own scenarios?  The Armitage Files and Bookhouds do not run as scene based as the other published stuff, but most of the other published scenarios are broken down into scene by scene right in the text.

I could totally see how if you just internalized the situation and stopped thinking about it in terms of scenes and just ran it without them, it would still work, but the default presentation seems to include them.

Quote from: NathanIW;733098Were you designing your own scenarios?  The Armitage Files and Bookhouds do not run as scene based as the other published stuff, but most of the other published scenarios are broken down into scene by scene right in the text.

I could totally see how if you just internalized the situation and stopped thinking about it in terms of scenes and just ran it without them, it would still work, but the default presentation seems to include them.

I was designing my own as well as playing official ones (which I still highly recommend, as they are excellent adventures, especially if you want the more tragic Lovecraftian tales) - Dying of St. Margarete, Not so Quiet and In the Blood.

I highly prefer CoC to ToC (for a list of reasons I've spoken in the other thread, heh), but I think that some of ToC's advice is good and serves well for CoC games. As for the:

QuoteTrail is sort of a perfect illustration of how ForumScavenger has it completely backwards. In Call of Cthulhu, you very likely will not succeed regularly and it produces play where the result is unknown and variable and the group can go about things in whatever way they want. In Trail of Cthulhu, you have a very high chance of success and play pretty much proceeds down the obvious path. So obvious that the published scenarios literally have it spelled out "core clue scene 1" "core clue scene 2" "threat scene 1" and so on.

For me, part of the fun of Call of Cthulhu is not getting all the information and going into a situation unprepared and trying to make the best of a bad situation.

He has it backwards, but a similar situation is in ToC really - players can simply not find a certain clue, if they don't make a spend/enter a certain location/make a declaration. So both systems premium players thinking before relying on spends/rolls. My personal favourite system'd be a mix of ToC's Investigative Abilities with "General Abilities" being used with BRP's percentiles.

The core of Trail is that you don't fail to get the info you need, but yeah, if people did pass up actually engaging with the scene, they could miss an opportunity to get additional or further information.

I see the combination of not being able to fail at investigation and the scene structure of the modules to be indicative of the default approach of the game, but like the looser approach you're talking about a lot better.

Quote from: NathanIW;733098Were you designing your own scenarios?  The Armitage Files and Bookhouds do not run as scene based as the other published stuff, but most of the other published scenarios are broken down into scene by scene right in the text.

That's something that actually turns me off about published ToC scenarios. I've purchased some in order to steal ideas for my CoC game, but I find that breaking things down into scenes makes reading the material much less enjoyable than the more traditional CoC adventure. It feels like the authors are chewing your food for you.

Quote from: Dimitrios;733103That's something that actually turns me off about published ToC scenarios. I've purchased some in order to steal ideas for my CoC game, but I find that breaking things down into scenes makes reading the material much less enjoyable than the more traditional CoC adventure. It feels like the authors are chewing your food for you.

A lot of other RPG publishers wouldn't dare to put their published stuff out in scene based format with the scenes already pre-set because of how impossible it would be to predict the outcomes of what the players do.  Pelegrane can do it for ToC because the players will reliably succeed in getting all the core clues of the scenario.  And if a core clue says that the Pemberton family is involved, they can safely write a scene at Pemberton Manor and know exactly what information the players will have and not have up to this point.

Imagine if someone wrote a Call of Cthulhu scenario and published it in the same format.  It'd be a train wreck.  It also does make for worse reading as it reads like the notes for a movie script rather than an RPG scenario.  It's like a producer made some unfinished notes about the type of stuff that he wants in each scene in a movie.  With RPG scenarios, what you really want is a presentation of the present situation and maybe how the NPCs plan on moving the situation forward if nothing stops them.  That way you can read it, understand the whole situation and see it's potential.  Far more interesting of a read that scene-by-scene movie script notes.

If anyone likes Trail and doesn't like the scene-by-scene preplanned approach, check out Bookhounds and Armitage Files.  They're far more open ended, even if they still have scenes, but the keeper is supposed to generate them as needed rather than use pre planned ones all the time.

I gave Trail an honest go myself, but in the end the d100 roll under Cthulhu game won out.  The chance for failure means that I as a referee get to play to see what happens along with everyone else.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732915Should be clear by observation. Can he work the armor?



Should be clear by observation. Can he work the armor?

Work the armor? What the fuck does that mean?

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732584People don't like the roll under mechanic because they are favored by game designers who want early characters to suck.

You are now the President of Retard Nation.

QuoteA first level d20 character can sneak up to a guard, knife him, calm his horse, and ride off with it.

A starting DH character can trip over his own feet, drop a grenade, and kill himself trying to sneak up on an untrained grandmother.

Not everything goes according to plan? Oh noes!

Seriously though, even the most highly trained and talented people fuck up in humiliating fashion.

QuoteI think that most of the people who say they don't like roll under mechanics would like them just fine if their skills started out at 70% instead of 30%.

Because they're pussies who can't handle a challenge. They want the deck stacked in their favor.

QuoteI personally hate playing characters weaker than I am in real life.

So now you're going to explain how you can fight in hand-to-hand combat better than a veteran fighting man, right? Or how you can cast more than one 1st-level spell, yes? Or how you can climb sheer walls and...

Get the fuck outta here!

Quote from: Elfdart;733157Or how you can climb sheer walls and...

As an aside, it never fails me how people think it's easy to do stuff in a game based on complete ignorance, and climbing is an excellent example.

I've done rock climbing.  It's 90% technique and 10% strength and endurance.  Yet the average Joe who hasn't done it thinks it's easy.  Put that average Joe on a wall and I bet they couldn't get 10 feet up the wall.  Doesn't matter how strong you are, you're going to burn out your arms in about 2 minutes if that's what you're using to climb.  You have to be taught how to climb, and take a lot of practice to do it well.  I imagine a lot of other things are the same way.

Basically, some gamers overrate their own abilities based on something they think is easy but have no actual real life experience to tell them they are full of shit.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;733165As an aside, it never fails me how people think it's easy to do stuff in a game based on complete ignorance, and climbing is an excellent example.

I've done rock climbing.  It's 90% technique and 10% strength and endurance.  Yet the average Joe who hasn't done it thinks it's easy.  Put that average Joe on a wall and I bet they couldn't get 10 feet up the wall.  Doesn't matter how strong you are, you're going to burn out your arms in about 2 minutes if that's what you're using to climb.  You have to be taught how to climb, and take a lot of practice to do it well.  I imagine a lot of other things are the same way.

Basically, some gamers overrate their own abilities based on something they think is easy but have no actual real life experience to tell them they are full of shit.

There's a Dilbert strip about that.  "Anything I don't understand is easy."

"Redesign our entire network for worldwide connectivity and electronic billing -- twenty minutes."

Quote from: Old Geezer;733182There's a Dilbert strip about that.  "Anything I don't understand is easy."

"Redesign our entire network for worldwide connectivity and electronic billing -- twenty minutes."

Get that in the art side of game design too. Had one guy who thought that 200 pieces of colour painting art from one artist was going to be done in a months time.

We tried to be gentle explaining how it works...

Quote from: Benoist;733069then you probably are a railroading griefing sadist of a DM. Which doesn't mean you -you- of course. *wink wink*

Well, i did run Dragonlance, the whole 12 modules...

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;733231Well, i did run Dragonlance, the whole 12 modules...

Serious question: How was that?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;733252Serious question: How was that?

Sure, open a new thread, as the answer would have nothing to do with what I think of roll under %.