Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, well. So, who came up with the idea of making characters that can't SOCK IT TO THEM?

Plugged if I know! Seems like a pretty dumb thing to do...

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenCoC invented as a horror game where a lot of the fun was, basically, watching your character die in interesting ways, or go insane.

I'm not sure I'd put it that way. The fun of CoC, to my mind, is the risk of your character dying or going insane. Moreover, there's also the risk of getting a less-than-happy ending if things don't go well. These were a change from the paradigm at the time and especially from the dominant game, D&D.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot WilenNever got beyond chargen with CoC, but let me see if I have a handle on this.

CoC invented as a horror game where a lot of the fun was, basically, watching your character die in interesting ways, or go insane. For this kind of play, it doesn't matter much what kind of character you make, you just have to be willing to walk into danger and enjoy watching the consequences.

Probably out of a combination of factors, i.e.:

a) Players who wanted more continuity and character identification, maybe because they were carrying over assumptions from other games;

b) Chaosium wanting to expand the game out of a niche that tended to imply occasional/alternative play, and turn it into a "main course campaign" game...

As I said, because of these factors, people wanted characters who'd survive fairly well from session to session. But not everyone absorbed the difference in character types that were suited for long term play. So you had a paradigm clash where people were highly attached to their characters yet unwilling to construct them in a manner that would give them a good chance of surviving through a series of "interesting" sessions. (This may have been reinforced if Chaosium never revised chargen to reflect different needs for different kinds of play. Did they?)

Result: either the players refuse to do anything interesting, or the GM has to resort to all sorts of improbable contortions to lead the characters safely through interesting situations.

Yes? No? Maybe?

No, the published campaigns as noted above are long running globetrotting affairs, the core book has advice aplenty on keeping characters alive and running longer term games but nothing much on disposable characters and one shot killfests.

Lots of CoC fans portray it as a game where if a PC survives three sessions it's a miracle, but that's not supported by the game as actually written and it's not how lots of us play it.

My last CoC game saw not a single PC fatality nor even any madness, some san was lost and they found that the world did not work as they thought but there is plenty of room for follow up.

Played well it's a gradual game, with characters deteriorating over time, dying or going mad only if they are stupid or unlucky, and retiring for others to carry on the fight once they get too ground down.

That said, Erik is a fan of metal gaming, balls to the wall action and gore, CoC is not a game aimed at him and I don't think his views on it are terribly relevant given he's not remotely the target audience.

Similarly, I don't like over the top anime, so my views on Exalted are of less interest than those who are into that stuff.

Quote from: BalbinusPlayed well it's a gradual game, with characters deteriorating over time, dying or going mad only if they are stupid or unlucky,

This can also make it scarier. If you're likely to die in the first session, you don't invest is the character at all and you don't have time. If you might die after growing used to the character after several sessions, then there's more tension.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said, Erik is a fan of metal gaming, balls to the wall action and gore, CoC is not a game aimed at him and I don't think his views on it are terribly relevant given he's not remotely the target audience.

Well, much of my gaming has low key character stuff. Or at least 'realistic' gurps. So I know it really well.

Things like the podcast bug me because I've done that. Alot. And I think I know whats wrong (the players being trained to be less and less proactive with time).

I still like talking more than combat, which computers do better, but really I like big pantomime scenery chewing, essentially because I think it is more fun.

You get to, yknow, DO STUFF.

The thought of my bad gaming actually make me feel somewhat nauseous. The thought of another bunch of characters standing around looking at a plot saying 'well, what can we do about it' or 'i'm not going in there - it's dangerous', well, DEATH FIRST!

---

Player proactivity is a tender flower, and one that must be nurtured by layering on them as much authority and/or responsibility as possible!

Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, much of my gaming has low key character stuff. Or at least 'realistic' gurps. So I know it really well.

Things like the podcast bug me because I've done that. Alot. And I think I know whats wrong (the players being trained to be less and less proactive with time).

I still like talking more than combat, which computers do better, but really I like big pantomime scenery chewing, essentially because I think it is more fun.

You get to, yknow, DO STUFF.

The thought of my bad gaming actually make me feel somewhat nauseous. The thought of another bunch of characters standing around looking at a plot saying 'well, what can we do about it' or 'i'm not going in there - it's dangerous', well, DEATH FIRST!

Ok, fair enough.

The podcast though, what makes you think it's typical?  It's just one group, and by the sounds of it they had fun so they were gaming right (since having fun is gaming right in my book).

The core book actually suggests each player possibly having two characters, one bookish and one more actiony, in my games each player has one but there tends to be a mix of action types and bookish types.

Part of the fun of the game is being out of your depth, but how much out is a factor of player taste.  In my last CoC game I think three of five characters had some combat skill, though I think they didn't use them at all (instead they spread rumours about the bad guys with a crime gang and got the head cultist stabbed outside his hotel, sometimes I love my group).

The fault lies not in the game but in ourselves, or in the case of the podcast in people having fun that ain't our fun.

What's so bad about fun that ain't our fun if we don't have to participate in it?

Quote from: Erik BoiellePlayer proactivity is a tender flower, and one that must be nurtured by layering on them as much authority and/or responsibility as possible!

True enough, that I do agree with.

Quote from: BalbinusThe podcast though, what makes you think it's typical?  It's just one group, and by the sounds of it they had fun so they were gaming right (since having fun is gaming right in my book).

Well, my analysis of it is that they have the most fun when they have goals to achieve and means to leverage to get there.

Er, for instance last episode the Grace character went insane, thought everyone was out to get her and so decided to steal all the parties money and run off with an unsuitable man.

Her player lit up, got really in to it but eventually became disappointed because her character didn't have the skills to get away with it. Then she spent the ENTIRE NEXT SESSION drugged in to unconciousness.

Won't try that again!

This episode, the professor wanted to go on a rampage of revenge and take the fight to the badguy. The rest of the players told him not to be silly because that man was a bad ass evil sorceror and we are just normal people in over our heads so what can we do about it?

Won't try that again!

They'd love this stuff. They really would. But at the moment the message is clear - stick out and get hammered down.

(And Fin would really love to cut loose like an action hero with a tommy gun in each hand - he just doesn't think the others would like that. And he might be right. And every time he's tried in the past in CoC he's been gunned down. but still.  The girls get most excited by shopping and finding suitable men for their characters to marry, so possibly one could work out a compromise).

And its not like this stuff would upset the GMs carefully laid plot. The poor chap would be more than happy for the players to leap on something and run with it. But they wont.

I think its typical because it sounds a lot like my games.

Quote from: Erik BoielleI think its typical because it sounds a lot like my games.

Please do not confuse what is typical for you with what is typical.

Just sayin'...


TGA

Quote from: NicephorusThis can also make it scarier. If you're likely to die in the first session, you don't invest is the character at all and you don't have time. If you might die after growing used to the character after several sessions, then there's more tension.

That's a good point.

Seanchai

Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, my analysis of it is that they have the most fun when they have goals to achieve and means to leverage to get there.

Er, for instance last episode the Grace character went insane, thought everyone was out to get her and so decided to steal all the parties money and run off with an unsuitable man.

Her player lit up, got really in to it but eventually became disappointed because her character didn't have the skills to get away with it. Then she spent the ENTIRE NEXT SESSION drugged in to unconciousness.

Won't try that again!

[much good stuff clipped]

Ah, I take your point.

I've had that happen to me, it's no fun to be in real life sitting at the table with no way to interact or affect the game, and it does teach entirely the wrong lessons.

Well, all I'll say is CoC does not have to be that way, unfortunately there are some really toxic memes (to borrow a phrase) surrounding CoC and this is one of them and sadly is not so uncommon.

It's bollocks, but it's insidious bollocks I'll give you that.

I misread you earlier in the thread actually, what you identify is a problematic way to approach the game though I don't think one has to go tommy guns blazing as the only alternative, that gets a bit fallacy of the excluded middley for me.

Quote from: BalbinusAh, I take your point.

I've had that happen to me, it's no fun to be in real life sitting at the table with no way to interact or affect the game, and it does teach entirely the wrong lessons.

Well, all I'll say is CoC does not have to be that way, unfortunately there are some really toxic memes (to borrow a phrase) surrounding CoC and this is one of them and sadly is not so uncommon.

It's bollocks, but it's insidious bollocks I'll give you that.

I misread you earlier in the thread actually, what you identify is a problematic way to approach the game though I don't think one has to go tommy guns blazing as the only alternative, that gets a bit fallacy of the excluded middley for me.

Maybe this is a Euro meme? I've never seen CoC played this way here in the states...

-clash