Combat in 'Call of Cthulhu'
Dan Evans
Hey, everyone! I'm running a 1920's CoC campaign right now. I've run
games in the past, so I'm not exactly new to this, but I have a couple
of questions for anyone who cares to consider them.
Combat comes up in nearly any rpg system. CoC is no exception. When
combat occurs I am inclined to push the sense of time ticking away, to
keep the players on their toes. But as much as I want the combat to
be turned based, I don't want the players to feel they have the luxury
of sitting around discussing the best plan of attack or action. I
want there to be heat and tension. My answer to this is that I tend
to rush things. Often too much so. I skip details unintentionally,
and sometimes make my players feel just a little lost.
So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
detail to the players?
Secondly, there are often times when I have a predetermined result in
mind for a particular situation. I need things to turn out like
such-and-such. What's the best way to steer the players in the
direction you want, but maintain for them a sense of control, like
what they are doing and trying matters. I don't want my players to
feel frustrated as a result of my GMing style, but I sometimes think
it would be easier to simply say, "And then X happens! It just
happens. No, you can't do anything about it!" But, that would be the
farthest thing from what I'm trying for.
I'd be interested in whatever ideas or insights you can offer.
Thanks!
Wolf
> So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
> in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
> detail to the players?
>
> Secondly, there are often times when I have a predetermined result in
> mind for a particular situation. I need things to turn out like
> such-and-such. What's the best way to steer the players in the
> direction you want, but maintain for them a sense of control, like
> what they are doing and trying matters. I don't want my players to
> feel frustrated as a result of my GMing style, but I sometimes think
> it would be easier to simply say, "And then X happens! It just
> happens. No, you can't do anything about it!" But, that would be the
> farthest thing from what I'm trying for.
(How about no matter what the players do, it will end up at the same
point?)
--
|\-/|
<0 0>
=(o)=
-Wolf
wo...@parrett.net
http://www.parrett.net/~wolf
http://www.parrett.net/~wolf/ttm.htm
All views expressed in the above message are copyrighted
(C) 1996 wo...@parrett.net and any editting or quoting will be
promptly replied to.
David R. Henry
Dan Evans writes:
>Combat comes up in nearly any rpg system. CoC is no exception. When
>combat occurs I am inclined to push the sense of time ticking away, to
>keep the players on their toes.
Actually, to stay in the genre feel, I've always run combat in Cthulhu
as messy, bloody, and very confusing. Also somewhat timeless -- there's
action for an unspecified (but usually short) period of time, and then
there's bodies lying around (investigators or cultists). Most investigators
will not be playing combat-trained people (except in Officially
Sanctioned Theron Marks Franchise campaigns), and thus making combat
just another bit of something scary to run past them works well.
Besides, the combat system is pretty darn quick anyway. :) "The
Shoggoth hits you for 54 points of damage." "Hmm."
>So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
>in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
>detail to the players?
At least in my campaign, my players are all too aware that they
average around 11 hit points, and won't be getting them back
very quickly. That helps keep them "in the moment" and concerned.
Run as much detail as you can, but feel free to borrow some tricks
from Feng Shui -- allow the players to fill in some details, and
if it doesn't contradict the storyline or your good sense, let it
happen. Are they fighting a Deep One in a mansion's library?
Then let the professor pick up the fireplace poker on his own
imagination, rather than you listing every little detail of the
place. Tell your players you're allowing them that freedom, and
they'll eventually use it, with you just stepping in to disallow
totally silly actions. Would there be an elephant gun hung over
the fireplace of the library? Hmm... Hmm... Maybe a Luck Roll at
some vastly reduced percentage is called for...
>Secondly, there are often times when I have a predetermined result in
>mind for a particular situation. I need things to turn out like
>such-and-such. What's the best way to steer the players in the
>direction you want, but maintain for them a sense of control, like
>what they are doing and trying matters.
Um, there isn't. Unless you're one of the best method actors out
there, and your players are largely taking part in your
campaign to be awed by your acting all the NPCs. Some players
don't mind being led around by the nose, but I have generally
found that allowing my players free reign (basically) keeps them
happy and content. The Keeper can always kill the investigators --
heck, in an average campaign, even a police investigation with no
ulterior motives into an average investigator's life would probably
be enough to send them to Sing Sing for life. ("So after shooting the
High Priest of Yub, you then set fire to Mr. Whateley's barn and
beheaded Old Woman Pritchett? You're coming with us.")
Myself, the greatest mystery in Call of Cthulhu combat would be...
Why did Chaosium put the hit point graphs on their player
character sheets going up to over 30? What are my players supposed
to be, ghasts? :)
--
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu Old Endgame, Lost of Old
Play and Lose and have Done with Losing
Morten Kjeldseth Pettersen
David R. Henry wrote:
> Actually, to stay in the genre feel, I've always run combat in Cthulhu
> as messy, bloody, and very confusing.
This is IMHO, the most satisfying way of running combat in CoC. Pieces
of glass flying, guns blazing, the gunsmoke obscuring vision. I ran a
combat like this once. None of the PC's were trained in combat, and the
end result was truly confusing and terrifying indeed.
> Most investigators will not be playing combat-trained people (except in Officially
> Sanctioned Theron Marks Franchise campaigns), and thus making combat
> just another bit of something scary to run past them works well.
Actually, I've discovered that The Theron Marks Society Field-Manual
doesn't mean that your PC's are better prepared for combat. My group
discovered this in an adventure, and was more confused in the next
combat as a result.
> Besides, the combat system is pretty darn quick anyway. :) "The
> Shoggoth hits you for 54 points of damage." "Hmm."
A description of various death-reports listed in The Cthulhu Casebook by
Chaosium springs to mind:
"SHOGGOTHS: The body had been crushed and smeared under an incredible
weight. All that remained was a bloody pulp which had been mixed with a
foul-smelling iridescent ooze." My question here would be, who would try
to engage in a fight with a Shoggoth ! ! ! (unless you have a really
cunning plan that is: Always Have a Plan.
"Lancelot, Galahad, and I leap out of the rabbit..." -from Monthy Python
and the Holy Grail, quoted from the same book mentioned above.
> Myself, the greatest mystery in Call of Cthulhu combat would be...
>
> Why did Chaosium put the hit point graphs on their player
> character sheets going up to over 30? What are my players supposed
> to be, ghasts? :)
Aha, a vile plot is uncovered! Perhaps Chaosium is _suggesting_ that the
PC's should be playing ghasts? (8<
The world grows more and more sinisteer by the hour (or is that by the
minute?)
John H Kim
OK, this is some advice regarding _Call of Cthulhu_ combat.
For now, I'm not going to answer Dan's second question: how to
enforce predetermined results without frustrating players -- because
it is a little too open-ended.
Note that this is generic sort of advice about fast-paced
combat. I don't have much experience in really successful "horror"
games which were genuinely scary or creepy. I do have experience
in _Call of Cthulhu_, however, of the more mundane kind.
Most of my advice is going to be about how to design
"set-piece" combats as part of a plotted game (which seemed to be
what Dan was looking for). A good GM can always improvise, but
if you are going to plot, you can enhance the excitement by
Dan Evans <cas...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>When combat occurs I am inclined to push the sense of time ticking away,
>to keep the players on their toes. But as much as I want the combat to
>be turned based, I don't want the players to feel they have the luxury
>of sitting around discussing the best plan of attack or action. I
>want there to be heat and tension. My answer to this is that I tend
>to rush things. Often too much so. I skip details unintentionally,
>
>So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
>in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
>detail to the players?
OK, the first thing to do is to look at your combat as part
of the overall plot. The combat serves a purpose in the scheme of
things, so you want to consider what the goals of the combat are.
Do you want to emphasize the scariness of the opponents, or is this
where the players can get their break in the case?
At the beginning of the combat, you should take a minute or
two to slowly describe the scene: describe all the surroundings and
draw a diagram. Let them orient themselves -- after that, hit 'em
with everything, and make them pay attention to what's going on,
or it could mean their lives...
1) Keep down the number of opponents: two or three is ideal (one
can be a little boring). Especially in CoC, it is easy to come
up with a pair of lunatics or things which can challenge the
whole party. This reduces your workload and gets all of them
focussed instead of divided.
2) Make the opponents nasty, but vulnerable. Ideally, the combat
per se will not last that many turns, and every hit should be
grievous (on both sides). It should be over quickly: either
they will be dead or their opponents. Don't set up a slow but
tough monster which takes endless shots to kill.
Don't make the opponent too dangerous unless you really want
to kill PC's. Rather than trying to save the PC's, you should be
pushing every vicious edge the opponents get. A crazed old lady
who stabs you in the guts and almost disembowels you can be scarier
than a giant monster who only seems to eat NPC's.
3) Complicate the setting, and keep changing things in it. Everything
should be well described and diagrammed at first, but then knock
over furniture, start fires, blast holes, shatter things, etcetera.
It's up to them to keep track of it.
4) Turn out the lights. Darkness is great for fears, plus it lets
you concentrate on other senses. A good rule for descriptions
is to try to use all five senses: describe sounds, smells, and
textures.
5) Get the players talking in character; encourage the PC's to
shout out things to each other. You can give secret perception
and knowledge to individual players: either before the combat
or with prepared notes during the combat. Thus, you might hand
a note to one player telling him that he has encountered the
monster in the dark, while another PC is trying to shoot at it --
i.e. "Where is it?" "Get it off, get it off!" etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Mika-Petri Lauronen
In alt.horror.cthulhu Dan Evans <cas...@cruzio.com> wrote:
: So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
: in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
: detail to the players?
My opinion (as a Keeper) is that if the players engage in combat,
they have done something wrong. A combat, especially one with fire-
arms, is confusing. Just let the players improvise (this has been
mentioned before, but I include my humble opinion) but keep in mind that
the combat goes on nonetheless. As a rule of thumb, if the players think
long, assume that the investigators are doing the same. A ghast can rip
off an arm in two seconds...
Once one of the investigators lighted a stick of dynamite and was about
to throw it in a room through a window, when another investigator
crushed in through a door, wounded. The 1st one started thinking about
what to do. I simply stated:
"You see investigator X struggling up, looking very dazzled. The
people in the room turn to him, with murder in their eyes. By the
way, the stick is about to go off."
She threw the stick in, killing all four cultist in the room, and
simultaneously the wounded investigator. Additionally, she got
struck in the face by the broken glass, losing an eye.
Just an example - my players have killed themselves more than once
using explosives. Also, relying too much on the firearms could be
fatal... they don't always work...
--
*******************************************************************
* " You can point your finger at the moon, but the finger is not *
* the moon" - Old Zen saying *
*************************** Mixu Lauronen, mpla...@paju.oulu.fi **
Lea Crowe
In article <E01xo...@cruzio.com> cas...@cruzio.com "Dan Evans" writes:
> Combat comes up in nearly any rpg system. CoC is no exception. When
> combat occurs I am inclined to push the sense of time ticking away, to
> keep the players on their toes. But as much as I want the combat to
> be turned based, I don't want the players to feel they have the luxury
> of sitting around discussing the best plan of attack or action. I
> want there to be heat and tension. My answer to this is that I tend
> to rush things. Often too much so. I skip details unintentionally,
> and sometimes make my players feel just a little lost.
>
> So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
> in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
> detail to the players?
This is difficult in all systems. Fortunately, "Call of Cthulhu" is one
of the better ones. The system runs quickly enough that actions can be
resolved at disorienting speed (unlike, say, "Shadowrun" or "Vampire").
It isn't great, but it's *quick*.
So how can you exploit it to get what you want? First of all, demand quick
responses from your players. The dialogue should run something like, "React."
"Er... um... er..." "Okay, you dither for a few seconds." Define a combat
round as 3-6 seconds, and if the player takes 3 seconds to make a decision,
then his character has spent the round assessing the situation. Rattle
round the group as fast as you can.
Now, make sure your players understand this before you do it. Tell them how
important split-second reactions really are. Give them an easy combat on
which to practise. And be more generous to players with combat-competent
characters.
Second, tell players only what their characters can see in a quick glance.
If they want more detail, let them take time to observe. This is particularly
true in poor or deceptive lighting, or when things are moving quickly.
Outline general things--"More Deep Ones rise out of the water. Something
evanescent and indescribable is hovering translucently above the ritemaster"--
but only give specifics to things that are close up--"The Deep One thrusts
its spear deeper into your body and twists!"
In short: "lost" is the natural state of modern humans in a combat situation.
There are exceptions, but most of us find the speed of such things
disorienting and confusing. I speak only from experience of live roleplaying
(and one nasty incident that fortunately never came to blows), but I think
that the "fog of war" is as real in small skirmishes as it is big battles.
Especially when the mind-twisting minions of Cthulhu are involved...
--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea!
Mik Clarke
In <556udj$a...@plains.nodak.edu>, dhe...@plains.nodak.edu (David R. Henry) writes:
>Dan Evans writes:
>
>>Combat comes up in nearly any rpg system. CoC is no exception. When
>>combat occurs I am inclined to push the sense of time ticking away, to
>>keep the players on their toes.
>
>action for an unspecified (but usually short) period of time, and then
>there's bodies lying around (investigators or cultists).
Yeah. Don't be to strict about enforcing the round based system. Most
combats won't last long enough for it to really count. Basically you end up
with action/reaction and folks taking turns to shoot at each other. To a
large extent dropping to turn based play really disrupts the flow of the
story.
>>So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
>>in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
>>detail to the players?
>
>Run as much detail as you can, but feel free to borrow some tricks
>from Feng Shui -- allow the players to fill in some details, and
>if it doesn't contradict the storyline or your good sense, let it
>happen. Are they fighting a Deep One in a mansion's library?
>Then let the professor pick up the fireplace poker on his own
>imagination, rather than you listing every little detail of the
>place. Tell your players you're allowing them that freedom, and
>they'll eventually use it, with you just stepping in to disallow
>totally silly actions. Would there be an elephant gun hung over
>the fireplace of the library? Hmm... Hmm... Maybe a Luck Roll at
>some vastly reduced percentage is called for...
If the players want to rush, then they only get very brief descriptions. Big,
obvious things like walls, doors, holes in the floor, lights, presence of
furniture. If they want to stop and have a better look around then the bad
guys are going to have time to do something...
Player: Gun ready, look around the door.
DM: You see a largish room, probably a library. The walls are lined with
books. There's a desk, a couple of chairs and a fire place. Something moves
towards you.
Player: Shoot it (rolls to hit)
DM: Flash of light, it's green and slimey, vuagly humanoid. Screaming in pain.
Turning and fleeing. Make a San check.
Player: Failed
DM: Lose 3 points. It flees through a door on the far side of the library,
leaving a trail of slippery, red blood. You're still standing in the doorway in
shock, your hearts pounding.
Player: Ummm. Slowly move towards the door and see where it's gone.
>>Secondly, there are often times when I have a predetermined result in
>>mind for a particular situation. I need things to turn out like
>>such-and-such. What's the best way to steer the players in the
>>direction you want, but maintain for them a sense of control, like
>>what they are doing and trying matters.
>
>Um, there isn't. Unless you're one of the best method actors out
>there, and your players are largely taking part in your
>campaign to be awed by your acting all the NPCs.
I find the the judicious application of a little temporary armour
and mysterious disapearances can be quite helpful in this respect
(especially if the aim is to help a monster escape). If they still
manage to kill something early you can always have one of its
friends turn up. If you need a speciic NPC to die, just make it
happen (the monster sneaks up behind the party and kills the maid).
Mik
Irina Rempt
Mika-Petri Lauronen (mpla...@indy5.oulu.fi) wrote:
> Once one of the investigators lighted a stick of dynamite and was about
> to throw it in a room through a window, when another investigator
> crushed in through a door, wounded. The 1st one started thinking about
> what to do. I simply stated:
> "You see investigator X struggling up, looking very dazzled. The
> people in the room turn to him, with murder in their eyes. By the
> way, the stick is about to go off."
The worst thing I ever did in a CoC game is to grab someone's gun in a
very chaotic fight, fire it (with no skill whatsoever) at who I thought
looked like the main guy in a cultist ritual, *hit him in the head* by
some fluke of fate, then walk up to the policeman who showed up just
then with the still-smoking gun in my hand and say in a small scared
voice "I think I may have killed somebody".
Needless to say I spent the night in prison. And was bailed out by my
friends (bless them), and lost some sanity over it.
It turned out to have been the High Priest, though, and my freak action
helped the campaign along quite a lot :-)
Another time I played a doctor whose best stat was 50% First Aid - but
I'm not going to tell you about *her*...
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all else fails, read the instructions. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harrigan
John H Kim wrote:
> OK, this is some advice regarding _Call of Cthulhu_ combat.
And good advice it is!
>For now, I'm not going to answer Dan's second question: how to
>enforce predetermined results without frustrating players -- because
>it is a little too open-ended.
True, but I *do* think it's important to strike a balance of some
sort. If it's a CoC game, there's a plot. There has to be *some*
direction to the game, or it derails and isn't fun for anyone. But we
all know how everyone feels about the railroad approach. It's no fun
to watch the game happen around you, knowing that you aren't affecting
things one bit (other than perhaps filling the gut of some Thing).
So. Total random games suck, as do 'all aboard the GM's Plot Express'
games. In the middle is a solution I like to use, at least with my CoC
PBeM. Hey, speaking of my CoC PBeM, it's been a while since I plugged
it here.
Plug, plug. Check it out. We're nearing the end of the second chapter,
well over a year into the game, with some new players.
http://www1.usa1.com/~davin/rpg/coc/cocmain.html
Have a look, let me know what you think.
Whoop. Back on track. I've been in a few CoC games that totally lost
focus, and it simply ruins the spirit of the game. It should be
creepy, intense, and the players should never feel like they're able
to relax. Pressure city.
So, Dan, you want a particular thing to happen, but you don't want the
players to feel powerless? Make that Thing integral to the plot. If
they're going to solve it, they'll get to it at some point. Don't
force them places they want to go, and if they want to strike off on
some inane errand, let them -- then have something happen to a) let
them know time is running out and b) give them a little better idea of
how to get back on track.
I find that in writing my PBeM I'm experiencing a dichotomy within the
game. Character death in CoC is often sudden, vicious, and almost
random. Players practically *expect* to lose their lives before the
game is over. But the main focus of my game *is* the characters; their
personalities, their histories, their lives. If I lay them all out in
a turn or two, all of the interesting, well-developed personalities
are gone. It is the characters that drive the stories, and that's
where I derive most of my ideas and plot-hooks from. Even so, this
*is* a Cthulhu game, and they *are* feeble humans. Their times will
come. Soon.
Sorry if this has been a bit off track, Dan. Try to strike a balance
that works for both you and your players. You may not like how things
go at first, but you'll eventually be able to get into a situation
you're comfortably with.
> Note that this is generic sort of advice about fast-paced
>combat. I don't have much experience in really successful "horror"
>games which were genuinely scary or creepy. I do have experience
>in _Call of Cthulhu_, however, of the more mundane kind.
I find that combat in CoC, while rare, does have it's place. You'll
find many people saying "if there's combat, the players have done
something wrong." Not necessarily. It's just that firearms aren't much
good against many of the opponents. A .45 works wonders on an asylum
inmate, however.
> Most of my advice is going to be about how to design
>"set-piece" combats as part of a plotted game (which seemed to be
>what Dan was looking for). A good GM can always improvise, but
>if you are going to plot, you can enhance the excitement by
Yep. Good idea. Dan, this is the sort of thing I mean. Set up
'set-piece' combat, and other events you want to happen, and wait
until the players stumble upon them. Don't rail them down the line;
let them discover things naturally. Then have all the hell you want
break loose.
> OK, the first thing to do is to look at your combat as part
>of the overall plot. The combat serves a purpose in the scheme of
>things, so you want to consider what the goals of the combat are.
Ya. If it's important to the Plot, have a few things planned out. Like
where the crawlies can emerge from, where can you Fall to Your Doom,
etc. If it's not important, make it short and bloody to let players
know they can *really* get hurt if they do the Wrong Thing. Or don't
do the Right Thing fast enough.
>Do you want to emphasize the scariness of the opponents, or is this
>where the players can get their break in the case?
Should be no problem doing both. ALWAYS emphasize the scariness of the
opponents. He's not a man with a knife when he can be a drooling
maniac wielding a rusty scalpel.
>1) Keep down the number of opponents: two or three is ideal (one
> can be a little boring). Especially in CoC, it is easy to come
> up with a pair of lunatics or things which can challenge the
> whole party. This reduces your workload and gets all of them
> focussed instead of divided.
I'm also rather fond of combat which affects the characters
individually. Someone attacked on their way home, in an alley, etc.
Then they can't rely on Tommy Tommygun, the resident NPC killer.
Having *countless* opponents can also be cool, but make sure the
players realize it's useless to stick out the fight. If thirty or
forty ghouls just crawled out of the crypt, don't reload -- run!
>2) Make the opponents nasty, but vulnerable. Ideally, the combat
> per se will not last that many turns, and every hit should be
> grievous (on both sides). It should be over quickly: either
> they will be dead or their opponents. Don't set up a slow but
> tough monster which takes endless shots to kill.
More sound advice, like John says, for *any* game. None of the
combat's I've run in the PBeM last more than a round or two. There's a
moment of terror when the conflict starts, then something horrible and
gruesome happens to someone. Either a player, or a monster.
> Don't make the opponent too dangerous unless you really want
> to kill PC's. Rather than trying to save the PC's, you should be
> pushing every vicious edge the opponents get. A crazed old lady
> who stabs you in the guts and almost disembowels you can be scarier
> than a giant monster who only seems to eat NPC's.
A *really* good point. If the players are sure that they won't be
taking dirt naps, it's not as much fun. Make 'em think they're in real
danger. But not always from some 60' monstrosity. I had a scene in the
PBeM where a player was scared to death by a lone flea.
>3) Complicate the setting, and keep changing things in it. Everything
> should be well described and diagrammed at first, but then knock
> over furniture, start fires, blast holes, shatter things, etcetera.
> It's up to them to keep track of it.
Yep, though this is sounding more like Feng Shui all the time!
>4) Turn out the lights. Darkness is great for fears, plus it lets
> you concentrate on other senses. A good rule for descriptions
> is to try to use all five senses: describe sounds, smells, and
> textures.
Always a good idea. It doesn't have to be pitch black; just being
outside at night is fun. Ever been in the woods with no moon? It's
bloody *dark!*
Anyway, good gaming everyone. I'm off,
Harrigan
bo...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
In article <E01xo...@cruzio.com>, cas...@cruzio.com (Dan Evans) writes:
> So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
> detail to the players?
When describing an action or event that will happen too quickly, in game time,
for the players to react, take all the real time you need to tell about it.
Use lots of detail and give them a real appreciation of how bad things are
getting. Do *not* allow the players to interrupt you as you are giving the
description.
Keeper: "You burst into the room as the sorcerer shouts the last unintelligible
sylable of some loathsome spell. Instantly all the windows shatter into
razor-sharp fragments that shower the room. There is--"
Player(James): "I take off my coat and cover--"
Keeper: "--Shut up--a high pitched whineing noise that makes your teeth ache
and you feel a blast of heat dry your eyeballs as the sorcerer bursts into a
screaming pillar of living flame. You feel a trickle of cool blood run down
your throat as the flaming entity advances toward you. James, what do you do?"
Player(James): Did I get cut by the glass? Am I bleeding bad--"
Keeper: "James stands in the doorway clutching dazedly at his bloody throat.
His hair begins wither and his clothes smoke as the flaming thing draws near."
Player(James): "Hey! I--"
Keeper: "--It's lost all semblance of human form now, and it's cackling laugh
merges with the crackle of its flames. Behind it, it leaves a path of little
molten puddles of glass from the shards littering the floor. Jenifer what do
you want to do?"
Player(Jenifer): (quickly): I point my shotgut at the thing and pull the
trigger."
Keeper: "As James stands gibbering in the doorway, the door he battered down
lying smashed at his feet, Jenifer points her shotgun at the back of his head
and blows him away. Roll damage."
Both Players: "HEY!!"
You notice I also don't give the room description all in one chunk, but toss
bits in as the action progresses. Notice how little I've actually told you.
You are in an area (indoors? outdoors?) with a door (now broken, is it still
good enough to use as an improvised shield?) and some (how many?) windows
(broken, but how badly? What's on the other side of the windows?). Are there
walls around this area? How big is it? What condition is the area in? Any
usefull items laying around? These questions may or may not be answered
depending on how long the characters are in the room and what they have to cope
with while they'er there.
As attention is focused on one part of an area, add a bit of description too.
If the players are really getting the shit kicked out of them this can be a
subtle reminder of items in the room that they can use to help themselves.
Just make sure you describe usless things along with the usefull. This is also
a useful (and more dramatic) technique to use if you're sick of constantly
asking players to make Spot Hidden rolls.
Don't be afraid of being a bit illogical in giving descriptions. In the above
example it's not really all that likely that the characters could see the
shards of glass melt *behind* the flaming creature, but it's important to at
least hint when the players may be taking on more than they can chew.
> Secondly, there are often times when I have a predetermined result in
> mind for a particular situation. I need things to turn out like
> such-and-such.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!! RAILROADING PLOT DEVICE IN VICINITY!!!
>What's the best way to steer the players in the direction you want, but
>maintain for them a sense of control, like what they are doing and trying
>matters.
One word: Don't.
In spite of what I've told you about descriptions above, don't try to apply
such pressure accross the board. Set your senarioes up so that there are many
paths to a destination. Make things interlink. Look through your senario and
brainstorm "What would happen if the players went THIS way instead."
Oops, gotta go.
More sage wisdom later. (yeah, right)
Guy Bock
Marc KTW Mielke
If characters are not combat vets, you can try this to simulate
"Shell-Shock":
SAN check (0/1); on a failure, character cannot act, except to run away.
Further rolls may be made, but have no further SAN cost.
Using it for the first few sessions of a "Police Rookies" campaign.
-Marc
"Let mankind be cleansed by your power.
Let the profane know, as we know, that on
this day the fire shall burn so bright, burn into
the memory of all men" - Letters of Nestar
Marc KTW Mielke
David R. Henry <dhe...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in article
<556udj$a...@plains.nodak.edu>...
> Dan Evans writes:
> At least in my campaign, my players are all too aware that they
> average around 11 hit points, and won't be getting them back
> very quickly. That helps keep them "in the moment" and concerned.
> Run as much detail as you can, but feel free to borrow some tricks
> from Feng Shui -- allow the players to fill in some details, and
> if it doesn't contradict the storyline or your good sense, let it
> happen. Are they fighting a Deep One in a mansion's library?
> Then let the professor pick up the fireplace poker on his own
> imagination, rather than you listing every little detail of the
> place. Tell your players you're allowing them that freedom, and
> they'll eventually use it, with you just stepping in to disallow
> totally silly actions. Would there be an elephant gun hung over
> the fireplace of the library? Hmm... Hmm... Maybe a Luck Roll at
> some vastly reduced percentage is called for...
Actually, this was also suggested in CoC 5th Edition, in the Gamemastering
section.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <01bbc764$29966600$a249...@DemeterIII.hula.net>,
Marc KTW Mielke <syk...@hula.net> wrote:
>If characters are not combat vets, you can try this to simulate
>"Shell-Shock":
>
>SAN check (0/1); on a failure, character cannot act, except to run away.
>Further rolls may be made, but have no further SAN cost.
>
>Using it for the first few sessions of a "Police Rookies" campaign.
Gun magazines always seem to have a story on the psychology of combat.
Freezing is a common reaction. And sometimes people do stupid things like
cock the gun and then reload. Or the fact that their gun has a safety
completely slips their mind. People make mistakes in combat that they
would never make while training.
And there's a sprinkling of stories about stopping power. A cultist is
running at you with a machette. No problem, you just fill him with lead
and he falls down, right? It didn't work so well for the marines in the
Phillipines, and it might not work so well for your players, either.
There are cases of a criminal with a knife charging a cop, the cop empties
his entire gun into the criminal, the criminal kills the cop and runs away
a few blocks before falling over and dying. Back to the Phillipines, the
reason the US Marines adopted the .45 is because of the machette-weilding
freaks who wouldn't fall down when they were shot. It's a religious thing
and follows days of preperation. But what they usually don't say is the
new .45's weren't much more effective than the old .38's. In the Vietnam
War, one Marine sniper shot a Viet Cong seven times before the guy
dropped, with a .30-06, a high-powered rifle. The VC just kept walking
toward him taking hit after hit.
Basically, unless you're lucky enough to hit a particularly vital spot,
the only reason someone falls down when shot is they give up. Most people
might not live up to the physical ideal, but the human body is capable of
taking far more punishment than most people would think.
So it's not just the monsters.
--
*==============================================*
2*3*3*37 -- the prime factorization of The Beast
*==============================================*
(^_^)
> Basically, unless you're lucky enough to hit a particularly vital spot,
> the only reason someone falls down when shot is they give up. Most
people
> might not live up to the physical ideal, but the human body is capable of
> taking far more punishment than most people would think.
>
> So it's not just the monsters.
They had stopping power.
Besides, a slug to the brainpan stops most humans in their tracks.
Wolf
Mauri Sahlberg
Dan Evans wrote:
> So, how can you run a combat session keeping the players engaged and
> in the moment, but also keep it slowed down enough to supply ample
> detail to the players?
>
like this:
1) Describe the situation with detail. Their shame if they
don't listen you
2) Ask each one what they would do, give them each 20 seconds to think
3) Resolve and tell results, repeat.
> Secondly, there are often times when I have a predetermined result in
> mind for a particular situation. I need things to turn out like
> such-and-such. What's the best way to steer the players in the
> direction you want, but maintain for them a sense of control, like
> what they are doing and trying matters. I don't want my players to
> feel frustrated as a result of my GMing style, but I sometimes think
> it would be easier to simply say, "And then X happens! It just
> happens. No, you can't do anything about it!" But, that would be the
> farthest thing from what I'm trying for.
>
It is sometimes usefull to introduce NPC's to the party. In one
campaign I dropped in a moralistic FBI-agent which was subordinate
of one of the PC's. She had high morals and when her boss tried
to do something that was uncharacteristic for an FBI-agent (such
as suggested selling dope) she was shocked and reminded him about
his duty. (Of course he could have shot her or done something
similiar, GM should never force no character to do against his/hers
players will, but the player went along as "it was the right
thing to do".) You should never put PC's in command of a NPC. It
will not work, they will get rid of her/him/it before you can
blink an eye or start shunning your games if you don't let them
to do it.
The result was of course that some of the players stopped playing
characters with somekind of morals. Some of them went further
to get back their freedom to shoot everything that moves, torture,
loot and do what ever necessary to achieve the goal by playing
slightly insane characters.
> I'd be interested in whatever ideas or insights you can offer.
> Thanks!
If things get out of control you should always remember that
the vast majority of the world population is unaware of
the mythos and tend to think people seeing old ones are
crazy. Police officer and other official persons usually
consider armed crazies extremeley dangerous and some of them
might shoot on the sight. There is always the military and
national guard if everything else is shot down.
Wolf
not actually at the scene and therefore cannot use their own sight, smell,
hearing, taste, and touch to determine what's there, just your words. Words
take longer to process than images.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <01bbc7ae$053f6be0$d7e41ece@the-ox>, Wolf <wo...@parrett.net> wrote:
>> Basically, unless you're lucky enough to hit a particularly vital spot,
>> the only reason someone falls down when shot is they give up. Most
>people
>> might not live up to the physical ideal, but the human body is capable of
>> taking far more punishment than most people would think.
>>
>> So it's not just the monsters.
>ever wonder why shotguns and machien guns were so popular with Marines?
>They had stopping power.
I think there's also some point of general principles there. The Marines
would carry far more firepower than they'd ever need if it weren't too
heavy.
>Besides, a slug to the brainpan stops most humans in their tracks.
Yeah, well, I guess that's what you'd call an "impale".
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <01bbc7ad$af8acf00$d7e41ece@the-ox>, Wolf <wo...@parrett.net> wrote:
>> Keeper: "As James stands gibbering in the doorway, the door he battered
>down
>> lying smashed at his feet, Jenifer points her shotgun at the back of his
>head
>> and blows him away. Roll damage."
>>
>> Both Players: "HEY!!"
>a good DM must always remember to give their players some time, as they are
>not actually at the scene and therefore cannot use their own sight, smell,
>hearing, taste, and touch to determine what's there, just your words. Words
>take longer to process than images.
You also have to be careful about communication and unstated assumptions.
It sounds like Jennifer is assuming that if she doesn't specifically say
her character is going to shoot through James, since that's not an action
she would normally take, it won't happen. While the GM is assuming that
if Jennifer doesn't specifically state that she's going to try to poke the
gun around James, maybe rest the barrel on his shoulder or something, than
she just blasts through the center of the door.
I think it's important that the GM give the players the benefit of the
doubt in a situation like this. You're not a lawyer using the letter of a
contract to find a loophole, you're a GM whose job it is to translate the
player's intended actions into fictional consequences. Jennifer would get
a hit penalty for having to work around James, and she might accidently
hit James if she fumbles. James might temporarily or permanently lose his
hearing in one ear. Jennifer would only shoot through James if she fails
a sanity check. (And accidently blowing away her friend might be grounds
for a second sanity check.)
bo...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
>> Keeper: "James stands in the doorway clutching dazedly at his bloody throat.
>> His hair begins wither and his clothes smoke as the flaming thing draws
>> near. It's lost all semblance of human form now, and it's cackling
>> laugh merges with the crackle of its flames. Behind it, it leaves a path of
>> little molten puddles of glass from the shards littering the floor. Jenifer
>> what do you want to do?"
>> Player(Jenifer): (quickly): I point my shotgut at the thing and pull the
>> trigger."
>> Keeper: "As James stands gibbering in the doorway, the door he battered down
>> lying smashed at his feet, Jenifer points her shotgun at the back of his head
>> and blows him away. Roll damage."
>> Both Players: "HEY!!"
> a good DM must always remember to give their players some time, as they are
> not actually at the scene and therefore cannot use their own sight, smell,
> hearing, taste, and touch to determine what's there, just your words. Words
> take longer to process than images.
A good DM? *Shudder*
I realize that some people use the term generically, but I haven't considered
myself a Dungeon Master since I learned that role-playing was much more fun
than monster bashing. Call me a GM or even a Keeper, ANYTHING but the dreaded
'D' abbreviation.
Yes, I agree that players should be given plenty of time to plot and plan--IF
the purpose of a combat is for the players to excersize their tactical skills.
If the GM wants a frightening, violent encounter, however, the GM is justified
in cutting down both information and responce-time allowed. Scared people
think slower and are often required to react with inadequate information.
Once you begin to lay out maps with indicators to mark character posistions,
you begin to drift away from a horror role-playing game into a wargame.
Attention moves away from the sense of imminent danger to a contest to see who
can get the best range and firing angle. What is inherently scary about a
little lead figure being menaced by a a slightly bigger, distorted lead figure?
I enjoy wargames on their own merits, but if it's not impossible to retain a
feeling of fright and horror during one I would sincerely like to hear how.
The important thing here is how the combat fits in with the rest of the
senario's plot. Is there something the players will learn by fighting (or
avoiding) this encounter? Is the encounter used to provide a heart-thumping
break from a lengthy, uneventful session of library use? Is it the final
show-down or a merely a preliminary to greater horror to come? These questions
will determine the way the combat should be run, and the method of description
that is appropiate.
Guy Bock
---
Police Officer: "Agent Mulder, this is the third drug addict we've found murded
this week."
Mulder: "What's the M.O.?"
Officer: "The body is always found with the top of the head sawed open, the
brain removed, and the skull cavity packed with fried eggs."
Mulder: "Do you find the brain in the kitchen, cooking on the stove in a
cylinder of some unidentified metal?"
Officer: "Why yes! How did you know?"
Mulder: "I've seen this kind of thing before. I'm afraid what we're dealing
with here is Mi-go comedians."
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Wolf wrote:
>
> > Basically, unless you're lucky enough to hit a particularly vital spot,
> > the only reason someone falls down when shot is they give up. Most
> people
> > might not live up to the physical ideal, but the human body is capable of
> > taking far more punishment than most people would think.
> >
> > So it's not just the monsters.
> ever wonder why shotguns and machien guns were so popular with Marines?
> They had stopping power.
>
True, but shotguns have a serious range limitation. In the 40's there
was a series of experiments involved in seeing what did more damage,
velocity or mass. the advantage of velocity based damage, is that you
needed less mass per unit to achieve the same theoretical damage. So
the British started on their small callibre bullpup weapon some time
around 1948. In the U.S. Sports hunters using what were called 'Wildcat'
cartidges (generally large sized Brass volumed casings behind small =/-
.22cal slugs. from these two sources came the specification for the
T-16 rifle which fires a .223 calliber round. The T-16 became the M
-16,and it started the tinking away from 'full sized' 'Battle rifle'
rounds such as the .30-06 and the 7.62mm NATO round. Wel tests with
Ballistic Gelatin and sides of beef showed impressive 'hydrostatic
shock', and tissue disruption. However, recently 'hydrostatic shock'
has been found to be a myth outside of rigid containers filled with a
liquid or near liquid. The current term, 'Traumatic Cavitation' and
describes a temporary effect cause by the tissue disrupted by the
shockwaves of a passing bullet. what happens to the wound after a few
minutes or up to an hour, is that if the cavity does not fill with
blood or it is allowed to drain, the tissue will resume it's normal
shape, minus the bullet track. Tissue is >very< elastic. What had been
sacrificed by going for a higher ammo carry capacity, was range, and
that restraint when a soldier knows how many he carries. The M-16 which
had originally been made to be a selective fire weapon, is now in it's
current form, the M-16A2, a rifle with the capability of a 3 round
burst, where it had once allowed soldiers to 'spray and pray'. The
thinking now is going back to an increase in bullet mass and diameter,
but we still have government arsenals filled with the products of
ncomplete thinking.
When Police departments switched to the class of handguns known as
'wondernines' they praised the fact that they could squeeze off 14,15,
up to 18 rounds before having to change magazine, but because of the
reduced 'stopping power' of the 9mm load, those cops had to .use, all
those rounds, and that put more round in the air, and made more
misses for the sam percentage of total off target. More stray rounds.
Safe huh?
The Military bought into it, and now use a baretta 9mm pistol, so as to
have ammo compatability with the rest of NATO, but when the Seals wanted
a pistol for 'special operation' they returned to the venrable .45ACP
cartridge that has the power to stop drug addicted rope armoured
religious fanatics, that it has always had.
So stopping power for personal arms, not squad automatics if by far more
important than volume of fire.
Scott