scenarios
William J Abner
involved in self made scenarios. I was wondering what published scenarios are
worth trying out, if any?
-bja
Jon Cato Lorentzen
Drop the scenarios. Go all the way with the gigantic Campaign _Horror On
The Orient Express_, the finest published campaign I have ever
GM'ed for any rpg. The four players (only two of the Characters survived,
whereas one is currently residing in Arkham Sanatarium) who participated
in the campaign all rate it as one of their favourite campaigns, or as
THE favourite.
The sheer length of the Campaign, and the amount and quality of the
material in the box makes it a joy for the GM to read through, and it is so
crammed with mystery, hand-outs and props for the players, that no way they
are ever going to get bored during the sessions.
However, the box is the biggest supplement Chaosium has released for
CoC, and they certainly priced it high enough (dunno what the price is
in the states...), but if you can afford it, or the players are willing
to chip in some cash, get it! You won't be disappointed!
Jon C. Lorentzen "HALT THE FLOW OF TIME!"
University of Oslo -Emperor of the Universe, Star Crash
Frank Hummel
>The Orient Express_, the finest published campaign I have ever
>GM'ed for any rpg. The four players (only two of the Characters survived,
>whereas one is currently residing in Arkham Sanatarium) who participated
>in the campaign all rate it as one of their favourite campaigns, or as
>THE favourite.
>
>The sheer length of the Campaign, and the amount and quality of the
>material in the box makes it a joy for the GM to read through, and it is so
(similar comments deleted)
>
>Jon C. Lorentzen "HALT THE FLOW OF TIME!"
>University of Oslo -Emperor of the Universe, Star Crash
Boy, do I disagree with this! "Horror on the Orient Express" is one of
the most bloated CoC products, filled with useless material, as well as a
larger number of stinkers for senarios.
First off, there is a lot of useless material in the box. I mean, what
was the point of having a colored poster of the train; it was useless.
And they give you 4 passports, for what? As awards to the winners?
Gees.
Beyond that, the game is just badly, badly written. While there are a
few gems in it, this is more than made up for by the bad ones. Come on!
Whose idea was to cast Baba Yaga (with her House on Chicken Legs!) as a
creature of the Mythos. Arrggghhhh!!
I have a copy of the game and have read it from cover to cover. It
cannot compare with the quality of "Masks of Nyarlathotep" as a campaign.
Better senarios can be founded in almost any of the "Arkham County" books.
By far one of the BEST of these is the "Raid on Innsmouth" one on the
"Escape From Innsmouth" book. Now THERE is an inventive and creative
story.
Yes, there are one or two adventure in "Orient Express" one of which is
the "In a City of Bells and Towers" but this is owed more to the presence
of the writing from a Thomas Ligotti story then the senario itself.
I have talked with several folks who have run this game, including one
person who ran the campain which I played. All the keepers felt the
need to rewrite either in part or almost completely a number of the
given senarios in "Orient Express" because they were so bad.
Finally, to my mind, one of the MAJOR flaws in the game -- especially
a campain such as this, was that it had a player-character fatality-rate
of 70%. GEES! Even in CoC, this is outrageous, especially in a campaign!
The first game I was in ended with us all dead or nuts HALF-WAY though.
The keeper ending up having to restart the entire game (rewriting the
senarios we had already played through. ANd because he had had to
rewrite some of them once before (because what came in the game was so
lousy), this meant he had had to rewrite some of them twice.
I just found John Tynes review of "ORIENT EXPRESS" in "The Unspeakable
Oath" (issue 4). He sums up his opinion by saying "Certain scenarios...
in "Orient Express" rate seven or even eight phobias out of ten. But
overall, the campaign sinks to about a five."
"Orient Express"?? Most of the keepers I have talked to summ it up as:
"A great idea poorly done." I would go after "Masks" for a campaign
or any of the "Arkham County" books, especially "The Raid on Innsmouth"
though all of them are good, and several offer some creative and clever
approaches to the Mythos.
-- Frank Hummel -- hum...@athena.mit.edu
Frank Hummel
Just a note to let folks here know that I have learned one of
"Call of Cthulhu"'s more prolific and quality authors, Kevin A. Ross,
is no longer going to be writing for the game. Among the works Mr. Ross
has either written for or edited are: "Kingsport", "The Stars Are Right",
"Escape from Innsmouth", and "Tales of the Miskatonic Valley". He has
also had articles published in "The Unspeakable Oath".
Mr. Ross still has one book, already written, to be published by
Chaosium. This is a collection of scenarios for "Gaslight" CoC. In
addition, he is finishing up a "Golden Dawn"-related book(?) for Pagan
Publishing.
He then plans to write an adventure novel which will have some
Mythos elements. He will also be writing a regular column on the
"CoC" game for the fan magazine "Crypt of Cthulhu" (edited by Robert
Price and published by Necronomicon Press).
--- Frank Hummel -- hum...@athena.mit.edu
Jon Cato Lorentzen
In article <28ione$6...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, hum...@athena.mit.edu (Frank Hummel) writes:
> (DELETED)
>
> I have a copy of the game and have read it from cover to cover. It
> cannot compare with the quality of "Masks of Nyarlathotep" as a campaign.
> Better senarios can be founded in almost any of the "Arkham County" books.
> By far one of the BEST of these is the "Raid on Innsmouth" one on the
> "Escape From Innsmouth" book. Now THERE is an inventive and creative
> story.
Sure, Masks of Nyarlathotep is probably a good campaign, BUT WHERE THE F**C
CAN ONE GET HOLD OF IT!!! Orient Express and Curse of Cthulhu are the only
two Campains I have managed to get for CoC. The great old ones (Campaigns,
not Gods :) ) have been out of print for ages, and my local RPG-store
can't seem to get hold of them anywhere.
AND I don't count the Arkham County's books as Campaigns. A basis for
building campaigns maybe, but not Campaigns like Curse of Cthulhu or
Orient Express. They are merely great source-books with adventures of
varying quality.
> (DELETED)
>
> Finally, to my mind, one of the MAJOR flaws in the game -- especially
> a campain such as this, was that it had a player-character fatality-rate
> of 70%. GEES! Even in CoC, this is outrageous, especially in a campaign!
> The first game I was in ended with us all dead or nuts HALF-WAY though.
> The keeper ending up having to restart the entire game (rewriting the
> senarios we had already played through. ANd because he had had to
> rewrite some of them once before (because what came in the game was so
> lousy), this meant he had had to rewrite some of them twice.
This I found to be no problem. Two of the four characters died during the
story, and made new characters who who joined the survivors on the train.
Near the end some more players died, and only two survived. Outrageous ?
I don't know. I define a campaign as a series of linked adventures in the
lives of some characters, and at Campaign ends either when the main story
through the Campaign is over, or the players want it to end. So when we
began to play the Orient Express, the players all used relatively fresh
characters, who had only been through one or two smaller adventures.
Aftermath, those characters, marked by their adventures were "pensioned"
from play by the players, who got to keep the character sheets (and
passports) as memoars of a great campaign.
> I just found John Tynes review of "ORIENT EXPRESS" in "The Unspeakable
> Oath" (issue 4). He sums up his opinion by saying "Certain scenarios...
> in "Orient Express" rate seven or even eight phobias out of ten. But
> overall, the campaign sinks to about a five."
>
>
> "Orient Express"?? Most of the keepers I have talked to summ it up as:
> "A great idea poorly done." I would go after "Masks" for a campaign
> or any of the "Arkham County" books, especially "The Raid on Innsmouth"
> though all of them are good, and several offer some creative and clever
> approaches to the Mythos.
>
>
> -- Frank Hummel -- hum...@athena.mit.ed
I think the main reason my players loved the Orient Express so much, is the
whole atmosphere surrounding the play sessions. You see, we all went on
a trip to a cabin about 20 miles out of town. Right in the middle of
nowhere. This was in our Christmas-vacation, and If you've ever been north
of the arctic circle in december, you'll know that there's no sun at all,
and pitch dark outside for about 20 hours of the day. Combined with
snowstorms and no communications with the outside world, we sat there for
four days, playing through the campaign by candlelight.
Now, Having just played CoC for three years, I have not been fortunate
enough to experience the Masks of Nyarlathothep or the other classic
old adventures. But even if I had played Masks (which I would love to do,
if only Chaosium would #!/&(#% re-release it) I doubt I would have disliked
Orient Express any more. Orient Express is the greatest campaign i
have GM'ed for CoC. It might be because of the atmosphere surrounding
the sessions, or because my players might have been lucky to survive it,
but IMHO it is very good.
Jon C. Lorentzen
University of Oslo
Knygathin
NOW you're talking! As for "Orient", I didn't dislike it THAT
much- and all the players I know seem to want to get aboard- but it
is a bit crammed, and occasionally the scenarios are irrelevant.
Heck, they'd be good separately. And the ending- all the powerful
NPCs- is nice and dramatic. Kind of a Clive Barker-y Mythos threat,
though.. I confess to using some of the general info-on-Europe stuff
in my own campaigns. It definitely has 90% of modules licked so far
as setting and baroque-ness. I don't even mind the player-aides.
What not everyone may remember is how Chaosium planned for awhile to
publish- or did they?- a $100 campaign kit, with DARK or NIGHT in
the title ("Alone in the Dark"? Naah..) and handouts such as a
cassette tape and who knows what else.. license plate from a Model A
Ford? Blood and ichor? Your own Elder Sign? Appropriate incense? Now
THAT took a real diehard to play.
>Yes, there are one or two adventure in "Orient Express" one of which is
>the "In a City of Bells and Towers" but this is owed more to the presence
>of the writing from a Thomas Ligotti story then the senario itself.
Yup, Ligotti's excellent. It's pretty hard to translate his warped
dangers and narrative-structure nightmares into campaigns, though.
"Bells and Towers" was good surrealism. Personally, I can't wait to
see "Goatswood" from Pagan. Ramsey Campbell brought us such
essential parts of our Mythos breakfast as Daoloth and Y'golonac,
although his recent stuff is even better than his early Ctulhu-type
tales which copy Lovecraft's style. He's always been much more
visceral (read: nauseating, gory) than HPL and his universes are
even bleaker. You do not want to read the fine print, or look in
that dark corner, in Ramsey Campbell's worlds.
>Finally, to my mind, one of the MAJOR flaws in the game -- especially
>a campain such as this, was that it had a player-character fatality-rate
>of 70%. GEES! Even in CoC, this is outrageous, especially in a campaign!
Oddly, no one in my campaign of it died 'till mid-London, when we
broke it up.. this is odd because all the players thought MASKS was
a completely murderous situation, totally rigged, and impossible to
get through. My kind of odds! "Masks" is one of the older-fashioned
modules where there's nothing but a basic framework of statistics,
and where the variety of Evil Presences is really stunning. "Orient"
has something more like a cast of characters almost superheroey in
their villainousness, and the plot's MUCH more one-directional. I
like atmosphere, but you can do more (such as add your own
atmosphere) with a more open-ended plot. I think that's the major
shift in adventures over the years.
"Well, I may be a total racist, but I know good tentacles when I see
them." - H.P. Lovecraft on viewing AKIRA
Jason T./ jbth...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
William Keyes
>
>What not everyone may remember is how Chaosium planned for awhile to
>publish- or did they?- a $100 campaign kit, with DARK or NIGHT in
>the title ("Alone in the Dark"? Naah..) and handouts such as a
>cassette tape and who knows what else.. license plate from a Model A
>Ford? Blood and ichor? Your own Elder Sign? Appropriate incense? Now
>THAT took a real diehard to play.
OK, I had to dig in my old Chaosium catalogues for this, but in 1989,
Chaosium planned on printing a "Cthulhu Mega-Adventure" entitled
_One_Night_. To quote the catalogue: "This will be a modern day adventure
that will retail for $100... The adventure opens with a phone call, which
is included on a cassette tape along with other sound cues. The package
will also contain an altar, altar cloth, a package of monster spoor, a
statuette of Cthulhu, medallions, paper clues with envelopes, candle and
candle holder, and other itdems-- real tidbits from the Mythos world."
In the catalogue, Chaosium was only asking for an indication of interest.
I definately indicated, but never heard anything back, or any other word of
_One_Night_.
I would still like to know what happened to this. Doesn't it sound like the
most horrific thing that Chaosium could ever do?
Bill Keyes
bke...@lamar.colostate.edu
DevilBunny Hunter Extreme
Since 1978.
Owen Guthrie
Does anyone out there remember a small adventure published in the back of one
of the larger campaign compendiums by the name of "The Haunted House"? The
one I am thinking of, I think, was either in "Shadows of Yog Sothoth", or
"Trail of Tsathoghua (sp?)". I don't want to give it away for those who
haven't been through it, but I remember a German gatekeeper, a huge tribal
spear over a large wooden mantle... as well as a wheel chair, etc.
This one small adventure was the most exciting published scenario I ever ran.
I would highly recommend it to anyone. The clues were sufficient yet
didn't spoil the challenge, the setting was great, lots of good detail in
the house, and the ending was surprising and dramatic. It was (IMHO) a
very well crafted scenario.
Does anyone else remember this adventure?
Oh, and another of my favorties is one published by T.O.M.E. a century ago
called "Pursuit to Kadath", another really good one.
-owen
Frank Hummel
>This I found to be no problem. Two of the four characters died during the
>story, and made new characters who who joined the survivors on the train.
>Near the end some more players died, and only two survived. Outrageous ?
>I don't know. I define a campaign as a series of linked adventures in the
>lives of some characters, and at Campaign ends either when the main story
>through the Campaign is over, or the players want it to end. So when w
Gosh, this system handles deleting text rather badly, so excuse
me if this is confusing. --- Well, I agree in general about this. But
with a death rate of 70% (though most of it is towards the end), replacing
a LOT of characters makes for a somewhat difficult and, well, unbelievable
game. I mean, you are riding on the train in mid-Europe somewhere and your
dead character's brother happends to show up? Well, that is an extreme
but it gets somewhat silly when you have to start replacing characters and
finding excuses for why they suddenly appear.
>
>I think the main reason my players loved the Orient Express so much, is the
>whole atmosphere surrounding the play sessions. You see, we all went on
>a trip to a cabin about 20 miles out of town. Right in the middle of
>nowhere. This was in our Christmas-vacation, and If you've ever been north
>of the arctic circle in december, you'll know that there's no sun at all,
>and pitch dark outside for about 20 hours of the day. Combined with
>snowstorms and no communications with the outside world, we sat there for
>four days, playing through the campaign by candlelight.
>
>Now, Having just played CoC for three years, I have not been fortunate
>enough to experience the Masks of Nyarlathothep or the other classic
>old adventures. But even if I had played Masks (which I would love to do,
>if only Chaosium would #!/&(#% re-release it) I doubt I would have disliked
>Orient Express any more. Orient Express is the greatest campaign i
>have GM'ed for CoC. It might be because of the atmosphere surrounding
>the sessions, or because my players might have been lucky to survive it,
>but IMHO it is very good.
>
>Jon C. Lorentzen
>University of Oslo
Ah, well, you DO admit a great deal of the fun was with the setting and
not with the game text itself. I can understand that. I've had fun
with Pagan Publishing "Cgrace Under Pressure" for the same reason (though
I also think it is a fairly well-written game as well). But I have talked
to a number of Game Keepers and almost all found "Orient Express" awkward
and overall only average in quality.
There is something else, I realize, which bothers me about the game. I
think this is something of a spoiler, so in that case I think I am suppose
to skip a bunch of lines here.
I hope I got this right. Anyway, I STRONGLY dislike having a vampire
ass a major characters in "Orient Express." I simply don't think
vampires (especially) and werewolves (somewhat) belong in "Call of
Cthulhu" and I wish they would rid them from the Rulesbook. The
simple thing is, these beings carry with them way too often the
Christian-aspect with them -- and this does not fit into the
Mythos Universe.
(Please note I am NOT discussing the valitity of Christian here. Rather
what I am saying is that in a "Game Universe" where the Mythos exists,
where the Universe is indifferent to humanity, Christianity does not
"work" as it assumes a God which DOES care about humanity. (HPL was an
athetist and the Mythos Universe is an athetistic Universe.))
Anyway, while it is true more and more vampires are being presented
nowadays without the Christian elements so long associated with them,
it still cares to much baggage for me.
And, even more simply, I find the vampires, etc, to be rather, well,
standard horror. They really don't belong in the Mythos, which is
about COSMIC horror. I really think their inclusion in CoC was
because someone at some point said, "Well, gee, these folks aren't going
to understand what Cthulhu is or a Nightshade, so lets give them a
horror they can understand." So they added vampires and werewolves etc.
to make the game more "understandable" -- missing the point that
Cthulhu and the rest are Horrorable -- because they are Unknown, because
they are Cosmic.
I find the use of a vampire to tie things together another example that
whoever was writing Orient Express (or editing it overall) does NOT
understand the Mythos. To me, the inclusion of Baba Yaga says the
same thing: whoever writing/editing this does NOT understand the
Cosmic Horror concept behind all of the Mythos -- and this undercuts
the entire story.
mfas...@ucs.indiana.edu
(Frank Hummel) wrote:
> Anyway, while it is true more and more vampires are being presented
> nowadays without the Christian elements so long associated with them,
> it still cares to much baggage for me.
>
> And, even more simply, I find the vampires, etc, to be rather, well,
> standard horror. They really don't belong in the Mythos, which is
> about COSMIC horror. I really think their inclusion in CoC was
> because someone at some point said, "Well, gee, these folks aren't going
> to understand what Cthulhu is or a Nightshade, so lets give them a
> horror they can understand." So they added vampires and werewolves etc.
> to make the game more "understandable" -- missing the point that
> Cthulhu and the rest are Horrorable -- because they are Unknown, because
> they are Cosmic.
>
> I find the use of a vampire to tie things together another example that
> whoever was writing Orient Express (or editing it overall) does NOT
> understand the Mythos. To me, the inclusion of Baba Yaga says the
> same thing: whoever writing/editing this does NOT understand the
> Cosmic Horror concept behind all of the Mythos -- and this undercuts
> the entire story.
>
> -- Frank Hummel -- hum...@athena.mit.edu
>
>
earlier today, as I was speaking with another RPG-er. As I read it,
your objection to the vampire in CoC is that it is, simply, too mundane.
Then what about the possibility of having a vampire as a Player Character?
Before anybody jumps on me on this point, allow me to explain in greater
detail what I had in mind. First of all, you could only have one of these
in operation in a given campaign, unless you decided to go all the way
and have the entire group be a society of vampires. Anything in the
middle would tend to stretch believability. In any case, there are
certainly those who would argue that it is inappropriate for the
vampire to be a PC; he is way too powerful. However, I thought about
this from the perspective of the CoC game's unique elements, and I
decided that this game was an exception. In AD&D, I would not allow it;
but in CoC, the vampire doesn't gain a whole lot of magical powers, is
not pigeonholed in terms of ethics (all of those wonderfully ambiguous
vampires that now flood the market are perfectly valid), and in the
final analysis, has no real advantage over mortals when it comes to
facing the ultimate threats. What good is a 36 STR if you're up against
Great Cthulhu? It's true, unless you have bad luck and are brought down
to precisely 0 hp, you are more likely to survive such an encounter
than your mortal compatriots, but I would argue that your chances of
insanity are even greater! The necessary elements to creating a vampire
in the first place would each sap some of the original SAN, making the
vampire slightly closer to the edge. And in CoC, madness is the real
threat to a PC's existence, anyway. Therefore, no real advantage!
However, I would not offer this kind of opportunity to any player.
I would need to talk with any player who is interested, and determine
whether or not they are capable of truly role-playing the Undead. That's
how it came up earlier today, incidentally; I am currently a player in
_Vampire: the Masquerade_, and I told a fellow player that I would consider
allowing any one of my fellow players to run a vampire in CoC, because
they've had practical experience playing vampires, and are doing a good
job of it. The same principle applies to Mummies, which also seem
playable to me, but the requirements are much stricter -- any prospective
player would need to demonstrate a basic knowledge of ancient Egyptian
history and society before I would allow them to play it. I think I'd
be a decent judge of that....
Returning to the original point Mr. Hummel made, I understand the
objection that vampires are not really a part of the Mythos, although I
do not agree that they have no place in it. If Lovecraft never wrote
a straight vampire story, he certainly did not shy away from elements of
vampirism (viz. Curwen's reign of Terror in _The Case of Charles Dexter
Ward_), and he also allowed himself the odd ghost story. In itself, I
think that this would justify including more "normal" monsters into the
game. Secondly, I would point out that these are fundamental components
of the dark legendry that has so shaped the horror genre as a whole, and
Lovecraft more than most authors was deeply aware of what his influences
were, and the long history they each enjoyed.
Finally, it does not seem that vampires must ipso facto be alien
to the Universe of the Mythos. As I've mentioned before, I've written
several stories of the Mythos of my own, and while I have not yet used a
vampire in one of them, I have already developed the connection that links
them to the cosmology. Simply put, the most powerful of sorcerers in the
service of the Great Old Ones (such as Queen Nitocris) have managed not
only
to survive their own death (as Ephraim/Asenath did in _The Thing on the
Doorstep_), but in fact to arrest their own decay, to maintain themselves
indefinitely through magic alone. Naturally, this is exceedingly rare,
and only for the most powerful (and hence, to the Great Old Ones most
useful) sorcerers, but there is no reason why it should not be possible.
These "perfect" undead, if you will, are the models, of which vampires,
the "imperfect" undead (they need to feed on blood to maintain their
existence,
they must sleep for extended periods, etc.), are pale shadows. As to the
question of how they arose in the first place, that can be explained by
reference to the degree of "perfection" of the magic they used previously.
That is to say, the most powerful of sorcerers dedicated to the Great Old
Ones achieved this state by the exceedingly strong degree to which they
became connected to the true forces of magic in the universe. Not all
sorcerers are actually knowledgeable about the Great Old Ones, however;
some believe in the systems in which they were raised, be they pagan or
Christian, and are only capable of performing magic to the degree that
they had been given or stumbled upon sources of real magic, whose roots
go back to that practiced by the Great Old Ones. So, we now have a
situation
in which there is a range of power of sorcerers, starting with frauds who
have no real basis for their work, through true magicians who have acquired
real power but do not understand from whence it came, finally up to the
most powerful of servants of the Great Old Ones. A vampire might result
in the rare case of a sorcerer who has developed an exceedingly strong
grasp of magic, but because of ignorance of certain details, has an
imperfect command of it. One might say that he acquired the power to
achieve the immortality described above, but was unable to master it, and
so it took an imperfect form, one that leaves certain vulnerabilities and
needs periodic renewal. Thus, the first vampire would likely have appeared
at some remote period in antiquity, explaining why virtually every culture
on earth has some version of the vampire (it is not a uniquely Christian
phenomenon).
This, incidentally, would explain the superstition that a witch, if
not burnt, will return after death as a vampire. Technically, if he or she
were powerful enough, that is entirely possible. However, once the first
vampire appears, alternate means of becoming a vampire appear as well,
in particular through the standard means of contracting the condition
from the bite of another vampire. And so, there would now (read the
1920's)
be many more vampires than undead sorcerers that are superior to them,
which would remain extremely rare, even by vampiric standards.
Doubtless, this particular formulation would not appeal to everyone
(for my part, I claim artistic licence), but it does demonstrate that
the vampire need not be alien to the Mythos. If the individual Keeper
likes vampires, as I do, there is no reason to keep it out of CoC on a
technicality, while if one does not, there is no reason why it should
have to appear, either.
In any case, I would welcome responces to the question of including
vampires and/or mummies as PC's; has anyone tried this? Has anyone gotten
close enough to doing so to know that it won't work? I find the prospect
intriguing, myself, and would like to know other opinions.
Adelheyde
Frank Hummel
Hmmm. An interesting time to have a vampire as a player-character in CoC.
I don't think I totally agree with the time, for some reasons I mentioned
earlier, but let me try to clarify this.
First off, you seem to have a very basic view of some of the underlining
principles. This actually carries over from Lovecraft's stories themsleves
and folks disagree about the basic concepts there as well.
This is: is the magic is the Mythos actual MAGIC or is it a (super-advanced)
SCIENCE. For me, it is SCIENCE. I thinl if you look closely at a lot of
the CoC adventures that have come out in the last 3-4 years, in most cases
the idea was also to treat it as science as well.
Anyway, again, this leave you (in whatever CoC-type of game you are playing)
to explain exactly what is the NATURE of this vammpire. Again, as I said
previously, I do not think a "standard" Christian-perspective vampire belongs
in CoC, because the nature of the Mythos Universe is an athetist one: there
is no God as the Universe is indifferent to humanity.
Is this vampire hurt by crosses? Why? Does the Christian-concept of God
exist then in your CoC game universe? If so, will other Christian religious
rites -- exorcism? -- work on Mythos creatures? And so on....
Again, as I said, this brings about a basic confusing of what exactly is
the nature of your game-universe, which, for me, weakens it. Maybe it
won't matter in one game or two, but over a time I think it would affect
things.
This is why I think SUPERnatural creatures, like werewolves and vampires,
etc., don't belong in CoC. In our society, at least, they care too much
religious-elements/baggage with their concepts. It is, of course,
possible, to introduce such beings by creating a scientific reason for
them (such as Richard Mathenson did for vampires in this novel I AM
LEGEND).
However, there is another reason why I would NOT include a vampire
player-character, especially a supernatural one!, in CoC. Simply
put, the idea of CoC is for the characters to progress during the game
in their understanding how much BIGGER the universe is than they thought, and can even hope to think, and, as this happens, to become more and more
horrified and thus suffer the lost of sanity as they encounter this.
Introducing a vampire, a supernatural vampire, an element of horror,
into -- literally -- their everyday lives by having one as a fellow
investigator, I think weakens the basic idea of the game.
Oh, I'm not saying it might be fun. But part of the fun of CoC for
me is capturing the feel, as closely as you can, of being in a Mythos
Universe. Read the opening of Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu", that
famous beginning paragraph which for me is what the Mythos should be
about, especially to be done well.
-- Frank Hummel --- hum...@athena.mit.edu
Adam Justin Thornton
Yaga in _Horror_ is "they're not Mythos, but so what"?
The only "core mythos" character in there is the Skinless One, an avatar
of the Big N.
No big deal. Unless you're EXPECTING Cthulhu Itself to jump out from
behind the scenes at the end, there's nothing wrong with a long horror game
based on stuff besides the Mythos. My gamers enjoyed it. I
agree--Belgrade was particularly dreadful, but the Jigsaw Prince was
marvelous, and La Scala was also a lot of fun. And I'm going to recylce
the Ligotti into my next game.
Adam
--
ad...@rice.edu | These are not Rice's opinions. Nor are they those of IS,
the Honor Council, Tony Gorry, God, or Kibo. They're mine. Got it? Good.
"The object of life is to make sure you die a weird death."--Thomas Pynchon
Save the Choad! | Keep electronic privacy legal; support EFF. | 64,928 | Fnord
Adam Justin Thornton
>In addition, he is finishing up a "Golden Dawn"-related book(?) for Pagan
>Publishing.
John? Somebody from PP? Please comment on this. I'd LOVE to see a
comprehensive integration of the Golden Dawn into _CoC_.
mfas...@ucs.indiana.edu
(Frank Hummel) wrote:
>
>
>
> Hmmm. An interesting time to have a vampire as a player-character in CoC.
> I don't think I totally agree with the time, for some reasons I mentioned
> earlier, but let me try to clarify this.
>
> First off, you seem to have a very basic view of some of the underlining
> principles. This actually carries over from Lovecraft's stories themsleves
> and folks disagree about the basic concepts there as well.
>
> This is: is the magic is the Mythos actual MAGIC or is it a (super-advanced)
> SCIENCE. For me, it is SCIENCE. I thinl if you look closely at a lot of
> the CoC adventures that have come out in the last 3-4 years, in most cases
> the idea was also to treat it as science as well.
And I'm afraid that I'm one of those people who do disagree. I
believe
(for the purposes of the stories) that the Magic of the Mythos has
PARALLELS with science, and is pursued in a manner that in some ways
resembles science (as in _The Case of Charles Dexter Ward_ where it is
readily apparent that Curwen experiments with the formulae, and over time
refines it through the experimentation), but is based upon different laws
(in the same example, one cannot explain the efficacy of what are clearly
words of power on the strength of physics, even quantum physics, or biology
or chemistry or what have you). Magic is called magic because it is an
organized system of circumventing Natural Laws; rather, it follows its
own laws, which I prefer to call Super-Natural Laws. I hyphenate it,
because when the two come into conflict, the "magical" laws supersede
the standard scientific laws. I disagree with the essentially Lumleyite
position that the "magic" of the Mythos is simply ESP.
Incidentally, I also disagree with the characterization that this
view is an inherently "basic" (implying simplistic, ill-considered) view;
this is a matter into which I have put some systematic thought for several
years, and the above is only a superficial reference to it. I would argue,
rather, that we simply disagree over the interpretations of Lovecraft's
references, and this cannot in the final analysis be resolved because
the Old Gentleman is dead. I would also argue that there is and should
be room for both perspectives.
> Anyway, again, this leave you (in whatever CoC-type of game you are playing)
> to explain exactly what is the NATURE of this vammpire. Again, as I said
> previously, I do not think a "standard" Christian-perspective vampire belongs
> in CoC, because the nature of the Mythos Universe is an athetist one: there
> is no God as the Universe is indifferent to humanity.
>
> Is this vampire hurt by crosses? Why? Does the Christian-concept of God
> exist then in your CoC game universe? If so, will other Christian religious
> rites -- exorcism? -- work on Mythos creatures? And so on....
As far as this is concerned, intellectual consistency leads me to
reject the standard use of crosses and holy water and such in fighting
vampires within a CoC setting. This is one thing that I strongly disagreed
with the writers of the rulebooks over. Quite obviously, in the
Lovecraftian
Universe the Christian God does not exist, and symbols and rites thereof
have no efficacy.
> Again, as I said, this brings about a basic confusing of what exactly is
> the nature of your game-universe, which, for me, weakens it. Maybe it
> won't matter in one game or two, but over a time I think it would affect
> things.
>
> This is why I think SUPERnatural creatures, like werewolves and vampires,
> etc., don't belong in CoC. In our society, at least, they care too much
> religious-elements/baggage with their concepts. It is, of course,
> possible, to introduce such beings by creating a scientific reason for
> them (such as Richard Mathenson did for vampires in this novel I AM
> LEGEND).
Of course, if one's conception of the magic of the Mythos is indeed
Super-Natural, then there is no conflict and no reason why such creatures
should not be allowed to exist. I can see why they would not be included
in a campaign of your devising, and consistency would lead me to expect
this to be the case, were I in your campaign. In my own, however, such
elements are consistent, and should therefore not be considered a problem.
> However, there is another reason why I would NOT include a vampire
> player-character, especially a supernatural one!, in CoC. Simply
> put, the idea of CoC is for the characters to progress during the game
> in their understanding how much BIGGER the universe is than they thought, and can even hope to think, and, as this happens, to become more and more
> horrified and thus suffer the lost of sanity as they encounter this.
>
> Introducing a vampire, a supernatural vampire, an element of horror,
> into -- literally -- their everyday lives by having one as a fellow
> investigator, I think weakens the basic idea of the game.
Part of this objection seems to resemble the AD&D debate over
a magic-heavy vs. magic-poor campaign, and would thus be relegated to
a question of taste for the players. Another element is more intrinsic,
namely, that of shattering one's basic assumptions of the nature of the
Universe. However, the existence of vampires, for example, should not
challenge this premise. First of all, not all characters are steely-eyed
materialists in any event. Consider characters like Joe Mazowiecki
(I am probably way off on the name here, but I mean the Pole from
_Dreams in the Witch-House_ who was constantly and loudly praying his
rosary), who would not in the least be surprised to see a vampire exist.
In a sense, this would at first reinforce his world view -- and then,
suddenly, he comes face to face with something intrinsically more shocking,
to demonstrate that that world-view was wrong in the first place. Compared
with the Great Old Ones and their minions, a vampire is pretty mundane,
and will soon be seen as such. So, to the mortals, he may briefly
reinforce
their own world-view before same is utterly shattered.
For the vampire, too, being a super-natural creature himself is no
insulation from the shock -- in fact, it may be greater. Becoming a
vampire is in no way an introduction the Truths Behind the Cosmos. Rather,
he may believe that he knows what the real secrets are, considering
himself one of them, when suddenly he is forced to face a reality more
horrid then even his own expectations could have brought forth. To
think oneself almost a god, and find out that one is virtually powerless
in the face of a mighty and impersonal force of beings, will be a greater
shock than to be a mortal of the industrial age who is brought to the
same realization.
> Oh, I'm not saying it might be fun. But part of the fun of CoC for
> me is capturing the feel, as closely as you can, of being in a Mythos
> Universe. Read the opening of Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu", that
> famous beginning paragraph which for me is what the Mythos should be
> about, especially to be done well.
>
>
> -- Frank Hummel --- hum...@athena.mit.edu
Of course, the whole purpose of playing CoC instead of Chill, or Gurps
Horror, or such, is its foundation on Lovecraft. But Lovecraft was not
monolithic in his approach, even among those stories that are accepted
as the "canon" of the Mythos, and nor should the game CoC be monolithic.
As for the quote to which you refer, I agree with its significance,
but I would point out that a careful reading of the approach I have
outlined
would lead to the conclusion that this approach is not inherently
inconsistent
with the premise Lovecraft expressed. And above all, superseding all of
these other concerns, Lovecraft was interested in the atmosphere, the
flavour of the weird; surely faithfulness to this principle should also be
given some
weight?
Adelheyde
Stein Kulseth
|> This is why I think SUPERnatural creatures, like werewolves and vampires,
|> etc., don't belong in CoC. In our society, at least, they care too much
|> religious-elements/baggage with their concepts. It is, of course,
|> possible, to introduce such beings by creating a scientific reason for
|> them (such as Richard Mathenson did for vampires in this novel I AM
|> LEGEND).
Bear in mind that the religious-elements of vampires/werewolves are not
necesarrily connected with the creatures themselves, but with the human
understanding of these creatures. People encountering sanity-wrenching
horrors in the middle ages would necessarily connect their seemingly
supernatural abilities with religion. Maybe even religion itself is just
a distorted image of our views on these entities, polished over the years
to make them more understandable to puny human intellect and the emotions
of us mortals.
As a similar example, the abominable snowman is normally pictured as
a great humanoid thing, ie. something out of the ordinary, and even
frightening, but above all understandable. Who would have guessed its
true nature, if not for those dread tomes whose names I don't dare
mention, and indeed, the mere thought of the cursed secrets revealed
to me therein sends the most bone-chilling shudder down my spine. Oh,
to be able to plunge again back into youth's merciful ignorance, relieved
from that supreme horror - knowledge....
--
stein....@tf.tele.no [X.400] stein....@nta.no [internet]
'When murders are committed by mathematics, they can be solved by
mathematics. Most of them aren't, and this one wasn't'
- Nick Charles (Dashiell Hammett's "The Thin Man")
Joe Lannom
>
>
> This is: is the magic is the Mythos actual MAGIC or is it a (super-advanced)
> SCIENCE. For me, it is SCIENCE. I thinl if you look closely at a lot of
> the CoC adventures that have come out in the last 3-4 years, in most cases
> the idea was also to treat it as science as well.
>
So vampirism was created through alchemy (called alchemy at the time),
advanced biochemistry to us. Culled from certain obscure texts...
> Anyway, again, this leave you (in whatever CoC-type of game you are playing)
> to explain exactly what is the NATURE of this vammpire. Again, as I said
> previously, I do not think a "standard" Christian-perspective vampire belongs
> in CoC, because the nature of the Mythos Universe is an athetist one: there
> is no God as the Universe is indifferent to humanity.
>
> Is this vampire hurt by crosses? Why? Does the Christian-concept of God
> exist then in your CoC game universe? If so, will other Christian religious
> rites -- exorcism? -- work on Mythos creatures? And so on....
>
Well, perhaps the cross with -particular- proportions of the crossbeams
to the upright, focus certain interdimensional energies that really
hamper the effects caused by the 'non-geometric' shapes of the molecules
that are in the alchemical stew the vampire drank to become 'undead'.
Wow, what a mouthful.
I don't have any vampires in my campaign, but I *DO* have an NPC werewolf.
joe
Richard C. Staats
generic case. But, I have a long time aversion (13+ years) to DM/GM/ref/keep
for *evil* character groups. So, if your vampire friend required "fresh" human
blood, i.e. the local red cross just wouldn't do, I would object on personal
grounds. I have DM/GM/ref'd for a couple such groups and the results were very
similar. The groups started off doing "naughty" things, tweeking the nose of
the local law as it were, but over the sessions, the groups' actions became
more and more vile. Eventually, the groups actions became truly offensive,
and I didn't personally feel it was right for me to promote folks going home
and planning a graphic rape or dismemberment scene. (Yuck!) Just say "No!"
So, while it might seem a good idea now, and having mischievous characters can
be fun, in the long run, an evil campaign is an exercise in "yuckery!" :-)
IMHO
Rich
PS I have had an initiate of a vampire cult play in the campaign, but the
overall tone of the party was good at the time; in fact, the rest of the
group was trying to figure out the disappearences. They never suspected
one of their own members was behind it. ;-} RCS
John W. Goodrich
vampire in CoC, as in Barbara Hambly's "Those who Hunt the Night."
If you allow that stories of the vampire's puissance has been greatly
exaggerated throughout the retellings by authors (Like Anne Rice or
Bram Stoker) who have never actually seen a vampre, then you can make
the vampire a viable, scientific thing.
Now, the other fiddley bits, such as crosses, can be used
in such a way. If the vampire is, say, psychically sensitive, in order
to find prey that is less willing to resist, then perhaps it cannot
deal with someone strong in their own beliefs holding against them a
symbol of that faith. In game terms, the character would have to have
demonstrated previous devotion to the religion, perhaps been inconvenienced
by it, and then may engage in a POW vs POW struggle against the Vampire
to drive it off using a cross, although an Elder Siogn will work just
as well if the character BELIEVES in it. This is a bit problematic, since
in all of my campaigns, I have never had a character who believed in the
efficacy of ANYthing for long.
Great discussion, folks.
D
in order to drive it off.
The Laughing Priest! {Jgoo...@nmsu.edu}
"Hey, I probably saw 'JUST' a head when I was in med school."
"Yeah, but it wasn't your mother's, and it wasn't
threatening to eat your face."
"Oh."
(sound of dice rolling)
-Joe Lannom
Joseph Brown
This has been a really interesting discussion. I don't have much to
add, except to say I agree with Frank Hummel that conventional
supernatural entities like werewolves and vampires don't have any place
in Lovecraftian scenarios and stories. But hey, whatever floats
somebody's boat...
I must admit I mixed the two in a campaign I ran a few years ago. It
was a Cthulhu Now campaign in which an industrial accident 'weakened'
the space time continuum such that archetypal horrors from the
collective unconscious could manifest themselves...and did. No
werewolves or vampires, but I had intended to bring 'em in at some
point. This was a first level of plot for the players. The deeper
level was that this weak spot in the continuum was now a door for
Lovecraft's eldritch horrors to return to Earth. But we only got
together a few times...so the campaign didn't go far.
As a matter of taste, though, I have never liked the idea of player
characters playing vampires or werewolves (I've tried the new Werewolf
and Vampire, and I just couldn't get into them...I like playing humans
trying to understand and fight the supernatural), except in a superhero
setting. I've found it too disconcerting having the players much much
stronger than most other beings in the play universe. 'Course, it is a
matter of taste.
Barbara Haddad
> into -- literally -- their everyday lives by having one as a fellow
> investigator, I think weakens the basic idea of the game.
>
SAN creature anyway (which kinda defines it as a
not-for-player-character).....
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289
sun...@iastate.edu
I happen to know him personally.... I played under him for around
a year, and playtested Kingsport... we even got our names in the
book :) He's a pretty talented writer and gamemaster... too bad
we can't convince him to start writing CTHLUHU NOW scenarios :)
Anyway, don't count him out for long. He has a great love for
the genre and I sincerely doubt he'll abandon writing CoC materials
all-together.
S Charles Sprock
C52...@mizzou1.missouri.edu
ad...@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) writes:
>In article <28ippp$6...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> hum...@athena.mit.edu (Frank Hummel) writes:
>
>>In addition, he is finishing up a "Golden Dawn"-related book(?) for Pagan
>>Publishing.
>
>John? Somebody from PP? Please comment on this. I'd LOVE to see a
Ask and ye shall receive.
THE GOLDEN DAWN is a 120+ page campaign set around 1899/1900. In the
campaign, you play members of the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn,
an infamous occult society whose members included Alistair Crowley,
A.E. Waite, and poet William Butler Yeats.
An overview of the Dawn's history and intrigue (lots of cross-plotting,
back-stabbing [non-lethal] and treachery) appears, along with adaptations
of their magic for CoC.
As Dawn members, the investigators have magical resources (limited) to
call on including various talismans and rituals. When you create your
character you have points to spend. You can spend some on alliances and
patrons within the Dawn, some on your rank/status within the dawn, and
some on your magical resources.
The campaign focuses on British occultism & folklore, not the Cthulhu
Mythos. The seven scenarios occur in England with one exception -- a
trip to Paris to track down one of the Dawn's founders (Mather) and,
incidentally, investigate strange happenings at the Paris Opera House.
Yes, Crowley and especially Yeats play important roles in the campaign.
Kevin Ross is editing the project and writing one scenario as well as
various source material. Other scenarios are by Brits Steve Hatherley
and Garrie Hall (from TUO5 and elsewhere), Australian Richard Watts,
and Yanks Scott Aniolowski and myself.
Other questions?
John Tynes
Pagan Publishing
Owen Guthrie
I have been following this interesting discussion for a while and I thought
I may as well throw in my $.02 worth as well.
It is important to distinguish between the misunderstood villains and heroes
of historical horror, such as The Mummy (original 1927 film), The
Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Invisible Man, and Frankenstein, and the creatures
of a more truly evil nature, i.e. Nosferatu.
I think that while there is a definite place in Role Playing for Players to
assume the tragic role of the misunderstood hero, there is not a place for
the assumption of a truly evil role. Players plotting murder, sacrifice and
mayhem seem to encroach on the territory of the gamemaster/Keeper. This
brings up another question that I would be interested in hearing comment on.
If people regard the creative impulse to play an evil (murderous, posessed,
undead, etc.) character odd, then how do they feel about the Keeper who
believably portrays the evil NPC? Is it the same? Obviously antagonists are
necessary for the construction of a compelling story/game (note the lack of
utopian literature and gaming worlds). But, are they always relegated to the
world behind the Keeper's screen? Do they have to be?
As a Keeper since the 2nd edition rules of CoC, and a DM/GM from several years
before that, I find that I prefer evil to come from the GM and for it to be
an antagonistic force which the Players/Characters strive against. My personal
advice to those who wish to be the "bad guy", is to become a Keeper. I take
delight in playing the bad guys as best as I possibly can and I leave the do-
gooding (rarely sugar-coated, white hat type heroism) to my Players. If my job
is done well, the Players hate me, rejoice when I die, and feel a sense of
accomplishment at the end of an evening. Of course the beauty of CoC is that
their victory is only temporary and there is the knowledge that there still
lies a reason for despair, as victory is only fleeting in the Lovecraftian
universe.
-owen
ow...@meeker.cfnr.colostate.edu
azat...@lamar.colostate.edu
Grendel Grettisson
<C52...@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>Kevin Ross is editing the project and writing one scenario as well as
>various source material. Other scenarios are by Brits Steve Hatherley
>and Garrie Hall (from TUO5 and elsewhere), Australian Richard Watts,
>and Yanks Scott Aniolowski and myself.
>
>Other questions?
Yes, when will it be out and where will it being available in the
States? Are you going through a big distributor or anything?
Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson
C52...@mizzou1.missouri.edu
mi...@u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson) writes:
>In article <16C62AA3...@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
> <C52...@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Other questions?
>
> Yes, when will it be out and where will it being available in the
>States? Are you going through a big distributor or anything?
wholesale distributors, which means you should find it in most hobby/
gaming shops around the country when it is released. If your local shop
carries our Call of Cthulhu magazine THE UNSPEAKABLE OATH, they should
have no trouble getting this book as well.
In the U.K., our books are carried by Hobbygames Ltd. and Esdevium Games.
And all our stuff is available by mail order as well.
John Tynes
Pagan Publishing
Al Billings
<C52...@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>In article <2971kk$f...@news.u.washington.edu>
>mi...@u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson) writes:
>
>wholesale distributors, which means you should find it in most hobby/
>gaming shops around the country when it is released. If your local shop
>carries our Call of Cthulhu magazine THE UNSPEAKABLE OATH, they should
>have no trouble getting this book as well.
>
Well, I've never seen your magazine in a store so...
Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson
ashton
> Mr. Ross still has one book, already written, to be published by
>Chaosium. This is a collection of scenarios for "Gaslight" CoC. In
>addition, he is finishing up a "Golden Dawn"-related book(?) for Pagan
>Publishing.
Golden Dawn and CoC ?
Mr. Ross has some serious editing to do !
Any more info on this effort?
AShTon
Ross Smith
> Actually, it is quite possible to have a non-supernatural
>vampire in CoC, as in Barbara Hambly's "Those who Hunt the Night."
>If you allow that stories of the vampire's puissance has been greatly
>exaggerated throughout the retellings by authors (Like Anne Rice or
>Bram Stoker) who have never actually seen a vampre, then you can make
>the vampire a viable, scientific thing.
> Now, the other fiddley bits, such as crosses, can be used
>in such a way. If the vampire is, say, psychically sensitive, in order
>to find prey that is less willing to resist, then perhaps it cannot
>deal with someone strong in their own beliefs holding against them a
>symbol of that faith. In game terms, the character would have to have
>demonstrated previous devotion to the religion, perhaps been inconvenienced
>by it, and then may engage in a POW vs POW struggle against the Vampire
>to drive it off using a cross, although an Elder Siogn will work just
>as well if the character BELIEVES in it. This is a bit problematic, since
>in all of my campaigns, I have never had a character who believed in the
>efficacy of ANYthing for long.
> Great discussion, folks.
I'm reminded of the classic line from Roman Polanski's movie FEARLESS
VAMPIRE HUNTERS (a.k.a. DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES) (highly recommended, BTW).
Vampire threatens F.V.H., who holds up a cross. Vampire: "Oy veh, have
*you* got the wrong vampire!" :-)
--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, New Zealand) ... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
"A Real Cat's aim is to get through life peacefully, with as little
interference from human beings as possible. Very much like real humans, in
fact." (Terry Pratchett)
Frank Hummel
not responded to quickly. Things have been happening in my life and I am
still trying to figure out all the quirks of this network.
In article <CEIGx...@rice.edu> ad...@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) writes:
>Maybe I'm running a little behind here, but my take on Fenalik and Baba
>Yaga in _Horror_ is "they're not Mythos, but so what"?
>
>The only "core mythos" character in there is the Skinless One, an avatar
>of the Big N.
>ad...@rice.edu | These are not Rice's opinions. Nor are they those of IS,
>the Honor Council, Tony Gorry, God, or Kibo. They're mine. Got it? Good.
Ah, but is point. You are playing in a * Lovecraftian * Universe in CoC;
not a Christian one or one based on Russian mythology. Introduction of
these elements can lead to major inconsistency in the basic principles
of the Game Universe. Why bother?! Especially when the Mythos Universe
is already as rich as it is!
For me, at the core of this is the idea of cosmic horror-- - that as one
is exposed to the Mythos, one comes to REALLY understand that humanity
is of NO importance in the Uninerse at all, zip, zero, null, nothing,
period. Even the discussion of "good" and "evil"characters (with
regards to the vampire player-character) is somewhat missing the point.
There IS no Good or Evil in the Lovecraftian Universe -- the Universe
doesn't care about such things. (Oh, the players might at first view
what happens as good or evil, but this also should be worn away as
the Mythos is encountered and the unimportance of humanity is realized.)
As far as vampires, etc. goes, as I said, I find there basic idea
counter to how I perceive the Mythos and Lovecraft's philosophy behind
it. (For example, Lovecraft was a firm DISbeliever in the supernatural;
I think this idea carries over to his stories, though others here seem
to disagree.) But my main urging would be CONSISTENCY; CONSISTENCY. If
you are going to introduce supernatural, non-Mythos creatures, etc. into
CoC (and the Mythos), you need to redefine their natures so they are
part of the Mythos, not the other way around. If a vampire could be
introduce (as, I said, might be possible in scientific terms), then
this is at least doing so by the rules of the game.
But not for me. I find such conventional horror creatures as vampires
(which I think have been (pardon the pun) done to death in the lasy
5 years), werewolves, etc., etc. to be too commonplace for the Mythos.
Part of the shock of the Mythos is the fact it is filled with so
many UNconventional (and unknown to most people) that, when encountered,
they are truly frightening because they are Unknown.
As someone else said, GOOD discussion.
mfas...@ucs.indiana.edu
(Frank Hummel) wrote:
> As far as vampires, etc. goes, as I said, I find there basic idea
> counter to how I perceive the Mythos and Lovecraft's philosophy behind
> it. (For example, Lovecraft was a firm DISbeliever in the supernatural;
> I think this idea carries over to his stories, though others here seem
> to disagree.) But my main urging would be CONSISTENCY; CONSISTENCY. If
> you are going to introduce supernatural, non-Mythos creatures, etc. into
> CoC (and the Mythos), you need to redefine their natures so they are
> part of the Mythos, not the other way around. If a vampire could be
> introduce (as, I said, might be possible in scientific terms), then
> this is at least doing so by the rules of the game.
> -- Frank Hummel -- hum...@athena.mit.edu
Ah, but as I explained in the long post that took us off on this thread
in the first place, I have redefined the vampire's nature in such a way as
to make it a part of the Mythos (that is, an imperfect replica of something
else). I simply disagree that it has to be explainable via physics or
chemistry for it to be part of the Mythos. If that is the "official" point
of view of the current leadership in Chaosium, so be it, but this is hardly
an infallible source. By my interpretation, there are some elements in
Lovecraft's stories that were explainable in scientific terms, and some
that were not, and Lovecraft himself made no great pains to be consistent
in this. He was a firm disbeliever in the supernatural, but he was after
all writing fiction and was conscious of doing so.
The final point being, I personally agree that if vampires are
included,
they should somehow relate to the Mythos; indeed, I have made sure that
for my purposes, they do. However, this relationship need not be a natural
one, in the sense of adhering to generally accepted scientific laws.
There is room for natural and non-natural elements both within the
framework
of the Mythos.
Adelheyde
CHRISTOPHER I. FRENCH
deity that is similar in appearance/behaviour to a Mythos deity (one example:
Nodens/Neptune; there is some similarity in appearance). It allows the Keeper
to explore new methods of messing up the players (how would you feel if you
were confronted by Zeus, or Odin? Or are those myths the way earlier cultures
explained visitations by the Elder Gods?). It makes the players' abbreviated
lives interesting. Try it sometime.
Be seeing you.
--
"You've had the time you've had the power/You've yet to have your finest hour/
All we hear is/Radio Ga-Ga, Radio Goo-Goo, Radio Blah-Blah/|------------------
All we hear is/Radio Ga-Ga, Radio Blah-Blah/ | 7(AK) 28(DCA)
Radio was new/Radio, someone still loves you!" -Queen, "Radio Ga-Ga"|---------
Richard C. Staats
|> If people regard the creative impulse to play an evil (murderous, posessed,
|> undead, etc.) character odd, then how do they feel about the Keeper who
|> believably portrays the evil NPC? Is it the same?
Let me answer the questions in reverse order. It is quite different. As a
Keeper, you are striving to create challenging situations that the PCs eventually
overcome. So, even though the evil NPC's are clever, the Keeper sets them up so
that eventually they fail. When a PC plays an evil character, the player is
trying to do evil and "get away" with it.
So, I have no objections to the Keeper playing evil NPCs, because the focus is
different. I *would* personally have an objection if the Keeper became *overly*
interested in the vile aspects of the NPC as opposed to just creating the proper
atmosphere for the PCs to operate in. I was in attendance at a gaming convention
once where several players left a session, because the Keeper was "over-zealous"
in his/her descriptions of vile scenes. So, it seems possible to have too much
atmosphere.
Just my $.02
Rich