[Free RPG Review] Cosmic Synchronicity- LONG
Brian Gleichman
unimaginative, I decided to do a game review. After all, I LIKE reading
rules. I'm strange that way.
Given that the designers of free RPGs rarely see anyone talk about their
games, I thought it would be a good idea to give these guys a break and give
a bit of feedback.
Additionally, it might inspire discussion over any number of points I might
make. (Or fail to make as the case may be.)
I'll probably only do this once. Then again, I might make it a monthly thing
with a new free RPG each time. Throw rocks or send money if you want me to
stop. Throw money or say good things if not.
--
Some here might remember Joseph Teller. He has designed two free games
previously, one being _Shadow Bindings_ (which in general got thumped by a
number of posters here).
He has now made a third attempt called Cosmic Synchronicity. He's asking for
feedback over in r.g.f.m. I hate posting there, so he'll just have to live
with feedback in this group.
I looked over the core rules that came in a 63 page PDF from his web site at
http://www.fantasylibrary.com. It's in a single column format with a large
font so there's not as much content as the page count would indicate.
--
Style Comments:
Two elements leaped out at me as I read. The writing attempted humor at
nearly every turn and also tended to explain the reasoning behind the rules
in the same breath as they were explained.
Normally, I would consider these good things. However, when I'm seeking a
rule reference or understanding, I want to find and read the rule in
question. Here I had to search through fluff humor and justification text to
find what I needed.
This was a task made worse by the lack of Contents or Index. I can forgive
the lack of one, not both.
Humor belongs in fiction breaks and examples. Justification should wait
until the Designer Notes at the end.
--
General Rules Overview
A character is defined by Attributes, Aspects, Skills and Traits. Added to
these is Derived Facts. Except for Traits, they are rated on a 1-20 scale.
Attributes are the normal characters stats of most games.
Aspects are the primary driver for simple psychological
mechanics as well as a base for determining skills.
Derived Facts are figured versions of Attributes or Aspects.
Skills are the typical skills.
Traits are advantages/disadvantages like 'Ambidextrous' or
'Bad Back'.
The amount of skill ranks you have is determined by your culture and
Aspects.
Skill checks are rolled on d100 attempting to get under 5x Rank (1-20
remember). General Attribute checks have a 4x target.
Combat is a roll for initiative followed by attacks made in order. Attacker
and Defender both sides rolling d100. If the attacker rolls lower than the
defender (while still succeeding), he hits and does damage.
Cosmic Trigger. This is a rather core concept in the rules.
You can have whatever totals you want in Attributes, Aspects and Traits
(when in turn determines skills). Take too high a total value for these and
you lower your Cosmic Trigger.
Cosmic Trigger starts at 100 and is lowered by having too 'good' of a
character (depending upon the setting). Any d100 equal or above the Comic
Trigger automatically results in a fumble (that can even kill the character)
not to mention skill failure.
--
Rule Comments
Cosmic Trigger is horribly counter-intuitive. I'm sure that there are those
who believe that great ability brings misfortune, but I don't think they
make up a large number of gamers. If one does buy into this way of thinking,
the mechanic at least gives an illusion of it.
Cosmic Trigger is presented as a 'new' concept of game balance. Using the
logic of A=B, B=C, A=C, this system is nothing more than a point based
character creation with an auto-disadvantage system built in. The method
does bring it to the front however.
Combat is highly random with only slight weight (for the most part) given to
the more skilled fighter. A tactical player would have great trouble
maintaining interest with this feature.
Damage is slight for the most part taking multiple hits with high power
rifles to down a typical target. Take lots of ammo or use the even more
random option rules.
Game balance is left entirely to the GM and players. Almost no guides are
given. In fact, the system claims auto-balance by the use of the Cosmic
Trigger. However Cosmic Trigger is based upon the total character, not the
existence of key unbalancing skills (or other factors).
The link of culture and skills is a nice idea if too grainy. Once again it
covers a total view of an area without considering the result of narrow
focus.
--
Closing Comments
I don't know of any play style that would find this system useful. If there
is, let me know. I'm curious.
--
Brian Gleichman
glei...@mindspring.com
Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
Joseph Teller
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Some here might remember Joseph Teller. He has designed two free games
>previously, one being _Shadow Bindings_ (which in general got thumped by a
>number of posters here).
>He has now made a third attempt called Cosmic Synchronicity. He's asking for
>feedback over in r.g.f.m. I hate posting there, so he'll just have to live
>with feedback in this group.
>
>I looked over the core rules that came in a 63 page PDF from his web site at
>http://www.fantasylibrary.com. It's in a single column format with a large
>font so there's not as much content as the page count would indicate.
>
>--
>Style Comments:
>
>Two elements leaped out at me as I read. The writing attempted humor at
>nearly every turn and also tended to explain the reasoning behind the rules
>in the same breath as they were explained.
>
>Normally, I would consider these good things. However, when I'm seeking a
>rule reference or understanding, I want to find and read the rule in
>question. Here I had to search through fluff humor and justification text to
>find what I needed.
>
>This was a task made worse by the lack of Contents or Index. I can forgive
>the lack of one, not both.
Since PDF was used, The Contents list is within the PDF for online
reading. If you simply printed out the rules then you didn't see the
Contents. Being a V1 Alpha it also means that this version is under
construction, so a final index has not yet been created.
>Humor belongs in fiction breaks and examples. Justification should wait
>until the Designer Notes at the end.
A style using humor is used in a number of games, such as 'Tales of
The Floating Vagabond'. Not everyone shares the same sense of humor,
so its always possible that you may find the humor to get in the way
since to you it might not have been funny. Some folks find South Park
Funny, for others (like me) its vulgar stupidity. Milage with humor
will always vary. My gaming group likes a certain level of humor and I
wrote in a way to give it to them. (They're the sorts of folks that
like GURPS: IOU as well).
Fiction breaks were not used because this is intended to be a quick
and easy base mechanic, with no specific setting intruding on the
mechanics. Setting is seperate from the base mechanics (and no setting
has yet been released).
Justification is used in many current game systems throughout the
texts. An example of doing such, instead of putting them in a clump of
'Designer notes' is the recent 'Unknown Armies RPG' which often
includes justification along side what is involved.
>General Rules Overview
>
>A character is defined by Attributes, Aspects, Skills and Traits. Added to
>these is Derived Facts. Except for Traits, they are rated on a 1-20 scale.
Not exactly. Derrived facts are not on a 1-20 scale. Attributes are on
a 1-20 scale for normal human range (but the scale goes up to 25).
>Attributes are the normal characters stats of most games.
>Aspects are the primary driver for simple psychological
> mechanics as well as a base for determining skills.
>Derived Facts are figured versions of Attributes or Aspects.
>Skills are the typical skills.
>Traits are advantages/disadvantages like 'Ambidextrous' or
> 'Bad Back'.
>
>The amount of skill ranks you have is determined by your culture and
>Aspects.
Actually a combination of Culture, Mental facilities and Aspects
determine your starting skill rank pool. Traits can also modify the
pool.
>Skill checks are rolled on d100 attempting to get under 5x Rank (1-20
>remember). General Attribute checks have a 4x target.
>
>Combat is a roll for initiative followed by attacks made in order. Attacker
>and Defender both sides rolling d100. If the attacker rolls lower than the
>defender (while still succeeding), he hits and does damage.
>
>
>
>Cosmic Trigger. This is a rather core concept in the rules.
>
>You can have whatever totals you want in Attributes, Aspects and Traits
>(when in turn determines skills). Take too high a total value for these and
>you lower your Cosmic Trigger.
>
>Cosmic Trigger starts at 100 and is lowered by having too 'good' of a
>character (depending upon the setting). Any d100 equal or above the Comic
>Trigger automatically results in a fumble (that can even kill the character)
>not to mention skill failure.
>
>--
>Rule Comments
>
>Cosmic Trigger is horribly counter-intuitive. I'm sure that there are those
>who believe that great ability brings misfortune, but I don't think they
>make up a large number of gamers. If one does buy into this way of thinking,
>the mechanic at least gives an illusion of it.
>Cosmic Trigger is presented as a 'new' concept of game balance. Using the
>logic of A=B, B=C, A=C, this system is nothing more than a point based
>character creation with an auto-disadvantage system built in. The method
>does bring it to the front however.
Actually this is a rather loose way of putting things and rather
inexact. What the system does is allow a player to design a character
within the scale without normal point limits etc on what they design -
but that it encourages the taking of negative traits (which include
plot complications and devices as well as social, physical and
psychological problems) to balance excessive abilities that are "above
the Normal").
When you take too many advantages compared to these negatives that a
character modified the cosmic trigger. A lower cosmic trigger means
increased risks.
>Combat is highly random with only slight weight (for the most part) given to
>the more skilled fighter. A tactical player would have great trouble
>maintaining interest with this feature.
>
>Damage is slight for the most part taking multiple hits with high power
>rifles to down a typical target. Take lots of ammo or use the even more
>random option rules.
Optional rules let the GM decide if they want realistic damage or not.
They also take in the concepts of the "extra weight" you seem to want
given to a more skilled fighter or a tactical player.
In playtesting with the base rules (no options) it is still possible
to disable or kill a foe with a pistol shot, never mind a high powered
rifle.
>Game balance is left entirely to the GM and players. Almost no guides are
>given. In fact, the system claims auto-balance by the use of the Cosmic
>Trigger. However Cosmic Trigger is based upon the total character, not the
>existence of key unbalancing skills (or other factors).
Yes, this is true. Balance is left to GM and players, guidance is
given in a specific setting (seperate from the base rules) and by the
chosen 'Excitement Level' that the GM is aiming for in the game (Soap
Opera, Dramatic, Heroic Adventure, etc).
>The link of culture and skills is a nice idea if too grainy. Once again it
>covers a total view of an area without considering the result of narrow
>focus.
>
>--
>Closing Comments
>
>I don't know of any play style that would find this system useful. If there
>is, let me know. I'm curious.
They exist, we're playing it, and the folks are enjoying it so far
that are. Its an acquired taste (and it doesn't taste like chicken!).
Joe
Joseph Teller joet...@mindspring.com
"Put Some Fantasy Back In Your Life!"
The Fantasy Library
http://www.fantasylibrary.com
Brian Gleichman
news:383C876C...@knutsen.dk...
> Brian, I've been asked by one person on the RPG-Create
> mailinglist to post your review to the list since he is unable to
> read usenet postings. Can I do that?
Go head right ahead, as long as my name stays with it.
I haven't played in the world of mailinglists. From the name of it, this one
sounds like it covers rpg creation.
Is that the case? What's its character and current subjects of interest.
I've always wondered at the reasons of doing a mailing list instead of a
Usenet group.I've always assumed things like easier to start, less chance of
trolls and better focus. Is this actually true?
On the down side, it's hard to find out if they exist. Impossible to lurk
without joining first. And is without the excellent thread management of
Usenet.
Brian Gleichman
news:383c347c...@news.mindspring.com...
> If you simply printed out the rules then you didn't see the
> Contents.
So I don't get Contents if I insist on printing the rules. Good choice, it
should help enforce that all my players own and carry PCs around with them.
Perhaps you should take the suggestion to add the contents to the printed
version instead of telling me how to go to the effort of finding them.
BTW: I like the PDF to auto display the navigation pane on load. Just my
opinion, I'm sure others disagree.
BTW 2: The content listing reads like a bunch of cute sayings. Not a good
reference to rule sections as I have to interpret headings like "I Have Come
To Tell You That Your Are Free" and "The Dreaded Neurological Army" (which
covers skills!).
> A style using humor is used in a number of games
<snip>
> Justification is used in many current game systems throughout
> the texts.
If someone jumped off the bridge, would you too?
Really this is just a matter of opinion. One can find someone who likes
anything. You just may have to look for a while. And there are always
exceptions, a humor game should go a bit overboard in its writing style.
I don't like either style method as you used them. In my case, both elements
were in the way of reading your rules. Make of that what you will. You were
the one wanting opinions. You have mine.
BTW: Some justification text SHOULD be part of option rule sections. Here
it's useful in determining if the reader wishes to use the variant or not.
> Derrived facts are not on a 1-20 scale.
True. Forgot to make a specific comment on them.
In general, I was only aiming to hit the highlights of the system. I glossed
over a number of smaller details.
> >Cosmic Trigger is presented as a 'new' concept of game
> >balance. Using the logic of A=B, B=C, A=C, this system is
> >nothing more than a point based character creation with an
> >auto-disadvantage system built in. The method
> >does bring it to the front however.
>
> Actually this is a rather loose way of putting things and rather
> inexact.
Hardly. This method is the same as the following in Hero:
"Build your characters using any amount of points you like. If your total
real points after subtracting disadvantages exceed 100, add a die of unluck
for every five points (round nearest) you're over."
If you can't see this fact and its implications, I can't help you further.
> Optional rules let the GM decide if they want realistic damage
> or not.
I didn't care for any of the options you offered, especially as they applied
to firearms. I could give detailed reasons if you like.
> They also take in the concepts of the "extra weight" you seem > to want
given to a more skilled fighter or a tactical player.
One or two of them help. But due to the heavy random influence of the core
resolution method still don't improve it enough for my tastes.
> In playtesting with the base rules (no options) it is still possible
> to disable or kill a foe with a pistol shot, never mind a high
> powered rifle.
The system uses a simple d10 hit location for damage.
The results of this table will automatically disable 10% of the time. It
will also do 'GM's whim' 10% of the time (which could be a out and out
kill).
The disable effect is the same no matter if the target is hit with a thrown
rock or a .600 nitro express rifle. The 'GM whim' gives no guidance for a
difference between these two attacks, leaving the rule reader to his own
devices (let's assume the result is always at least a disable for analysis
purposes).
Typically, you will need to hit someone three times to drop them under the
base rules- no matter what the weapon used.
In fact, the total effect of the combat rules (including the option ones) is
to reduce weapon selection importance. Greatly.
> They exist, we're playing it, and the folks are enjoying it so far
> that are. Its an acquired taste (and it doesn't taste like
> chicken!).
I know you exist. I was hoping for another opinion.
Peter Knutsen
Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> Being rather bored, I thought I'd try something new. Being completely
> unimaginative, I decided to do a game review. After all, I LIKE reading
> rules. I'm strange that way.
Brian, I've been asked by one person on the RPG-Create mailinglist
to post your review to the list since he is unable to read usenet
postings. Can I do that?
> --
> Brian Gleichman
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message
> news:383C876C...@knutsen.dk...
>
> > Brian, I've been asked by one person on the RPG-Create
> > mailinglist to post your review to the list since he is unable to
> > read usenet postings. Can I do that?
>
> Go head right ahead, as long as my name stays with it.
Ok.
> I haven't played in the world of mailinglists. From the name of it, this one
> sounds like it covers rpg creation.
Yup, to be more accurate, it covers only the creation of RPG rules
systems. Creation of RPG worlds is dealt with on another mailing
list (which I don't subscribe to). Some months ago, I started
a new mailing list with the specific purpose of creating a RPG
system that was good for introducing newbies to roleplaying,
but the other subscribers didn't keep the goal properly in mind,
so I've shut down the mailing list and decided to work on the
project alone.
> Is that the case? What's its character and current subjects of interest.
Right now we're talking about whether hit locations sucks or rocks.
And there's some discussion with the subject "Nobilis", I haven't
looked into it yet so I have zero idea what it's about. And there
is also a discussion about magic systems, but it's about loosely
defined magic systems, and seems to be mostly metaphysics, not
RPG rules, which is what would interest me.
> I've always wondered at the reasons of doing a mailing list instead of a
> Usenet group.I've always assumed things like easier to start, less chance of
> trolls and better focus. Is this actually true?
Yes. RPG rule set creation was originally discussed in the
newsgroup news:rec.games.design , along with board game creation
and computer game creation, but some years ago, computer game
discussions began to take over at the expense of RPG rule set
creation.
Mailing lists are easy to set up (just use http://www.onelist.com
to get a free mailing list - or a dozen). You can't get the
focus right if you have a very specific idea in mind (it
didn't work for me), but if your idea isn't very narrow and
clearly defined you should be fine. Trolls are easily dealt
with, although I don't recall ever seeing any.
> On the down side, it's hard to find out if they exist. Impossible to lurk
> without joining first. And is without the excellent thread management of
> Usenet.
Thread management is one feature I miss badly. Using Netscape
Communicator (v4.5 or so) you do get some thread management,
but it doesn't work 100%, because some Danes on the mailing
list have their newsreader configured to insert "Sv:" instead
of "Re:" in the Subject line when replying. Even if this
didn't happen, I doubt thread management would be as good as
with newsgroups.
There is one other problem: old postings doesn't expire, so
your RPG-Create folder can end up containing 10000 (yes, 10^4)
postings. I solve this by moving old postings to another folder,
but I'd much prefer to have old postings expire after 3 weeks
or so.
One final note: RPG-Create is a very large mailing list, I don't
know how many subscribers it has, but my guess is that it's more
than a hundred. I suppose most mailing lists are smaller, the
other ones I'm subscribed to have maybe 8-15 subscribers, except
for one about Nordic Culture, which has maybe 50 to 100.
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message
> news:383C876C...@knutsen.dk...
>
> > Brian, I've been asked by one person on the RPG-Create
> > mailinglist to post your review to the list since he is unable to
> > read usenet postings. Can I do that?
>
> Go head right ahead, as long as my name stays with it.
Done. I wasn't sure if I should post your e-mail adress, but when
I was that you have it in your Sig, I just posted the entire text
of your posting, including your signature.
> On the down side, it's hard to find out if they exist. Impossible to lurk
> without joining first. And is without the excellent thread management of
> Usenet.
You can search for mailing lists on the Onelist website, but I've
never done this. I'm not really interested in being subscribed to
250 different mailing lists...
--
Peter Knutsen
jsjo...@islandnet.com
> You can search for mailing lists on the Onelist website, but I've
> never done this. I'm not really interested in being subscribed to
> 250 different mailing lists...
In case anyone gets the wrong idea - Onelist is not the 'world of mailing
lists'. It is one of several free mailing list providers (most of whom
include adds on each post to pay for the service).
The free mailing list providers are themselves a recent phenomenon and
constitute only a small (but growing) portion of the mailing lists
available.
---
Jeff Johnson
jsjo...@islandnet.com
Joseph Teller
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Hardly. This method is the same as the following in Hero:
>
>"Build your characters using any amount of points you like. If your total
>real points after subtracting disadvantages exceed 100, add a die of unluck
>for every five points (round nearest) you're over."
Which version of Hero (Champions) are you referring to? I don't
remember that in any of the versions I've seen of Champions. Or are
you referring to the old 'Fantasy Hero' that they put out some years
ago?
>I didn't care for any of the options you offered, especially as they applied
>to firearms. I could give detailed reasons if you like.
Not caring for the options is a legitimate statement and you are
welcome to your opinion. I thought you had somehow missed them by your
original statements.
>> They also take in the concepts of the "extra weight" you seem > to want
>given to a more skilled fighter or a tactical player.
>
>One or two of them help. But due to the heavy random influence of the core
>resolution method still don't improve it enough for my tastes.
I tend to prefer a high random element to combat, especially in
regards to gunfire. A light caliber weapon can kill one person and
barely scratch another in combat - much depends on dozens of variables
that are easier to summarize as a wide random element to the damage
(the d20 in this case) to simulate anything from a grazing wound to a
fatal sniper's shot.
If you believe otherwise, I have to ask, based on what source?
Personal experience in combat? Experience of others in combat? A
written source that deals with combat experiences? Police, Law
enforcement or security training? Range fire practice?
I ask because many folks I have known with combat or law enforcement
experience tend to agree that there is a wide range of damage possible
from the same weapon. On the other hand those who's experience comes
primarily from target shooting or watching movies often have
misconceptions on the range and damage of weapons (and those whoose
experience comes only from roleplaying games and wargames often have
even more misconceptions in this regards).
>> In playtesting with the base rules (no options) it is still possible
>> to disable or kill a foe with a pistol shot, never mind a high
>> powered rifle.
>
>The system uses a simple d10 hit location for damage.
>
>The results of this table will automatically disable 10% of the time. It
>will also do 'GM's whim' 10% of the time (which could be a out and out
>kill).
>
>The disable effect is the same no matter if the target is hit with a thrown
>rock or a .600 nitro express rifle. The 'GM whim' gives no guidance for a
>difference between these two attacks, leaving the rule reader to his own
>devices (let's assume the result is always at least a disable for analysis
>purposes).
>
>Typically, you will need to hit someone three times to drop them under the
>base rules- no matter what the weapon used.
>
>In fact, the total effect of the combat rules (including the option ones) is
>to reduce weapon selection importance. Greatly.
Yes this is true. A .22 can be potentially as fatal as a .45 or 9mm
weapon.
10% of all shots disabling due to locale, and 10% being fatal due to
locale is hardly too wide a potential. Take a look at the number of
people who died of head wounds in WWI and WWII.
Cosmic is not a wargame, its a roleplaying game. It has a more
extensive combat system than many games (like any of the White Wolf
games, FUDGE, etc) without having combat slow down game play (as can
occur in Champions or Gurps when the various optional rules are in
use).
It can be lethally realistic or Heroic or Cinematic in nature. Most
games can't achieve a number of options of style effectively,if at
all, so its doing more than many but with less paperwork and time.
Brian Gleichman
<snip> speaking about a rpg creation mailing list.
> Right now we're talking about whether hit locations sucks or
> rocks.
I'm in the hit locations rock group.
But it all depends upon the system goals and who's playing it. I haven't
seen a system yet that isn't useful for something. It might be something
that you couldn't pay me to do, but it would still be something.
I'll pass on mailing lists for now. I really only have time for this one
newsgroup.
Brian Gleichman
> Which version of Hero (Champions) are you referring to? I
> don't remember that in any of the versions I've seen of
> Champions.
That would be any version of Hero every published. I just changed the
wording a bit and added the Hero version of Cosmic Trigger.
The math remained the same.
> If you believe otherwise, I have to ask, based on what source?
> Personal experience in combat? Experience of others in
> combat? A written source that deals with combat experiences?
> Police, Law enforcement or security training? Range fire
> practice?
Extensive knowledge of all the above except my living targets have never
been human (nor shot back). I could bury you in the resources I've either
done or studied.
You have it wrong from any viewpoint but your own. Far too random and
uncontrolled for what I'd call Cinematic.
And you are far off from realism:
Far too accurate for combat conditions.
Far below expected disabling levels for most weapons.
Far too grainy in weapon differences.
No method to accurately apply damage effects to
non-human targets.
This is true no matter what combinations of base and optional rules are in
effect.
The above is true of many systems. Some are very popular as the buyers just
don't care. I hope you're aiming for the same user group.
Jeff Johnson
>I tend to prefer a high random element to combat, especially in
>regards to gunfire. A light caliber weapon can kill one person and
>barely scratch another in combat - much depends on dozens of variables
>that are easier to summarize as a wide random element to the damage
>(the d20 in this case) to simulate anything from a grazing wound to a
>fatal sniper's shot.
>
>If you believe otherwise, I have to ask, based on what source?
>Personal experience in combat? Experience of others in combat? A
>written source that deals with combat experiences? Police, Law
>enforcement or security training? Range fire practice?
The one firearms study I've heard anything about (unfortunately, via a
totally unreliable reference - it was mentioned in some detail on a TV
program, which I don't even know the tile of) actually agrees, in a
way.
It was a tally of small firefights involving US police and border
patrol in Texas. They tended to show that a single gunshot wound would
either kill you or not, and that there wasn't much cumulative effect
from multiple wounds. Location was everything.
What wasn't shown at all, unfortunately, was whether victims were
disabled by non-lethal wounds or not. Some obviously weren't; others
were, but there was no data on this.
These stats were for short-range exchanges of fire with smallarms,
mostly pistols. That's a good match for some kinds of RPG situations,
but not others (and certainly not military ones).
Another interesting stat from that study was that a very small
proportion of the people involved in these firefights produced a large
majority of the hits. That more or less agrees with the disputed WW2
studies that showed only a small portion of men in combat even fired.
(Changes to training methods completely reversed this by Vietnam,
BTW.)
--
Jeff Johnson
jsjo...@islandnet.com
Mary K. Kuhner
>I tend to prefer a high random element to combat, especially in
>regards to gunfire. A light caliber weapon can kill one person and
>barely scratch another in combat - much depends on dozens of variables
>that are easier to summarize as a wide random element to the damage
>(the d20 in this case) to simulate anything from a grazing wound to a
>fatal sniper's shot.
>If you believe otherwise, I have to ask, based on what source?
I can't speak for the original poster, but my objections would not
be based on verisimilitude, but on enjoyment of play. A system which
combines high damage variance with little advantage to more skilled
characters will rule out many types of games. It's difficult for
the PCs to come across as really competant with such mechanics, and
combat will tend to be settled more by quantity of combatants and/
or dice luck than by quality of combatants. There are certainly
games for which this works, but I don't personally like it.
A character with an attack skill of 50% will hit *any* opponent
at least 12.5% of the time, even if that opponent is 100% (and
I'm ignoring Cosmic Trigger here--that would make matters worse
for the powerful character). The immediate consequence is that
I would expect 3 or 4 50% fighters to take out even the world's
best swordsman (assuming you don't allow skills over 100%).
I'm wondering how, in your own games in this system, you deal with
this effect when running in a more "cinematic" style.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Warren J. Dew
I tend to prefer a high random element to combat, especially in
regards to gunfire.... much depends on dozens of variables
that are easier to summarize as a wide random element to the
damage (the d20 in this case) to simulate anything from a
grazing wound to a fatal sniper's shot.
So part of what you are rolling for with the d20 is whether or not the shooter
is a trained sniper?
I favor character development in play, but that's a little too much even for
me. What kind of game play are you trying to support with this system?
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Joseph Teller
wrote:
>I can't speak for the original poster, but my objections would not
>be based on verisimilitude, but on enjoyment of play. A system which
>combines high damage variance with little advantage to more skilled
>characters will rule out many types of games. It's difficult for
>the PCs to come across as really competant with such mechanics, and
>combat will tend to be settled more by quantity of combatants and/
>or dice luck than by quality of combatants. There are certainly
>games for which this works, but I don't personally like it.
>
>A character with an attack skill of 50% will hit *any* opponent
>at least 12.5% of the time, even if that opponent is 100% (and
>I'm ignoring Cosmic Trigger here--that would make matters worse
>for the powerful character). The immediate consequence is that
>I would expect 3 or 4 50% fighters to take out even the world's
>best swordsman (assuming you don't allow skills over 100%).
>
>I'm wondering how, in your own games in this system, you deal with
>this effect when running in a more "cinematic" style.
We haven't had these problems in our playtesting - competant
characters come out quite competent, and a group of incompetant
characters have not managed to take out a 100% skilled character that
used reasonable tactics (a 100% skilled character that simply stood in
one place against 3+ average opponents would go down eventually but
probably with a number of the opponents also going down).
Generally to be more cinemagraphic, one uses the GM's choice more for
color than effect when its a result against a PC (torn clothes,
knocked off balance etc) and uses it more effectively against
opponents (disabling or fatal wounds to the PC's opponents).
Definitely avoid the heavier damage options, and presumably allow more
effective armors to absorb damage from attacks.
We've never had a PC fatality under these mechanics from combat in the
playtesting when using the cinema style interpretation.
Joseph Teller
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> If you believe otherwise, I have to ask, based on what source?
>> Personal experience in combat? Experience of others in
>> combat? A written source that deals with combat experiences?
>> Police, Law enforcement or security training? Range fire
>> practice?
>
>Extensive knowledge of all the above except my living targets have never
>been human (nor shot back). I could bury you in the resources I've either
>done or studied.
So you 've hunted and used target ranges. These are not reliable
sources for information on the subject. I've been advised by
ex-miltary personnel, ex-law enforcement, security trained folks
(even did some of this myself back in the 80s, though as "unarmed"
security), and also drew from some written sources (primarily from
Writer's Digest Books). My father was also a sharpshooter in the
Navy. An ex-roomate of mine was a Karate instructor for many years and
also contributed to my viewpoints on that side of combat.
If you've been advised by ex-military folks I'd love to hear some info
from such that contradicted my sources (and to know what branch they
were in) in regards to the results.
>You have it wrong from any viewpoint but your own. Far too random and
>uncontrolled for what I'd call Cinematic.
>And you are far off from realism:
> Far too accurate for combat conditions.
> Far below expected disabling levels for most weapons.
> Far too grainy in weapon differences.
These points I believe comes down to a matter of opinion, not cold
hard facts.
> No method to accurately apply damage effects to
> non-human targets.
This is true and is definitely someplace I need to work on in the
rules. Quite frankly non-human combat occurs rarely in urban
environments (except against trained canines) which is where most of
the playtesting has occured.
I generally am not running lots of non-humanoid alien or magical
creatures, though the damage locale tables can be very easily adapted
in regards to most mammals.
What systems do you use that you believe accurately fits your
viewpoint in regards to weapon accuracy and damage? This may help me
understand your viewpoint better.
Brian Gleichman
> So you 've hunted and used target ranges.
And read. And had immediate family in WWII. And read. And had personal
friends in the military and Police. And read.
As I've said, I've done it all except killed a human being. Although I've
given up hunting.
> These are not reliable sources for information on the subject.
Go tell the JFK school for Jungle Warfare that they are not reliable.
Go tell the FBI that they are not reliable.
Go tell members of Delta Force that they are not reliable.
Go tell Marshall that his statistics are not reliable.
Go tell the Pentagon that their warfare statistics are useless.
Go speak with any of the dozens sources I've studied on the subject.
It would be best to tell all of them at once, since in the last ten years or
so they've reached an amazing degree of agreement.
Or better yet:
Realize that the concept that weapons produce a wide range of effect no
matter the type or design or is NOT the same as saying type or design does
not matter.
Realize that while shot placement is the single most important factor, it is
NOT the only factor.
Realize that lethality is an after combat measure and is of no immediate
importance during combat.
Ask why Delta Force and other elite teams use the .45 ACP with its lower
ammo capacity and higher recoil when the 9mm is the military standard.
Ask why the elite FBI counter-terrorism team uses the .45 ACP with its
higher recoil instead of the .40 S&W that is standard at the Agency.
Ask why the 9mm is the military standard (an interesting study in poltics
itself) and find out why it was opposed. Ask why the 10mm is the FBI
standard.
Ask why the FBI and Police departments across the nation moved away from the
9mm after nearly all of them went to it.
Ask why no government force anywhere in the world has settled on the 22 LR
for any of its weapons.
In short, you have more studying to do. I'll see if I can find some URLs
that point to the information later today (they may be hard to find, this is
considered a settled subject in the world of firearms). I'll email them to
you as I don't think the subject of real interest to any in this group.
> These points I believe comes down to a matter of opinion, not
> cold hard facts.
Snort.
51% of the world still believe it's flat too. Similar matter of opinion.
> What systems do you use that you believe accurately fits your
> viewpoint in regards to weapon accuracy and damage? This
> may help me understand your viewpoint better.
I know of no rpg systems that accurately model reality in this area. Very
few players (including myself) would want a truly realistic system.
I'm out of time for now. I'll address the requirements of
realistic/acceptable to me systems later today.
Warren J. Dew
So you 've hunted and used target ranges. These are not
reliable sources for information on the subject. I've
been advised by ex-miltary personnel, ex-law enforcement,
security trained folks (even did some of this myself back
in the 80s, though as "unarmed" security), and also drew
from some written sources (primarily from Writer's Digest
Books). My father was also a sharpshooter in the Navy.
An ex-roomate of mine was a Karate instructor for many
years and also contributed to my viewpoints on that side
of combat.
If you've been advised by ex-military folks I'd love to
hear some info from such that contradicted my sources
(and to know what branch they were in) in regards to the
results.
Well, I'm ex-military - same branch as your father - and I can provide some
clarification.
For example, 'sharpshooter' in the Navy is simply the term for middle ranked
target shooters. The three ranks are 'marksman', 'sharpshooter', and 'expert';
a moderately dextrous person can get their 'marksman' ribbon after their first
lesson on shooting a gun. To become a sharpshooter requires more practice;
experts are really quite good at hitting that bullseye. But all of it is
target shooting; none of it has to do with shooting at anything live.
Likewise, policemen are not trained to kill unsuspecting victims, security
forces are behind the front lines and - as you note - can often do their jobs
unarmed, and books are generally written by people who specialize in writing.
All of these people may have good information, of course, just as anyone on
this newsgroup might. But unless their jobs focused on killing people, Brian's
hunting experience is just as valid.
In fact, the Navy special forces people I've talked to - whose jobs really do
involve killing and not being killed - make it sound a lot like hunting: with
adequate training, it's easy to kill someone if you take him by surprise. The
challenge is in doing so silently, which rules out firearms; with a knife, you
have to stay undetected to within a couple feet of your victim.
Unarmed combat can be even less risky. My brother, who is a martial arts
instructor as well as a SEAL, has on a couple of occasions held off several
thugs; it's not a challenge for him, even when the goal is as specific as
keeping them from running away until the NYPD arrives, while avoiding putting
the them in the hospital or killing them.
Note that training is key. If you're just some random going into a Jack in the
Box and shooting strangers, you might not mind missing a lot. People going
after their stockbrokers seem to have the money to invest in the training
needed to make the shots count.
It strikes me that your approach might work fine for a campaign in which the
characters are not experts at anything, or the action does not touch on their
points of expertise. In these cases, random results are probably acceptable,
even sometimes realistic.
But like most published systems, this approach doesn't handle real expertise
well. People who are are actually good at things can handle typical tasks very
reliably.
Brian Gleichman
First, let's be certain about our wording. Realism in a game is generally
viewed as the reproduction of events that match the real world.
Real World combat is a complex subject that is still poorly understood even
by those who have spent a lifetime on the subject.
Even more troubling, there isn't enough information available to model all
aspects of the subject. At best, we have sectional or incomplete data.
And then, even if we did have all the data, we couldn't fit it into
something a simple as an rpg.
Give all of this, how are we to judge what is a realistic game system?
The answer is rather simple actually. Does it come close to matching what we
DO know. This is nothing more than a basic sanity check. After all, we can't
object to that we don't know.
We know for example that most law-enforcement gun battles take place at a
range of 21 feet or less. We know that trained FBI agents hit with about one
of six rounds fired under those typical conditions.
A realistic system would duplicate these facts. To the extent that a system
doesn't, it's unrealistic.
Basic Hero System for example wouldn't. 21 feet is about three hexes, which
doesn't even take a range modifier for most handguns. Assuming no bonus for
the weapon and an slight CV (+1) advantage for the agent, the hit rate is
around four times too high.
The system fails the sanity check. It needs adjustment to be realistic. Off
the top of my head, you would need a total of a -5 from modifiers from Hero
to bring it into line...
Let's consider the factors that make up a gun battle and how they would be
reflected in ultra-realistic and highly detailed game system.
--
Elements of a Fire Fight
1. Perception of threat.
2. Choice of Proper Reaction.
3. Striking your Target
4. Disabling your target.
5. Does the target die as a result of injury
(post-combat concern).
1. Perception of Threat: This is called situation awareness by some. It the
ability to notice, understand and track a threat. You can't shoot that which
you are unaware of.
2. Choice of Proper Reaction: Do you do what is best under the existing
conditions. Or does fear freeze you. Perhaps you revert to poor training
like the officer found dead with spent shells in his pocket (He would put
them there at the firing range so he wouldn't have to pick them up later.
This wasted time which may have cost him his life).
If one was doing a military rpg, points one and two should reduce 80-95% of
the characters to a near useless state. But hey, at least they are a target
choice. I haven't seen data on law enforcement engagements.
3. Striking your Target. I've already listed the FBI numbers. Most law
enforcement scores are even lower. They do like to see them in the double
percentages...
Military numbers are far worse. But here suppression fire and full auto
weapons shoulder much of the blame. These aren't seen to a meaningful extent
in law enforcement.
4. Disabling your target. Once you've hit your target, does he cease combat.
This is the really interesting one. We'll just note that most people cease
battle upon being hit once for what are mostly unknown reasons (assuming a
halfway decent weapon).
Actually percentages depend upon the weapon used. What limited data that is
available suggests handgun numbers ranging from 10% (22 LR) to something
like 60% or 70% (45 ACP and the like).
The main idea is to use something big enough that the target knows he has
been shot. Failing that, use something that is likely to damage the central
nervous system and cause heavy bleeding (i.e. weapons that penetrate well
and leave big holes).
Those interested in more detail can visit the following:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm or www.iwba.com
The concept of 'emotional fainting' is a cute one that shows some promise of
explaining things.
http://www.evanmarshall.com/towert gives the another side of the coin. It's
fun watching them beat on each other. Personally, I vote against Marshall.
5. Does the target die as a result of injury
Movies tell us that people die (unless they're THE HERO) when shot. The
truth isn't so clean. Injury outnumbers death typically by a factor of four
provided some basic medical assistance is nearby. Even in the worse cases,
deaths seldom exceed 33% despite heavy military weapons being added to the
mix.
--
There.
A 'realistic' game would cover all these factors. It may have to fudge some
of the numbers if it couldn't find data, but would have to match the real
world end results at the end of the day (rounds fire, people down and
killed, time spent, number of people doing useless or dumb things, etc.).
Personally, it doesn't sound like a very fun game.
NadinB
>
>A 'realistic' game would cover all these factors. It may have to fudge some
>of the numbers if it couldn't find data, but would have to match the real
>world end results at the end of the day (rounds fire, people down and
>killed, time spent, number of people doing useless or dumb things, etc.).
>
>Personally, it doesn't sound like a very fun game.
>
>
>--
>Brian Gleichman
>glei...@mindspring.com
>Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
>
>
End, where indeed you can disable or kill an NPC or PC in one shot and begining
characters are not that likely to hit the target... compared to MW 2 Edittion
where you could get an Expert rated, (assuming all points were not put into
Mech Piloting but into Pistols) who could not miss 99% of the time. then again
damage in that game was unreaslistic... but lets not go there.
It also depends on the players. There are players out there who are itching
for "realism". Having had the wonderful experience of actually hearing the
bullets wizzing by, my characters tend to take cover and then do a threat
assestment. Blame it on Real Life experience. There are also players who are
itching for an afternoon filled with killing the bad guys and for those any
like the Hero System will serve. Or any other system where the PCs have a
chance of a high body count.
Now realism also includes the factor of gun accuracy, penetration value and
range. Again this is a subject that is fraught with problems as far as RPGs are
concerned. (not to mention real life, not all .22 are created equal) Most
people who are in law enformcement know that if they are hit and fall, they
remain down... and they also know that bullet proof vests are not. Then again
there is the old maxim, recoilles weapons are not. But... still the point is
that most RPGs do not reflect how body armor, that is kevlar, works in the real
wold and that is fine and dandy, or PCs would have one chance to disable or
kill their oponents before falling themselves.
There is a reason why I no longer play Millenium's End, takes forever to create
a character and frankly loosing them in the first fire fight is frustrating at
best. So a midle of the road aproach must be found that will satisfy most
players.
Nadin
Games Editor
Brian Gleichman
Just to be complete, let's do that.
> Elements of a Fire Fight
>
> 1. Perception of threat.
> 2. Choice of Proper Reaction.
> 3. Striking your Target
> 4. Disabling your target.
> 5. Does the target die as a result of injury
> (post-combat concern).
--
1. Perception of threat
This could be handled by assigning a Situational Awareness stat to a
character and putting a 'Awareness Phase' at the beginning of a combat
round.
One would make a trait roll against this stat to determine how many threats
you can track that round. This would range from none to all, most likely in
increasing steps.
Apply modifiers depending upon what is happening.
Example: Trait Failed None
Succeed 1
Succeed +1 2
Succeed +2 4
Succeed +3 All
Characters would be restricted from all offensive actions, or adjusting
their target profile against threats they are unaware of.
Apply modifiers depending upon what is happening.
--
2. Choice of Proper Reaction.
This also could be handled by assigning a Stat. Perhaps called 'Coolness",
rolled at the start of the character's action. Those who succeed in the
trait roll would be allowed to perform any action they chose.
Those who fail would suffer a result ranging from negative modifiers
(representing minor errors of choice) to out and out nervous breakdowns.
****
Both the above would represent heavy psychological mechanics use. Players
would cry foul right and left as the result seemly don't make a bit of sense
despite the fact that it would produce realistic results at the end of the
day.
Highly experienced characters (SEALS, Delta Force, etc.) might never fail
their rolls (without the addition of negative modifiers), while even common
trained combatants will fail 80% of the time or worse. Talk about giving
skill an advantage...
***
Abstraction of Elements 1 and 2:
There's a easy abstraction used in War Gaming that can be applied to an rpg
covering both these elements. You play with the time scale.
Knowing that 80% of the time is spend on useless activity, you simply use a
1 minute combat round while allowing 5 seconds worth of actual action.
Experienced characters may increase their number of effective actions.
Sounds familiar? It should. It's AD&D showing it's war gaming roots.
At least one edition of Champions does this as well, stating that the 12
second round is actually 1 minute in length. The Speed stat takes care of
character skill.
On the plus side, this is an easy way to model end result reality while
hiding the use of psychological mechanics (as well as not having to make and
use additional rolls).
On the down side, it IS an abstraction. As such it may produce an accurate
end result at the cost of some similar ways of getting there. For example,
everyone gets to do something in a combat round. In reality this isn't true-
some never do anything. But the abstraction covers that in the end by having
the correct TOTAL number of actions occur.
***
Note: the limits of an rpg has already enforced some of the elements of
these first two factors. Player skill is almost never as good as character
skill and bandwidth of information transferred to the player (as compared
what the character should have) is terrible. One might wish to down play
elements 1 and 2 to balance this fact depending upon the relative player and
character skill.
--
3. Striking your Target
Hit chances should be very low for characters of common skill. Perhaps the
coolness stat should even modify the 'range skill' of the character to a 'in
combat' one.
One would have to hit the books hard on this one and data will be difficult
to find. You may have to settle for accurate 'common results' and making
some good guesses on the effect of highly skilled combatants. Even the
highly trained miss more than they hit when being shot back at.
4. Disabling your target and Does the target die as a result of injury
This one is easy. Assign a character a damage threshold level (with slight
adjustment for experience) and weapon damage that produces real life
results. Easy.
It will be hard to find data, requiring you to make a lot of guesses. But
the common level result should be easy.
---
There. That should be enough ideas.
For reference, Age of Heroes uses concept 3, 4 and 5 with some adjustment
for the fact it's a High Fantasy system. I blow off element 2 completely and
rely on lack of player skill (or specific player decisions) to shine here.
Element 1 is lightly covered with perception checks common to the rpg (in
short, it's effect is vastly underrated).
Joseph Teller
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I know of no rpg systems that accurately model reality in this area. Very
>few players (including myself) would want a truly realistic system.
If no system accurately models in this area, why have you decided that
this is the problem area in my mechanic that needs to be attacked in
this newsgroup? Especially if you yourself don't want a truly
realistic system?
I've already stated, both in the game mechanics and here, why the
mechanics work the way they do and the my personal tastes and
justifications of the why. I'm not sure why you are taking the
mechanic to task when you believe that no mechanic in use presently
anywhere does what you want.
This is a game system, and as such there are always going to be
compromises in regards to how anything is simulated within it. Combat
is a single aspect of the system, and not the primary aspect of it in
most situations.
You've said that its "too accurate" and "too random" in regards to
combat accuracy and damage and pointed at these as the primary
problems. These appear to be contradictory in nature.
I'm a little confused at what you are trying to achieve or what you
are expecting from a game system that is obviously designed with a bit
of a lighthearted approach and never claims it in any way is a
wargame, an accurate combat simulation or that it will cover every
possibility. My game system is for roleplaying, it does what I and my
players need it to do. It may need a few tweaks or some supplemental
material (which I mention within its pages) to fit a desired style,
genre or setting and it may not be the best for everyone (no game
system can claim this truthfully) for all things. It fits many of the
demands and comments that others have presented here on the net in
regards to what was lacking in my own or other folks game designs (but
can't possibly satisfy everyone).
Paul King
fantas...@mindspring.com (Joseph Teller) wrote:
>This is a game system, and as such there are always going to be
>compromises in regards to how anything is simulated within it. Combat
>is a single aspect of the system, and not the primary aspect of it in
>most situations.
>
>You've said that its "too accurate" and "too random" in regards to
>combat accuracy and damage and pointed at these as the primary
>problems. These appear to be contradictory in nature.
I don't see any contradiction.
The "too accurate" refers to *frequency* of hits,
The "too random" refers to the *effects* of hits.
i.e. characters will hit their targets too often for realism and the
effects of hits will vary too much for realism.
Joseph Teller
King) wrote:
>I don't see any contradiction.
>
>The "too accurate" refers to *frequency* of hits,
>
>The "too random" refers to the *effects* of hits.
>
>i.e. characters will hit their targets too often for realism and the
>effects of hits will vary too much for realism.
I don't believe the accuracy to be far from reality. His stated claim
of 1 hit for every 6 shots fired with non-automatic weapons in a
close-combat situation sounds wrong as a comparison factor.
It doesn't jive with the real-world accuracy numbers I've heard
regarding small arms firefights with trained personnel.
Brian Gleichman
> It doesn't jive with the real-world accuracy numbers I've heard
> regarding small arms firefights with trained personnel.
Then take it up with the FBI. I'm sure you can show them the error of their
ways. They don't take email, but you can get their mailing address at
http://www.fbi.gov/contact.htm.
Brian Gleichman
> If no system accurately models in this area, why have you
> decided that this is the problem area in my mechanic that
> needs to be attacked in this newsgroup? Especially if you
> yourself don't want a truly realistic system?
Because you claimed realism at one point as justification for how the system
worked and the results it produces. You still do in fact.
That wasn't a good idea. It was SO far from realism that I just couldn't let
pass unchallenged.
> I'm a little confused at what you are trying to achieve or what
> you are expecting from a game system <snip>
I was attempting to give you the feedback you requested. Maybe even spark an
interesting discussion on a point or two that came up.
Additionally it serves the point of any review. Anyone who understand my
viewpoint, now should have a better idea of what they would think of your
system. Those that hate my ideas my actually take a look now at something
they would have passed over.
--
If the system is working for you, I wouldn't worry too much about my review.
It's just a different viewpoint from someone who has different goals for his
games.
I stand by my opinions, but that shouldn't make you change elements you
like. It is your game. Have fun and do what you want.
John R. Snead
: I don't believe the accuracy to be far from reality. His stated claim
: of 1 hit for every 6 shots fired with non-automatic weapons in a
: close-combat situation sounds wrong as a comparison factor.
: It doesn't jive with the real-world accuracy numbers I've heard
: regarding small arms firefights with trained personnel.
What figures are you referring to?
I've seen FBI data on urban gun battles involving law enforcement officers
and armed criminals. At minimum, the cops and FBI agents are at least
reasonably well trained, and IIRC, the figures are more like 1 shot hits
for every 10 fired. Assuming most of the criminals aren't terribly
well-trained, then 1 in 6 seems quite possible.
To me this points up a great difference between firing on a firing range
(the vast majority of shots fired by a trained shooter hit) and actual urban
firefights.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Rupert boleyn
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>A 'realistic' game would cover all these factors. It may have to fudge some
>of the numbers if it couldn't find data, but would have to match the real
>world end results at the end of the day (rounds fire, people down and
>killed, time spent, number of people doing useless or dumb things, etc.).
>
>Personally, it doesn't sound like a very fun game.
This was, IMHO, one of the bigger problems with 2300AD (or at least
its first version, Traveller:2300). While it had an unrealisticly high
chance of a casualty dying (due to the simplicity of its damage
system) everything else was fairly realistic). The result was that
everyone sprayed autofire everywhere, with little effect until finally
some poor unfortunate got hit, and wasted. As it was as likely as not
that this was a PC the game became unpopular (with our group, anyway)
quite quickly.
--
Rupert Boleyn
Brian Gleichman
news:3846dc9...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> This was, IMHO, one of the bigger problems with 2300AD (or
> at least its first version, Traveller:2300).
<snip>
Makes you wonder what the designer was thinking.
In my mind, combat systems with high death rates should be reserved for
those games either with low combat intensity (in which case it serves the
purpose of discouraging battle) or for the common range of NPCs in a Heroic
campaign where the PCs have significant advantage.
But there are games where the idea is to have heavy character turnover. CoC
being one where character death isn't exactly suppose to be a rare thing.
Some of these types of games are quite popular. Go figure.
Mary K. Kuhner
>But there are games where the idea is to have heavy character turnover. CoC
>being one where character death isn't exactly suppose to be a rare thing.
>Some of these types of games are quite popular. Go figure.
I know a GURPS group where the goal of many of the players seems to be
to explore the range of characters in the system, and they're quite
cheerful about losing characters frequently: it's a good excuse to make
another one. I sometimes get the impression they enjoy character
design more than they do play....
High lethality can work in short-story games. I agree it's not much
fun in campaigns, which is why campaign CoC is such a problematic
idea. We have recently been dealing with that problem by running
CoC modules using Feng Shui, which actually works pretty well. It
is still sometimes lethal, but much more controllably so. The
Chinese arc of _Masks of Nyarlathotep_ works particularly well in
Feng Shui--it's much easier to do flashy martial arts.
I suspect the design goal of _Masks_ is that you lose several entire
parties, building each new one around the notes left by the previous,
but I don't enjoy that nearly as much as having some character
continuity.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
John Kim
this is that most players simply do not want realistic firearm
combat. For those that do, I think that there should be significant
explanation with the system explaining what it is doing and why.
As an aside, I think claiming "realism" as a goal (or defense) for
a multi-genre system like _Cosmic Synchronicity_ is a little odd.
For constructing a realistic system, I think there are
two primary problems: (1) quantifying combat stress versus
target shooting, and (2) quantifying "impairment".
Lethality seems (in my un-expert opinion) reasonably
dealt with by systems like _CORPS_ and _Millenium's End_ (i.e.
each wound has a chance of kill and a bleeding rate). These
have fairly good statistics and studies behind them, at least,
and the authors of both games clearly know a lot more than I
do.
I am less convinced by their handling of impairment.
Both handle it as a penalty based on hit location to actions
using that body part. _CORPS_ has impairment is an absolutely
fixed number for a weapon (i.e. any .44 shot to the arm does
the same impairment). _Millenium's End_ is more believable but
also much more complex.
My main problem is the "Black Knight" syndrome (after
Monty Python) I noted first in GURPS. Here a character gets
his right arm cut off and immediately attempts to continue
fighting with his left arm.
I tend to think that the primary impairment effect is
the pain and fear ("Oh my God I'm shot!"), and in more extreme
cases physiological shock -- compared to which the tearing of
muscles or other physical impairment is secondary.
SteveC
Brian Gleichman wrote in message <8221aq$ovc$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>This is an icky subject.
that's an understatement!
>--
>Elements of a Fire Fight
>
>1. Perception of threat.
>2. Choice of Proper Reaction.
>3. Striking your Target
>4. Disabling your target.
>5. Does the target die as a result of injury
> (post-combat concern).
For a suggestion on a game system that handles these factors very well,
let me mention First Edition Cyberpunk. It specifically is one of the only
game systems that use the "Cool" stat like you mention. Characters
receive serious penalties in fights until they are able to control
themselves,
a factor which takes both the Cool stat and experience in firefights into
account. It gives a "Solo" type character a significant advantage over
even a highly skilled tech type character--I recommend it.
Additionally, CP 1.0 used a simple and VERY deadly wound system, and
had a "phased" combat system where some characters would be able to
react and act much more effectively than others--all in all an excellent
system (IMO much better than the new system or the proposed FUZION
version). It did have some very serious flaws, such as a LINEAR equation
for how much damage a weapon did, where a heavy weapon could do
30D6+ damage, but overall was IMO a better system than 2.0.2.0.
>
>
>A 'realistic' game would cover all these factors. It may have to fudge some
>of the numbers if it couldn't find data, but would have to match the real
>world end results at the end of the day (rounds fire, people down and
>killed, time spent, number of people doing useless or dumb things, etc.).
>
>Personally, it doesn't sound like a very fun game.
One of my favorite comments in Greg Porter's CORPS game goes something
like "in the real world, engagements between moderate sized groups last for
hours with sometimes only a few casualties. In most RPGs, they're over in
seconds with 90%+ casualties."
It seems like what we're really after is that "suspension of disbelief"
hobgoblin,
and what it takes to suspend disbelief is very different for different
people.
>
>
>--
>Brian Gleichman
>glei...@mindspring.com
>Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
>
>
--Steve C
spc...@att.net
"When all is perceived in such a way as to obviate time,
justice becomes apparent not as something that will be,
but as something that is."
--Mark Helprin, Winter's Tale
SteveC
Joseph Teller
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Because you claimed realism at one point as justification for how the system
>worked and the results it produces. You still do in fact.
I claim a certain level of realism in design, as do most game's. I
also state in my game where there are compromises with realisim, and
why.
>That wasn't a good idea. It was SO far from realism that I just couldn't let
>pass unchallenged.
Again, I don't agree with your sources, the only one of which that you
keep plugging is the FBI (though I didn't find your claimed statistic
on their website). Care to point at a print source?
>Additionally it serves the point of any review. Anyone who understand my
>viewpoint, now should have a better idea of what they would think of your
>system. Those that hate my ideas my actually take a look now at something
>they would have passed over.
I haven't heard from too many folks here that seem to share your
viewpoint, and have heard from several that contradict it. I'm not
sure who YOUR audience is in all this.
>If the system is working for you, I wouldn't worry too much about my review.
>It's just a different viewpoint from someone who has different goals for his
>games.
Agreed, but I'm still not sure what you expect (besides the missing 5
out of 6 shots, which a lot of folks I have heard from would consider
ridiculous).
Joseph Teller
<jsn...@netcom15.netcom.com> wrote:
>What figures are you referring to?
>
>I've seen FBI data on urban gun battles involving law enforcement officers
>and armed criminals. At minimum, the cops and FBI agents are at least
>reasonably well trained, and IIRC, the figures are more like 1 shot hits
>for every 10 fired. Assuming most of the criminals aren't terribly
>well-trained, then 1 in 6 seems quite possible.
>
>To me this points up a great difference between firing on a firing range
>(the vast majority of shots fired by a trained shooter hit) and actual urban
>firefights.
Again, where are these figures that everyone claims from the FBI
coming from? I haven't seen them in print anywhere. Can you point me
to a printed source or a website with these numbers?
Brian Gleichman
> Again, I don't agree with your sources, the only one of which
> that you keep plugging is the FBI (though I didn't find your
> claimed statistic on their website). Care to point at a
> print source?
They put only a small fraction of their available information on their web
site (and that would be an understatement). Given the impression this data
presents, I wouldn't expect to see it displayed at www.fbi.gov any more that
I would expect my review to appear on your web site.
You can request (in writing by common mail) the full FBI report. Start at
address given on their site. They are required by the FOIA to respond.
If for some reason the FBI isn't good enough for you, contact the NYPD, LAPD
or other very large (in order to have enough data to be worthwhile) police
department and request a copy of their Annual Firearm Discharge report (or
whatever name the specific PD calls it). Better yet, collect a number of
them from different cities across the last few years and average them (they
have a fair amount of flux from year to year and place to place).
I can't imagine better sources than these. Anything else I'd point you
towards would just reference back to them.
> Agreed, but I'm still not sure what you expect <snip>
From you and your game? Nothing really really. It does what it does. I have
not other expections.
From a realistic combat system? I believed I covered that in the "Concepts
for Realistic Firearm Combat in a RPG (long)" thread.
Brian Gleichman
news:384892...@iol.ie...
> It might produce realistic results *on average*. Averaged out
> over all characters over all the combats in a campaign.
>
> My objection to such mechanics is that many if not most of the
> *specific* actions would be unrealistic - they wouldn't be what
> *this* character would have done at *this* particular moment.
A very valid objection. One which I strongly agree with, at least in respect
to player characters and major NPCs.
Brian Gleichman
news:19991203184739...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> I think it would not be too difficult to put together a rules
> system that would be about as accurate as Brian wants; the
> question is what genre it would be appropriate for.
No it wouldn't.
I use a modified version of Hero that comes quite close in some respects.
All I'd need to do is throw in some psych mechanics to fill out that end.
> It might go together with a 'special forces' genre pretty
> well,
Indeed it would. At least for a while. It could flow with any genre where
the PCs oppose lesser opponents (one on one). Their elite and highly
experienced nature could even justify lifting the psych mechanics for the
PCs.
Fudge a bit on the death (not disabling) and maiming, and it could even be a
fairly long campaign. Assuming good play that is, bad tactics will just
plain get you killed in any system close to reality.
Mary K. Kuhner
>I haven't heard from too many folks here that seem to share your
>viewpoint, and have heard from several that contradict it. I'm not
>sure who YOUR audience is in all this.
Brian and I notoriously disagree on most aspects of gaming.
None the less, I found his review informative and useful. He
made it clear what he was basing his judgements on, and provided
enough solid information, both about the game and about his
own position, to enable me to reach reasonable conclusions.
You've had a pattern of jumping on reviewers in the past. I
will humbly suggest that this does you more harm than good,
and you should consider biting your tongue unless you believe
there are clear errors of fact in the review. Arguing with
reviewers is almost always self-defeating: it just makes you
look like you didn't really want criticism or commentary.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Russell Wallace
> Both the above would represent heavy psychological mechanics use. Players
> would cry foul right and left as the result seemly don't make a bit of sense
> day.
It might produce realistic results *on average*. Averaged out over all
characters over all the combats in a campaign.
My objection to such mechanics is that many if not most of the
*specific* actions would be unrealistic - they wouldn't be what *this*
character would have done at *this* particular moment. I personally
happen to care more about than than about the averages, at least for
roleplaying as opposed to wargaming.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:mano...@iol.ie
Brian Gleichman
news:827u1r$6...@news.service.uci.edu...
> My main problem is the "Black Knight" syndrome (after
> Monty Python) I noted first in GURPS. Here a character gets
> his right arm cut off and immediately attempts to continue
> fighting with his left arm.
That could strike one as a bit odd. It would really cause me problems if it
happened every time a arm was cut off.
It would be impossible to determine numbers for realistic wound impairment.
Real life varies from total collapse from nothing more than be shot at (and
missed) to (yes) major open wounds almost removing limbs.
But to determine the chances of a specific wound causing a specific effect
(is it a -1 or -2) on a specific target... No way. Not today.
About all one can say based upon real world data, is that elite combatants
seem to have a greater ability to function while injured. Perhaps that's all
that needs to be said for a role-playing game.
Brian Gleichman
news:827noc$23i$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> I suspect the design goal of _Masks_ is that you lose several
> entire parties, building each new one around the notes left by
> the previous, but I don't enjoy that nearly as much as having
> some character continuity.
I truly wonder at groups that would run a CoC module straight as written.
They must be looking for something quite different in a game.
One of the interesting things is that the main rulebook states one shouldn't
kill characters except in rare cases, and then you have modules like _Masks_
where you should loose a number if you're doing it at all correctly. Let
alone _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_ where the players are suppose to
kill at least one member of their own group themselves.
I once tried to run _Masks_. It was ported to Hero with my own slight
modifications to make things more realistic. Additionally I added more
material to the module and removed or changed things so that death wasn't so
much of a certainty.
The players finished New York and refused to continue. Too intense. My
really big stab at horror, and I was too successfully. Sigh.
--
For my own taste, I find parts of some CoC modules wonderful. I love the
handouts and background details (with some exceptions). They are worth
buying just for these.
But the railroading is way too overboard. The new (nearly 500 page) _Beyond
the Mountains of Madness_ is the worse I've seen. The player's freedom of
action in this thing almost doesn't cover the color of socks they wear. Not
to mention that the actions forced on the players are distasteful in the
extreme. Given the choices here in a game, I would let the world be
destroyed rather than continue playing. Even better might be removing the GM
from the group...
Rupert boleyn
> My main problem is the "Black Knight" syndrome (after
>Monty Python) I noted first in GURPS. Here a character gets
>his right arm cut off and immediately attempts to continue
>fighting with his left arm.
>
>the pain and fear ("Oh my God I'm shot!"), and in more extreme
>cases physiological shock -- compared to which the tearing of
>muscles or other physical impairment is secondary.
When I last ran a GURPS campaign I noticed this, too. A PC gets a limb
or hand disabled and says "That's OK, I'm good enough to keep going
with my off-hand." In my game this was, I think, because just about
everyone went out and bought _High Pain Threshold_ which lets you get
away with this sort of stuff (especially when combined with _Combat
Reflexes_). I've alsp struck it Rune Quest, but it's not so bad
because the difference between a wound that'll stop a limb working and
one that'll cut it off (Automatic shock and out of the fight) isn't
very great.
My answer in GURPS was to up the price of the abused advantages (in
the fantasy genre, anyway). In other games without explicit rules for
such things I've just started requiring very hard will or toughness
checks.
--
Rupert Boleyn
Thomas Bagwell
>
> I am less convinced by their handling of impairment.
> Both handle it as a penalty based on hit location to actions
> using that body part. _CORPS_ has impairment is an absolutely
> fixed number for a weapon (i.e. any .44 shot to the arm does
> the same impairment). _Millenium's End_ is more believable but
> also much more complex.
>
> I tend to think that the primary impairment effect is
> the pain and fear ("Oh my God I'm shot!"), and in more extreme
> cases physiological shock -- compared to which the tearing of
> muscles or other physical impairment is secondary.
CORPS does provide for stun and knockout, and half-impairment to
adjacent locations.
NadinB
>the fantasy genre, anyway). In other games without explicit rules for
>such things I've just started requiring very hard will or toughness
>checks.
>
>--
>Rupert Boleyn
>
>
good for munster loving (munchkins) type players... and the combat system too
involved.
nadin
Games Editor
John Kim
effect in CORPS and GURPS, by which I referred to the phenomena
of a character having their left arm chopped off -- and continuing
to fight with their right arm at no penalty. While this is a bit
of a technical point, I would like to use it as an example in
damage mechanics in general.
For combat purposes, the primary concern of damage is:
how does the hit impair the person's ability to fight? Some games
have no effect from damage until the target drops dead (zero
hit points), which I think most people agree is simple but
highly implausible and unrealistic. Another common choice is
hit location "impairment".
As an aside: one can say that the player of a character
whose arms is mangled should role-play shock and confusion --
but I think for a number of situations (given that PC's are
usually exceptional) it is valid to say "I continue to fight
for my life as best I can". One could leave it up to the player's
judgement what the appropriate skill penalty should be, but that
approach seems prone to irregular results. I personally would
have an awfully hard time trying to not only role-play the effect
of such pain and fear, but to quantify it into a game number.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Thomas Bagwell <tnba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>CORPS does provide for stun and knockout, and half-impairment to
>adjacent locations.
OK, as Thomas points out, I did gloss over some things in
my initial mention of this, but I think the gist is still true.
Let's take the specific example: a character takes a
massive wound to the left arm (shot, mangled, whatever). In GURPS
she loses 1/2 of her hit points max, in CORPS she takes 5 pts
impairment max. In both cases she may have a penalty for *all*
actions -- but only for the next 1 second. In GURPS, this is
called "pain" and is negated by the "High Pain Threshold"
advantage. In CORPS, this is "stun" and is negated by a high
WIL and/or a good roll.
After that 1 second, though, she may attack with the
other arm with no penalty. In CORPS, she will have a -2 penalty
to exertion-based HLT rolls and running speed.
There are additional effects: in both games she may bleed
to death -- but that is on a time scale longer that the combat
(1 HLT per 1d10 minutes in CORPS, for example). In CORPS, she
has a chance of falling unconcious, but that is unlikely for
average-or-above WIL. (i.e. a 5pt hit has zero chance of
unconsciousness resulting unless her WIL is 3 or less). CORPS
also allows that any further hits to the left arm will cause
"stun" like this first hit.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
So what is my point? I guess I think that hit-location
based impairment has some flaws in its approach. The other
extreme would be to say that an overall penalty applies based
on amount of damage. This is used by _Ars Magica_, _Shadowrun_,
and others. Large damage attacks may cause "crippling" or
"critical" effects depending on the attack.
The hit-location-only impairment is more complex, but
I'm not sure that there is a measurable payoff.
Brian Gleichman
> So what is my point? I guess I think that hit-location
> based impairment has some flaws in its approach.
You'd be hard pressed to prove this.
You do have the base fact that most people hit in any fashion stop whatever
they are doing and give up. Not because they have to, but because that's
what they do.
Many players will resist any psychological mechanics that specific what
their character does. Additionally, many players would rather play
characters who don't react like the typical person. And they have lots of
evidence to show that such people exist.
For characters such as these, the impairment rules you covered seem
completely realistic, matching almost exactly personal accounts from a
number of sources.
You can start with NEVER FIGHT FAIR! by Orr Kelly which does this in spades,
down to the effect of GURPS 'High Pain Threshold". One account detailed the
experience of a 9 man SEAL team that had over half its number wounded in the
initial seconds of contact with the enemy. They continue on to not only make
extraction without lost but to kill over three times their number while
doing so. One man with a wounded back carried another out.
If these men and other like them in so many accounts showed any 'overall
impairment modifiers', one would be hard pressed to show it either by the
results of their actions or their personal account of their impairment.
Studies referred to at the earlier web sites I posted confirm these effects.
--
I should also point out that systems with Overall Impairment are very prone
to the 'Death Spiral' effect, as your quoted system _Shadowrun_ is. Not only
is this effect hated by many players, it prevents the simulation of the real
world results I've referenced above.
Death Spirals are among the worst game mechanics I can think of, both in
terms of play or realism.
There are many things to complain about in GURPS. But the effects of
impairment on a character who continues to fight is not one of them.
Travis Casey
> So what is my point? I guess I think that hit-location
> based impairment has some flaws in its approach.
You're generalizing far too much here -- the fact that two games that use
hit-location-based impairment have systems that can be unrealistic by no
means implies that *all* such systems must be flawed.
> The other extreme would be to say that an overall penalty applies
> based on amount of damage. This is used by _Ars Magica_, _Shadowrun_,
> and others. Large damage attacks may cause "crippling" or
> "critical" effects depending on the attack.
An overall penalty system, however, cannot reflect such things as a
character having difficulty moving due to a leg injury while still
being able to shoot, type, or do other things that don't involve that
leg well. (At least, not without extra rules, such as critical hits.)
An ideal system might combine the two -- having specific impairments to
body locations, plus a smaller overall impairment.
> The hit-location-only impairment is more complex, but
> I'm not sure that there is a measurable payoff.
I think the ability to model injuries to specific body locations *is* a
measurable payoff. How many times in movies and novels do you see
someone with an injured leg drag themselves to where they can fire a shot
to help someone else? Or drag themselves to a phone or a computer?
Without some form of location-specific impairments, these sorts of things
go out the window.
IMHO, throwing out the idea of impairments to hit locations on account of
a few bad handlings of the idea is throwing out the baby with the bath
water.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Adam H. Morse
>
> "Build your characters using any amount of points you like. If your total
> real points after subtracting disadvantages exceed 100, add a die of unluck
> for every five points (round nearest) you're over."
>
> If you can't see this fact and its implications, I can't help you further.
Interestingly, this is essentially the same generation mechanic as in
Amber DRPG. Players are given a certain number of points (typically
100) with which to build a character; if they have points left over,
these become Good Stuff. If they spend more points than they have,
they get Bad Stuff. Good Stuff and Bad Stuff generally correspond to
good and bad luck, although they also relate to what a character is
like (a dashing well-liked heroic type would generally have plenty of
Good Stuff). It's an interesting mechanic, and does add some
flexibility. But it can have some weird consequences, and because even
small amounts of Good or Bad stuff have substantial concequences
generally, there is strong pressure to fall within a tight range (say,
from 90-110 points if 100 is the default).
In general, Amber's character generation system is interesting and has
a high neat-o factor, but I find it highly dissatisfying in practice.
<shrug>
Adam Morse
Rupert boleyn
> Let's take the specific example: a character takes a
>massive wound to the left arm (shot, mangled, whatever). In GURPS
>she loses 1/2 of her hit points max, in CORPS she takes 5 pts
> impairment max. In both cases she may have a penalty for *all*
>actions -- but only for the next 1 second. In GURPS, this is
>called "pain" and is negated by the "High Pain Threshold"
>advantage. In CORPS, this is "stun" and is negated by a high
>WIL and/or a good roll.
>
> After that 1 second, though, she may attack with the
>other arm with no penalty. In CORPS, she will have a -2 penalty
>to exertion-based HLT rolls and running speed.
In GURPS unless they've got HighPain Threshold they'll also be stunned
until they can make a HT roll (50% for the average man, more like 75+%
for a decent warrior), chacking at the beginning of each turn, and
they may be knocked down. However if they were hit in the hand you'd
be correct (crippling damage is HT/3, and stun doesn't occur until
HT/2), and this is a minor quibble so your point still stands.
> So what is my point? I guess I think that hit-location
>based impairment has some flaws in its approach. The other
>extreme would be to say that an overall penalty applies based
>on amount of damage. This is used by _Ars Magica_, _Shadowrun_,
>and others. Large damage attacks may cause "crippling" or
>"critical" effects depending on the attack.
>
> The hit-location-only impairment is more complex, but
>I'm not sure that there is a measurable payoff.
I've found that systems that do this are generally second only to
Rolemaster in player popularity. I would appear that the people that I
play with seem to like nice graphic combat systems. Whether this is
because they are bloodthirsty barbarians, or whether it's because the
GM doesn't provide enough colour without assistance from the system I
don't know, but games were the players get to see where they've hit
the bad guy, and get to watch his arms and legs get chopped off seem
very popular. I this respect we get a payoff from "hit location"
games. YMMV.
--
Rupert Boleyn
--
Rupert Boleyn
"Who is your God?" - A PC making First Contact.
"He's not real, is he?" - Same PC's second question.
Ranma Al'Thor
: Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
: news:827noc$23i$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
: > I suspect the design goal of _Masks_ is that you lose several
: > entire parties, building each new one around the notes left by
: > the previous, but I don't enjoy that nearly as much as having
: > some character continuity.
: I truly wonder at groups that would run a CoC module straight as written.
: They must be looking for something quite different in a game.
: One of the interesting things is that the main rulebook states one shouldn't
: kill characters except in rare cases, and then you have modules like _Masks_
: where you should loose a number if you're doing it at all correctly. Let
: alone _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_ where the players are suppose to
: kill at least one member of their own group themselves.
I suppose we didn't do it correctly, then, since out of the four times
I've run Masks, only two PCs have died (one died in the opening fight, and
one went mad after gazing on the big N and lost all his sanity and ended
up a drooling fool.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, ABD, Ph.D Candidate at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Anybody touches my radishes and it's war!"
--KODT #1
Kodeci
"Adam H. Morse" <ahm...@is5.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > "Build your characters using any amount of points you like. If your
total
> > real points after subtracting disadvantages exceed 100, add a die of
unluck
> > for every five points (round nearest) you're over."
> >
> Amber DRPG. Players are given a certain number of points (typically
> 100) with which to build a character;
I'm afraid I already explained my POV on that in previous threads, but
most readers probably ignore the threads they are not interested in, so
I'll try again. Sorry, this is not very clear in my mind yet, so this
post is somewhat bugged ... :-( Hopefully some answers will help me
clear my mind and my message.
I disagree with a common interpretation of "build a character with
points" and this kind of things. I am not sure what Adam's
interpretation is, but I'll just try to make my point clear.
I think the points are not to build (or later develop) a character, they
are to evaluate. I understand that in practice, for many people, it
doesn't make any difference. But to me it differs in some ways, which
I'll just state quickly, leaving each open to discussion :
1. Evaluation means the same evaluation procedure is applied to a new
character and to one that is developing.
In other words, evaluation is a static image of a character, not a
dynamic process.
In other words, given two characters that finally evolved to the same
numbers, they have to be worth the same points.
Why that ? Because I feel evaluation is all about knowing the worth of
a character, which is the same if they are the same.
If someone feels for some reasons they are not the same, then my
interpretation is that the evaluation procedure needs to be fixed, to
cover (no more, no less) what is the "worth" of a character.
2. Evaluation means that they are not the rules for character creation
or evolution. Other rules exist, either physical or game world rules,
that do restrict character creation or evolution.
For example, in some games, it is impossible to have the maximum
characteristic in Strength and Speed, or Instinct and Reason. Other
example, supreme values may be forbidden for starting characters. The
campaign itself should certainly give some restrictions, such as
characters coming from one region, having some social class, such
interest and so on. Extreme example, if some character looses a leg in a
scenario, obviously he looses many abilities and his evaluation lowers a
lot, so that doesn't fit classical character evolution habits !
Evaluation doesn't restrict you when determining your character (more
about general power restriction later). Setting and rules do.
3. What is the point of evaluation then, if it is not used to determine
the maximum players can fit into their character sheet at creation time
or when evolving, to equal opportunities for all players ? Evaluation in
itself is just a measure of character worth, and should be used as such
:
3a. detect high variations among PC, to examine the risk of the
powerfuls taking all the fun
3b. compare PCs and NPCs, to examine the risk of unbalancing the
encounters (I'm not only talking about combat encounters here)
3c. compare PCs and NPCs, for world global coherence.
Evaluation should be restricted to detection of possible problems, not
decision. The players and GM should decide.
4. But if you don't restrict character generation or evolution by
points, how do you restrict the player ? I use several ways :
4a. give textual description of the general power level and so on. If a
player character obviously doesn't fit, the first step is just tell him.
4b. after players created their characters without use of the
evaluation, check the evaluations. The higher powered characters may be
lowered somehow, if needed. The opposite could be done also. But those
adjustments are not required... Characters may have some evaluation
difference at start, if nobody suffers from it.
4c. determine a player "allowance" for PC point value. I give the
same to all Players at first. Bonus can be added after a game session
(for "sense of evolution"), or for campaign props (see Amber RPG), and
so on, whenever it motivates players. Player allowance is on the same
scale as Character Evaluation, although it is not the same.
4d. Evaluation and Allowance are linked by the "Evaluation tends to
Allowance" relation :
- a character evaluation over the player allowance is an
"overpowered" situation. The character will tend to get unlucky in some
ways (can be developed if needed in another post), which will little by
little pull down the evaluation.
- a character evaluation under the player allowance is an
"under-powered" situation. The character will tend to get lucky, which
will little by little close the gap.
--
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Kim
"impairment" in game systems: contrasting specific-location-only
impairment (GURPS, CORPS) vs overall-only impairment (Shadowrun,
Ars Magica). My primary conclusion was that both of these have
problems, and that specific-location-only impairment is not in
my opinion a significant gain in realism, while it is more complex.
I do allow that there could be other reasons for favoring it (i.e.
the dramatic "color" detail which it supplies, for example, in the
absence of further GM description).
Travis Casey <efi...@io.com> wrote:
>You're generalizing far too much here -- the fact that two games that
>use hit-location-based impairment have systems that can be unrealistic
>by no means implies that *all* such systems must be flawed.
[...]
>An overall penalty system, however, cannot reflect such things as a
>character having difficulty moving due to a leg injury while still
>being able to shoot, type, or do other things that don't involve that
>leg well. (At least, not without extra rules, such as critical hits.)
[...]
>An ideal system might combine the two -- having specific impairments
>to body locations, plus a smaller overall impairment.
I believe I did mention critical hits in my post. I disagree
that a system which has *both* hit-location-specific and general
impairment is neccessarily best. The potential problem here is one
of excessive bookkeeping. In practice, I find that many damage
systems become overwhelming when the GM has to deal with more than
a small handful of NPC's. For example, _Millenium's End_ would fall
in this category, in my opinion. Of course, you can go with having
a different damage system for "mooks" as for PC's and major villians,
but I think that is unsatisfying for a realism-oriented system.
Personally, I think the compromise of critical hits which
allow for crippling of limbs is fairly reasonable. However, my
main point was simply that *anything* is a compromise, and that
hit-location-only impairment has problems just as general-only
impairment does.
Warren J. Dew
I truly wonder at groups that would run a CoC module
straight as written. They must be looking for
something quite different in a game.
Yes. My guess is that they are looking for 'convention scenarios': scenarios
that are intended for play in one long session, with characters that are
created for that specific session and dropped afterwards.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Joseph Teller
<ahm...@is5.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> Hardly. This method is the same as the following in Hero:
>>
>> "Build your characters using any amount of points you like. If your total
>> real points after subtracting disadvantages exceed 100, add a die of unluck
>> for every five points (round nearest) you're over."
Except of course that the maximum number of dice of unluck allowed in
Champions is 3 dice, and it only comes into play certain situations,
instead of ALL dice rolls.
Brian Gleichman
> Except of course that the maximum number of dice of unluck
> allowed in Champions is 3 dice, and it only comes into play
> certain situations, instead of ALL dice rolls.
The example was meant to show an equivalence of concept, not exact detail.
Exact systems effects and limits are of little importance.
BTW: The limit has been 5d6 for the last 10 years.
The limit was (according to the designers) meant allow the survivability of
the character. I suppose in this fashion Cosmic Synchronicity does induce
something new, the unsurvivable character. Good Job.
Brian Gleichman
> Yes. My guess is that they are looking for 'convention scenarios':
scenarios
> that are intended for play in one long session, with characters that are
> created for that specific session and dropped afterwards.
That makes a lot of sense. The concept could even be extended to cover the
mega-modules (like Masks) that take a few gaming nights to finish. A sort of
'anything goes', and don't worry because we'll be doing something different
real soon.
I'd have to say, it does a good job providing closure.
Travis Casey
> A reply to Travis Casey, regarding my reflections on
> "impairment" in game systems: contrasting specific-location-only
> impairment (GURPS, CORPS) vs overall-only impairment (Shadowrun,
> Ars Magica). My primary conclusion was that both of these have
> problems, and that specific-location-only impairment is not in
> my opinion a significant gain in realism, while it is more complex.
> I do allow that there could be other reasons for favoring it (i.e.
> the dramatic "color" detail which it supplies, for example, in the
> absence of further GM description).
Ah -- I see. With it stated that way, I agree with you.
> >An ideal system might combine the two -- having specific impairments
> >to body locations, plus a smaller overall impairment.
>
> I believe I did mention critical hits in my post.
I must have missed that; my apologies.
> I disagree
> that a system which has *both* hit-location-specific and general
> impairment is neccessarily best. The potential problem here is one
> of excessive bookkeeping.
I meant "ideal in terms of realism" -- should have been more clear on
that point. Naturally, no system is "best" for everyone, since people
have different things they want out of games.
> In practice, I find that many damage
> systems become overwhelming when the GM has to deal with more than
> a small handful of NPC's. For example, _Millenium's End_ would fall
> in this category, in my opinion. Of course, you can go with having
> a different damage system for "mooks" as for PC's and major villians,
> but I think that is unsatisfying for a realism-oriented system.
Well -- that depends. I write systems for computer-based RPGs (by which
I mean multi-player online games, not the single-player adventure games
that get sold as "RPGs") as well as paper ones. In a paper RPG, few
people will want to keep track of that much detail, but in a computer
RPG, the computer can keep track of considerable detail for NPCs as well
as PCs.
> Personally, I think the compromise of critical hits which
> allow for crippling of limbs is fairly reasonable.
Personally, I don't like critical hits because critical hit systems tend
to add another, separate step to combat, usually with extra tables and
such. I prefer to handle specific effects as part of the overall
mechanics.
> However, my
> main point was simply that *anything* is a compromise, and that
> hit-location-only impairment has problems just as general-only
> impairment does.
Definitely.
Mary K. Kuhner
>That makes a lot of sense. The concept could even be extended to cover the
>mega-modules (like Masks) that take a few gaming nights to finish. A sort of
>'anything goes', and don't worry because we'll be doing something different
>real soon.
I think this underestimates how long _Masks_ is. The reviews on
rpgnet.com discuss play times of 6 to 12 months of weekly sessions.
We were playing a lot more than weekly (we started the module while
we both had the Flu from Hell and played every day for over a
week before settling to a more reasonable schedule) but it took
something on the order of 25 sessions. And the translation to
Feng Shui allowed my PCs to be rather more direct than I think
native CoC characters could have been, so I expect it would have
taken longer in CoC.
There is a ton of neat stuff in the module. I'd feel cheated, as a
player, if my PCs died (or went crazy or became unwilling to
continue) when we'd only seen 15% of it. I'd be especially
annoyed because the initial scenario is a horrendous infodump,
and the payoff for paying attention to all that information
doesn't come until much later.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
John Novak asks why we're using Call of Cthulhu modules given my
usual preferences in play style.
I don't think I'd play CoC straight as written for more than one-
shot evening sessions (I played in quite a fun one of those at a
convention some years ago). We're actually using the Feng Shui
rules system, which cuts the characters a lot more slack than the
original one does, and shifts the emphasis from "inevitable doom"
to "victory against all odds".
Warning: possible minor spoilers for "Masks of Nyarlathotep" and
"Utatti Asfet" below.
But "Masks of Nyarlathotep" has to be the best doggone module I have
ever seen in terms of abundance of support material, interesting
NPCs, interesting settings with lots of local color, variety of things
for the PCs to do, avoidance of linearity....There's a reason it's
considered a classic. We really wanted modules, since we wanted
Jon to be able to run a game while fighting off the Flu From Hell
(both of us *really* needed the distraction, and our usual campaigns
require too much prepwork from the GM). And I enjoyed this one
hugely, after a rocky start. I can definitely recommend the
CoC/Feng Shui hybrid--the conversion is easy and the tone, while
quite different, seems to work.
We handled sanity by leaving it completely up to the player, our
usual preference. As it turned out, one of the PCs was very unstable
by the end of the module, and one...well, sanity is a relative thing,
but he'd gone from "Horrors! I'm turning into a Deep One! I need
to strike a blow against Them before my inevitable death" to "Great,
I'm a Deep One, but I'm going to be an *independent* Deep One."
I quite enjoyed the final scene where he said goodbye to the others
and swam away down the Nile.
But it seemed clear to me from the GM's comments that the PCs would
not have survived, had we been playing the module straight as written
and using the original system. Way too many "lose 4d10 SAN" way
too fast; way too many places where you can unwittingly walk into
a fight you can't win. The GM did have to resort to telling us
"stay away from that, you can't handle it" twice.
It really helped that the PCs hit on an original approach to the
basic problem of one of the module arcs: they had discovered that
the cult had roving "investigators" and they posed as one of those.
I don't personally know how they could have found out enough to
accomplish anything, otherwise: Cairo was an incredibly hostile
environment.
We're currently doing "Utatti Asfet", which I can't recommend as
highly as "Masks". It has an interesting plotline but the GM
feels it has not solved the stock problem "How can the PCs
reasonably interact with this?" Too many natural courses of action
for the PCs leave them hopelessly out of position to actually
see most of the neat stuff the module presents. Our
Agency premise was an attempt to deal with this problem, since
we felt that stock investigators would get off-track too readily.
It does, however, have one of the nicest bits of physical description
I have seen in a module: whoever designed the temple in Tonga
has my heartfelt admiration. I'm not talking prose style here
(Jon doesn't read module descriptions aloud) but the basic concept
and layout. It's possible to scare the PCs (and player) with an
empty building, but I never thought I'd see it done in a module:
both "Utatti" and "Masks" pulled the trick off.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Ranma Al'Thor
: Warning: possible minor spoilers for "Masks of Nyarlathotep" and
: "Utatti Asfet" below.
:
: But it seemed clear to me from the GM's comments that the PCs would
: not have survived, had we been playing the module straight as written
: and using the original system. Way too many "lose 4d10 SAN" way
: too fast; way too many places where you can unwittingly walk into
: a fight you can't win. The GM did have to resort to telling us
: "stay away from that, you can't handle it" twice.
I've run it four times without wiping out the PCs, with only one
permanently insane (abandoning their friend in the heart of an evil temple
didn't do wonders for his mind), and only a handful of fatalities. Using
the CoC rules straight as written.
It is survivable. A lot hinges on having fairly high starting sanities,
though.
: It really helped that the PCs hit on an original approach to the
: basic problem of one of the module arcs: they had discovered that
: the cult had roving "investigators" and they posed as one of those.
Heh. That's a cool idea.
Brian Gleichman
> I think this underestimates how long _Masks_ is. The reviews
> on rpgnet.com discuss play times of 6 to 12 months of weekly
> sessions.
Sounds about right, depending upon how often one games.
It's just that a 6 month (real time) adventure IS a short one-shot in my
mind...
Brian Gleichman
news:82kfhl$9mp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I have to say that I liked this post. It does a fine job of describing some
of the attractive things about CoC, many of which I agree with.
Let's clear up a few things...
> I played through the 'New York' chapter of "Masks" about a
> year ago and I'm not really sure why you or your group would
> consider it all that deadly or harrowing.
Good question. I wish I had an answer for it.
In fact, the port to Hero System (even with the 'realistic' rules
enhancements) together with the removal of any Sanity rules should have made
it even milder.
As a measure of pure danger, MoN New York couldn't come close to matching
the Morrow Project game I was running at about the time (same rules, highly
modified setting from standard MP).
I too played up the adventure style adventure elements I saw in the module
(even if I moved the setting to the modern era), but I did strive for a
horror air about it even so.
Too much atmosphere I guess.
> Now, I don't know what Brian means when he says "doing it at
> all correctly" but it occurs to me that within a Howard-like
> approach, there's no particular reason why you should have all
> that many (or, indeed, any) characters die (barring accidents
> like poor dice rolls). If I may ask Brian: what do you think the
> 'correct' way to run CoC is?
I'm going by the descriptions given the CoC rulebook (version 5.5).
The rules speak of Lovecraft's original intent noting that anything the
designers considered opposed to this was left out of the game. This to my
mind includes much of the work from August Derleth, Brian Lumley and even
Robert E. Howard.
'Correct' by this measure, would also ignore the works of these writers.
Thus the hopeless encounter is to be the model, not the two-fisted
adventure.
I may be overstating the case but having just read the 5.5 version rules,
followed directly by _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_, I think I could be
forgiven.
It also seems to me that a Lumley or Howard appoach would require not using
the Sanity rules, at least for the PC.
> With the notable exception of "Beyond the Mountains of
> Madness," I generally find CoC modules to be the least
> railroading of any RPGs.
I may just have a bad case of _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_ after taste.
Still, there are many events throughout many of the modules I didn't care
for. For example: In MoN_ rescuing Hypatia Masters would have been a major
goal for me as a player. By the module, there is no way to do this and the
disappointment (for someone wanting two-fisted adventure against great odds)
is rather extreme.
I tend to call fixed events of this type railroaded. I can do nothing to
achieve obvious character goals no matter how skilled my play. This of
course may not be a proper use of the term railroaded.
> As for "Beyond the Mountains of Madness," I have to agree
> with you about the railroading.
The term railroading fits by any usage. That thing is just plain bad.
> It was an interesting read, though, and the level
> of research is impressive.
Yes, it's impressive. But I worry about how accurate it is.
They touched on a subject I know well, and their rules on firearm function
(for the temperatures noted in the module) are absolutely terrible.
Completely off.
Makes me suspect all the other areas where I'm not so knowledgeable.,,
> Perhaps I'll be able to detach all the
> information from the plot and use it in my own sequal to "At the
> Mountains of Madness."
I tend to think of all CoC modules as great places to get really neat
handouts....
Zoran Bekric
> I truly wonder at groups that would run a CoC module straight as
> written. They must be looking for something quite different in a game.
>
> shouldn't kill characters except in rare cases, and then you have
> modules like _Masks_ where you should loose a number if you're doing
> it at all correctly.
I don't know about anyone else, but as a long time fan of Call of
Cthulhu, one of the things I've always liked about the game is its
emphasises on investigation and mystery-solving. I'd really like a
police-procedural RPG, but I've never been able to interest anyone else
into playing in such a game, let alone running one for me. So I tend to
bounce between CoC and various super-hero games, both of which generally
have enough investigative aspects to keep me happy.
I suspect that we approach the game very differently because later in
his post Brian writes:
> I once tried to run _Masks_. It was ported to Hero with my own slight
> modifications to make things more realistic. Additionally I added more
> material to the module and removed or changed things so that death
> wasn't so much of a certainty.
>
> The players finished New York and refused to continue. Too intense. My
> really big stab at horror, and I was too successfully. Sigh.
I played through the 'New York' chapter of "Masks" about a year ago and
I'm not really sure why you or your group would consider it all that
deadly or harrowing. In fact, I pulled "Masks" down off the shelf and
just reread the 'New York' chapter just to be sure that what I was
remembering the actual adventure as written. To be fair, you said that
you added more material and changed things and that may have been the
reason, but if that's the case, it's really not fair to blame the game
itself for the problem.
It took us about seven weeks to get through 'New York' -- the group
would get together once a week and play for about three to four hours
(it's not ideal, but it's the best that various competing schedules
would allow), so we're talking about somewhere between 21 and 28 hours
actual playing time. The way the action broke down was:
Week One -- Introduction of the characters, establishment of the
problem, confrontation in Jackson Elias' apartment.
Weeks Two through Six -- Running around doing research, talking to
various people, gathering data and clues, trying to figure out
what's going on.
Week Seven -- Raid on the Ju-Ju House, fight with the cult and
zombies.
The only points of real danger were in weeks one and seven and of the
two, week one was probably the more dangerous because it came as a
surprise. By the time our characters got to the Ju-Ju House they had
figured out enough of what was going on to be somewhat prepared. This
doesn't mean the encounter wasn't dangerous -- the dice could always be
against you -- but it wasn't particularly lethal. Of course, if
characters rush in before they've managed to figure things out, the
encounter is going to be a lot more dangerous, but within our group we
consider that to just be poor play and character death a deserved
consequence for being so silly.
As far as I can tell, we ran the chapter straight as written.
The main problem I have with CoC as it's played is that most of the
players and (even worse) GMs that I've encountered have absolutely no
familiarity with the work of H.P. Lovecraft or any other Mythos writer.
Instead everything they know is from the CoC rules. This means that the
type of Horror they run is closer to that found in Stephen King or a
slasher film (monsters unexpectedly jumping out of shadows to attack the
characters for no discernible reason) than a Cthulhu Mythos story.
There's nothing wrong with that if that's what a group wants to do, but
it ain't Lovecraftian Horror.
Lovecraft aimed at a more intellectual type of Horror. Something like
the moment of shock that you would experience on picking up the morning
paper and seeing a picture and story that tells you that the nice man
who picked you and drove you home on that rainy night two weeks ago is
actually a serial killer and that the dismembered body of his most
recent victim was probably cooling off in the trunk of the car while you
sat in the passenger seat chatting to him. The thing to notice is that
this isn't all that dangerous -- there's no monster chasing you around
the house trying to kill you -- instead it's all about the realisation
of a true state of affairs. Most of Lovecraft's Mythos fiction is like
that. In fact, most of the stories have little to no plot -- they're
almost entirely exposition and implication.
For me and a few others I know, CoC is all about creating that sort of
effect in play. The way I generally do it is by using that staple of
horror fiction the twist-ending. Of course, you can't do a real
twist-ending in an RPG -- I don't think the form really supports it --
but you can use the same techniques to achieve analogous effects. A
twist-ending works because the author introduces a bunch of data and
encourages the reader to interpret it one way until the end of the story
when the author introduces one last bit of data that causes the reader
to reinterpret all the data in a new and surprising manner. In an RPG
when I'm GMing I will introduce a situation and subtly encourage players
to see it in a particular way. Then I will slowly introduce various
anomalies until a player suddenly clicks and realises that the situation
is very different to what they thought it was. The thing that I've found
is that it's impossible to time this sort of thing; you just have to
wait for a player to click. Some players are very good at this, others
never click. The moment a player clicks (and once one player clicks, the
rest of the group usually follows within a matter of seconds -- its like
realisations are contagious) acts as a signal to move into the
conclusion of the scenario which usually involves combat or some similar
confrontation so as to give the whole thing a nice dramatic finish.
This approach means that scenarios tend to have definite opening and
closing scenes, but indeterminate and often lengthy middles. Once the
initial situation is established it's my job as GM to keep the players
interested until the pieces fall into place inside their heads and they
click. This may seem to be a serious problem because scenarios are full
of a lot of 'dead time.' However, I and at least one other GM I know use
such time to run the things various players enjoy -- interacting with
various NPCs, romantic interludes (we have two players who put up with
all the Cthulhu nonsense just as the price they have to pay for the
romantic interludes), doing research and training and so on. It keeps
things interesting and moving along until such time as the scenario
seeds finally sprout. And the process of investigation itself is
generally rich in roleplaying opportunities. Overall, the approach works
remarkably well for us.
In a way, the entire style of play has very strong Gaming element to it,
with the GM trying to establish as effective a twist as possible, and
the players trying to see through the false situation as quickly as
possible. It's a game in the same sense that an Ellery Queen novel is a
game, with its explicit challenge to the reader to figure out the
solution to the mystery before it's revealed. I don't know if this fits
anyone's definition of 'Gamist,' but there it is.
Of course, "Masks of Nyarlathotep" isn't a particularly good example of
this sort of thing, but then "Masks" never struck me as being all that
Lovecraftian. It's more of a pulp adventure, with globe-trotting and a
grand climax involving firing a rocket out of a hidden base inside a
volcano (how James Bond can you get?). If anything, elements such as the
exotic locals (Kenya, Shanghai), the "Ju-Ju" House and African tribal
magic always reminded me of Robert E. Howard's work. The inclusion of
the NPC Jack "Brass" Brady clinched it for me, since he's so reminiscent
of Howard's two-fisted adventurers like Steve Harrison and Francis
Xavier Gordon. Howard's Mythos stories are very different to Lovecraft's
(as is to be expected) and his heroes are more likely to be bruisers
than scholars and even the occasional intellectual protagonist such as
Kirowan is portrayed as being quite capable of taking care of himself.
In "The Hoofed Thing," for example, when confronting the title monster
rather than fainting away at the horror of it as a Lovecraft character
would, Howard's protagonist attacks it with a Crusader ancestor's
broadsword. "Masks" always struck me as drawing on that
adventure-oriented strand of the Mythos than the more horror focused
Lovecraft variety and the sort of characters you'd want to run through
it would be more adventurers than antiquarians.
Now, I don't know what Brian means when he says "doing it at all
correctly" but it occurs to me that within a Howard-like approach,
there's no particular reason why you should have all that many (or,
indeed, any) characters die (barring accidents like poor dice rolls). If
I may ask Brian: what do you think the 'correct' way to run CoC is?
And Howard brings up another thing I like about CoC: given the number of
writers that have contributed to the Mythos -- H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E.
Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, Robert Bloch, Henry Kuttner, August Derleth,
Lin Carter, Colin Wilson, Brian Lumley, Ramsey Campbell, T.E.D. Klein
and so on -- you can find all kinds of styles and approaches in the
source material. Meaning that you can push the game in all kinds of
interesting directions without violating canon.
Finally, I guess, I just like CoC because I like the Mythos Game -- by
which I don't mean the collectable card game, but rather an approach
taken by various Mythos writers. Lovecraft once said that when putting
together an effective horror story you had to exercise as much ingenuity
as you would if you were trying to perpetuate a hoax (this is a
paraphrase, I don't have the actual reference to hand). In Mythos
stories this takes the form of using as much real-world data as possible
as a foundation for whatever Mythos elements are being used. The idea
being to mix fact and fiction in such a way that the Mythos elements
seem plausible and the reader is hard pressed to know whether some
element is true or just made up. I like that sort of ingenuity and enjoy
the challenge of separating fact from the fiction. However, I should
point out that this depends very much on knowing enough about real
history, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, etc. to be able to
appreciate the cleverness that went into interpolating a bit of Mythos
lore into the gaps of our knowledge. Most people (in my experience)
don't have the knowledge or any interest in acquiring it.
> But the railroading is way too overboard. The new (nearly 500 page)
> _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_ is the worse I've seen. The
> player's freedom of action in this thing almost doesn't cover the
> color of socks they wear. Not to mention that the actions forced on
> the players are distasteful in the extreme. Given the choices here
> in a game, I would let the world be destroyed rather than continue
> playing. Even better might be removing the GM from the group...
With the notable exception of "Beyond the Mountains of Madness," I
generally find CoC modules to be the least railroading of any RPGs. This
is because of their investigatory nature, I think. Most scenarios
present a situation -- this is what's really happening, this is how it
initially appears, these are the clues that characters can find along
the way -- and leave it entirely up to the player characters to decide
how they will go about the investigation. I suppose you could say that
expecting the characters to investigate is railroading, but I think that
would be an excessively harsh judgement. All RPGs (in my experience)
expect player characters to pursue the goals of the game and in CoC
player characters are referred to as "Investigators" for a reason.
As for "Beyond the Mountains of Madness," I have to agree with you about
the railroading. I'm not even sure that it can actually be run for a
group of players. The fact that the text constantly reports specific
statements made by various NPCs rather than just reporting the gist and
expecting the GM to ad lib makes it read much more like a novel than a
game module. I think some of the railroading is very elegantly done (it
doesn't punish player characters for leaving the designated path, it
just denies them the opportunity of ever really doing so), but it's
still railroading. The thought of the amount of grief and aggravation
that I would get from my players once they realised how limited their
character's options were at every stage makes me doubt that I'd ever try
to run the damn thing. It was an interesting read, though, and the level
of research is impressive. Perhaps I'll be able to detach all the
information from the plot and use it in my own sequal to "At the
Mountains of Madness."
Regards,
Zoran
__________________________________________
Zoran Bekric
(zbe...@hempseed.com)
ars longa, vita brevis
Zoran Bekric
> Brian Gleichman posts, in part:
>> straight as written. They must be looking for
>> something quite different in a game.
>
> scenarios that are intended for play in one long session, with
> characters that are created for that specific session and dropped
> afterwards.
And earlier Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>>> I suspect the design goal of _Masks_ is that you lose several
>>> entire parties, building each new one around the notes left by
>>> the previous, but I don't enjoy that nearly as much as having
>>> some character continuity.
I'm not disagreeing with anything said above, but I was wondering if I
could turn the question around. Specifically, what's the attraction of
playing the same character through a string disconnected adventures?
I probably fall into the approach Warren describes, only I don't think
of it in terms of 'convention scenarios' -- I see it as stories that
happen to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Also, our group has
never managed to do an entire scenario in a single session -- we
generally take somewhere between five and ten sessions to do a scenario,
so I'm playing the same character for a while. When you take something
like "Masks of Nyarlathotep" I'm look at playing the same character for
about 18 months to two years. This is something I rather enjoy, but I
really don't see any point in taking the character much beyond that. His
adventure is over, let him retire into well-deserved peace and security.
The on-going saga style of play just reminds me too much of an
interminable soap opera -- at least, my experience of it does. I find it
difficult to separate a character out from the particular story they're
a part of -- outside the story, the character always seems somehow flat
and empty.
Most of the people I play with have a much stronger attachment to
characters. They like to keep on playing them in adventure after
adventure and even to transfer them between entirely different games. I
noticed this, but I never really gave it much thought until it became a
problem.
About two years ago one of my fellow players was starting a new
sub-campaign in an older established game world. She assumed that
'obviously' I would want to play one of my 'established' characters in
it. I remember my initial response was something like "But he's already
had his adventure. Why don't we give someone else a chance?" However,
the expectation was so strong that I actually felt somewhat pressured
into playing the character again. I assumed that there was some
important story reason that required me to play that particular
character, so I played him. However, as the campaign developed it turned
out that there was no pressing reason why the character's presence was
required. When I eventually brought the matter up, it turned out the
only reason I was playing the character was because the GM assumed that
I would enjoy playing the character again given how much I liked him and
had enjoyed playing him previously. I pointed out that the series of
linked adventures I had played the character in previously were 'his'
story and that's why I enjoyed it. The current campaign wasn't his story
and, quite frankly, I wasn't enjoying it as a consequence.
I'm not venting or seeking affirmation here. The situation arose and has
been resolved. It's just that along the way I became aware of one of the
ways my preferences differ from those of most of my fellow players and,
in turn, they became aware how their preferences differed from mine.
We're finding ways to accommodate all our desires. However, ever since
the incident I've been trying to figure out what's the attraction of
playing the same character through a whole bunch of different stories or
even moving them between separate campaigns and games. None of my fellow
players have been able to explain it to me -- though, to be fair, it's
not an issue that I've pursued with any great vigour.
Still, the participants of this newsgroup tend to be more thoughtful and
introspective than most RPGers, so I'm hoping that someone here might be
able to offer me some insight into the question.
Zoran Bekric
On Saturday 4 Dec 1999, Brian Gleichman wrote:
> written. They must be looking for something quite different in a game.
>
**(FAIR WARNING: possible spoilers for "Masks of Nyarlathotep" below)**
information from the plot and use it in my own sequel to "At the
Mountains of Madness."
Regards,
thomas...@bluetail.com
"Greg Benage" <gbe...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Zoran Bekric wrote in message <82kg89$a5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Zoran, I'm not convinced your preferences are all that unusual --
> you're probably just in the minority in this newsgroup (and your own
> gaming group, it would seem). I think there are a lot of people who
> prefer shorter games and "mini-campaigns," with an overall story-arc,
> interlinked scenarios, characters customized to the campaign and its
> plot, and beginnings, middles, and ends. Indeed, these kinds of games
> have a lot to recommend them, including the fact that they often avoid
> many of the problems that confront "saga" campaigns -- problems that
> receive a lot attention here, like character mortality, script
> immunity from afflictions like disabling injuries or insanity, etc.
I for one strongly prefer interlinked scenarios. It permits one to
see much more of the game world than a single party does; also, some of my
favorite parts have been playing people involved on both sides of
conflicts. (Esp. since the GM was good at making your current side feel
'right'.)
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren thomas...@bluetail.com
Bluetail AB http://www.bluetail.com/~thomasl
Brian Gleichman
> I'm not venting or seeking affirmation here. The situation arose
> and has been resolved. It's just that along the way I became
> aware of one of the ways my preferences differ from those of
> most of my fellow players
<snip>
Actually from where I sit (personal experience and this newsgroup), you're
in the majority. That is the way most groups seem to play, including those
here on this newsgroup. Very few have a single set of characters last more
than two years of real time. Many like you, can't even imagine why anyone
would want to.
So if you have some players who feel otherwise, send them to me. I'll give
them a good home.
I've covered the pros and cons of long term (both game and real time)
campaigns before. It's not easy to explain.
The idea occurs that I need to put a permanent answer together and add it to
my web page. This is a question that comes up every so often. Let me go off
and work on that and I'll post the result later today.
Frank T. Sronce
>
> I'm going by the descriptions given the CoC rulebook (version 5.5).
>
> The rules speak of Lovecraft's original intent noting that anything the
> designers considered opposed to this was left out of the game. This to my
> mind includes much of the work from August Derleth, Brian Lumley and even
> Robert E. Howard.
>
> 'Correct' by this measure, would also ignore the works of these writers.
> Thus the hopeless encounter is to be the model, not the two-fisted
> adventure.
>
> I may be overstating the case but having just read the 5.5 version rules,
> followed directly by _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_, I think I could be
> forgiven.
>
> It also seems to me that a Lumley or Howard appoach would require not using
> the Sanity rules, at least for the PC.
>
It's not as true as it used to be- the dearth of new material of
sufficient quality has caused them to use a lot more non-Lovecraft
sources than they used to. The latest Dreamlands supplement includes a
LOT of Lumley stuff (which I personally, would've preferred to see in a
section of its own, because it breaks up the flavor of the rest), and I
believe the other authors' influence shows up more often, too. I think
that essay dates back quite a few versions of the rulebook, and hasn't
been changed much, though I don't have my books here to check.
> > With the notable exception of "Beyond the Mountains of
> > Madness," I generally find CoC modules to be the least
> > railroading of any RPGs.
>
> I may just have a bad case of _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_ after taste.
>
> Still, there are many events throughout many of the modules I didn't care
> for. For example: In MoN_ rescuing Hypatia Masters would have been a major
> goal for me as a player. By the module, there is no way to do this and the
> disappointment (for someone wanting two-fisted adventure against great odds)
> is rather extreme.
>
Yeah, there are a few 'static' scenes in some of the modules that I
outright loathe. I can't stand it when a module writer does something
like "Regardless of how long the PCs take to show up, or what they do
first, the moment they arrive horrible event X happens, killing lots of
innocent people right in front of them. Roll San." That's just stupid,
IMO, as bad as any 'cheap scare' that you get from a second-rate horror
movie. It's forgivable once, but if the module does this several times,
it gets on my nerves. If there's nothing for the PCs to do but lose
Sanity, what's the point of having the scene in the adventure?
Kiz
> I tend to call fixed events of this type railroaded. I can do nothing to
> achieve obvious character goals no matter how skilled my play. This of
> course may not be a proper use of the term railroaded.
>
> > As for "Beyond the Mountains of Madness," I have to agree
> > with you about the railroading.
>
> The term railroading fits by any usage. That thing is just plain bad.
>
> > It was an interesting read, though, and the level
> > of research is impressive.
>
> Yes, it's impressive. But I worry about how accurate it is.
>
> They touched on a subject I know well, and their rules on firearm function
> (for the temperatures noted in the module) are absolutely terrible.
> Completely off.
>
> Makes me suspect all the other areas where I'm not so knowledgeable.,,
>
> > Perhaps I'll be able to detach all the
> > information from the plot and use it in my own sequal to "At the
> > Mountains of Madness."
>
> I tend to think of all CoC modules as great places to get really neat
> handouts....
>
Joseph Teller
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The example was meant to show an equivalence of concept, not exact detail.
>Exact systems effects and limits are of little importance.
>
>BTW: The limit has been 5d6 for the last 10 years.
Yes, they changed this th 1st 1989 printing, you are correct, except
most GMs who experienced the previous editions kept the original 3
dice limit in place in their application of the rules that I have
encountered.
To have the equivilant of 5 dice in Cosmic (based on the descriptions
in Champions) would require a character to have a Cosmic trigger of
about 80, and to achieve that in most settings you would have to be
playing a VERY powerful character in superhero type of setting (say
Silver Age Superman or The Spectre at the height of his powers) or
Bill Gates (if it was all in Wealth). That's some 200 trait points out
of balance in design without any negative traits.
The exactness of the system differences is important when dealing with
comparisons and statements in a game review. That's why so many people
panned your review on the RPG-Create mailing list, it failed to cover
the majority of the facts or to give an overview of the system. All
you did was bang the drum on a minor issue (gun accuracy) without
looking at the system as a whole.
John S. Novak, III
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Sounds about right, depending upon how often one games.
>It's just that a 6 month (real time) adventure IS a short one-shot in my
>mind...
Hah.
I know what you mean.
Some friends asked me to run a one-shot game based in the Wheel of
Time world, for a weekend vacation in Vegas. I was boggled at the
very concept. First, I just can't _do_ one-shot games like that, and
second, how the hell do you adapt anything about a work of that size
into a one-shot anyway?
(So I talked myself into running an Amber e-mail game. It's much
harder than it looks...)
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Brian Gleichman
news:slrn84u50...@ts023d36.chi-il.concentric.net...
> First, I just can't _do_ one-shot games like that, and
> second, how the hell do you adapt anything about a work of
> that size into a one-shot anyway?
A Wheel of Time one-shot would be completely against genre.
A proper approach would be to pad a one-shot so that it covered a few real
time years of gaming while insuring that no more than a typical single
adventuring night of accomplishments take place. You then repeat said
one-shot about four times with minor changes. :)
Disclaimer : The above joke/jab is actually based upon viewpoints stolen
from other readers. I've only read the first book myself.
Brian Gleichman
news:82kg89$a5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> However, ever since the incident I've been trying to figure out
> what's the attraction of playing the same character through a
> whole bunch of different stories or even moving them between
> separate campaigns and games.
OK, I promised to try to answer this.
I'll do a simple overview first. Please ask any questions you have, I want
to use this as a base for a permanent essay on my web page.
Long term campaigns are by design and result those campaigns intended to
continue without end. They do come in a number of flavors ranging from "the
continuing adventures of..." to "This is the history of the world of ...".
It's quite likely that they are possible for any part of the threefold or
other style of play, however we've only seen them in gamist or simulationist
campaigns so far. They do also seem to be very rare and few in this
newsgroup claim this style of play.
---
Like all things, I'm sure there are lots of reasons for the existence of
long term campaigns.
A few I can think of:
1. The same reason TV, movie, book or comic series exist. A fondness for
specific characters and a desire to see them in new adventures. In some
cases, there is a desire to see them live their entire lifespan.
2. A wish to go into greater detail within the history and/or design of a
world than a short limited campaign can possibility do. Defining or
exploring such worlds can be a life long project.
3. The desire to see the course of history unfold across a wide span of
time. If combined with the desire to actual game much of this history, the
only option is a long campaign. Some of these worlds have no planned end,
and as such will continue as long as it has players.
---
All three factors figure into my own Generational Campaigns. Additionally,
I've added the concept of running the entire family throughout it's history.
Noting their impact, successes and failures along the way.
These worlds tend to be rather grand creations. Very detailed.
Zoran Bekric
wrote:
> Actually from where I sit (personal experience and this newsgroup),
> you're in the majority. That is the way most groups seem to play,
> including those here on this newsgroup. Very few have a single set
> of characters last more than two years of real time. Many like you,
> can't even imagine why anyone would want to.
Fair enough. I may be part of broader majority in general, but I'm part
of specific minority within my current playing group -- especially now
that the other two players who shared my preference for the short form
have left the group for various reasons (unrelated to preference clash).
As such, I figure it's in my interest to understand my fellow players as
much as possible since, as the majority, it's their preferences that
usually prevail.
I've been thinking about the issue a bit more since I sent the last post
and it occurs to me that the main thing that I don't understand about
their preferences is the lack of progress in the characters. I'll try to
explain what I mean, but in doing so I'm going to change the way I use
the word 'saga.' I know this is bad form, but I'm making this up as I go
along.
I would divide campaigns into three broad types:
The Single Adventure -- this may be of varying length from a one session
one-shot (comparable to a short story) to a multi-session grand
campaign such as "Masks of Nyarlathotep" (comparable to a novel).
Characterised by a unity of story.
The Saga -- a sequence of linked but quite distinct adventures that
follow a group of characters through their lives and careers.
Comparable to novelistic sagas such the Forsyth saga or W.E.B.
Griffin's "Brotherhood of War" series -- "The Lieutenants," "The
Captains," "The Majors," etc. Characterised by a continuity of
characters and a unity of 'historical' development.
The Series -- a set of adventures that feature the same characters and
which all begin in the same basic situation. Comparable to a standard
television series or on-going comic book title. At the end of every
adventure the characters return to the same basic state they were at
the beginning of the adventure, ready for the next episode. The basic
situation doesn't change and any developments are usually cosmetic
(the illusion of change rather than actual change). Characterised by
continuity of characters and situation.
(Disclaimer: the above is based on my personal experience and it's not
intended to be an exhaustive catalogue.)
Now, I like the single adventure and the saga (actually, the saga is
probably my favourite form), but all of my current fellow players prefer
the series. This clarification may or may not change people's responses.
My problem is that after a while I get bored with the basic situation
and what to shake things up. I want change and, as I've discovered,
after a while I don't care whether it's creative or destructive change.
I've learned to control this tendency somewhat, but I would still like
to know what's the attraction in perpetuating the same situation
indefinitely?
One possible explanation that I've thought of is that it's a form of
wish-fulfilment fantasy for the players. Their characters tend to
develop until they hit a stage where they are rich, successful and
happily married (or paired-off) and that's the situation that
perpetuates itself. I know that sometimes when I'm GMing I feel as if
I'm running GM-assisted daydreams rather than an RPG. If this is the
case, I may just be dealing with a form of Mary Sue syndrome familiar
from fan-fiction (for those that don't know about Mary Sue go here:
http://www.subreality.com/marysue/explain.htm).
> So if you have some players who feel otherwise, send them to me.
> I'll give them a good home.
Actually, it's probably me that needs a good home. :-) The other players
are quite happy where they are.
> I've covered the pros and cons of long term (both game and real time)
> campaigns before. It's not easy to explain.
>
> The idea occurs that I need to put a permanent answer together and
> add it to my web page. This is a question that comes up every so
> often. Let me go off and work on that and I'll post the result later
> today.
I'll look forward to reading this. Thanks.
Regards,
Zoran
__________________________________________
Zoran Bekric
(zbe...@pplmail.com)
Greg Benage
<82nbm1$j6o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>2. A wish to go into greater detail within the history and/or design
of a
>world than a short limited campaign can possibility do. Defining or
>exploring such worlds can be a life long project.
I'm not sure why this can't be accomplished with a series of
"mini-campaigns" set in the same game world. It seems to me you could
spend years exploring a single kingdom, or even city, from the
perspective of different characters, from very different walks of
life, and with very different goals and interests.
>3. The desire to see the course of history unfold across a wide span
of
>time. If combined with the desire to actual game much of this
history, the
>only option is a long campaign. Some of these worlds have no planned
end,
>and as such will continue as long as it has players.
Again, why is a single, long campaign the "only option"? Indeed, since
the same characters won't likely be everywhere everytime something of
historical interest occurs (unless the "world" is rather
geographically and culturally limited), a series of very different
mini-campaigns set in a variety of times and places seems a better
approach.
Greg
Brian Gleichman
news:82nhib$hl7$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
> I'm not sure why this can't be accomplished with a series of
> "mini-campaigns" set in the same game world.
Of course.
I was covering the Long Term Campaign in general, not just the use the same
character. Any of the three types described are rare, although I think it's
even rarer not to see all three in the same game.
But you're right, that wasn't really Zoran's question now was it. It was
interested in an explanation of only the first concept: continuation of
character (as opposed to continuation of history or world). In my defense,
I'm trying to put together a general explanation to use in the future.
In a way, all three are identical motivations. All are seeking the able to
continue play with one or more elements that are of primary interest to the
player.
Brian Gleichman
news:384EA967...@myriad.net...
> I can't stand it when a module writer does something
> like "Regardless of how long the PCs take to show up, or what
> they do first, the moment they arrive horrible event X happens,
> killing lots of innocent people right in front of them. Roll San."
I'm sure the people writing such things in modules would point to these as
necessary to maintain a cloud of fear (or other such nonsense).
There are also lots of 'oops, you're dead' things. Yep, John opened the door
and the whatever thing ate his head.
From my POV, it's just a way to rook the players. They are bound to be
already worried about the possibility of making a critical error on their
own (A likely thing given the nature of the situation). They don't need one
forced on them.
But it's a very popular game with a passionate following. So I must be
missing something. It's quite possible that few actual run these modules the
way that I read them.
I'll just add it to the other mysteries of the world. Like how anyone would
elect Clinton or play AD&D...
Joseph Teller
<gbe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Zoran, I'm not convinced your preferences are all that unusual --
>you're probably just in the minority in this newsgroup (and your own
>gaming group, it would seem). I think there are a lot of people who
>prefer shorter games and "mini-campaigns," with an overall story-arc,
>interlinked scenarios, characters customized to the campaign and its
>plot, and beginnings, middles, and ends. Indeed, these kinds of games
>have a lot to recommend them, including the fact that they often avoid
>many of the problems that confront "saga" campaigns -- problems that
>receive a lot attention here, like character mortality, script
>immunity from afflictions like disabling injuries or insanity, etc.
>
>I enjoy both types of games, but there are two main reasons that
>mini-campaigns appeal to me: first, they allow me to try lots of
>different games and genres, and second, they allow me to play
>characters I wouldn't normally want to play in an extended campaign
>(e.g., psychopath, ghost, quadriplegic, Charlie-type from _Flowers for
>Algernon_ who goes from imbecile to genius back to imbecile,
>self-destructive drug addict, coward, a really _alien_ alien, etc.,
>etc.).
There is another simple reason why some folks like the concept of
mini-campaigns. If your gaming group has a variable attendence rate,
or has players that are only able to commit to a regular schedule for
3 months or less, then you have problems when running a longer term
campaign.
I love long term campaigns with extensive character in-game
development, but in recent years many of the players I've had aren't
around often enough and may only be able to do a 3-6 month campaign
before work, family or school takes them away from the area we live in
(comes from living in a college town). Even those who don't move
regularly often have problems with schedules (our gaming group runs
into problems every year from about Thanksgiving until Martin Luthor
King Day that often shuts the group entirely down and ends up with a
25-50% turnover in players thanks to schedule and life changes).
With a more nomadic society it makes it harder to run long term
campaigns (and American Society is VERY nomadic in recent years, with
most folks changing jobs every 2 years, and often locales as well).
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Frank T. Sronce <fsr...@myriad.net> wrote in message
> news:384EA967...@myriad.net...
>
> > I can't stand it when a module writer does something
> > like "Regardless of how long the PCs take to show up, or what
> > they do first, the moment they arrive horrible event X happens,
> > killing lots of innocent people right in front of them. Roll San."
>
> I'm sure the people writing such things in modules would point to these as
> necessary to maintain a cloud of fear (or other such nonsense).
>
> There are also lots of 'oops, you're dead' things. Yep, John opened the door
> and the whatever thing ate his head.
>
> From my POV, it's just a way to rook the players. They are bound to be
> already worried about the possibility of making a critical error on their
> own (A likely thing given the nature of the situation). They don't need one
> forced on them.
>
> But it's a very popular game with a passionate following. So I must be
> missing something. It's quite possible that few actual run these modules the
> way that I read them.
>
I also don't think that all the CoC modules are like that.
"Unpreventable" encounters have been present in a LOT of modules I've
seen, in a wide variety of systems; I just don't like them much.
Quality varies immensely between one CoC module and the next, just like
any other game system.
Kiz
-in fact, I think you can trace "Oops, you're dead!" encounters back to
old Gygax and some of the early D&D modules with junk like Spheres of
Annihilation hidden in dark places just to kill the occasional PC.
Amber, Dan, DARE, or Julie
<snip>
> I would divide campaigns into three broad types:
> The Saga -- <snip>
> The Series -- <snip>
>
> Now, I like the single adventure and the saga (actually, the saga is
> probably my favourite form), but all of my current fellow players prefer
> the series. This clarification may or may not change people's responses.
Fascinating. You and I have the same preference here, but I haven't
known anyone to prefer the series as a pattern. Oh, my group would often
end up in a series within a saga, and that was fun, but eventually Kosh
comes out of his suit or whatever and the saga progresses. If the series
lasted too long, I'd have the same reaction as you:
> My problem is that after a while I get bored with the basic situation
> and what to shake things up. I want change and, as I've discovered,
> after a while I don't care whether it's creative or destructive change.
> I've learned to control this tendency somewhat, but I would still like
> to know what's the attraction in perpetuating the same situation
> indefinitely?
>
> One possible explanation that I've thought of is that it's a form of
> wish-fulfilment fantasy for the players. <snip>
That's true; and sometimes, it's wish-fulfilment for the PCs, in
situations where they have some say.
Hm.
Most of our series-within-sagas happened when the PCs attained a great
deal of independence of action, and set things up the way they liked
them. The Dragons campaign, for instance, began with the PCs thrust upon
a new world; it took them several games to establish home bases, and
several games after that to get into the "this week's adventure takes us
from home to..." pattern, where they could take or leave the action "out
there" - up to and including the shift of national borders. I'm not sure
what would have been required to end this series-within-saga; as it
happened, the campaign ended :(
Perhaps it's simply a matter of flavor; there's only so much
chocolate/meat/series some of us can take, but some people seem to have
no limit. I can't seem to come up with anything better.
- DARE, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary
* "Yeilds falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood
when preceded by its quotation.
* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
Brian Gleichman
> Quality varies immensely between one CoC module and the
> next, just like any other game system.
True enough. And even at their worse, you get some neat handouts. I like
handouts. Why buy a module if you don't get net handouts?
> -in fact, I think you can trace "Oops, you're dead!" encounters
> back to old Gygax and some of the early D&D modules with
> junk like Spheres of Annihilation hidden in dark places just to
> kill the occasional PC.
Tomb of Horrors. Lots of that there as I recall and I specifically remember
a Sphere of Annihilation.
However you have more ways out in D&D. There are wishes and raise dead
spells. Not only are these missing in CoC, you have to also add in that any
Monster encounter is far more deadly and your sanity is slowly going
bye-bye. These make 'oops, you're dead' even more unwelcomed.
So I tend to slam CoC more when I see them. They are just kicking someone
who is already down (and sinking farther by the encounter).
Brian Gleichman
> I've been thinking about the issue a bit more since I sent the
> last post and it occurs to me that the main thing that I don't
> understand about their preferences is the lack of progress in
> the characters.
That is an important detail. I was thinking in terms of general campaign
length until now. Character progression is a related, but different subject.
I like your split of single-Adventure, Saga, and Series. A useful grouping.
I can use these terms.
Saga's are by nature not short things as they last the lifetime of the focus
character(s). But they still have a defined end unless the focus isn't on a
group of characters, but something else. Like a family line in my case.
> One possible explanation that I've thought of is that it's a form
> of wish-fulfilment fantasy for the players. Their characters tend
> to develop until they hit a stage where they are rich,
> successful and happily married (or paired-off) and that's the
> situation that perpetuates itself.
This sounds like you have a solid Saga campaign going until the characters
achieve their goals. At that point it becomes a series in your mind. Right?
The progression sounds like rather typical gamist play. PACK ALL THESE
PLAYERS UP AT ONCE AND SHIP THEM TO DALLAS. I will take good care of them.
Please? Pretty Please? Hurry. I was just about to try to start and new
group.
...back to the subject.
Yes this is in part wish-fulfillment. Of course that can be said about any
part of this hobby and isn't of much use for that reason. All rpgs are in
the end GM-assisted daydreams, some are just less positive than others.
I'd rather call it a goal oriented style of play. One strives to create the
idea character to fit the specific campaign and player desires. After that's
in place, there's no wish to move him off that idea center. It would be like
winning a chess match and then throwing the game.
I'm interested in knowing what kind of progress you think should happen in
these cases. Do you want them to lose their riches or romantic pairing?
Undergo massive personality disorders that wreck everything? Perhaps destroy
the things they've fought for?
I've noticed that many calls for change in other fields (movies, books,
comics, etc) are almost always negative. Kill this character, have this one
go insane, etc.
None of that would appeal to me. Nor do I consider it realistic in any way.
Many people do manage to reach success, gain the wealth level they enjoy and
stay happily married the rest of their life. I see no reason to force my
character away from something that I can manage in the real world.
Part of the benefits of being successful is the gaining of resources and
influence that allow one to remain successful. If they don't have that at
least in most cases, then they haven't reached success.
If I wanted to run a loser, I would have started with a loser. Making him
one later is a complete betrayal of the original concept and the original
events that made him what he is. It may happen in game as the result of my
own decisions and failure, but it will happen over my best efforts. And it
best not happen as a result of the GM forcing it. He will be short one
player faster than Grant...
Did that near rant sound anything like it could have come from your players?
--
Series play is a lot of fun. But like you, I have a thing for Sagas.
We combined the two into one campaign by making it Generational in scope.
Thus the character have children that are taken up by the players. This
starts their own Saga.
Meanwhile, the parents are still in their Series. They don't see as much
play, usually only seen when they have to fend off any external threats that
would break their happy home or as a backdrop to their children's
adventures.
This method allows both sides to be happy for the most part. It's VERY rare
from what I can tell, and depends upon the players being willing to run
children. The best way to encourage this is to get them to see that children
are extensions of the original character's stories.
This method allows Saga and Series lovers to coexist. At least for us.
Is any of this helping or should I go back to doing reviews?
Warren J. Dew
I'd rather call it a goal oriented style of play. One strives
to create the idea[l] character to fit the specific campaign and
player desires. After that's in place, there's no wish to move
him off that idea center. It would be like winning a chess match
and then throwing the game.
Okay. But once you've 'won', why bother to continue to play? Wouldn't it be
more fun to 'start a new game' by starting another character?
Not that I object to this playing pattern, mind. I'm just a puzzled by it.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
John R. Snead
: There is another simple reason why some folks like the concept of
: mini-campaigns. If your gaming group has a variable attendence rate,
: or has players that are only able to commit to a regular schedule for
: 3 months or less, then you have problems when running a longer term
: campaign.
: I love long term campaigns with extensive character in-game
: development, but in recent years many of the players I've had aren't
: around often enough and may only be able to do a 3-6 month campaign
: before work, family or school takes them away from the area we live in
: (comes from living in a college town). Even those who don't move
: regularly often have problems with schedules (our gaming group runs
: into problems every year from about Thanksgiving until Martin Luthor
: King Day that often shuts the group entirely down and ends up with a
: 25-50% turnover in players thanks to schedule and life changes).
: With a more nomadic society it makes it harder to run long term
: campaigns (and American Society is VERY nomadic in recent years, with
: most folks changing jobs every 2 years, and often locales as well).
Yep, having long-term campaigns depends upon having a long-term gaming
group. I'm very definitely someone who prefers such games. The previous
campaign I was in lasted 7 years, and the current one I'm in has been
going for 5. In the more recent campaign a couple of us changed
characters once, but that was only done because they didn't work out.
Once I find a character I like & mesh with I enjoy playing them for years.
In my experience I've seen two methods of holding together such a game.
Sarah Kahn and her group are all part of a communal household, so her
gaming groups travels with her. For my group things have been a bit
different. The basis of my prior game was me and my best friend (and GM)
Aaron. We started the campaign while in grad school and rotated (slowly)
though other players. The campaign changed somewhat when we moved from
Wisconsin to LA, but still continued for another 3 years.
For our most recent game, the addition of each of our SOs has given us a
stable group of 3 players and a GM. We all regard 3 as too few players
for a truly rich campaign, but we solved this problem by recruiting other
players. We had one additional player who stayed with the game for 3
years, and our newest player has been with us for almost a year. Once you
have a stable core of 2 (or better 3 or 4) as long as one of them is the
GM you can keep a game going indefinitely.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Brian Gleichman
news:19991209155302...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> Okay. But once you've 'won', why bother to continue to play?
> Wouldn't it be more fun to 'start a new game' by starting
> another character?
And lose out on exploring your victory? I think not. At least not for a
while.
Of course a lot depends on what this victory is.
For example: In the old show (TOS) Captain Kirk has won the victory of
rising to the command of a Starship with one of the finest crews in the
fleet. Any change in his status would in fact be a demotion from his dreams.
He is the best he will ever be.
Does that mean one stops playing Captain Kirk once he gets command of the
Enterprise? Or does one explore the adventures that come one's way when
you're at the peak of your career? How often does great achievement remain
unchallenged?
Kirk no longer seeks to gain in power or influence. His drives now are duty
and exploration using what he has gained. Threats exist that seek to undo
his work. And these are reason enough to continue adventuring.
Indeed, Series adventure is almost always fixed at this point in the
character's career.
Now if one's victory is finding a nice out of the way place where nothing
worries you again, that's a different matter. Perhaps you do need a new
character.
--
Continuing with the Kirk example, it is not unreasonable for that phase of
his career to last as long a twenty years.
During that time he will see many adventures and weather many threats. No
doubt these will cause some changes as different NPCs come and go. His ship
will see a number of system upgrades or even replacement.
But one shouldn't expect his player to desire massive change. The desire
here is to extend what his is now, not change it.
John S. Novak, III
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> First, I just can't _do_ one-shot games like that, and
>> second, how the hell do you adapt anything about a work of
>> that size into a one-shot anyway?
>A Wheel of Time one-shot would be completely against genre.
Unbelieveably so.
>Disclaimer : The above joke/jab is actually based upon viewpoints stolen
>from other readers. I've only read the first book myself.
Careful, now. I'm still a serious fan for that series.
I will not vent my opinions on it here, though.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
John S. Novak, III
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Long term campaigns are by design and result those campaigns intended to
>continue without end. They do come in a number of flavors ranging from "the
>continuing adventures of..." to "This is the history of the world of ...".
>It's quite likely that they are possible for any part of the threefold or
>other style of play, however we've only seen them in gamist or simulationist
>campaigns so far. They do also seem to be very rare and few in this
>newsgroup claim this style of play.
That's my style, when left to my own devices.
I like designing worlds. I like putting lots of effort into them.
It's a hobby. I also like using them for quite some time, and I like
putting together epic situations, even if the characters are not the
epic players.
Times of social upheaval, wars, religious events, that sort of thing.
The periods of time when history is made. Examples from real world
history would be, I dunno, the Age of Exploration, or the fall of
Rome.
Those are generally settings that any character or continuing ensemble
can romp around in for a generation or more.
Problem is, I rarely have the time to devote to that sort of thing any
more. Last time I tried, I was in grad school, and I'd find myself
spending the entire day before the evening of the game doing little
but preparing for the game....
I would like to try a campaign run in phases of the history of a real
world. A friend of mine came up with a similar idea. I've
generalized it to the Before-During-and-After style. His specific
idea was something along the lines of Fall of the Empire, the Age of
Darkness, and period of Rebuilding all for the same campaign world.
>All three factors figure into my own Generational Campaigns. Additionally,
>I've added the concept of running the entire family throughout it's history.
>Noting their impact, successes and failures along the way.
>These worlds tend to be rather grand creations. Very detailed.
So run a PBEM or something....
Zoran Bekric
>> Now, I don't know what Brian means when he says "doing it at
>> all correctly" but it occurs to me that within a Howard-like
>> approach, there's no particular reason why you should have all
>> that many (or, indeed, any) characters die (barring accidents
>> like poor dice rolls). If I may ask Brian: what do you think the
>> 'correct' way to run CoC is?
>
>
> The rules speak of Lovecraft's original intent noting that anything
> the designers considered opposed to this was left out of the game.
> This to my mind includes much of the work from August Derleth, Brian
> Lumley and even Robert E. Howard.
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. I guess my problem is that
I know the Cthulhu Mythos outside of the game -- in fact, "Call of
Cthulhu" was the first RPG I ever bought, partially because I was hoping
that it would have a list of the various occult tomes used in the
stories, thus saving me the effort of compiling my own such list.
Needless to say, I got what I hoped for and a whole lot more... But,
given that, I recognised the designer's attitude as being
"Lovecraft-purist" -- a common position among aficionados, especially
back in the 1980s. Since I've never really held that position, I tended
to ignore that aspect of the rules-as-written. In that sense, you are
quite right: what you describe is the "correct" way to play the game.
That said, though, I don't think it is really possible to run a game the
way Lovecraft wrote his stories. As I said in my previous post, most of
Lovecraft's stories are almost entirely exposition. Take the eponymous
"Call of Cthulhu."
***(Possible Spoiler Warning)***
*
***
*****
*******
*********
***
***
Francis Wayland Thurston inherits a box from his grand-uncle containing
a strange bas-relief a set of notes describing a "Cthulhu Cult." Later
Thurston runs across a newspaper report of a ship that encounters an
island newly risen from the sea. He travels to Sydney, then to Oslo to
try and learn the full details of the incident and reads an account by
the ship's first mate, Gustaf Johansen, about how he and the other
sailers were chased by a big monster which managed to kill all of
Johansen's fellows. Thursten then writes the manuscript we are reading
and dies mysteriously (the story is subtitled: "Found Among the Papers
of the Late Francis Wayland Thurston, of Boston" which tells us he died,
but not the circumstances).
The thing to notice here is that nothing much happens. Thurston reads
some stuff, travels to Australia and Norway and writes a manuscript. All
the real action is on an intellectual level as Thurston (and the reader)
puts together the various elements and realises "Oh my God! It's all
true!" Most of Lovecraft's Mythos stories are like that. There are bits
of action in "The Dunwich Horror," "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" and "The
Whisperer in Darkness," but they're nothing much. It's all exposition,
exposition, exposition. This isn't a complaint -- the stories are very
effective and I'm a big fan, but I don't really see how you can run a
game based on that model.
"Beyond the Mountains of Madness" is probably the most Lovecraftian
scenario ever done in this sense, because it, too, is mostly exposition.
That's partially why it's so railroaded. The characters get to hang
around and learn a whole bunch of stuff that's happened and put together
the pieces until they realise "Oh my God! It's all true!" and only then
can they take any real action and the options available to them aren't
all that pleasant. Even the careful layering of detail to create a sense
of verisimilitude is very Lovecraftian. And, as I think we both agree,
it may be good Lovecraftian story, but it's a poor CoC scenario.
I really don't think you can run a game on this approach. If you're
going to let characters do what their player's want -- and that's almost
a prerequisite for an effective RPG -- you have to accept that fact that
they will do things that aren't true to Lovecraft. In fact, if they do
anything except investigate, learn terrible things and die or go mad,
they're not being true to Lovecraft. Given that, I almost think you have
to slide towards a more pulpy approach reminiscent of Howard, Bloch and
Lumley. Otherwise, the game's just unworkable.
Despite the designer's stated intent going through even the 1st edition
deity/monster list in the rules you find things that aren't from
Lovecraft. Just off the top of my head, Cthugha and Ithaqua are from
Derleth, the Hounds of Tindalos are from Frank Belknap Long, Tsathoggua
is from Clark Ashton Smith and Y'golonac is from Ramsey Campbell. As
subsequent editions have expanded the list, representation of material
by other writers has just grown. As Frank T. Sronce pointed out in his
post, it almost has to.
What I think the designers meant by the comment about leaving things out
that don't conform to Lovecraft's intent was that they were going to
ignore certain additions to the Mythos by August Derleth. Specifically,
his 'War in Heaven' -- where the bad-guy Great Old Ones are opposed by a
bunch of good-guy Elder Gods who would occasionally ride in like the
cavalry to save the day -- and the 'Elemental Theory' -- in which
various of the Great Old Ones were linked to the classical elements
(Cthulhu-water, Cthugha-fire, Hastur-air and, I think,
Shub-Niggurath-earth). Both of these elements are especially disliked by
Lovecraft-purists and, to the best of my knowledge, nether has every
been supported by CoC. Well, that's always been my interpretation of the
comment, anyway.
> It also seems to me that a Lumley or Howard appoach would require not
> using the Sanity rules, at least for the PC.
Or the Sanity rules need to be modified somewhat -- something I think
CoC already does to an extent with the practice of making veterans of
the First World War who saw action in the trenches and the like immune
to certain types of Sanity loss. Lovecraft's protagonists all had very
brittle psyches that tended to shatter very easily, mostly because what
they learned challenged the very foundations of their worldviews.
However, even in Lovecraft, there are indications that some people are
more resistant to the sanity-losing effects of the Mythos than others. A
number of years ago one of my fellow players was involved in a
discussion in the pages of the apa "Alarms & Excursions" about whether
deep religious faith would help a character resist some of the sanity
loss inflicted by encountering the Mythos. She maintained that it would,
other contributors maintain that it wouldn't. I remember pointing out a
passage in Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" to her that
supported her contention.
I think two-fisted adventurer types would probably also be slightly more
resistant than overly-intellectual antiquarians. The question would be
how to incorporate such a resistance into the rules without opening the
door for serious abuse of the system by various players.
> Still, there are many events throughout many of the modules I didn't
> care for. For example: In MoN_ rescuing Hypatia Masters would have
> been a major goal for me as a player. By the module, there is no way
> to do this and the disappointment (for someone wanting two-fisted
> adventure against great odds) is rather extreme.
If I were running "Masks" and you were playing in it and I figured out
that was one of your goals (and I'm usually pretty good about picking up
on that sort of thing) I probably would change the scenario to allow
your character to rescue her -- even though Hypatia Master's fate is one
of the horror highlights of the module. But then, I tend to regard all
published RPG materials as a form of art supplies that we (the players)
are supposed to use to create entertainment with. Trying to force Horror
onto players that are clearly looking for something else strikes me as
just silly.
> I tend to call fixed events of this type railroaded. I can do nothing
> to achieve obvious character goals no matter how skilled my play. This
> of course may not be a proper use of the term railroaded.
Is there actually an accepted common definition for what constitutes
'railroading'? I'm just curious.
>> It was an interesting read, though, and the level
>> of research is impressive.
>
> Yes, it's impressive. But I worry about how accurate it is.
>
> They touched on a subject I know well, and their rules on firearm
> function (for the temperatures noted in the module) are absolutely
> terrible. Completely off.
Well, I have to defer to your expertise here, since I know
next-to-nothing about the subject. However I could still use it for what
Kingsley Amis called the Fleming Effect -- where you speak with such
casual authority about some technical subject that everyone is deeply
impressed even though you don't actually know what you're talking about.
As various commentators have pointed, the James Bond books are full of
this sort of thing. The Fleming Effect is an invaluable skill for a GM
to master.
> Makes me suspect all the other areas where I'm not so knowledgeable.,,
Same test I (and I suspect most people) use. If it's wrong about an area
we know about, it's suspect.
> I tend to think of all CoC modules as great places to get really neat
> handouts....
Oh yes, indeed. CoC does some of the best handouts in the field (not
that the competition's all that great....)
Warren J. Dew
But once you've 'won', why bother to continue to play?
Wouldn't it be more fun to 'start a new game' by starting
another character?
Brian Gleichman posts, in part:
And lose out on exploring your victory? I think not.
At least not for a while....
Kirk no longer seeks to gain in power or influence. His
drives now are duty and exploration using what he has
gained. Threats exist that seek to undo his work. And
these are reason enough to continue adventuring.
Indeed, Series adventure is almost always fixed at this
point in the character's career.
This all makes a huge amount of sense. But I still don't understand the
motivation. I think I would still get bored.
Also, in the natural course of things, Kirk inevitably gets promoted to
Admiral, which, as you note, is a 'demotion' from the 'peak of the career'
standpoint, and presumably a disappointment to this type of player. Why not
avoid this by quitting while you're ahead?
glenn...@ichr.uwa.edu.au
: Also, in the natural course of things, Kirk inevitably gets promoted to
: Admiral, which, as you note, is a 'demotion' from the 'peak of the career'
: standpoint, and presumably a disappointment to this type of player. Why not
: avoid this by quitting while you're ahead?
He always gets demoted again quickly however. He only stays Admiral when
there are no more adventures - end of the campaign happened I would
assume.
--
Glenn Butcher | "Omnia vincit amor"
glenn...@ichr.uwa.edu.au | Ph: +61 8 9340 8547
TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research
NIC: GB901-AU
Paul B. Saitta
>
> Brian Gleichman wrote in message
> <82nbm1$j6o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> >2. A wish to go into greater detail within the history and/or design
> of a
> >world than a short limited campaign can possibility do. Defining or
> >exploring such worlds can be a life long project.
>
> spend years exploring a single kingdom, or even city, from the
> perspective of different characters, from very different walks of
> life, and with very different goals and interests.
This is one of the things that I found most interesting about Ars Magica, on
first reading (just finally got around to taking a look at it) -- instead of
just creating a single character, the Magus, the player creates maybe a half
dozen or so, the Magus, a consort, and a few Grogs (servant/mercenary types).
The player is expected to take the part of all of these different characters
at different times, thus giving them a good number of different viewpoints on
the world, while still keeping them interrelated. The idea is that the player
only ever really plays one character for a given adventure (although one might
easily have multiple adventures occurring simultaneously, both in game and RL
time, if the DM ("storyguide") is up to it). I think this is something that I
may have to try in play to see how well it works.
/P.
--
Here in my relentless quest to remain relevant...
Brian Gleichman
news:slrn850oo...@ts017d17.chi-il.concentric.net...
> So run a PBEM or something....
One you kidding? At the slug speed at which I get around to writing things
up?
I just yesterday finally posted the designer notes for combat on my web
page. I wanted to get that done months ago.
Sigh, couldn't do it.
Of course it might work for those that don't need intelligible writing...
GM: jlkjaf8u48548ji37729u54jksdafa. (&*^jajfd?
Player: We turn down the left hall. This is starting to look bad, so
everyone draws their weapons.
Brian Gleichman
news:19991210000610...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> Also, in the natural course of things, Kirk inevitably gets
> promoted to Admiral, which, as you note, is a 'demotion' from
> the 'peak of the career' standpoint, and presumably a
> disappointment to this type of player. Why not avoid this by
> quitting while you're ahead?
I think most rpg Series style campaigns do exactly this.
They end either when the players/GM run out of interesting episodes or when
the natural course of events would move the characters out of the Series
concept.
In the case of something like my Middle Earth game, I let the natural course
of events unfold. It's not a pure Series style campaign, but a mix of Saga
and Series. Expectation of characters aging (and dying) and becoming less
active as time passes is known upfront.
---
As far as being bored...
Series doesn't mean that interesting things don't happen. It just means that
key concepts won't be forced into changing.
Thus Kirk will always be a Starship Captain (unless he fails and loses his
ship by bad or unlucky play). This is a key aspect to the character. It
doesn't mean that his son will live, as his son isn't a key part of what
makes Kirk (and he's silly besides, should've blasted the mom too...)
A good Series style GM will learn what the core concepts are to each
character and refrain from forcing them to change.
This still leaves vast amounts of room to play.
Brian Gleichman
> But, given that, I recognised the designer's attitude as being
> "Lovecraft-purist" -- a common position among aficionados,
> especially back in the 1980s. Since I've never really held that
> position, I tended to ignore that aspect of the rules-as-written.
I think we've reached a reasonable amount of agreement.
There are certainly ways of playing CoC that avoid the issues I have
problems with. And modules can always be modified. After all, the materials
in many of the modules are excellent.
I do wish that Chaosium would recognized this fact. It would have been nice,
if in the nearly five hundred pages of _Beyond the Mountains of Madness_
they would have tossed in some alternate possibilities for those who don't
want to play it as a lost cause.
Warren J. Dew
Gleichman posts, in part:
As far as being bored...
Series doesn't mean that interesting things don't happen.
It just means that key concepts won't be forced into changing.
Okay, I think I see my mistake. I was looking mostly from the point of view of
my own current style of play (on those rare occasions when I play rather than
gamesmaster). To me, it's the evolution of the character that is interesting;
once the character becomes mature, I no longer have to play situations out to
know how he's going to approach them.
It seems to me what you are talking about is more of an attitude of, 'I've
finally got the character to be what I want. Now I get to use him to _do_
things!' Do I have that right?
This makes a huge amount of sense with respect to one of my players' primary
character. And I have to admit, watching her actually do things has been very
interesting; such characters' activities can have a noticeable effect on the
game world.
A good Series style GM will learn what the core concepts
are to each character and refrain from forcing them to change.
As, for example, not promoting Kirk to Admiral. Unfortunately, that's not an
option for a strict simulationist. And I think that I have another player
whose primary character has really gone a little beyond the point he really
liked to play. The character has little free time left to do the things that
the player wants to do - and the character's friends actually prefer being
Admirals to being Captains - and the player is having some difficulty figuring
out the best way to deal with that.
Frank T. Sronce
[lots of misc. snippage]
>
> > It also seems to me that a Lumley or Howard appoach would require not
> > using the Sanity rules, at least for the PC.
>
> Or the Sanity rules need to be modified somewhat -- something I think
> CoC already does to an extent with the practice of making veterans of
> the First World War who saw action in the trenches and the like immune
> to certain types of Sanity loss. Lovecraft's protagonists all had very
> brittle psyches that tended to shatter very easily, mostly because what
> they learned challenged the very foundations of their worldviews.
>
> However, even in Lovecraft, there are indications that some people are
> more resistant to the sanity-losing effects of the Mythos than others. A
> number of years ago one of my fellow players was involved in a
> discussion in the pages of the apa "Alarms & Excursions" about whether
> deep religious faith would help a character resist some of the sanity
> loss inflicted by encountering the Mythos. She maintained that it would,
> other contributors maintain that it wouldn't. I remember pointing out a
> passage in Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" to her that
> supported her contention.
>
> I think two-fisted adventurer types would probably also be slightly more
> resistant than overly-intellectual antiquarians. The question would be
> how to incorporate such a resistance into the rules without opening the
> door for serious abuse of the system by various players.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zoran
Well, just in case anyone might benefit, I've tossed around a few
modifications to the San system before.
The one I used in my last CoC campaign was this: the San loss necessary
to produce temporary insanity from one loss is not always 5, but is
calculated as POW/5+3. So people with POW 3-7 will go bonkers if they
lose 4+ San from a single event, POW 8-12 at 5, POW 13-17 at 6, POW
18-22 at 7, etc. I also made it easier to gain POW, but it was a
wizards campaign, so POW was more important than in regular CoC. The
numbers also worked out pretty well, with the strongest willed of humans
NEVER losing it when faced with a mere 1d6 San loss.
An alternate that I considered was this: Add 1/10 (round up) of your
Cthulhu Mythos skill to the San loss required for temporary insanity.
So an occultist with a CM skill of 43% would have to lose 10 San at once
to go bonkers. Actually, making the calculation 4 + 1/10 skill (round
up) might be better since it leaves normal folk still more vulnerable.
:-)
The main thing with both of these is that while they let you keep your
cool when faced with horrific foes, they don't prevent you from losing
San, so you'll still want to avoid horrific events.
Kiz
Brian Gleichman
> It seems to me what you are talking about is more of an
> attitude of, 'I've finally got the character to be what I want.
> Now I get to use him to _do_ things!' Do I have that right?
Exactly right.
> > A good Series style GM will learn what the core concepts
> > are to each character and refrain from forcing them to
> > change.
>
> As, for example, not promoting Kirk to Admiral. Unfortunately,
> that's not an option for a strict simulationist.
True enough. If Kirk's twenty year run as a Starship Captain isn't enough
for the player, you have a problem.
A lot depends upon the exact campaign world and the specific character.
Sometimes there are possible character changes that will work and sometimes
the player just has to change characters.
From my own perceptive, I'm content to make allow some changes (consist with
the character of course) and move him more to the background. I then replace
him with a new one for day to day adventures.
After all, I've built up a twenty-year legend. Why risk blowing it on a bad
decision or die roll now :)
Ranma Al'Thor
: I would divide campaigns into three broad types:
: The Single Adventure -- this may be of varying length from a one session
: one-shot (comparable to a short story) to a multi-session grand
: campaign such as "Masks of Nyarlathotep" (comparable to a novel).
: Characterised by a unity of story.
: The Saga -- a sequence of linked but quite distinct adventures that
: follow a group of characters through their lives and careers.
: Comparable to novelistic sagas such the Forsyth saga or W.E.B.
: Griffin's "Brotherhood of War" series -- "The Lieutenants," "The
: Captains," "The Majors," etc. Characterised by a continuity of
: characters and a unity of 'historical' development.
This tends to be the format of most of mine.
: The Series -- a set of adventures that feature the same characters and
: which all begin in the same basic situation. Comparable to a standard
: television series or on-going comic book title. At the end of every
: adventure the characters return to the same basic state they were at
: the beginning of the adventure, ready for the next episode. The basic
: situation doesn't change and any developments are usually cosmetic
: (the illusion of change rather than actual change). Characterised by
: continuity of characters and situation.
I don't think I've ever seen this in an RPG; given that characters develop
in their skills over time, if nothing else, how do you return to status
quo completely? Although I suppose you could do a superhero game that was
somewhat like this...
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, ABD, Ph.D Candidate at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Anybody touches my radishes and it's war!"
--KODT #1
Brian Gleichman
news:82rbc4$n3e$2...@news.cc.ukans.edu...
> I don't think I've ever seen this in an RPG; given that
> characters develop in their skills over time, if nothing else, how
> do you return to status quo completely? Although I suppose
> you could do a superhero game that was somewhat like this...
Our Marvel Superheroes (using the Champions rules) was this exactly. Point
Values where fixed at the start and no experience was gained except in very
rare cases.
Other campaigns of ours (Morrow Project, Star Trek) had limited to no
advancement.
Only our Generational style fantasy games have had anything like open
advancement. And anyone who has read my rules know that even here, they
aren't your typical methods.
Ranma Al'Thor
: On Tuesday 7 December 1999, Brian Gleichman wrote:
: exposition, exposition. This isn't a complaint -- the stories are very
: effective and I'm a big fan, but I don't really see how you can run a
: game based on that model.
Yeah. To some extent, one has to enable a more active mode; the
Lovecraftian aspect of Call of Cthulhu RPG is best played up by keeping to
the themes, rather than to how the stories actually develop. More on this
below.
: What I think the designers meant by the comment about leaving things out
: that don't conform to Lovecraft's intent was that they were going to
: ignore certain additions to the Mythos by August Derleth. Specifically,
Pretty much.
: > Still, there are many events throughout many of the modules I didn't
: > care for. For example: In MoN_ rescuing Hypatia Masters would have
: > been a major goal for me as a player. By the module, there is no way
: > to do this and the disappointment (for someone wanting two-fisted
: > adventure against great odds) is rather extreme.
: If I were running "Masks" and you were playing in it and I figured out
: that was one of your goals (and I'm usually pretty good about picking up
: on that sort of thing) I probably would change the scenario to allow
: your character to rescue her -- even though Hypatia Master's fate is one
: of the horror highlights of the module. But then, I tend to regard all
I wouldn't change the adventure just to enable them to defy HM's fate,
although if they came up with something clever enough to save her from it
without me having to bend it, I'd let them get away with it (One group of
players had a spell that enabled them to mind-switch HM and the Priestess
so that the Priestess ended up trapped in the bloated body and died giving
birth to the kiddo. Unfortunately, HM still needed to go to Mr. Insane
Asylum for a looooong time, but...)
It's a horror game. Nasty things happen; sometimes things should be
beyond any power to easily change. In her case, this was all set in
motion before the PCs came on the scene.
That's not to say I think CoC Pcs should be doomed to just watch the
adventure unfold on them, but you lose the horror element if every bad
thing can be thwarted. They can't save HM usually, but they can defeat
the Priestess and save the world from the gate opening. Which in the end,
is more important.
: published RPG materials as a form of art supplies that we (the players)
: are supposed to use to create entertainment with. Trying to force Horror
: onto players that are clearly looking for something else strikes me as
: just silly.
It's something to discuss with one's players; best to get it out in the
open so everyone can operate with the same expectations.
: > I tend to call fixed events of this type railroaded. I can do nothing
: > to achieve obvious character goals no matter how skilled my play. This
: > of course may not be a proper use of the term railroaded.
: Is there actually an accepted common definition for what constitutes
: 'railroading'? I'm just curious.
I wouldn't call the HM situation railroading. Railroading is when the Pcs
are forced to do something, not when things happen that are beyond their
control. If the adventure starts with the PCs being overwhelmed by the
local sheriff and thrown on a chaingang, then told they must accept a
mission to assassinate the King of Walaroo, that's railroading. If the
adventure starts with the King of Walaroo being assassinated, thus causing
a civil war to break out while the PCs are in Walaroo, that's not
railroading.
Effective horror requires a certain amount of events beyond PC control,
but at the same time, they need to be able to control their own actions
and their own fate. They may not always be able to save Aunt May, but
they can at least stop the monster killing anyone else.