Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nulzilcho]

I'm in whatever timezone Nevada is in.

Nevada is at GMT-8. Given the stated start time of 9-10pm you're looking at around 1 to 2 in the afternoon.

I take it you want participants to read the rules first?

Here's the quick start rules which cover the basics but do leave some of the more "advanced"* stuff out if you need a quick run down. The only error I can spot at a glance is that occupation skill points are supposed to be EDUx20 instead of 15. There's also not a huge amount of difference between the editions (other than that d20 ...mess).

_{*It's a d100 system with a few glorified house rules tacked on for smooth running (and frankly that's a good thing).}

[Neonivek]

Also people as a side note the way I will be keeping the game is that it will be more sandbox ish so you decided what to investigate and how to do things, apart from the first couple where I find my footing

Honestly in CoC's case this is the best way to do it.

Just remember to imbed clues and include "back on track" clues where people may waste time.

[mcclay]

Welp that time is not gonna work for me. More like 8-12 at night for me.

[Sheb]

I feel obligated to link Old Man Henderson, the man so insane Hastur had to do SAN check when he met him (well, not really, but almost).

[empfan]

I feel obligated to link Old Man Henderson, the man so insane Hastur had to do SAN check when he met him (well, not really, but almost).

shame our game takes place earlier in time, else I would of made that man my contact 

[Neonivek]

I think the difference between a GOOD GM at CoC and a bad one is simply this

If being unable to read is an advantage... You are doing it wrong.

My personal oppinion on Sanity loss books is that the player should get a warning about peering too deep and that most should be "hidden in plain sight" in that most of them should be capable of being read with no sanity loss because they lack either context or it is written in a code so to speak.

Besides most "Sanity loss books" are really useless.

Also, Old Man Henderson's story REALLY should have ended in the first session. It kinda says something if the person writing it said that the "GM was asking for it" when the GM is clearly pulling punches at the same time. It makes me question if the whole thing was just an undeserving troll by someone who was just bad at the game. (actually reading it all, yeah one of two things: A) The player is a flat out troll and no one deserved squat or B) Both the player AND the GM were a troll and they were trolling the players themselves)

[Cthulhu]

Or 3, the story is bullshit like every other "look how awesome this character is" story on /tg/

I'm looking at you, Grendel.

[Neonivek]

Or 3, the story is bullshit like every other "look how awesome this character is" story on /tg/

I'm looking at you, Grendel.

Given how he "Killed Hastur forever" yeah it is pretty made up.

[Bdthemag]

Hm, I've always wanted to run a CoC game. If there's any leftover people, I might be willing to run something. Probably via IRC.

[Lovechild]

I GM a lot of Cthulhu mythos games, but they're always freeform with no rules or dice rolls. I've played Call of Cthulhu a couple times but didn't find that the rules really added anything, it just ruined the immersion when I described something horrible and had to say "...oh and you lose 10 sanity".

[nenjin]

It's why fun for a GM or even video game to never just say "There are no traps", but instead say "You don't detect any traps". Or just randomly ask them "how do you open the door?" even if the door is just an ordinary door. Plays into their suspicions and makes them go all paranoid

Sometimes this develops into what I like to call "I leave the car" syndrome.

For those who don't know this, because I made it up, it is when a car parks and instead of immediately going to the scene inside the building every single player MUST state that they are leaving the car. Thus inflating the playing time doing essentially nothing.

Yes. Making the players paranoid is the best way to GM. Don't inflate playtime, just ask them 'How do you enter the building?'

I disagree with this for one pretty big reason: GMs are the arbiters of what a scene is. When GMs skip large sections of potential action or RPGness or condense down a lot of things into a single question/answer, it tells me they're not really interested in that part of the adventure. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's really up to the scenes and situations the GM feels ready to run. A good, tactical adventure will be very granular. An adventure that requires a lot of montages is going to condense things more. I just don't think it's a "rule" that you try and make everything a montage when possible. Players look to the GM to cue them in to a scene, and one of the first things that establishes that is how granular you present it to them as.

I much prefer "what do you want to do?" It's a completely open-ended question that flows from the scene as you establish it. "You step out of the car, in the parking lot of the building, what do you want to do?" Maybe they say "Check for people watching us!" or "Start sneaking" or "Charge the front doors" or "shoot missiles at the top floor" or "use magic." Ideally your players know what they want to do if they're engaged in the story, so telling them "how do you approach the building" is already making assumptions and tailoring their choices to what you had in mind. The less you prompt them, the more work they have to do.*

In a perfect world, a GM would never have to prompt players. They would simply describe scenes, run mechanics and answer questions, because players would be filling in the "we go here", "we do this" parts of it. There's a fine line between players driving things and players being along for the ride. It usually comes down to personalities at the table. I kind of dread when players look to the GM to move the action forward or to make assumptions about what they're going to do. That's the point at which a game can start to feel like me talking at people, or me leading them down my little pet plot line and they're just dutifully following along.

*The roleplaying experience of the group is also highly relevant here. Less experienced roleplayers need things framed a lot more than veterans.

[Neonivek]

There is a difference between "I leave the car" Syndrome and skipping over meaningful dialog.

I leave the car is when the roleplaying is bogged down by tedius declairations that should be considered without asking or done in one statement rather then multiple.

If at every door you paranoid the players then you bog the game down because suddenly every door is a big deal. Where the paranoia actually stops being a tool to draw the players in but rather a detriment that detracts from the game.

In a perfect world, a GM would never have to prompt players

I disagree, sometimes running a game is a lot like running a movie and the GM is like the Camera. A perfectly ordinary scene can suddenly be very important if only because the GM points attention to it... and that can be a very good thing if the GM is aware and doesn't abuse it.

This is especially important because many of the most scary, exciting, and intriguing things are subtle and even said in passing.

So even in the perfect world the GM would need to prompt players.

The worst are GMs who prompt players just to make them do a mistake.

The WORST "GM killed me" situation was in an Eva Genesis game where I of course didn't know anything about the anime, never watched it, and never really heard it. Now I was assured that I wouldn't need to know anything. Yet the GM put me incharge of a class only because my lack of knowledge would actually kick my character from the game. (oddly enough the players actually were on my side in this situation and outright said that this was a trap).

[nenjin]

I disagree, sometimes running a game is a lot like running a movie and the GM is like the Camera. A perfectly ordinary scene can suddenly be very important if only because the GM points attention to it... and that can be a very good thing if the GM is aware and doesn't abuse it.

I guess that's a fair point and one I overlooked. Sometimes it feels like GMs pointing the PCs at what they should pay attention to or notice (ie. you told them there's a glowing crystal and they're not paying attention to it) feels like leading them by the nose. On the other hand, like I said that GMs set what's important, sometimes you have to do that more than once to make the point.

This is especially important because many of the most scary, exciting, and intriguing things are subtle and even said in passing.

It's not really subtle though is it? When you ask a player point blank to notice it? That's not said in passing. It's kind of like a secret. A secret door isn't a secret door when it has a shining gold outline around it.

[Shooer]

I guess that's a fair point and one I overlooked. Sometimes it feels like GMs pointing the PCs at what they should pay attention to or notice (ie. you told them there's a glowing crystal and they're not paying attention to it) feels like leading them by the nose. On the other hand, like I said that GMs set what's important, sometimes you have to do that more than once to make the point.

Thing is if you mention the crystal, it is the only reason to be in the room and the players forget it's there because you mentioned arching walls and they have now spent the past few minutes rolling and rerolling search, spot, language: Spanish, Profession: cobbler, climb, ropemaking and swim to try and discover the secret that the columns of the wall are hiding.  Then you have to reiterate (again) that there is a glowing thing that is the focal point of the room and it's been trying to talk to them.

Usually there is a good reason to put emphasis on something, or a direction.

There are many ways to be a GM and most that I know are there to tell a story.  I have run games free form and follow the plot hooks.  People like one, some like the other, I love both.

[Cthulhu]

I try not to call undo attention to anything, although I guess that's kind of a tautology (I don't do anything I wouldn't do).  But yeah.  I don't call more attention to things than they'd get if I were describing the scene in a book.

I try to do things naturalistically.  I'm also doing early preparations for a Call of Cthulhu game, and the first thing I'm doing is writing an itinerary for the storyline, assuming the Investigators don't exist.  Once I know how things will play out with no intervention at all, I'll start considering how the investigators might change things.