Print

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

[Fniff]

I think there have been Dungeons and Dragons games without combat, actually.

[Neonivek]

I think there have been Dungeons and Dragons games without combat, actually.

Now, did these pop up and specifically said "No combat" or were they normal games that for some reason never saw combat?

---

Anyhow it is easier to understand if you know the Call of Cthulhu rules and general gameplay... Over just assuming it runs just like dungeons and dragons or Gurps.

-Pro Tip: The two Shoggoths? They aren't going to go down easy... even with Dynamite.
-Pro Tip 2: Dynamite? Would attract the police
-Pro Tip 3: The Hastur thing? Completely made up
-Pro Tip 4: Loading up a stadium with that much dynamite? GOOD LUCK!

Generally speaking there are two general aspects of the players
1) They can either know what is going on
or
2) They can get a general idea of something. (half-know) so to speak

For example in one adventure the players know something is "important" to the villain. Yet if they succeed they generally never find out what it is. Yet the adventure is "successful" should it be destroyed.

The game is about collecting facts and clues that point you to possible solutions. As well as finding ways out of complications that occur along the way.

Each investigator contributes their skills and resources to the investigation as well as their own minds to deduce the situation and come up with possible solutions..

Games can be linear in scenes but need to be multi-faceted in solutions even if there is ultimately only one was to succeed. Though solutions can be constrained in the situation where the players have run out of options (Attracting guards eliminates the ability to get by undetected for example)

[Darvi]

Neonivek is giving way too many shits about proving the Henderson story wrong.

[Neonivek]

Neonivek is giving way too many shits about proving the Henderson story wrong.

Because it is a really really obviously fake story... and the fakeness means it is actually about how a pet player and GM trolled their entire gaming group and wasted all their time.

Which has happened to me before.

I've seen too many Hendersons as well, and trust me... They aren't funny when you actually play in a game with them. (I really should have kicked that guy)

Hard enough to GM when every player feels justified in destroying your game at the lightest dissatisfaction as well.

[Darvi]

When I said "gives too many shits" I meant "Dude, stop".

[Neonivek]

When I said "gives too many shits" I meant "Dude, stop".

So why didn't you say that instead of insulting the fact that I actually care?

Anyhow continue your discussions.

[wierd]

I always approach Pen and Paper RPGs as interactive storytelling, where combat, investigation, and puzzles are all just plot elements. The characters are who actually tell and create the story, USING those elements-- Or not.

I get what you are saying-- The way the game is structured mechanically, investigation is demanded--  but that is again, a fault. Perhaps an unavoidable one, but still a fault.  It leads to formulaic and inescapable/fixed outcomes.  It is important to remember that the cultists are going to do what the cultists are doing, regardless of the involvement of the PCs. It is also important to have the NPCs do things as consequences of the actions of the PCs, that radically alter the script.

EG--  Say a PC notices the "Creepy as fuck, but TOTALLY AWESOME bookstop" when they stop in at the mansion, say through a roll for observation after saying they "Check the place out"-- The "bookstop" is really the ritual focus idol used to contact the great old one involved-- say, a cthulu bust. He does not know jack shit about Cthulu, does not care. The bust is cool looking, and would make an awesome bookstop for his book case, and "This rich bastard will never miss it anyway.", so he nicks it.  He causes no other commotion when at the mansion-- Again, he stopped in to use the phone to find out where he was, so he could drive home. He leaves the mansion after getting directions, (The rich guy getting ready to do the ritual just wants him gone, so he doesnt EFF up the ritual, and the most expedient way is to send him packing in a normal fashion), but then when he turns around, the idol is gone. BOOM-- Plot derail!

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

It would be like creating a Dungeons and Dragons game without combat.

Also known as maxing out the Diplomacy skill.

[Neonivek]

investigation is demanded--  but that is again, a fault. Perhaps an unavoidable one, but still a fault.

Then it is a necessary evil. One that is created simply because you decide to roleplay at all.

Say a PC notices the "Creepy as fuck, but TOTALLY AWESOME bookstop" when they stop in at the mansion, say through a roll for observation after saying they "Check the place out"-- The "bookstop" is really the ritual focus idol used to contact the great old one involved-- say, a cthulu bust. He does not know jack shit about Cthulu, does not care. The bust is cool looking, and would make an awesome bookstop for his book case, and "This rich bastard will never miss it anyway.", so he nicks it.  He causes no other commotion when at the mansion-- Again, he stopped in to use the phone to find out where he was, so he could drive home. He leaves the mansion after getting directions, (The rich guy getting ready to do the ritual just wants him gone, so he doesnt EFF up the ritual, and the most expedient way is to send him packing in a normal fashion), but then when he turns around, the idol is gone. BOOM-- Plot derail!

I don't get what you are saying EXACTLY... This seems like a perfectly legitimate path to go through in Call of Cthulhu.

Mind you, you should be giving players clear goals in mind. So if he steals some rich guys priceless statue, he should have some idea.

As well "Knowing who Cthulhu is" doesn't matter as well. The game doesn't run on true knowledge anyhow. Just doing something because "It seems like the smart thing to do" is a perfectly good avenue to go through. Heck in one adventure you can beat it AND get the bonus objective without ever knowing who your true enemy is (actually the only way to find out who the true villain is... is to do badly)

Stealing the important looking demon statue, if it derails the plot... means you should probably start doing more writing

Mind you, stealing that important statue doesn't necessarily mean things will turn out well either. There are certainly a few adventures I've read where this would turn out rather poorly (though in one you would have to be pretty insane to stumble upon the death button...)

In fact in both adventures I've read the most just to get a grasp of the rules. Your players can "In theory" stumble upon the victory condition and cut out a lot rather quickly. Especially one of them where you really could solve the entire problem in like the first day if you knew what you were doing. (One adventure is linear to learn the game but has some divergence, the other is open). The important part is that both of them list timelines of events, what each character knows, what can be found in what location.

To be honest... I actually like that as a set up hook. a Thief just ends up stealing an important "evil" artifact unknowingly and goes into hiding as the mythos (and the cultist) go after him. So the players need to either destroy the statue, the cultist, the mansion, allow the thief to get away, something to stop the ritual.

[wierd]

The statue may not appear "important"-- The rich guy's a cultist-- and clearly nuts.  Let's say his mansion is decorated with a "Chtulu Is GREAT" theme that only a truly devoted cultist mind could conceive of.  Gnarly tentacle face themes EVERYWHERE.  This is EXACTLY why stealing the bust seems like something the rich cultist would never notice-- His whole house is decorated like that, so the object is only enticing for the novelty value of not being nailed down.

[Neonivek]

I am confused though as to the problem you are alluding to (other then oversaturating the themes)

Lucking into stealing the MacGuffin is a perfectly legitimate turn of events in a Call of Cthulhu game. In fact I would praise the GM if they managed to get the thief character to do that intentionally just by doing that set up.

Also I've calmed down.

Or are you saying that it is Railroading the game because the statue is too obviously important?

[wierd]

Possibly-- More, I was getting at the typical turn of events I have seen with scenarios, where having the McGuffin stolen results in a plot hole that the GM has no recourse for. As you rightly pointed out, this is a consequence of bad writing--- But for the sake of argument, let's say that the GM has a VERY long and elaborate scenario worked out that he has spent a very long time working on, and just neglected to consider this course of events.  The GM now has to face a choice-- Either be a bitch, and say No, you Cant steal that!, or suck it up, and abandon the magnum opus.

[Neonivek]

Ohhh I see what you mean.

Yes the players steal the statue and the GM created such a constrained set of events that the game just flat out cannot continue without it (which is REALLY poor GMing of Call of Cthulhu... like BAAAD, like breaking several Cardinal rules of properly constructing the scenarios)

Mind you the GM isn't necessarily being a bitch by saying "don't steal that", sometimes you just have to rail games so they can keep running. The GM though should be perfectly clear that he isn't punishing the players and be transparent. "You could steal it, but uhh... we will have to end the game here guys."
-Also OUCH!!! I know how it feels to have to throw stuff away. I once had to throw out basically weeks of prep because the players chose a completely random third option.

I mean think of it another way.

The GM can either wing it and stumble through a half-baked plot at the player's expense... Or he can just veto that and the players can have fun.

MIND YOU!!! That isn't every situation. I am only saying that it isn't necessarily a situation of ego getting in the way.

Though honestly Wierd there is a worse thing that will happen.

The GM will usually make that statue kill you or drive you insane just by holding it... I think GMs need to be less punishing in that game. (the other flaw GMs often get to is they don't give enough paths to the right solution)

-Pro-Tip: Call of Cthulhu is a game that relies a little less on personally knowing things. If what they are doing SEEMS like it might be a solution, then it is a perfectly viable avenue for the players to act so long as it is constrained by logic.

---

Mind you Wierd, the player deciding to blow up the mansion with dynamite before they even know anything is going on? Certainly is a derail that should be vetoed by the GM immediately.

[Fniff]

I think that it's a matter of how you think of a GM.
From what little personal experience I have, collaborating with the players tends to be much more fun. Hence why I like games like Fiasco and Don't Rest Your Head. Plus, it's a lot easier to sell the idea to non-roleplayers.
This is just my opinion, though. I can see why people would prefer the idea of planning things. It's just that my style of GMing relies on players having a contribution to the process of a game. Wierd probably has the same opinion, hence why there's a little bit of friction.

By the way, this discussion would probably do better in the Tabletop Games thread.

[Neonivek]

Which one Fniff? The General Discussion one is DREADFUL... and the Games one has very little activity because of the General discussion one.

Though I am more used to having all the work thrown on my shoulders and people actively resisting creative input.

Though I don't have that much experience.

---

Ultimately though I do like the Pen and Paper CoC games for having some of the understanding of the themes presented in many of the books.