TrippyHippy

Your view isn't universal. This forum is for all views.

I think your just getting a little personal, full stop. Offense taken. Here's a review online for you to get to terms with from somebody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggeGSprlYr8&t=385s And some more related discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM6psmpNvx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEAiBT2f7Vs Enjoy.

Or it could be that you are more adept running games using BRP-based rules. Regarding the table, the point being that the old Resistance table could also be seen as intuitive enough to not refer to it much, but it was cited as something that was unnecessary. Yet it was replaced with another table, with similar mathematics involved, that you are also basically saying is unnecessary. So how was this an improvement? Either way, I'm not trying to be entirely damning towards 7E, as I do recommend the overall product wholeheartedly (especially as my group are now gearing up to playing Masks over the next year). But if somebody asks for a critical opinion on it, well, there it is. I just think that certain things could have been done slightly better, but it is what it is now.

The execution is crunchy too. Character generation is more complex, and there are more rules to administer in the game. There are more rules to reference in the book. There's no resistance table, which is a moot point when it's been replaced by another table which calculates multiples of five also. You have stipulations in combat and chases that have to be managed. No, it doesn't run any faster. Nor does it run faster than the sort of systems it is trying to emulate - Savage Worlds and Fate, for example - which are designed from the ground up and have refined their game data by actually streamlining rather than bolting on new rules. If an experienced Keeper is finding 7E more crunchy than previous editions, the variable is the edition not the Keeper.

Y'see when we've had Pendragon rules for the last 30+ years showing us that the most elegant system can be done without table referencing or any calculations, simply by reading the dice as rolled…then the intuitiveness you are arguing for is a lot more crunchy than other systems in use. Moreover, the increase in page count dedicated to rulesand systems in 7E, compared to previous editions, is inarguable. It's added rules and rules discussions to the game - making it a pretty mid-level crunchy game compared to many other RPGs around now - including other games that are also about the Cthulhu mythos.

I'd probably rank as one of the more critical people about 7E, but you have my recommendation on getting it neverthess. It's a great game to get into, and has lots of support both in terms of supplements and scenarios, copious fiction to read, and also when finding players. Aside from D&D, CoC is one of the most played RPGs out there. The current edition has excellent production values, looks handsome on the table or shelf and is very readable. The issues I had with this edition of the game were: Certain parts of the atmospheric 'fluff' were removed from the game, largely to make space for more rules, or more rules explanations. The most notable for me were the original Call of Cthulhu short story (which I thought was a classy addition in the previous edition) and also De Rerum Supernatura - an in-character discussion of how Mythos elements are integrated in ancient language. 5th Edition actually had a brilliant chapter on forensics. I miss these pieces, because they really set the tone of the game for me, much more than 'how to run' advice chapters. The game has a slight, but noticeable, slant towards 'pulp' action as the core element of the game over investigation. Combat and Chases get their own chapters, the Luck rules tend to be more forgiving of heroic action, and the scenarios are just a bit more geared towards action over investigation too. Call of Cthulhu, historically, was often percieved as an antidote for the high action heroics prevailant in other RPGs, but this edition shifts it closer to the norm. Sanity is based on cinematic principles rather than the highly qualified research explaining aspects of mental health in the previous edition also. Rules, rules and more rules. Lots of rules seem to have been added to the new edition as opposed to streamlining and clarifying what they already had. So, even though we had a Size stat before, now we also have Build. Rather than find more uses for Magic points to be spent on, we have an additional stat for Luck. We have a bonus/penalty dice system to integrate. Some of the changes are clumsily delivered - for example you roll 3D6 for your Power stat, then multiply it by five, only to be told to divide it by five again to calculate Magic points. Some changes are contentious - Luck points actually change how a game is played, and are no longer connected to Power. There are a lot more stats on your character sheet than there used to be to accomodate the percentile/half/fifth notation of the game. The idea that the percentile system is so simple as to be a 'silhouette' in the background when running the game isn't really a design feature anymore. The previous editions used to fit almost the entire system into about 100 pages - leaving lots of room for 'fluff' again. Now it's got lots more rules, and is a 'crunchier' system to use. So that's it. My big list of issues, explained. Don't let it put you off though! It's one of the best games you can buy on the market, regardless.

Traveller is inspired by classic science fiction - especially Asimov, Heinlein and Herbert. Star Wars also draws some influence from the same writers and so there is some overlap. Both Star Wars and Traveller came out in the same year (1977), but were entirely independent of each other in terms of development. There is a reasonable argument that Star Wars' huge success gave Traveller a lot of impetus in it's early sales as it was the closest facsimile that gamers had to running something like Star Wars at the time. It's a similar tale to Call of Cthulhu possibly being boosted by the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark also coming out in the same year (1981).

Thanks for the info. I am interested - mainly because of the writer at this stage. Is there any information of what broad science fiction it will be - space opera, or otherwise?

I got it yesterday. I've not taken the plastic sheet off it yet, as I want to do the honour at my group meet. It's our next major campaign. By golly, though, it's huge. It's bigger than the CoC slipcase! And that's not including the prop box I bought with it too.

I wasn't suggesting that Chaosium produce a generic science fiction book, just pointing out that Star Trek and Star Wars were not genres - and then giving examples of different types of science fiction genre. People can argue with the classifications chosen as they wish.

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't genres, they are specific intellectual properties. The genre in both cases is space opera, although the TV aspect of Star Trek make it more episodic (and generic to an extent - with a different narrative each episode), whereas Star Wars operates on a cinematic, overarching story. If you are talking about science fiction genres, then we should consider things like: Space Opera - Star Trek, Star Wars, Traveller Dystopia - 1984, Cyberpunk, Post Apocalyptic, Phillip K. Dick, Black Mirror, etc Time Travel + Alternative History - including planetary romance, retro-sci-fi, steampunk, Doctor Who, etc Hard Sci-Fi - 2001: A Space Odyssey, Interstellar, 2300AD, certain takes on Transhumanism, certain types of miltary sci-fi, etc

I recieved my email for the coupon this morning, but my mac had deleted ithe contents. 😣 Fortunately, I had another device I could trace back the message from. 😀 Now it's ordered! 😎

Just as it says in the title really - was the physical slipcase meant to be released later October/early November? Any news?

I woke this morning here in NZ to this news, and it's very sad. Deepest condolences to Greg's friends and family. In all the interactions I've ever had or seen with him and others, he's been a real gentleman. He is, of course, a gaming god, and one hopes that he finds his place up there where he belongs. Regardless, his legacy in gaming is huge and will continue for a very long time.

I found this useful - it'd actually be worthwhile integrating it into the Mythras Imperative packs actually. I'm not sure I ever did ask why the points spend on Characteristics were reduced to 75 though..?

The 1920s reference and visuals do give of a Cthulu-esque vibe, but in the context of a potential market this is not a bad thing. The setting detail and premise is quite original though, and it's married to a strong system and appealing layout, as well as the art (which is quite inspired). Looks really promising to me.

This looks interesting. :)

I've had mine in NZ, but delivery is based upon when you made your order - primarily - rather than location. I made my pre-order back in June. Actually, when can we expect the physical copies of the Masks campaign slipcase to become available?

The new edition of Masks of Nyarlathotep - which you can get as a PDF currently (it is spectacularly good), with the physical slipcase set being released sometime soon.

I've recieved mine. It's excellent, and I can't wait for the radiotheatre release and the slipcase campaign. I've also just recieved a second box - I think it's another kit, which was lost in the post previously - which I'm guessing I need to send back!

Nope. Beliefs in magic are real, in a historical, mythical, paradigm sense - whether or not they are real in a physical reality sense. Runequest has a better understanding of that.

Actually, when talking about D&D, you are talking about character improvement. Character development is largely incidental to the process - a character doesn’t need to develop in any personal growth or emotional sense, while XP itself is really just a currency to trade in for more HP, more spells, more abilities and so on. In Traveller, the mechanical enhancements are largely bought through better technology and the currency to buy them with is....well... Credits.

Exactly right about Traveller.

Doesn't make the statement any more correct though. Pathfinder is a real RPG. If people really wanted to point out the strengths of RuneQuest above D&D, you'd point to the organic nature of character development as opposed to Class and Levels, the greater verisimilitude of the combat, authenticity of the magic and spiritual depth of the setting. You could also claim that the art direction is a bit more consistent in style and tone too. All these things are reasonable arguments to say - but arguing that a roleplaying game isn't a roleplaying game is childish and untrue.

The proficiency goes up from from +2 to +6. So too, do the Ability Scores, and the bonuses you accrue from there (in practice, from a -1 to a +5 range), and as I say it doesn't take into account all the myriad of other features you gain (like escalating HP, magic, class abilities, feats) along the way. If your a Rogue Character, you also get Expertise which doubles your proficiency score against selected skills. In effect, a 20th Level Rogue might have a +17 (+6 x2 = +12 +5 = +17) to roll against certain skills. And, like I say, a potential 20%-85% chance of success increase is still pretty huge. If by the time you get to 20th level, you have also picked up a few magic items, or some other ability bonus, then the overall bonuses accumulate quite a lot. If they increased more than this, they wouldn't have any challenges left in play unless you just keep increasing target numbers (as in previous editions). That was why they made the deliberate design choice to keep the various DCs and ACs on a tighter scale, with less meaningless escalation. With regard to the other points, and indeed the crux of this whole thread - I don't just play D&D exclusively, and there is nothing wrong in comparing D&D5E with RuneQuest, in terms of strengths and weaknesses, or any other game for that matter. I totally agree that, for the most part, D&D is just vanilla fantasy (although AiME was quite distinctive in feel, largely because characters could not rely on magic at all - an Orc is actually quite lethal in that game). I could put together a whole bunch of reasons why RuneQuest would be a more satisfying game to play, certainly in long term campaigns. However, the notion of 'D&D not being a real rpg' is really not an edifying or accurate comment at all - and it's a turn off from the people who say it rather than the other way round.