JohnK

Hullo, folks, As the Subject line says... It's been almost a year since the rulebook for the game came out. Is there any news on when some new product will come out for Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game? I haven't seen any mention of new stuff for the game on announced product lists, and Chaosium seems focused on stuff for several other systems. Hopefully, the game is not dead.

Hullo, g33k, Oh, I'll definitely let folks know how things are going with the game and all. 🙂 I've actually got two gaming groups, 5 players on Friday night and the 2-player group on Sunday afternoons, but have fallen behind on writing up the blog entries on the games in question. So plenty of info on stuff when I get the chance and my arm heals from being sideswiped by a car in a grocery store parking lot.

Hullo, folks, Was wondering if anyone happens to have or know of a Halloween scenario for the game? Would like to be able to run something this weekend or next with the theme. Thanks, in advance. 🙂

Hullo, g33k, I'll try to address your comments/questions to me here. As to the first question, it's a matter of having to ignore the issue for the most part regardless. I've only got two players in the Sunday group, including the one we're talking about, and have decided to focus on her practitioner aspects rather than the forensic aspects. The element of the setting in question is one that, to be honest, is key to running the game in the UK. to playing a Rivers of London game, and how the British police handle the matter of forensics in their investigations. If I were running the game in North America or in a CSI type of game it would be one thing, but I'm running a Rivers of London game. That said, it's not spoiling my enjoyment of the game for the most part, though I've been clearly stressing out about it at times. Having the forum here to discuss the matter has cleared my head about how to approach the matter at hand, and has been stress reducing and somewhat cathartic. 🙂 Insofar as your second question is concerned, yes, I've made it abundantly clear to the player that the character can't work exactly as envisioned as it doesn't fit the essence of what makes the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game what it is. I've even had her read the relevant sections of the game text pertaining to the use of forensics in the books and the game, but she still wants to play this character. As is. Frankly, she refuses to step into the headspace or mindset of playing in the UK cop system - but she's like that with any game system setting that she doesn't know intimately. And her biases towards only urban fantasy police stuff like what she's previously read or seen on tv are...abundantly clear as well. As noted above, I've decided how I'm going to handle the matter and the approach I'm going to take to this with her and the character, and see how that works out. And yes, the frustration is there obviously, but it's not something new with this player. Nothing really more to add to this post or the entire subject for that matter. But I want to thank everyone who posted in this thread and helped me figure out how to handle the matter. Appreciated. 🙂

Hullo, Crazy Canadian, Just saw this one and gave it a quick browse through. Quite nice. Looking forward to running this one. 🙂

Hullo, g33k, You may well be right about that being my (big) mistake here. It's not really a dislike on the player's part for the genre, as she's a huge fan of urban fantasy mystery books (less so tv series and even less so comics), and she told me that she loves the "basic premise" for the game. However, she's very "American" in her tastes in certain things, and doesn't read a lot of non-North American written fiction even in the genres she likes. She told me she does want to play the game, just with her own "perspective" of it. That said, with only two players in the Sunday group, it wasn't an option that she not join the campaign to begin with. 🙂 The concept of the "outside consultant" works very well for the most part, except for two things. First, the way I understand the Rivers of London books, and how things work, is that anyone the Folly brings in for specialist knowledge outside their main areas of expertise and all *is* an outside consultant, and that includes the forensics folks that help them out. However, the second problem is the bigger of the two... If she had created a forensics specialist who had magical potential but didn't start out with being able to do spells and stuff, that would have worked fine... but she wanted the character to also be a practitioner as well from the start, and part of the Folly in that regard. So she is an outside consultant but with a big inside edge to her. 🙂 Ah, well... I'll see how things work out now that I've decided to shift the focus of the character more towards the magic side of things rather than the forensics side of it.

Yes, that first paragraph pretty much sums things up. She tends to do the same things in other game systems, but since I rarely run games based on licensed books or movies or tv shows or whatever, this rarely ever comes up. I felt pretty frustrated running the first adventure, since her actual player character only got into the story towards the middle of the plot, and she played the PC partner of the other player character for much of the adventure. Now that I have an idea of how I'm going to approach this, we'll see if she decides to create a new character, or whether she doggedly continues to play this "part-time" character. The player in question is part of my Sunday group, which only consists of her, one other player, and me. I've been playing with them for decades now, and she hasn't changed in this regard over the years. The Session Zeroes do help in many regards in this respect, but not for this game; she was intent on what she wanted to play. I've done what you suggested here (run a few sessions with characters I've created for them), but she's not fond of that as she gets a good feel for the system, but still prefers to create the character concept and character that she wants, regardless of the system. If you knew the number of games that have gone by the wayside because she doesn't like them or I can't run them with her "play style"... Oy, vey!

Hullo, buckyball, Thanks for posting this thread up. This is quite the nice approach to take with the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game and one that I had considered in a sense. Since I'm not familiar with Peter Grant's Vestigium Awareness Outreach Program (having only just finished reading Foxglove Summer this past month), I didn't know about that - and can't remember if it's been mentioned in the game book. That said, the player I've been talking about in a separate thread here was adamant about playing a practitioner to start the game, so... But this is a fine approach to take to creating characters and the campaign. All that said, you definitely have an interesting set of player characters there. I look forward to hearing more about them and their case file adventures! 🙂

Exactly, g33k! The game rulebook points out very specifically that the Folly may have certain experts or people in services outside the Folly itself that they rely on for assistance, and the forensics side of things is notable in this respect. It seems rare in the books that non-Folly personnel are ever part of the Folly itself directly, though author Ben Aaronovitch has created several characters in the novels (I've read through the first five) who do have closer ties to the Folly. Sometimes I think this is the problem with roleplaying games that are based on book series and the like, but that's getting away from the original intent of the thread, and is a subject for elsewhere and elsewhen. 🙂

In a Folly campaign, not all case interviews should be supervised by a practitioner, until magic (Falcon-ry?) definitely is found to be associated with the case. But a forensics expert or forensic specialist doesn't tend to have a lot of social skills, except on shows like CSI and the like. And this is Rivers of London, not CSI, to begin with, so... When it comes down to it, the player isn't playing the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game or basing her character on the series of books, she's created her character because she likes a current urban fantasy system that she's been reading and wants to fit that square character into a round player character space. And this, despite the Session Zero discussion we had on the subject. *sigh*

That last line sums up the whole issue for me, g33k!

Hullo, g33k, Yeah, I was hoping that @LynneH would come into this discussion, since like you, perhaps she could add a few comments on what I've brought up here in relation to the American sourcebook. Hope springs eternal. 🙂

Hullo, Radmonger, I've seen a couple of episodes of I, Zombie and I'll be honest... I wasn't impressed, though the basic premise was interesting. I think that when it comes down to it, I'm going to focus on the forensic character's practitioner aspects of the character, rather than her medical aspects. I can of like that line you came up with for DCI Seawoll, and will be stealing it, if you don't mind. 🙂

Hullo, g33k, Yeah, you're right, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. 😞 When it comes down to it, the player in question only read a 1/4 of the first novel before she put it down, as she didn't like the style of writing, the police procedural aspects, etc.. And let's be honest... the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game is not the CSI universe or a Hollywood police drama, as you say. Frankly, I'm not interested in a CSI/Hollywood police drama to run, and she understood that. The Session Zero that I ran *did* go into the types of character concepts for the game that will work, but she was adamant about playing the forensics person though she did make her a practitioner. In terms of the solutions that you proposed, I don't like most of them, to be honest. I'm thinking that she'll play the other player's Police Constable partner (which she did for much of the scenario), but I think that I'm going to focus on the character being a practitioner, rather than the forensics stuff, and hopefully that will work out well. We'll see, I guess, since they'll start their next scenario very soon now... Thanks for the advice offered. Much appreciated. 🙂

That's a good suggestion, Greville, but even playing a junior forensic tech, the character wouldn't be expected to interview witnesses and the like. That's not what forensic specialists do, except in shows like the CSI franchise and the like. The player in question thinks in American show terms and in terms of fictional forensics experts, not the way the game does. I'm really at a loss how to handle the character, given the only other player in the group is playing a police constable who may gain magic later. The only saving grace of the forensic specialist character is that she's a practitioner.

The problem is, jp1885, that the CSI shows are focused on the forensics of the case, and the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game has a completely different focus entirely. That said, the U.S. sourcebook may enlighten us about this element among others, but bear in mind that the researching aspect of this keeps the player character out of the field. In the case file I just ran about missing children, she spend 9/10 of her time playing the (NPC) partner of the player character constable.

Ah, okay... Was wondering about that... So, whereabouts you living these days? 🙂 Yeah, that is a huge file. Thanks attaching it as a separate post below. Managed to download it and scan through the file. Neat case file! Look forward to running this one! 🙂

Hullo, folks, One of the things pointed out in the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game in several places is that forensic specialists of any kind don't make for good player characters in the game because they spend pretty much all of their time in the lab, and only go into the field for gathering forensic evidence. So guess what one of the two players in my Sunday group decided to play? Yep, a forensics medical specialist. 😞 I have just finished running the first case file (home-brewed) on the Sunday group. The forensic specialist got very little time, and the player ended up playing the non-player character Police Constable partner of the other player character for most of the scenario. I was not happy, to say the least, and she...wasn't pleased, either. So two questions here... First, how do you think I should handle her character in future? Second, anyone got an idea or three for case file plots where the forensic specialist (also the practitioner) and a police constable can work together for much of the case? Thanks, in advance. 🙂

Hullo, Crazy Canadian, Cool! Whereabouts in Canada are you located? I'm in Ottawa! 🙂 Anyway, just wanted to let you know that the link for the "Fiery Vengeance" scenario still doesn't work.

Hullo, jp1885, That sounds pretty good, and would work nicely for the outside part of the GM Screen.

Hullo, jp1885, Very cool finds! Keep up the good work! (And the writing of your own neat case files, too, of course!) 🙂

Hello, jp1885, Greville, Since resisting spells and magical effects uses POW in the game, it's kind of obvious to me that normal folks and players who are non-practitioners don't have Magic Points. If the player buys the Magical Advantage later on once play has started, then I'll give them the Magic Points at that time. That's what makes sense to me, and that's what I'll go with. (Though I do with that either Paul or Lynne would poke their heads in here, and clarify the matter. ) 🙂

Hullo, jp1885, Yeah, you'd have several pages for the GM Screen! 🙂 Bear in mind that if you have a 3- or 4-panel GM Screen, that's either 6 pages of material or 8 pages of material on the screen. The exterior should have one page at least that reprints the cover of the Rivers of London RPG cover, 'cause it would be a selling point at gaming conventions when running the game there. My only problem with putting the basic descriptions of the spells on the exterior of the GM Screen is that not all players are going to be practitioners. And there are quite a few spells that would have to listed there. The list of stuff that I posted up above still stands, for the most part. but I can still see a few batches of paper on the side for the GM running the game, even with the GM Screen holding the relevant/needed basic material.

Hullo, Greville, Appendix B is useful to have for the GM, though there's some info in there that the players shouldn't see or know. As for combat, the Rivers of London game doesn't focus on combat, of course, but it happens. Over the now eight game sessions I've run, there have only been three combats and a couple of "subdue the guy running away" incidents. But having the combat tables handy on a GM Screen means one doesn't have to keep flipping to those pages in the book. The range mods for spells is, of course, useful to have. 🙂

Hullo, jp1885, That's what I thought as well, and yet the four mundane pre-generated characters at the back of the book don't get Magic Points. Furthermore, on page 54, under Investigators with Magic, that is the only part of character creation that mentions how many Magic Points the character receives - when creating a practitioner. That's why I wondered whether characters who don't take the Magical Advantage don't start with Magic Points. Thoughts?