DreadDomain

Quoting a fairly old post but this sounds good. It made me buy the first book to try it out. This summary somewhat reminds my of The Watch Series by Sergei Lukyanenko.

Nothing to contribute except to say that I always loved Gene Day's work.

Great! Anyone has done their character sheets for CoC 7e?

Sure. Last year they told us they were considering it (aka thinking about before making a decision). I fully trust that they were. Almost a year later the question is a "are you still thinking about it or have you decided for or against it". The answer this time is that they have made a decision "for it". I still fully trust the answer.

I'd like to point out that no one here was asking "when it would come out" and even less so "can we have it faster" or "are there yet". The question was "if it was planned". Hopefully, gamers taking interest in what is in store for their favorite game is not seen negatively.

Also curious if it is still a possibility.

Where do you feel 7e would improve MW? Characteristics on %? Pushing? Advantage/Disadvantage dice? Hard and extreme difficulties? Opposed rolls with difficulty based on opponent skills (and no resistance table)? Combat based on fighting, fighting maneuver, dodging and fighting back other? Instead of updating MW, would playing with the Cthulhu Dark Ages mods sufficient? Personally, I think Magic World is a set of rules that does what it is set to do but I am curious to know what you believe 7e would bring to the table?

That is something that I never liked about CoC or Stormbringer and always much prefered the RuneQuest way of managing skills by grouping them by categories have having characteristics give a bonus to said category. It has the side benefit of having the skills grouped by theme so it makes it easier to find an appropriate skill "this is clealy an attempt to influence, look at your Communication skills and tell what approach you want to take" I like it. For CoC 7E, the easiest way would be to group skills by characteristics and have a skill bonus of CHAR/5 (aka the extreme value). It gives a range of +3%+18% which significant but not game changing. It does mean an extra +10 on average all across the board so if it makes skills too high for your taste, reduce the skill allocation at character creation. It is not necessarily my preferred approached by it is a simple one that already uses a known value in the game. The RQ3 approach would also work quite well.

It looks even better!

Character creation uses "archetypes" and "occupations", which together provides more skill points to distribute. Archetype also comes with a preferred characteristic (which is rolled on 1d6+12 times 5) and finally, there is a list of Talents available. Overall, it produces more capable characters. That's my point. You mention a technological level "between Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Europe" but give a reference point that is not "between" but at the very end of the range. I was wondering if it was a mistake/typo.

I should have mentioned that I specifically like this. And the fact it is human centric (as opposed to dwarves, orcs and elves)

Even a logo! You are going all-out!! Are you also Pulp Cthulhu (archetypes, talents, etc...)? Based on what you described below, it would seem appropriate. You've got a wide array of good stuff here. Everything in bold, I like. The rest, I am not quite familiar with. Assuming you are talking about the Volkodav movie, I've seen it, I own it. I'll like to read the book(s) one day. Just a nitpick but I keep reading Albania... Wouldn't 1000ad be full on medieval? Not a problem, I just wonder if this is what you were going for given your range of "Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Europe". Looking good! I'd be interested to see how you use CoC for this.

Of course! I am sure it will be of interest for many people.

Nothing to contribute but great write-up. I would love to see a Toth-Amon write-up!

Nice! Because he is early in his career, I could see him with STR 90. As he gets older, STR 95, power lifter, hardened and higher skills would certainly be needed. I would consider lowering Spot Hidden and Stealh to 65 or 70% and use the points to boost his fighting skills (brawl and sword), jump, intimidate, listen by 5% each. But as you see, it's only nitpiucking. Good stuff.

Oh, absolutely. To be honest, I do not usually use that term and like I said above, I only think it makes sense when used to make a distinction between old and new Chaosium. "New Chaosium" or "New Management' latest books" don't make any more sense. Chaosium it is. Apologies, I have overstated it. Allow me to rephase in a more sensible way. Now knowing the the term nu-Chaosium may be seen in a negative way, I will avoid using it in the future.

Until Rick's post, I had only considered the term as a way to differentiate the new management from the old management, no more, no less. I had seen it used in a pejorative way but had also seen "Chaosium" or "new management" used in a negative way so I never read too much into it. Anyway, now that I know that the term may hurt some feelings, I'll make sure not to use it.

I believe most discussions around why Magic World failed has more to do with decisions made by old Chaosium rather than by new Chaosium (both used in a non-pejorative way) since by the time new management jumped in, Magic World had already failed. Sure you might have taken some heat because you were the ones to bag the line but you could only make decisions based on what was on the table at that moment. I still believe @Jakob had a good idea about using the MW text as a Fantasy SRD.

Absolutely agree. I feel this is how Chaosium could have reused MW. MW did not succeed as a line but it would be a much more complete SRD than the current one. It would have needed a bit of cleanup which could have been as simple as cutting sections (the Southern Reaches, Seafaring and Allegiance maybe) to cutting down the word count is some section, to revisiting some design choices but I have a feeeling it could have been used 90% as is. As others have said, I was at the time thrown aback by the ugliness of the book. That being said, I never minded the name. I knew why it was called like this and to be honest, OpenQuest sounds way worse to me. And is it any worse than Fantasy AGE? Dungeon Fantasy? At the time MW add to compete against RQ6 and putting aside rule preferences, RQ6 looked much better and add the benefit of name recognition. Cover: Good. I always liked the cover even if it wasn't necessarily something that would grab you and incite an impulse buy. Interior (layout, template, etc): Bad. Some of the art with ok but generally the book looks a bit bland. Content: Good. Everything you would expect from a generic fantasy game plus Alleagiances, plus Seafaring, plus a mini setting. Rules: Good. Solid and complete. I liked some addition like simplified skill categories, cultures. Setting: Neutral. The setting did not grab me at all (too generic fantasy for my taste) but there was a mini setting and it had the potentially to grow into something interesting. Price: Bad. The price was too high for a cheap, impulse, entry level product. It would have been ok for a slick package with better production value. Support: Bad. Not only it wasn't followed with quick supplements, but said supplements were looking as ugly and MW

Hmmm... Semi-Lovecraftian? Sword and Sorcery? Developped enough to be released through the BRP licence perhaps?

For ease of resolution, you could write down an average roll for each characteristics (13 vs 10 on the Resistance Table is 65% on the sheet. From there, every steps easier or harder is +/- 25%. From there, you are only one step away from Cthulhu 7. STR 13 (65%) could also easily be used as normal test 65%, hard test 33% (65/2), an extreme test, roll characteristics (13%) on d100. By the way, I like the way CoC is doing it but except that I am still not used at seing the % value first. I simply don't like it for big monsters (I don't like seeing STR 660). But I am diverging.

Very nice. To be honest, I do not know much about the Spider except that he may be a Shadow analogue without the psychic power. I did not even know that your avatar was the Spider!! I like the Backstory section. I'd happily put 2 to 4 traits and 2 to 4 significant people in that section.

Until the topic was brought up and clarified in the Q&A, this is exactly what I did. I simply assumed that "minimum rollable" was an inconsistent way used to describe exactly the same thing described under species maximum. For human it gives the same result and reading "minimum rollable" too literally was opening up non-sensical results for non-human. If not for the forum, I would not have ever known that the non-sensical approach is actually the official one. Thankfully it is a edge case easily ignored. It is still not 100% fixed in the second printing This is one case where I thought it was self-evident but clarity is good. Personally, I am more annoyed by the fact that the Attack/Parry matrix and the Attack/Dodge matrix do not have the same orientation. Everytime I have to confirm if Attak is on the side or at the top. Errors in examples are vary damaging to comprehension. Thankfully, it is easily errataed. Wait, What? Agreed

Yes, it is not a fatal flaw and it doesn't make the game unplayable by any means but rule clarity is an issue. Others games (GURPS, HERO, Mythras and I am sure others) are written in a more consistent, integrated way so it's not like it's an unreasonable expectation. It is acheivable. Most of the time it is a matter of writing a section slightly differently or editing a sentence. It does not look like integrating the errata in a third printing would be more involved than what has already been done for the second printing. Granted, I have no clue how hard it was to update the second printing. I believe it is. Rule clarifications is unavoidable but I have rarely seen, on the other forums I visit once in a while, so many rule debates about the meaning of what is written, what is the intent of the rule and what is the in-game justification of the rule. If we could cut through all that noise, we would spend more time on fun stuff.

Ah cool! Thanks for the answer.