Mike M

Shadows Over Stillwater is exactly that type of shorter campaign, each scenario is pretty much stand alone but builds on the others. 

All of Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu back catalogue remains under consideration for redevelopment. But, I'm not just about doing greatest hits and nothing else. Thus, we put out Masks, OE as redevelopments, but also new campaigns like Two-Headed Serpent, A Cold Fire Within, Shadows Over Stillwater.  Were possible, I try to combine the old and new, see the new Mansions of Madness.

Older campaigns, such as Shadows of Y-S and Beyond the Mountains, are certainly on the to do list, as are brand new campaigns for Gaslight and so on. In fact, we have Lynne's campaign - The Children of Fear - in final editorial at the moment.

There's some great older books we will revisit and there's plenty of new material to come as well. 

43 minutes ago, 4Acrossisemu said:

I'm actually interested to see if The Dreaming Stone makes it on the makeover list. We know Dreamlands is in full swing, and Ross is back writing Old West Stuff...  I guess we can dream. 

I like The Dreaming Stone, but on release there were some who didn't like it for various reasons. Is there a consensus to see it redeveloped and republished?

This isn't a Keeper vs the players type of game. It's all about the story. You know that on average 6 damage is likely to cause a major wound, just as 12 points is probably enough to kill. But place it in the context of the story. Most will expend 3-4 MP to 'scare' off the PCs (1-4 points would scare off an NPC).  Does killing a PC outright serve the story? If not, then limit the response - show the players the threat. If they can't handle it, they hopefully run to be better prepared next time. And, next time, is the villain better aware of the PCs and their capabilities ? Did 1-4 scare them off last time? Then it probably will again, and if not, then the villain can spend more against what they now see as real threats.

if you fear meta gaming it - roll  = 1D4 or 1D6 or if the villain perceived a real threat, then roll 1D8 or 1D10.

Thanks everyone.

We have another week or so until, so keep them coming.

2 hours ago, SunlessNick said:

VOLUME 1:

Page 53 in the Shoggoth-twsha sidebar, the rules for the shoggoth-twsha and anyone else seem to be the same, but are referred to as if they're different - should one of them say something else?

This is not an error. Shoggoth-twsha's have an average POW of 120, shoggoths have an average POW of 50-55. Thus, shoggoth-twsha generally automatically control a shoggoth, even with the 30 minute renewal (and they do not sleep, making control easier to accomplish). Another person (human) must make an opposed POW roll each half hour, and most humans are unlikely to have significantly greater POW than a shoggoth (meaning they do not automatically control the shoggoth, and also that they will inevitability fail such a roll at some point), making control possible but limited and extremely dangerous. 

Hi

We are gathering our notes from the play test and so on - we'll begin editorial on the campaign later this year.

1 hour ago, Fabio S said:

Thank you Mike. I evidently was too eager/not attentive enough. I amended my original post, let me know if there is something else I have to do (beyond paying more attention before posting, obviously).

Hi - being too eager is not an issue. Paying attention is good - it helps pick up issues that the proofreaders and ourselves missed. Please carry on. You have our thanks.

We are not currently working on a new edition, but of course in the future (talking years) a new edition is likely to come out. All I can say on the matter, is that a new edition would not be major rewrite of 7th edition, and would be more like a 7.5 edition with a few streamlining tweaks where necessary, but would be continue to be fully compatible with 7e and older editions. 

In other words, if you purchase the current edition you will be fine. The biggest change in the game's history was the release of 7e, and even that was compatible with all older material.

So, hope I have put your concerns to rest.

13 hours ago, Fabio S said:

Vol. 2 page 72

The "Typical Manifestation Box" for Dagon & Hydra seems to be cut off right under the armor section (other boxes have immunities and a section on "if reduced to zero hit points" after that)

This is not an error. Dagon & Hydra do not have immunities, and as they are not "gods" in the sense of Great Old Ones etc., they can die (and be replaced).

Thanks for all of these. Numerous proofreaders were unable to catch everything. We will correct the files.

2 hours ago, measuredrums said:

Thanks so much Chaosium! ... Have been slowly digesting the two volumes of the new 'Malleus Monstrorum', and I'm very happy with what I'm seeing, cannot wait to have these physically in my hands, they'll be gorgeous ... I like the route Chaosium went with the updating/presentation of the "stat blocks" for the Greater Mythos creatures/deities and such in Vol. II., but it begs the question ... Will the entries for the Greater Mythos entities presented in the Keepers Core book be updated to the same presentation as 'Malleus Monstrorum's' in future printings, or will the traditional "stat block" presentation remain? It would be nice if there was continuity among the books.

I've not made a firm decision as yet, but I imagine if people like the way I have done it in in Vol 2, with more focus on the narrative and less on the stats (or those stats that are useful, like POW etc.), then future Rulebook editions will probably follow the same or a similar format.

Please note the page number and location of any typos or errors spotted - many thanks.

Dreamlands monsters go in the Dreamlands book.

Hi- many thanks, have passed this on. In future, it may be easier to just email any issues spotted to customerservice@chaosium.com

Thanks

Errata: Call of Cthulhu Starter Set

Updated: 11 June 2020

Errata – Call of Cthulhu Starter Set - 11 June 2020 .pdf

23 hours ago, tendentious said:

A bit off topic, but just a question about disengaging from close combat, as per the rule on pp 109:

Escaping Close Combat - A character can use their action to flee melee combat on their turn in the order of combat, providing they have an escape route and are not physically restrained.

From the use of the word 'flee' I took this rule to mean that if you want to leave the combat scene or transition from combat to chase, then you spend an action. Or is it intended that if you are in close combat with an opponent you can't just step back without spending an action? So a character can't just attack in close combat and then step away so that their ally with a pistol doesn't suffer the 'firing into melee combat' penalty.

Flee is meant to mean to leave the combat scene - but again - context! The example you give sounds a bit gamey to me (you go hit him and move away and then I'll shoot), which doesn't take account of what the opponent/s are doing. Combat rolls do not equate to a single 'punch' - each roll is equivalent to a series of blows/parries/feints/positioning. So, in my game, your example probably wouldn't be allowed - however, if the context of the actions seemed to make sense in a particular scene, then I might go with it. But, fleeing combat means that - you flee combat (not take a step out and then step back in next round). 

Your comments have been passed on to the web team. 

P113 - yes, we do say you cannot fight back against a firearms attack (Point-Blank Range). 

I was getting ahead of myself in my example - the maneuver can't be used in reaction, but can be done on the opponent's turn against the gun wielder. 

But, as I also say, context. I see no reason why a Keeper can't allow a maneuver reaction to a point-blank shot if it makes narrative sense in the context of the situation, if they feel its warranted and moves the story on. But it would be an exception to the rule. 

46 minutes ago, Archivist said:

I know this is an out there recommendation, but ...

Lovecraft was inventing NEW monsters - they're way scarier.

What about having section on creating new custom monsters - how to build weird powers, bizarre weaknesses, and such.

It's in there. Done. For both monsters and gods.

The Pulp Talents were designed, like the archetypes, to be generic across all eras - they work in any era. For Down Darker Trails, we added a few new ones as that setting can be VERY pulp if desired. But for Reign, it was felt the standard talents covered the bases. We assess each setting/era on its own merits, and if necessary may from time to time add in a new talent, but that will be a rarity. The whole point of Pulp Cthulhu is that you can use it for anything with minimal to no additions. 

You have to apply context - "what is actually happening" - with the Keeper being the arbiter of what is reasonable in the given situation. The rules are meant to be flexible to cope with numerous possibilities. 

The Pulp Cthulhu sheet was designed to be generic for use with any setting - but of course feel free to create era specific ones if the general Pulp sheet vibe is detracting.

Ok - on your action in combat, if you have a handgun in hand, you could fire (point-blank), your opponent's reaction is stand and take it, dive for cover, or try a maneuver to wrestle the gun away/grab it.

On your opponent's action in that round - they attack you with a knife or fist etc, you cannot fire back as "fight back" option (as you can only fire on your action) - but you could fight back, using the gun as cosh, or dodge as normal. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_India#The_beginning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_telephone