KarlF

As mentioned by @harunmushod only POW can be increased in the std CoC rules. While you can use the BRP rules for improving characteristics I would not want to encourage this among players as it might become a distraction from the game - your example of a character on the football team is a good reason for why they might improve their characteristics but that might also mean they will miss some of the scenario(s) as they have to commit to their training or get dropped from the team.

This can be tough to manage, especially if you only have a small group. TBH I often take the Bout of Madness roll with a grain of salt and - if I feel it does not help the story/session then I change the effect to suit. Also if the character has failed their INT check then they have "repressed the memory" which can be even more awkward as they are now in a situation that they don't believe is even happening! If you feel that your players are up to it you can possibly bring them on-board to roleplay their insanity and keep them active. In one of my scenarios an investigator lost a lot of Sanity points as a result of seeing something very unpleasant and IIRC the bout of madness roll was "physical hysterics/emotional outburst". At this point there was only one other investigator involved and rather than just slaughter them both - which could have happened but would have brought the scenario to an abrupt and very premature end - I engaged with the player by describing how they saw instead their father who they hated. They stayed involved in the combat by "arguing" with their father - i.e. an emotional outburst - including dodging blows when he made to strike them and eventually becoming so angry that they struck back i.e. the 1d10 rounds were up.

For my (insert small currency denomination here) worth I would allow it - it is not a Sanity roll per se and they're not changing the number of Sanity points lost i.e. they're still going insane, just avoiding the bout of madness

And thank you very much Mr German Teacher, most appreciated! I think it is worth noting whenever we create a scenario with text not in our native language - be it from Google Translate or other source - that we have done so and (perhaps) apologise for any errors and (especially) culturally inappropriate results.

I just ran The Necropolis at Wellygeddon and had a couple of young native german speakers in the group. After the session they said that the journal language was incorrect and proceeded to spend a significant amount of time debating and then "editing" my copy. I have attached a scan of it in case anyone is interested. So I suppose one question is did Leigh Carr/Chaosium get this written by a german speaker/translator or was Google Translate (or similar) used? I know from experience with the latter - which I used for a few expressions in one of my scenarios (and these were also called out by a native german speaker) - that while it might be correct "literally" it is not necessarily how someone would actually say it. BTW we gave them a prize for their commitment The Necropolis - journal.pdf

What he said. @EricW - very dark, well summed up

If I read the rules correctly - assuming the investigator successfully binds the creature it will depart after completing its task (KR p263): If the creature is not bound - it has been summoned by someone else - then the investigator could try to bind it as per the description on p264 of the Keeper Rulebook and the. order it to leave. re losing Sanity for seeing what has been summoned (KR p263): Yes they should IMHO but the rulebook makes it optional. To me the sanity cost for casting is just for using magic which - as per usual - the human mind is not equipped to cope with. Otherwise the summoner can call forth some pretty powerful creatures (e.g. Dark Young) for a minor San loss

These are both problems I found with the AC 7th ed rulebooks, especially the latter (so much time/space spent on in-depth history of WWII rather than getting into what matters for the players/characters). Thanks for the feedback, most appreciated!

@SaintMeerkatComments/feedback re Shadows of Atlantis would be appreciated, I have been toying with the idea of trying it - it sounds like you are running it as straight Cthulhu i.e. not Pulp?

I was thinking of adding another house rule to the Resilient talent - and this is the one I'm most likely to bring in - is that it cannot be used to reduce San loss as a result of the character's own actions i.e. if they start going murder-hobo on everyday people or similar then they lose San for it no matter if they have Luck to burn, 'cos they are choosing to act inhuman. Not that I expect this to happen but just in case...

@Grimmshade yeah don't look too closely at travel times - I spent a while looking at what aircraft were available at that time and what their ranges were and it was not pretty viewing! I think the "redlining" idea is best as this whole campaign is about getting straight into the action, though if you did want to lean towards the classic style some more then travel-based scenarios could work well. Like you I am really enjoying the Pulp setting and I think my players are as well - it feels like a really good mix between heroic-style and dark horror gaming

The dual-wielding description does not address your query about the second attack but yes, the attacker should get a bonus die for their second (offhand) attack if the defender only has a single attack (rather than the opponent getting a penalty die). This seems a bit odd in that it means the second attack has a higher chance of success, though some would say that is appropriate as the defender has left an opening after their first dodge/fighting back attempt. I think I would leave this as is and rely on the increased fumble chance (in particular) to balance things out. However I might change my mind if one of my players decides to start dual-wielding machetes!

Similar to @rykemasters I have one character in my Two Headed Serpent campaign who has it and, because the player is generally very jammy with their rolls - i.e. very rarely has to use Luck on a stat/skill check - they have effectively become immune to SAN loss. A cap might be a good idea, or I was toying with making it a 2 Luck per Sanity point cost without a cap. Another thing is that this particular character is up to 90-odd SAN now - they've got the rewards while avoiding the penalties - so they probably won't fail any SAN rolls in the near future which also reduces/negates the need for the Resilient Talent so perhaps that's a small cost for the character in a way i.e. they have a talent that they very rarely use anymore.

You want MORE in this campaign? Glutton for punishment...😉

@jackleg2010 btw that's Seth Skorkowsky - and yes he is an excellent reviewer