klecser

Thank you for taking continual action to elevate Chris' work. 

I'll give you an example from our most recent session from this past Saturday. We are mid way through Timeless Sands of India. Trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the middle of the scenario where the timing of what the Investigators are doing and what the threats are doing really matters quite a bit. And my players made a series of choices that essentially resulted in them saving the lives of dozens of civilians. I went in fully expecting a ton of civilians to die, and player actions lead to forcing a confrontation in a place I didn't expect. And it happened to be an ideal place for protecting those civilians. And it isn't like it was "you randomly succeeded." The actions they took made complete sense and were proactive. So, I emphasized with them that I had not expected that and they had saved a ton of civilians.

But here is the icing on the cake. I looked at the back of the module to see what rewards, if any, there were for saving civilians. And there are none. So, this was an opportunity to emphasize how much they influence my Keeping. I said: "Let's see what rewards there are for saving civilians. Drat. There are none. Well, I think that is bullspit. Ya'll are going to be getting a Sanity reward for saving civilians!"

And the enjoyment was palpable.

The answer to most of those questions is "sometimes." But I will tell you that I always tell them how much they do that I didn't expect and how awesome that was. People like to hear when they violate other people's expectations. It's like a badge of honor. I also like to celebrate players who really shined.

1 minute ago, Dethstrok9 said:

Which is my point that, CoC does not in any way tell readers that the built in mechanic of the game is that of "If you fail, nothing happens." 

I agree, it does not. But GUMSHOE pretends like it does. 'Cause marketing.  

10 minutes ago, Dethstrok9 said:

This right here is (at least to me) simple a different playstyle. Those who play RAW often enjoy learning systems, powergaming or maxing characters, wargaming style play, or just the challenge of mastering a system. Then if someone else comes along who doesn't care to learn the rules like they do, or completely disregards them, then they (rightly in their own playstyle) get bothered or feel like what they love is being blatantly pushed aside ect.

Clarifying what I'm saying. I'm not referring to rules. I'm referring to narrative structure. Narrative structure is system-agnostic, in my eyes. Clues are narrative tools. not mechanics. Mechanics may define the acquisition of those tools. I see a lot of Keepers struggle for a wide variety of reasons. And one of those reasons that is very common is that they treat the narrative elements presented in published adventures as immutable. If these scenes happen in this order in the text, I have to do it in this order in execution. If this character first appears in the text in this place, that is where they must appear. There is a rigidity to how they view the story-telling components provided for them. That doesn't make them a bad Keeper or a bad person. Part of it may be associated with their level (lack) of preparation. We're all busy. But it also seems to me to serve as a barrier to them becoming more comfortable with adaptation. That has nothing to do with the RAW.

Now, remember, I study learning and the psychology of learning for a living. I recognize that things that jump out to me like this might not be things that others spend time considering. Through no fault of their own. We all have lenses informed by our training and experience.

I don't want @smiorgan to feel like I'm trying to hijack the thread, so here is an on-topic example of ways to do this without the need for any particular game system:

You have clues in any game. Some of those clues are linchpins, and some aren't.  Some provide critical details, some are mere fluff, some are red herrings and some enrich an aspect of a character or situation.

As a Keeper, think about what the purpose is for each of your clues. Then, think of ways that you can alter and adapt clues to be available in flexible ways. The players don't know in advance what you intend. So what you intend with your clues is irrelevant. Role-playing is adaptation. If we are serious about our games being truly player-driven, we have to be able to alter our original clue plan to adapt to the choices players make. That means that a letter available in Location A maybe needs to shift to Location B. It means that maybe a clue that was intended to be a telegram, now needs to switch to something an NPC says.

Adaptation is key. And I'm not saying that is easy. It is a skill that becomes easier and easier the longer you run games, and the more work you do in advance of a session to understand the nature of the clues in that session.

There is this strange psychology in the hobby that "if it is in the text, it is sacred." And that attitude is hamstringing the ability of Keepers to be better.

7 minutes ago, Dethstrok9 said:

That actually makes a ton of sense, but only if you think of failure as a block or end to an activity. If my players fail spot hidden, they still find stuff, just maybe not all the stuff. So they still progress and get the clues they need, but they have only part of the information which leads to assumptions and more horror in the end. If they fumble, they still get the necessary information, only they take too long and the cultists find them, or something similar.

More good examples of how to do it from Dethstrok9! "It takes more time." and "You get clues on a sliding continuum."

GUMSHOE basically says that "if you fail a skill check to obtain a clue in that other game, then your investigation is dead in the water. You're helpless. Powerless. Cash in your chips. [I'm imagining a melodramatic Snagglepuss: "Heavens to mergatroid!" That'll date me. LOL] And our way is better because we just give you those clues so that you aren't forced to waste your entire evening of role-playing that ground to a halt because *gasp* someone failed a skill check."

There is hyperbole there. And I'm using it because I really dislike the way GUMSHOE coyly assumes a lack of adaptability by GMs and players as the push for it's marketing. As NickMiddleton describes, they're purposely acting like it's a bigger deal than it is to have a gimmick to market their system. And you can interpret that as shrewd marketing. Or, like some of us, you can interpret it as smacking of a used car salesperson that is telling you what you need to hear, even if it isn't the whole truth.

People were altering clue acquisition, whether actually advised in earlier CoC scenarios or not, before Trail was published.

None of this makes Trail inherently bad or wrong. Kudos to them for engaging on an issue in investigative role-playing. But the tone of that engagement is snide, IMO. It makes inaccurate assumptions about table execution. In short, their marketing gimmick is based upon a deliberately cherry-picked lie that does not accurately reflect system-agnostic, experienced investigative Keeping. 

30 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

Ehm... Can we all keep it relaxed? I don't want to feel bad for raising this issue 😁.

 

Yeah, no worries. Move your clues around. View checks as a continuum. Ask yourself if you even need a check. GMs were doing this before GUMSHOE or CoC 7 existed, whether it was written into published scenarios or not. Making these techniques explicit in published materials was a good thing. But the timing at which they were made explicit, and who published it explicitly "first," also doesn't mean that they never existed before then.

31 minutes ago, Tranquillitas Ordinis said:

Dear klecser,

I also own some GUMSHOE products and never felt that way. Actually, I think what you said here could be equally true about CoC 7ed system. I can find many places in any system rulebook that could be interpreted the same way. Thus, it is not a problem of the system, rather of the interpreter. "Buy our walls of text with no art!" And what is wrong with that? Have you read any older CoC supplement? Or even Nameless Horrors? The text is the essence of any RPG product, art is just a pleasant addition. Is this thread about "investigation problems" or just an opportunity for some people to attack other "Cthulhu" games without good reasons?

 

"A problem of the interpretor" Just...wow. 

You can't tell someone how to feel about something Tranquillitas.

You like GUMSHOE. Fine. I don't. Me not liking GUMSHOE doesn't mean that I don't see faults in CoC. It doesn't mean that the problems I see in GUMSHOE are illogical. It doesn't mean that "Cthulhu" games are "owed" loyalty just because they're of the same genre.

You seem to be taking my opinion personally.

1 hour ago, NickMiddleton said:

*grinds teeth*

Gumshoes PR has been spectacular, given how widely this fabrication has been disseminated.

Gumshoe explicitly spells out, and pretends (or at least, some of its fans pretend)  it is an utterly new, unique revelation exclusive to Gumshoe, something that has been part of basic competent scenario design and GM prep for most gamers I know since about 1980...

Read the scenario, consider the information flows. If the only way to chapter 2 is the characters identifying where the kidnappers went, part of ones GM prep of Chapter 1 should include a note to ensure that, whatever happens, by the end of playing through that material, the characters be in possession of the relevant address... Yes, in an ideal world, the scenario writer / editors should spot this and flag it themselves, and early on not all did; equally, it has always been the case the GM / Keeper is expected to familiarise themselves with the scenario in advance of running and adapt what is written to create a workable game at their table.

And lets be clear, just because a lot of early CoC scenarios were poorly written, does not mean the system is at fault, nor that every sceanrio made these mistakes, despite Gumshoes claims to the contrary. Perhaps if more early Keepers and writers had paid more attention to the sample scenario in the core book... Because getting Corbitt's diaries, or a  number of other clues,  in the Haunted House do not require any skill rolls... And there is NO "Search" skill in Call of Cthulhu.

Gumshoe is perfectly fine system - it has some genuinely interesting innovations (and some serious issues, at least in its early incarnations) - the whole "CoC was SHIT at investigations but we have discovered the secret divine revelation of how to fix it that no one else had" is just annoying hyperbole - combined with Trail of Cthulhu's inability to explain its core mechanics for fifty pages however rather soured me on the game, despite liking some of the settings (esp Ashen Stars and Mutant City Blues).

 

This. Exactly all this. If GUMSHOE is "solving" any problem, it isn't systemic. It is a GM skill/psychology issue. GUMSHOE's central premise is that you, as a GM, are unadaptable, terrible at what you do, and incapable of learning.

I own a lot of Trail products. And they are a great source of inspiration for scenario ideas. But there is this haughty undercurrent in the material that says to me "We've figured out what no one else has about investigative gaming! Buy our walls of text with no art!"

Its just really off-putting.

And no, it isn't a problem to manage clues in games. It starts by viewing a dice check as being far more versatile than "you discover something, or you don't."

My first Leatherette is in(un)bound.

Check your emails if you've been waiting on a coupon! HU2E, CDA, and Smoking Ruins are all in stock at US Warehouses. I got my coupons a couple hours ago. Remember that you need to ask Dustin to combine your coupons if you want to combine shipping and get a single order. There is max one coupon per order, but he'll get you a shiny new one that includes however many purchases you wanna make.

11 hours ago, exposednegative said:

However, I find it upsetting to read updates on his involvement with another project (Delta Green). Bridges have been burnt.

Just...wow. He's working with Arc Dream?They're working with him?

We are living in a time in which people are seeing what they can get away with. And until the fanbase holds these authors/companies accountable, I fear that poorly run Kickstarters are going to continue.

Update as I dig: He's heavily involved with Actual Plays too? All while his Backers have had their money stolen. What the actual heck? I can't speak for other industries, but in mine, if anyone pulled anything even remotely close to this, we would run you completely out of relevancy. We have zero tolerance for shysters. 

1 hour ago, RogerDee said:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/call-of-cthulhu-wishlist.865608/

I'm glad you posted this, but it also begs the question as to why people aren't posting their lists here. Anyone who has played games for any amount of time knows that official forums are the most likely place to be heard by companies.

Hecks yes Author Preview™. Thanks Dr. Hardy!

25 minutes ago, Mike M said:

Crits, fumbles, and firearms malfunctions always apply and cannot be bought off with Luck points. But, of course, the Keeper can overrule that.

Um, doesn't look to me like he read wrong? Did you read his whole post?

13 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

That said, 2021 will be a 40th Anniversary for Call of Cthulhu, so it could be an idea to make a special publication - whatever that would be - to mark the occasion. 

IIRC, Mike indicated that there were some special plans for this in the works. 

7 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Sorry if I am asking a dumb question.. but if I remember right... Luck can only be used to turn normal failure into normal success, but can't affect fumble, special and critical... isn't that right?!

By the letter of the RAW, sure. But YGWV. If a Keeper decides that a player can buy off a firearm malfunction, then they can.

Lloyd brings up another struggle we have in the hobby. And that is how different people attenuate to RAW. Personally, I think that it is fully appropriate that, if you go to an FLGS or a Con, it is fair for you to expect the RAW to be used, because it helps players to manage their expectations of what a new Keeper will and will not do.

The other side of this coin is that there are also people who seem to think (and I'm not saying that Llyod is one of them) that the RAW of any game should be treated as sacred, and that people who violate the RAW in their home games are "doing it wrong." The truth is that everyone's game will vary, and you can do whatever you want with the ruleset. If I were Keeping at an FLGS or Con and knew in advance that I wanted to play the RAW differently, I would just be upfront about that at the table.

This is central to the discussion because everyone has a different base set of assumptions for how mechanics work in the game. People don't like to have their assumptions contended with. Yet, all of us attenuating to universal application of the rules would basically just mean some people wouldn't have fun. I've been wondering why people are so passionate about one side of this discussion. And it may very well come down to perspective on RAW.

Only if purchased from Chaosium or a Bits and Mortar store, I believe. The incentive for PDF is to support small stores and the publisher.

3 hours ago, Tranquillitas Ordinis said:

Dear klecser,

I have a slightly different perspective. I also do not like the "dice tell the story" attitude. I agree that dice do not tell the story, simply because they can not talk. Players make the story and dice are just tools. What are these tools for?

I follow the philosophy that dice pick between different branches of history (or between the alternative game universes). Any time we roll a dice, several outcomes are possible: failure, success, hard success etc. Each outcome is a different history, different time-line. And here is where I probably disagree with you: all these branches can be interesting. You say:

I agree, and I think our perspectives are closer than you think. In the time I've spent thinking about this, it appears as if there is some degree of semantic differences that fuels the difference in perspective. Earlier in the thread Ian Absentia commented that this debate has never been resolved. Yet, we keep flogging the dead horse. Why? I think it is for two reasons. First, we all want everyone at the table to have fun. And there certainly are differences of opinion of what makes something fun. And while fun may seem like something locked to the one experiencing it, in a collaborative game it is not. One person's fun can be another person's dissatisfaction. Second, and related to the first, is the impression I get that some people believe that their fun at the expense of others is perfectly reasonable. This is where the table contract comes in. Any Keeper running a table needs to communicate with their players. And really probe what people find fun and what they don't. Communication is difficult. Questions I am very curious about: To what extent is there a division in the hobby? Tables that define "fun" by a particular creed and tables that define drastically different rules for said fun? How many are mixed and what challenges present themselves under those circumstances?

Quote

All these examples are examples of failure, suggesting that failure is inherently less interesting. Why? We could take all your three examples and build exciting stories on top of them. The fact that we remember one "branch" of the story (the one we found in the book/ movie) being interesting, does not imply that other "branches" would be boring.

Failure is indeed interesting. But something being interesting and something being satisfying do not always coincide. That is what I was getting at with those examples. Failure in any of those situations would certainly be interesting. But it doesn't satisfy. And I think that might be getting to the crux in differences in preference for story-telling. I personally do not believe that it is easy to craft both interesting and satisfying under random conditions. The dice don't know what satisfies people. People do. And whether one fudges dice or fudges description, the end result is some fudging is needed somewhere if we intend to produce satisfying. And before people jump on me, I never said that satisfying means "players always win." I've never said that. I've given my prime example of dissatisfying earlier in the thread: Random flukes that produce inane, satisfaction-killing, absurd outcomes.

Quote

This is why I really dislike fudging rolls. If we can alter the result on the dice, why are we even using them? I have to accept the result I rolled, even if I do not like it, because it forces me to be creative, to think how to make any possible outcome interesting. If I wanted my players to succeed I would not require any rolls, or would not roll for their opponents. Or would just "rail-road" the players in a way that leads their characters to a desired point. Or would use mechanic similar to the "Trail of Cthulhu", were investigation-related tasks can be performed without any rolls. I feel much more honest, when I do not pretend that I follow rules, just to alter or violate them any time I find them uncomfortable.

We're using them to inject an element of chance. Not complete and total governance by chance. And that is the key to what I oppose. I know role-players that wholeheartedly believe that a story in game should be determined entirely by chance, and if everyone leaves the table having seen nothing fun, interesting, or satisfying happening, then oh well. We were at the "mercy" of the dice all along. I guess the dice didn't allow an interesting story. Can you imagine a novelist rolling dice in writing a story or character? It would be a disaster. And yet, you get role-players treating the dice as if they are the sacred arbiter of story-telling. It is bizarre, and in my opinion is a liability in the hobby.

Quote

I could even say more, I love when uncomfortable, or just bad rolls ruin all my plans! Keeper is the only player that most of the time has no fun from discovering anything "new" in the story. Keeper knows all NPC, their motivations, knows the story, who killed who, which clue leads where etc. There is nothing left to discover for him. But when players do something unexpected, or have terrible rolls that could lead them to immediate damnation, this usually alters the story significantly. And suddenly I—as the Keeper—have something new to discover! I have to quickly rethink the plot, the NPCs behaviors etc. which opens a completely new universe of possibilities, and makes me feel like I am exploring the world together with my players.

I think it is important to note that positive things can be different and interesting as well. I can't tell you the number of times that my players completely upended my plans and then succeeded. And I had a blast seeing them succeed. Part of me also thinks that there is this delight in seeing people fail. Why can't there be delight and interest in seeing them succeed? But this seems to be the argument of many. If they don't see threat, they can't imagine failure, and if they can't imagine failure, then the endeavor isn't worth doing. It's almost as if the journey is irrelevant to them? The legacy of Gygax is that he has engendered what I consider to be only one perspective as to what can be satisfying in the hobby. I believe his players knew what they signed up for and it isn't my job to tell them how to have fun. But I also think the consequence of Gygax' success is that he created a generation of role-players that equated brutal unyielding chance with fun. I happen to not equate those two things. And I also believe it to be a tactical wargamer's perspective not a story-telling perspective. When someone tells me that I'm cheating by fudging, what I really hear people saying is I define what is fun and what you define as fun doesn't matter. And I basically refuse to accept that.

Quote

Of course any approach is "good", because any RPG group has their own definition of "good".  For me, constant failure in CoC (especially when you play with new, inexperienced characters) is a natural outcome of the fact that CoC characters are not "heroes". They have no useful skills, they have no knowledge, they do not know how to use magic, and even though they still think that they can save the world. No, it is highly improbable. If you are a librarian whole life, and your Firearms is 10%, you can not probably win a shooting with cultists. So the characters will fail, they will go insane or die, but it will all happen in the most exciting ways. Because, believe me, you can enjoy a failure in CoC, if there was a good story behind it. And moreover, if the characters somehow succeed, players will remember that forever.

Yeah, I don't disagree. We're closer than you might think. I think the key difference is that I view the satisfying outcome possibilities as being just as interesting under circumstances of "unexpected success" as "unexpected failure." And while don't begrudge anyone their preference of "unexpected failure is more satisfying," I also find it a cynical way to game. To each their own. But gaming is for everyone. Not just the cynical.

I think it is important that we discuss these things. If we want better tables, we have to understand each other better. The exact wrong thing to do would be to not talk about perspectives on fudging.

5 hours ago, David Scott said:

Recent uses have been to stop a gun malfunction (but still a miss), throwing someone off a train in a grappling fight (missed by 1%), falling through a trapdoor (avoiding serious injury missed by 35%). I think the highest spend ever was on a dodge roll when a machine gun opened up on them (around 60%).

Similar experiences. My players aren't fools. Why do Keepers treat their players like fools? Why do Keepers assume their players will make foolish decisions when given agency?

Let's take the gun malfunction as an example for the topic.

Jane brings her rifle to bear against the cultist bearing down on her. She pulls the trigger. It jams! But Jane is determined to stop this vile organization. She checks the bolt action quickly, finds a misalignment, and rights it. (Luck spent) *Boom* The Cultist won't be spreading their vile poison anymore! At least this one, of legion.

Some gamers prefer for the encounter to go the other way. Jane pulls the trigger and it jams. And that's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. But I think that the key thing here is that there is also nothing wrong with the alternative.

I just really dislike the "dice tell the story" exclusively attitude. I understand the logic behind it. People want random elements injected into their stories to make them more exciting. But "random elements" of plot and situation alone are never what make a story interesting. They never have been. Luke misses his shot on the exhaust port because he fumbled the roll is not interesting to me. Professor Armitage fumbling his spell casting in the denouement is not interesting to me. Trinity missing the point blank shot on the Agent, resulting in Neo dying, is not interesting to me.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who acts like their stories are completely random are deliberately ignoring the ways in which they make choices that guide story. "Dice alter the story" is more to my taste, and maybe I'm just splitting hairs on the language. But I've listened to gamers speak on this for ages and many that I know act like dice are the only vehicle that alters the story. It's a shame too because that is pretty self-deprecating.

18 minutes ago, uglifruit said:

Do you find spending luck to modify rolls only makes sense within a Campaign-type setting (where Luck becomes a resource that the Investigators might want to hold back?).

Great question. I predominately do campaigns, but I've also run one-shots at FLGS' and with friends. Keeping each type of game is very different.  Pros and cons that I perceive for using Luck in each type:

Campaign Pros: Luck can really give a sense of both excitement and relief when it helps players succeed. The Group Luck roll really helps to balance Luck use because everyone suffers if someone blows all their luck in a short time. Players get attached to their characters, and while I appreciate the nature of CoC being about lethality, it also isn't a Keeper's (or anyone's) job to tell anyone how they should feel about their game experiences. All of the "but that isn't the right way to play CoC!' voices in the audience, I'm looking at you.

Campaign Cons: The Group Luck roll can also make it so that players are afraid to spend Luck and it actually becomes a source of anxiety for them. Maybe this isn't really a Con, because then you're just playing 1E-6E. 😜  A Con may be that Luck rewards are a thing and it is something the Keeper has to consider and manage. If you don't like managing numeric statistics of a group, that is a downside.

One-Shot Pros: Can ease the likelihood of an early player death that leaves them sitting at the table. It gives them the power to decide how big of a risk they want to take in a situation rather than the Keeper deciding that. Obviously bringing extra character sheets can alleviate this too. As above, some players like the idea of a sense of control over big moments or as a security blanket. Players do fear getting an inexperienced or vindictive Keeper that will leave them high and dry for most a game.

One-Shot Cons: Min-maxers will deliberately withhold spending Luck until the one critical moment and then blow it all to craft a critical success, thereby getting what they want: "winning" a role-playing game. Many Keepers restrict Luck spending at all in one-shots or limit the total amount of Luck that can be spent in a one-shot. I've heard "no more than half" as a common example. 

Those are not exhaustive lists. Others will come up with other examples. That's just off the top of my head whilst doing three things at once. 

All of that said, and on point to this topic, we have trust issues in the hobby.  A lot of these discussions seem to boil down to "I can't trust my players" or "I can't trust my Keeper."  It boggles my mind that some Keepers especially seem to assume that their players have poor story intentions or aren't smart enough to manage mechanics. And there are certainly both players and Keepers that exhibit all of the traits we dislike about each group. It is important for us to assume the best first, IMO.

I'm enjoying that first scenario. Yithians feature prominently in my campaign and I've targeted that scenario for an immediate adventure hook option for my players. It will take some development, but it has lots of potential. Now that I'm thinking about it, I think I need to go back and re-read Devil's Swamp, because Serpent People feature heavily in my campaign as well.

@davewire , I am really appreciating your contributions to the community!

1 hour ago, Kyle said:

A lot of people criticize fudging and a lot of people criticize not fudging. To me, it depends on how you see your campaign. If you think the story aspect of the campaign is more important then you should take control of the narrative and fudge rolls. If you see the game aspect as more important than that then you shouldn't fudge. That's the way I see it.

I'd add that, if everyone is having fun, that is all that matters. 

@Mike M, just to be clear, we're not saying you're doing a bad job or anything. This is your cheering squad.  That doesn't mean we don't have opinions about what we'd like to see, of course. I am super psyched for the future of CoC!