klecser

Isn't it amazing that the ones who cry foul the loudest about how "sensitive" people are, turn out to be the most sensitive ones in the room?

I won't reiterate any of the points made above by Qizilbashwoman, Ian Absentia, and others, because they basically said what needs to be said. But I do want to come full circle to point out that this whole pseudo-schism started by people 1) stating facts that some people just don't want to talk about, 2) people apparently NOT talking about HPL "enough" in the CR video, or 3) conflating silence or stating of facts with "trashing" of HPL. It just seems like a Kobayashi Maru situation for some people. You talk about HPL with reverance, and you're "safe." You talk about him, rather than NOT talking about him, and you're "safe." You give the "right" balance of the facts that allow us to not have to confront anything that makes someone uncomfortable, and you're "safe." I mean, it's just a constant moving of the goalposts. All with the lovely gaslighting that it is really OTHER people who should be admonished for desiring safe spaces. What makes the person who admonishes safe spaces and decries political correctness feel safe is just "common sense." And what makes other (different *gasp*) people, who like safe spaces and respectful language feel safe is a breach of freedom? Come on. Give me a break.

Who's really being the "sensitive" ones here? Honestly. *rolleyes*

I'm actually glad this happened because this situation has taught me who I should even bother with and who I shouldn't. Some people just aren't worth your time.

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

You were asking what it is, I told you the rule.

And I appreciate that. I wasn't criticizing. Just sharing my perspective.

Good point about numerical advantage.

The in-book rules are only one factor for me. I'm not a game canonist. I rely on the books for the assumption of play-testing and inspiration. I also don't want to make a decision that I end up regretting, regarding balance. This isn't Amber, where the Court members can conjure up anything that they want at-will. So, if I were to do it, I'd probably increase the Magic point cost so that in-combat Dreaming would be a  "daily." 

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Thanks guys!

It's gonna be fun, Dark Eleves, Dragonewt.... followed later by Illithid and Gythzerai... followed by Nyarlathothep and Chtugha! Descent into madness!

I like your style. Keep having fun!

Many spells are intended only for groups of people to cast. Rather, dozens of people contribute Magic Points. Of course, groups of Investigators can pool MP too.

I think it also needs to be "capped" according to the rules of "size and complexity" that has been defined in H.P. Lovercraft's Dreamlands. It isn't Genie wishes. So for me the challenge is figuring out how to make the cost balanced so that it's use is fun, but not so overpowered as to be "boring."

The thing that matters to me most is that the game we all love is opened to EVERYONE, not just people who conform to an exclusive perspective or persuasion. Whether people understand it or not, what we say on this Forum influences how much the game grows. And if the game growing means finding ways to accept players, even when you disagree with them, that should be a critical goal of what we do here.

It is quite possible, after people watch the Critical Role episode, new prospective players will find their way to Chaosium.com, and by extension to this Forum. And some of us are here simply trying to emphasize that EVERYONE is welcome in Call of Cthulhu. And, in response, some forum members have been saying really unwelcoming things like "it is bad Keeping to attenuate to social issues at your table." Anyone who is a successful Keeper knows that that is just false.  It also sends the message that different perspectives and experiences aren't welcome in the game and shouldn't be welcomed in the game. I've been contacted by forum members thanking me for defending respectful Keeping. But for every person who thanks people who defend gaming for all and respect for realistic experience, there are new people that see voices defining this as an unwelcoming place and they may never play the game because of it. Don't like people who don't think like you? Fine. But sure as heck don't chase them away from the rest of us who are willing to listen and work with them! It isn't our job to babysit your insecurities. This is EVERYONE'S game. 

Coming full circle, the Critical Role video has given us another of many recent opportunities to expand the game to new players. And some people here seem eager to protect "their" space against perspectives they don't like, even if it means all of us losing prospective players. I won't stand for that kind of poisoning of the well if I can show people they are welcome here. I'd like to think that Trifletraxor wants prospective new players to feel welcome on this forum. I salute them for making it available to all of us and to Chaosium, but that also means that how we represent the accessibility of Call of Cthulhu matters.

Has anyone considered NPCs/adversaries possessing the Dreaming skill and Investigators getting into a "Dreaming battle" with said adversaries?

Adversary produces a brick wall. Investigators Dream some means to get through or over it?

It's worth noting that, while nclarke is correct that people play a wide variety of editions of CoC, all of the new material is being produced for 7E.

There honestly aren't that big of a differences between the different CoC versions.

7th edition converted characteristics to a 100 scale instead of 3-18. Its just multiplying characteristics times five.

7th edition established three main difficulty levels for everything. It used to be you roll under varying multiples of your skill values to succeed. This has reduced the mental math greatly and speeds up table play.

7th edition combined combat skills into two main skills and consolidated some other skills. In older iterations, combat skills were much more split apart

7th edition also added some modern-style mechanics that keep a table fun like advantage/disadvantage (called bonus/penalty dice) and the option to spend luck to affect rolls. Ask a grognard how mad they are that someone dared to do that.

7th edition has theatre-of-the mind, number-line controlled Chase rules that haven't existed in prior iterations. 

There may be a few other things, but those are the main ones. Some of the grognards want to act like 7th edition ruined "their" game, but it is, in the opinion of many, a far more streamlined and modernized system. It'll be fun to see who flies off the handle to challenge that statement.

Some people get handed a hundred-dollar bill and complain about how it is folded.

I seem to recall someone at Chaosium saying that they considered this the "definitive edition" of Call of Cthulhu. 

I'm not surprised. Congratulations to everyone at Chaosium!

2 minutes ago, rsanford said:

Lots of people like being divisive. You’re not the first.

It turns out that there is an "ignore" feature that I'm making use of for some posters.  

1 minute ago, rsanford said:

You guys aren’t making friends arguing this on an RPG site. 

We didn't bring it up. We are questioning comments that prevent people from enjoying the hobby of role-playing. If that doesn't win me friends @rsanford, I'm PLEASED that I'd lose those potential friends.

It is. It is mental gymnastics to avoid having to be responsible for what one says. seneschal, your perspective is based upon how you WANT the world to work, not how it actually works. And that is insulting to people in marginalized groups. And MLK is rolling over in his grave right now based upon how egregiously you've misinterpreted his goals.

42 minutes ago, seneschal said:

As I’ve said before, political correctness is an enemy of (among other things) good gaming.

There is a whole segment of the hobby that wouldn't feel welcome at your table if you truly believe this. I don't believe this at all. The purpose of political correctness is respect. You respect a person and their experience so that they can feel welcome. You have it completely backwards if you ignore who your players are and don't attenuate to what language they decide is respectful or not. And that's the thing that you don't seem to understand. YOU don't get to decide whether the language you use hurts someone. You can't tell someone how they should feel. And you can't dismiss how they feel just because you don't want to grow and work on your language.

I got news for you. I would not feel welcome at your table. And I'm a white man. 

To everyone else in the audience: You are welcome in gaming. There are groups who are capable of acknowledging who you are AND can give you a great story. We will not ignore your experience and we will listen to your needs.

12 minutes ago, seneschal said:

Seriously, folks.  How did a discussion of scary cover art devolve into “Fifty Shades of Political Correctness”?  I don’t care about representation, diversity or inclusiveness in a horror game.  Cthulhu is coming to devour the WHOLE species, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc., and you want to go all Baskin Robbins and offer him 31 flavors?  Have you thought this through?

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, there is a market for it. It has been shown many times over the last few years. If you aren't the market, you aren't the market. That doesn't mean you deny the market to those who want it. Gaming is for everyone. And everyone has different tastes. This discussion started because people expressed their tastes. Some found the art contrary to their tastes. Some liked it. But nobody said: "Stop the book because the art doesn't appeal to me." It kind of sounds like you are saying "stop the theme because it doesn't appeal to me." Have YOU thought this through?

Update. We have:

-A Silver Mostali

-A Pixie

-Two humans

-One undecided.

Everyone has great ideas as to how they will weave together interacting. The posts here really helped!

Making them up is always an option too. I know you're looking for a time saver, but there doesn't seem to be one that you and I are aware of, besides what has been referenced.

Of course, the England section of Masks. If you wanted a cheaper version, you could target the 4th Edition (of that book, not ruleset) version. Many of those scenarios can stand alone.

The first section of Horror on the Orient express starts in London.

The first part of Tatters of the King starts in London.

Age of Cthulhu: Madness in Londontown

Trail of Cthulhu: Bookhounds of London and The Final Revelation. It is not difficult to convert Trail to Call.

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

I think the cover is great (and I have a lot to say about art at Chaosium) - at the end of the day remember, this is a cover for a commercial product and we have many different audiences with many different sets of expectations. What doesn't work for one audience can work brilliantly for another. I mean heck, I had one dude on social media complaining about the "low quality art" in the new RuneQuest stuff.

I remain confident that Jeff and Mike understand how to craft products that appeal to the BREADTH of their market. And that is really the key word. Markets are broader than most people think. Jeff's anecdote illustrates not only how extremely individualized some gamers are in their art preferences, but it also shows the sense of entitlement gamers have over products. It is one of the least appealing aspects of the hobby. "My preference is the RIGHT preference, and if only these foolish designers would do what I say, they'd be more successful!" The disrespect for professionalism in our society is palpable.

1 hour ago, Travern said:

That may work for players coming out of D&D or Mansions of Madness or for horror fans of Goosebumps rather than HPL.  Otherwise, I find it to be too silly.  The artist Chris Huth is quite capable of producing frightening Lovecraftian illustrations (check out his B&W work for Sentinel Hill Press), so I have to assume the responsibility lies with the art direction.

I mean, folks, seriously. This was perfectly fine when it was "I dislike the art style." But this comment reads to me as incredibly disrespectful to Mike Mason, as a professional.  You aren't line editor for Call of Cthulhu. You aren't the art director. When the chips are down, you aren't the one feeding their family with products. Just out of curiosity, for which products have you been the art director?

You realize that most new Call of Cthulhu players are coming from DND, right? The future success of Call of Cthulhu is not going to be based off of what veterans do and do not purchase. It's going to be based off the strength of recruiting new players. The art makes complete sense, from a marketing standpoint, targeting the likely audience. "But I'M not that audience!" Well, then I guess you aren't that audience. That doesn't make the decision inappropriate.

18 hours ago, g33k said:

Bumpin' this'un!

Still really interested!  Hoping we might get some news... Even if it's just "work on the 'Setting Bible' continues space, but until his other projects finish... that pace remains slow."

Last Chaosium comment was 8 months ago...

I'm super late to the party here. I had heard of Chris' Wild West setting, but somehow this announcement completely slipped through my radar. Ringworld is one of my favorite novels and I think I need to read Ringworld Engineers in anticipation of this game...

Update: We are making characters tonight! This thread has given me some good ideas to go with. Chiefest among them are ways to integrate Elder Race backstories with humans of Dragon Pass and to encourage players that play Elder Races to write backstories.

I copied many of your comments into a document to use for future reference.

Thanks everyone!

Personally, I like both covers. They are different, yes, but every artist has their own style and interpretation. Art has breadth. And while people can have their own preferred styles, saying that a certain art style "should" prevail, when one is not sitting in the editorial driver's seat, is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. Mike chose a different artist and style than the preference of some. Shucks.