klecser

I've started ordering direct from Chaosium for new releases not only to support them as much as possible, but also because of those PDFs. Access to digital files makes handouts so much easier. And regarding that map issue, I take a total "action figure mentality" to it. I have my physical copy to keep it pristine, and then use the PDF to print color versions of maps that can be risked at the table. As a teacher, the thought of a botched lamination job (they happen) makes me feel sick, but to each their own. I very much prefer physical books for reading/research/display and PDFs for the practical stuff.

"Yes", Yes, but..." and "Yes, and..." are the sentence starters of all successful GMs. You bring up a really good point (and here I am hijacking my original thread LOL). Is the feel that something has endemic to the game, it's system, or the GM? Let's think of the original designers. My impression is that Greg Stafford had a great attitude when he made his game. I look at this game with fresh eyes and I see someone for which role-playing and story-telling mattered. DND started as a Chainmail ruleset. I'm of the opinion that DND's culture continues to be haunted by Gary Gygax. Gygax was a "no" GM who seemed to revel in player failure. And to be fair to him it seemed as if his play groups liked to be challenged that way. He was not a model for aspiring Gamemasters, in my opinion, because very few role-players prefer that style, in my experience.

I'm not meaning for this to turn into a DND bashing thread. If I were to phrase it positively, it is that Yes-focused immersive storytelling is what has drawn me to Runequest.

I intend to run the overall FEEL of Classic Cthulhu in my games. But I also often find myself throwing in Pulp elements to drive excitement in the game. There is only so much time to game and if I followed the tome rules to the letter players would never have any feeling of accomplishment studying them. So, I frequently accelerate tome rules to be more story-driving than story-grinding. This has the added benefit of increasing the risk rapidly too. My players love that. They are totally addicted to it and a solid 10% of all of our games is preparing for and cleaning up after tome decisions. I respect the power of slow burn and slow reveal, but if it is all slow, all the time, patience can run thin.

I have a player who is an Engineering professor who has learned a lot about alien tech.  Far more than what many would consider "typical" in a Classic CoC game. I draw on the core Pulp rules and The Two-Headed Serpent a lot for ideas for this, since we have a Serpent Person-themed campaign. The conventional wisdom of "you found this weird thing, you don't know how it works, and probably never will" adds mystery for a while, but can get frustrating. Role-players like when "things happen."

Finally, I think it's pretty hard for a lot of people to not imagine Indiana Jones when they are doing "archaeological stuff" in a Classic Cthulhu game. I've always considered it a bit asinine for me to deny players some Indiana Jones-style encounters every so often to keep the interest high.

TL;DR: You can do both. Every group is different. I think a big thing that holds back a lot of Keepers is the misconception that they have to play a game "a certain way." And they just end up hamstringing their own effectiveness in reaching their table.

So, I'm totally new to Runequest and posted a video with an unboxing in which I erroneously implied that MB Heroquest is connected to the Heroquest RPG. I just assumed they were because how could two companies use the same name for products?

How is it that Chaosium has Heroquest RPG and MB published a completely unrelated board game with the same name? How did the copyright/trademark shake out on that?

Thanks in advance for the history!

I'm glad I posted this because I think it's revealing a couple of things and I want you all to know that I don't take them for granted:

1) This is a giving board. That is not lost on me. I've been on the internet since the early 90s and I've seen some awful, awful, awful stuff, as I'm sure many of you have. It's always refreshing to find a discussion space where people are willing to take tough questions seriously.

2) Part of the reason why I decided to invest in Runequest is that I had a gut instinct that Runequest stories were very rich stories, and I think this thread illustrates it. This is advanced story-telling, and I understand what you all are saying. That's why I asked. Remember that my fantasy role-playing experience is DND and I'm learning right now to code switch between the two. I'm not trying to imply that DND can't have rich stories. At the same time, we all know that certain games attract certain styles of role-playing. I'm liking the style here.

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

This is fantastic! Do you mind if we share this outside of BRP Central?

Any media you like.

Thanks for the correction @PhilHibbs. I guess I don't understand how the copyright/trademark works on that. How did it end up getting to Chaosium if MB had the name? Not trying to hijack, so I'll post a question in the Heroquest forum.

Here's my unboxing: 

I'm a devout Call of Cthulhu Keeper, have been role-playing for 25 years, had never heard of Runequest until the 4th Quick Start was released (!), and didn't decide to buy the slipcase until three days before it's release.

I made the right decision.

I just want to say again that I appreciate the reasoned takes and explanations that people are giving. My goal here was to have a better understanding as a novice GM/player to this game. You all have not disappointed me. Thank you for taking my question/concern seriously and giving me some specific examples of how this particular mechanic fits into the setting!

Thanks for the serious reply.

As I thought about it more I realized that having "prices" allows a framework for players to seek non-violent solutions for rescuing slaves.

I also appreciate the other examples you gave. I'm certainly not for "sanitizing" historical realities. I just always want everything to be handled with discretion. This is why I asked experienced GMs! Thanks.

Everyone on this forum knows Runequest better than I do. I am new to the game and its history.

I was reading through the PDF, and (still) eagerly anticipating my slipcase when I was surprised to see game mechanic prices for slaves. I understand that this is a Bronze Age mythic game and slavery features heavily in early human history and mythic stories.

At the same time, I'm like: Why? Why do we need game-stated prices for slaves? Even if they are part of the setting? It seems to cross a line to me. It implies that player characters are going to have characters that purchase slaves as a "regular" part of the setting.

I'm not trolling and I'm not looking to start a fight or anything. It just crosses a line for me as to what we should be doing in role-playing games. I'm wondering if people with more experience in the game have some sort of justification for it, because I don't see it. Your rebuttal may be that role-players don't think twice about rampant murder that exists within gaming, and that is true. I know I have the power to draw an iron curtain. It just doesn't sit well with me that a player would purchase slaves, even if part of a story. The same reason why it doesn't sit well with me to have players whose characters rape or abuse, even if part of a fictional story.

This is a very helpful thread. I didn't even know RQ was a thing until recently, despite being an active role-player since AD&D 2nd. When I stumbled upon the  hype train for RQ 4 recently it caught me. I am very interested in the concept of more Conan/Clash of the Titans/Elric myth-focused fantasy right now.  But I'm also not into 2d20 and I'm not crazy about Modiphius' Conan. I'm deep into CoC and I love the idea of a world that is more foreign than DND's settings. So, here I am. I took the plunge.  Bought the slipcase and looking forward to getting the books in hand. I REALLY like what I'm seeing in the PDFs.  I like the Battletech-esque hit location/specific consequence aspect of the combat. I also really like how what would be "secondary" races in DND are really given strong prominence as playable options in RQ. Plus, the whole "everyone has access to and uses magic."

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Looking forward to it.  Since you won't self-promote, I'll link it https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9EqFqKBETCBse8JuOOYOg/videos?disable_polymer=1

Well lit, and decent sound quality/volume puts you immediately in the upper half of youtube products.

Wow, thank you. I'm no Seth Skorkowsky or Bud, but thanks nonetheless!

I'll be unboxing the slipcase on my YouTube Channel (RPG Imaginings) as someone who has never played Runequest before. I think it will be interesting to see how it looks to someone with fresh eyes. I'm very attracted to Runequest as an alternative to the "mainstream" fantasy RPGs.

7 minutes ago, godsmonkey said:

Am I the only one checking my inbox every few minutes waiting for the coupons?
 

I'm just waiting for the order link!

2 hours ago, EricW said:

OTOH why call it Cthulhu if you want to do something completely different? Why not invent your own pantheon of gods who represent human failings?

Why tell people how they should feel about/interpret something? Why must there be an "entry fee" (in this case, "canon" interpretation) to love and consume something? How do we ATTRACT fans to a hobby?

3 hours ago, EricW said:

I get the impression the Great Old Ones and their acolytes don't care about human racial or social divisions, if anything their goal is to sweep aside divisions and bring humans together in one great holocaust of ecstatic self destruction. It surely simply wouldn't occur to them to leave any group of humans out of their plan because of  something as absurdly insignificant as human skin color.

Eric, you're always quick to jump in with quotes from HPL's writings as if they, in of themselves, should be justifications for a position. I think it's worth noting that not everyone treats his writings as gospel. Nor should we in this case. Remember how HPL was pretty racist himself?  That is kind of the whole point. Authors are writing these scenarios because they want to make it very clear that, while we love HPL's writing and his contributions to literature, we don't support his personal ethics. The "turn the Mythos on its head" movement is deliberate and it has multiple goals. "Abiding by canon" is not one of them. None of us should be looking to HPL for moral codes or primers on engagement on social issues.

20 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Until the next one. 

I consider this the definitive edition. There is only so much work you can put into tweaking anything before it becomes splitting hairs. Pleasing every gamer is an impossible goal and unrealistic. Let's just celebrate that we got a fantastic product that will pass the test of time.

As with any product, if someone doesn't desire the product, they just don't buy the product.

12 hours ago, Joe Kenobi said:

My assumption is that the scenarios won't be dealing with "righting the wrongs of institutional racism,"
 but rather with the oppressive force of institutional racism and the way any individual's actions to combat it feel insignificant and fruitless.

This. The purpose of these adventures is not to "solve" these problems. The purpose is to experience real-life horrors right alongside Mythos ones to help people to understand the gravity of what exists. If anything, I think they are more in line with the game in that it effectively doubles the insurmountable terror. Talk to these authors and it'll be clear that this isn't intended to be Savior-complex stuff. Far from it.

Backed at a high level. 

A truly incredible level of detail in this supplement. Check it out folks.

5 hours ago, i3ullseye said:

1) More Strength can also mean more muscle mass, and more general bulk.

2) I prefer to not over complicate things that actually have minimal impact hehe.

Yep. We need to have some level of suspension of disbelief in a game about telling stories. 

1 hour ago, Son-of-the-Furies said:

That's true [Numtini], creating extra skill divisions does spread the PC's OS & PI points out, especially if the player wants greater than average proficiency in both motorcycle and automobile... However, another way to look at it [being niche] is, when it's time to run, no-body else is going to take your motorbike when there are cars around! And in this case, bikes are faster in certain situations, if not always...  And can get through tighter gaps... And they are a lot cheaper...  Perhaps worth throwing a few points at...

Son-of-the-Furies is highlighting another good point here regarding the skill point concern brought up by Numtini. The ultimate goal, from a crunch standpoint, is that we want to maximize player options, while minimizing the chance that artificial spread of skill points doesn't result in a "good at nothing" investigator.  This is exactly why it is important to have the discussion with players before character creation transpires of 1) what skills might be "highlight" skills for a campaign and 2) a generalized discussion of what kind of skills are most useful to players in CoC in general (the Holy Trinity Social/Library Use/Spot Hidden. There isn't a foolproof answer to this because it can be a challenge to predict when a skill roll might be needed.  Right now, all of my players are lamenting the fact that nobody has Navigate, because it happened to come up in our recent game. Not having it didn't derail the story though. At the same time, when they re-speced about six months ago, many of them reduced several of their major skill totals by ten points and put points in Listen. And they aren't regretting that at all.

To help to mitigate this issue of "point waste" versus skill use challenge , I do four things with my groups: 1) give my players options to use related skills at higher difficulties. This is built into the system with KNOW, which is essentially a less detailed backup to a Science specialization. Don't have Science (Geo)? Then its a Hard or Extreme Know. 2) communicate as much as possible with players about ways in which they feel their skills have utility as opposed to just being "dead weight" What can I do as Keeper to help them feel like their character creation choices mattered? 3) after several games, allow a limited one-time "re-spec" of shifting about a hundred points around and 4) remind them of the ability to "hire out" skills of NPCs, where possible.

I think it is important for Keepers to be self aware of what messages they send to players about their character creation.  I do not subscribe to the "too bad, so sad" mentality that aggressively chides players for having the audacity to commit to certain choices. Choice should be celebrated and useful. That doesn't mean every game. The ultimate goal is to find ways to say "yes" to move a narrative along. That isn't to say players should always succeed. They should always have an opportunity for their creativity to drive the narrative.

19 minutes ago, drablak said:

That makes sense. As long as everyone is buying in that's cool. 👍

My players and I are a bit different I guess. We see the merging of similar skills as a positive thing (even for our various RL expertises). 

This is an important point. The only "right" answer is what is best for a specific group.  My buddy is Army retired and an ex-Tanker and I get it.

On 11/25/2018 at 2:54 PM, Al. said:

Instinctively: Ride

In game: whichever skill most players* had actually raised during character creation.

 

* as in players had raised the skill of their make-believe characters, I wouldn't be looking at RL driver's licences or cycling proficiency badges

37 minutes ago, Iskallor said:

Ride for animals, drive for everything else. Keep it simple. Drive includes all the road knowledge too.

Starting a bike and a car has more in common than getting my horse to move. My horse doesnt have gears either.

Riding a motorbike has more in common with driving a car, than with riding a horse along a trail.

 

These. I completely believe everyone above that riding a motorcycle is very different from riding a horse or driving a car. That isn't really the point. Some amount of suspension of disbelief is needed for making skill checks in role-playing games. In my games, Drive Auto counts for driving any machine. Ride is for animals. I make that clear to players at character creation so that we don't enter passive-aggressive surprise skill situations that really disenfranchise people from games. Gary Gygax LOVED those situations, and maybe his players did too, but he was absolutely wrong. You can do whatever you want in your game, but having a separate motorcycle skill only makes sense, in my mind in two situations: 1) the character has it as part of their back story.  They are a daredevil or racer and they will be using that skill to do tricks or 2) if motorcycle riding is a pre-established theme of an adventure or campaign when it isn't part of a character back story. If, as a campaign player, I had separate skills for driving a car and riding a motorcycle and players weren't prepared, I would effectively be introducing needless artificial challenge into the game, and if a player didn't have the motorcycle skill, it would go like this:  "I make chase." "Motorcycle skill." "Don't have that, didn't know it was a thing" "You crash it. Your character dies. What a fun story! Yay!" That's an extreme example, but  I've experienced Keepers/GMs who don't communicate with their players and who are also so hung up on getting the game "realistic" that they hamstring their own efforts.  They simply haven't learned yet why that is a problem. Now, I'm a mechanics-light, story-first person. I understand that some people aren't that way. But honestly, if you want to be a better Keeper of any role-playing game, you need to seriously consider not nickel-and diming every test situation your players encounter.