klecser

I smashed that order button.

Edit: Congrats to Mike Mason and Friends, MOB, and Chaosium on this product.  Leafing through the PDFs, the production values are superb and the cost of this product is a tremendous value for what you get. Three classic scenarios truly updated for the modern era.  Some  highlights for me: I think the labelled character sheet for these updated Quick Start rules is a key graphic to point out critical aspects of a character sheet.  The Society cards for the pre-made investigators are really cool and do a great job of modeling immersion.  The sidebar about racism for Dead Man Stomp engaging on a critical social issue is another example of this game leading the industry in pushing for full acceptance within the hobby. The answer to HPL's racism is to hit it head on. (I see that Chris Spivey was consulted and I see his practiced hand of educating people in the text. Thank you Chris for your continued contributions to the hobby and social issues.) That map of Harlem is excellent cartography! I see a Gold ENnie here. More importantly, I see a stupendous way to invite new players to this game.  Well done, Chaosium!

Does this mean that Wednesday Dec 12 is the confirmed worldwide release date for the Starter Set?

5 hours ago, Nakraal said:

What worries me is that should I have a prequel adventure, just to introduce and have the PCs bond with Elias, this would mean that the PCs will start the NY chapter kind of seasoned with the occult and the Mythos. My feeling is that its best that the characters are green as far as Mythos is concerned when they start in New York.

TL;DR Is it worth it to have an entire adventure just for introducing Elias Jackson? Won't it be a problem if the PCs start the NY chapter as seasoned investigators vaguely aware of the Mythos?

In my mind, "kind of seasoned" and "vaguely aware" are not synonyms.  One scenario doesn't season anyone to the Mythos if the release of information is carefully controlled by The Keeper.  The Peru Chapter for Masks 5th Edition  can be run as low or high Mythos with some thoughtful decisions, for example. A group of characters could have lots of familiarity with some aspects of the Mythos that give them absolutely no advantages in tangling with The Crawling Chaos.

I think the bigger question is: What is Jackson Elias' purpose in the narrative?  To die?  Well, why should him dying matter?  Somebody you don't care about or know dying doesn't carry much weight in role-playing games.  The purpose of Jackson Elias is to anchor and invest the players in the story so that they have a reason to drop everything and tour the world on short notice.  If your players are experienced role-players, perhaps they will just "play along." And if that is the case, no problem.  Some role-players not only enjoy, but expect a narrative that gives their characters a reason to investigate.

So, what are your players like?  Do they need a reason, or will they just "play along?"  Personally, I feel like I owe it to my players to give them a reason, whether they expect it or not.

8 hours ago, Gollum said:

Yes, multiplications are easier and faster to do in mind than divisions, as well as additions are easier and faster than subtractions.

But, precisely, with Call of Cthulhu 7th edition, you do none at all (except adding dice when rolling for damage). Half and fifth values are calculated in advance and recorded on the character sheet. So, all what you have to do during game is comparing numbers (bonus and penalty dice even replace bonus and penalties that you had to add to the skill in the previous edditions). 

This. And we may be splitting hairs at this stage. At the end of the day, all editions can be played.

I really love what you are doing here Jared.  I'm the guy who tweeted to you about the magazine "speaking to me" like olds ones do. My hard copy should arrive in the mail soon and I will give more specific feedback when I get it in hand.  I just can't effectively organize my thoughts from a PDF.  😕

We agree on that. Expressing views invites critique of views.

When I watched that Runeslinger video a year ago, I remember thinking:  "Wow, I couldn't disagree with this guy more." 

I don't need to "get to terms" with anything, my friend, because my games run just fine, with any of the systems we've discussed.

2 hours ago, Merudo said:

My personal recommendations would be to avoid the CON check for NPCs (just assume they win the CON check) & to not chase the PCs if the party has a slow investigator.

I think you solve your own concern.    And I think it is worth noting that the intention of the CON check is to determine if an unplanned chase should happen, in case it has the potential to bog down a game.  The CON mechanic does not prevent a Keeper from saying:  a Chase is part of the natural story-telling of this section and it is happening. Is that railroading? Maybe.  Telling a story is a balance of player agency (very important) and aspects of the narrative that just make sense.

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Or it could be that you are more adept running games using BRP-based rules. 

And it could be that you are less adept at running BRP, right?  I'm getting a strong read from you that your perspectives are more personal than they are grounded in the actual facts of the scope and execution of game mechanics.  No offense intended, I'm just sensing a preconceived bias that you're intent on not liking 7.  And just so I'm clear, you can not like 7th and that's fine.  That's your opinion.  At the end of the day we seem to agree that people should play games and play whatever they enjoy.  Yay.  Go team.  And "team" is why I'm continuing this, just so we're clear.  Right now we're also giving advice to another gamer and I want that advice to be as accurate, broad and deep as possible.  And I don't think it is correct to advise people that CoC 7 is crunchy to run.  It could put people off, needlessly.  If a player has played 6th they are going to likely see very little difference. Now, your opinion should definitely be part of the conversation, of course.

Making a statement that Savage Worlds runs faster than BRP? That is a pretty unbelievable statement to me. The only game I've played as much as DND and CoC is Savage Worlds.  Savage Worlds is very much a much crunchier game than BRP at the very base.  There is WAY more to keep track of in combat.  There are far more modifiers that can affect combat. Heck, Savage Worlds IS a combat game.  CoC games are inherently not.  It is investigative.  When I think of the time spent dealing out initiative playing cards every round, counting exploding dice, spending of bennies, checking all the modifiers, reflecting stuns and wounds, shaking and unshaking, players who build characters that stack perks that all can influence a single game roll, etc.  And this is from playing Savage Worlds many times at the very heart of Savage Worlds Country: Tacticon in Denver.  Savage Saturday, baby.  For many years I was a member of Rocky Mountain Savages.  Did you know that Pinnacle has a document for "Quick" combat rules that ditches the dealing of the cards and streamlines some of the other mechanics?  Why even put that document out if the game runs "so fast?"  I don't see how you call BRP a slower in-game run.  Maybe if the Investigators are fighting heavy Mythos beasts with Armor?  Why are they doing that except rarely?  And if they are, isn't it likely to be a monumental event that players will feel good about trying to succeed at and find the time justified?  As pointed out by andyl, most of the time spent with the Fifths table happens BEFORE a game session.  Very rarely during.  People spend hours building characters in every single role-playing game. Its part of what we all love about the hobby.  The legitimate criticism that has been leveled at Savage Worlds is that it runs FASTER than DND (true), but rarely in execution does it run FAST (I challenge you to poll a wide breadth of gamers on this).  Savage Worlds combats are not 5-15 minutes long unless the threat is minimal and it is fluff combat.  It would be having combat to say that you got to play a combat.  I challenge anyone to actually clock a Savage Worlds combat encounter.  Rarely have I seen a Savage Worlds game with any more combat encounters in a three hour period than DND.  They are probably shorter.  People are PERCEIVING that it is fast, but those of us who actually pay attention note that combats can still take a ridiculous amount of time.  Maybe not DND 3.5 ridiculous.  Of course, some of that, once again, is table management, group pace, and how Keeper and players approach the structure of games.  Now, I love Savage Worlds.  But the intention of the game and the reality of it depend whole-heartedly on how and who is running it.

 Your comments just don't add up to me on how 7 runs.  Having run 6th and 7th, the adjustment to my Keeping that happens is pretty minimal and my players move rapidly through both investigation and conflict.  Mechanics are not even close to the most important factor for my prep and execution in either of those versions.

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Moreover, the increase in page count dedicated to rulesand systems in 7E, compared to previous editions, is inarguable. It's added rules and rules discussions to the game - making it a pretty mid-level crunchy game compared to many other RPGs around now - including other games that are also about the Cthulhu mythos. 

Page count doesn't make something crunchy.  Execution does.  Maybe we should clarify what we're talking about when we say "crunch."  When gamers use "crunch" as a criticism, they are implying that a game runs slower when there are more mechanics.  Right?  That is the concern?  How fast are our games?  We prefer faster games not "bogged down" by mechanics, right? And less a resistance table, I'd say the game still runs faster than most role-playing systems out there.  You may want faster.  Great.  Ditch what you don't want, right? None of the things you mention as "crunch" concerns make 7E run any slower in the hands of a quality Keeper.  If someone's 7th games are running slower than their 6th games, that isn't mechanics doing that.  That's Keeper execution and table management.

39 minutes ago, tedopon said:

People noticed that there were only two sides to the same coin, and wanted the granularity of three results that Rock, Paper, Scissors afforded.

If anything, this tongue-in-cheek comment illustrates perfectly how 7th Edition got even more intuitive.  Prior products are rife with rolls like:  "Make a DEX X5" or a "Dex X2" roll.  I find defining three clear levels of success to be far more intuitive.  Now that all scores are based off 100, it is easy to compare to "below, half or fifth" values to determine success.  I'm prepared to call early editions a bit too THACO for my tastes. "POWX3" for difficulty is inherently less intuitive than just basing everything off 100.  If someone likes THACO, more power to them. I will tell you that THACO-like rules limited the accessibility of the hobby. Skill X[Integer] "difficulties" were far more crunch.

I'm sure people will call this splitting hairs, but my area of expertise is learning and "Roll your skill, did you get under, half or fifth?" is far more intuitive for most people than "Multiply your skill times a number that is different every time and try to roll under that new number." There is one less mental step, and that makes a big difference for people.  Whether or not someone thinks that "they should be able to do the math" needs to spend less time judging others and more time thinking of how to make things accessible, in my opinion.  This is supposed to be fun.  Doing a bunch of mental math isn't FUN for a lot of people. And nobody should ever tell someone how to feel about anything.  Do we want a bigger hobby?  7th opens it up for a more accessible, less intellectually cliquey hobby.

I disagree that it is crunchy.  The major changes are simply a move to percentile stats, pushed rolls, penalty/bonus dice and new Chase rules.  Minor clarifications to how tomes work.  All of these things are designed to make the rules make more sense, not less.  And yes, there are aspects of prior editions that don't make sense, whether people are willing to admit that or not. To call this "all kinds of new rules" is a bit dramatic and sensitive, in my opinion.  I think we need to mind our biases. If you actually take the time with the Chase rules and give them a serious chance, they very elegantly set up some mechanics around chases that give players choices without being overly complex.  It is basically a number line with hazards.  7th is easily converted into 6th.  Just like in any game, no one is "forcing" anyone to use any of the rules.  Given that, why NOT get into 7th?  That is where all the new content is. The production values of the books are superb and CoC is finally getting the publishing level that it deserves.  I think part of the role-playing zeitgeist that nobody seems to want to talk about is the hobby attitude that if you buy an edition, you "HAVE TO" use the rules.  Do you have money to buy CoC products?  Have you liked call of Cthulhu products in the past?  If the answer to those are "yes," the absolute WORST that can happen is that you have beautiful books with great ideas and you simply ignore the 7th rules you don't like.

10 hours ago, JamesMW said:

Out of interest is there (or will there be) a sheet that collects together all the NPC portraits? 

Given how many NPC's there are in Masks, I think this would be really helpful as I often like to show the portraits from an adventure to the players.

Holding up the book whilst covering up any critical info can be a skill it's own right!

 

Not in the slipcase handouts. Perhaps as suggested above in the PDF.

12 hours ago, MOB said:

A great unboxing video of the new Masks. It's 44 minutes long, because there's a lot to unbox...

 

I'm the videographer.   Yeah, lots to unbox.  It was a 2.6 gig file and I was worried it wouldn't upload.  I set my phone on a frozen lunch pack as it uploaded to YouTube to keep it cool.  😜 .   There is also a slight audio glitch at 33 minutes because my phone doesn't like me shooting such long videos.  But, I didn't feel like a two-parter was really worth it either.  Thanks for posting here Michael.  From one Michael to another. 

"Later this month" turns into "14 hours."  I'll take it. 

First impression: Artwork is amazing.

SMASHED. THAT. ORDER. BUTTON!

I assume you are running a modern game.  Incendiary rounds used in WW1 were mostly smoke tracers and don't exist in the form that the players may be assuming they did in the 1920s.  Of course, if they have high level access maybe they have prototypes?  And maybe there is a risk of misfires causing a gun to catch on fire with early versions.

Investigator Weapons Volume 2 by SixtyStone Press has a lot of options.  I don't own it so I can't tell you if it has Incendiary Rounds.

I don't know the nature of your game so it is difficult to comment on balance.  My general gut says that "silver bullets" are antithetical to terror role-playing.  Our players are not supposed to have the means to combat threats with tough defenses.  That said, any group can do whatever it wants.  It would just feel a little too DND for me.

If you feel like the rounds would "gut" the threat, then consider other in game ways that stop the "guns, lots of guns" mentalities of players:

1) Legalities (this is checked off according to your OP)

2) Risks of collateral damage.  If its in a city, then incendiary rounds would be a foolish thing to use.  If its in a dry forest, players become responsible for the forest fire and any accompanying property damage. You get to place the threat wherever you want.  Of course, these things happening provide additional role-playing opportunities and potential adventure hooks.

3) Supply problems.  Out of stock right now and you're on a time crunch.

The downside of all of those suggestions, of course, is that you don't want to punish player creativity.  I personally don't consider "get the round type that kills it, checked that box" to be very creative when compared to dealing with it in a way when not being able to damage it.  

10 hours ago, MOB said:

Masks is now in two of our three warehouses (Australia, USA). The final shipment is still in transit to the UK. Once the stock is confirmed there we will put Masks on sale at Chaosium.com. Just prior to that we will email out the coupons to everyone who purchased a PDF direct from Chaosium.com.

You probably can't comment on this Michael,  but I still thought I'd ask.  How healthy are the stock numbers?  I have this nightmare where I am at work when it goes on sale and it sells out before I can get to purchase.

22 hours ago, Videopete said:

We had a huge amount of fun. 

They cant wait for next session.

Then this is all that matters.

5 hours ago, soltakss said:

If the players and GM had fun then it was not a disaster.

Please feel free to read the rest of my post in which I say, on at least two occasions, that fun is the ultimate goal and if this group has fun, then my comments become more general.  When I said I would consider a disaster, I mean if I ran it or experienced that game. As in for me personally, and my play style.  And others MAY feel the same.  They may not.  And if not, that is fine.  I've been role-playing long enough and played with enough players that the description the TC gave makes me wince.  It doesn't make you wince?

5 hours ago, Hansmo said:

Do you require rolls for absolutely everything? Like even just driving out of a parking lot? I, personally, would save the driving rolls for extraordinary situations like a chase or trying to handle a vehicle with the brake line cut or the like. To my thinking normal driving shouldn't carry the risk of crashing every 20 feet as that would both be, not particularly fun, and not a very good simulation of the source material.

I mean the story is humorous to read...but I feel like you are perhaps letting the dice get in the way of the story a bit.

To each his own I guess. If the group enjoyed it then you are doing it right.

This is what I was trying to get at, but perhaps a bit more subtly.  I would consider this session to be a disaster and wouldn't expect that my players would find it very fun.  Running CoC is difficult.  It isn't like hack and slash DND where everything comes down to a roll.  

Now, I don't just want to come off as if I am scolding the TC without purpose so I'll throw a couple of things out there that the TC can, of course, choose to ignore, but it goes out to anyone Keeping CoC for the first time, and I'd argue for GMing in general for any game.

1) How can I help my players succeed while still challenging them?

I'm not saying players shouldn't be challenged. If there was no challenge it wouldn't be a "game."  Yet, neither is "so challenging that nothing can be achieved" fun for a majority of role-players.  E Gary Gygax kicked off an amazing hobby, but I'm just going to go on the record and say that he was a crappy GM. Nobody should be emulating his GM style if your goal is for your players to have fun.  The vinette above reads as if the the TC's GM style is to imagine all the possible ways that players can fail, and give them a darn good chance of making sure they all happen.  Now, maybe their play group LIKES Tomb of Horror-style gaming, and that's fine.  If that's the case, more power to them.  If they had fun, great.  But I'd venture a guess that even if every player in that group said they had fun, at least some of them are lying to be polite.  Yes, the point of CoC, to a great extent, is to have threats that the heroes can't deal with through human agency.  It is the THREATS they should struggle to deal with, not the mechanics of the game.  That is an important distinction, in my mind.  CoC is about NARRATIVE losing, not constant mechanical losing.

2) Call of Cthulhu, like any role-playing game, can be run in anyway a group wants that they find fun.  Any RPG can arguably be run anywhere on the continuum of roll-playing to role-playing.  Role-playing games become most beautiful when mechanics take a back seat to the story, in my opinion.   CoC wasn't designed to be run like a hack and slash or a mechanics-focused game.  It is an investigative game in which the players work to uncover clues.  Players won't always find every clue.  When they do, contrary to what ToC would have us believe, it is not the end of the game, or an unrecoverable situation.  It is the CoC Keeper's job to move clues around and/or craft opportunities to get clues.  A Keeper should WANT players to struggle anywhere from a little bit to a lot to get clues, but ultimately make sure that they get clues in a timely manner that doesn't grind the game to a halt.  The vinette above makes it sound like the clues in that game must be protected at all costs and should only be attainable after anguish.  I wouldn't like that style of game and I've met few role-players that do. Maybe the TC and their group is the exception.

So, TC, please do ask yourself if your players had fun.  If they did, more power to you. If there is a chance they did not (which it wouldn't surprise me if they did not), ask yourself what work can be done to increase the enjoyment.

1) Did they have fun?

2) Do you want them to succeed?

I predict this wins awards.  Just calling it, right now.

Bumping this because there is less than a day to go and they reduced the total needed for the print quality increase stretch goal.  Less than 500 needed for it to go to print instead of POD.  Go back it people!  

I think it is so nifty that authors of books post on these forums.  Thank you Peter!