Israeldor

So how I set it up is I put each combatant on a line and then I just put each number they have an action happening on that line. Then the next round I just edit the message to be correct for the current round. I found that it worked pretty well and you can just scan down the list and work your way up the strike ranks. The tough part running combat in discord was making a functional map on the spot with paint. IRL q chalkboard or whiteboard is much easier to use.

I just use discord. You can get dice bots and music if need be. And I just quickly sketch something in paint for battles, upload images from a pdf, or draw it by hand and upload it. It isn't integrated with the mechanical the way a VTT is, but it is simple. I find using VTT overwhelming and it makes more prep figuring out maps. I have the following channels: Main text chat Die rolls Strike ranks (name and every SR they have an action) Character sheets (pdf's) NPC's 2 voice chat channels

While perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, I think discussing running improvised Call of Cthulhu sandboxes would be an interesting topic of discussion (probably for another thread (I guess this is a content request). Particular for homebrewed scenarios/campaigns. Call of Cthulhu is fortunate to have a huge catalogue of great premade content that people don't have to make their own. But it certainly can be very rewarding to do so. I agree with the idea that people often decide good enough is fine, when it could be better. When I was first trying out running Call of Cthulhu (actually the first game I ever ran), listening to actual plays like HowWeRoll, IntoTheDarkness, and EncounterRoleplay really helped with getting a feel for how the game plays & runs. The first benefit being you can study the scenario based on how the keeper ran it and the group tackled it. This can provide useful ideas for adapting the material or even making plot changes. One example of this is IntoTheDarkness' play of Crimson Letters gave the NPC Anthony a lot of other student friends. I used that idea to give him a handful of other friends when I ran it and it worked wonderfully. It made his faction a more menacing threat. A second is you can see how other keepers run things in general. Because most GM's mostly run, and rarely play it is easy to develop a style and never see alternative approaches to running games. As the saying goes practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. It is easy to develop sub-optimal routines in isolation, whose weaknesses would be demonstrated by seeing other examples of GMing. The above having been said, it is worth remembering that actual plays are performances, whether that is first or second to playing doesn't change that. And as performances certain styles are better for that than others. The most notable example of this is voices & accents work incredibly well for the performance side of the game (and it works great for the game side of it too.) But, that shouldn't scare new keepers off. The important part is clarity of the NPC's voice, which doesn't necessarily have to mean using an accent or throwing ones voice. It is entirely possible to create unique voices with diction and syntax to differentiate speakers, and this is probably easier to achieve to start with than accents. And keepers can try to add some accents in as they are more comfortable (so an NPC here or there) IMO. I only got into this a few years ago, so I can't speak to the games early history. In my experience most groups I have had tend to: 1. Get the initial hook. 2.Go to the most direct scene/witness and either look around or interview them. 3. Follow up from there until they witness scarier clues 4. Maybe do some intellectual investigation 5. Return to the scarier clues and have the confrontation I actually really like the above. It feels more "realistic" to me. The players look into history, records, etc after finding something that seems dreadful. Where they rarely start with assuming, maybe the "haunted" house is actually haunted until they have seen strange things there. How does this compare with your experience with more modern groups? I think necessary clues are ok in small numbers. Too many and the tools to "fix" the issue start to remove some player agency. So the ways I am familiar with fixing necessary clues are: 1. Obvious clues, they really can't miss them. 2. Have several clues leading to the same conclusion 3. Fail forward for failed rolls, imposing a cost for the failure rather than gating progress. 4. Moving clues around a bit as necessary. The reason I say having to use these too much reduces player agency is that I feel player agency allows for players to fail as well as succeed. It is reacting to their decisions and approaches to playing the game and providing the appropriate consequences. Sometimes nudging things in a direction here or there isn't a big deal. But the more it is done, the more it infringes on the natural consequences of decisions. Sometimes this can make it a more fun game, but in excess it can hurt player investment (and thus enjoyement). But I am definitely somewhat of a player agency extremist. A lot of people will disagree with me on this, especially to the extent I view this. Have I missed any big ways to "fix" necessary clues? And your thoughts regarding safeguarding the players the scenario in conjuction with it's impact on player agency?

I really enjoyed this video (and I am excited to have discovered your channel). I had been looking for more intermediate discussion regarding the game. There is a lot of advice for being brand new, but rather little as you get further in (outside of specific advice for the big campaigns.) I think all three of your major points are well argued. (Granted, I already was of similar opinions regarding adapting premade material, responding to the evolving narrative the players weave, and discouraging gatekeeping.) In the video you mentioned one NPC the players were given some subtle hints for, that they never followed up on and I am curious about your opinion regarding allowing the players to guide the narrative (& adapting the scenario in conjunction with it) with regard to obvious clues (or the three clue rule if preferred). There is a substantial train of thought that clues that are absolutely essential can't (or at least are exceedingly difficult) to miss. I am not so familiar with the scenario (I have skimmed it once a while back) to know if this NPC's information truly is essential or not, but figured it might be an interesting discussion nevertheless.

The combination of the kickstarter and POD means that is almost certainly the case. I think I have seen them say they would like to update it in line with the rest of the line, but it would be some years away. They have also said that they are unlikely to prioritize getting products to be POD if there is an upcoming 7e version, which sort of supports the idea it is a good ways out. I imagine they are more interested in getting other old campaigns back into print for 7e and new material. They haven't explicitly said anywhere, but it seems doubtful. The POD titles seem to just be to get old titles back into print if a 7e version isn't upcoming.

After losing 5 sanity in one go the player character needs to make an intelligence roll. If failed nothing further happens. If passed they go temporarily insane, see bout of madness & underlying insanity. Applicable pages are keeper guide pages 155-159.

I was wondering what avenue the POD books will be printed via (and where can we buy them)? Asking because if they can be bought from Chaosium's website I might wait and get those + Pegasus Plateau all at once to save on shipping.

I could be mistaken but I thought that the holy days used to regain runepoints were kind of an all day affair. Kind of the difference between weekly Sunday services and your big holidays like Easter and Christmas, so I dont see how a PC could find the time to engage it two time consuming religious celebrations on the same day.

Thanks for the speedy responses everyone!

I am running a fantasy game that includes the big gold books sorcery rules. One thing that is a bit unclear to me is what the benefits of binding a demon into an item. It seems like the book is implying the item gains some characteristics necessary to run their powers. Extrapolating from that does that mean the item gets the demon's special abilities and if so how should you determine that (or is it you make unique demons. Meaning every item will be unique)? Also do sorcerers benefit in mp from the demon's POW?

One question I have had is why was the decision to allow for ties on opposed rolls without a tiebreaker (something which is atypical)?