Israeldor

On 5/6/2021 at 12:56 PM, Marc said:

How does the channel for Strike ranks work for you?  I'm running a game on Roll20, and it's Turn Order function just doesn't work for me.  I can see how it would be fine for a game like D&D where the order is the same every round, but with RuneQuest not so much. 

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 

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

I think that the historical "meta" of most Call of Cthulhu games is an overabundance of caution in investigation. Many Call of Cthulhu players learn very rapidly to tip-toe around a potential threat and gather as much information as possible before engaging with a threat directly. I think Tomazewski's function is largely to provide that major avenue of "adjacent" investigation that allows a group to "confirm this ain't normal" before deciding what to do next. Truth be told, I don't think interaction with Tomazewski is even needed at all. Most clues in this scenario are "nice to have," not "need to have." In fact, I'd argue that the only really critical clue that can't be missed at all is the little arm falling out of Corbitt's bundle at the start, indicating that somethin' ain't right here. But then it is up to investigators to want to "play along" and decide that they want to know more. And how much more is entirely up to them. Most of the other clues are there for the simple joy of clue-finding. They give details into backstory and enrich the narrative, but don't really provide any critical information. The exception might be Corbitt's journal, because it serves to show that Corbitt is doing something that could have much bigger consequences for the whole world, the idea being that groups are supposed to enter "everyday hero" mode and stop him. I think that Mister Corbitt was written during an era of role-playing in which the mentality very much seemed to be "this is how the game works and is played." And there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. Note that another way to interpret it is that it is very much an early sandbox. You can do anything you want in any order in this scenario! That was indeed still pretty uncommon, even in the early 90s.

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.

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

I find it absolutely fascinating how modern groups choose to contend with older scenarios. If I were to make an argument as to how the hobby has changed over time, it would be that modern gamers are much more likely to expect more freedom of agency and outcome. People refer to the "Mercer Effect" and I don't consider that to be a problem at all. When some people say "The Mercer Effect" they're really saying "I shouldn't have to get better at GMing." Matthew Mercer opening up role-playing and modelling a great game doesn't stop people from improving. People often don't like to improve and don't like things they struggle with showcased by someone in a spotlight. But people having insecurities doesn't mean that Mercer is bad for the hobby. Quite the opposite. GMs not willing to improve is bad for the hobby.

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.

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

I don't want to come across as knocking role-playing's early days because it is what it is and people had fun. I feel like that fun was much more structured, if we take early scenarios as the model. Early investigative scenarios seemed to follow a pretty standard progression:

1) The initial hook (somebody hires you, you witness something strange, someone is missing)

2) Intellectual investigation (newspapers, library, police station, interviews - get clues)

3) Explore a place and discover scarier clues!

4) Confrontation

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?

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

Now, as to your last point, there are many scenarios that are written that have clues that can't be missed. I'm a big believer that that is not a problem. There are techniques that Keepers have learned that allow for the narrative to progress in a fun way. You move the clues. You increase the time it takes to find a clue (increasing dramatic tension). 

I also want to thank you for your post because I am very much interested in meta-analysis of games!

What do you think?

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.

19 hours ago, Pnick said:

Hoping that this reprint doesn’t impact upon the likelihood of a proper colour version with art up to the wonderful standards of the other 7th edition supplements.

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.

1 hour ago, stadi said:

Will this reprint / 2nd printing include Pulp info like all the newer releases? Or will that only be included with the potential "real new release"?

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)?