TheEnclave

I didn't see it mentioned in the errata, but is the Spear (Cavalry Lance) weapon supposed to be 1D8+1 with no DB added? It doesn't list the DB, but I assume you're supposed to add it since otherwise the weapon would be pretty useless compared to other available ones.

I love it too. It's quick, fast, fun, and deadly for both the players and enemies.

CoC's built on Basic Roleplaying, which is a generic multipurpose system. It definitely encourages some horror themes, but it can easily be used for just about any kind of game in any kind of setting. I've heard of people using Down Darker Trails, a Wild West supplement, for purely Western games with no Cthulhu or horror elements at all, and that's just one example.

Updated with explosives and heavy weapons, along with a few changes I forgot.

DDT's incredibly fun, but it gets overlooked a lot. One common criticism I've seen and that I had myself was the weapon list was underwhelming and not very balanced, and it lacked a lot of iconic firearms from the Wild West, especially of decades before the 1870s. I've worked to expand the list to cover the late 1860s, and I plan to do additional tables for the 1870s-1880s, and 1890s-1910s. I've tried to fine-tune and balance every gun based on their historical pros and cons, be it cost, range, or loading speed vs. stopping power. This'll give both your players and NPCs a much more diverse and flavorful arsenal to pick from. Lemme know what you think! DDT Gun List (1860s).txt

I'm surprised that Police isn't higher. Pretty much every game I've played has had a cop in the party.

I've never been a fan of "secret history", as in "This thing happened, BUT it was actually Cthulhu!!1" It comes off as silly to me and it makes me think of Assassin's Creed where the writers have to keep coming up with increasingly contrived reasons to make every historical event relate to a Templar-Assassin war. To me, going full alternate history is better and more satisfying if you give it some thought and do it well, or at least doing historical-adjacent events that are their own thing as opposed to changing things that actually happened.

My statement about HU's questionable content had nothing to do with "addressing racism" actually, or my other forum post. I'm referring to statements the author asserts in the book as fact that are in my opinion highly questionable and pretty racist themselves, such as, quote, "black people can't be racist." It has nothing to do with the inclusion or lack thereof of real world issues, but what the author writes in his game book as real-world truths the table should acknowledge.

...And this post isn't committed to rejecting an understanding of my position and rallying others to your opinion?

That's the Mythos skill.

The writer of Harlem Unbound makes some... pretty questionable statements about real-world politics in his book, in my opinion anyhow. Otherwise, all good. Mansions of Madness is especially cool.

I would expect a review of a scenario to be more about how it plays rather than how in-line it is with a reviewer's viewpoints.

"a black, indiginous, person of color" ...couldn't they have just said "black person" or "African-American"? I'll never understand the political correctness parade. Come to think of it, every one of these reviews seems to focus on some kind of sociopolitical angle. The last one especially doesn't seem to even talk about the game itself at all, just how "sensitive" it is in approaching various parts of its setting. It's bizarre to me, but maybe that's what "flip the script" means?

Granted, I've mostly played oneshots, but I was in a game going nearly a year without a single player death. Some close calls, but no deaths, and it was pretty combat-heavy in parts. The stories I read about games where it's common sound more like an issue with the scenarios or the Keepers. Some scenarios, like MoN, sound like they're full of death traps, but I can't say for sure about Masks as I've not played it. Stories about Keepers though? Some just seem downright sadistic or powerhungry, like they actively want to beat down and kill PCs for flexing purposes. I dunno man. I've had player deaths in my games, but plenty where everyone's survived. This old misconception becomes a real problem when those Keepers don't do it because they want to trip on power, but because they were told it's the way it's meant to be played. I've seen so many topics and discussions start with someone talking about how frustrating it is that someone's character is succeeding, or is disappointed and feels like a bad GM because they haven't killed anyone. That crap can ruin groups. You're definitely more vulnerable than in some systems, but there's more lethal systems out there, and it's a common misconception that Call of Cthulhu is, or is meant to be, some kind of meat grinder where you can never get attached to a character because there's never any hope of survival long-term. For some people it makes them think that's the whole point, and lethality should take precedence over roleplay, story, and fun. You know, despite the creator of the system himself saying that's a misconception.

"Characters will usually die or go insane." I guess this misconception will never go away.

Honestly, I've never been the biggest fan of New England and related for horror settings. Southern gothic/horror works great for me.

The Sanitorium would be great remastered, maybe even given a modern makeover to be something akin to Outlast.

Whatever works best. I usually do skill improvements at the beginning of a session, luck rolls at the end, and characteristic improvements when they arise, either in downtime, rolling an 01 for luck, or other situations.

Ha. Though I really do like Lumley.

When it comes to interaction I might let another player help out, maybe doing a good cop/bad cop thing, but usually it's one check, unless the roleplay's good enough (or bad enough) to warrant otherwise.

Honestly, much as I love the game, I've never thought the spells were designed well at all, and if a cultist wants to contact his alien overlords I handle it through roleplay and the story rather than a hard roll. The entire Magic system is more or less optional, in my opinion.

Yeah, agreed. Our opinions on all this aside, it's definitely off-topic.

You state, verbatim, that someone can't be a Lovecraftian author without being an atheist, and you imply, in so small way, that Lovecraft drew nigh-exclusively from nihilistic philosophy and literature, and that themes of hope, survival, friendship, or faith are incompatible with cosmic horror. Both of these things are factually incorrect. I will quote your prior posts if you want me to. If you feel like I'm mischaracterizing you, please explain your positions. Whether you find it interesting or not, whether you like Derleth's work or not, it proves my point and utterly invalidates yours, and I don't say that from personal bias. "You can't write Lovecraft without being an atheist." Yes you can, Derleth wasn't an atheist. "But I don't like Derleth/I don't think Derleth was Lovecraftian." Lovecraft evidently thought Derleth was Lovecraftian, or nevertheless valid and welcome to write with him. I'm not sure what else you need from that, unless you want to go by your own definition of what is and isn't Lovecraftian horror. And "80s era positions"? Do you mean the old arguments about Derleth, or do you mean that being a fan of Derleth is some kind of outdated concept people abandoned? The former, it's relevant to the discussion. The latter, false. You mention too that I'm mischaracterizing Nodens, which I'd like to know why you believe that. Lovecraft wrote Nodens as an Elder God adversary of Nyarlathotep, by far the most expressly evil and malicious of the Outer Gods. Nodens has been known to aid humans when confronted by Nyar's minions. It's hardly a stretch to say Nodens is at the very least not a malicious god, and at best a benevolent one. This material I'm referencing is exclusively Lovecraft's, leaving out any of Derleth's additions. If you don't like Nodens, that's obviously fine, but acting like he's an invention of Derleth's or only became benevolent under Derleth is wrong, and again, this is fact. Lovecraft wrote Nodens, and he was still an enemy of Nyarlathotep before Derleth. Do you advise that because Joshi is an atheist? It may be better, if one's gonna get into the nitty gritty of the discussion, to expand their sources. Not to say that an atheist or theist are any more or less valid than each other for insight into it all.

In fairness, you wouldn't have to explicitly say "Lovecraft was rigid" for it to be what you mean.

I'm stating what you're stating. Saying Lovecraft's theme and influence was restricted to two authors and their interests, and that he wasn't a, quote, "heterodox dilettante", implies severe rigidity that wasn't there. Lovecraft's only influence was not nihilist philosophy and nihilist philosophy was not his only influence. Maybe it wasn't what you meant, but your wording suggested an opposite view of that. I'm passionate about pointing out the truth, and I've seen enough similar claims to yours over the years that, again, are factually untrue, that I feel a response is warranted. I've got no hostility either.