Jump to content

Fred

Regulars
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fred

  1. At present, there are four longer campaigns, but only one for standard 20s Cthulhu. More are upcoming, though: However, refer to this thread for a discussion on buying advice for Keepers, where campaigns are discussed, with links to upcoming products etc:
  2. Yeah, I think you are right here. If this house rule is in effect, this would require that kind of spell. Thanks for the suggestion!
  3. Inspired by this discussion I am toying with this house rule: A character falling to 0 total HP dies at the next round at 12 strike ranks after instead of the round the damage was taken. Same with taking damage of three times that of head, abdomen, or chest, but less than four times (four times means instant death). I haven’t figured out what healing would be needed before 12 strike ranks for a character who has his chest, abdomen, or head “destroyed” this way though.
  4. If you sacrifice a point of POW to get a RP and learn a spell this would make sense the most to me. Also, it becomes a tougher choice beforehand which makes for strategic and vital decisions. I suppose you could sacrifice two points to get to use it twice. That’s how it will work at my table.
  5. I’m sure they are well aware of previous problems and are working to avoid those in new releases. I haven’t asked this, but hopefully also they are out to improve on the core set as this version looks to be here for many years still. In CoC they update with revisioned versions of the core.
  6. Opinions wanted: In regards to the shield discussion, it being inferior to 2-handed weapons, how about this house rule below. (I believe lordabdul mentioned something similar). The option to dodge makes this suggestion complicated, but perhaps someone can improve on it, if that is the case. I believe dodge (versus parry) is tricky to use though, as special attack results against a dodger are tougher to resist if I remember correctly. Rule: If you intend to parry with a weapon you are attacking with: -20% to the parry, more parries/dodge give additional -20% as per the rules. If you attacked with the weapon last round or this round, the extra -20% is automatic. You may announce you opt out with the -20% if you haven’t attacked yet, but your chance to make any attack to until the end of next round with this weapon is halved (so is the chance even if you are changing weapon or any other silliness in regards to skipping the penalty). Is it a flawed/unbalanced house rule? Could it be made even simpler? Or does it need to be more advanced? Obviously prefer less advanced rules. You could also, simpler, just add 20% to the core chance to parry with a shield. And add +1/+2 HP for wood shields etc. While this solution could be good, it has to be (preferably) remembered with opponents as well as it stands, bought scenarios/bestiary etc. Even if you think shield vs two handed is unbalanced, would you prefer to leave the shield problem as is, not changing core rules - because you feel it is not overly broken anyway?
  7. You can also check out this thread below, where I asked for advice around playing with a group of more role-playing oriented rather than combat-oriented players. In it, there are links to other threads, and discussions you may even want to build on. Keepers even discuss how they have built campaigns out of solo scenarios, which truly helped me think about what I wanted to do.
  8. Funny thing is, if Chaosium truly updated the rules book with some of these rules changes, editing, and clarifications, like maybe make shields a bit better (more HP, or greater chance of blocking or so) and such things, I would strongly consider buying a physical copy again. No hard feelings - they listened to the community and this was the first RQ in a while, and damn good shot at it. Rather that than wait a number of years. Like an officially Revised Edition. A lot of people who have the pdf:s wouldn't need to buy new copies, of course.
  9. I guess I would house rule away adding the Shaman's Fetch to power vs power struggles for now. As they have upcoming spell/gods/magic products, I think definitely this is one of the things they could sort out in them. Will make the game stronger as an experience for parties with one shaman, especially for groups not checking these forums. I'm hoping I'm not nerfing them too much by this.
  10. 95% chances when there is no parry or dodge is never a good thing for game fun, not fun for other players either watching something being that powerful. Some spells become ridiculously good, like Befuddle etc. I think this is something Chaosium should seriously look into for the upcoming publications, and even in an updated version of the rule book, to be honest. Maybe there is a way for Shamen to use power from spirits but get a full boost, for example. A few points extra in POW makes them very special, but not boring good.
  11. Atgxg, I think he was trying to be a tad supportive of you, dude.
  12. Deleted. I enjoyed the misunderstanding too much to engage myself... Anyway, flexibility is king.
  13. I would agree. If they go down the more logical route of making it Rune Magic, a 1-point spell for the healers is very fair and fun, so they still can preserve points for healing. If they don’t, I feel maybe they should explain why a spirit magic spell can be kept secret, as it’s all about world building with RQ. Either way could be fine.
  14. Brilliant. I agree. I hope they go for this solution. Could make it a 2-point Rune Spell instead to balance that part, or even a 1-point if they want them to truly power up. And in the cult mention consequences to repeatedly abuse spells like that for killing, even if someone else does it for them.
  15. The more I have thought about the spells, the more I think Sleep is the one spell that needs addressing the most. How easily it can be learnt by other cults than Chalana Arroy, how it can be used by them. It seems like it should almost be a 4 point spell, but that might be too late to change. Perhaps. As long as Aarroyans only gave it and it can’t be abused, it’s fine. Anything I’m missing?
  16. It’s a fair and easy change. I always house rule a few things myself. Adapting both to my taste and my players. I hope they keep both those options to handle it in later editions for flexibility. This in combination with advantage/disadvantage mechanics makes it smooth.
  17. I love this flexibility. There are no easy, rigid solutions to these problems anyway in game systems, without making it overly complex. I love that mostly I can choose to have just one roll, not two and possible re-rolls, as a deciding factor, and the 50% and 90% works better in stat blocks than say 100% and 200% as comparables. It’s more elegant. Hopefully, this can make Atgxtg take a second look on the edition if he liked a more official statement in regards to it. It should be writ somewhere in the Keeper’s Guide. I believe this statement makes Josh777 the most “correct” of all of us earlier, suggesting a flexible approach to things. But one can fit it into one’s style.
  18. As I agree with you about the rules, and I think you made several great remarks, why do you assume they hate the game, or that they are too used to the previous ruleset? We can not know that. I read the messages by Atgxtg and feel like I need to defend him/her, because his/her intentions seem to be somewhat misinterpreted. There is no need to judge anyone or to discourage from expressing their (sometimes harsh) opinions. In regards to the hatred: See the above comment - “so repulsed by it he plays an earlier edition.” 😉 I believe that qualifies. Being too used to the previous rules was a very fair guess (based on comments I have seen, and it is meant as a guess only) that obviously don’t apply to everyone. To expand on it, I hear many people complain on rules without even bothering to try them out (yes, a common occurrence), reasons like that. But I did not mean that particular guess to applied to Atgxtg. Take me, for example. 🙂 I hated the idea of Characteristics as percentages, and for that reason didn’t bother with 7e for the longest time. Now, it’s so obvious it was the right decision as it integrates into the system so much better than just the 3-18. I was simply too used to an idea. While some people will be like me until (hopefully) convinced otherwise, it was the right decision in the long run. I definitely agree with you that a constructive discussion about flaws of a game, sometimes even harsh comments, can be very useful for the community. It’s all in a context, and it all depends on the arguments. As a side note, I’m a fan of Stoic Philosophy as a route to happiness and meaning in life, it works, though I admit it is hard to follow in the modern world (I reduce social media and news massively, select what little I check carefully, oh what a difference in peace of mind, and I can stand looking stupid of having missed something for a day or a week if that situation comes up - mostly someone tells me anyway). From The Daily Stoic: ”The single most important practice in Stoic philosophy is differentiating between what we can change and what we can’t. What we have influence over and what we do not... Time spent hurling yourself at these immovable objects is time not spent on the things we can change.” That’s why when I fight for rules or content only in upcoming products in the near future, in a game I respect and care about. P.S. I recommend the book 🙂
  19. I agree. If I disliked this edition so much I would not want it to steal time from me, posting in a forum about a game I hate. I would spend my time doing what I love instead. Rules can’t be for everyone, of course, and I have definite sympathy for constructive suggestions or even strong opinions - I certainly share them from time to time, and debating with respect can be absolutely fine. But at some point down the line if a person hates the game, it seems for some people the whole thing becomes an obsession where said person is bashIng a head against a brick wall in frustration. Nothing will change, and the person’s frustration won’t either. A time waste for everyone. And as you said, for some saps the interest of discussing a hobby they love. Could you have made more advanced rules that were more precise in making “correct” chances? Of course. But I would most likely disliked it. Perhaps they should have mentioned that an opponent with 50% skill in reality is more skilled than a player with 50%, and the fleeting nature of things. For me, Call of Cthulhu should be tough - they captured that with spades while also making it more difficult for an investigator to die, fantastic. I don’t really like the opposed rolls of RQ, for example, though I like the game, and understand why THAT game must have it. And if I need more detail somewhere, I can add it. I prefer that to the opposite. I switched from Pathfinder to 5e, just because levelling up took ages with all the options back then, and then I found that 5e had too few: so I added some complexity to the system to cater for my needs and fun. No big deal. I think some frustration comes from players being almost too used to a certain previous ruleset also. I think the choices here will win in the long run.
  20. You seem quite frustrated and upset. You are obviously, for example, right the players does not choose their chances, the GM does.. So if you have a good GM, they can house rule or adjust things or play another edition. As you have basically said the same thing throughout the the rest of your message, I would instead of responding to each of your points, sincerely encourage you to use an earlier edition of the game as indeed you are already doing. While it might be frustrating, there is simply nothing at all you can do about the core rules, which me and many others enjoy immensely. As mentioned by Josh777, otherwise it would be easy to house rule around things you don’t like, and view percentages are very abstract, and then the elements of Luck and Push are there to compensate for hard rolls (the Opposed ones requiring extreme success being so rare), giving players advantages the opponents don’t have. Another thing you can do, which many GMs does, is offer disadvantage instead of Hard (so a player who has 90% has to roll the D10 twice and choose the worst). For skills not opposed: A Hard roll for History or Occult and the player has 90%? Completely realistic, how can you know anywhere near everything? Also, usually, many players try, so it’s good the game mechanics cater for this. But if you dislike it, you can just use the disadvantage instead and players with 90% will almost always make it. So also in the Spot example you gave, if you want to soften it, offer disadvantage instead of halving it. Or just do opposed like Josh777. So easy. But you don’t like the concepts. OK, OK. I agree with everything Tranquillitas Ordinis mentioned, an especially good point about achieving the difficult feel of a game like this. Fortunately, a lot of the material is very easily adaptable. Since I have no ambition of convincing you of anything, and listening to your arguments I already know where you are coming from and disagree, instead of debating over this, I definitely wish you the best of luck in gaming.
  21. Exactly. And you can always reduce the opponents percentage if you feel it is to the detriment of the situation if you want one roll only, with no re-rolls, which would be most of the time (in my case all of the time). Anyway, just some thoughts on why I absolutely love it, despite some possible nitpicks. Constructing an adventure with a superb negotiator or lawyer the highly skilled 90% player has to deal with? Put him at 80%. Then halve the player’s chance. Does the player role-play the negotiation it extremely well (or has a fantastic route to sneak by that eagle-eyed NPC)? Give them an extra ten sided die..
  22. I meant to include the above in my reply. I believe it is better not to view opponent percentages as comparable, or the same as players make “all” the rolls here. Remember, you are dealing with some extremely formidable and supernatural opponents at times, and this system, while harsh, lives up to that in an elegant way. You can still push, you can use luck.
  23. Instead of looking at it as comparable percentages, look at it as formidable opponents are hard to sneak by even with a very high rating. I for one like this a lot. I am sure Chaosium is well aware of this when they design creatures as well. The mess of having creatures doing opposed rolls with very high percentages with hard-to-judge-what ties mean, must be avoided in CoC at all costs, in my opinion. A creature with 50% in Spot Hidden halves your chance and one with 90% crushes almost any chance. You can still use Luck or Push to get heroic results. As a compromise, this is almost the ideal solution. I’m at awe of it. Think of an opponent having 50% as a very challenging creature to sneak by. I can’t quite see why you feel it is harder to use (fewer rolls are made), rather only much harder to succeed in some quite rare circumstances.
  24. Right. Skills above 50% and 90% give disadvantages, so I assume then that skills higher than this will be noted. I guess that would make sense, if that is the plan.
  25. Aren’t Spot Hidden or Listen pertinent to creatures like Spawn of Cthulhu or King of Yellow Courtiers and others? Players will likely need to make rolls against those skills if those creatures are encountered, I assume (or even most creatures in the game)?
×
×
  • Create New...