Jump to content

ETA on Call of Cthulhu 7E?


sureshot

Recommended Posts

Hmm - I listened to the recording of the seminar and... well, it's not what I hoped.

It appears to be a rebuild from the ground up that sounds like it ignores the existence of the BGB version of BRP; some of the proposed changes sound like they will impose a much narrower range of play styles than previous editions; some of the proposed changes appear to be solutions in search of a problem... and on the whole, I heard a bunch of interesting optional rules but nothing compelling that made me think I need this new edition, and quite a lot of stuff that I'm pretty sure I'd never use...

Ah well, will have to see what Chaosium actually publish.

Nick

Edited by NickMiddleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmm - I listened to the recording of the seminar and... well, it's not what I hoped.

It appears to be a rebuild from the ground up that sounds like it ignores the existence of the BGB version of BRP; some of the proposed changes sound like they will impose a much narrower range of play styles than previous editions; some of the proposed changes appear to be solutions in search of a problem...

Yeah, this pretty much mirrors my own reaction, which is pretty close to classic "Do Not Want!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the sound of a lot of the ideas but it seems strategically to be a really bad idea. You invest in making the BGB and then do a new edition of your flagship game and have it go off in a very different direction. It doesn't make a whole load of sense. The effect seems most likely to be to reduce BGB sales because CoC is largely the gold standard for the system.

I could see the SAN and connections and so on element being added to the BGB for genre emulation but having a radically different combat system, new ways of resolving skills, replacing characteristics and so on. Well, I can only see it making the BGB more marginal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the sound of a lot of the ideas but it seems strategically to be a really bad idea. You invest in making the BGB and then do a new edition of your flagship game and have it go off in a very different direction...having a radically different combat system, new ways of resolving skills, replacing characteristics and so on...

If they're going to make significant changes/additions/etc to Call of Cthulhu, I'd like it better if they called it something else: Tales of Cthulhu, Calamari Rising, Cthulhu Next -- anything but Call of Cthulhu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I know I was the first here to voice a negative opinion based on the seminar but this:

I'm just about done with companies that want to take a big crap on 30 years of their own history and the support of their customers who stuck by them all that time by coming up with new-style Narrative games and claiming it's just a new edition of the old game. Screw that. Chaosium, I loved you, but it looks like you're done. Too bad, so sad. Unlike WotC and GW/FFG who will survive their ill-fated love affair with the Forge, you will not. I will remember you fondly.

is a ludicruous overreaction to a product that does NOT exist yet and doesn't even have a proposed publication date!!

Chaosium have the ms in house and Mike Mason and Paul Fricker have made it very plain that what they were talking about was their PROPOSED changes - it is entirely in Chaosium's hands how many of those changes they actually implement. And to be fair, I heard a LOT of things I think would make sense in a "Call of Cthulhu Companion" as variants or options and a number of areas they have proposed changes in are, even if the changes DON'T sound like ones I'd make or use, absolutely areas where the current rules need a serious overhaul.

So, can we possibly restrain ourselves from the sack clothes and ashes and / or tarring and feathering Chaosium and / or Mike and Paul and see where this goes? Or are we going to yet again prove the stereotype that frothing irrational hyperbole is the common denominator of geek internet discourse?

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just listened to the podcast of the seminar. Some of the changes discussed there seem

rather interesting, potentially improving the game, while others seemed less convincing,

but in my view there was nothing which would completely change or break the game. All

in all I see no reason to be either enthusiastic or alarmed.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The copy of the rules I have with me at games is the hardback of 5th. The actual rules I play by are a heavily house ruled version of those based on decades of playing BRP games - it most closely resembles the simplest baseline of BGB BRP with a couple of small tweaks.

I own copies of 2nd, 4th and 5th edition, plus the BRP BGB and I could from a rules perspective run a scenario written for ANY edition with ANY of those rule sets.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, which edition are each of you CoC fans currently playing?

I play the previous German edition - the latest one is almost identical, so I did not see

a need to buy it. The edition I use consists of two books, a games master book with

400 pages and a player book with 230 pages. It is not a direct translation of a Chao-

sium edition, although in my view it is rather close to the 6th edition. I usually add a

couple of house rules and BRP options to make the system fit a specific setting better.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... a completely different focus from the last 30 years.

I do not think so. All the proposed changes would do is to hand over a minor part of

the development of the story from the games master, who is currently alone respon-

sible for the development of the story, to the players, who would then get some ad-

ditional options to influence the development of the story. Some groups would love

such "forgie" elements of "player empowerment" and "distribution of narrative rights",

probably especially those which are waiting for a kind of Pulp Cthulhu, while others

would ignore such options. All in all not a big deal, just a possibility for a slightly dif-

ferent way to play the game, a way one can welcome or delete at one's pleasure.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaosium is not Wizards of the Coast, there is no Hasbro in the background

which demands desperate measures to reach a certain level of profit and

threatens to otherwise close down Wizards of the Coast, and there has al-

so been no extreme turnover of game designers leading to a loss of connec-

tion between designers of different versions at Chaosium. Comparing Chao-

sium to Wizards of the Coast is much like comparing apples and squirrels.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to be a rebuild from the ground up that sounds like it ignores the existence of the BGB version of BRP; some of the proposed changes sound like they will impose a much narrower range of play styles than previous editions; some of the proposed changes appear to be solutions in search of a problem... and on the whole, I heard a bunch of interesting optional rules but nothing compelling that made me think I need this new edition, and quite a lot of stuff that I'm pretty sure I'd never use...

I am not really sold, either. Haters of the Resistance Table have always been very vocal in their hatred, but no one has ever forced them to use it if they do not like. Not having it at all, instead, would force those who prefer it to play with a style they do not like.

The whole thing sounds rather "forgie" to me, too. And it also sounds like a mistake. Here are the reasons why:

a) common sense says they should have leveraged the BGB; but maybe someone else already said this

B) the BGB says clearly that metagaming constructs like Fate Points or Luck Points "break" the principles of Horror; Luck? the entire premise of Lovecraft fiction is that the entire Universe does not give a da** about mankind. Luck? No, not suited to this kind of play. Random death? Hell yes, I have heard Sandy say that this is an essential part of Horror: you cannot predict who is gonna die next. What horror is it if you are not supposed to die until the story comes to an end?

c) Player empowerment: again, a great idea. But NOT for this genre. Where is the horror if the players are in control? This is another concept that I heard Sandy say.

However, in the end, I do not think that the parallel with 4e/wotc is correct. Chaosium will never ask old players to stop buying or supporting old stuff like it happened with D&D. Buying into 7e will be optional.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in the end, I do not think that the parallel with 4e/wotc is correct. Chaosium will never ask old players to stop buying or supporting old stuff like it happened with D&D. Buying into 7e will be optional.

I agree with pretty much everything in your post, including this bit. I doubt Chaosium will burn their bridges with old players, and I don't think any changes from "classic CoC" to "CoC 7" will be as drastic as say, TSR D&D vs. 4e D&D. Nevertheless, I don't think the kinds of changes being proposed are a good idea, and I'm frankly skeptical of arguments along the lines of "don't worry -- these changes are not a big deal and don't change the way the game plays/feels."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) common sense says they should have leveraged the BGB; but maybe someone else already said this

That from a purely business sense is a puzzling one.

On the mooted changes, judging from the little bit of discussion I saw about people playing it at Continuum, it didn't seem any different to how CoC normally plays. Things like dying at -CON rather -3HPs are pretty much a tweak rather than quantum change (effectively turns on "heroic" Hit Points to an extent.)

Changing the combat system into something that sounds like a hybrid of Pendragon and BRP is a really odd one. Again it probably feels somewhat like BRP (two of you roll, damage is absorbed by armour and single bits of damage can cripple.) But surely coming up with new combat systems for CoC is missing the point. Unless Chaosium think that the combat system in BRP doesn't work, why would you spend time and effort developing a combat system for a game that's not about combat?

I'm far from being a BRP traditionalist and a lot of the innovations being mentioned seem interesting. They just seem to be misplaced. Personally, I would be far more interested in following the lead of the new French printing of CoC. With the caveat that I don't speak French so I may have too rosy a view of it but from what I understand, that printing does all sorts of nips and tucks without major alterations.

If CoC 7 was to CoC 6 what RQ6 is to MRQII then I would be a happy person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not really sold, either. Haters of the Resistance Table have always been very vocal in their hatred, but no one has ever forced them to use it if they do not like. Not having it at all, instead, would force those who prefer it to play with a style they do not like.

The RT going is a cosmetic consequence of the change in stats from 3-18 to solely using the stat rolls (so no INT 2D6+6, only Idea 40-90) and the changes the follow on from that - mechanically it's not intrinsically problematic but it will make stat blocks notably different between CoC and other BRP games, which is I think a mistake.

The whole thing sounds rather "forgie" to me, too.

*sigh* People have been using those play styles and devices, and debating them, since the early days of the hobby. I was involved in fanzines debates in the 1980's about "narrative" and we were regular being told that the debate was stale as it had been gone over before in the mid-seventies. People have always played Call of Cthulhu (and yes, most other RPG's, INCLUDING (A)D&D) that way as well as in other play styles. Dogmatically insisting one or the other is the only way is toxic - most groups actually use a constantly varying blend of styles, just as they constantly vary between a more task or conflict centred view of the resolution mechanics in their games. BRP / CoC has always "tacitly" allowed those play styles and I see nothing wrong with revising things to make the support more explicit, PROVIDED it doesn't preclude other established play styles.

And it also sounds like a mistake. Here are the reasons why:

a) common sense says they should have leveraged the BGB; but maybe someone else already said this

B) the BGB says clearly that metagaming constructs like Fate Points or Luck Points "break" the principles of Horror; Luck? the entire premise of Lovecraft fiction is that the entire Universe does not give a da** about mankind. Luck? No, not suited to this kind of play. Random death? Hell yes, I have heard Sandy say that this is an essential part of Horror: you cannot predict who is gonna die next. What horror is it if you are not supposed to die until the story comes to an end?

c) Player empowerment: again, a great idea. But NOT for this genre. Where is the horror if the players are in control? This is another concept that I heard Sandy say.

Whilst I am very wary of any of these things, for precisely the reasons you give, I'd also say that used judiciously they actually help smooth of the "random idiocy" of raw dice. I have lost count of the times (in CoC and pretty much every other RPG I have ever run or played) letting the dice just roll would have resulted in an outcome that was dull, counter productive to the player's engagement with their characters and just ruined the game for all of us. Mechanics that let us avoid these sorts of derailments I put in general in the same box as stuff like not having a clue require a critical Spot check to find - it's basic common sense, not rocket science (nor is it "game design genius!" but that's a separate topic).

However, in the end, I do not think that the parallel with 4e/wotc is correct. Chaosium will never ask old players to stop buying or supporting old stuff like it happened with D&D. Buying into 7e will be optional.

Absolutely - my concern is that if 7e is too substantial a fork, the substantial synergies between Call of Cthulhuand BRP will be eroded. NOTE: eroded, NOT lost: even in the raw proposals we've had outlined the numbers will be substantially the same and the existing back catalogue remains available.

That from a purely business sense is a puzzling one.

On the mooted changes, judging from the little bit of discussion I saw about people playing it at Continuum, it didn't seem any different to how CoC normally plays. Things like dying at -CON rather -3HPs are pretty much a tweak rather than quantum change (effectively turns on "heroic" Hit Points to an extent.)

Changing the combat system into something that sounds like a hybrid of Pendragon and BRP is a really odd one. Again it probably feels somewhat like BRP (two of you roll, damage is absorbed by armour and single bits of damage can cripple.) But surely coming up with new combat systems for CoC is missing the point. Unless Chaosium think that the combat system in BRP doesn't work, why would you spend time and effort developing a combat system for a game that's not about combat?

However, revising combat extensively WAS needed. I tend these days to have Firearms as a skill, with specialisations in Handgun; Close Quarters (FIBUA, snap shooting long arms without bracing etc) and Marksmanship (shooting at taregts where the shooter has the opportunity to brace, take up a correct shooting posture for the long arm / pistol they are using) because frankly whether it's a Browning, a Glock or an M16 from a game play perspective the big differences are NOT inherent in the specific weapon design but in the type of shot you are trying to make. And unarmed COmbat in CoC has long attracted criticism (not all of it justified, but it certainly needs extensive revision).

I'm far from being a BRP traditionalist and a lot of the innovations being mentioned seem interesting. They just seem to be misplaced. Personally, I would be far more interested in following the lead of the new French printing of CoC. With the caveat that I don't speak French so I may have too rosy a view of it but from what I understand, that printing does all sorts of nips and tucks without major alterations.

If CoC 7 was to CoC 6 what RQ6 is to MRQII then I would be a happy person.

This.

Having seen what Jason & co have done with BRP in the Laundry, and what Ben Monroe has done with the revision of the old Elric! rules for Magic World I think there is real potential for a new version of Call of Cthulhu that is BOTH highly compatible with BRP AND genuinely innovative; that can tidy up and clarify a lot of the long standing criticisms of the current rules, add options for character engagement and motivation and streamline the system in general so that it plays better and is MORE approachable as a system for new players.

And SOME of what's in Mike and Paul's proposals may well have a roll in such a revision - but the whole package misses the mark for me in its current form...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, which edition are each of you CoC fans currently playing? I understand the changes among editions have (so far) been minor and incremental. Both 5th and 6th are available at a discount in Chaosium's Boo-Boo Books section.

I've played 2nd, 4th and 6th edition over the years. Looks like 7th will be breaking my run on even.:)

I don`t play monsters. I play men besieged by fate and out for revenge. ~Vincent Price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, there has been a discussion about 7th edition at rpg.net, including a link to an overview by the writers.

Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition Authors' Seminar - Recording

One of the pending changes is to ditch the Resistance Table.

Wow! They really are going for something other than the regular cosmetic changes. This sounds really interesting.

I hear the folks behind Delta Green are also planning their own version of the CoC rules system as well.

I'll sort of miss the Resistance Table though. Sort of.

I don`t play monsters. I play men besieged by fate and out for revenge. ~Vincent Price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess the actual 7E rulebook itself won't be a big issue to me if the changes aren't too radical. If I like the changes I'll introduce them to my current CoC rules, but if not I'll keep on running the rules I have. Usually if I don't know a rule I just grab any edition of CoC at hand and use that. Later on if I find that it has been superseded in more recent editions then I just check with our troupe on which mechanic they prefer and go with that. Hopefully this will also be the case with 7E.

My main concern, like many here have raised, is how compatible the supplements will be with previous edition supplements. I'm aware that the stat block will be presented a little differently, but as long as it is more or less compatible with previous editions of the game then I'm okay with that. The strength of CoC is definitely that it is well known to have great campaigns with a solid set of game mechanics that have endured thirty years or so. I can easily run a CoC 6E campaign using resources & supplements from the 3E rules and have few, if any, issues in regards to game mechanics. As long that this is more or less the case with 7E then I'll be happy, but if not then I'll probably have sour grapes as well.

Time will tell, and it is only early days yet, I'll have to see how 7E shapes up closer to release, but I doubt Chaosium will disappoint on this release.

Edited by Mankcam

" Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that a lot of people don't realise is that you can use whatever rules you like in your own games.

So, the new edition might lose the Resistance Table. All this means is that you can choose to use the new way of doing things or can keep the Resistance Table from other versions.

I have been slow to take up changes to new versions in my games. Usually, I only use them if they are better than the old rules. This makes my games a hotchpotch of rules, but means that I get the best of both worlds - better rules when they come but stable rules when I need them.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that a lot of people don't realise is that you can use whatever rules you like in your own games.

I think most people understand this. The real problem occurs for gamers who primarily only get to play in occasional games, cons, game days at the local shop etc. In a regular gaming group a pile of house rules or cherry picking from various editions is no problem, but it is a problem when gaming is limited to more public venues.

For that reason edition changes are sort of important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...