Call of Cthulhu 7 ed. Quickstart

[Paul_Va]

The jury's still out for me on 7th edition as well. I don't know if I'll switch to it, since 6th edition does everything I need. The artwork in the new Quick-Start PDF looks nice though.

[rust]

I don't know if I'll switch to it, since 6th edition does everything I need.

The same here, from what I have seen of the changes in the 7th edition so far

I will perhaps introduce some few of them as house rules into my games, but

I am not interested in most of them and therefore hardly willing to buy a new

set of core books.

[K Peterson]

I'm not optimistic from what I've seen so far. I can't see myself making use of percentile stats, pushing Luck, the bonus/penalty die mechanic, or Build.

I'd hoped for more of a tightening of the core system, using examples and inspiration from recent d100 products (like MRQ2/RQ6/OpenQuest). Building upon BRP/d100's lineage, rather than borrowing from D&D Next - or whatever outside sources - to make CoC more "modern".

[SDLeary]

Does anyone know if the new edit of the Quickstart rules clears anything up? I haven't had a chance to sit down with them yet.

SDLeary

[nclarke]

I have no idea what you might have found unclear in the PS backer version that came out originally so I couldn't tell you if anything's been cleared up.

[SDLeary]

I have no idea what you might have found unclear in the PS backer version that came out originally so I couldn't tell you if anything's been cleared up.

The use of Luck is one thing that comes to mind at the moment. Text left it somewhat unclear, but the character sheet had a resource track.

SDLeary

[nclarke]

Luck is used and described in the QS basically the same as it's always been. In the playtest version of the rules I tested you could spend Luck as an optional rule. I don't expect any of the optional rules to have been presented in the QS rules for obvious reasons even though the character sheet allows for the reduction in Luck as you spend it.

[NickMiddleton]

It appears to be exactly the same text (possibly with typos corrected - I haven't done a line by line comparison) as the backers of 7e and Horror on the Orient Express got access to earlier this year. So there is still the discrepancy between the rules and the character sheet.

Regards,

Nick

[Hexelis]

I got the download QS, I have sat down and made a character, though haven't actually played yet. It seems character creation is easier for newbies as far as dividing up skill points, but boring for a more experienced player who whats a wider range of skill choices. I don't see where any of these changes are improvements over the old way, only another rule system. I still want to run through a game and give it an honest go but I doubt I'll be converting I love the traditional BRP rules, I already know them and how to tweak and change them as needed. Also I don't like the idea of two rule books, next we'll have a monster manuel, magic books, and books for every feesible occupation under the sun(ie WotC), I'll pass on that.

[TrippyHippy]

The 7e rules are OK, I suppose, but they're not something to enthuse about. The new stat blocks are more convoluted than they need to be, and I'd have preferred they handles some things differently.

I can see the argument for including % score for Characteristics, and it follows on that you could include 1/5 values for all skills too going on the special success rules that were already present. I don't like adding the 1/2 score values though. If they wanted to make contested rolls elegant, they should have done what RuneQuest/Legend/OpenQuest/Pendragon did and have 'highest rolls, below stat' rules.

They've now disassociated Luck from POW and made it a trackable resource..though only as an option, and not in the Quickplay rules. It is however, present on the Character sheet which suggests it's not intended as much of an option as the text states.

I would have handles the sub-POW stats differently myself. Indeed, I would have separated Sanity from POW altogether, and made it it's own stat. That way, you can avoid the problem of insane old Sorcerers (high POW, no Sanity - "How did they get that way?"). I'd have integrated POW as the core stat for Magic and Luck, and made it into a single resource stat with optional rules for what they could be spent on - including spells, luck boosts or whatever. No need to make a new stat.

The pushing rules are fine, the bonus/penalty dice are not. I don't mind the new combat rules, I'm interested in what they've got to offer in the Chasing rules, but I wish they could have spent some time pruning down and refining the skill list - or at least co-ordinated it with BRP.

The final product is already a commercial success, going on Kickstarter, but there may be implications for the BRP Gold book not being 100% compatible anymore. There may also be some fall out with other Cthulhu games being released next year.

[Mankcam]

Yeah, I have mixed views on CoC 7E as well. I want to like it, but there are some quibbles with the departures from previous editions.

Firstly, I do like the fact that they are pitching two play styles, Purist and Pulp. I remember CoC 3E had a distinctly pulpish character, even if it wasn't overly supported mechanically by the rules. Subsequent editions became more grim in tone, closer to the Lovecraftian flavour as a source. Several of the earlier grand campaigns also fitted well with a low-pulp tone rather than a pure investigative horror tone, campaigns such as Masks Of Nylarthotep, Horror On The Orient Express, etc.

In the wake of other companies publishing Lovecraftian games with a more pulpish flavour (ie: Trail of Cthulhu, Realms of Cthulhu, Elderitch Skies etc), I think it was time for Chaosium to bring some rules to support a low-pulp tone. Hopefully the new Luck rules should cover this nicely, although I will have to have a good look at them. The overall tone of the kickstarter seems to support purist and pulp settings quite well, so kudos from me on that point.

In my games I always have written characteristics like thus ie: DEX 12/60%, and it seems to work fine. If The player-characters make a Difficult roll they just halve the %, not much math required for that. However with CoC 7E writing them as DEX 12/30/60, it does seem a tad cumbersome, very not BRP. Doing this for all the skills as well tends to make the character sheet look a bit cluttered, and I prefer my sheets to look clear and simple these days.

There also appears to be some other rules that cover the same ground as the current CoC/BRP rules, and they appear to be no better or worse than the current rules. I'm mainly describing the bonus/penalty rules here. This is surprising as now it just seems that they are in there for the sake of difference rather than progress, especially considering the current method is very simple and already works well across the BRP system.

I guess the new rules also work well, but for the current fan base of earlier editions it is confusing replacing rules just for the sake of it. Having a 'bonus die' doesn't feel very BRP; it feels more like a concept ported in from White Wolf Storyteller or a system like that.

I would have taken the opportunity to divorce Sanity from POW as well. In fact, I would have suggested a core characteristic called Rationality (RAT). Then I would have 'Sanity Points' equal to RAT x 5%, which could work in line with the current SAN rules. Or you could go vice versa, have the characteristic called Sanity (SAN), and have 'Rationality Points' equal to SAN x 5%. In any case, not a big change, just a tweak that would make more sense.

Overall I think the production and atmosphere looks great, and I hope it sells well on the shelves. I don't mind having several books, we had a separate 'Monster' book previously anyway. Although I'm not sure if I would be rushing out to replace the Malleus Monstrorum just for the sake of having stats written in the new format, as they should be pretty compatible as is. If it came out with a hardcover and full colour panels then I would upgrade, but not just for a few minor changes in the way stats are presented.

Which is a good thing, as I think this edition will be about 85-90%% compatible with previous CoC resources (which is better than most rpgs). That, however, is quite dramatic for BRP CoC I guess, as most previous editions have been about 99% compatible, so I can understand the concern. I am also concerned that if the rules are too much a departure from the BRP BGB then this may have implications on the entire BRP system.

Have to wait and see how it goes when released I guess.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Mankcam
grammar

[Paul_Va]

Now that I've looked at this edition a bit more, I'm pretty certain, I won't be switching to 7th ed. I don't like the bonus/penalty die (this feels more like Savage Worlds than CoC), and I don't like the pushing dice option. Lastly, I don't like the array builds. I want my players rolling their attributes.

[Paul_Va]

On that note, I also wonder if this new 7th edition will still have the BRP logo on the back of the book, because the Quick-Start PDF does not, and the rules, particularly characteristic generation and bonus/penalty dies, seem to have wandered quite far from BRP.

[K Peterson]

I don't like the bonus/penalty die (this feels more like Savage Worlds than CoC), and I don't like the pushing dice option.

To me, the bonus/penalty die seems a lot like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic introduced in D&D Next. But, I'm not that familiar with Savage Worlds.

[Simlasa]

From what I've seen I'm pretty much gonna ignore this edition altogether. I just don't like the general direction of the changes... which seem to be towards a Savage Worlds type implementation. If I wanted to play that game (there's already a Cthulhu supplement for it) I would.

It just seems like, 'Hey, let's all dress like the popular kid!' to me.

No thanks.

[Paul_Va]

From what I've seen I'm pretty much gonna ignore this edition altogether. I just don't like the general direction of the changes... which seem to be towards a Savage Worlds type implementation. If I wanted to play that game (there's already a Cthulhu supplement for it) I would.

It just seems like, 'Hey, let's all dress like the popular kid!' to me.

No thanks.

That's precisely how I feel about it, Simlasa. I actually came to BRP from Savage Worlds because I preferred the grittier more narative focused style of BRP, and now I feel like they are emulating Savage Worlds. Having played Savage Worlds I can really say I don't like that system at all. It's far too "gamey" for my taste.

[fmitchell]

Well, I sunk $90 into the Kickstarter, so some of you might argue this is cognitive dissonance in action, but CoC7 might be worth picking up. It's not for BRP purists, definitely. Then again, King Arthur Pendragon departs far enough from its BRP roots that it's an entirely different game, but in doing so fits the genre and source material more closely. Also, CoC7 borrowing mechanics from another game doesn't mean that it's "becoming" that game, any more than rolling a d20 in KAP or HeroQuest makes those games just like D&D.

I'd like to see all the rules finalized and in context before deciding whether it was worth my investment.

[NickMiddleton]

Well, I sunk $90 into the Kickstarter, so some of you might argue this is cognitive dissonance in action, but CoC7 might be worth picking up. It's not for BRP purists, definitely. Then again, King Arthur Pendragon departs far enough from its BRP roots that it's an entirely different game, but in doing so fits the genre and source material more closely.

Indeed - but no one who knows KAP (not its primary author nor any if the publishers who've handled it including Chaosium) would describe it as a BRP game. One can see the lineage but it has a different core mechanic and the fundamental architecture of the core system is different.

CoC 7th claims to be entirely numbers compatible with previous editions AND innovative and new AND to fit its genre and source material more closely... I remain skeptical - the quick start certainly hasn't persuaded me, but then neither did the kickstarter campaign.

I'd like to see all the rules finalized and in context before deciding whether it was worth my investment.

Indeed - albeit I'll need to borrow a physical copy from someone to review it as it's not something I'm prepared to buy out of curiosity... Unless it turns up cheap on eBay, but at that point my questions probably already answered...

Cheers,

Nick

[NickMiddleton]

(Double post deleted)

Edited November 23, 2013 by NickMiddleton

[Canis latrans popus]

Indeed - but no one who knows KAP (not its primary author nor any if the publishers who've handled it including Chaosium) would describe it as a BRP game. One can see the lineage but it has a different core mechanic and the fundamental architecture of the core system is different.

CoC 7th claims to be entirely numbers compatible with previous editions AND innovative and new AND to fit its genre and source material more closely... I remain skeptical - the quick start certainly hasn't persuaded me, but then neither did the kickstarter campaign.

Indeed - albeit I'll need to borrow a physical copy from someone to review it as it's not something I'm prepared to buy out of curiosity... Unless it turns up cheap on eBay, but at that point my questions probably already answered...

Cheers,

Nick

I consider KAP to be a BRP game. What makes it not BRP?

D20 instead of D%? Both are a linear curve rolling under a skill, one is just graduated in 5% increments instead of 1% increments.

Basing melee weapon damage off (STR+SIZ)/6 in d6s instead of the STR+SIZ damage bonus chart and pages of weapon stats? Seems like a nice simplification of weapon damage.

Removal POW and INT as stats? They could always be added in if desired.

[NickMiddleton]

I consider KAP to be a BRP game. What makes it not BRP?

D20 instead of D%? Both are a linear curve rolling under a skill, one is just graduated in 5% increments instead of 1% increments.

Basing melee weapon damage off (STR+SIZ)/6 in d6s instead of the STR+SIZ damage bonus chart and pages of weapon stats? Seems like a nice simplification of weapon damage.

Removal POW and INT as stats? They could always be added in if desired.

It doesn't read like a BRP game, it doesn't play like one and its author doesn't describe it as one.

It's clearly related to BRP, just as GURPS is related to The Fantasy Trip, but it uses different dice, it resolves key aspects of character action and behaviour by different means and has significantly divergent assumptions about play.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Canis latrans popus]

It doesn't read like a BRP game, it doesn't play like one and its author doesn't describe it as one.

It's clearly related to BRP, just as GURPS is related to The Fantasy Trip, but it uses different dice, it resolves key aspects of character action and behaviour by different means and has significantly divergent assumptions about play.

Cheers,

Nick.

You say it doesn't read like a BRP game, and I say it does.

You say it doesn't play like one, but I say it does.

I've played and ran both.

Cheers.

[RosenMcStern]

Ye are a li'l bit off topic, gentlemen...

Anyway, as one of the authors has been hired as line manager by Chaosium, I suppose the changes are here to stay. Time will tell.

I wonder if Chaosium is prepared to the event of core fans being pissed off and becoming very vocal about this fact. WotC was not with D&D 4e, and this caused them some trouble. I hope Charlie & Co. are wise enough to keep fans of old editions content and not try to force them into adopting the new mechanics. Last news I got from him suggest he is not willing to annoy anyone - moreso with potential customers.

[deleriad]

Ye are a li'l bit off topic, gentlemen...

Anyway, as one of the authors has been hired as line manager by Chaosium, I suppose the changes are here to stay. Time will tell.

I wonder if Chaosium is prepared to the event of core fans being pissed off and becoming very vocal about this fact. WotC was not with D&D 4e, and this caused them some trouble. I hope Charlie & Co. are wise enough to keep fans of old editions content and not try to force them into adopting the new mechanics. Last news I got from him suggest he is not willing to annoy anyone - moreso with potential customers.

I don't think the changes are anything like as major as 3rd and 4th edition D&D. It reminds me more of RQ2 to RQ3 with plenty of changes that feel more like solutions looking for a problem. It still feels like a really odd idea to create the BGB then rewrite your flagship line to be less consistent with it.

Personally I didn't back the Kickstarter partly because it felt like someone's houserules that appear to add complexity for no gain that I see and partly because I don't trust Chaosium to deliver any time soon.

[Mankcam]

I very much doubt I will play it as written, as the skill mod mechanics seem more clumsy than the current rules, and it is a core feature that doesn't feel 'BRP' to me. However there are likely some elements of the new mechanics I may use, such as the increased focus on Luck in the new rules. I tend to run a low-pulp Cthulhu game, and these rules may go a lot way to emulate some of that flavour. I certainly won't be recording skills in the xx/xx/xx fashion though, that looks cumbersome and plain ugly on the character sheet.

The atmosphere projected in the quickstart was pretty good though, so narratively it still should be a good game. Yes, I do find it odd though that the flagship game deviates so much from the BGB, I don't see how this won't create divisions amongst current BRP fans, I suspect many of us old fans will soon be Old School BRPers as well by the looks...