D&D + CoC

[Obryn]

Oh, I can agree that the "random insanity table" is extremely non-sensical in a very oldschool sort of way. (I think a similar one was in the AD&D DMG, if memory serves.) I don't really use it, myself - I usually pick an effect from the list, rather than roll.

The net effect of sanity loss is generally not a list of insanities getting piled on your character, IME.

-O

 

[darjr]

One of the reasons I love GURPS is the fright table. The fright table, if you roll bad enough, gives your character disadvantages in the form of insanities.

It is a wonderful way that the char gen rules mesh with the 'sanity' rules in that game.

 

[Desdichado]

From my experience, if the players are vested in their PCs, when they face the threat of something apparently more powerful than them, they act cautiously and frightened.

Feature, not a bug. This is, after all, a game meant to emulate the horror genre.

I would also acknowledge, that without the "silly" insanties I've heard piled on PCs, the permanent loss of Sanity Points would still impact a player as risks they undertake could do permanent damage to their PC (unlike physical damage) given that when SP hits 0, you lose your PC.

Well, for what it's worth, I probably wouldn't use the actual Cthulhu sanity rules, but rather one of the versions that converts the idea into d20 and makes it "native" rather than a d% ruleset grafted uncomfortably on top. I think the best version of this that I have is the Freeport Madness rules from The d20 Freeport Companion (now called the 3rd Era Freeport Companion and still available as a pdf). It's got the same feel as the Cthulhu sanity rules, but its more streamlined and less clinical. I always felt like either Sandy or Lynn got a bit carried away with their abnormal psychology textbook in the original Cthulhu sanity rules anyway.

I'm thinking I would prefer a more "realistic" list of sanity loss effects, perhaps picked out in advance for the PC as somebody else talked about a page back.

I don't know that realism is part of the equation; after all, the Cthulhu sanity tables were based on real psychological disorders.

But, like Obryn, I was always much more likely to pick or at least "massage" table rolls if I thought the result wasn't likely to be very interesting, or if it was too weird.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, for those keeping track at home, I've decided to go aheand and put the work into limiting magic. Other than via E6, I mean.

It was a given, actually, that I'd eventually get to this, I think. I've been toying with various iterations of it for years for other reasons. And, since I'm not threatening to run this in the immediate future, I figure why not take the time to do it right, put out a little homebrew pdf of my houserules, etc.

 

[Janx]

Well, for those keeping track at home, I've decided to go aheand and put the work into limiting magic. Other than via E6, I mean.

It was a given, actually, that I'd eventually get to this, I think. I've been toying with various iterations of it for years for other reasons. And, since I'm not threatening to run this in the immediate future, I figure why not take the time to do it right, put out a little homebrew pdf of my houserules, etc.

I haven't seen 4e, but it sounds like they took a lot of non-combat spells ant turned them into rituals that most people can learn and do.

That sounds like the kind of magic CoC has. Less fireballs and lightning bolts, most opening of portals, and influencing men's minds.

 

[Desdichado]

I haven't really seen 4e either, but rituals sound almost exactly like 3e and d20 Modern Incantations.

Which, yeah, is almost exactly what d20 Call of Cthulhu magic is. That's definitely the direction I'll be going.

 

[Aus_Snow]

We've had a lot of fun doing (kinda) CoC-style D&D as well. It's some of the best gaming from the last few years, actually.

Anyway, I'd also be interested to see what's on the go for this magic system. I mean, it *is* not only the most common defining characteristic of a fantasy game, but also (IMO) by far the weakest area in most of those currently available.

Liking the sound of it already, btw.

 

[Desdichado]

Short term, I'm thinking of adopting an existing "system" until I can tweak it.

d20 Call of Cthulhu magic is actually pretty comprehensive when it comes to covering the folkloric and sword & sorcery magic bases, and it is almost equivalent to Incantations, as I said earlier. The only real difference is that learning (and casting) a spell in Cthulhu has a Sanity cost, whereas Incantations have backlash, which is a much more varied (but ultimately comparable) cost.

The only problem is that there really aren't a lot of incantations out there in the sourcebooks I have. Unearthed Arcana has a few, and Urban Arcana has quite a few more. But I think Cthulhu spells (d20, that is) could be converted very easily in just a few seconds by handwaving the Sanity and other spellcasting costs into the backlash field and making a quick call on what you want the backlash to be.

The other thought I had was doing something similar to the Shadow Stalkers campaign model from d20 Modern, where basically people cast spells via the Use Magic Device skill only, and the GM gives them spells via scrolls, wands, or whatever. Its a much more controlled environment from a GM's perspective.

I dunno, though. I'm still kinda waffling on those two options. In the meantime, I'm just working on my custom E6 SRD document, which I'll print to pdf once I'm done with it and post it here, probably on my blog, probably on my modular campaign setting wiki, and I dunno. Maybe elsewhere too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hrm. I think one of the E6 threads and/or sites had some additional (possibly quite suitable) Incantations. . .

Just wish I could remember which one. :\ I'll try to recall / search.

 

[Starman]

I just saw this new pdf advertised on the front page that updates the UA incantations to Pathfinder - Incantations in Theory and Practice. I haven't read it myself, but it might be worth checking out for something like this.