Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
[D20 CoC] Beyond the Mountains of Madness Campaign - Recruiting Alternate Players
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2532820" data-attributes="member: 26473"><p><strong>jdeleski</strong>, thank you for taking the time to outline your position on the Father Rucker character. While you have addressed a couple of my concerns (such as ECL), I admit that I still have a number of reservations.</p><p></p><p>The idea of a priest-scientist joining the expedition offers no particular conceptual problems for me – however, all of the characters presented so far have offered impeccable credentials as potential explorers. I believe that Father Rucker should be similarly qualified before being included, which involves more than taking ranks in science skills – it’s developing a <em>curriculum vitae</em> consistent with the other characters that makes his participation plausible. In my opinion, such a character should be a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Georges Lemaitre, or (nearest and dearest to my heart) Alberto María de Agostini – as it stands right now, we have Gabriel Van Helsing.</p><p></p><p>In the same vein, I believe a character’s Mythos knowledge should be similarly integrated into his <em>raison d'être</em> as a credentialed explorer. The news clippings our characters received hinted at a previous expedition that met a mysterious fate – mention of a “different taxonomy” in the extant records of the Miskatonic U. party seems like a good pathway for a Mythos-minded character to use as a nexus with the Starkweather-Moore expedition, for example. In this way it’s possible for a character with <u>limited</u> Mythos knowledge to make a plausible companion to the company of adventurers that Starkweather has assembled, <em>if</em> the character’s other credentials make the grade. So far there hasn’t been a connection between the character’s Mythos knowledge and the expedition offered to explain Father Rucker’s participation. So far everyone else has presented a character who is an <u>explorer</u> first – <strong>Dallas4lr</strong> has presented a character that is a <u>Mythos</u> <u>investigator</u> first.</p><p></p><p>I also have reservations about the <u>player</u> group dynamic. It is easy for me to see how the Father Rucker character could come to dominate the limelight through in-game and out-of-game knowledge if he’s not played with respect for the roles of the rest of the characters. In this I’m particularly concerned by <strong>Dallas4lr</strong>’s responses to the issues raised. So far <strong>Dallas4lr</strong> has demonstrated a “tin ear,” taking entirely the wrong message from the concerns me and others shared in the OoC thread. Challenged on the concept of a gun-totin’ spell-castin’ priest-scientist, <strong>Dallas4lr</strong>’s response was to attempt to pick apart the other characters’ mechanics – the fact that his character was not just “different” from the rest, but radically so, and that pieces of Father Rucker’s stats and abilities were not just inconsistent with the others characters, but with the character himself, didn’t seem to come through. For example, Poole’s experience with rifles is 100% consistent with his background of growing up in the West, while Paco’s skill with melee weapons reflects a life spent working with axes and hammers and knives – a scholar-turned-ecclesiastic with firearms skills is an anomaly at best, one not explained adequately by his background (and perhaps owing its origins to player knowledge and metagaming).</p><p></p><p>Repeated explanations by different players about their concerns with respect to the character elicited an exclamation-point laden response citing “the rules” as sufficient justification for playing the character the way that <strong>Dallas4lr</strong> feels is appropriate – the post even went so far as to suggest that the rest of us don’t know enough about <em>CoC</em> to play the game ‘correctly’. (Just to clear up that point, our characters will encounter the unknown, go crazy, and die on the ice – not necessarily in that order. Does that sum up <em>CoC</em> pretty well?) What I think <strong>Dallas4lr</strong> is missing was summed up very neatly by <strong>taitzu52</strong> – this adventure is not about chasing an Arkham escapee through a fog-shrouded Massachusetts cemetery or encountering an Old One in the natural history museum at Miskatonic U. I believe this point should be emphasized.</p><p></p><p>I’m very concerned that this misapprehension of where the other players’ reservations lie will carry over into the game and result in intra-character conflict that isn’t an artifact of roleplaying, but rather a very different set of starting assumptions on the part of the players. I hope that you will consider this in the spirit in which it’s intended, as input to make what has already started off as a very good game that much better.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Shaman, post: 2532820, member: 26473"] [B]jdeleski[/B], thank you for taking the time to outline your position on the Father Rucker character. While you have addressed a couple of my concerns (such as ECL), I admit that I still have a number of reservations. The idea of a priest-scientist joining the expedition offers no particular conceptual problems for me – however, all of the characters presented so far have offered impeccable credentials as potential explorers. I believe that Father Rucker should be similarly qualified before being included, which involves more than taking ranks in science skills – it’s developing a [i]curriculum vitae[/i] consistent with the other characters that makes his participation plausible. In my opinion, such a character should be a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Georges Lemaitre, or (nearest and dearest to my heart) Alberto María de Agostini – as it stands right now, we have Gabriel Van Helsing. In the same vein, I believe a character’s Mythos knowledge should be similarly integrated into his [i]raison d'être[/i] as a credentialed explorer. The news clippings our characters received hinted at a previous expedition that met a mysterious fate – mention of a “different taxonomy” in the extant records of the Miskatonic U. party seems like a good pathway for a Mythos-minded character to use as a nexus with the Starkweather-Moore expedition, for example. In this way it’s possible for a character with [u]limited[/u] Mythos knowledge to make a plausible companion to the company of adventurers that Starkweather has assembled, [i]if[/i] the character’s other credentials make the grade. So far there hasn’t been a connection between the character’s Mythos knowledge and the expedition offered to explain Father Rucker’s participation. So far everyone else has presented a character who is an [u]explorer[/u] first – [b]Dallas4lr[/b] has presented a character that is a [u]Mythos[/u] [u]investigator[/u] first. I also have reservations about the [u]player[/u] group dynamic. It is easy for me to see how the Father Rucker character could come to dominate the limelight through in-game and out-of-game knowledge if he’s not played with respect for the roles of the rest of the characters. In this I’m particularly concerned by [b]Dallas4lr[/b]’s responses to the issues raised. So far [b]Dallas4lr[/b] has demonstrated a “tin ear,” taking entirely the wrong message from the concerns me and others shared in the OoC thread. Challenged on the concept of a gun-totin’ spell-castin’ priest-scientist, [b]Dallas4lr[/b]’s response was to attempt to pick apart the other characters’ mechanics – the fact that his character was not just “different” from the rest, but radically so, and that pieces of Father Rucker’s stats and abilities were not just inconsistent with the others characters, but with the character himself, didn’t seem to come through. For example, Poole’s experience with rifles is 100% consistent with his background of growing up in the West, while Paco’s skill with melee weapons reflects a life spent working with axes and hammers and knives – a scholar-turned-ecclesiastic with firearms skills is an anomaly at best, one not explained adequately by his background (and perhaps owing its origins to player knowledge and metagaming). Repeated explanations by different players about their concerns with respect to the character elicited an exclamation-point laden response citing “the rules” as sufficient justification for playing the character the way that [b]Dallas4lr[/b] feels is appropriate – the post even went so far as to suggest that the rest of us don’t know enough about [i]CoC[/i] to play the game ‘correctly’. (Just to clear up that point, our characters will encounter the unknown, go crazy, and die on the ice – not necessarily in that order. Does that sum up [i]CoC[/i] pretty well?) What I think [b]Dallas4lr[/b] is missing was summed up very neatly by [b]taitzu52[/b] – this adventure is not about chasing an Arkham escapee through a fog-shrouded Massachusetts cemetery or encountering an Old One in the natural history museum at Miskatonic U. I believe this point should be emphasized. I’m very concerned that this misapprehension of where the other players’ reservations lie will carry over into the game and result in intra-character conflict that isn’t an artifact of roleplaying, but rather a very different set of starting assumptions on the part of the players. I hope that you will consider this in the spirit in which it’s intended, as input to make what has already started off as a very good game that much better. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
[D20 CoC] Beyond the Mountains of Madness Campaign - Recruiting Alternate Players
Top