Death of Player Characters

[Celebrim]

Been playing for 40 years and I can't think of a single Call of Cthulhu game I've played where combat was the focus of the game, rather than something to try to avoid at all costs. I guess Pulp Cthulhu is more combat focused but I've not played that version.

My experience with Pulp Cthulhu is it more or less just accepts Cthulhu as it is actually played and tries to provide a framework in which the story conventions of HPL make more sense than in traditional play. I've got threads on EnWorld where I discuss some of my frustrations with running long form CoC.

As for whether CoC is combat focused, I'm realizing that the problem here is I'm employing a term of art with no accepted definition and everyone is injecting their own ideas as to what that means. As such, with no shared definitions and no willinginess by anyone to work on that, probably because this argument has become a proxy argument in a number of larger ones about identity and worth of the participants, this conversation is meaningless.

As evidence for that conclusion:

But examples of (none one shots) where combat isn't the focus, The Horror on the Orient Express...

"The Horror on the Orient Express" was cited by another poster as a CoC scenario where they conceded that it was combat focused.

I'd like some examples of CoC where combat is the focus, rather than a sign something has gone drastically wrong in the investigation.

So just think about the two most famous introductory scenarios to CoC: 'The Haunting' and 'The Edge of Darkness'

'The Edge of Darkness' is not combat focused. While there are some opportunities for combat, ultimately resolving the challenge does not focus on combat. This focus on resolving the situation by non-combat means requires the intersection of three things - a monster that is immune to attack, a means by which the players are immune to attack, and a magic mcguffin that can defeat the monster without combat (or perhaps like Sauron or Voldemort, by the destruction of the McGuffin). Very few scenarios have those three things IME.

On the other hand, 'The Haunting' is combat focused in that ultimately there is a monster in the basement you have to defeat. And I'd argue that most CoC scenarios play out like 'The Haunting' (which incidentally is the primary introductory module for 7e). For example, one of my other favorites 'A Cracked and Crooked Manse' has a similar sort of Lovecraftian twist on a haunted house. 'The Lightless Beacon' yet another 7e introductory scenario is combat focused. The most famous campaign for CoC, 'Masks of Nyarlathotep' is massively combat focused, to the point that the best team of investigators are a team of international assassins armed with state-of-the-art military equipment and one of the scenes is best resolved by getting a foreign navy to intervene using their 5-inch naval guns. Combat can be very deadly in CoC, and sometimes investigation can give you an edge in it and you always want to engage in asymmetrical combat when possible, but most scenarios are still combat focused in my experience.

Seth Skorkoysky has reviewed most of the more famous CoC adventures and most of them are combat focused. I'm sure there are a few out there with pure McGuffin solutions where combat isn't the climax, but they don't come to mind.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

My experience with Pulp Cthulhu is it more or less just accepts Cthulhu as it is actually played [...]
I've got threads on EnWorld where I discuss some of my frustrations with running long form CoC.

Again, just because you have problems, doesn't mean the world does! Every other commenter in this thread who has played and run CoC (1) does not have problems doing it, as you apparently do, and (2) does not think it is combat-focused.

As for whether CoC is combat focused [...]
As evidence for that conclusion: "The Horror on the Orient Express" was cited by another poster as a CoC scenario where they conceded that it was combat focused.

OK, now I'm more than a little irritated with your responses. You are mischaracterizing my responses and deliberately warping quotes to suit your point of view. I stated:

ORIENT EXPRESS is a mix, but combat could take up most of the time in play if you like combat a lot.

This specifically states that it is a mix, and so could be either combat-focused (if you really like combat a lot) or not. Saying that this is "evidence" that shows that people cannot agree on what is combat-focused is just plain wrong. I do not believe you are ignorant, so you are being deliberately misleading. Please stop.

Having established that you want to discuss only long-form Call of Cthulhu adventures:

Provide some Call of Cthulhu examples that aren't one shots where combat is absolutely not the focus of the game? I've ran a bunch of CoC.

You proceed to dismiss our experiences and instead want to discuss one-shots, something you specifically requested we not do:

So just think about the two most famous introductory scenarios to CoC: 'The Haunting' and 'The Edge of Darkness'

I don't think this convo is helping anyone, so I'll just summarize what I've read so far and stop attempting to discuss this topic with you.

• Games exist that are explicitly non-combat-focused. People play and enjoy them. They are less popular than explicitly combat-focused games.
• Many people (excepting Celebrim) run long-form Call of Cthulhu campaigns successfully and find they are generally not combat-focused.
• Some COC campaigns, and one-shots, are combat-focused. Many are not. Some can be run either way.

It's pretty clear that combat-focus is not a requirement for roleplaying games. It's also clear that many people find this true in practice. Celebrim is not one of these people, which is fine -- I won't expect to see him at my table when I run Hillfolk or a similar game at a con, but maybe we'll play together in a PF2 session!

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure that saying that if the most relevant item is a curiosity, then all such games are curiosities. That seems a bit of an over-generalization. I'd actually expect that in most fields, the more extreme versions -- which are likely the clearest, examples -- are very likely to be curiosities.

So, I think this comes down to what "relevant" means - both in the sense of why one claims it is relevant, and what that relevance is to be used for.

One can posit a game design discussion about, say, tactical games. And you can put forth the most tactical game ever created as "most relevant" to the discussion. But, we could imagine that game, while it might be the most tactical game ever created, was so moribund with rules that nobody plays it.

I would say that game isn't "relevant" to game design (except, perhaps, as a negative example) because in being the best at an aspect, it makes itself a crummy game! Why would we think a crummy game is a relevant example of good design?

Now, I am not saying that Hillfolk is a crummy game, but since it doesn't get played much, it is difficult to assert, with confidence, that it is a good example of its type, in a practical sense. If its design isn't attractive to players, its design elements aren't useful things to base discussion upon.

We have no direct measure of attractiveness to players. People playing it would be at best a proxy, and that is flawed - but "I say it is" doesn't hold water either.

Certainly in theater, there are plays which are studied far more for their theory than actually performed. I've never seen Pirandello performed, but I don't think I could take anyone seriously as an authority on absurdist theater if they had never seen any of his works.

You want to use this as a measure to gatekeep authority of speakers? I am not interested in that. Good ideas about games are not limited to those who have "authority", so that gatekeeping is not constructive.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

You want to use this as a measure to gatekeep authority of speakers? I am not interested in that. Good ideas about games are not limited to those who have "authority", so that gatekeeping is not constructive.

Um, no? My statement was simply that unless you have studied something in depth, you cannot be considered an “authority”. Is that really controversial?

And I am pretty sure I never suggested that only “authorities” could have good ideas about games. Far from it. In fact, my objection is specifically to people who reject others’ points of views because they consider themselves an authority. I guess you could consider that as gatekeepering gatekeepers, but I really like to avoid emotive tags.

 

[Umbran]

Um, no? My statement was simply that unless you have studied something in depth, you cannot be considered an “authority”. Is that really controversial?

Hm. My point doesn't seem to have gotten across.

You've brought up a couple of times that someone who doesn't know this one game cannot be an authority. So what? This isn't a job application where credentials matter. Dispelling someone's assertion of authority doesn't address their argument. Who cares if someone passes this litmus test or not?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Hm. My point doesn't seem to have gotten across.

You've brought up a couple of times that someone who doesn't know this one game cannot be an authority. So what? This isn't a job application where credentials matter. Dispelling someone's assertion of authority doesn't address their argument. Who cares if someone passes this litmus test or not?

The issue is that the argument being proposed IS that they are an authority. It’s pretty much impossible to discuss the particulars without falling foul of the rules about addressing content, not personalities, but I’m not seeing many arguments; just statements of the form “in my previous writings”, “in my experience”, “I have previously argued”, etc.

To me, this is appeal to authority. To which a valid response is to challenge that statement of authority. I join you in not caring who has “authority”. But I do care if people assume a false authority simply to win an argument. If we had been presented an argument with logic, with better citation than statements like “I once heard someone say that TATTERS is trash”, I would have been happy to engage. But that hasn’t happened.

But enough. I can’t imagine this tangent is of interest to anyone anymore. I’ll shut up.

 

[grankless]

Disregarding authority or whatever, it's a very weird argumentative tactic to declare that all RPGs are about combat and then reject all evidence to the contrary.

 

[loverdrive]

RE: PC death
I find it more annoying than anything else, if we are being honest. Games that heavily rely on progression (and thus make losing a character actually meaningful) tend to break down if one of the PCs is noticeably weaker than the others, so replacement PCs must be created at an appropriate level... thus rendering losing a character meaningless (if not beneficial!). I don't know if there exists a way around it, honestly.

Not even mentioning having to somehow ignore obvious questions like "who the hell is this new guy, why do we trust him and why haven't we heard about him before?".

RE: Challenge
If you look at challenging games that demand mad capital g gamer skills outside of RPGs, whether PvP or PvE they have a thing in common: losing means nothing, you can recover from a very bad position, and even if you are in a completely unwinnable situation, who cares? The match will be over soon, and the next one will start in neutral again.

When you see a skull laughing at your death in ULTRAKILL you instantly just go back and throw yourself at the brick wall again, and again, and again. When you lose a Warcraft 3 match you just queue for the next one. Having clear cut off points makes analyzing your performance even possible: how would that even work if you don't know whether you made the fatal mistake that cost you victory only now, or if you screwed up right at the beginning?

 

[S'mon]

RE: PC death
I find it more annoying than anything else, if we are being honest. Games that heavily rely on progression (and thus make losing a character actually meaningful) tend to break down if one of the PCs is noticeably weaker than the others, so replacement PCs must be created at an appropriate level... thus rendering losing a character meaningless (if not beneficial!). I don't know if there exists a way around it, honestly.

Not even mentioning having to somehow ignore obvious questions like "who the hell is this new guy, why do we trust him and why haven't we heard about him before?".

RE: Challenge
If you look at challenging games that demand mad capital g gamer skills outside of RPGs, whether PvP or PvE they have a thing in common: losing means nothing, you can recover from a very bad position, and even if you are in a completely unwinnable situation, who cares? The match will be over soon, and the next one will start in neutral again.

When you see a skull laughing at your death in ULTRAKILL you instantly just go back and throw yourself at the brick wall again, and again, and again. When you lose a Warcraft 3 match you just queue for the next one. Having clear cut off points makes analyzing your performance even possible: how would that even work if you don't know whether you made the fatal mistake that cost you victory only now, or if you screwed up right at the beginning?

Re games that rely on progression falling apart, hm, that makes sense for Adventure Path play. I'm running a new Shadowdark sandbox where PCs come in at 1st level and individual progression is the main aim of play. So far it seems ok; if the PCs die then the new group needs to choose easier challenges. SD has some clever design to assist with this in eg how spellcasting, Thieves, and the death mechanics work. Still while 1-4 is fine I'm not certain how well it will cope doing 1-6 or higher.