Going to church? Don't forget your sawed-off shotgun!

[Jim Hague]

My dearest, who has a degree in archeology, was talking about one of her teachers in BC, Canada, who would not go anywhere in the field without his full-size shotgun. In real life. Really. Now, she tells me the guy was far from insane and had about 40 years experience in the field.

Note - in the field. And I guarantee he's not looking to shoot another human being, but rather deal with wildlife. 'In the field' means on a dig, which is far, far from civilization, typically.

Now, compare that with a fictional situation, in the New York of the 1920's, with mobsters and God knows what else lurks in the streets at night, concider a particular character which seems to have enemies, or is paranoid, and a sawed-off shotgun concealed under the coat whereever he's going doesn't break my suspension of the disbelief in the slightest!

Why would the character be paranoid? Read the posts - he just decided that he needed a firearm and 'naturally' selected the least practical and deadliest man-killer he could think of. The characters had no knowledge whatsoever of the supernatural, and were going to talk to a contact in a church, which likely has people inside it at all hours.

And despite what you seem to be implying here, mobsters didn't run around randomly gunning people down, by and large, especially in New York; it's called 'organized' crime for a reason.

I guess if you find paranoid sociopathy in a game where such characters are invariably portrayed as villains or serious dangers to themselves and others acceptable and not breaking your suspension of disbelief, then we're done. Me, I much prefer a game that actually portrays the milieu as it was written and intended.

 

[atomn]

If you make a CoC character who just happens to be "X", where "X" is "an antique sword collector and coincidentally an awesomely skilled broadsword enthusiast" or "a guy with a job in no way involving firearms who just happens to not only enjoy firearms as a hobby but carry them with him wherever he goes, no matter how inappropriate for his character", you are gaming the system.

I agree. In my first CoC game one of my friends played a character whose occupation was "Southern gentleman". The player piled percentage points into Library Use, Spot Hidden, Dodge, Handgun, Sword, Occult and Credit Rating. He always carried around his pistol and his cane was actually a sword-cane. Under the excuse of a wealthy scholarly gentle who was interested in the occult, he made the perfect Investigator. We joke about his "Southern gentleman" today but it was hands down gaming the system. To me the sawed-off shotgunner follows the same vein.

 

[Odhanan]

Why would the character be paranoid? Read the posts

Well, he had enemies, according to his character. Whatever the background of the character actually states is unknown at this point of the conversation. I assume here that the character indeed has enemies, as stated by the player in the OP.

I guess if you find paranoid sociopathy in a game where such characters are invariably portrayed as villains or serious dangers to themselves and others acceptable and not breaking your suspension of disbelief, then we're done.

Again, the game doesn't portray characters with derangements as villains or automatic dangers of society. You ask me to read the posts again, I ask you to please read the rules on Insanity in Call of Cthulhu before making that kind of uninformed statement. As for "insane" or "excentric" people breaking my suspension of disbelief, they don't: the real world is shock-full of people with widely different behaviors, and I'm quite certain they do not match logical expectations of a particular individual such as me or you many times.

Like you say, Jim, I think we're done here.

 

[phindar]

There was a scene on Newsradio, years ago when Phil Hartman was on, when Jimmy James lost him in a poker game. It went something like this:

Bill McNeal: You can't lose me in a poker game!
Jimmy James: Check your contract.
(Bill whips a neatly folded contract out of his breast pocket and begins reading it furiously.)
Dave: You carry your contract around in your pocket?
Bill (angrily): Doesn't see so silly now, does it!

That to me is the shotgun in the church. Its weird to have it, but when the zombies start attacking you, it doesn't seem so silly.

I played in a one shot CoC game years ago based on The Colour From Outer Space (if memory serves) where the GM said we could have whatever guns we wanted. What he meant was, "Guns will be of no help in solving this mystery." What we heard was, "Rocket launchers, Hum-Vee's with .50cals, I want fully automatic, belt fed grenade launchers covering every road out of town!" So I'm familiar with the tendency to pack as much ordinance as the GM will allow. (And having a pre-gen character sheet with the words "sawed-off shotgun" in the equipment list is tacit approval from the GM to carry it through churches, schools, maternity wards and anywhere else you can think of. After all, pc's-- like all right-thinking people-- carry everything they own with them everywhere they go all the time.)

Really, there should be an understanding that if the players don't play their characters like paranoid psychotics, the GM won't punish them unnecessarily for occasionally being unprepared in situations where no reasonable person would be expecting attack. (The key words there are "unnecessarily" and "reasonable person".)

 

[Odhanan]

But that's not the case here, is it? Many people have pointed out that the sawed-off was a poor choice for a weapon, so it's hardly a minmaxed character.

Especially considering the game being played and the number of creatures more or less immune to firearms.

 

[Jim Hague]

There was a scene on Newsradio, years ago when Phil Hartman was on, when Jimmy James lost him in a poker game. It went something like this:

Bill McNeal: You can't lose me in a poker game!
Jimmy James: Check your contract.
(Bill whips a neatly folded contract out of his breast pocket and begins reading it furiously.)
Dave: You carry your contract around in your pocket?
Bill (angrily): Doesn't see so silly now, does it!

That to me is the shotgun in the church. Its weird to have it, but when the zombies start attacking you, it doesn't seem so silly.

I played in a one shot CoC game years ago based on The Colour From Outer Space (if memory serves) where the GM said we could have whatever guns we wanted. What he meant was, "Guns will be of no help in solving this mystery." What we heard was, "Rocket launchers, Hum-Vee's with .50cals, I want fully automatic, belt fed grenade launchers covering every road out of town!" So I'm familiar with the tendency to pack as much ordinance as the GM will allow. (And having a pre-gen character sheet with the words "sawed-off shotgun" in the equipment list is tacit approval from the GM to carry it through churches, schools, maternity wards and anywhere else you can think of. After all, pc's-- like all right-thinking people-- carry everything they own with them everywhere they go all the time.)

Really, there should be an understanding that if the players don't play their characters like paranoid psychotics, the GM won't punish them unnecessarily for occasionally being unprepared in situations where no reasonable person would be expecting attack. (The key words there are "unnecessarily" and "reasonable person".)

And again - where's the reasonable expectation? The characters have no knowledge of the supernatural, and even the paranoid scholar with ill-defined 'enemies' (more likely people who don't like his latest paper than gun-toting lunatics) has no reason to believe there'll be trouble.

In a game like CoC, where it's a fantasy-historical portrayal of the Jazz Age, it's neither reasonable to carry everything you own with you (unless you're a drifter or hobo), nor to carry a firearm around in public places...especially a firearm that will get you perforated by police for carrying it. A (full-sized) shotgun in the car trunk? Sure, I could believe that. A sawed-off that has the single purpose of killing another human being (an act that can provoke a SAN check)? Not a chance.

As other have said, he was gaming the system - using OOC knowledge to influence IC action. That alone would have warranted him an invite to leave my table. Not paying attention to the setting and messing up others' fun would likely have earned a permanent disinvite.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Me, I much prefer a game that actually portrays the milieu as it was written and intended.

And I think that's exactly what the most salient point in this thread has been, that there was a (pretty significant) divergence in the expectations of some of the players.

The guy who brought the shotgun had only ever played D&D before the event in question. So... When he made a character, he did so with the expectations of a D&D player, "Hmm... I'm probably going to be in combat, so I should have a weapon." and he tempered that (somewhat) with modern sensibilities, "people are going to get pretty upset if I'm lugging a shotgun around with me everywhere I go... but it's the only weapon with which I'm proficient. What should I do...? I know. I'll get a sawed off shotgun."

He was expecting one set of behaviors to be normal, while the other guy was expecting a different set of behaviors to be normal. That situation would likely have played out in much the same manner had you been at that particular gaming table, don't you think?

Later
silver

 

[Jim Hague]

And I think that's exactly what the most salient point in this thread has been, that there was a (pretty significant) divergence in the expectations of some of the players.

The guy who brought the shotgun had only ever played D&D before the event in question. So... When he made a character, he did so with the expectations of a D&D player, "Hmm... I'm probably going to be in combat, so I should have a weapon." and he tempered that (somewhat) with modern sensibilities, "people are going to get pretty upset if I'm lugging a shotgun around with me everywhere I go... but it's the only weapon with which I'm proficient. What should I do...? I know. I'll get a sawed off shotgun."

He was expecting one set of behaviors to be normal, while the other guy was expecting a different set of behaviors to be normal. That situation would likely have played out in much the same manner had you been at that particular gaming table, don't you think?

Later
silver

I'd have waited until after the game (as a player) or put my foot down before things got rolling (as a Keeper), but pretty much.

The expectations argument is weak - in the Jazz Age, someone with a full-sized shotgun not walking down the street or into a public building would likely have been assumed to be taking it to a car, a neighbor's house, whatever. Sawed-offs are a gangster's weapon, and likely would have resulted in New York's finest arriving with weapons in hand in fairly short order, had it been seen.

A practical sawed-off is meant to be concealed (poorly) beneath a trenchcoat or in a bag for a short period of time - for any practical use, the barrel still has several inches left past the foregrip. Any closer and you risk the breech blowing up or the barrel splitting from the shells going off.

 

[Wolfwood2]

A little meta-gaming now and again is like a fresh spring breeze, lightening the hearts of players and GMs alike. Rigid adherence to what is "in character" can only ruin games and cause boredom and unhappiness. YMMV of course.

Now that that's out of the way.

It's pretty obvious what happened. The player of the archeologist had a shotgun on his equipment list, and he assumed that anything on his equipment list was a part of his character and he could be expected to have access to it at any time. Coming from a mainly D&D background this isn't surprising.

The Keeper decided it wasn't worth his while to derail his game for a detailed discussion of when a character's equipment would realistically be available, so he says, "That's illegal by the way, but whatever," and continues the game. No doubt this decision was influenced by the fact that the zombie was apparently shotgun-proof, so it wasn't going to drastically change the storyline either way.

A different player is more concerned with the whole "immersive experience" thing than others in the group and gets upset.

The proper thing to do is to talk with the player of the archeologist after the game about how equipment isn't that important in CoC and how thinking up clever solutions to a problem is usually more the point anyway. Possibly coupled by promise from the Keeper that this won't be used to mess with his character and if it really seems beneficial that the archeologist had his shotgun along than they'll assume that he did.

Nobody was the bad guy and nobody needs to get kicked out of the group over this.

 

[Wolfwood2]

In a game like CoC, where it's a fantasy-historical portrayal of the Jazz Age, it's neither reasonable to carry everything you own with you (unless you're a drifter or hobo), nor to carry a firearm around in public places...especially a firearm that will get you perforated by police for carrying it. A (full-sized) shotgun in the car trunk? Sure, I could believe that. A sawed-off that has the single purpose of killing another human being (an act that can provoke a SAN check)? Not a chance.

As other have said, he was gaming the system - using OOC knowledge to influence IC action. That alone would have warranted him an invite to leave my table. Not paying attention to the setting and messing up others' fun would likely have earned a permanent disinvite.

Just because the system is Call of Cthulu doesn't mean that you have to play a game devoted to historical realism or believability. CoC makes a fine setting for dark pulp action.

There's also nothing wrong with using OOC knowledge to influence IC action if it jazzes things up a little. Accusations of "gaming the system" when you're "playing a game system" strike me as pretty funny.