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

[Jim Hague]

As Keeper I would have allowed the shotgun, would have warned the player about it being illegal, but most importantly, the subject of firearms would have been discussed during the game's briefing prior to the first session with all players present.

I wouldn't have minded the character bringing the shotgun in the Church. His paranoia seemed justified since there were zombis there, and if the other player didn't say anything during the pre-game briefing, he shouldn't have said anything during the game. He might have played his character surprised and lecturing the archeologist, and the moment would have been cool in an "Indiana Jones" sort of way.

Bottom line, I'm with the player of the guy with the shotgun. CoC isn't "real life RPG" and just as supernatural things are to be expected at some point, so does the use of responses that seem appropriate from the PCs' point of view.

Except that they're not. In the context of the universe, few are aware of the existence of the supernatural; even fewer want to be aware of it. Mankind exists, by and large, in a sea of placid ignorance, and rightfully so in the Mythos universe.

How the hell did the player 'know' there'd be zombies there? They didn't. How do they know about the supernatural? They didn't. They gamed the system, metagamed, and frankly I'd have asked for an immediate SAN check at a stiff penalty - paranoia is classed as an insanity in the context of the game, and clearly someone carrying a sawed-off into a church is paranoid...in other words, nuts. And the rules pretty clearly state that crazed Investigators are in the hands of the Keeper. Thank you, please create a new character, other PCs read the headline about a crazed anarchist gunman blasting away in a church before the authorities gunned the madman down.

Worse still, the inconsideration of Mr. Sawed Off screwed up the enjoyment of other players. For that, it's a single warning, then the boot. Life's too short and game time too precious to allow someone who doesn't get that they need to consider the context of the world and the enjoyment of the players when they decide to do something.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Let me preface this by saying I only read the first few posts in this thread, so if more information was given out about the characters, background, setting or situation, then I missed it. I am basing my opinion off the original poster's first thread...

I'm sorry, but I can't reconcile the lack of comprehension, he's a normal joe going to a church in a modern city, to meet with someone he is hoping to have help him. Does he need to bring his shotgun?

Where are you getting this from? The OP never said anything about the character's background or the setting. You seem to be assuming all this or pulling it out of thin air. If it is in his character to carry around a concealed weapon, why wouldn't he?

The essential question may be more of an expectation of role-play on my part. I thought it was not reasonable for a character having never experienced the EVIL that IS CUTHULHU to tote ones sawed off shotgun to a 1920’s church. There was NO EXPECTATION of EVIL, or DANGER.

How do YOU know what the character has experienced in his past?

In the present day, there are people that bring weapons into church and schools all the time, and enact senseless violence. Just because you don't think it is in character for a person to do so, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

He is a Dr. of Archaeology, a scholar, a man of science and reason. I figure he should deal with any conflict with words or his fists. I had an expectation that he’d be a normal person who may know how to use a shotgun, but would likely leave it at home.

I even asked what would Indy do?

Punch first, take cover, but not pack his sawed-off, concealed or revealed I thought it was not an IN CHARACTER thing to do.

I seem to remember Indy using a whip and a pistol. Remember the scene of the sword swinging foe he runs into in RotLA? What happens? He pulls out his pistol and shoots him.

It seems to be you are being a little close minded in how someone else plays their character. Why don't you just play his character for him?

I think my negative reaction to the shotgun in church, stems from my desire to RP more with my fellow players, and not interacting with a player that is running his PC about like some weapon brandishing Video Game character, blowing away any part of the environment, and any people at a whim. (I hate'chu GTA) I had hoped to inspire my fellow player to give his collection of stats and skills more life and less need to get his killin' on.

So basically you admit that your play style clashed with his. How is this his fault? Obviously someone invited him to play in your game...

 

[Odhanan]

Except that they're not. In the context of the universe, few are aware of the existence of the supernatural; even fewer want to be aware of it. Mankind exists, by and large, in a sea of placid ignorance, and rightfully so in the Mythos universe.

That's an assumption. Not all PCs are alike, with the same backgrounds and knowledge of this or that component of the game. I have personally played CoC characters aware of the existance of the Mythos with strong paranoid tendencies. Maybe you wouldn't allow such characters at your CoC table, but that doesn't make it a rule.

How the hell did the player 'know' there'd be zombies there? They didn't.

However, I never said the character could possibly know about the zombies. I don't know all the details of the game. What I meant was that playing a paranoid armed character is perfectly acceptable to me given the context of CoC. Maybe he was afraid of something "out there"? Maybe he had problems with nazis, like Indy? Maybe the mob? Who knows! But if the character has enemies and for the player it means the character is especially paranoid, I'm okay with it.

paranoia is classed as an insanity in the context of the game, and clearly someone carrying a sawed-off into a church is paranoid...in other words, nuts. And the rules pretty clearly state that crazed Investigators are in the hands of the Keeper. Thank you, please create a new character, other PCs read the headline about a crazed anarchist gunman blasting away in a church before the authorities gunned the madman down.

Wrong. You can have psychological derangements like paranoia without having a SAN of 0. A character would go to the hands of the Keeper if his SAN reached 0, and not before.

Worse still, the inconsideration of Mr. Sawed Off screwed up the enjoyment of other players.

I believe that in this particular instance what didn't happen was the briefing prior to the game to have everyone on the same page as to the types of characters appropriate to the game, their equipment and psychological outlook thereof.

Further, from the brief summary we have here, I think the one player who's enjoyment of the game was spoiled overreacted. You want to discuss about things that break your suspension of disbelief? You surely can do so, but after the game. That's one of my few table rules. You don't make a tantrum during the game: the game time is precious enough as it is, indeed.

 

[Jim Hague]

That's an assumption. Not all PCs are alike, with the same backgrounds and knowledge of this or that component of the game. I have personally played CoC characters aware of the existance of the Mythos with strong paranoid tendencies. Maybe you wouldn't allow such characters at your CoC table, but that doesn't make it a rule.

It's called inference - read the posts by the participants in the game. None of their characters knew about the supernatural, and thus there's no reason to expect it or prepare for it. Pure and unmitigated metagaming.

However, I never said the character could possibly know about the zombies. I don't know all the details of the game. What I meant was that playing a paranoid armed character is perfectly acceptable to me given the context of CoC. Maybe he was afraid of something "out there"? Maybe he had problems with nazis, like Indy? Maybe the mob? Who knows! But if the character has enemies and for the player it means the character is especially paranoid, I'm okay with it.

Again, the character is either insane (see the bit on paranoia above) and thus not suitable as an Investigator, or he's metagaming. Despite what yopu might think, most people other than police and gangsters didn't carry firearms in the 1920s - especially an academic like an archaeologist. There's no reason for it. And there were no 'Nazis' in the 1920s.

Wrong. You can have psychological derangements like paranoia without having a SAN of 0. A character would go to the hands of the Keeper if is SAN reaches 0, and not before.

If they're down to disregarding the public good by carrying a lethal and inaccurate weapon, I'd say they're a good candidate for the loony bin to begin with. At the very least, they're temporarily insane and thus not playable until they spend some time in a sanatorium.

I believe that in this particular instance what didn't happen was the briefing prior to the game to have everyone on the same page as to the types of characters appropriate to the game, their equipment and psychological outlook thereof.

Further, from the brief summary we have here, I think the one player who's enjoyment of the game was spoiled overreacted. You want to discuss about things that break your suspension of disbelief? You surely can do so, but after the game. That's one of my few table rules. You don't make a tantrum during the game: the game time is precious enough as it is, indeed.

I make no excuses for the reaction or overreaction of the offended player - but they obviously felt strongly enough to react in that fashion. Consequences would come down at my table for everyone involved - the shotgun-toter for his metagaming and the player for halting the game.

 

[Ozmar]

I find it sad that multiple people at the table thought it would be perfectly reasonable to bring a loaded weapon to church.

Anyway, I've long thought it would be interesting to allow paranoid behavior in a horror game, but to have it force a sanity check.

Ahh... reminds me of my very first Shadowrun game. I didn't bring my guns to the grocery store, and got blown away by a street gang while buying snacks.

Ozmar the Not Paranoid Enough

 

[Odhanan]

It's called inference - read the posts by the participants in the game. None of their characters knew about the supernatural, and thus there's no reason to expect it or prepare for it. Pure and unmitigated metagaming.

What about the mob? The Nazis? Or whatever may have been part of the character's background without being supernatural?

Again, the character is either insane (see the bit on paranoia above) and thus not suitable as an Investigator, or he's metagaming. Despite what yopu might think, most people other than police and gangsters didn't carry firearms in the 1920s - especially an academic like an archaeologist. There's no reason for it. And there were no 'Nazis' in the 1920s.

First, not all archaeologists are alike. Second, the particular psychological outlook of the character depends on the player's decisions and the Keeper's agreement on it. If the Keeper had a problem with the character's background, this I expect would have been modified. It wasn't.

However, it seems again that the players weren't on the same page as to the Keeper's expectations in terms of characters and their components thereof. This could have been solved prior to the game by a briefing before playing the first session. That's what I made a habit of such briefings when starting a new campaign.

If they're down to disregarding the public good by carrying a lethal and inaccurate weapon, I'd say they're a good candidate for the loony bin to begin with. At the very least, they're temporarily insane and thus not playable until they spend some time in a sanatorium.

It doesn't say anything about such things in the rules. The bit about "disregarding the public good by carrying lethal weapons = loony bin" is a personal interpretation that will widely vary from Keeper to Keeper. I, for instance, do not agree with it. Nothing in the rules contradicts my opinion, so I'm sticking with it.

Further, having derangements before you reach a SAN 0 doesn't mean you can't play your character "until he spends some time in a sanatorium". There's no such rule in CoC. Sure, a Keeper might propose some change of characters when the trauma is obviously impeding the player's ability to have fun with his character (catatonia for instance), but a indefinite insanity (as opposed to permanent insanity, cf. Sanity rules of CoC 5th edition) does NOT mean a character looses control of his character.

If you were advising me to read the previous posts, I would then advise you to read the CoC rulebook.

I make no excuses for the reaction or overreaction of the offended player - but they obviously felt strongly enough to react in that fashion. Consequences would come down at my table for everyone involved - the shotgun-toter for his metagaming and the player for halting the game.

A situation which could have been avoided by a pre-game briefing, definitely.

 

[Jim Hague]

What about the mob? The Nazis? Or whatever may have been part of the character's background without being supernatural?

The mob I might buy. There were no Nazis in the 1920s. It still doesn't strike me with a lot of verisimillitude. I can buy an academic knowing how to use a shotgun for hunting or sporting, but carrying a sawed-off? Not a chance. How does he know how far back to cut the barrel? Does he have Gunsmithing as a skill? If not, there's a good chance the gun'll blow up in his face when fired due to the barrel's integrity being compromised.

First, not all archaeologists are alike. Second, the particular psychological outlook of the character depends on the player's decisions and the Keeper's agreement on it. If the Keeper had a problem with the character's background, this I expect would have been modified. It wasn't.

Or the player more likely just went ahead and did it anyway. While there may be a Keeper control issue involved, the Keeper is managing a table full of players, at least two of whom aren't really grasping the setting by reports.

However, it seems again that the players weren't on the same page as to the Keeper's expectations in terms of characters and their components thereof. This could have been solved prior to the game by a briefing before playing the first session. That's what I made a habit of such briefings when starting a new campaign.

I do the same thing - especially in a game like CoC, where the universe is meant to be brutal, sanity-blasting and unforgiving.

 

[Ozmar]

Thanks for the replies!

Clarifications:
-1925 NY, NY. The church is St. Michael's or something like that.
-This was our first session.
-The DM told the player the sawed off shotgun was illegal.
-The sawed off shotgun was completely ineffective during that encounter.
-The only reason my lumberjack (Stan McKormick) had 100% sanity at the end of the session is because I intentionally took a low wisdom and no ranks in spot or listen.

To be fair, the guy who complained has played a lot of Cthulu and the guy with the shotgun has only played D&D. There was definately a difference in expectations on "realistic behavior". For example, another guy (who always plays a thief) playing a criminal snuck up to a window and saw the priest zombie eating the other priest. His first reaction? "So...uh...is there any loot in the room?" Again, many groans...

Yes, that is a groan.

It sounds like you have people playing two different games. CoC is not just D&D set in a modern or pulp setting.

Its important to set up expectations. In my exp, a proper beginning to a CoC game implies that the characters are clueless about the supernatural. They should start in a "normal" world with "normal" expectations. Such expectations do not include bringing weapons to church, generally.

After a couple encounters with the mythos, though, this will change. Part of the fun of the settings is having your characters change their behavior over time as they struggle with their growing madness.

Ozmar the Paranoid

 

[Odhanan]

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.

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!

 

[Numion]

But when "you" (in this case, not you, but certain players) make a character be a gun-toting sharpshooter despite the fact that the GM said "Normal people -- you know nothing about Cthulhu yet," that's frustrating for the people who didn't try to game the system.

Never mind that the other "normal people" were a mafioso (armed), a private investigator (packing also) and .. um, someone. If I was the Keeper I think the Indy fellow would be just dandy in that company.

If the GM is setting up a "y'all come" game where gaming is fine, then great. The waitress just happens to be a demolitions expert, the librarian just happens to be lochaber-axe enthusiast, and the art collector carries his father's lucky shotgun with him wherever he goes.

But if most people AREN'T doing that, then it's frustrating when one person is.

That one person played a PI with an army issue semi-auto handgun. That wasn't gaming the system? My diagnosis is that I'll give the professors player benefit of doubt, and the PI players beef is that he wanted to be the BIG MAN of the team, which isn't happening now since there's the mafioso and the professor turned out to be more Indy and less Geek.

The "I refuse to play a stereotype, so don't tell me what my character would and wouldn't do" argument loses a lot of power when what your character does in fact do just always happens to be the most minmaxy choice at any given time.

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. A semiauto pistol would've been the best legal choice .. oh, care to remember what the PI was packing? I thought so :\

I can easily see an archeology professor who's been dealing with rattlesnakes in the desert for too long, taking a sawed off with him just out of habit.