Help me understand Call of Cthulhu

[numtini]

I was curious because I'd never played with a group that didn't allow you to move at all without giving up an attack/defend. Though you did have to choose attack or dodge/fightback. I did a bit of looking at earlier editions of CoC as well as Delta Green and Cthulhu Eternal.

Movement in combat simply not addressed that I can see in 3 or 5.6, which are the two I looked at. A GM could rule that means you can't, but in my experience that's a kind of radical reading of the text.

In both DG and CE (arguably somewhat retro-clones of pre-7th) you can move a short distance and still attack, though it's a little ambiguous whether it's less than 10 yards or 3 yards:

An action that moves your Protagonist a significant distance: 10 yards jogging, 20 yards running, or 30 yards sprinting (or you can move about 3 yards while performing some other action).

 

[payn]

D&D handles this issue a little bit better imo, because it is generally assumed in (mostly all) editions of D&D that you can repeat tasks with no consequence of failure repeatedly until you eventually succeed. So situations like locked doors, hidden clues, or research can be effectively "brute forced" through - your only 'cost' is time.

In CoC - any roll is considered to be your "best shot" - you can't reattempt something after you make a roll. So IMO you shouldn't pull out the dice AT ALL unless the action has a meaningful consequence for failure.

In some instances in D&D this isnt true. Like a magical door that cant be picked and needs an exact key in whatever form to pass it. Its essentially railroading for story purposes. The have been a number of CoC modules ive seen that have a similar "find the clue or TPK" and its just as unsatisfying.

 

[payn]

I do think, however, that a lot of players think that only the happiest path through the scenario will do, and that adversity of any kind makes for a 'bad system'. I find this especially with players who complain that their characters don't feel 'heroic' enough. Translation: "I don't want my character to take damage or be hurt. Ever. "

A missed roll may not be the ideal way through, but it needn't end the adventure.

Exactly. A good writer is going to give the players some type of advantage if they uncover a clue. They wont simply be killed off becasue they didnt have the precise info they needed to even understand the threat.

 

[billd91]

I was curious because I'd never played with a group that didn't allow you to move at all without giving up an attack/defend. Though you did have to choose attack or dodge/fightback. I did a bit of looking at earlier editions of CoC as well as Delta Green and Cthulhu Eternal.

Movement in combat simply not addressed that I can see in 3 or 5.6, which are the two I looked at. A GM could rule that means you can't, but in my experience that's a kind of radical reading of the text.

In both DG and CE (arguably somewhat retro-clones of pre-7th) you can move a short distance and still attack, though it's a little ambiguous whether it's less than 10 yards or 3 yards:

Most combat in CoC is loosey-goosey enough that a little movement doesn't matter. Wanna run over behind those crates 10 feet away? Fine, run and shoot the deep one from cover. You want to close with the machete-wielding cultist and smack him with your crowbar? Move 20 feet and swing away.
They have more detailed and precise movement as an optional rule. But before that, a bit of shifting around was never a problem and never really prohibited unless held in place by something (net, tentacle, paralyzing fear, etc).

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I'll quote myself again.
"What we have to get out of our stubborn heads is that 'failure = not getting the clue.'"

What does the randomizer add to this scenario? If we've determined the clue is essential - and if a PC rolling a success means they get a clue, and a PC rolling a failure means they get the same clue - why are we pulling out dice? If an action has no intrinsic consequence for failure, what is to be gained from involving dice?

To my knowledge CoC doesn't have a system for the GM to apply consequences unrelated to the action upon a failed roll, unless the PCs are Pushing (and even then, the consequences should match up with the action taken). That's my understanding from reading ch4-5 of the keepers book and the quickstart.

 

[Wolfpack48]

What does the randomizer add to this scenario? If we've determined the clue is essential - and if a PC rolling a success means they get a clue, and a PC rolling a failure means they get the same clue - why are we pulling out dice? If an action has no intrinsic consequence for failure, what is to be gained from involving dice?

To my knowledge CoC doesn't have a system for the GM to apply consequences unrelated to the action upon a failed roll, unless the PCs are Pushing (and even then, the consequences should match up with the action taken). That's my understanding from reading ch4-5 of the keepers book and the quickstart.

A randomizer means that the scenario doesn't play the same way every time and that there are multiple pathways through. And the system doesn't need to do this, the GM or the scenario writer does. As payn discussed above, clues shouldn't be written to be make or break deals and not having one shouldn't end the adventure.

• If you have an event timer going, then failure means valuable time was taken gaining the clue.
• If you have an alternate story path, then failure means the alternate route is taken
• If it's important, the clue will be gained, but at another time or in another venue or with a consequence
• Any other twist you want to introduce in the inspired moment

If you don't have a failure path and want zero variety in all your games, just always give them clues without a roll. I find, however, that players like making the roll, and being the one who discovers the clue.

 

[500 Toads]

The exact consequences of a failed roll are explicitly left up to the Keeper, and it is also specified that it is entirely permissible for the player to fully succeed with their goal (but with a consequence) on a failed roll.

(pg 84)

The player stated a goal and has failed to achieve it, but exactly how the player’s investigator has failed is entirely up to the Keeper (though of course the players may throw in suggestions).

(pg 194)

There are two possible outcomes of a skill roll: win or lose. It is important to realize that losing a dice roll does not automatically lead to failing the task.

Things go the way the player wants when a Pushed skill roll is won (the player’s goal is achieved).

When a player loses in a Pushed skill roll things go the way the Keeper wants (the goal may or may not be achieved and additional negative consequences occur).

One of the keys to running a good game is learning to define how winning or losing a dice roll translates into events in your story. Describe the outcome, not the dice roll.

If the player loses the roll then you get to decide what happens. Problems can arise if you declare an outcome that blocks play.

(pg 195)

If the player loses a dice roll, you have free rein to describe any outcome you wish. Usually this will mean that the player’s goal is not realized; however, you are not constrained to presenting the opposite of the player’s goal—the player’s goal could be fully or partially achieved along with a consequence. The Keeper’s job is to create an interesting outcome, preferably one that develops the theme of horror in the story.

 

[Bae'zel]

I didn't say you were. But you do seem to care a LOT about rules.

Well yeah I care when the rules "feel" restrictive in ways that feel outdated compared to other, similar games.

This game "feels" like it adds extra challenge and hardship onto the PCs via unforgiving rules. Like playing an old Nintendo game.

It "feels" outdated.

But I think that you and I are not going to get along, so I'll stop this dialogue now.

 

[numtini]

In CoC - any roll is considered to be your "best shot" - you can't reattempt something after you make a roll.

7th Edition has pushed rolls. As an optional rule, it also allows spending luck to modify a roll

 

[Wolfpack48]

I'm not sure what feels outdated or restrictive about a roll-under percentile system. It's probably the easiest for new players to grasp, and combat being pretty loose as billd91 mentions, isn't especially restrictive unless your GM likes to run things that way. I am guessing by "dynamic," a lot of people are referring to Feats and other cool-movie-stunts you can do built into the system, much of which can simply be handled by a GM being dramatic and effusive describing the results of the combat. Why do we need a system to make up for humdrum delivery? A crit or fumble can be pretty dramatic in combat in CoC (especially when fighting a monster), so not sure what else is needed from a system to make it flashier. I guess Pulp Cthulhu or Delta Green, but for our purposes base CoC works just fine.