Help me understand Call of Cthulhu

[Doctor Futurity]

Not to feed the tangent, and I know pagecount doesn't necessarily equal more rules, but

• 1e: 480 pages
• 2e: 831 pages
• 3e: 722 pages
• 3.5: 960 pages
• 4e: 832 pages
• 5e: 992 pages
• 5.5: 1,152 pages

To adequately represent we'd probably need word count, too. 5.5 has the largest font and I suspect smallest word count. But to its credit its probably the easiest to read and even old eyes can deal with it

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I think this approach has been the norm in CoC and BRP for the most recent editions (and probably RQ I am sure). I can't recall if it was that way in CoC 6th and 5th or just how I ran it, though. But the most recent editions explicitly included this approach as a design feature.

I cannot find anything like the quoted section of the Keepers handbook in either BRP:UGE or runequest. In those games, failure is just failure, not "GM gets to decide the outcome and may narrate a consequence".

 

[payn]

Not to feed the tangent, and I know pagecount doesn't necessarily equal more rules, but

• 1e: 480 pages
• 2e: 831 pages
• 3e: 722 pages
• 3.5: 960 pages
• 4e: 832 pages
• 5e: 992 pages
• 5.5: 1,152 pages

It's even stranger comparing D&D edition changes which are radical by comparison. Which is also besides the point.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I think this approach has been the norm in CoC and BRP for the most recent editions (and probably RQ I am sure). I can't recall if it was that way in CoC 6th and 5th or just how I ran it, though. But the most recent editions explicitly included this approach as a design feature.

I went back and looked at 6th, and there isn't much guidance there, so 7th I think would be the first to recognize it formally. That said, most Chaosium players I know had lotsa house rules, and our table has been playing with this approach probably since around 5th edition. Looks like enough players were doing it this way that it was finally recognized in 7th. I will say that Chaosium has always been pretty loose and "play your way" when it comes to rules, so it being a formal rule doesn't really mean much (to us anyway).

Edit: On ANOTHER tangent, it was probably Hero Wars/HeroQuest that introduced the idea of partial success or success with consequences to the Chaosium line. That was really their first pass at more narrative style gaming. Though on further thought, maybe Pendragon was even earlier, not sure!

 

[Desdichado]

It's even stranger comparing D&D edition changes which are radical by comparison. Which is also besides the point.

Again, not to perpetuate the tangent, but I just did a google query and that's the answer that came back from Gemini on page count of the three core books. I've caught Gemini giving me data that I knew to be false plenty of times in the past, so take it with a grain of salt. But just looking at the books, I think that it's probably pretty close. I agree that a big page count bump from 3e to 3.5 or from 1e to 2e or from 5e to 5.5 is surprising. But I actually confirmed the 5e to 5.5 at least by looking at the page count as noted on the Amazon listings. Again, weird. Like I said, page count does not necessarily equal rules. Then again, the idea that 5e or 5.5 is any kind of rules lite, even compared to 3.5, doesn't seem true to me.

And I know that's the tangent. We're talking about whether or not that happened in CoC, not D&D. D&D was an offhand comparison. Which I'm nitpicking and being pedantic about.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

You're entitled to whatever playstyle you like, and how an rpg "feels" when you play it will indeed differ depending on what playstyle a player leans towards.

For me, ttrpgs with those "spend a token and WIN!" metacurrencies make my skin crawl, and after tolerating them for years, I finally dumped that kind of play experience.

Every ttrpg isn't for everybody

 

[Bae'zel]

You're entitled to whatever playstyle you like, and how an rpg "feels" when you play it will indeed differ depending on what playstyle a player leans towards.

For me, ttrpgs with those "spend a token and WIN!" metacurrencies make my skin crawl, and after tolerating them for years, I finally dumped that kind of play experience.

Every ttrpg isn't for everybody

As I explained in the OP, I’ve played or ran several other d100 games over the years, some with inarguably “grim dark” sensibilities:

• Dark Heresy 1e
• WFRP 1e
• WFRP 2e
• Mythras
• Imperium Maledictum

After all of those, CoC seemed an oddity. I get the appeal of the setting, that’s not what I’m arguing about. It’s the rules, which feel like they’re shackled to early 80s ideals of some kind.

Many of these have metacurrencies, I’ll grant you that. But I don’t get why positive modifiers and more options in armed conflict = no longer grim dark.

WFRP 1e, for example, even with Fate Points, has a reputation for PCs dying, mutilated or mutated.

 

[payn]

As I explained in the OP, I’ve played or ran several other d100 games over the years, some with inarguably “grim dark” sensibilities:

• Dark Heresy 1e
• WFRP 1e
• WFRP 2e
• Mythras
• Imperium Maledictum

After all of those, CoC seemed an oddity. I get the appeal of the setting, that’s not what I’m arguing about. It’s the rules, which feel like they’re shackled to early 80s ideals of some kind.

Many of these have metacurrencies, I’ll grant you that. But I don’t get why positive modifiers and more options in armed conflict = no longer grim dark.

WFRP 1e, for example, even with Fate Points, has a reputation for PCs dying, mutilated or mutated.

Not every one wants a combat simulator out of CoC.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

As I explained in the OP, I’ve played or ran several other d100 games over the years, some with inarguably “grim dark” sensibilities:

• Dark Heresy 1e
• WFRP 1e
• WFRP 2e
• Mythras
• Imperium Maledictum

After all of those, CoC seemed an oddity.

I would hope it would to everyone! These are all combat games, so a game that focuses in investigation definitely should feel like an oddity. If you are looking to take a smaller step towards Call of Cthulhu’s genre, I would strongly suggest you check out DELTA GREEN. It typically has a much stronger combat focus than CoC and the latest edition is very nicely designed. It’s not as squad-focused as WFRP and might have a more spy/political bent than these set of games, but I think it stands a good chance of working for you!

 

[Wolfpack48]

Not every one wants a combat simulator out of CoC.

Pretty sure this is the rub. CoC is not in any way a combat-oriented game and doesn't spend a lot of time in its rules doing lots of fancy things with combat. Just look at the amount of space spent on skills, lore, spells and ancient tomes and horrible beasties. Most investigators are scholarly types who don't spend a lot of time around guns unless it's occupation. Combat's almost a footnote, though it's covered enough to get the job done. Combat certainly happens, but it tends to be short. CoC is primarily aimed towards investigation, preserving sanity and AVOIDING combat so that investigators live long enough to prevent/delay horrible things from happening to our existence. If you're playing CoC primarily to do combat simulation, you're playing the wrong game.