Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9229656" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe?I mentioned CoC because it has some superficial resemblances to DitV: strange cults who risk social order, that need to be uncovered and de-fanged; characters who exercise some sort of authority (often intellectual, in CoC) to try and investigate those cults; a lot of the action need not be D&D-ish physical adventure and combat - a lot of it is people-oriented stuff.But CoC has very limited resolution machinery to bring to bear on a lot of this stuff. I also think a typical CoC scenario is liable to be vulnerable to introducing stakes that fit the fiction. Like, if you go to the library looking for the occult volumes, what's at stake is that a cultist notices you . . . or that you accidentally draw the attention of some mi-go . . . or . . . This has a real potential to disrupt the pre-planned mystery/investigation, I think.I think it's not a coincidence that Baker's examples are action-adventure ones. I think these sorts of ad hoc consequences are more easily incorporated into trad-ish play, because they don't tend to affect the overall trajectory of events and opposition.This post is probably a bit more sceptical than is warranted. On the other hand, when I've run Cthulhu Dark using simple conflict resolution, it's been no myth, so that I can do the consequences and so on without having any prior fiction and plot that I'm potentially mucking up. And that experience is probably contributing to my scepticism.</blockquote>

Verification