Quote from: jcfiala;776754Well, to be fair, there's nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in giving stats to Cthulhu, or having lists of spells, or having campaigns.  

But HPL did create Cthulhu, and at least some of the spells described (most are probably by Derleth &co.); giving them stats is merely establishing that they exist and can be interacted with, within the framework of the game's shared fictional universe (albeit in massively asymmetrical terms, in Cthulhu's case).

Regarding campaigns, well, Randolph Carter did feature in more than one story. Why can't my PC?

Quote from: jcfiala;776754Well, to be fair, there's nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in giving stats to Cthulhu

Nobody in my games is ever going to go mano a mano with Cthulhu... so the stats are a bit moot and will remain off-stage.
These meta-rules though, are on-stage, fucking with my immersion... messing up the mood.

Quote from: The Butcher;776743I see nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in the "pushing your Luck" mechanic.

I have nothing against gimmicky mechanics, but I truly don't see the point of this one.

For me, the thing I like about it is this -

Sometimes, it feels properly horrific is things go terribly wrong just because of one slip up. i.e. You try to fix the car, but break it instead - and now you're stuck on the mountain overnight. You say the wrong thing to the professor and suddenly he's convinced you're a cultist and pulls a gun on you. etc.

Horror stories aren't fair. Sometimes bad things happen to people even when they do the right thing.

But even in a Lovecraftian game, as GM I still often feel bad about having unfair shit rain down on players due to a simple failed roll. For me, the 7e "push" mechanic helps with that. If a roll is pushed and failed, then I have no qualms about doling out horrible stuff to the PCs.

I'd agree that it's non-immersive, but my crowd for this game isn't a hugely immersive or serious bunch. Our game is full of meta-talk, dick jokes, and so forth.

Quote from: jhkim;776921But even in a Lovecraftian game, as GM I still often feel bad about having unfair shit rain down on players due to a simple failed roll.

Which is a claim I always hear about BRP in general... despite a failed roll NOT equating to 'unfair shit' rains down on players. A failed Drive roll does not mean the car bursts into a ball of flame and goes screaming off a cliff.
And yes... I know that's not precisely what you said... but it's a common mirepresentation that fuels the crowd that wants a softer friendlier CoC.

QuoteI'd agree that it's non-immersive, but my crowd for this game isn't a hugely immersive or serious bunch. Our game is full of meta-talk, dick jokes, and so forth.

Chaosium should put that on the 7e cover... 'Now with more dick jokes!'

Quote from: Simlasa;777013Which is a claim I always hear about BRP in general... despite a failed roll NOT equating to 'unfair shit' rains down on players. A failed Drive roll does not mean the car bursts into a ball of flame and goes screaming off a cliff.
And yes... I know that's not precisely what you said... but it's a common mirepresentation that fuels the crowd that wants a softer friendlier CoC.

It's something you see in general from lack of creativity. One of the reasons I avoid D&D critical hits/misses is because of player assumptions. Too often I hear "oh, my weapon flew out of my hand" or "oh, I stabbed myself (or my friend)" and I just want to stare at them and say, "... yeah, sure, why not."

There are a lot of assumptions that pass/fail rolls must equal extremes on a spectrum. Sometimes adequate is an option, especially when the stakes are lower. And given that the die is usually greater than 1d2, the lack of Degree of Success perspective is fascinating.

"Homer Simpson, roll to make cold cereal for breakfast... You fail." /cold cereal bursts into flames
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Simlasa;777013Which is a claim I always hear about BRP in general... despite a failed roll NOT equating to 'unfair shit' rains down on players. A failed Drive roll does not mean the car bursts into a ball of flame and goes screaming off a cliff.
And yes... I know that's not precisely what you said... but it's a common mirepresentation that fuels the crowd that wants a softer friendlier CoC.

OK, but what does this mean for 7e? My experience is that the 7e "push" rules allow CoC to be more unfriendly, in that it encourages more horrendous results from certain failures. So a failed Drive roll after a push really does mean the car crashes or bursts into flame. For my current group, at least, I like this.

As for wanting a softer, friendlier CoC...  I don't think there's a simple divide of wanting things friendlier and unfriendlier. The push rules allow for more successful skill rolls and also allow for more horrendous failure results. That's generally fine for me. I don't generally want PCs to seem incompetent. I want them to seem competent and die anyway.

Quote from: Simlasa;777013Chaosium should put that on the 7e cover... 'Now with more dick jokes!'

Heh. :-)  Well, obviously, groups differ.

I also play in a monthly Call of Cthulhu campaign where the atmosphere is more serious, but my local weeknight crowd is more inclined to get off work, drink some beer, and have fun being torn apart by monsters.

Some games are serious, and some games come up with Old Man Henderson.

Quote from: The Butcher;776743I see nothing specifically emulative of HPL's writing in the "pushing your Luck" mechanic.

I have nothing against gimmicky mechanics, but I truly don't see the point of this one.

This is probably the 7e addition of which I am the most wary.  I'll try it out at least once, but I can foresee ignoring it in my games.

Fortunately, it looks to be easily ignored for those players who dislike it.

I don't believe CoC was ever intended to emulate Lovecraft's writing. It says "roleplaying in the worlds of HP Lovecraft" right there on the cover of 6E.

Quote from: K Peterson;776621The pdf of the CoC7e Quickstart that I have is from August of 2013. I think that is the correct 'release' date. That mechanic wasn't referenced in some 2012 articles that I've read (like the Unspeakable Oath one).

I'm not that tuned into the various 5e playtest packages that came out last year. But, I think that they started coming out in early 2013? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to be more than a little coincidental.

Then again, it's not like it's a mechanic that's unique to D&D 5E either.

Quote from: K Peterson;776616Perhaps not. It depends on whether your players are inclined to gamble on a regular basis.

I'm wary of the "push" mechanic because of the tiresome OOC haggling with your players it might involve. Ignoring it, though, is easily done and will not render the game unusable or something.

This also goes for "spendable Luck" which I believe is going to be optional by default anyway. I don't really mind players being able to spend Luck points because it will not involve any OOC haggling and the Luck pool is limited so it can only be used so often until the PCs literally run out of Luck.

Chaosium 'released' pdfs of the Keeper's Rulebook and the Investigator's Handbook to Kickstarter backers this afternoon. We'll see how the near-final product looks.

Heh.  "Softer and Friendlier Call of Cthulu"   Heh.

Quote from: K Peterson;777672Chaosium 'released' pdfs of the Keeper's Rulebook and the Investigator's Handbook to Kickstarter backers this afternoon. We'll see how the near-final product looks.

The PDFs certainly look quite attractive.  I'm not a fan of all of the art pieces (unsurprisingly, they range in quality), but the overall appearance of both books is very impressive.  7e is definitely the most attractive CoC produced by Chaosium.

Also, it's worth noting that the Keeper's book seems to include all of the rules, so GMs will not need to purchase both books.

Quote from: Akrasia;777692Also, it's worth noting that the Keeper's book seems to include all of the rules, so GMs will not need to purchase both books.

That has been clearly stated from the start of the Kickstarter. The Investigator's book is the 7e equivalent of the old 1920s Investigator's Handbook.

Quote from: Akrasia;777692The PDFs certainly look quite attractive.  I'm not a fan of all of the art pieces (unsurprisingly, they range in quality), but the overall appearance of both books is very impressive.

Yeah, not bad looking. At times the layout seems busy on some of the pages. And I find that the exaggerated white text on the chapter heading pages to be a little distracting.

I was happy to see that the Spending Luck mechanic ended up as an optional rule.

There doesn't seem to be any of the dreaded re-recycled art from the board or card games. Looks better than what I've seen of the busy French edition, IMHO.

IIRC it had already been made public that the Spending Luck mechanic would be optional. They might as well have done the same with the Push mechanic as it looks just as easily ignored.