Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1145556I think any conflict your PCs have to get somebody else to win for them shouldn't really be an important conflict

I agree.

I don't think that means you can't have such non-PC centric conflicts, but if the PCs aren't central to the action, then I'd either make the conflict the background* to whatever the PCs are doing or I'd have the players run the characters who are central to the decision making. Although the latter choice is one that I likely wouldn't expect to see in CoC game, but might see in other settings. In a way, having the players run the leaders who make the important decisions in battle is coming full circle back to the origins of table top RPGs as an outgrowth of miniatures battles and Braunsteins.

* This is something the old D6 Star Wars game recommended as a method for including battles.

Quote from: jhkim;1145523Stephen and Marchand - From your points of view, my group is playing it wrong as "norms vs cultists". We're using a classic published campaign module - and we're playing it as a game. Or I'd rather say - there is always a spectrum between focus on atmosphere and focus on game-play. I've played and run in more atmosphere-heavy games that focus more on the personal and cosmic horror, but this is a module campaign played over Zoom for my Thursday-night group that we picked as a more casual option during difficult conditions. We appreciate the atmosphere of cosmic horror, and we enjoy dying horrible deaths -- but it's to add color to the game play, not as the focus.

Even in highly atmospheric games, though, it's still a game and there's still potential issue with personal action versus trying to use other forces. A very long-term, atmospheric game I played in featured a lot of having the PCs act as generals and leaders in the struggle to save the world from the Outside forces that were straining on it.

+1 to not trying to tell you "you're playing it wrong". I was trying to say, don't let a module tell you how to play either.

I guess I am struggling a bit with the gameplay vs atmos dichotomy you're setting up. There can be horror in how you "win"; what does it cost?. What happens to those footsoldiers you recruit? (Also loving the Mythos exposure = new cultists idea.)

Slightly separate point but by Lovecraft As Written, humanity can (probably) never really "win" in a final sense against the Mythos. But precisely because the entirety of human history and civilisation doesn't mean anything on the Mythos scale, individuals can score victories that are meaningful on a human scale. Ramming Cthulhu with a boat could keep our show on the road for another 5000 years. Means next to f-all to Big C, let alone Azathoth, but pretty significant to you and me.

I tend to stress the lethality of the system and encourage my players to use anything they can think of, and I try to explicitly include some indirect solutions outside of their character sheets besides what comes up organically in the game. Hiring or manipulating other groups into doing their dirty work is certainly a part of that.

For example in one of the campaigns (MoN) there is a subplot with the Japanese Navy that the PCs might stumble into. The bad guys have a base on a secluded island, and 2 PCs died in the course of discovering it. The campaign intends for the group to take part on an assault on this island, where they will likely all die. But do they have to? Maybe if the PCs play their cards right, they can get the IJN to use that island for gunnery practice and then go sift through the wreckage. Setting that up would be pretty hard but possible, particularly for "face" type characters.

For a game like this, I don't think using others to do your dirty work makes the PCs any less the protagonists. For other systems, sure I can see it. To tie this in with some of the Ravenloft discussion, the toolbox there is limited by the system. A group that has even a slim chance at beating a vampire would not be threatened by something like an angry mob, because they could just obliterate it if it came to that. in CoC, Delta Green and similar, everything is a threat no matter the experience of the characters. Survive first, win second, cover yourself in glory a distant third.

I think if you make the attempts to use these typs of indirect methods just as much a part of the game as the initiative and combat, it can be just as rewarding. And those new moving parts should present problems of their own as those NPCs are the protagonists of their own stories, so to speak, as the Rolling Stones found out in Altamont, for one example.

I think a stress mechanic is completely appropriate for a horror game.  While it is sometimes hard to actually scare players ( to the point where it isn't worth trying, IMO ), increasing tension is much more manageable than trying to invoke anything like actual fear.  

The SAN characteristic though, does not do it at all for me.  Reducing it to mere hit points and expecting people to go appropriately unhinged when the loss calls for temporary insanity is a recipe for goofy behavior, further degrading anything like horror.

Seriously, there was an example of play in a core book where the san loss was for a vampire and the suggested temporary insanity was to start ripping plants out of the ground in search of garlic and to start shouting "GET IN THE KITCHEN!"  Doesn't feel much like helping out a horror experience there.

Again though, this is only my experience with it.  If somebody else has run SAN loss to anything like the effect intended, I tip my hat.

I'd rather inflict specific and escalating conditions the more somebody has been exposed to unnatural and shocking events, with a bonus for any background or experience.

No Marine or Corpman is going to be freaked out by an unexpected body of a stranger, but maybe your average college athlete might get "Unnerved" by the discovery until they wind up in a place of safety.

Quote from: Stephen TannhauserEither way, I would say that generally it's to be avoided even when it might appear to be the strategically or tactically "best" option -- I think any conflict your PCs have to get somebody else to win for them shouldn't really be an important conflict, and if the PCs are ever in a situation where that's the only option and a completely unavoidable one, I'd say the scenario designer has gone wrong somewhere.

Quote from: Bren;1145604I agree.

I don't think that means you can't have such non-PC centric conflicts, but if the PCs aren't central to the action, then I'd either make the conflict the background* to whatever the PCs are doing or I'd have the players run the characters who are central to the decision making. Although the latter choice is one that I likely wouldn't expect to see in CoC game, but might see in other settings. In a way, having the players run the leaders who make the important decisions in battle is coming full circle back to the origins of table top RPGs as an outgrowth of miniatures battles and Braunsteins.

I've had a number of games that moved into more large-scale battles with the PCs as leaders, plus a handful of political-type games where the PCs instigated battles without being leaders in them. I think it's a question of interest for the players and the GM. If either the players or the GM aren't interested in that sort of political/strategic game, then I'd say be up-front about it out-of-game like "I'd prefer we not have NPCs fight these battles."

I think the worst case is the players try to be smart and arrange to accomplish their goal by such a strategy, and the GM shuts them down without explaining why. I also like the idea of NPCs becoming cultists from exposure -- but that is something the PCs can mitigate, by keeping track of everyone they involve and eliminating them.

If I want out-of-game for it to be a personal action game and not a political/strategic game, then I'd just say so clearly out-of-game.

Quote from: jhkim;1145740I've had a number of games that moved into more large-scale battles with the PCs as leaders, plus a handful of political-type games where the PCs instigated battles without being leaders in them. I think it's a question of interest for the players and the GM.

Most definitely. While I find battles and politics interesting, I've had players on either end of the interest spectrum (and in the middle). I adjust the focus of play based on what interests the players and, of course, me.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1145724No Marine or Corpman is going to be freaked out by an unexpected body of a stranger, but maybe your average college athlete might get "Unnerved" by the discovery until they wind up in a place of safety.

It isn't just what it is, it is 'how' it is. I think coming across a dead body along the side of a road isn't going to get that much of a rise. One of your buddies accidentally touching it and having it explode because its filled with trapped gas under a hot sun and the bits going everywhere might give him a bit more of a pause.

Quote from: Lynn;1145843It isn't just what it is, it is 'how' it is. I think coming across a dead body along the side of a road isn't going to get that much of a rise. One of your buddies accidentally touching it and having it explode because its filled with trapped gas under a hot sun and the bits going everywhere might give him a bit more of a pause.

That too, yes.

I have been frustrated in games where reporting to the authorities, having them sort out a larger problem, has seemed the most rational and plausible choice... but is thwarted by the GM, for obvious 'deprotaginization' concerns, in ways that undercut the setting. The king's army SHOULD care about the horde of goblins massing in the woods, not just shrug and pawn it all off on some ruffian 'adventurers'.

It sucks having some GMNPC step in to save the day, but if the Players go to the police with expectations they will behave somewhat like protectors I would give them that... though the final results might not be ideal or even desireable.

I could see a CoC game where just surviving/escaping to 'call in the troops' would be a satisfying outcome.

There's multiple ways for a GM to but involve and disincentive the calling in of troops.

In the case of the horde of goblins in the forest, there just might not be enough time to summon the King's troops because the oracle says the goblins come tonight! Or the town's idiot noble fop refused the King's initial offer of help and now is stuck with a real problem his clown guards can't handle.

In CoC, the police could be overwhelmed, or completely outclassed by the problem. If the nearest cops is a small town, the police might be Old Joe, his goofy son BillyBob and Deputy Roscoe. Those three are going to fail a SAN check just hearing about the cultists! Or if the problem is in a big city, the cops might be rough and ready, but dealing with all sorts of criminal unrest and stretched too thin to help.

Of course, if the cultists have a reasonable front to their operation, the police might come in, sniff around, do some by the book inspecting, find absolutely nothing and tell the PCs to get out of town and stop bothering these fine folk.

Also, what if the cops are infiltrated by the cult? When the PCs convince the Police Chief that something must be done, the Deputy steps up and promises to get on it right away. The Chief is relieved. That Deputy is an oddball, nobody knows what church he belongs too, but damn, he always steps up to handle problems.

And the Deputy will definitely "handle the problem"...