Quote from: BalbinusI see folk online, particularly story gamers, say this all the time and in over 20years of gaming with a range of groups and at cons I've not once seen it happen in actual play.

A game stalling on one roll succeeding or failing isn't a game design problem, it's a shitty GM problem.

It's not even a potential problem unique to CoC as I've seen.  An idiot GM can manage that same mistake in every last damn game I've ever played.

Thats why you don't hinge the whole scenario on a single bloody spot roll.

Quote from: BalbinusI see folk online, particularly story gamers, say this all the time and in over 20years of gaming with a range of groups and at cons I've not once seen it happen in actual play.

It's true! I am The Story Gamer. I was trying to scare you away so I could buy up the rights to CoC for free! I would have destroyed roleplaying forever if it wasn't for you pesky kids and Scooby Pundit! :eek:

QuoteA game stalling on one roll succeeding or failing isn't a game design problem, it's a shitty GM problem.

Well obviously a non-shitty GM can cover over a whole multitude of flaws, but flaws are still bad game design. It's like when you eat some meal that a great chef saved: "Wow! It doesn't taste burnt at all!"

So let me put the question to you, is there something good about all those spot and listen rolls or is it just something you hardly notice when John Q. Super-GM is in the kitchen? :raise:

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumSo let me put the question to you, is there something good about all those spot and listen rolls or is it just something you hardly notice when John Q. Super-GM is in the kitchen? :raise:

Yes.

Specifically, Call of Cthulhu is an investigative RPG. It's the first and most famous one. In any investigative games, the players have two goals:

A) On an OOC level, they want to find out what's going on with the mystery.

B) On an IC level, they want to resolve the mystery in a suitable way, whether that means getting the murderer convicted, banishing the ghost, preventing the Great Old One being summoned, whatever.

The way these things are usually structured, once the players have worked out A they have to accomplish B reasonably quickly. The challenge in an investigative game, then, is to seek out useful evidence, rather than just interesting clues. I'm using some terminology a friend of mine made up here, so I'll define these terms now:

"Clues" are bits of information which serve A - they tell the players more about what is going on in the situation. If the players don't find any clues at all, then you have the situation you describe where the game is simply stonewalled. Not fun. This is where the good GMing comes in: good GMs make sure the players get at least the minimum number of clues required to get a vague idea of what is happening, bad GMs don't make the distinction between clues and evidence.

"Evidence" is a subset of "Clues". Evidence is information which helps with B - it's stuff the players can use to get the resolution to the mystery their characters want. As I said earlier, this is the "game" element in investigative RPGs: you really don't want to hand this to the players on a plate, otherwise it's a cakewalk. Here is where the Spot and Listen checks come in, as well as interviewing witnesses and just plain smarts; if the players successfully and cleverly use their skills, they may find helpful evidence, if they fail and don't come up with any smart ideas to compensate they won't.

In all the best CoC adventures I've read, the things hidden by Spot or Listen checks are Evidence - the players can find out what's going on without them, but their ability to do anything about it will be lessened. Those adventures which hide vital Clues behind Spot checks - which fall into the trap you describe - are just plain badly designed, and are usually acknowledged as such by CoC fans.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWell obviously a non-shitty GM can cover over a whole multitude of flaws, but flaws are still bad game design. It's like when you eat some meal that a great chef saved: "Wow! It doesn't taste burnt at all!"

So let me put the question to you, is there something good about all those spot and listen rolls or is it just something you hardly notice when John Q. Super-GM is in the kitchen? :raise:

Warthur gave a good answer, the point I would make is that I'm not talking about great GMing skills here, I'm talking about basic competence.

It is not a flaw in a game's design that it doesn't avoid problems caused by people who are incompetent at GMing, simple as that.  I think it's fair for designers to assume a minimal degree of competence in those running the game, say about the competence me and my friends managed at 14 without any external instruction.

The spot and listen rolls raise tension, they provide additional clues or alternative routes to clues, I genuinely don't think the game mechanic is flawed and being saved by great GMing, I think the game mechanic is fine but some lousy GMs mess it up anyway.

Last time I encountered this it wasn't even in CoC, the "miss the roll and the scenario stops" is just the mark of someone who hasn't the flexibility to run a decent game, whatever system they're using.  The notion that CoC depends on spotting clues and you then roll to spot those clues and if you miss there are no other clues isn't how most folk who enjoy CoC play it nor is it particularly supported by the game as written.

If you look at the CoC sheet it is full of skills related to gathering information, including in earlier editions multiple ways of trying to convince people to give you it (orate, debate, fast talk, credit rating).  The game is all about using the skills at your disposal to find out what's going on and if that fails to try another tack, not about rolling to spot the next clue in a rigid chain.

That's why the Gumshoe rules don't really add much to life, they seek to solve a problem that was only really being identified as being there by people who weren't playing the game anyway.

On the storygamer point, I'm not ascribing motives at all, it's just that there is a meme in the storygamer community that CoC depends on making a roll to progress and it gets repeated often so people think it's true, but really it's not.

I think in fairness it comes from the published scenarios, many of which to be blunt are dreadful.  Appalling railroads where there is every chance of things simply stalling without massive illusionism.  I don't defend those, but the game as written does not particularly support the approach the scenarios later took.

And as I say, in over 20 years I've not once encountered this flaw, I only hear about it from people who don't play the game.

Ok, so there are some bad adventures where the clues are hidden behind spot and listen checks. The players are lost, everyone is sad... I'll ignore those adventures. Every game system has an off day.

Good adventures on the other hand, have accessible clues and evidence hidden behind spot and listen checks.

...that describes my experience with CoC for the most part. We players know what we want to do, but our characters get stuck 'cause no one can spot the key in the drawer, then no one spots the note about the key in the drawer, then no one can read the map to the drawer with the key in it, then we bungle the library use roll to find the book about Crazy Old Keyindrawer Smythe, then everyone fails their listen check to hear the ghost who wails "the key joo seek is in the drawer! Lose 1d6 san!" and we end up using plastic explosives instead of doing Lovecraftian stuff.

I like it when the monsters are tough, or the forest is dangerous or the books are forbidden, but missing out on that stuff because of spot, listen and library checks doesn't do it for me. I know a super-GM can ignore those rolls, or that with enough advancement, a team will have maxed out their listen, spot and library use skills, but those options are only good because they squish the rule that breaks CoC for me.

I don't want to be rude, and for all I know, saying "CoC spot checks are broken :haw:" is akin to Joe Sixpack saying "This here 'flambe' is on fire! :haw:"  But as for me I can't figure out how all those spot, listen and library rolls make a good game with great source material better. :raise:

edit: Sorry about that, it seems clear to me now that you posted before reading some of the other posts... I should be more patient.

Balbinus,

I think that's fair. The problem really is in the scenarios. It's not as though rolling a d100 CoC style magically makes perception rolls a bad idea. I wouldn't mind occasionaly doing a spot, listen and library check if I got to use the other skills too but when I think back about my time with CoC it seems to be one where all the NPCs were clueless, dead, insane or killing me -- not much use for those people skills. Not much to do at all except putz around with the big three skills. (Although the last game I played it was computer use heavy. In the first hour of play I blew twelve computer use rolls.... which is why the rest of the night was spent hunting "that guy" and "that guy's boy.")

So call me a storygamer if you must, :melodramatic: but I'd rather have names for the NPCs. :keke:

PS: I haven't read Gumshoe.

Quote from: BalbinusA game stalling on one roll succeeding or failing isn't a game design problem, it's a shitty GM problem.

Not necessarily. It seems to me that there are plenty of CoC scenarios with pivoital clues. I'm thinking of Day of the Beast (I think) in particular, where there's a dismissal spell hidden in a lecturn. If you don't find it, you can't send the Big Bad home. My players didn't.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNot necessarily. It seems to me that there are plenty of CoC scenarios with pivoital clues. I'm thinking of Day of the Beast (I think) in particular, where there's a dismissal spell hidden in a lecturn. If you don't find it, you can't send the Big Bad home. My players didn't.

Seanchai

I think the CoC scenarios, with maybe a small number of exceptions, read well but are actually pretty dreadful scenarios.

I recall one in which the GM is supposed to mention in passing that Tesla is in town.  From that the players are supposed to think "hey, let's talk to Tesla" and he then helps them solve the adventure.

If your GM never throws in period detail I suppose that might work, but to me it seemed ludicrous.

CoC the game, the published book, does not require the one roll to continue approach.  The scenarios often do, but many of them were written I would note by guys like Keith Herber who were not actually gaming at the time and I think it shows.  They tend to be massive railroads and IMO do the game little credit.

I defend the game and its rules, not the scenarios.

Quote from: BalbinusCoC the game, the published book, does not require the one roll to continue approach.  The scenarios often do, but many of them were written I would note by guys like Keith Herber who were not actually gaming at the time and I think it shows.  They tend to be massive railroads and IMO do the game little credit.

I defend the game and its rules, not the scenarios.

I definitely agree that it's the CoC scenarios that are like this, not either of the rulebooks. But what's an example of a rules set that does? I'm not being rhetorical - really, if not scenarios, then what game are we discussing?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI definitely agree that it's the CoC scenarios that are like this, not either of the rulebooks. But what's an example of a rules set that does? I'm not being rhetorical - really, if not scenarios, then what game are we discussing?

Seanchai

I may have been unclear, I don't know of any games where this is an issue, to me it's a GM issue and after having discussed it with Malleus I'm reminded that it's also a scenario issue.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum...that describes my experience with CoC for the most part. We players know what we want to do, but our characters get stuck 'cause no one can spot the key in the drawer, then no one spots the note about the key in the drawer, then no one can read the map to the drawer with the key in it, then we bungle the library use roll to find the book about Crazy Old Keyindrawer Smythe, then everyone fails their listen check to hear the ghost who wails "the key joo seek is in the drawer! Lose 1d6 san!" and we end up using plastic explosives instead of doing Lovecraftian stuff.

At which point I wonder what you and your fellow players had actually invested your skill points in, because if you really did have that many chances to pick up on the crucial piece of evidence (and in general I find it's always a bad idea to have one piece of evidence that the players must obtain) and yet failed every damn time then your PCs' investigative skills must have been pretty miserable.

Unless, of course, you're engaging in hyperbole, in which case I'd suggest that your hyperbole merely shows up the inadequacy of the "one vital clue" approach to CoC adventure design - if you give the players loads and loads of chances to find that One Vital Clue, then they'll eventually roll lucky and get it, if you don't give them many chances they'll probably miss it through no fault of their own. Far better to give them lots of chances to use lots of different approaches to get lots of different pieces of evidence, and to not require that the players have unearthed every single piece of evidence in order to resolve the case successfully.

Quote from: WarthurAt which point I wonder what you and your fellow players had actually invested your skill points in, because if you really did have that many chances to pick up on the crucial piece of evidence (and in general I find it's always a bad idea to have one piece of evidence that the players must obtain) and yet failed every damn time then your PCs' investigative skills must have been pretty miserable.

Unless, of course, you're engaging in hyperbole, in which case I'd suggest that your hyperbole merely shows up the inadequacy of the "one vital clue" approach to CoC adventure design - if you give the players loads and loads of chances to find that One Vital Clue, then they'll eventually roll lucky and get it, if you don't give them many chances they'll probably miss it through no fault of their own. Far better to give them lots of chances to use lots of different approaches to get lots of different pieces of evidence, and to not require that the players have unearthed every single piece of evidence in order to resolve the case successfully.

I agree with your comment at the end, there should be multiple clues with multiple routes to them.  I don't agree that you can count on people having enough routes to be sure they'll find that one vital clue, there should never be one vital clue because if years of gaming have taught me anything it's that the laws of probability often seem to go on holiday when the dice hit the table.

I can easily imagine multiple rolls all failing, which is why your second element of needing different pieces of evidence with various routes to it is such good advice.

Quote from: BalbinusI can easily imagine multiple rolls all failing, which is why your second element of needing different pieces of evidence with various routes to it is such good advice.

Having played BRP CoC in August and experiencing multiple whiffs in a five hour session, I agree.

Seanchai

Warthur,

You've got a fair point. Those problems only occur with low spot/listen/library characters which is why my fix is to make sure that everyone has a maxed out spot, listen and library use.

The Computer Use fiasco wasn't hyperbole. I had 20% in Comp Use. (It was a beginning character, he was not a tech specialist and most of his points were tied up in spot, listen and library use. ) Nor is failing twelve such Comp Use rolls a freak occurrence, those odds are only (100%-20%)^12 or roughly 7%.

The missing-key fiasco wasn't hyperbole either. It was a series of very unlucky rolls (one in six thousand IIRC) but it was nothing otherworldly.

But anyway, if you think this is about never-ever-finding the one vital clue, you've misunderstood me. The reason spot checks broke CoC for me is because I want horror games to go rattling along the tracks at full steam and I want the monsters to be described in high Lovecraftian prose.