TheRPGSite

So you've got your shiny new rulebook or PDF and you're thinking - THIS is ONE SWEET GAME - and you're reading/rolling around and then you come across THAT RULE - the one you tear your hair out over.

Yeah, you can houserule but that lil' puppy is always gonna have a limp however much you love it. I'm not into house-rules, that's just the way I am. I'd rather play the game 'as bought'.

For example - Tunnels and Trolls - I was sticking on the bandaids from day 1 when I (LIKE EVERYONE ELSE) figured out Dwarf Wizards ruled the roost due to spellcasting's relationship with Strength.

C'mon what's the rule that frustrates you about an otherwise classy system ?

Share with us, you'll feel better, we're here for ya !

It seems strange to say "broke the system", since any single rule is easily house-ruled.  

The most glaring for me was the STUN lottery in Champions (i.e. the 1d6-1 STUN multiplier for Killing Attacks).  Though there were a number of smaller issues.

No one rule broke Exalted for me, it was the death of 1000 cuts. Taken in aggregate the Charm system is a huge, unwieldy behemoth of exceptions and special cases that grind all the fun out of my GM'ing the game.

I still love the setting, but have come to despise the ruleset.

Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel never worked for us and eventually led to us trying to find games that fit together better.

It was more like a death blow:

Burning Empires, Artha rules.

When I read the chapter on Artha, I knew this game wasn´t for anyone I know. And it invalidated all that bad-ass talk about "real DM vs Player conflict".

On a similiar vein: Earthdawn

The legend-point system. Too meta for me, although others were okay with it. It killed it for me.

new action types in 3.5 did it for me.  it just seemed wrong to me to create a core system change like adding immediate and instant or whatever the fuck they are action types.  i just houseruled that they were free actions and that was it.  that group stopped playing altogether shortly after that (due to non-gaming reasons) anyway.

THe skill system in Gamma World 4th.  Followed closely by the item identification flowchart.

It's almost like a bait and switch, you start reading and everything seems nice and straight forward, almost like a proto-D20, and then suddenly, in the course of like one chapter, you're hit with a skill system every bit as counter intuitive as THAC0 was, and a hideously complicated flowchart that I'm apparently expected to go through just to figure out what a toaster is.

It really killed my buzz for the game.  If I do run it in the future, houseruling the skills system to D20 rollover, and dropping that damn identification chart, will be the first thing I do.

In RIFTS, the Boxing skills gives you an additional attack.  I could buy that in a Boxing match... but not for all combat.  The group had stomached a lot of rubbish up until that point.  But that one was probably the final straw.

If you look at the physical skills as feats, it´s bearable.
But yes, it makes no in-game sense as written.

It´s a Palladium Fantasy leftover.

Burning Empires, Let it ride

True20, Damage Save/Condition Track

D20 Modern, Nonlethal damage and autofire rules

SWSE, Skills

SAVAGE WORLDS:

When you roll the highest number on a die it is called an ACE - which you then re-roll and add to the previous result...

 However as you go up in ability the type of die you roll gets bigger.

So the 'better' you get at something the less chance you have of rolling an ACE.

The only reason I can think of for this rule is to give low powered foes a chance against thier betters.

The Warhammer strength stat. A well developed human can reach the 7 strength stat of a giant. WTF!!! There's no proper proportioning or scale there whatsover. A 9 foot, muscle bound Ogre, I know lets give a strength of 4 the same as that spindly Elf - bad design on the most basic level.

Space 1889 : Shooting skill is only used for targets greater than 20 yards away. For targets less than 20 yards distance, you have to use the Melee combat skill. Not only is this utter bollox IMO, but Melee combat skill is capped at max 2. Makes a 1880's cowboy gunfighter a bit hard to generate.

Quote from: SettembriniIf you look at the physical skills as feats, it´s bearable.
But yes, it makes no in-game sense as written.

It´s a Palladium Fantasy leftover.

Actually, it wasn't added to PF until 2nd edition.  It's more of a Heroes Unlimited/TMNT holdover.

Anyways, for me, a rule deal-breaker would be Attacks of Opportunity in D&D 3.  I hate the rule and it is extremely difficult to remove from the game because it is intertwined with all the other rules.

Another one is any game where it says the PCs have script immunity and can't be killed (the 1st ed of d6 SW had this, if memory serves).  Alternately, I also dislike any game where characters can die during generation (Aliens, Traveller).

And although I would never play World of Synnibar and all the rules likely suck anyways, it really could have done without the "catch the GM in a rules mistake and gain XP" nonsense that serves no purpose except to turn game sessions into rules arguments.

Which brings up my last rule breaker - any game in which the rules for the GM do not give him final authority over how the game is run.

Quote from: Cold Blooded GamesThe Warhammer strength stat. A well developed human can reach the 7 strength stat of a giant. WTF!!! There's no proper proportioning or scale there whatsover. A 9 foot, muscle bound Ogre, I know lets give a strength of 4 the same as that spindly Elf - bad design on the most basic level.

Yeah, the relationship between size, strength and damage has never been WFRP's strong suit. Multiple attacks are often cited as the mitigating factor, but for a some people it just doesn't feel right.

My tentative hack for those who simply can't live with the system as written is to exchange extra attacks for levels of the Impact quality on 1-to-1 basis. Thus an Ogre would have one attack per round, but would roll 3d10 and pick the highest result for damage scored. A Giant may have 2 attacks, each rolling 3d10, or 1 attack with 6d10 (!) Multiple results of Ulric's Fury would be rerolled, taking the highest final result.

It's not an ideal soloution by any stretch, just something to bear in mind if the current rules really are a gamebreaker for you.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadD20 Modern, Nonlethal damage and autofire rules

The nonlethal rules squeak by because most people don't realize what they are and assume it's the same in D&D.

Thanks. I house ruled and just amped it up to 25.

Quote from: Cold Blooded GamesThanks. I house ruled and just amped it up to 25.

Heh. That's one way of dealing with it, to be sure.

Quick question-- does anyone ever make it to Giant Slayer in your campaigns?

;)

Quote from: NicephorusThe nonlethal rules squeak by because most people don't realize what they are and assume it's the same in D&D.

Including some authors, it appears.

Read the sand slave description in the menace manual. :cool:

Quote from: Cold Blooded GamesThe Warhammer strength stat. A well developed human can reach the 7 strength stat of a giant. WTF!!! There's no proper proportioning or scale there whatsover. A 9 foot, muscle bound Ogre, I know lets give a strength of 4 the same as that spindly Elf - bad design on the most basic level.

I understand that the purpose of the thread isn't to defend systems.  But that strength stat relevant to the size of the creature and the STR bonus for damage is about how much strength gets applied to damage.  It actually works really well in Warhammer and gives you different results depending on how you want your story to work.

The literal sense you have humans of near Hurculean strength capable of being as strong as a giant.  Making PC's capable of being legendary characters of epic proportions.

Or you can take it the more natural way and compare it to the being applying the strength.  For example a 150lb human with strength 30 wouldn't need to make a strength check to life something weight 150lbs.  That's pretty typical that most average people can lift something weight up to their own body weight.  I'm not talking over their head, but certainly flipping it up to your shoulders no problem.  Same with our 500lb giant that can easily lift a 500lb object onto it's shoulders with no need to roll.  But our human of 30 strength would certainly need to roll it.   Our giant on the other hand wouldn't need to make a strength check until it hit possibly 700-800 lbs.

Quote from: kryystI understand that the purpose of the thread isn't to defend systems.

...but you knew it was coming...

Warhammer FRP. I played this game ages ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy. But I clearly remember that it had some kind of sanity/insanity rule (a bit like CoC). And I very, very clearly remember having long fights about this with the GM to the point that I should have been asked to leave. But I was his only player, so ... :p

I thought (and I still think) that a sanity rule in a Fantasy world is a stupid idea, especially for a world like Warhammer. If you are a badass fighter in "a grim world of perilous adventure", you expect to see and witness horrible things. If your band of tough hombres sees a walking skeleton you are supposed to crack jokes and not go: "Oh my! Do you see that? That is horrible. Horrible!"
"I say! I think I will have nightmares."
That is so NOT Warhammer.

Sanity rules outside of horror games: Bad idea.

D20 Modern (or any variant...besides CoC) handgun rules. It doesn't make sense that handguns/machineguns/bazookas are not at all scary to any group of adventurers.

So I had to add the Massive damage rules from CoC D20 to all my modern d20 games, and be an asshole with old fashioned coup de grace (Instant death, or instant -9 {or -(Con-1)} HP with a saving throw).

Quote from: KrakaJakD20 Modern (or any variant...besides CoC) handgun rules. It doesn't make sense that handguns/machineguns/bazookas are not at all scary to any group of adventurers.

So I had to add the Massive damage rules from CoC D20 to all my modern d20 games, and be an asshole with old fashioned coup de grace (Instant death, or instant -9 {or -(Con-1)} HP with a saving throw).

Really, the only difference is where the massive damage threshold is set.

I think making MDT = Con (as in D20 modern) is too generous and makes con too important. MDT = 10 is about right for CoC, but might be too gritty for some games. I personally split the difference and go 10+(Con mod).

Quote from: YsbrydWarhammer FRP. I played this game ages ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy. But I clearly remember that it had some kind of sanity/insanity rule (a bit like CoC). And I very, very clearly remember having long fights about this with the GM to the point that I should have been asked to leave. But I was his only player, so ... :p

I thought (and I still think) that a sanity rule in a Fantasy world is a stupid idea, especially for a world like Warhammer. If you are a badass fighter in "a grim world of perilous adventure", you expect to see and witness horrible things. If your band of tough hombres sees a walking skeleton you are supposed to crack jokes and not go: "Oh my! Do you see that? That is horrible. Horrible!"
"I say! I think I will have nightmares."
That is so NOT Warhammer.

Sanity rules outside of horror games: Bad idea.

I like Sanity rules in general for WFRP, but it was horribly implemented.  I think it has its place - WFRP is, in tone, somewhere between D&D and CoC - but, all things considered, characters should hopefully not be going insane at quite that rate.

As written, though, it's a bear to deal with.  I mean, every single critical hit gives a character an insanity point, lethal or not.  Early wizards get an insanity point 1 out of 6 times they try to cast a spell.  Hell, PCs in my game would have gone insane after the first adventure if I did that.

To top it off, the insanities are generally crippling burdens, excepting maybe your average phobias.

-O

Quote from: kryystI understand that the purpose of the thread isn't to defend systems.  But that strength stat relevant to the size of the creature and the STR bonus for damage is about how much strength gets applied to damage.  It actually works really well in Warhammer and gives you different results depending on how you want your story to work.

The literal sense you have humans of near Hurculean strength capable of being as strong as a giant.  Making PC's capable of being legendary characters of epic proportions.

Or you can take it the more natural way and compare it to the being applying the strength.  For example a 150lb human with strength 30 wouldn't need to make a strength check to life something weight 150lbs.  That's pretty typical that most average people can lift something weight up to their own body weight.  I'm not talking over their head, but certainly flipping it up to your shoulders no problem.  Same with our 500lb giant that can easily lift a 500lb object onto it's shoulders with no need to roll.  But our human of 30 strength would certainly need to roll it.   Our giant on the other hand wouldn't need to make a strength check until it hit possibly 700-800 lbs.

I understand what you are saying but its fuzzy design to leave that kind of thing to interpretation. And besides 6 strength is still way to low a damage modifier for a 20 foot giant. Stats should be about proper scale; they are after all attempting to represent and model a physical reality.

That is why D20 modern is taking some flak in this thread also with the way it handles handgun damage. For me if one bullet from a lowly .22 handgun to the head does not have at least the potential however small of killing a non-supernatural human character then then design is broken as far as I am concerned because it does not accurately mirror reality. When people can get shot point blank in the head with a .45 slug and absorb it with the truck full of hit points they've amassed then you've crossed over into Cartoon land.

Quote from: YsbrydWarhammer FRP. I played this game ages ago so my memory of it is a bit hazy. But I clearly remember that it had some kind of sanity/insanity rule (a bit like CoC). And I very, very clearly remember having long fights about this with the GM to the point that I should have been asked to leave. But I was his only player, so ... :p

I thought (and I still think) that a sanity rule in a Fantasy world is a stupid idea, especially for a world like Warhammer. If you are a badass fighter in "a grim world of perilous adventure", you expect to see and witness horrible things. If your band of tough hombres sees a walking skeleton you are supposed to crack jokes and not go: "Oh my! Do you see that? That is horrible. Horrible!"
"I say! I think I will have nightmares."
That is so NOT Warhammer.

Sanity rules outside of horror games: Bad idea.

I'd have to agree that WHFRP sanity rules are insane, but still like them for fantasy RPGs you just don't use them unless facing something of Cthulhuic proportions that can get inside your mind.  That or reading the dread 1040 Schedule SE instructions, horror I tell you, pure horror.

Quote from: obrynI like Sanity rules in general for WFRP, but it was horribly implemented.  I think it has its place - WFRP is, in tone, somewhere between D&D and CoC - but, all things considered, characters should hopefully not be going insane at quite that rate.

As written, though, it's a bear to deal with.  I mean, every single critical hit gives a character an insanity point, lethal or not.  Early wizards get an insanity point 1 out of 6 times they try to cast a spell.  Hell, PCs in my game would have gone insane after the first adventure if I did that.

To top it off, the insanities are generally crippling burdens, excepting maybe your average phobias.

-O

Personally I love the insanity rules. They mesh very well with the paucity clear cut heroes in the Old World-- anyone who spends enough time fighting the-horrors-that-should-not-be ends up effected to some extent.

It's also worth noting that some disorders are far more crippling than others, and should be allocated on whether or not they are appropriate for both the character and the circumstances in which they manifest. Alcoholism, kleptomania and specific phobias are all debilitating, but they certainly don't make the character unplayable.

I almost consider them to be badges of honour.;)

Quote from: Cold Blooded GamesThat is why D20 modern is taking some flak in this thread also with the way it handles handgun damage. For me if one bullet from a lowly .22 handgun to the head does not have at least the potential however small of killing a non-supernatural human character then then design is broken as far as I am concerned because it does not accurately mirror reality. When people can get shot point blank in the head with a .45 slug and absorb it with the truck full of hit points they've amassed then you've crossed over into Cartoon land.

You appear to have misunderstood the concept of a hit point.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou appear to have misunderstood the concept of a hit point.

I was thinking the same thing. :)

-O

Quote from: DrewPersonally I love the insanity rules. They mesh very well with the paucity clear cut heroes in the Old World-- anyone who spends enough time fighting the-horrors-that-should-not-be ends up effected to some extent.

It's also worth noting that some disorders are far more crippling than others, and should be allocated on whether or not they are appropriate for both the character and the circumstances in which they manifest. Alcoholism, kleptomania and specific phobias are all debilitating, but they certainly don't make the character unplayable.

I almost consider them to be badges of honour.;)

so does my group.  nothing is more "grim & perilous" than half your adventuring party all whacked out with disorders and drug addictions (madman's cap, anyone?)  ymmv, of course, but we LOVE it.

Quote from: beeberso does my group.  nothing is more "grim & perilous" than half your adventuring party all whacked out with disorders and drug addictions (madman's cap, anyone?)  ymmv, of course, but we LOVE it.

I'm not against being "whacked out" (but you don't need rules for that). I'm against the idea that as a hero in a "grim & perilous" world you can be literally frightened out of your mind by blood, gore and nasty creatures. Doesn't seem very heroic to me. Ymmv, of course.

Quote from: beeberso does my group.  nothing is more "grim & perilous" than half your adventuring party all whacked out with disorders and drug addictions (madman's cap, anyone?)  ymmv, of course, but we LOVE it.

Absoloutely. As in reality many of the really tough old bastards in Warhammer are damaged goods, whether it be through crits, mental imbalance or the taint of the enemy.

It's still an heroic game. It's just that the consequences of heroism are much steeper than in your standard fantasy setting.

D&D: You faced the foul ghouls in their lair and saved the town! Huzzah!

WFRPG: You faced the foul ghouls in their lair, and despite having wet yourself you overcame the fear and prevailed. You won't sleep soundly for a long time to come and your knee will never be the same, but the town has been saved! Triple huzzah!

The possibility of insanity, gut-wrenching terror, and maiming make the character all the more heroic when he succeeds. Heroism doesn't come from your successes, it comes from the obstacles in your path along the way.

QuoteHeroism doesn't come from your successes, it comes from the obstacles in your path along the way.

Dear God in heaven do I wish more gamers fucking understood this.

Quote from: James McMurrayD&D: You faced the foul ghouls in their lair and saved the town! Huzzah!

WFRPG: You faced the foul ghouls in their lair, and despite having wet yourself you overcame the fear and prevailed. You won't sleep soundly for a long time to come and your knee will never be the same, but the town has been saved! Triple huzzah!

But these foul ghouls they should not frighten you that much because you live in a Fantasy world. In a world permeated by magic. They should be just another enemy to fight. You, as a person living in that world, should expect to see undeads, demons or any supernatural creatures. In a horror game you are frightened by them because they do not belong in your world and because it's part of the genre.
But I do understand your point of view and so have to conclude and accept that WFRP is just not for me. For me the setting is broken. Which is actually the point of this thread.:p

Great random generators btw!

Quote from: YsbrydBut these foul ghouls they should not frighten you that much because you live in a Fantasy world. In a world permeated by magic. They should be just another enemy to fight. You, as a person living in that world, should expect to see undeads, demons or any supernatural creatures. In a horror game you are frightened by them because they do not belong in your world and because it's part of the genre.
But I do understand your point of view and so have to conclude and accept that WFRP is just not for me. For me the setting is broken. Which is actually the point of this thread.:p

Great random generators btw!

Dude, go read some shit about medieval culture.  Seriously.  It doesn't work that way.

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, go read some shit about medieval culture.  Seriously.  It doesn't work that way.

Sorry, what? :confused:

Where did I write anything about medieval culture? I was talking about a fantasy game not a medieval game. And what "doesn't work that way"? If it "doesn't work that way", why is WFRP the only fantasy game I know of with an insanity rule?
Not meant as an attack but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
And I hope you are not trying to tell me that I'm wrong in not liking a certain game because that would be a bit silly, wouldn't it.

Medieval cultures believed in all kinds of fantastical shit.  And they were piss-fucking scared of pretty much all of it, 'cause that shit ain't natural.  

You're applying a modernized mindset od desensitization to a period and type of culture where it does not apply.

It's a load of weak, lazy thinking, and misses the entire point and feel of the gameworld.

Quote from: J ArcaneMedieval cultures believed in all kinds of fantastical shit.  And they were piss-fucking scared of pretty much all of it, 'cause that shit ain't natural.  

You're applying a modernized mindset od desensitization to a period and type of culture where it does not apply.

It's a load of weak, lazy thinking, and misses the entire point and feel of the gameworld.

Yes, if medieval knights would have fought against ghouls they could have actually lost their minds. That's exactly my point. But in a fantasy world that "shit" IS natural, so to speak. As are dwarfs, elves, dragons, ... That's why IMHO "fantasy" knights should not lose their minds when they fight ghouls.

As to your last point. This is a thread about PERSONAL dislikes. So, please stop lecturing me in this condescending manner. :(  Thanks.

Quote from: Cold Blooded GamesI understand what you are saying but its fuzzy design to leave that kind of thing to interpretation. And besides 6 strength is still way to low a damage modifier for a 20 foot giant. Stats should be about proper scale; they are after all attempting to represent and model a physical reality.

Personally I like the freedom in the way the rules were structured.  While I can understand the point.  I think it comes from to many people that (not saying this is your case) making some stupid assumption that WFRP is D20.  They come into expecting all the rules to be ground out in front of them in massive detail.  WFRP though is a much more free form game.  Less rules overall, less hard details of how the rules must work in specific situations.

Now when it comes to the giant with 6 strength.  That strength bonus represents how much damage can be applied in battle.  6 is a rather significant number specially if you consider a giants attacks are harder to defend against and all of them are impact, plus strike might blow etc....  They average around 14 damage per hit.  That's enough to kill an average NPC in one shot.  It all rather balances out quite nicely.  It still may be a deal breaker for you and that's fine.  But the fact is the rules work rather well in game play.  If you issolate them then they seem broken.  But overall it's a fantastic flowing system.

QuoteThat is why D20 modern is taking some flak in this thread also with the way it handles handgun damage. For me if one bullet from a lowly .22 handgun to the head does not have at least the potential however small of killing a non-supernatural human character then then design is broken as far as I am concerned because it does not accurately mirror reality. When people can get shot point blank in the head with a .45 slug and absorb it with the truck full of hit points they've amassed then you've crossed over into Cartoon land.

I agree with what your saying in this point.  But that's not how Hit Points are modeled in D20.  I think that they way they are modeled doesn't work well.  But for what they are, they are not a 1=1 representation of how much damage alone a person can take.  They incorporate luck and other factors as well.  So in most cases a point blank shot to the head would be considered a coup-de-grace and usually death.  Same as slitting a sleeping persons throat.  The hit points insinuate that you've managed to luckily move just enough at the last minute that the bullet grazed you.  If there is a to-hit-roll involved then hit points come into effect and luck plays a factor.

Quote from: YsbrydBut these foul ghouls they should not frighten you that much because you live in a Fantasy world. In a world permeated by magic. They should be just another enemy to fight. You, as a person living in that world, should expect to see undeads, demons or any supernatural creatures. In a horror game you are frightened by them because they do not belong in your world and because it's part of the genre.
But I do understand your point of view and so have to conclude and accept that WFRP is just not for me. For me the setting is broken. Which is actually the point of this thread.:p

Great random generators btw!

You are clearly demonstrating that you don't understand what the world is about.  While the average person believes in undead, monsters and everything else.  They never expect to see them face on, green skins and in worse case situations beastmen or mutants, maybe.  That's the same for PC's they start out in this world as normal people that start into a life of adventure.  That's when they start to run into the horrors and that's what can lead to their insanity.  Proof that the horrors are real.  Yet inspite of that they keep pushing on.

Quote from: kryystYou are clearly demonstrating that you don't understand what the world is about.  While the average person believes in undead, monsters and everything else.  They never expect to see them face on, green skins and in worse case situations beastmen or mutants, maybe.  That's the same for PC's they start out in this world as normal people that start into a life of adventure.  That's when they start to run into the horrors and that's what can lead to their insanity.  Proof that the horrors are real.  Yet inspite of that they keep pushing on.

And how is that different from most other fantasy games? Do little, innocent hobbits go insane when they see a Nazgul? No. Do they expect to ever meet one? No. Going insane is not part of the Fantasy genre. When I accept to play in a Fantasy RPG I do not expect to have to deal with insanity. (And when I post on an internet forum I do not expect the Spanish Inquisition ;) )
I do know what the world of Warhammer is about and I know what the rules try to achieve but I (ME, MYSELF) don't like it. OK? I don't want to play in that world. And I don't like the concept of insanity rules OUTSIDE of horror games. The concept seems off. TO ME. In a fantasy game, I want to die a heroic death, not go insane. Therefore, I already acknowledged that WHFRP is not for ME. Therefore I didn't like to play in that setting. Which is the point of this thread. What else can I do? :confused:
Could we PLEASE move on now?

I think it is just fine that you don't want horror/insanity rules in your fantasy and you don't want to play WFRP. Fine.

I have to point out that something very much like horror or insanity is every bit a part of Tolkien. After all one interpretation is that Frodo and Bilbo were so tainted and torn and scared and driven to a certain type of insanity that they really needed to go to the undying lands.

Not to mention that a big part of the story is overcoming your fears to do the right thing.

I'm not yelling, I'm not even breathing heavy, if you disagree with me I'm alright. I just had to comment. I'm weird that way.

Quote from: YsbrydBut these foul ghouls they should not frighten you that much because you live in a Fantasy world. In a world permeated by magic. They should be just another enemy to fight. You, as a person living in that world, should expect to see undeads, demons or any supernatural creatures. In a horror game you are frightened by them because they do not belong in your world and because it's part of the genre.

Guns, grenades, tanks, and their ability to spray you with another man's intestines are all part of our world's genre. And yet we still have countless numbers of brave men and women who go to war and come back as irrevocably scarred heroes. There's a difference between knowing something is real and facing it down in a life or death situation.
 

QuoteBut I do understand your point of view and so have to conclude and accept that WFRP is just not for me. For me the setting is broken. Which is actually the point of this thread.:p

Can't fault you there. :)

QuoteGreat random generators btw!

Thanks!

Quote from: darI think it is just fine that you don't want horror/insanity rules in your fantasy and you don't want to play WFRP. Fine.

I have to point out that something very much like horror or insanity is every bit a part of Tolkien. After all one interpretation is that Frodo and Bilbo were so tainted and torn and scared and driven to a certain type of insanity that they really needed to go to the undying lands.

Not to mention that a big part of the story is overcoming your fears to do the right thing.

I'm not yelling, I'm not even breathing heavy, I'll even say that if you disagree with me I'm alright. I just had to comment. I'm weird that way.

There is a difference between disagreeing with me or telling me I'm lazy and don't understand what I'm writing about. The latter upsets me. I'm weird that way.
And no, I don't see insanity in Frodo or Bilbo. Also, there were no insanity rules in MERP or Decipher's LOTR RPG. Corruption yes, insanity no.
And overcoming your fears has nothing to do with going insane.

Quote from: James McMurrayGuns, grenades, tanks, and their ability to spray you with another man's intestines are all part of our world's genre. And yet we still have countless numbers of brave men and women who go to war and come back as irrevocably scarred heroes. There's a difference between knowing something is real and facing it down in a life or death situation.
 

Good point. That actually makes sense. So, let's say WHFRP is the most realistic fantasy game. And I like it less realistic.
Phew. That's sorted out then.

Quote from: YsbrydThere is a difference between disagreeing with me or telling me I'm lazy and don't understand what I'm writing about. The latter upsets me. I'm weird that way.

I hope I didn't do that.

Quote from: YsbrydYes, if medieval knights would have fought against ghouls they could have actually lost their minds. That's exactly my point. But in a fantasy world that "shit" IS natural, so to speak. As are dwarfs, elves, dragons, ... That's why IMHO "fantasy" knights should not lose their minds when they fight ghouls.

As to your last point. This is a thread about PERSONAL dislikes. So, please stop lecturing me in this condescending manner. :(  Thanks.

Still completely missing the point.

WFRP at base level is still a game where you're playing a pig-ignorant peasant who ahs probably never seen an elf, or even a Skaven, let alone some 6-brested tentacled Chaos thing from beyond this plane, and is probably only doing the adventuring thing because the return is marginally better than shovelling shit or killing rats in the sewers.  

We're talking about a grittier, lower level game, that pretty much is exactly intended to emulate a more realistic picture of medieval/renaissance life for the folks at the bottom.  With a touch of gonzo and humor snuck in there for fun.  

Look, I don't even like the game either, I just find the mechanics feel clunky and out of date to me, but I understand what it's doing at least.  Your comments in this thread amount to blathering on about not liking Traveller because it has spaceships in it, in terms of colossal cluelessness.

and just to nitpick, an encounter with ghouls does not cause any gain in insanity  points, at least in WFRP 1e.  unless the pc's take any critical hits, of course.  :D

Quote from: J ArcaneWFRP at base level is still a game where you're playing a pig-ignorant peasant who ahs probably never seen an elf,

That would indeed be scary if you play an elven character :D

Quote from: beeberand just to nitpick, an encounter with ghouls does not cause any gain in insanity  points, at least in WFRP 1e.  unless the pc's take any critical hits, of course.  :D

Nope that's still the same, it could potentially cause the gain of IP's if the gm wanted to.  However typically it won't.  Unless maybe that Zombie is someone you recognized from the past and is busily gnawing on you leg or being surrounded by ghouls in the dark, with only one torch that's suddenly blown out.  These sorts of things are more typical causes of gaining Insanity Points.

Ghoul was just something I grabbed at random because I avoid monster stats like the plague in games I don't run. Feel free to replace it with Greater Demon of Khorne. :)

Quote from: James McMurrayGhoul was just something I grabbed at random because I avoid monster stats like the plague in games I don't run. Feel free to replace it with Greater Demon of Khorne. :)

:jaw-dropping:

:eyecrazy:

okay, that's more like it!  

plus, you could end up with "heroic idiocy" as an insanity--you don't have to make the fear & terror tests (to run away) but get the side effect of still gaining insanity points!  one of our favorites, btw

Quote from: J ArcaneTHe skill system in Gamma World 4th.  Followed closely by the item identification flowchart.

Wasn't this in the original GW and/or Metamorphosis Alpha? (Not that you have to like it even if it was.)

Quote from: JaegerSAVAGE WORLDS:

When you roll the highest number on a die it is called an ACE - which you then re-roll and add to the previous result...

 However as you go up in ability the type of die you roll gets bigger.

So the 'better' you get at something the less chance you have of rolling an ACE.

Doesn't matter, it still works out that bigger dice produce higher results on average.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWasn't this in the original GW and/or Metamorphosis Alpha? (Not that you have to like it even if it was.)

No idea.  GW4 was my first real exposure to actual pen and paper rules beyond a quick glance over of MA 1e (which I'm pretty sure didn't have it) and some summaries and commentary on the other games.  I got interested in the series mainly due to Alphaman, and further encouraged by Pundit here with all the talk of a proto-D20 system, as opposed to the older systems which all seemed a bit wonky to me.

Quote from: YsbrydGoing insane is not part of the Fantasy genre.

It's definitely part of the sword and sorcery genre.

Of course, WFRP is not a sword and sorcery rpg, so that's tangential to your point, but I think it's wrong to say going insane is not part of the fantasy genre.  It's not a part of trad fantasy sure, but it fits pretty well into S&S.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's definitely part of the sword and sorcery genre.

Of course, WFRP is not a sword and sorcery rpg, so that's tangential to your point, but I think it's wrong to say going insane is not part of the fantasy genre.  It's not a part of trad fantasy sure, but it fits pretty well into S&S.

I really hate to bring him up, because I tihnk he's a fucking hack, but as I recall, people going nutso was definitely an occurence in Wheel of Time, especially if they were men.  

I dimly recall mention of some other series involving main guys who were a bit nutters, and there's crap tons of "I am hard and emotionally scarred because I kill people for a living" anti-hero shit going around in ALL forms of genre fiction, fantasy included.

Sanity in fantasy? I vaguely recall one of the paladins went mad at one point and started tearing up the countryside unarmed and unarmoured. Does that count?

WFRP can accomodate a wide range of styles, but is commonly associated with the 'dark' or 'low' fantasy subgenres, both of which use insanity and aberrant behaviour as indicators of realism.  

A good contemporary example is George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a number of characters who become unhinged by their experiences.

Quote from: J ArcaneI really hate to bring him up, because I tihnk he's a fucking hack, but as I recall, people going nutso was definitely an occurence in Wheel of Time, especially if they were men.  

I dimly recall mention of some other series involving main guys who were a bit nutters, and there's crap tons of "I am hard and emotionally scarred because I kill people for a living" anti-hero shit going around in ALL forms of genre fiction, fantasy included.

Really?  I sit corrected then.

That said, I do think WFRP overdoes the insanity mechanic a bit, but that's not criticising the concept, just the execution.

Quote from: DrewWFRP can accomodate a wide range of styles, but is commonly associated with the 'dark' or 'low' fantasy subgenres, both of which use insanity and aberrant behaviour as indicators of realism.  

A good contemporary example is George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a number of characters who become unhinged by their experiences.

i haven't read martin yet, but with that you'd sold me! :D

This is lame, and I've mentioned it before, but the early D&D rule about clerics and no edged weapons bothered me for years.

Quote from: beeberi haven't read martin yet, but with that you'd sold me! :D

I consider it to be one of the finest pieces of fantasy literature ever published. It's gritty and brutal and completely believable, full of high intrigue, low treachery and often obscene violence. Martin handles the genre superbly, depicting the hidden fantastical elements of the world in such a way that is thoroughly convincing.    

ASOIF is also one of those rarest of commodities-- a fantasy series that keeps you coming back for more. It's an epic for adults (in every sense of the word). I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Contains Martin spoilers:
I find Martin competent, but not overwhelmingly so. I think he overstates things and drags things out too much. The whole Queen Cersi plot line is a good example of this- She's evil! No,  really, really Evil. Honest.  Also the build up is just endless what the hell is going on up north? how many more books do i have to slog through to find out.Well at least there's all the child rape to keep me interested... I'm not saying they suck or anything, I just have a problem with his uncharitable view of humanity- everybody and everything sucks. furthermore, he isn't really very good at surprising the reader- how many hints is he going to lay down about the connection between the existence/presence of dragons and magic before he "reveals" the connection. Nevermind me though, I'm a fussy bitch.
P.S. I like Jon Snow and Jamie  quite a bit. Although, I think I'd kill Fat Sam about two minutes after meeting him.

Quote from: AosThis is lame, and I've mentioned it before, but the early D&D rule about clerics and no edged weapons bothered me for years.

That always bothered me, too.  It makes sense within the context of a particular deity (like, say, the medieval Christian God) that prohibits its priests from shedding blood.  But it's ass-stupid for, say, Krashafrast, High Lord of Blades and Blood, to prohibit his priests from using edged weapons.  It should have been a restriction tied to specific worship, not a general class.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat always bothered me, too.  It makes sense within the context of a particular deity (like, say, the medieval Christian God) that prohibits its priests from shedding blood.  But it's ass-stupid for, say, Krashafrast, High Lord of Blades and Blood, to prohibit his priests from using edged weapons.  It should have been a restriction tied to specific worship, not a general class.

!i!

It was especially galling for me because it was one thing that no DMs I knew would house rule away. "It will unbalance the game," was the universal 'reason' for this. Yeah, I did an extra two points of damage,  and now the pillars of reality are coming down. I should have seen it coming.

Beside that, striving for balance in 1e was like striving towards modesty in a strip club.

Quote from: AosContains Martin spoilers:
I find Martin competent, but not overwhelmingly so. I think he overstates things and drags things out too much. The whole Queen Cersi plot line is a good example of this- She's evil! No,  really, really Evil. Honest.  Also the build up is just endless what the hell is going on up north? how many more books do i have to slog through to find out.Well at least there's all the child rape to keep me interested... I'm not saying they suck or anything, I just have a problem with his uncharitable view of humanity- everybody and everything sucks. furthermore, he isn't really very good at surprising the reader- how many hints is he going to lay down about the connection between the existence/presence of dragons and magic before he "reveals" the connection. Nevermind me though, I'm a fussy bitch.
P.S. I like Jon Snow and Jamie  quite a bit. Although, I think I'd kill Fat Sam about two minutes after meeting him.

Martin draws heavily on late medieval european history for his portrayal of Westeros. When viewed in that context it's hardly surprising that many of the characters come off as awful examples of humanity. A big part of the story is how power traps and corrupts those who seek to wield it, often at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. As Cersei herself says, you either play the game of thrones or you die.

That said there are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books-- most of the Starks, many of the Night's Watch, even a couple of the Lannisters by the end of A Feast For Crows. I have a soft spot for the desperate, obstinate honour of Brienne, and if I ever met Samwell Tarly I'd shake his hand. He hasn't done badly for an obese coward.

I see ASOIF as a classic story of good vs. evil, with the killer twist being the agents of said opposing forces are all too human in their foibles and prejudices.

Quote from: DrewMartin draws heavily on late medieval european history for his portrayal of Westeros. When viewed in that context it's hardly surprising that many of the characters come off as awful examples of humanity. A big part of the story is how power traps and corrupts those who seek to wield it, often at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. As Cersei herself says, you either play the game of thrones or you die.

That said there are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books-- most of the Starks, many of the Night's Watch, even a couple of the Lannisters by the end of A Feast For Crows. I have a soft spot for the desperate, obstinate honour of Brienne, and if I ever met Samwell Tarly I'd shake his hand. He hasn't done badly for an obese coward.

I see ASOIF as a classic story of good vs. evil, with the killer twist being the agents of said opposing forces are all too human in their foibles and prejudices.

As I said, I'm a fussy bitch, and I fully admit that I am too picky I don't see Sam as so much of a character as a vehicle for nerdly wish fulfillment. He gets to be brave and scores a woman (in distress, no less) waaay out of his league ect... it reminds me of the fantasy I had in junior high of rescuing the cheerleader from danger and then getting some as my reward.
Some of the things you sight as strengths are things I don't like- did the world really need another massive pseudo medieval fantasy series? Well judging by the sales figures, I guess it did.
And, again, the build up is too long- I got many of the points he's still beating the reader over the head with a book or two ago.

bitch bitch bitch ect ect ect....

Quote from: AosAs I said, I'm a fussy bitch, and I fully admit that I am too picky I don't see Sam as so much of a character as a vehicle for nerdly wish fulfillment. He gets to be brave and scores a woman (in distress, no less) waaay out of his league ect... it reminds me of the fantasy I had in junior high of rescuing the cheerleader from danger and then getting some as my reward.
Some of the things you sight as strengths are things I don't like- did the world really need another massive pseudo medieval fantasy series? Well judging by the sales figures, I guess it did.
And, again, the build up is too long- I got many of the points he's still beating the reader over the head with a book or two ago.

bitch bitch bitch ect ect ect....

:D

Fair enough. You're certainly not required to enjoy it in the same way as I do.

I'd be happy to continue debating the merits of the series, but think it'd probably be better to do so in another thread. Feel free to start one if you like. :)

Quote from: AosContains Martin spoilers:
I find Martin competent, but not overwhelmingly so. I think he overstates things and drags things out too much.

Agreed.  I absolutely loved A Game of Thrones.  Then I read the second book and liked it, but it felt stretched out.  It wasn't too long into the third book when I realized that the story was not a trilogy (as I mistakingly believed) but in fact a Wheel of Time-esque "stretch the story to infinity" extravaganza.

Despite not overly liking the third book, I went ahead and bought the fourth one.  I shouldn't have bothered.  It didn't move the story forward one inch and didn't even bother to discuss half the characters.

It's been a couple of years now and still no word when the other "half" of the storyline for the fourth book is told.  Who knows when the full series will be finished?  At this rate, I seriously think it won't be finished before Martin dies (he's no spring chicken, after all).

I'm going back to my rule of not buying any book series until after the entire thing has been finished.

(A Feast for Crows was poor. Up until then I quite enjoyed the series)

D6 system - 'pips' - why should I want 2d6 in a skill when 1d6+3 on average rolls better?

Quote from: Sean(A Feast for Crows was poor. Up until then I quite enjoyed the series)

D6 system - 'pips' - why should I want 2d6 in a skill when 1d6+3 on average rolls better?

Actually, the average of 1d6+3 would be 6.5, which is still not quite as good as the average of 7 for 2d6.

Also, your minimum roll would be better (4 instead of 2) but your maximum would be lower (9 instead of 12).

oWoD combat- you declare your actions from lowest initiative to highest, than resolve them from highest to lowest (provided you haven't forgotten them already, which is a very real risk in groups of 4+ players)

Quote from: jgantsActually, the average of 1d6+3 would be 6.5, which is still not quite as good as the average of 7 for 2d6.

Also, your minimum roll would be better (4 instead of 2) but your maximum would be lower (9 instead of 12).

I know it should be better, but in play we found that difference in the minimum roll was often crucial.

Quote from: jgantsActually, the average of 1d6+3 would be 6.5, which is still not quite as good as the average of 7 for 2d6.

Also, your minimum roll would be better (4 instead of 2) but your maximum would be lower (9 instead of 12).

also, it's 1d6 + 2, not 1d6+3.  Dice broke down into 3 pips, but only 2 could be spent to make a bonus, a third meant it got bumped to a full die.

Quote from: J Arcanealso, it's 1d6 + 2, not 1d6+3.  Dice broke down into 3 pips, but only 2 could be spent to make a bonus, a third meant it got bumped to a full die.

Ha, no wonder ! :o

Quote from: J Arcanealso, it's 1d6 + 2, not 1d6+3.  Dice broke down into 3 pips, but only 2 could be spent to make a bonus, a third meant it got bumped to a full die.

OK, I thought that was how I always played it.  But it's been a while so I couldn't remember for sure.

Ars Magica: WAY too many critical successes and failures. If '0' and '1' are BOTH crits, you've only got 8 more numbers on a d10! Even worse many actions require a half dozen rolls, ergo, events unfold non-criticaly 25% of the time.

Hero System: Handcuffs! For 9 points you can have a set of perfectly normal handcuffs. But why would anyone use normal handcuffs when for only 2 extra points you can have a gun that handcuffs targets at range? Perhaps it's because of Game Ballance?

GURPS: Combat reflexes. The first of many ad hoc rules.

Call of Chthulu: Perception rolls. Everytime the group blows a perception roll... EITHER the game screaches to a halt until the clue is found OR the monster attacks without getting described. Why not just give everyone 99 perception and start the choo-choo?

Dungeons and Dragons: (1) Gnomes. (2) Grappling. They're so hopelessly convoluted, the only possible solution is to release a new edition! :keke:

Fumbles in Silhouette. It wouldn't be so bad if skill levels were higher, but the reality is that most of your skills will end up at 1, giving you a 1 in 6 chance of fumbling. That's just way too much IMHO.

The grappling rules in nWoD. Of particular irritation when playing Werewolf. Actually, I've yet to see grapple rules in any game that don't suck.

At least you get XP in a skill when you fumble it in Silhouette, so using those really crappy skills is a good way to up them.

Quote from: Illegible SmudgeFumbles in Silhouette. It wouldn't be so bad if skill levels were higher, but the reality is that most of your skills will end up at 1, giving you a 1 in 6 chance of fumbling. That's just way too much IMHO.

The grappling rules in nWoD. Of particular irritation when playing Werewolf. Actually, I've yet to see grapple rules in any game that don't suck.

Might I ask what your problem was with the nWoD grappling rules? I've seen them used a grand total of twice (having only run some Mortals stuff and played a bit of Changeling so far), but they seemed pretty straightforward and effective at the time; what pitfalls am I missing?

Quote from: LeSquideMight I ask what your problem was with the nWoD grappling rules? I've seen them used a grand total of twice (having only run some Mortals stuff and played a bit of Changeling so far), but they seemed pretty straightforward and effective at the time; what pitfalls am I missing?

Basically, my chief problem is that it favours the defender outrageously, with the result that no-one dares initiate a grapple. Because if the attacker succeeds, they get hold of their opponent, and can't do anything until the next turn, but in the meantime, the defender gets to move straight to an overpowering maneuver, requiring only one success to do so on a roll already slanted in his favour (Str + Brawl minus Enemy Strength). So a successful grapple all too often is an invitation for your opponent to get a free hit or immobilize attempt in on you before you can benefit at all. Which really blows in a Werewolf game, where you expect constant grappling and close in hand to hand fighting.

Ahhh. My experience generally had the characters who were attempting the grapple either be focused in brawling, or at least decent at it, while the people they were grappling generally weren't. An actual contested roll, rather than one with a resistance attribute, sounds like it'd make competent contests make more sense.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumCall of Chthulu: Perception rolls. Everytime the group blows a perception roll... EITHER the game screaches to a halt until the clue is found OR the monster attacks without getting described. Why not just give everyone 99 perception and start the choo-choo?

I 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.

Quote from: jgantsAgreed.  I absolutely loved A Game of Thrones.  Then I read the second book and liked it, but it felt stretched out.  It wasn't too long into the third book when I realized that the story was not a trilogy (as I mistakingly believed) but in fact a Wheel of Time-esque "stretch the story to infinity" extravaganza.

Despite not overly liking the third book, I went ahead and bought the fourth one.  I shouldn't have bothered.  It didn't move the story forward one inch and didn't even bother to discuss half the characters.

It's been a couple of years now and still no word when the other "half" of the storyline for the fourth book is told.  Who knows when the full series will be finished?  At this rate, I seriously think it won't be finished before Martin dies (he's no spring chicken, after all).

I'm going back to my rule of not buying any book series until after the entire thing has been finished.

Off topic, but that was exactly my experience and also my conclusion.

Me too, except I stopped at volume 3.

For me, with Song of Ice and Fire, I almost think it would have been better if Martin had simply stopped writing after the third book. (Sarcastic people might suggest that he's done precisely that.) We've got to the point where a lot of stuff is still up in the air, it's true, but we know exactly how the Stark kids are going to turn out and most of us can make a fair guess as to how the series will resolve, and nothing Martin can produce to finish off the series could really stand up to the hype that built up around the first few books. (Also, the climax of the plotline surrounding Tyrion's relationship with his father is superb, and I doubt that Martin will ever equal it.)

I think his mistake was not going with his original plan of having years of downtime between books 3 and 4; he's fallen into the "writing up every damn thing that happens in detail" trap that Robert Jordan got into.  I don't care about learning about every significant even that happens in the entire world; just let the Stark kids grow up, come home and kick ass already.

Quote from: WarthurI think his mistake was not going with his original plan of having years of downtime between books 3 and 4; he's fallen into the "writing up every damn thing that happens in detail" trap that Robert Jordan got into.

Has he fallen into the shameless rehashing of details from previous books in the series?  That was some tedious reading.  Now there was a half hour of fun in a 4 hour session.

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.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumBut 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.

Then you shouldn't be playing CoC - if the monsters show up in that long enough to get a description you've already lost. :)

(Also, I'd hardly say that Lovecraft's stories went "rattling along the tracks at full steam", and this is the first time I've seen "Lovecraftian prose" used in a positive manner. ;) )

I never ran into a problem with the PCs in CoC not finding clues.  Or any other game for that matter.

I always run into the problems of players who either:

A) Can't recognize a clue without me point-blank pointing out it is a clue,

B) Never tell the rest of the party about the clue, so the connections between clues are missed,

OR

C) Can't draw the right conclusions from clues to save their lives.

None of the editions - BRP, D20, Gumshoe - are going to fix that problem.  If your players aren't very good at mysteries, it just doesn't work that way.

Though I have to say, I've had the most fun if you get the right group of terrible mystery solvers - it becomes a "bumbling investigator" horror/comedy game.

Quote from: Warthur(Also, I'd hardly say that Lovecraft's stories went "rattling along the tracks at full steam", and this is the first time I've seen "Lovecraftian prose" used in a positive manner. ;) )

Difference of opinion then. His works give me the feeling of vertigo and sensory overload. I think because he alternates between surreal details and blackouts... ...(thinks a bit)... ...which is exactly the experience in CoC provides through spot checks! The investigators alternate between total obliviousness and getting slapped with a hefty info-packet.

Hmm, next time, I'll try playing failed spot checks as sensory overload. "I opened the drawer, but that which I took for a key assumed a shape of grave and abhorrent significance which I dare not describe in any further detail, save that it was the YELLOW SIGN which is associated with the mad Arab Balbinus. No force could ever compel me to look again upon that impossible twisting mockery of all science, religion and geometry! So we got some explosives, went downstairs and opened a hole in the wall. Or rather, a "dark aperture" into the "cyclopean monolith."

As so often, my experience matches up with jgants's.

Spycraft: The D20 rules. Any RPG where you can survive gun-combat for more than two rounds doesn't deserve to call itself an espionage game (maybe in the James Bond sense, but the system doesn't handle heroics too well either).

Quote from: Illegible SmudgeThe grappling rules in nWoD. Of particular irritation when playing Werewolf. Actually, I've yet to see grapple rules in any game that don't suck.

I agree, WoD rules are crap for that, and so are most systems... without sounding like a fanboy for Palladium, Theirs often works out the best

aside from having to make conversions on the fly... they work pretty good, although it takes like 20 minutes to do a 3 min fight

having to upgrade my books because the systems changed, after years of memoorizing Thac0 charts...

version 2.5 ofo D&D 2nd Ed. did it for me... i wont touch anything D&D anymore, that includes anything that say D20 system

Hmmm probably the experience of playing a D&D 3ed Diablo mini campaign. The DM moved his Diablo character around on the computer screen to show where we were in the Dungeon. Wasn't the rules so much as how a lot of dungeon hacks get played, made me die a little inside :)

Silhouette Core - "Complexity" rating for skills.  Interesting in theory (2 dimensional skill value) but unusable in practice.

d20 Modern - base character classes.   So it's not exactly a rule, but... the base classes are horribly under powered.  You don't get to do anything interesting in that game until about level 4.

Savage Worlds - damage to Wild Cards (PCs, named opponents, etc...).

• If your target is not already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than your Target's Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, the target is "Shaken" (think: stunned, or dazed).
  
• If your target is not already "Shaken" (as above) and you do damage greater or equal to the target's Vitality+4, you cause 1 wound for each "Raise" (which is each increment of 4, greater than the target number) and your target is shaken.
  
• If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than their Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound. 2 shaken = 1 wound.
• HOWEVER! If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than or equal to their Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound BUT they are still just shaken.  In this case: 2 shaken <> 1 wound.
  

The lack of symmetry gives me fits.  It hurts to think about, even if it does indeed work (and well) in practice.

Quote from: architect.zeroSilhouette Core - "Complexity" rating for skills.  Interesting in theory (2 dimensional skill value) but unusable in practice.

d20 Modern - base character classes.   So it's not exactly a rule, but... the base classes are horribly under powered.  You don't get to do anything interesting in that game until about level 4.

Savage Worlds - damage to Wild Cards (PCs, named opponents, etc...).

• If your target is not already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than your Target's Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, the target is "Shaken" (think: stunned, or dazed).
  
• If your target is not already "Shaken" (as above) and you do damage greater or equal to the target's Vitality+4, you cause 1 wound for each "Raise" (which is each increment of 4, greater than the target number) and your target is shaken.
  
• If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than their Vitality, but less than Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound. 2 shaken = 1 wound.
• HOWEVER! If your target is already "Shaken" and you do damage greater than or equal to their Vitality+4, then the target takes 1 wound BUT they are still just shaken.  In this case: 2 shaken <> 1 wound.
  

The lack of symmetry gives me fits.  It hurts to think about, even if it does indeed work (and well) in practice.

I share your headache I hope that comes with an example. It reminds me of my own sometimes convoluted way of explaining things. One can learn though.

Quote from: architect.zeroSilhouette Core - "Complexity" rating for skills.  Interesting in theory (2 dimensional skill value) but unusable in practice.

We've used it quite a bit, and it worked out fine. :)

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWarthur,

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.

The biggest problem along these lines I've run into with poor GMs and poor players is the break between description of investigation and rolls for investigation.

Frex:  As a player in a Warhammer Fantasy game, I surveyed the ruins of the room the fight took place in, turned to the GM and said, "I walk through the room examining the rubble paying particular attention to the desk that got broken, taking each drawer out and looking under it and where it was."  The GM said, "roll your search."  I flubbed the roll, we missed the clue, and after the session the GM commented that half our trouble was missing the hidden compartment under one of the drawers in the desk.  That incensed me a bit as we'd specifically discussed examining for that.  But the roll dictated to him I missed it.

In similar situations, as a GM I've erred on the side of descriptions of investigation netting appropriate results with the option there that the players can just say, "we search," bounce the dice and take what happens.

As always, YMMV and I always play a heavy investgative way.  Too much Hammett growing up.