[From Beyond]
David Hallett:
Quote from: stefoid on March 08, 2011, 02:51:48 PM
I got really excited when I read the 'gambling with the facts' box, until I realised that the GM established the facts and the player had to guess what the real facts were. At first I thought the players, in character, could make hypothesis about what the nature of the mystery or parts of it might be, and if the GM decided to take on those hypothesis into the plot, or part of it, the player would get rewarded. What I initially thought you were getting at before I read the text carefully was that the GM laid all these various clues around the place, with no fixed idea as to the true nature of the trouble, and the fun was the players 'creating' the monster themselves with their imaginification, from the various clues they managed to find.
Nothing quite so radical! But it is designed to be slightly driftable in that direction. The idea is that where a group is absolutely wedded to the GM as the sole author of a "fixed" scenario, this is a little bit of Step On Up for those who fancy themselves as amateur Sherlocks. But with a more improvising GM, it also rewards players whose contributions are cool enough to make the GM think "I'm stealing that!"
But for something more player-driven, there's the InSpectres hack Unspeakable. This is not that. I mean, there's actually nothing to stop the GM from running it in the way you suggest, and that could be very cool if done right, although how and when to increment Doom would be an interesting question. But it's not compulsory or standard.
David Hallett:
Quote from: stefoid on March 08, 2011, 10:20:08 PM
Maybe its because the games where Ive played CoC have been, dysfunctional, but I am scarred by 'investigative style play'.
Dave or anyone, can you tell me what functional investigative play looks like?
Well, I think I can identify three major hurdles it must overcome.
1. Failed rolls that must succeed (otherwise known as bad scenario design). From Beyond's use of Doom rules that one out.
2. Poorly motivated PCs. It's essential to match the scenario design to the PCs. Pulpy scenarios where the PCs are supposed to fly to Rio because they heard it mentioned in a bar conversation must have unattached, thrill-seeking adrenaline junkies for PCs. If the players want to play normal folks who want a quiet life, then the horror absolutely must pursue them, not the other way around. I think there is no substitution for the GM and players understanding this point, but I intend to make it very clear in the final text.
3. Clues too easy or too hard. This one can be tricky if your group is focused on the challenge of deciphering the mystery, although I tend to think of the purpose of investigation as primarily one of generating atmosphere, not challenge. The answer IMO is as outlined in Trail of Cthulhu - make the core clues easy enough to be near certain that the PCs will find their way through; make the harder clues offer the information they need to survive or succeed when they get there. This basically works pretty well. It's also easier when you use the "scenario pursues the PCs" option, because you can't miss the plot train when it's headed straight for you. Again, it's hard for a game design to address this head on or enforce it, but I won't be shy about addressing it in the text.
Does that help?
Mike Sugarbaker:
Quote from: stefoid on March 08, 2011, 10:20:08 PM
My dysfunctional play looks like this:
1) something relevant to the characters occurs - (a bang in other words)
2) players arrive and investigate the scene looking for clues (invoke task resolution such as 'observe' to notice clues) potential confrontation/conflict may occur.
3) players may or may not find clues - potential story stall.
4) players that do find clues then research clues (invoke task resolution such as research to understand clue significance)
5) players may or may not research well - potential story stall.
6) assumption: either (2) and/or (4) go well enough to lead to the next investigative scene. rinse and repeat (2)->(6) until case closed.
Your problem points 3 and 5 are exactly what Trail of Cthulhu was created to address. And it addresses them successfully, although it's a bit lackluster apart from this IMO.
I mean, ToC isn't that old, granted, but it's been a couple years. I'm surprised not to see it as part of this discussion already.
Uh, as long as I'm contributing solely by pointing at other games and grunting: David, have you had a look at Cthulhu Dark yet?
David Hallett:
Yes, Mike, I've seen it and think it's great. Obviously it has different design goals from this game, but it would be my weapon of choice for rapid-pickup Cthulhoid gaming, especially with folks who "just want to play their character" and are wary of "too much system".
Totally agree that ToC solves some of these problems, though not totally to my liking, as should be obvious from the fact that I feel the need to design something else!
David Berg:
Quote from: David Hallett on March 09, 2011, 02:06:37 PM
heroic deaths over something that really matters are great.
I feel this way too, but I'm very picky about the particulars. Getting killed in the final confrontation of the adventure is fine by me. Getting killed in the penultimate scene, and having to sit out the final scene, is not fine by me, unless I died doing the thing that got the other players to the final scene. That's about where the line is for me between frustrating death and fun death. Where is it for you?
I should also note that I'm much less disappointed to die if I can still play somehow (zombie, wraith, evil NPC, etc.).
Quote from: David Hallett on March 09, 2011, 02:06:37 PM
As Doom, the way I think of it is that early in the story, the PCs are lucky . . . As the story progresses, however, their luck steadily runs out.
Sorry, I have to stick with "feels metagamey". I think it risks Gareth and Steve sitting down at the same table with different assumptions about the logic of play. Or Gareth not sitting down at all.
I take it Composure damage and escalating monster encounters aren't doin' it for ya?
If you'd like to stick with "luck runs out", I'd want an in-fiction explanation of that. Like, you've been cursed by interacting with Mythos stuff, and we throw in some environmental color to back that up (your stuff breaks or disappears, your pet dies, the power on your block goes down, pigeons crap on you, etc.).
Quote from: David Hallett on March 09, 2011, 02:06:37 PM
I agree I don't have the trade-off between Shadow and Insight right yet. It needs to be a real dilemma. How about if making the attempt to increase Insight in itself costs 1 Humanity?
Yeah, hitting Humanity harder would help. Once the risk of turning into an NPC is on the table, then it's much more of a dilemma! Attempts at gaining Insight might not come around frequently enough to achieve that, though. Or would they? Hmm. I'll ponder some more, but I'm not quite dedicated enough to map out the final rates of exchange between all your currencies. If you do that, though, I'd definitely look it over!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page