The Forge Archives

Okay, now that I'm back to playing CoC, it's time to rewrite Chthonian. The working name will be Chthonian Redux, but I do want to eventually make it sound like its own game. Probably Terrible Insight or something like that.

Anyhow, here's the game in a sentence:
Players are normal people who get wrapped up in ever-increasingly horrifying situations, fighting an uphill battle against insanity and annihilation.

Do I get a second sentence? The horrible truth is that humanity is but a speck in the dust of the cosmos

There will be a nod to Lovecraft, but not a cohesive Mythos. Not even a definitive list o' Deities and such.

Inspiration: HP Lovecraft fiction (particularly: Shadow over Innsmouth, the Lurking Fear, Pickman's Model), "survival-horror" style video games, others I'm sure.

---

Okay, now that I've got the setup in mind, it's time to think a about GNS. I am absolutely going for what I want d20/BRP Call of Cthulhu to be: Choices are Exploration of Situation/Character that turn Gamist under stress. So it's all exploration until the creature steps out of the shadows; then it's time for you all to kick ass or run away.

---

So, how will my System promote the GNS split I want? For Exploration of Situation/Character, I'm going with an explicit Skill List. No attributes that modify skills or saving throws or the like. For the Gamist, you've got dwindling resources in the form of Sanity and Health.

I now break the Skill List down by thinking, what do I want my PCs to do?:
- Be alerted/disconcerted by noises/smells/weird feeling, etc.
- Research and study to uncover the truth
- Interrogate and persuade non-PCs
- Shoot things (often blindly, into shadows)
- Fight things (cultists, zombie cats, etc)
- Avoid physical danger or get hurt
- Avoid/Resist mental trauma, leading to both insanity and insight

Anything else I missed here?

---

More stuff:
- I'm planning on a Class-based System. Your Skills are predetermined by choosing a Class (these are "what you do" roles, like Soldier, Professor, Student, Journalist, etc). Customization? You pick a Field and Hobby, which are the only two player-determined "skills".

- No whiffs, instead there're levels of success and failure. I want the system to produce highs & lows in both Power and Finesse. By this, I mean a person can achieve a "shotgun" success at one end (blunt, but all-encompassing results), and/or a "sniper" success (highly focused). Not sure how to do this, but I'm working on it.

- Scenario/Campaign design will follow the same method in d20 Call o Cthulhu. If it isn't broke, don't fix it :)

---

I'll post more later. Questions? Comments?

Quote from: Zak Arntson
- No whiffs, instead there're levels of success and failure. I want the system to produce highs & lows in both Power and Finesse. By this, I mean a person can achieve a "shotgun" success at one end (blunt, but all-encompassing results), and/or a "sniper" success (highly focused). Not sure how to do this, but I'm working on it.

I'll post more later. Questions? Comments?

Zak

Thought I'd chime in on this particular point. Basically, your talking about a resolution system with 2 "axes" of Success.

Probably the best multiple axis of success system is the one from godlike. Where you roll multiple D10s, and count matching dice. Giving you Width (the number of matches), and Height (the actual number matched, with higher matches indicating greater results.)

So the obvious match would be to have the number of matches represent the Power, and the number matched represent Finesse. Then you could have a relatively low quality of success(Height), but with far reaching effects (Power). Perhaps your Width would give you control over how much you are able to narrate your Height (quality of effect.) Maybe, a Width of 1 is 1 action, and Width of 2 is a task/conflict resolution, Width of 3 Scene resolution or something similar. With the actual height determining quality of success/narration of results.

Just some ideas.

Rob

How'bout something a bit like Godlike, but with playing cards? Hand size is determined by skill, all that jazz, you get it. Seems more natural somehow. Could have a rule for "splits," too.

Zak, on your list of actions/skills you forgot persuading people, which may or may not include languages.

I would vote against cards, I can't see how they link thematically to the game in the way they do with CF, Deadlands or Dust Devils.

RobMuadib,
After struggling with a ton of Power/Finesse-type rolling mechanisms, I've decided against it. The system would place too much attention (through handling time, anticipation of different results, etc) on the System. I originally would have the Players choose Power vs. Finesse, but that was way too much System for my taste. And any Power/Finesse rolls with just a roll of the dice I worked on weren't clean enough and/or didn't offer a good distribution. But I've come up with an alternative that allows for Expl. of Character.

Henry,
I decided at the beginning to stick with 6-sided dice. I couldn't consider playing cards unless it were appropriate for the game, such as Tarot Cards for a spiritual/fantasy/fate-driven game or a Poker deck for a Wild-West game.

Balbinus,
On the list is "Interrogate & Persuade," so I've gotcha covered.

Okay, I went and bought a spiral notebook for writing this game. Hopefully I'll put it to good use. Here's the System so far:

Class:
I haven't come up with a better name than Class, yet. Probably Occupation. Anyhow, this includes things like: Engineer, Student, Professor, Laborer, Journalist, Soldier, Dilettante. A Class gives you concrete Skill scores.

In addition to your Class, you select a Field and a Hobby. Your Field is a concentration, such as Engineer - Civil Engineering, or Professor - Mathematics. Hobby is something else you're PC is interested in. Such as Hobby -

Quote from: example
Example character from my d20 Cthulhu game:
Class: Student
Field: Journalism
Hobby: Skating

---

Skills:
Your PC consists of 6 Skills. These are given numbers by your Class, so there's no rolling. A Skill of 2 is average. For each Skill, you are allowed to give it a Descriptor if you like. Here's the list of Skills & sample Descriptors:

Stamina: strong, nimble, tough
Awareness: alert, intuititive
Research: studious, contacts, creative
Persuade: forceful, manipulative
Shoot: precise, wild
Fight: scrapper, martial artist

Quote from: example
Skater character:
Stamina: 2 nimble
Awareness: 4 alert
Research: 3
Persuade: 2
Shoot: 1
Fight: 1 scrapper

---

Conflict:
I scrapped the Power/Finesse stuff. I figured that a Descriptor allows a Player to act with Power or Finesse (a Stamina toughness PC will use Power, whilie a Stamina nimble PC would be Finesse) without a funky dice system. Instead, the system is as follows (inspired by the "Yes, but; Yes, and; No" mention in another thread I can't find):

Fortune-in-the-middle. General intent announced first (or the GM just springs a roll on the Players, in the event of unexpectedness). The GM assigns a difficulty number. You roll a number of dice equal to your Score. Plus one die if you are able and wnat to apply your Descriptor (which means your result MUST incorporate your Descriptor, for better or worse). Each die equal to or above Difficulty is a Success:

0 Successes - "No, and": Unfavorable results which further game
1 Success - "Yes, but": Success with some complication
2+ Successes - "Yes, and": Favorable results which further game

Any result should keep the game moving ahead. After figuring your result, the GM and Player work together to go from announced intent to actual intent. GM has the final say, but should take into account Player suggestions.

Blah.

Skill packages.

Zak, I think what would be really cool are "personality packages" that actually affect your ability in the game. Basically, I'm talking about the "quiet, studious, cautious" type and the "manic, wild-eyed freak."  Both would have specific functions in the game...kinda like one character type is "...in quest of" and the other is more like "dealing with it."

Jared,
While personality packages would be great, I don't think it fits the game I'm aiming for. I'm also having an internal battle between numbers or not numbers. On one hand, the Players would like to have numbers & effectiveness. On the other hand, maybe I'm misreading my Players. More discussion w/ my Players is needed.

I had another idea, though, sparked by your Personality Packages. There isn't an emphasis on Skill scores. And instead of a "what can you do," the System emphasizes "how you do it." Resolution is: If it follows your Descriptor, you get a bonus to your roll. Otherwise, you're at average-effectiveness.

This way would be a sort of "sum of personality, abilities, etc. at a glance." The Persuade (Aggressive Fast-Talker) would have a different personality than the Persuade (Calm and logic reasoning) PC. The System, by providing bonuses for following the Descriptor, would reward and encourage using the personality/ability.

Example:
Persuade - Aggressive fast-talking
Research - Internet browsing
Stamina - Quick to dodge
Reflexes - Keen hearing
Shoot - Blindly shooting
Fight - Covers his face

With this system, I'd like to have other "Skills" that are how the PC deals with the stress of mental turbulence, like
Unknown - Concocts skeptical explanations
Anger - Lashes out at inanimate objects

And so on.

So, questions for everyone:
- What do you feel about the direction this is going?
- How can I reconcile a traditional numbers = effectiveness with the Personality/Ability Descriptor? What are your feelings on combining the two?
- Would the Descriptors being explicitly "how you do this Skill" do well to portray both personality and ability?

Lastly, I haven't posted the Sanity/Safety rules. They're essentially a dwindling resource to keep Stress high. Nothing fancy there.

Quote from: Zak ArntsonThis way would be a sort of "sum of personality, abilities, etc. at a glance." The Persuade (Aggressive Fast-Talker) would have a different personality than the Persuade (Calm and logic reasoning) PC. The System, by providing bonuses for following the Descriptor, would reward and encourage using the personality/ability.

SNIP

With this system, I'd like to have other "Skills" that are how the PC deals with the stress of mental turbulence, like
Unknown - Concocts skeptical explanations
Anger - Lashes out at inanimate objects

Totally. This is what I was trying to say but...uh, failing. :) I think that could really add a lot to the game play, because it would encourage characters to play to a "type" (like the hysterical chick, the muttering insane dude, the way too intellectual scientist, etc.).

Better still if the characters' responses drove the action. Better still if intra-character friction could be invoked by having opposite-aligned personalities clash and cause stress...

Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen
Better still if the characters' responses drove the action. Better still if intra-character friction could be invoked by having opposite-aligned personalities clash and cause stress...

It might be fun to have an "fear/stress/anxiety meter" for the scenario as a whole.  Kind of like a thermometer guaging the level of intensity currently being experienced.  Some characters might have descriptors that give them bonuses when the meter is high encouraging those characters to "charge in where angels fear to tread".  Other characters might have descriptors that give them bonuses when the meter is low encouraging those characters to plan and analyse and proceed with caution.

The intra character friction might then be encouraged by players trying to reduce or jack up the meter for maximum character effectiveness.

Even simpler would be to have "High Stress/Low Stress" be a scene toggle rather than a meter, with character actions helping to set the toggle.

What I'd be most interested in when it comes to such a system is how it differs from BRP (CoC's rules do allow for non-Mythos adventures already). It's simpler, which does to a degree encourage a more freeform style of play, at least until it comes to the high-stress points of the scenario like you said. So I think that works so far.

Quote- How can I reconcile a traditional numbers = effectiveness with the Personality/Ability Descriptor? What are your feelings on combining the two?

Right now what you've got is a start- the descriptor helps the numbers if it's appropriate. In a way it reminds me of both ARS MAGICA and OVER THE EDGE. Perhaps as a counterweight, Ability and Personality scores in the "negative" range (below whatever the average is) would have a negative descriptor and a situation where the character attempts something that would invoke that (the jumpy guy has to lie perfectly still while live tarantulas crawl on him) incurs a penalty.

The game SCARED STIFF (demos and such at http://www.playbmovie.com) has an interesting system for things like Superstition, Paranoia, etc. that could provide a prod in the right direction as far as Personality stats. I guess the best thing to do is work out what kinds of things in the game provoke mental turbulence, and therefore provide individual stats that correspond to each category (supernatural beasties would tax Unknown, particularly grisly sights tax Constitution, etc.) This could tie into Sanity/Safety- you'd take less of a hit from some things and more from others depending on your stats.

Jared,
You nut. So you got me going in a good direction after all. Though I want to keep intra-character interaction fairly smooth; group cooperation against an outside force is key. Though I could be convinced otherwise. I do like the thought of increasing PC tension. I'm just not sure if that's what my group (myself included) wants out of a session.

Valamir,
This would indicate a certain amount of Author-stance. I'm not sure if that's the direction I want to head. Most of my games lately have been Author/Director-stance. I want to head back to GM lays-it-down with Player suggestions.

Oh, and there will definitely be some type of barometer to measure stress. I'll bring it up below.

Evan,
This system will differ from BRP's in that I have an explicit way I want the game to be played. None of this "if only I find a way to use Research, I can hash the skill and maybe increase it at the end of the adventure" (exp. of System). In addition, PCs are not weak monster-food.

===

I'm thinking of combining the scores w/ descriptors. Use the Descriptor and you get a bonus. Even negative Descriptors would offer a bonus (remember the results of a roll are "Yes, and", "Yes, but" and "No, and", so there's room for successful "failures")

Still sticking with the six Skills. On the char sheet I'll order them in how I picture a scenario to run: Stamina, Reflexes (the "gotcha!" hook), Persuade, Research (the investigation phase), Shoot, Fight (the "boss-fights" and climax).

Working on the safety/sanity bit, still. So far the rules are: You have 10 slots in a Score (safety/sanity score).  Damage is measured in hashes through a slot, either a "T" (Temporary) or "P" (Permanent). Temporary means you can easily shrug it off at the end of the scene. Permanent means you _may_ shrug it off at the end of the scene, but it most likely lasts throughout the scenario.

Damage/Sanity-loss consists of making a roll and losing a certain amount of points depending on your successes. A Knife-toothed bat, for example, would be: Fight - Wicked flashing teeth - Difficulty 3+ (0/1T/2T). This means, 2+ successes = 0 damage, 1 success = 1T damage, 0 successes = 2T damage.

Right now, the only Damage/Sanity scores I can come up with are:
Unnatural (ability to cope with weirdness, like Man-eating Tapeworms)
Violence (ability to handle obvious shit, like a rabid dog just gouged your friend)
Safety (ability to avoid subduing damage, your "Health")

Hey,

Maybe I need to read this more carefully, but right now, it looks as if we're grading into Unknown Armies design territory, with its Madness Meters.

Am I wrong? I might be; as I say, I'm not quite following all the ins & outs of Zak's design process anyway. Help me out and explain how it's different.

Best,
Ron

With regards to allowing for shotgun and sniper successes the simplest option would seem to be a dice pool system. Roll a handful of dice and successes can be used to buy various effects.

For example, a research roll results in two successes. You can choose to find out two facts about the occult group in question or one highly detailed fact. Perhaps you could even allow the player to buy an additional success by accepting a linked failure. The player could buy an additional success giving him three references by accepting a failure, maybe the process takes twice as long, maybe he actually finds four references but one of them is completely wrong (it'd depend on desired style of play wether or not the player is told which is wrong I'd guess).

I might be wrong but I think this would neatly handle the problems of whiffs, leading naturally to a system that results in 'No and', 'Yes but', and 'Yes' results.

Ron,
Unknown Armies madness meters: I've noticed that, don't worry. Is this a bad thing? Yes, since I'm not fond of the initial impressions the Madness Meter gave me. No, because I haven't actually played UA to see how it works. In my design notebook, I've hashed out a different way to do things, anyway. It was looking close to UA's madness meters, and I really didn't want to force a lot of number/checkmark juggling. Question: Are you implying that borrowing/being inspired by a madness meter-like mechanic would be bad?:

You have two meters (which is, essentialy what hit points from D&D, madness from UA, sanity from CoC): Safety and Sanity. These start out at X and keep going down to zero. The mechanics and particulars of each are still in the air.

In addition to this, you have an amount of Skill in different areas of Sanity. Violence, Unnatural, Anger, etc. Each of these has a Descriptor (again, the What do you DO?).

Find a bag of fingers? That's a Violence check against Sanity, Diff 4+ (0/1T/1P).
Shot at by a thug? That's a Reflexes check against Safety, Diff 3+ (0/2T/2P).

I haven't reconciled a diminshing Sanity/Safety affects rolls. The original mechanic was 10 points = 10 dice (no Violence, Unnatural, etc), similar to CoC's Sanity mechanic. The less sane you got, the harder it was to succeed against weirdness. Still pondering it.

Design Process: Ron, you're looking at it. This is why I have so many half-baked games out there. I'll follow avenues, try things out, abandon a game completely. And so on.

---

Andy, I've decided against the Shotgun/Sniper approach to resolution. But it's something to keep in mind for future design. (which reminds me to buy Godlike maybe today)