I have to admit that I don't think it follows that easily. It was easier to justify getting Bookhounds, since it built directly off Trail, whereas Esoterrorists means you're buying a lot of the same basic materials all over. I think that a direction to check out Esoterrorists for a modern setting would cover the same idea without causing any issues about competing.
No, it could even be police v Mythos.
The Armitage Files, now with added Ennie Award.
Or internet conspiracy nuts vs the mythos?
True, but Pelgrane already has Fear Itself.Originally Posted by The_Tatterdemalion_King
Is it really necessary to use some of the limited pages with which to update ToC in order to add in a fifth modern GUMSHOE settings that you can insert the Mythos into when you're writing a period book? And why use the pages for modern (considering that they have tons of material out for that) when they could use it to add older times, such as they did in Hellfire.
Especially since time period is less a campaign frame and more of a setting. There's no reason that Bookhounds, Project Covenant and the Armitage Inquiry can't work in modern day. And there's also the issue that adding a different time period as a campaign frame since it means you're now advocating a new time period and then forgetting to give any equipment, vehicles or weapons for that period.
Arkham Detective Tales needs to have a more fleshed out campaign frame.Originally Posted by GBSteve
Have to agree with all of this.
Last edited by Justin F; 17th January 2012 at 03:32 PM.
I am reading this thread. We are a least another print run away from a new version, so I'll just park this as reference.
I think the character creation quick reference, which tells you what to do in which order with page references is generally ignored (certainly judging by this thread). We can deal with this.
The existence of Esoterrorists and Fear Itself would not preclude us from doing a modern campaign frame of Trail; but we are unlikely to include it in the core book, because it requires too much back-up. A modern campaign frame would be different to Esoterrorists - just to give you an idea why Eso is different to Mythos-based adventures, read this review of a recently released Esoterrorists adventure.
I don't think crunchy combat rules have a place in the core Trail book - it doesn't feature in any Lovecraft works at all, but back dating the Fact Book rules as part of a supplement might be possible.
The rules do need reorganizing, particulary Sanity, and some explanations should be more detailed.
There are some new GUMSHOE rules and explanations of general applicability which should be rolled into these rules.
We'd do a new adventure.
Last edited by GBSteve; 17th January 2012 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Fixed link
Pelgrane Press Ltd
Some Rough Magics updates to magic section.
Updated Drives, Careers & Abilities.
Clarity on how to handle fluctuations of ratings vs pools (do rating increases rise current pool etc).
All rules and exceptions relating to Sanity in one reference place, likewise Health and Stability.
New campaign frames, new adventure.
Collected advice for keepers from various pagexx articles.
Expanded advice on using and crumbling pillars, mythos shocks. And how it all stacks up with stability loss as a sequence of scenes play out.
Description and advice about the scene types found In the published adventures (antagonist scene etc)
Last edited by daedalum; 17th January 2012 at 10:30 PM.
I love ToC & have played it for years. However my group (myself included) don't fully understand the Sanity/Stability rules. It would be great if this very important set of mechanics was streamlined & explained better.
If there is a chance the combat rules could be fleshed out, even a little bit, I would be grateful. I'm fine with "narrative combat", I just find that the first few rounds of combat are too predictable.
In a semi-purist game, with few combats between refreshes, there's little incentive for players not to spend as many points as possible to guarantee hits. Usually the baddies do the same. I'm not really asking for "crunchy", I just want my combat to be less predictable. There should be at least a chance of a surprise hit or miss; such things make memorable and enjoyable gaming moments.
I have some house rules for these situations that I've described elsewhere, and they work well. But something formalized in the rules would improve one of my few complaints about an otherwise excellent system.