Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition Project Authors' Seminar Recording (Continuum 2012)

[wombat1]

The crucial point is whether the book is as backwards compatible as they claim. We have seen in the last couple of years a new Cthulhu Invictus edition, taking it up from a monograph, a new Cthulhu By Gaslight, and I believe there is a new Cthulhu Dark Ages in the works. All of these are or will be keyed to the 6th edition. This does not even begin to think about the campaign books.

My inclination is, because I have an 'infrastructure' of 5/6th edition, including extra rules copies for players, is to stick with that. I heard very little in the podcast that I like in any event. The BRP level of success aspect is good for a combat-detailed game, and I would happily use it for a straight up fantasy game, but CoC is a stripped down version of BRP, and always has been, to drag it back in the degree of success business is going to slow things down.

The resistance table can stay--it is described in the podcast as a means of letting the player roll things rather than the keeper--I solve that by letting the player roll, while I determine the dice % needed.

(And as for no maths, I am quite through dumbing down my environment, both in my gaming and everything else.)

[TrippyHippy]

I think one of the major problems with D&D4 was that all previous editions were kept unavailable (as pdfs) which is unlikely to happen with CoC7. If you want to keep playing by 6th edition rules, they'll be still be available online, and in your own collection of course. In terms of current in print rules, I guess the BRP gold book will become the archive book for all previous versions of the rules, in the same way that RQ's old Strike Ranks are still kept in print.

7th Edition has to be different. Backwards compatible would be nice, and still seems to be the case, but there is literally no point in rehashing the old game again. The market is more competitive than it was - we now have Trail of Cthulhu, Realms of Cthulhu (Savage Worlds), The Laundry, Clockwork and Cthulhu (Renaissance rules), and soon Delta Green rpg. Call of Cthulhu can't just appeal to nostalgia - it's got to be better than it's competitors.

Some of the rules are sensible additions that solve long term issues - the idea of graded skills (1/2 Rolls, 1/5 rolls) etc, is essentially already widely used in an unofficial sense, and it does make an effective way of integrating the Characteristic scores on the same scale at last. The Resistance table is regarded as clunky to many gamers, and had to go in my view. The 'Connections' and 'Luck' rules are basically the same as World of Darkness's Willpower and Personality rules.

I do hope to be able to see a copy of the new character sheet soon, as that would enlighten me the most as to the new rules. My major concern is that the game will be useful for new gamers, without too many convoluted rules to master. Call of Cthulhu should remain an exemplary introductory game.

[GBSteve]

From my experience of playing the game there is nothing there to scare the horses. It's easily backwards compatible and clears up a lot of the niggles with the rules that were never explained in earlier versions.

You will of course be required to burn all previous rule sets. A date has been set for December 31 2012 for this to happen and a few verses (in Mayan for some reason) will be circulated to read as you purge your collection.

[Justin F]

This sounds promising (although I'm not sure I understand how combat will work). I'm looking forward to seeing and playing it.

[Emrys]

I'm encouraged by the reports of those who've actually played 7e (although I'm still not convinced that there's anything wrong with the resistance table).

A poor roll doesn't necessarily mean failure, it means complication. The Librarian with 80% skill in Library Use doesn't fail 1 in 5 times to find a book. The Librarian never fails (even on a fumble). Failure indicates how hard it is to get that book out of the Library or that a cultist already has it on loan. Low skills are still the bane of BRP for me. Sure you can fudge this, but I'd like it to be in the rules.

Doesn't this approach mean than skills themselves become less meaningful? If you're always going to succeed, albeit with complications in some cases, what's the point in investing points in a specific skill? Doesn't it reduce the need to spend Luck points for a more favourable result (depending on what the complications may be, of course)?

The connections worked well in our game too. We had four good players and a good GM so it was always going to be fun, but this gave us an extra bit of interest without being directive.

That's certainly reassuring.

The only thing reservation I have in this respect is Luck and SAN being derived from the same stat. POW is still too powerful. My PC had 5 POW so started with 25 Luck, less than half of anyone else, and only 25 SAN so not in much danger of making any of those rolls either. Cthulhu is already hard enough without making characters this weak.

One of the YSDC audio games (I forget which one) used what I think was referred to as "Hollywood Luck". In that game Luck% was based off APP rather than POW. It reduces POW's influence on a character and makes APP less of a "dump stat" to boot.

While connections can/do boost your luck you'll find it does it nowhere near as fast as you'll need it but you'll find just saying stuff to get luck back gets very tiresome very quickly as a player as well as for the Keeper.

That's what concerns me. Just because something's become tiresome doesn't mean a player will stop dragging in references to a connection - from what's been said their characters will need those extra points of Luck to survive. I assume it's always up to the keeper whether or not a connection can be ticked, though, which should temper luck-farming(TM).

Having more resilient characters is no bad thing either. I much prefer developing a character to a depth than chugging my way through a series of short lived PCs.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with this (although my players may be surprised by this).

I'm just not yet seeing how some of the changes are an improvement on 6e - I understand the benefit of having guidelines on how to play the game as part of the rulebook but it still feels to me as if some of the changes (I keep thinking about the dropping of the resistance table) are being made purely for the sake of making changes.

In the Trail forum there's a brief combat example that shows how that system works. I'd be very interested to see something similar for 7e - it's quite likely that something like this would address a lot of my concerns about the changes.

[PoC]

One of the YSDC audio games (I forget which one) used what I think was referred to as "Hollywood Luck". In that game Luck% was based off APP rather than POW. It reduces POW's influence on a character and makes APP less of a "dump stat" to boot.

That would be The Devil's Paradise, run by Blennophobia. Much fun was had in that game and the "Hollywood Luck" certainly added a kind of filmic quality to it.

[HomoLupusDomesticus]

I must say I really like what I heared from the seminar and, assuming Chaosium won't be too reluctant to add the proposed changes, look forward to getting the 7th edition book once it's out.

[TrippyHippy]

My understanding of combat is that it will now be based upon a contested roll, where participants roll against thier 'Fighting' skill. If you score a success, you score damage regardless (with it's magnitude linked to the degree of success) - unless your opponent rolls a greater success (1/2 skill, 1/5 skill, etc). This means all participants can damage each other simultaneously. Is this correct?

[TAK]

I am excited about the changes. If I wanted to keep playing all good BRP I wouldn't crave for a new edition. Some changes, specially combat and sanity, really got my attention. I really look forward to play insanity in the way it was described by Paul and Mike. Let´s see what happens when I play it. I just hope Chaosium does't remove all the good parts when it is published. I will be buying this and will be putting it on the table even faster as soon as it is released.

And even though no one has mentioned it, this started to sound a little bit more like Trail, which can never be bad.

TBH, after a few sessions of Trail, I think, I like it better for Cthulhu than BRP or maybe it's the adventure. Not that we've been huge sticklers for the rules in CoC either, I just think Trail is even smoother, especially for Skype play. I don't know how I feel about that, as I've confessed my love for BRP multiple times. I am torn between 2 great systems.

[Xipuloxx]

I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it does sound like they're cleaning up a lot of the clutter and confusion that's plagued CoC for years. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the potential of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I like the idea of investigator organisations. They provide an easy way to bring together a disparate group and introduce replacement characters (and if you don't like them, just ignore them). In general, I like what they said about giving more giuidance to the Keeper.

I like what I've heard about magic and insanity. But I don't agree at all with their premise that "Lovecraft wouldn't have worried about continuity between stories, therefore we won't". Lovecraft wasn't trying to create a coherent universe; most of his stories were standalone, even if they shared ideas and entities. As a CoC Keeper, if I'm running a campaign I want to create a consistent world, and that means (for example) I want consistent rules about how long it takes to read a Mythos tome.

I'm delighted to hear the skills will be streamlined. There really is no need for a distinction between Fast Talk and Persuade, for example, nor for all those individual combat skills. But if you cut combat down to just two skills (hand-to-hand fighting and firearms), doesn't that make it far too easy to be a combat monster? That doesn't feel very Lovecraftian! Even if your character doesn't start off that way, survive a few fights and you should see your combat skills rise rapidly.

I like the idea of Luck being spent for success, but I believe they said it won't refresh between scenarios. I would definitely want that to be up to the Keeper, as it could be a real problem for campaigns (as well as illogical, if weeks or months pass). And I could see it creating a problem of players trying to shoehorn in their connections at every opportunity to get the points.

I don't think there was any mention of making the game feel less old fashioned in terms of rolling dice for character generation and development. In my game I've introduced a points-buy system as well as experience points, and had hoped 7th ed would include something similar, even if only as optional rules.

I don't understand how things will work without a resistance table at all. Sure, you can match a skill or characteristic against another character, but what about forcing a door, or picking up a heavy object (to give two common examples)? Will the Keeper just ask for a roll under half your STR, or 1/5 your STR, or whatever? That seems to me to be a backward step, making the system less flexible.

But it's hard to judge without seeing it for myself. I'll certainly buy it, but I'm not convinced I'll like it.

[WiseWolf]

My understanding of combat is that it will now be based upon a contested roll, where participants roll against thier 'Fighting' skill. If you score a success, you score damage regardless (with it's magnitude linked to the degree of success) - unless your opponent rolls a greater success (1/2 skill, 1/5 skill, etc). This means all participants can damage each other simultaneously. Is this correct?

This is my understanding as well. It makes sense. More realistic. When you fight you try to both protect yourself and do as much harm as possible at the same time, fighting doesn't take turns. Plus, I will always remember the fight in the Horrible Secret Of Monhegan Island scenario, we spent I don't recall how many rounds trying to punch the cultists since we had no guns. Bad gaming mechanics.

[MarkRyan]

Having caught the seminar at Continuum and being fortunate enough to play in a Cthulhu 7 game (thank you Mike Mason) I feel I got a reasonable insight into how it will look. I didn't like it much. I'm not going to proffer a blow by blow break down of what I understand of the changes in these hallowed pages, but none of it seemed particularly necessary or an improvement. It seemed to me in some ways a step back with the updated rules system resembling the old game 'Maelstrom' (by Alexander Scott, originally published by Penguin in 1984 but recently revamped by Arion games). Perhaps this is CoCs evolutionary path.

Buy it if it comes out to support Chaosium.

Oh and throw out the new hit point system, it confused me. Use an average of half con and siz?

corpse-eater

[PhoneCallOfCthulhu]

7th Edition has to be different. [...] Call of Cthulhu can't just appeal to nostalgia - it's got to be better than it's competitors.

That's fine for you. But that Call of Cthulhu is not already better than it's competitors is just an opinion. Like it's just an opinion that I think that it already is. Ultimately, the opinion of Chaosium is the only one that will really matter.

You will of course be required to burn all previous rule sets. A date has been set for December 31 2012 for this to happen and a few verses (in Mayan for some reason) will be circulated to read as you purge your collection.

I know GBSteve that you're only making a joke and I know that to a lot of people having their own old rulebooks or access to the pdf is enough. But to me there are considerable advantages to playing the currently in-print or "living" rules. Such as pointing new players to their FLGS where they can easily get the book. If, of course, Chaosium would allow the PDF to be available also as print-on-demand, then that would be really nice. There's a reason the D&D retro-clones became so popular at the table rather than just as a publishing aid like their author first thought they would be. It's a lot easier to tell a group of six new players to go and get Labyrinth Lord than to find 6 copies of the Moldvay/Cook B/X box sets on ebay.

[Tigger_MK4]

Heh, there already is a CoC retro-clone I believe - GORE.

I think this is a pretty bad move because you're now splitting the sourcebook market. I certainly won't be buying any more if they have 7e type stats.

Why companies feel they need to chase after customers that don't like their existing game by abandoning their current fans is beyond me. I guess they figure their old fans will stay no matter what, but it rarely seems to work out that way.

Oh dear. You've made some big assumptions here that just arent correct.

Jeremy let me assure you, the CoC changes dont affect the viability of the old sourcebooks, nor are they abandoning their old fans. the games has changed a little...but not alot. The characteristic changes are just swapping names... The old idea roll is now your int stat...the old int stat equivalent is now one-fifth of your idea roll, dfor example.

Despite the fact i know one of the authors personally, believe you me, i'd scream blue murder if they did something like you're imagining..( In fact i did - when they suggested taking out dodge. fortunately, under threat of assault with a wet haddock, paul and mike revisited the idea. )

The new edition isnt perfect, and there are some changes where i disagree with paul and mike...But i do think its an improvement overall...
..... AND having played it for a nine month campaign, i can assure you its still CoC, its not abandoning anything.

Also, i'd point out that mike and paul arent industry insiders only redesigning a game so it can sell more copies for the company(although that would be nice...). They're fans of the game, just like everyone else, who have done it for the love of the game, in an attempt to make it better. This is is no d&d 4th edition...more like a pathfinder revision.

The change in the MELEE combat skills is a moderate change but after a while you dont notice it, and it only affects melee. I can take it or leave it, but it works fine.

The hp changes are not extensive and work well.

The luck change works very nicely in practice, and i dont think those who actually try it in practice will find it disappointing.

Pauls comments on the idea rolls: is an idea that can be implemented , but is not a core mechanic of the game. Persoanlly i take more of a ToC approach to clues myself when Gming. Paul likes his players to really sweat for the clues, as i well know....

Character generation is effectively unchanged bar a renaming of the know/int rolls, etc.

Contested Skill vs skill rolls is easier. So its understanding/calculating what you need to do for a difficult roll.

Connections i personally can take or leave. The way they're implemented means they can effectively be treated as optional.

Overall, i think its a good ruleset. And for those worried, remember that it IS back-compatible, so your old stuff is still valid, and you should be able to convert new stuff without too much difficulty.

[jcfiala]

Well, to start off with, I think that what we're seeing here aren't final rules at all - they're what the authors have suggested to Chaosium, and Chaosium still gets to decide what gets in. So, I'm not one to start panicking yet.

Also, I'm not sure what we want out of a 7th edition that isn't something a bit different from what we've gotten before. I've got copies of 5, 5.5, 6... I don't really need any new copies of the rules unless there's something good and different in there. As it is I only have so many different versions because I've gotten free copies from judging.

Personally I'm iffy on the 5x stats and the skill/half/fifth ratings, but I figure if I have the players record their stats as 12/62 or 15/78, then it's easy enough to sneak the resistance table back in. The changes to luck and skill loss with consequences sound interesting - Do you want to 'fail' at your roll and have something challenging happen, or do you want to lose some Luck and hope you don't have to rely on it later? I think this is something that folks are going to require to see a lot more details on before it's done.

I'm excited that someone's trying something new with CoC. With the various alternate rules that have been coming out lately - Trail, Reign (the SW rules), Nemesis... it's apparent that there's a number of people out there who want something a bit different from their Cthulhu gaming, and it wouldn't hurt to tempt them back to the original.