Thoughts on the forthcoming 7th edition

[goret]

Sometimes players need a nudge to adopt traits for their characters, especially negative ones. Back in the days of 1E, the numbers of players who declared their character was "ambidextrous" were limitless, yet I recall not one that had only one eye, or even one that had a limp.

Apart from the fact that i dont understand why some peeople discard with such passion the idea of having a purely optional table for traits. Some players like myself like rolling a complete random character and watch him perform or fail.

Thats why i'd also like to see the luck pool optional. Some players like to let the dice decide and live with the result.

Is that better, no, but its not worse either.
It just give the players and keepers the freedom to play and roll or point buy their character the way they want.

[MrBlueSky]

Here are updated versions of the character sheet (jpegs because the pdfs were too big). As always feedback and suggestions are welcome.



I'm planning to make it a double-sided A3 (or equally an A4 booklet), so there are four A4 sheets. Pages 3 and 4 are pretty optional though. When I get around to making the booklet, I'll post it. It should scale to letter-size easily enough, sorry Yanks.

The next thing I'd like to do is to summarise the (speculative) rules we've seen in these threads. Unless a play-test gets announced, that's probably the best we can do for now.

[red_bus]

Thanks. It is useful to get a sense of the scale of what will be required to fit with all the changes proposed for 7E,
even if it is not exactly the same as what has been run at the conventions.


[edit] I managed to find a pdf of part of the character generation from Gaslight online and had a look at traits. I think *some* of this could easily add value to character generation as an option, and in fact like others here, I have already done similar with character in games when they had a reason (e.g. bilingual childhood, strange heirloom, allies or enemies). I would phrase it differently, as something to be discussed first with some general option laid open and balanced with + / - adjustments where appropriate. As it stands the table is a little D&D-ish. And some I would just take out (e.g. marksman, magical aptitude...). But with a few exceptions, I would not be too worried that this hands too much power to the players as an option (that is why I am worried about a luck pool.. lol!)

[PhoneCallOfCthulhu]

I have always wished that there'd be more space for weapons names. Maybe that's just me but I like to enter a weapon full name even if it is useless against the forces of the mythos.

[MrBlueSky]

I have always wished that there'd be more space for weapons names. Maybe that's just me but I like to enter a weapon full name even if it is useless against the forces of the mythos.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Especially because some of the weapons stats (HP in particular) never seem to get used.



But remember, you didn't get it from me

[HomoLupusDomesticus]

I'd get rid of that background illustration. I can't for the life of me figure out what it's supposed to be.

[Blackmyron]

Nobody rolled a 3 for DEX? : P

I had a player back then for COC that would reroll his entire character if their APP was less 15. (Yes, for a stat that had almost no game purpose at the time).

I did

[MrBlueSky]

I'd get rid of that background illustration. I can't for the life of me figure out what it's supposed to be.

There are some things man was not meant to know

It's the Delta Green background out of Patrick's character sheet. Without looking, I think it's the pattern from the back of the DG book.
I'm loathe to make one plain white, if you'd like I can make one with a (Derleth) Elder Sign background, it's much less intrusive.

[TrippyHippy]

Yep, it's the Delta Green background.

Thanks for a sneak peak at the sheets.

My views right now:

- I can live with the Luck mechanic, although I'd prefer it to based off a Charisma characteristic rather than Power. POW is too powerful as it stands. Charisma would have to replace Appearance, but really, is this a major problem?

- The HP would definitely be easier to calculate with Size used to calculate the number above Unconscious and Constitution for the scores below Unconscious. No SIZ+CON/2 needed anymore.

- I'm pretty happy with the skill list - especially having Psychiatry, rather than Psychoanalysis.

- I'm curious as to the seemingly random organisation of the Characteristics. Wouldn't it be easier to have Physical stats close together, and INT near to Education, etc.

- The convention of Full/Half/Fifth could work, although there is still table referencing going on, and having three scores doesn't look as elegant as a single percentile score as was previous. It does mean that the split between Characteristics and Skills, in terms of them being on different scales is lifted though - so that's a good thing. There is this nagging doubt however that, honestly, the most elegant solution to competing stat rolls is the higest successful roll (below stat) wins - as used in Pendragon, Unknown Armies, etc. That is if you roll 38 (Skill - 60%), and your opponent rolls 24 (Skill 71%) then the former wins. Crits can be awarded on matching dice and/or bullseye hits on score levels. I'm just sayin'...it's more intuitive and easier that way.

[MrBlueSky]

Thanks for a sneak peak at the sheets.

All good. I probably should have clarified above, but they're not official.

Thanks for the feedback, my thoughts below:

- I can live with the Luck mechanic, although I'd prefer it to based off a Charisma characteristic rather than Power. POW is too powerful as it stands. Charisma would have to replace Appearance, but really, is this a major problem?

Yeah I think that's a solid idea. It was discussed a lot in the other (locked) thread and it's how I intend to play, but I didn't want to nail it down on the sheet in case people want to use POW. I'll be leaving the characteristic as APP, but it could equally be CHA.

- The HP would definitely be easier to calculate with Size used to calculate the number above Unconscious and Constitution for the scores below Unconscious. No SIZ+CON/2 needed anymore.

I had them the other way around. CON before falling unconscious, SIZ before dying once unconscious. I figure you're much less likely to be knocked out if your CON is higher than your SIZ than vice-versa. It also lets you do cool stuff like take a point of lethal (SIZ) damage if you go into "shock" (take more than 5 CON damage and fail a roll). Equally some stuff (poisons) might directly attack your DEATH damage rather than forcing you unconscious first.

- I'm pretty happy with the skill list - especially having Psychiatry, rather than Psychoanalysis.

Unfortunately I can't take the credit for that. Psychiatry replaced Psychoanalysis because it fit (the word was shorter). I also tried to leave plenty of space for those skills that come in useful from time to time (like Geology, a personal favourite).

- I'm curious as to the seemingly random organisation of the Characteristics. Wouldn't it be easier to have Physical stats close together, and INT near to Education, etc.

Yep, basically random. It's a good idea and I'll fix that with the following top-bottom pairings: DEX-STR, APP-POW, INT-EDU, CON-SIZ good idea.

- The convention of Full/Half/Fifth could work, although there is still table referencing going on, and having three scores doesn't look as elegant as a single percentile score as was previous.

I included the table so that you don't need a calculator on hand. Also some stuff (like improving skills or degrading Luck or Sanity) will require recalculation from time to time. Once the character is set up, the table should rarely be needed. I think having all three is better than having just one and a table.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Steff Worthington]

Not wishing to poo-poo the idea (as i respect and like Mike & Paul) but I think the new 'luck' facet has tainted this for me. It's not such a bad idea, it's just that I can't get the fact that it seems like 'cheating' out of my head. Most of my games are against human adversaries or humanoid monsters and being able to pour all your luck score into making a shot to the head a critical is just too much. Many players will also know when its the finale to an adventure and will use their luck to abandon.

The main point when the ToC and BRP systems are compared is the 'missing the spot hidden' argument. I don't go for that. All RPG's have a skill risk element. Thats what makes them fun. Sometimes, your rogue misses that secret door. Your Solomani engineer can't fix the drive, and your French rifleman fails to hit that Kafer general. It's all in the randomness of games. Which is why i don't like Trail. And this 'luck spend' element seems a step nearer to that. It's a great idea (IMHO) if your doing a first game for a bunch of your kids who you dont want to disappoint... but I don't think it respects seasoned gamers. The GM can fudge the dice to add to the game.. but when did we start thinking it's ok for the players to? Every penalty for that long cave jump or that difficult shot that the keeper has in his head when writing the scenario (to add tension or whatever) is now moribund. Also, a keeper who gets tired of the 'luck spend' will start to add ridiculous but necessary tasks just to sap the players luck before the end.

I like the traits in Cthulhu by Gaslight, but to say they unbalance the game/character gen is ridiculous when compared to 'luck spend'.

This is my own personal opinion of course and is not meant as a slight on ANYONE.
(May Arachne Solara curse the Troll/flamer and Lhankor Mhy reveal their lies)

[The_Tatterdemalion_King]

So do people hate the Willpower spends from WoD too?

[sda]

So do people hate the Willpower spends from WoD too?

One really has nothing to do with the other -- two different games.

[The_Tatterdemalion_King]

One really has nothing to do with the other -- two different games.

"Expendable resource to modify die rolls" doesn't sound particularly dissimilar...?

[sda]

"Expendable resource to modify die rolls" doesn't sound particularly dissimilar...?

But they are still two DIFFERENT games. They play differently, have different worlds, different themes, different atmospheres, different goals, etc. They are DIFFERENT, regardless of similar system mechanics.