Here is an interesting quote from Robin Law's "Rules of Good Gamemastering." Would you agree or disagree? What do you think?
A few games offer fantasies of powerlessness, in which PCs can expect to be buffeted about by a hostile world dominated by unbeatable enemies. Horror games, especially Call of Cthulhu, come to mind here.
Don't want to see these links? Register & Log in to YSDC.
I think that quote is nonsense. A few SCENARIOS are like that, but the vast majority of published adventures and campaigns feature the investigators foiling an evil plan or thwarting a cult. The investigators are meant to win.
The game is, necessarily, more Derlethian than Lovecraftian. The single book that is most like the game is Derleth's 'Trail of Cthulhu'
I agree completely.
Lovecraft was great to read, but if adventures went has his stories
did, over 75% of game time would be character creation.
By necessary, it is more like Dereleth's writing. But then again,
CoC is not ONLY Lovecraft, its a shared universe (like D&D's Fogotten
Realms - don't throw tomatoes, it's just an example) where
many authors have now made the whole of the setting.
I'm completely cool with that, the more the merrier.
"The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be. Not in the spaces we
know, but between them, They walk serene and primal, undimensioned and to us unseen."
I'm not totally convinced by this argument. Yes, there is a lot of cult-busting in CoC, but I always had the feeling that it was essentially delaying the inevitable. No matter what victory the players might have, the forces of the Mythos *will* win in the end. If the players are a handful of termites eating away some material from a twig on a branch, then the Cthulhu Mythos is the entire 1500 year-old, 350 foot-tall, sequoia tree. Or perhaps the entire Redwood Forest. Even though they might kill off a small part of one branch on one tree, they cannot possibly topple the tree over, or even comprehend the enormity of the tree they are attacking, or its place with relation to the rest of the forest. What concept do characters have of the Mythos? How likely is it that the characters will really "win" in the end? The stars WILL be right someday, and there's nothing the characters can do to stop it.Originally Posted by Lord_Summerisle
So why fight it at all? Termites must consume wood to survive. Characters, similarly, fight for survival, trying to delay the inevitable for just a little while longer. In the context of Lovecraft's universe, it's the best we can hope for.
Robert
"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Tattulhu Fantasy Island wagh'nagl fhtagn."
"In his house at Fantasy Island dead Tattoo waits dreaming." (trans.)
Ia! Ia! Tattulhu fhtagn! The guest stars are right!
My sentiments exactly. Every victory against the Mythos is at best a hollow one, because it only slows the spread of the Mythos by oh-so-small a fraction. The Mythos can never be defeated or destroyed, because wouldn't the Elder Gods have done so if it were possible? No, the power of this cancerous pantheon is such that the analogy of termites nibbling a single twig in a redwood forest is very apt.
If we look at Fun Guy's quote about the game as a fantasy of powerlessness I think we can find aspects of it to agree and disagree with. In a Lovecraftian universe humans are powerless to really do any more than delay the inevitable (though the inevitable is in no rush), but in a CoC game the characters will want to do their best (otherwise why play) and we can call this Derlethian if we want.
What makes the quotation provocative is the embedded suggestion that CoC players prefer powerlessness: though many on this site criticise DnD 'power-gamers' I would dispute powerlessness is our preferred state, especially when it's phrased in a way that could imply Freudian 'Phantasy' and incipient masochism...
I'd like to ask Fun Guy, who may have read the source of his quote, does Robin Laws go on like this or is this a way of dismissing CoC? Best, malcojones
Maybe its because I am an atheist, and therefore in the real world the best we can hope for is temporary victory. In the universe I inhabit entropy and death will win in the end anyway. The mythos is IMHO only a personification of that - atheist mythology if you will.
Therefore a campaign like 'Masks', where the Cult can be foiled and the world be saved is actually BETTER than reality. The idea of a big conspiracy that can be defeated by a small group of heroes is a fantasy of power, not powerlessness - the game world is one in which Investigators can do MORE to save the world than in reality, not less. Real world conspiracy theories are like this - they replace the grim truth of a world controlled by random fate with a comprehensible and therefore ultimately defeatable enemy - the Christian concept of blaming Stan for evil is much the same.
I think HPL would agree - only a handful of his tales have humans winning - the Dunwich Horror and the Case of Charles Dexter Ward - and these are the stories most like the game.
The bleak hopelessness of his most powerful stories doesn't really make for good roleplaying - hence by claim that CoC is Derlethian rather than Lovecraftian.
Yep, it's all Stan's fault, the nerd.
Darn Stan. Always vomiting on his girlfriend and meddling in Cartman's affairs ...
Anata sekai o kakumei surush ga nai deshou?
Anata no susumu michi wa yoi shimashita.
The book goes on and continues to suggest ways to pitch games to players to make them want to play. It also suggests modifiying one's style in order to make the games more "fun" for the players.
To be honest, I think a lot of the approaches in the book are too difficult to be applied. I'd really rather not run if I had to take most of the steps in the book.
Anata sekai o kakumei surush ga nai deshou?
Anata no susumu michi wa yoi shimashita.
I have to agree that the game is made to allow surviviability (though the SAN rules - depending on interpretion - can make survival time shorter and shorter). The trouble I see is that I do find MANY players and GM tout the hopelessness of playing, and of many of the stories. Much of the talk is of doom, and how Mr. Doom is eyeing every PC. Many seem to play games (including Mask) as a way to knock off players. [TELL YOU WHAT! Let's have people tally up their survuvable XP versus their horrid ends.I am curious. How are we, passed our hype, playing. Do GM's really give players "reasonable" chances? I know I have heard that Mr. Petersen is rather generous even to the most FOOLhardy.
Still, I find a lot of sympathy for characters overall and for the idea of long campaigns. But fatality seems a lot more constant in this game. But consider this, among the other games to comapre this to are D&D and VtM. One has clerics and healing potions, the other are immortal beings who have amazing recuperative abilities. And now CoC...we, the PC, are SO screwed...
>>>YOG RADIO<<<
A Monthly SANITY Check for Mythos Fans Everywhere.
Yog Radio -- HASTUR free, GUARANTEED.
To be honest, about 50% of the PCs survive in my campaigns (and I mean to the end) sure, there's a higher death rate than most games, but I find that the fact characters are in REAL jeopardy make survival and success far more satisfying. I did have 100% fatalities the first time I ran Orient Express (the last 2 characters died saving the world) but that was their fault.
I am 2/3 through Uttati Asfet and the only fatality was shot by another PC who thought he was a dangerous loose cannon (he was).
You know, the potential for fatality has a certain charm. It weeds out some potential players (could be good news, could be bad) and adds some complexities to GM plannung and work.
Not that bad. But it seems if every seesion has 100% or near that in fatality for PC's...that's rough on all involved, isn't it?
You know, I think a game needs the essence of doom. Not the concentrated full on doom. Players should genuinely fear for their lives, but have the ability to outmanuever "fate".
Death should be something that comes when they fail to notice all those things that kill the characters in a horror flick ("Sure all go into the dark alley where the strange noise is." "My dog sure seems upset about something outside...oh well." "Huh. The evil cult has started an invocation. I shouldn't interject until they finish...cause it'd be rude to do otherwise."). :P The finale of games shouldn't ALL be "..and you all die" (Some games...sure.).
The point of gaming (I think.) is to empower. Give you the chance and ability to go and do things that aren't real or possible. Be able to join in a struggle (Fight Narthy, struggle against the cults, maybe live to see another day, or die to keep things better...but it shouldn't be a presumed end.). If you want to be controlled and manpulated...almost seems like S&M.
>>>YOG RADIO<<<
A Monthly SANITY Check for Mythos Fans Everywhere.
Yog Radio -- HASTUR free, GUARANTEED.
Here is a little more from Robin Law's book, which I hope could help answer your questions malcojones:
Later on he writes:The vast majority of successful roleplaying games are power fantasies. They give players the chance to play characters vastly more comptetent themselves -- or, for that matter, anyone else in the world as we know it. In power fantasy, PCs always have a good chance of vanquisihing foes; in some games, players can even assume that their enemies will be conveniently distributed by threat level. The power fantasy lies at the very heart of the adventure genre, in books and movies as well as games. It offers a generally optimistic view of life,. There's no shame in enjoying this fantasy, and GMs who embrace and udnerstand it tend to keep players longer than those who don't.
Some GMs use gaming as a means of enjoying a fanatasy of power over the players, keeping the PCs under a tight leash. Except for the odd masochistic tactician who enjoys the occasional hard-won victory in such a game, players who stick with this sort of GM generally do so because they can't find anyone else to run for them.
A few games offer fantasies of powerlessness, in which PCs can expecte to be buffeted about by a hostile world dominated by unbeatable enemies. Horror games, especially Call of Cthulhu, come to mind here. The surreal conspiracy game Over the Edge (which I worked on) provides another example. YOu need a special group to sustain a campaign in a game that witholds many of the standard pleasures of the role-playing experience...they attract method actors and storytellers but tend to drive off tacticians, butt-kickers, and casual gamers."
The only other place that mentions Call of Cthulhu by name is where he describes games like Call of Cthulhu and Vampire as narrative driven games; whereas most other games are free-form, exploration, and loot in nature.You can more change a gamer's default emotional content more easily than its rules. You can allow gun-toting Delta Force PCs to mow their way through Cthulhoid monsters, or drench your superhero game in blood and angst. Make sure, though that you're confounding your players' expectations in a way they'll enjoy.
Thanks FunGuy,
It does seem to me he's implying gamers fall into certain types, psychologically, by game whereas this site shows that in CoC there's a fair range of (weird) psychologies. I think the discussion above as to whether the gloom is half full or half empty exemplifies this.
Personally, I find the gaming experience empowering as keeper and player though in different ways. Best, malcojones
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks