Jump to content
G.Roby

ToC 2nd Edition Rulebook?

Recommended Posts

daedalum

Note that the french ToC has had a second edition, made by the french publisher, which is basically ToC 1st ed with combat options taken from the Esoterror Factbook added.

More info here (in french)

NB : the publisher called it second edition, the GROG calls it First revised as it didn't seem to warrant the second ed title.

 

Is it just me that doesn't find that title font particularly 1940's?

 

...anyways I would totes buy a second edition of fear itself. ideally with less cartoony art and more cut up collage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramblurr

I can't say I'd want all the Night's Black Agents changes put into the Trail rules - it would make Trail far too crunchy and finicky for my taste.

 

The only rules that NBA has that Trail could do with are: "Fleeing from Combat" and "Effects of Darkness on Abilities". NBA also advises on damage if you are in a car crash or hit by a speeding vehicle which is useful for Trail.

 

There are the general GUMSHOE updates that Trail v2 needs such as Zero Sum Tests, Continuing Challenges, General Spends, Surprise and the new ordering rules for Contests and Combat rounds.

 

These are all included in the "Condensed Rules for Trail of Cthulhu" , though I haven't read NBA, so maybe they aren't the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

These are all included in the "Condensed Rules for Trail of Cthulhu" , though I haven't read NBA, so maybe they aren't the same.

 

Hmmm, I wonder how they got there ? ( hint: have a look at the credit page...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramblurr

Pelgrane Press says:

 

Tony Williams has very kindly designed some great Pulp and Purist character sheets for the Trail of Cthulhu Resources page.  He’s also produced a neat Condensed version of the Trail of Cthulhu rules  

 

Seems like they've given it an implicit approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

Just posted this in another thread but I think it would be useful for any 2nd Edition:

 

I think the way combat is worded in the ToC manual is confusing. The wording starts out by saying something like "Combat is a series of contests" which causes readers to refer back to the Contest rule ( which is immediately precedent to the combat section ) and thus think combat is decided by a continuing series of ability rolls until someone loses the roll ( i.e. a typical GUMSHOE "Contest" such as chasing/fleeing ).

 

However, the rules for combat then go on to say "each time a character wins their roll they get to deal damage to their opponent."

 

So really, in effect, combat is not a series of Contests ( in the GUMSHOE sense ) at all. What it is, is a series of normal Tests ( in the GUMSHOE sense ). i.e. In each combat round I test my chosen form of attack ability against my opponent's Hit Threshold ( and if successful get to roll damage ) and then vice versa and we keep doing this until one of us is dead/subdued or one of us decides to break off from the combat.

 

I would refrain from using the word "Contest" in the combat rules in any 2nd Edition ( and in any GUMSHOE rulebook for that matter ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daedalum

Just posted this in another thread but I think it would be useful for any 2nd Edition:

 

I think the way combat is worded in the ToC manual is confusing. The wording starts out by saying something like "Combat is a series of contests" which causes readers to refer back to the Contest rule ( which is immediately precedent to the combat section ) and thus think combat is decided by a continuing series of ability rolls until someone loses the roll ( i.e. a typical GUMSHOE "Contest" such as chasing/fleeing ).

 

However, the rules for combat then go on to say "each time a character wins their roll they get to deal damage to their opponent."

 

So really, in effect, combat is not a series of Contests ( in the GUMSHOE sense ) at all. What it is, is a series of normal Tests ( in the GUMSHOE sense ). i.e. In each combat round I test my chosen form of attack ability against my opponent's Hit Threshold ( and if successful get to roll damage ) and then vice versa and we keep doing this until one of us is dead/subdued or one of us decides to break off from the combat.

 

I would refrain from using the word "Contest" in the combat rules in any 2nd Edition ( and in any GUMSHOE rulebook for that matter ).

 

Excellent point, I had to re-read most sections of rules quite a few times so a similar rigorous pass over the language  used to describe rules might be useful.

 

.I recall having to create my own charts to get my head round all the conditional rules for health, sanity and stability,  and flash cards for the narrative concepts that can impact rules such as Losing Pillars of Sanity, Anagnorisis, etc In fact I dont think you could be too explicit in flagging what rules are triggered mechanically and what rules are triggered narratively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

I think the Anagnorisis rule could actually be cut for simplification.

 

It's an added frippery just so the Keeper can mind blast players at the end ( i.e. a very Lovecraftian ending ) and stay within the "rules of the game". 

 

If the Keeper really wants to do that, they don't need an extra rule tweak to bring it about - just make the last scene completely horrible and let them come up with their own forced stability/sanity losses for players. "The GM is always right" after all.

 

I'd cut Anagnorisis as a mechanical rule and move it into a section on Keeper advice and make it narrative advice rather than a mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AdamAstonbury

The more examples the better as far as I am concerned.

 

Off the top of my head, I'd like to see 'in play' examples of the application of 'soft' and 'hard' drivers. They sound like a nice idea and I think I know what they would look / feel like - but some examples to make sure we are clear on the intent of the writers would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBSteve

The effect of the drivers is less mechanical, in my experience, than you might expect. Players tend to use them to inform their choice of course of action rather than the GM needing to penalise acting against drivers. The fact that the players use them so readily does sometimes mean the GM forgets to give the "dubious stunted carrot" reward. I think I've only once seen in a game the GM take stability away for a player going against a drive (and that player was Simon Rogers*).

 

 

*Actually it was a key moment in one of the purist scenarios and led to some very interesting play. So it enhanced play and was not viewed as a punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AdamAstonbury

The effect of the drivers is less mechanical, in my experience, than you might expect. Players tend to use them to inform their choice of course of action rather than the GM needing to penalise acting against drivers. The fact that the players use them so readily does sometimes mean the GM forgets to give the "dubious stunted carrot" reward. I think I've only once seen in a game the GM take stability away for a player going against a drive (and that player was Simon Rogers*).

 

*Actually it was a key moment in one of the purist scenarios and led to some very interesting play. So it enhanced play and was not viewed as a punishment.

I don't have the rules to hand but I think I recall that the mechanical effects were clear enough. I think what I wanted was an example - or perhaps more than one - of the perceived distinction between when a soft driver might be appropriate and when a hard might be. From memory this seemed to hinge on whether the 'situation' concerned a sub-plot / diversion (soft) as opposed to 'resistance' to advancing the main plot (hard).

 

I'm sure I haven't expressed that particularly well but it's in the ballpark of how I recall it being described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBSteve

The mechanical effects are clear in the rules. It's more that the players usually play so strongly towards them that the stability cost for not following a drive is almost never applied. Generally the hard/soft distinction I use is about how much trouble the PC knows they will get into by following their drive. This is usually similar to the subplot/main plot description on p72 of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

I'd suggest making the cherry for using two handguns simultaneously available at Firearms rating 8 rather than 5, as it currently is, just so it tallies with the cherries at 8 rule and because 5 seems a bit low to me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

I'd suggest losing the rule on page 61 in the BlackJacks call-out box about people using scuffling weapons going last in the attack order compared to those without weapons.

 

I don't see what it brings to the table other than complicating the easy-to-remember aggressor before defender order, or the highest rating->player before NPC->highest pool order method for group combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daedalum

I'd like the new rules to make clear the impact of rating changes on the current pool.

 

For example:

Investigator currently has Stability Rating 9, Pool of 7. They cast Eldar sign which costs 1 Stability Rating point. Clearly their Stability rating is now 8. However, does the pool remain at 7, or drop to 6?

 

I've always assumed pool gets knocked down too, but never found anything explicit in the rules other than what is buried in the below example:

 

The Mechanics of the Gods example on page 86:

 

Great Cthulhu rises up from the ocean right off the port bow of Dr Pembrose's ship. Dr Pembrose must make a Stability test at a Difficulty of 5, 1 higher than the normal Difficulty, since seeing Cthulhu is very much a Mythos shock. Normally, “seeing a supernatural creature up close†has a potential Stability Loss of 4. But Cthulhu is much more horrifying than a normal supernatural creature; according to the table on this page, he adds +5 to the potential Stability loss, for a total of 9. Dr Pembrose misses his roll, and drops from his current Stability of 7 to -2, leaving him shaken. (Even if he had made his roll, the table notes that he would lose 3 pool points from Stability and 2 pool points from Sanity.) Being shaken by a Mythos shock, he now loses 1 point from his Sanity rating, +3 for the titan awfulness that is Cthulhu, for a total Sanity loss of 4 pool points and 1 rating point. Dr Pembrose's player might consider having the good doctor faint dead away, leaving only a horrifying memory of an island that seemed horribly alive, and the loss of 1 rating point of Sanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
littleo

Agree, they definitely need to tighten up the explanations for how ratings and pools interact. In some of the later games (NBA), the mechanics are explained in a more straight-forward manner.

Mike D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eudaimic

Agree, they definitely need to tighten up the explanations for how ratings and pools interact. In some of the later games (NBA), the mechanics are explained in a more straight-forward manner.

Mike D

 

Which part is confusing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eudaimic

To add to the discussion around purist and pulp, I must say that I only see complexity arising from moving all the pulp elements into its own section. After all, that means moving both certain occupations as well as certain skills out of context. The icon separation is actually something I think works quite well in the current edition.

 

The biggest issue for me, in learning Gumshoe was in the understanding of exactly how it plays at the table. As someone else mentioned, having those three examples of how it practically plays out, is an huge help. It took me some asking around here to formulate an understanding.

 

I also didn't find character generation to be particularly complicated. Maybe it can be simpler even, but it's certainly not a sticking point for me.

 

What is a little hard, is keeping in mind the thresholds for health, stability and sanity. This might be something that can be solved on the character sheet more than in the rules, and after a few sessions it's beginning to sink in.

 

As it seems Pelgrane is already aware of, organization is really the biggest issue. The first edition of The One Ring had a similar issue, of a great system marred by poor organization, and their revised edition cleared that up completely, so much so that it feels like a new game. I hope Pelgrane does the same for ToC.

 

If I have any major complaints, it would be that there isn't a very slim printed rule book for players. I'd love something that was between twenty and thirty pages, which my players would actually be inclined to read and use. Sell them in packs of four or six :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

If I have any major complaints, it would be that there isn't a very slim printed rule book for players. I'd love something that was between twenty and thirty pages, which my players would actually be inclined to read and use. Sell them in packs of four or six :)

 

Are you referring to this masterpiece ( which I too think Pelgrane should print a few of ) by any chance ? -

 

http://site.pelgrane...ensed_Rules.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Tatterdemalion_King

Are you referring to this masterpiece ( which I too think Pelgrane should print a few of ) by any chance ? -

 

28 pages is condensed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Williams

28 pages is condensed?

Well, 4 of those are the cover. 1 is a credit page. 1 is a contents page and 2 are a character sheet.

 

So that leaves 20 pages of rules which includes every rule in the main rulebook (and some extra) and I think that is condensed compared to the 75+ pages it takes to cover the exact same material in the rulebook. It is also ordered far more logically and coherently than the main rulebook.

 

It is all a ToC investigator needs to read to play ( but a Keeper needs the main rulebook ).

 

What else should it be called ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eudaimic

I was thinking of that, but I want it in print (and proper print at that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eudaimic

Bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PoC

There's no news. As soon as someone has something about a second edition of Trail of Cthulhu I'm sure it will be reported. A few people are keeping their ears to the ground.

 

Trail of Cthulhu was launched in 2008.

 

https://www.yog-sothoth.com/files/file/1231-%7B%3F%7D/

 

Perhaps Pelgrane will do something for its 10th anniversary next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PoC

According to Pelgrane, Trail of Cthulhu has just been reprinted. This would suggest that a 2nd edition is still some way off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.