[RPG]: Trail of Cthulhu, reviewed by 2097 (3/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13974.phtml

2097's Summary:

The chapter that's Hite's take on the old gods and titans makes the book worth reading for everyone interested in cosmic horror.

Go to the full review for more information.

[sbca1995]

This has got to be the best review of ToC I have ever read. It may be one of the best reviews of RPG.net.

Please review more books in the future!

QUESTION: Do you think ToC/Gumshoe would work well or horribly for sandbox-style gaming?

[capnzapp]

I couldn't disagree more.

The reviewer is basically giving the game a lower grade because he personally doesn't like how it fails to address his personal issues with the Mythos world?

[2097]

Originally Posted by capnzapp

I couldn't disagree more.

The reviewer is basically giving the game a lower grade because he[sic] personally doesn't like how it fails to address his[sic] personal issues with the Mythos world?

(I'm not a guy.)

I don't think that my issues with the Mythos world affected my grade. I.e. I did no deduction for percieved racism in the setting. I knew this was a Cthulhu game going in.

That said, I think CthulhuPunk handles this issue better. The black "spooks" staging a musical version of The King in Yellow in that work might be racist, but it's at least different - the horror is at the cutting edge of fashion, not in the backwoods "impure" savages. CthulhuPunk is about the decline and fall of "western values", while 30s pulp is about the rise of totalitarianism. I expected more from Hite on this. It could've been a really interesting and central part of the setting if handled right. Sure, we're just specks of dust in the cosmos, aren't we? It's red ants vs black ants. So why's Lovecraft so focused on the race issue and genetics? I'm not just talking about the absurd negro charicatures in The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, I'm talking about integral things like "the Innsmouth look". I wanted this to be handled more head on.

There's another, bigger problem with my review, though. At the end of the review, I'm totally going off tangent ranting away about how the Gumshoe rules are "too visible", and did deduct points for it. My bad. The conflict between what used to be called "gamism" and "narrativism" is still alive in my head since I'm personally torn about this, and haven't settled in.

I read role-playing about nothing and it looked like fun, and it's what leading me to my experiments with more "visible" rules like Gumshoe and Feng Shui (not to speak of D&D, which I've yet to play), and I'm not used to this visibility getting in the way of the horror, while I'm simultaneously grateful for the extra excitement it does seem to bring to the table. While I've never understood the charm in Yahtzee, I hope it can become something else when it's got flavor, when you're running from flesh-eating monsters in a burning building.

Thanks for your comments.

[2097]

Originally Posted by sbca1995

Do you think ToC/Gumshoe would work well or horribly for sandbox-style gaming?

I usually GM my mystery and horror games like this. I set up places to be, NPCs with agandas and horrible things that are happening, and let the players explore and interrogate at will. That's my style with Fudge and that's my style with Gumshoe.

Is the Gumshoe rules any help with that?

Well, they've got a tactical element in resource management, which can be a benefit or a distraction.

They're kind of weird in that the six-sided die decides so much.

I guess I should let the players decide. We had four players, three of whom I never GM:d before.

One just claimed to like all role-playing games (especially Call of Cthulhu) and wishes to play more. She had no opinion either way and thinks the session went fine and the rules did their job.

One who's got LARP experience but has played only played table RPGs once before, in a Stormbringer campaign (which he didn't like). He disliked the rules and thought we'd be better off freeforming. On the other hand, he said that this session changed his mind about table role-playing, which he's disliked before.

One who's roleplayed a couple of times before, who likes Over the Edge, and who really liked the rules as written.

One whom I GM:d a lot before and who's GM:d me a couple of times. This is an experienced role-player and RPG writer who's met most of my game design heroes. He thought the rules were interesting and, after the session, came up with the hand signal system for spends.

If you take Laws's "spine"-structure (also seen in Robin's Laws) too literally, you won't get a sandbox (if that's a goal in and of itself is open to debate, but sandboxes (or, as we used to say, "aquariums") is my style as a GM). My suggestion is this: Make multiple places that you can go to, not necessarily in sequence, leaving multiple clues or "hooks" between them that the players may follow or ignore at will.

On the other hand, if you do exaggerate the spine structure, you'll get a clean "trail" (that's the name of the game, after all) that might seem very movie like. This might be a benefit to some groups. It's not my style.

My experiments with "gamism" aren't over, but it's hard finding the right balance.

Thanks for your comments.

[Pelgrane Press]

Thank you for the review. Some comments.

You mention racism, but refer to a section which doesn't explicitly deal with racism. Looking up "race" in the index takes me to a sidebar which deals with this issue (page 169 if you are interested). It suggests a number of approaches for dealing with race in a game set in the 30s. Are any of these of use?

You say:

"Throughout the books, there are little icons separating so-called "pulp" rules and tropes from so-called "pure" ones. I happily ignored this and found my own mix."

I'm glad you do this - it's exactly our intention. Pick the optional rules which best suit your game

"Personally, I'm torn over this system. This was the first time, as far as I can remember, that I ran a game with rules as "visible" as these. After the playtest session, one of the players suggested a finger gesture system for spends to alleviate the very attention-consuming number juggling that were taking place. I don't think that would help much. (I've got a background of Everway and Fudge)."

The ruleset is supposed to slip into the background - I suggest that if you are finding it more time consuming than rolling percentile dice or d20s to determine succes or failure, then it's probably unfamiliarity or just a matter of taste. The system is supposed to abstract an investigative narrative where investigators will get all the vital clues, and then decide what to do with them. As you describe, it can be used equally for a loosely structured or even improvised adventure, too.

"m a bit disappointed that the other announced books for Trail of Cthulhu seem so silly, almost parodic, but converting from BRP/Call of Cthulhu is easy and fast with the included guidelines so there are plenty of old adventures available if I were to continue playing Trail of Cthulhu."

I strongly recommend you take a look at Stunning Eldritch Tales before prejudging the rest of our line.

There are some conversion notes for existing BRP adventures on our website.

Once again, thank you for the review.

[2097]

Originally Posted by Pelgrane Press

You mention racism, but refer to a section which doesn't explicitly deal with racism. Looking up "race" in the index takes me to a sidebar which deals with this issue (page 169 if you are interested). It suggests a number of approaches for dealing with race in a game set in the 30s. Are any of these of use?

Thanks. I did read this and it influenced my game, but I interpret that section as being about racism in the 30s, not racism in lovecraftiana. It does mention that the Innsmouth-lookers were "white", but nothing about Nyarlathothep as the jet black man or the Innsmouth look as a heredital impurity.

I'm glad you do this [ignoring the pulp/pure icons] - it's exactly our intention. Pick the optional rules which best suit your game

As a follow-up to this, we had some initial confusion about when the pulp/pure icons were inclusionary or exclusionary. For example, the list of occupations has some marked pulp, some pure, and some not marked at all. Is a "pulp" game a game with all three, and a "pure" game a game with "pulp" ones excluded? Or, conversely, is a "pure" game a game with only the "pure" occupations? I decided to interpret that part as "especially suited for". The symbols are used in a way that I perceive as inconsistent.

The ruleset is supposed to slip into the background - I suggest that if you are finding it more time consuming than rolling percentile dice or d20s to determine succes or failure, then it's probably unfamiliarity or just a matter of taste.

It might be a bit less then percentiles or d20s, but more than Fudge. You're rolling and making decisions over how much to spend at the same time. Fun (especially "spending stability to save stability"), but very visible and not very background.

One concern might be balance.

A six-sided die to beat four is literally coinflip and will never be harder. It will be even easier until the players are depleted. The major difference between a champion and a dabbler is who get depleted the first (and who can afford to make the most daring spends).

Some difficulties are higher (I used a monster that is six to hit, which meant that players ran out of their Firearms points and then ran away), and some are even easier.

There's a line in the book about adding encounters to make sure that the players pools are reasonably low during any climactic action sequences. That seems difficult to pull off for the GM (again, the General Abilities aren't listed on the "Keeper's Investigators Matrix" so it's hard to judge whether or not to do it). As it turnes out, I had the opposite problem; one character was unconscious and two had no scuffling at all (there are rules in the book for untrained shootists, but not for other skills) so I did a cheesy thing and let the players trap some of the monsters in the basement more easily than I had planned. Three snuck out which I hoped the players could beat; they couldn't so a chase ensued. This part was pretty tense and good.

The system is supposed to abstract an investigative narrative where investigators will get all the vital clues, and then decide what to do with them.

That part of the book is clearly written and the intent come across well. In my playtest, however, the point spend system for investigative abilities only speeded up the scenario further to almost breakneck speed. Some players jumped to the wrong conclusions and used spends to check whether or not they were right instead of doing more research. I had planted an artifact for a character that I thought had received too little "stage time" to discover and use, but another player (who'd gotten plenty of "stage time" already) used a two-point archeology spend to be the hero yet again. (It would've been fine if he'd found it out eventually, but it was more like "Let me have it! I've got the world's best library and I shoot the best of all! Spend, spend, spend!")

Again, this is subtle stuff and I'd like to think that I manage to hide both of these problems from the players (unless they read these RPG.net-comments, of course), and I know that Laws has a "casual player" archetype that doesn't mind being in the background, but this is subtle stuff and the point spends became more of a hindrance than a help.

Some players can be relied upon to take up a lot of "stage" and limelight (I know I can, when I play) and others are more background characters -- I'm pretty good at picking this up quickly and I like to go out of my way to give them at least a few minutes of fame every session by making sure that they are in the right (or wrong!) place at the wrong time.

So instead of the "stage-hungry" players getting 99% and the "shyer" getting 1% (which is what the group dynamics usually dictate), I like to make it maybe 70/30 or so -- still in favor of the "stage-hungry" ones since they are dependable, imaginative players who does make my job easier as a GM but giving everyone a memory or two to take home with them.

The investigative point spends got in the way of that, almost pushing it back to 99/1.

I strongly recommend you take a look at Stunning Eldritch Tales before prejudging the rest of our line.

I should've singled out Stunning Eldritch Tales and Shadows Over Filmland instead of making a sweeping comment over the line. From the title and the cover, they look like joke books. I know Hite and Laws can be good and I guess the books deserves a second look, but for now they don't really appeal to me. When I first saw the cover to Shadows Over Filmland, I went "What? No!" with a disappointed voice. I really like Jérôme's art for the cover and internals of the main Trail of Cthulhu book. The problem is the typography and the sarcastic-sounding pulp titles. Take a look at a thirties cover of "Weird Tales". Silly, sure, but it comes across as straight-faced. If it doesn't take itself seriously, why should the readers?

There are some conversion notes for existing BRP adventures on our website.

I know, but it seems easy enough to do with the rules and notes in the book. I really loved how they had the guts to just say "Ignore STR, CON, SIZ, INT, POW, DEX, APP and EDU". That kind of brave minimalism is to my taste.

Thanks for your follow-up comments.

[Pelgrane Press]

Originally Posted by 2097

I should've singled out Stunning Eldritch Tales and Shadows Over Filmland instead of making a sweeping comment over the line. From the title and the cover, they look like joke books. I know Hite and Laws can be good and I guess the books deserves a second look, but for now they don't really appeal to me. When I first saw the cover to Shadows Over Filmland, I went "What? No!" with a disappointed voice. I really like Jérôme's art for the cover and internals of the main Trail of Cthulhu book. The problem is the typography and the sarcastic-sounding pulp titles. Take a look at a thirties cover of "Weird Tales". Silly, sure, but it comes across as straight-faced. If it doesn't take itself seriously, why should the readers?

Your thus-far unique take on the titles and covers is why I recommend you actually look at the the books. The sarcasm and humour is something you have inferred, not something we intended.

You say
"I had planted an artifact for a character that I thought had received too little "stage time" to discover and use, but another player (who'd gotten plenty of "stage time" already) used a two-point archeology spend to be the hero yet again."

Investigative points are specifically designed to ration spotlight time, and if you found that somehow the opposite happened in yours session, I'd guess something went wrong. I would in future refer to the Investigator Matrix before assigning clues, to prevent this happening - and it's certainly part of the system for you to mention to a particular player that their ability has found particular clue before anyone else jumps in (passive clue acquisition).

However, it sounds like you managed to work around your issues with the system, and give the players an enjoyable time, which is the main thing.

"I know, but it seems easy enough to do with the rules and notes in the book. I really loved how they had the guts to just say "Ignore STR, CON, SIZ, INT, POW, DEX, APP and EDU". That kind of brave minimalism is to my taste."

No bravery or guts; it's simply that GUMSHOE doesn't have stats, and instead, you look at the stats as a guide in conjuction with your skills as to where to distribute your points.

[2097]

Originally Posted by Pelgrane Press

it's certainly part of the system for you to mention to a particular player that their ability has found particular clue before anyone else jumps in (passive clue acquisition).

Huh. I'm not usually one to fast-talk my players; and this was a new group.

I've gravitated to a more invisible style of GM:ing. A lot of the time I just sit and listen as the player characters are talking. Adding investigative spends to that mix turned out to be juggling with more nitroglycerine than I expected and I'll have to be a lot more careful if I ever run Gumshoe again.

No bravery or guts; it's simply that GUMSHOE doesn't have stats, and instead, you look at the stats as a guide in conjuction with your skills as to where to distribute your points.

I still think it's audacious (in a good way) to say "Ignore" followed by eight unneeded stats. I didn't find anything in the conversion guidelines to say "stats as a guide", just to ignore them. (They've influenced the skill levels already and those levels are carried over to some extent.)

[capnzapp]

From my limited view-point, could it be that Trails represent a (rather) new outlook on rpgs (a different "school" as it were) and that you perhaps didn't fully realize this before writing your review, 2097?