If I build a crazy RPG, will players here actually play it?

[MooCow]

I rarely finish what I start, but I figured I'd give up early if there's no chance that I'll get any players to play it.

Is there any interest for the following:
- A dice-less, rule-less Call of Cthulhu like CoreRPG setting, without any allowed combat or uncivilized behavior on the highbrow PCs part. Fairly railroady, with the exception of player choice, since I just get to decide what happens as consequence.
- A trippy CoreRPG Sword & Sorcery game where the characters eat strange monster babies and throw metaphysical dice at monsters as forms of attack, redefining the very meaning of "violence".

[Valyar]

Nope.

[MooCow]

A rather short answer.

Could you check the things that apply in this list?
- There's a general lack of players here.
- Players don't like diceless systems.
- Players like rules.
- Players like combat and violence / uncivilized behavior.
- Players prefer to play established professional game-systems.
- Players don't like weird, trippy games.
- Players find eating weird monster babies to be too gross.
- Players don't like to wield metaphysical dice as strange "weapons".

I've been suffering through lots of RPGs for 20 years, and I like my ideas better, so it would be weird if there wasn't at least some appeal. There's basically only a handful of settings in RPGs: Futuristic, post-catastrophy, medieval, contemporary, and some portal games that try to blend them all together. I'd welcome something new and different at this point.

[Valyar]

All right, I will be more verbose on this topic.

Your option 1 is basically a book (or audio book as you will be narrating it during a game session). Just because you will allow choices for players to influence a story, it does not mean it is a game. No combat, no rules, railroads and basically stripped down version of "Chose your own adventure" gamebooks. I am also not fan of free-form roleplaying games where GMs and Players decides arbitrary without common baseline what happens and how. This is not fun at all and will lead to frustration. Also in a group, different players get their kick from different things - one from combat, another from story or from mix of those and etc. You take almost all of components that might keep a group together and replace with things that are not really good replacement. I know people that like to be spectators and slightly participate when necessary, maybe those are your target audience. All I said is subjective, you might find people who are going to be fascinating by such game, but not me. I want to be active participant, not spectator.

On your second option - I don't see the selling point here, why I should eat baby monster in game to throw a dice... is this some Pokemon thing or what?

On the items you listed:
- There's a general lack of players here. <- No, there are a lot of players, just people who are active on the forums are less than those that play ;)
- Players don't like diceless systems. <- I have no problem with the system being diceless, if there is another way to decide what happens when there is challenge or opposed check that is not arbitrary and to the whims of someone.
- Players like rules. <- yes, because this is what prevents the game to go into free-form chaos and lack of fun due to that.
- Players like combat and violence / uncivilized behavior. <- Players also like to make smart choices that allow them to win without combat. Therefore this is not valid statement.
- Players prefer to play established professional game-systems. <- yep, I don't like homebrew stuffs that are in the head of someone with close to nothing written down and explained.
- Players don't like weird, trippy games. <- depends on the presentation.
- Players find eating weird monster babies to be too gross. <- no issues with that.
- Players don't like to wield metaphysical dice as strange "weapons". <- what?

[RunningHill]

"A dice-less, rule-less Call of Cthulhu like CoreRPG setting" - yes this could be interesting
"without any allowed combat or uncivilized behavior on the highbrow PCs part. Fairly railroady, with the exception of player choice, since I just get to decide what happens as consequence." - but no this is not interesting.

For the second example I just haven't been on any acid trip ever and can't see any of it as any fun. But there are some computer games that have found some success with this kind of theme so you might get some players together for a oneshot.

[MooCow]

Thank you for answering all my questions, at least from your perspective. I appreciate it.

[seycyrus]

Thank you for answering all my questions, at least from your perspective. I appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, would YOU like to play in such a game? Have you played in such games? ho did they turn out?

[MooCow]

Out of curiosity, would YOU like to play in such a game? Have you played in such games? ho did they turn out?
I've never played in any such games - I think my ideas are unique - but when I design a game, I of course design them to be fun to play, at least for me.

I've struggled for years to implement a good dice system into Call of Cthulhu, but right after coming up with a really awesome system, I realized that CoC isn't like other games. If played like Lovecraft intended it to be played, it's the exception, that doesn't benefit from dice or rules at all. I went through every single skill and attribute in the rulebook, and none of them had any value. I've also spent a few years as a teenager, GMing a diceless, ruleless system, and my two players seemed to like it just fine.

I've heard the argument that it will just be a CYOA before. Many players are adamant about this, just as I'm adamant about dicerolls sowing chaos and completely ruining the immersive experience. To me dicerolls are like throwing the campaign up into the air and seeing how many times you can hit it with a gun before it falls to the floor. I think DnD ruined the legacy for actual roleplaying.

[MooCow]

"A dice-less, rule-less Call of Cthulhu like CoreRPG setting" - yes this could be interesting
"without any allowed combat or uncivilized behavior on the highbrow PCs part. Fairly railroady, with the exception of player choice, since I just get to decide what happens as consequence." - but no this is not interesting.
I find it odd how everybody enjoy the literary works of Lovecraft, and even the fan spinoffs, yet when it comes to roleplaying, there's this pervasive idea that it's supposed to be about gambling all of a sudden. ...but whatever. We're different.


For the second example I just haven't been on any acid trip ever and can't see any of it as any fun. But there are some computer games that have found some success with this kind of theme so you might get some players together for a oneshot.
Silent Hill is a popular franchise where weirdness just makes it better. I was thinking my second idea to be a mix between Conan, Silent Hill, and *** Simulator.
I stay away from dr*gs altogther, and I've never been h*gh. Maybe that's why I'm designing trippy games instead.

[LordEntrails]

There are lots of players here, and many that like to try new things. If you do put together one of those games, you'll want to present it very differently. Make sure you do something that gives the potential players a hook, and a feel for what it will be like. Good luck.

[MooCow]

There are lots of players here, and many that like to try new things. If you do put together one of those games, you'll want to present it very differently. Make sure you do something that gives the potential players a hook, and a feel for what it will be like. Good luck.

Yes, I'll probably argue more for my way of playing upon any release, but at the same time I don't want to trick players into a playstyle that they're not comfortable with. If they for example like dice and rules, then I want to be up front about things like a diceless storytelling system from the beginning, because players have a tendency to quietly "suffer through" entire campaigns - like I have - and then complain about them later on in forums, instead of just leaving early.

[damned]

So here is my take on things:

There are about 8000 RPGs out there.
More than 60% of all games played and all products sold are D&D5E.
Throw in Pathfinder 1 and 2 and the older Wizards/TSR D&D versions and that number climbs again.
Take the next 10 biggest RPGs - like Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, Warhammer, Starfinder, Vampire the Masquerade etc and you have accounted for 90% of the market.
That leaves the other 7900+ games competing for less than 10% of the market - and there are definitely games in there that chew up relatively large amounts of that 10%.
Most RPGs never get played (at least statistically speaking)
I have over a hundred RPG systems Ive paid for and never played

So that is your first obstacle.

To your more specific questions


A rather short answer.

Could you check the things that apply in this list?
- There's a general lack of players here.
- Players don't like diceless systems.
- Players like rules.
- Players like combat and violence / uncivilized behavior.
- Players prefer to play established professional game-systems.
- Players don't like weird, trippy games.
- Players find eating weird monster babies to be too gross.
- Players don't like to wield metaphysical dice as strange "weapons".

I've been suffering through lots of RPGs for 20 years, and I like my ideas better, so it would be weird if there wasn't at least some appeal. There's basically only a handful of settings in RPGs: Futuristic, post-catastrophy, medieval, contemporary, and some portal games that try to blend them all together. I'd welcome something new and different at this point.

Players need rules.
There are diceless systems that remove some degree of randomness without removing it all - eg you have a pool of points to spend on ensuring outcomes - run out of points too soon...
Legend of the Five Rings shows that many players like to behave in a civilized manner
People prefer to play systems they know and enjoy. IMO there are too many systems. So many designers try desperately hard to make their system unique and that has various challenges - everyone has to learn the system - and then from a VTT perspectove many of these are challenging to code.
Many people dont like weird, trippy games. I dont. I dont mind the horror/cthulhu/esoterrorist stuff but I prefer stuff my mind can wrap itself around (and yes, fireballs are easier to understand than madness)
There have been many examples of games that have been deemed too much
I dont think anyone really understands what you mean by your weapons/attacks

Have you played Trail of Cthulhu - using the Gumshoe system? Gumshoe is very good for investigative games. If you have skill you always get some clue.
Have you tried a PbtA Cthulhu based game? PbtA is very good for story telling games.

Ultimately Im sure some people will play your game.
So if you want to write it, if you think its got legs - do it.

[MooCow]

So here is my take on things:
There are about 8000 RPGs out there.
More than 60% of all games played and all products sold are D&D5E.
Throw in Pathfinder 1 and 2 and the older Wizards/TSR D&D versions and that number climbs again.
Take the next 10 biggest RPGs - like Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, Warhammer, Starfinder, Vampire the Masquerade etc and you have accounted for 90% of the market.
That leaves the other 7900+ games competing for less than 10% of the market - and there are definitely games in there that chew up relatively large amounts of that 10%.
Most RPGs never get played (at least statistically speaking)
I have over a hundred RPG systems Ive paid for and never played
So that is your first obstacle.

That's a very commercially oriented calculation. I'm not looking to make a commercial RPG for world success. I'm happy if I get just 2-3 players some day.




To your more specific questions

Players need rules.
There are diceless systems that remove some degree of randomness without removing it all - eg you have a pool of points to spend on ensuring outcomes - run out of points too soon...

Maybe I'm being vague in what I mean by "rule-less". If you remove all the stats and core mechanics from a game, you still have rules - world rules. Natural laws, settings, local laws, customs, et cetera. In Call Of Cthulhu, if you just play a feeble human being, who doesn't try to armwrestle or fight other humans, and who is completely outmatched by cosmic horrors, then you don't need stats. If a cosmic horror eats you, you don't need to count your HP. If you break your ankle, then you can note that on your character sheet and I'll GM that. No cosmic horror is going to take away a little fracture of your HP, with little to-hit skill checks, that will add up in the long run.

FPS video games are examples of "CYOA" style games, where it's all about skill, and you rarely roll dice for damage, and of those games, there are games like Amnesia, that has little to no stats, but still manages to be scary, and the lack of distracting stat managing, only adds to the immersion.




Legend of the Five Rings shows that many players like to behave in a civilized manner

I've seen next to nothing of LotFR gameplay, but plenty of CoC player behaving very uncivilized. Burglary is very common, for example, and thievery.



People prefer to play systems they know and enjoy. IMO there are too many systems. So many designers try desperately hard to make their system unique and that has various challenges - everyone has to learn the system - and then from a VTT perspectove many of these are challenging to code.
That's exactly why I'm keeping my both my games simple to start playing - especially the rule-less game, which you only need to explain the world and playstyle of. Mainstream game systems are incredibly time-consuming to learn, and often I've just skipped the 100 pages big Player's Handbook and never bothered to learn the rules, which in turn made me a chore for the GM to babysit, and often not even the GM can keep track of all the rules of the game.



Many people dont like weird, trippy games. I dont. I dont mind the horror/cthulhu/esoterrorist stuff but I prefer stuff my mind can wrap itself around (and yes, fireballs are easier to understand than madness)
There have been many examples of games that have been deemed too much
I dont think anyone really understands what you mean by your weapons/attacks
I'll quote my in-game guide, and you'll see that they're meant to be obscure:



The Elusive Mysteries of The Dice
In this world, actions are carried out through the power of dice. Dice are metaphysical multidimensional artifacts of elusive mystery, and it takes understanding of reality and its dimensions, equal to the tier of a die, in order to wield it.
Dice can be stored in various metaphysical slots inside a wielder's body. A wielder can only use one die per skill, but may use multiple skills at a time, such as one skill in each arm.

Assembling Dice
A die can be assembled by using dimensions from other dice, or be disassembled into dimensional material for other dice.
Assembling the dimensions of reality into a perfect, functional symmertry as it pertains to a skill, requires skill and understanding equal to the amount that it takes to wield that skill die.
A dice require dimensions equal to two dice of its immediately lower tier.
For example, one can reassemble two d4 dice of a skill, into a d6 die of that same skill, or 2d10 into a d12, or reassemble 1d12 back into 2d10.
The process is about as demanding of time and focus, as trying to solve a puzzle box.
How to assemble a d20 is beyond any player character's understanding or skill.


Why make it this weird? Because trying to get your head around the weirdness can be comedic, in a sort of "Your gun is now a duck." kind of way.



Have you played Trail of Cthulhu - using the Gumshoe system? Gumshoe is very good for investigative games. If you have skill you always get some clue.

I know what it is, and it sounds great, but I couldn't find it in the DLC list, or I would definitely have bought it instead of 6th edition.


Have you tried a PbtA Cthulhu based game? PbtA is very good for story telling games.
"Powered by the Apocalypse"? I've never heard of it. However, I doubt it's simpler to learn than my own system.


Ultimately Im sure some people will play your game.
So if you want to write it, if you think its got legs - do it.
Thank you, and thank you for your input as well.

[Trenloe]

These types of games aren't for me. I like some level of rules. And I like rolling dice - not for everything, but they add more excitement and uncertainty to the game IMO. Like the CoC 7e ruleset says (paraphrasing) - if the keeper wants a certain outcome then make sure there's a way to achieve that outcome without rolling dice, but there's still dice rolling in the game for those uncertain and exciting moments.

I've played some games where there's no game rules, no dice, and it really ended up with the players doing super wacky things, which I felt ruined to story. Such wacky and zany goings on in RPGs may be for some, but it's not for me.

I think the best place for these types of games is in a short one-off game environment - such as a convention. Some players seem more willing to try different things in conventions, whereas they probably wouldn't sign up for an "unknown take a chance if I like it game" outside of a convention. Look for FG Con 16 coming next April and maybe work towards having your idea/s setup within FG by then - you probably won't need much setup at all (in terms of game play mechanics) by the sound of it...

[MooCow]

These types of games aren't for me. I like some level of rules. And I like rolling dice - not for everything, but they add more excitement and uncertainty to the game IMO. Like the CoC 7e ruleset says (paraphrasing) - if the keeper wants a certain outcome then make sure there's a way to achieve that outcome without rolling dice, but there's still dice rolling in the game for those uncertain and exciting moments.
I've played some games where there's no game rules, no dice, and it really ended up with the players doing super wacky things, which I felt ruined to story. Such wacky and zany goings on in RPGs may be for some, but it's not for me.

It weird that you should say that, because in my experience it's the dice that make players do wacky and zany things. If the human psyche could handle randomness in a rational manner, it would prepare for the worst. It would be paranoid about dice. ...but it doesn't. Instead dice challenges players to be bolder, more suicidal, and to die sooner and in less heroic ways, because more often than not, they're not prepared for the odds being against them. Dice also produces wacky moments like somebody managing to moon Cthulhu with a perfect roll on his Sanity, or managing to shoot themselves in the foot with a crossbow. I call the many players entertained by this ruining of immersion "troll players".

...and if you remove the dice for troll players, then yes, they will look around and see how ELSE they can "affect" (ruin) the game world, and they'll up their ante on doing wacky and zany things as a result. That's when any GM interested in running a serious campaign would excuse them from the table altogether.

This "troll playing" is also true for some Let's Players on YouTube. As an example, PewDiePie's LP stream of Prey is all but removed from the internet, because he screwed around so much in that game, that he softlocked himself and had to admit that maybe he should have taken the game seriously instead of wasting all his ammo. It's a pervasive phenomenon around the world, and I'm glad that there are popular systems in place that can entertain them, away from me. I'm looking for players that aren't like that - players that aren't ashamed to be afraid. I've right now finished watching the first episode of The Black Madonna, not by Encounter Roleplay (which would be a very bad example) but by Red Moon Roleplaying, and they had no dice, no mention of rules (probably because they were internally managed by the GM, which is next to making them GM decision), and yet a serious tone throughout. That's what I'm aiming for in my Cthulhu sessions.


I think the best place for these types of games is in a short one-off game environment - such as a convention. Some players seem more willing to try different things in conventions, whereas they probably wouldn't sign up for an "unknown take a chance if I like it game" outside of a convention. Look for FG Con 16 coming next April and maybe work towards having your idea/s setup within FG by then - you probably won't need much setup at all (in terms of game play mechanics) by the sound of it...
My second (trippy) example would probably do well as a one-off, because that game is all about exploring and discovering new wacky things, and once you've explored the game world thoroughly, you're basically done, but I'm convinced that you can run dice-less games for a long time, if you also GM well - if you bring the excitement in plot form.

[RunningHill]

I don't think the dice is the reason in how people play the game. But mechanics can have an impact in play style. Dnd is an example of a rpg there the dice is more important than being skilled in many situations.
But you will want some rules in who will decide the outcome of a check. Will it be DM/GM, players, dice, resources or some other version of random outcome (jenga blocks)?
For Dnd it makes sense that the dice will be the judge because it involves a lot of checks that need to be decided how the outcome will be. Some include the wacky parts there you do wacky things on a 1 or 20. Others do not...
If you don't have any boundaries you can get players who try to push the limits as Trenloe points out.
If the GM does all the decisions on how challenges would work (either by rolling the dice himself or just rule by his own head) then you get a more flow in the session than waiting for a player to make his/her input. For some thats fine and for others it takes away some of their control - even if it's just control of a random element. But that second type of players are probably not your target anyway.

[MooCow]

I don't think the dice is the reason in how people play the game. But mechanics can have an impact in play style. Dnd is an example of a rpg there the dice is more important than being skilled in many situations.
But you will want some rules in who will decide the outcome of a check. Will it be DM/GM, players, dice, resources or some other version of random outcome (jenga blocks)?

Checks are important in DnD. Every RPG where there's lots of one-on-one combat, revolves around checks. ...but does Call of Cthulhu, without human-to-human combat, do that? ...and even when human-to-human combat is involved, I figure it's much better to roleplay the whole ordeal.
Let's for example say that a madman breaks into a PC's house. As the GM you know that this encounter isn't set up to kill the PC - that it's just something that happens in the story, and if the PC doesn't do anything stupid, he'll make it - but the player is unprepared for this, and has to come up with a good enough tactic in order to survive. Let's say that the madman charges him, wrestles him to the ground, and that they struggle. In DnD who wins would be left up to a strength check. In my game, I just describe how they struggle, but that ultimately something - another PC perhaps, or a well placed blow - happens, that drives the madman off. This allows the scenario to be that much more intense, without one bad dice roll risking to kill him.
The danger is still there, however: If the player acts stupidly, like not struggling back, then death is still an option. It's a test of player wits, instead of rolls.


If you don't have any boundaries you can get players who try to push the limits as Trenloe points out.
My CoC world has an extreme amount of boundaries compared to other game worlds. I have one or more full pages detailing how a gentleman is supposed to behave and think. I thought about statting these virtues for a while, but ultimately decided against it, since I could just tell the players that things like stealing would be ungentleman-like, and therefor not allowed. ...and yes, I'm aware that disallowing character behavior is taboo, but that's just a neccessary part of my highbrow world.
...and there's also the boundaries of being a feeble human facing the mythos. They'd all have stats of basically one on that scale.
They're also preset to be gentlemen, so again, they have nothing outside their behavior, professions and contacts. They have no strength to speak of, for example.
...and these contacts are decided within reason, and expanded upon within the course of the game, as the PCs interact with the world.
...so yes, there's plenty of boundaries - just not any numbers to grade them with.



If the GM does all the decisions on how challenges would work (either by rolling the dice himself or just rule by his own head) then you get a more flow in the session than waiting for a player to make his/her input. For some thats fine and for others it takes away some of their control - even if it's just control of a random element. But that second type of players are probably not your target anyway.
Yes - I'm not out to attract ALL players here. I just don't wish it to be ZERO players.

[Valyar]

The more you explain on the CoC game, the more it is a book that you want to narrate. Railroad, no rules, pre-defined outcomes, restrictions on this or that and nothing to the chance. What is left for the players to enjoy? What will be the thrilling part of your sessions? Do you rely entirely on the story, as it must be better than everything released so far to keep players listening to you, without any real interaction or action.

[LordEntrails]

In my game, I just describe how they struggle, but that ultimately something - another PC perhaps, or a well placed blow - happens, that drives the madman off. This allows the scenario to be that much more intense, without one bad dice roll risking to kill him.
The danger is still there, however: If the player acts stupidly, like not struggling back, then death is still an option. It's a test of player wits, instead of rolls.

See, to me, this is the problem with a system such as you describe here. EVERYTHING that ultimately happens is by GM fiat. If the GM doesn't think the player acts rationally then the DM narrates the player dies or loses. If the GM thinks the player acted rationally (according to the GMs pre-conceived notions) then the story continues exactly how the GM planned it. The essence of a railroad. In your situation, player agency is a farce, it doesn't exist outside of the mind of the GM.

That's why I have no interest is such a game as a player, I would only be pretending to play out a script already written by the GM.

[MooCow]

The more you explain on the CoC game, the more it is a book that you want to narrate. Railroad, no rules, pre-defined outcomes, restrictions on this or that and nothing to the chance. What is left for the players to enjoy?
Reading the book. Listening to my narrations. Some people like narrations. I imagine this goes especially for CoC fans. ...not that I agree with you - I'll respond properly toward the end of this post. - but ultimately, there's no shame in listening to narration. People on YouTube do that every day, and they like it.


What will be the thrilling part of your sessions?
What's the thrilling part of a First Person Shooter? There's no dice in an FPS. There's stats, but some games just display them in terms of amount of blood on the screen. ...and still there's plenty of player choice and thrills.


Do you rely entirely on the story, as it must be better than everything released so far to keep players listening to you, without any real interaction or action.
My campaigns are generally better than DnD campaigns, because DnD campaigns are just "Go here. Fight these monsters. Here's the loot.", and from what I've heard from its critics, my campaigns are also better than the Masks of Nyarlathotep campaign. It takes a bit of skill to make a plot exciting, and it's not something that you can just cram out every month, but it's worth it.

...but why wouldn't there be real interaction or action? There's people, mysteries and intrigue to be had. You don't need dice or stats to endulge in that. It's just like in real life: You walk up to a person and talk to them. I don't understand this argument about it being like reading a book at all. Is real life like reading a book?

[MooCow]

See, to me, this is the problem with a system such as you describe here. EVERYTHING that ultimately happens is by GM fiat. If the GM doesn't think the player acts rationally then the DM narrates the player dies or loses. If the GM thinks the player acted rationally (according to the GMs pre-conceived notions) then the story continues exactly how the GM planned it. The essence of a railroad. In your situation, player agency is a farce, it doesn't exist outside of the mind of the GM.

That's why I have no interest is such a game as a player, I would only be pretending to play out a script already written by the GM.

It bears repeating:
"In your situation, player agency is a farce,"
This, right here - the railroad - is Lovecraftian horror.
Lovecraft sometimes begin his stories akin to: "I'm writing this with a trembling hand. The indescribable things I've witnessed! The foolishness I partook in! I have to warn humanity, so that the fate that befell me, will not spell doom for the rest of this frail world."
Call of Cthulhu isn't about changing events. It's about encountering/realizing them, and at best throwing a book at them and hoping that they'll go away. They may survive with their lives if they abandon the campaign - something that they can practically do at any point - but they'll never win. The player characters just don't know it yet. Horror isn't about being heroes. It's about being victims. It's about realizing just how little agency you have.

[seycyrus]

Yeah, this just sounds to me like you just want a captive audience.

[LordEntrails]

If it works for you and your players, great! But I personally don't think an RPG should be a story already written before the game sessions. To me, an RPG is a story waiting to be writtenby interaction and choices the players make as the GM presents situations to them.

BUT, that's only what I want in a game. The world is full of people who want different things than I do. So I encourage you to continue, to find those players that work for what you want, to make it happen. I'll should probably step out now since I think you know how I feel and what I think. Anything else will just seem to be negativity.

[damned]

If you build a story that engages you audience/players Im sure you will get some interest.
It wont be for everyone but if its something you want to do go for it.

[RunningHill]

My campaigns are generally better than DnD campaigns, because DnD campaigns are just "Go here. Fight these monsters. Here's the loot.", and from what I've heard from its critics, my campaigns are also better than the Masks of Nyarlathotep campaign. It takes a bit of skill to make a plot exciting, and it's not something that you can just cram out every month, but it's worth it.

...but why wouldn't there be real interaction or action? There's people, mysteries and intrigue to be had. You don't need dice or stats to endulge in that. It's just like in real life: You walk up to a person and talk to them. I don't understand this argument about it being like reading a book at all. Is real life like reading a book?

Sounds like you confuse rules and campaigns. Some DnD campaigns are like you describe and a reason why a lot of people don't like them. But thats how they are written and not about the rules. You can have DnD campaigns without fighting at all. As long as you have a setting and a plot you can use whatever rules you like.

If everything is up to the GM there will be no thrill in the game. As a player you will know that the outcome of the fight is determined before from the GM. It doesn't matter what you do as a player. You are just there to help the GM tell a story. There is a small niche of games that does that already so it's nothing new. You will find some players for your game.
You seem convinced that in DnD you roll for everything you do. But thats not the case. There is most of the time no need to roll for everything. You talk to a guard and try to convince him of that there is a murderer about and he needs to call for backup - DM checks that the character has proficiency in persuasion and decides based on that how likely it succeds. You don't need to roll for everything if you don't like that playstyle. You can even narrative fights just by looking at their stats if you want to. But it's never just up to the DM to decide what works. Even the DM has limits in what he can do.


I would be more interested in your campaigns than your rules as I take it you want more than standard dungeon crawl. And for that you will have a bigger audience than for a new set of rules.

[MooCow]

Sounds like you confuse rules and campaigns. Some DnD campaigns are like you describe and a reason why a lot of people don't like them. But thats how they are written and not about the rules. You can have DnD campaigns without fighting at all. As long as you have a setting and a plot you can use whatever rules you like.
Wouldn't that be campaigns that don't utilize the core rules? It would be like playing DnD despite of it being DnD. I'm sure that works, but it's obviously not really how DnD was meant to be played according to its rule designers. If you want to do actual non-combat roleplaying, then it's better to do it in a system that has better support for it, or there will be misunderstandings where DnD players will come in expecting to fight monsters, only to be treated to theatre.


If everything is up to the GM there will be no thrill in the game. As a player you will know that the outcome of the fight is determined before from the GM. It doesn't matter what you do as a player. You are just there to help the GM tell a story. There is a small niche of games that does that already so it's nothing new. You will find some players for your game.
There are many action movies where you already know that the protagonist will survive, because him dying would make the movie pointless. A happy end is presumed if you step away from most movies and think about it. However, you forget all of that when the action starts.

However, my CoC setting isn't even about action. It's more about research. There is very little action in Lovecraft's stories. Rarely are the protagonists expected to be in personal mortal danger. It's only their minds that are at risk, and these revelations, and the insanity they cause, is in turn up to roleplaying. (...and you don't even have to ham that up: If your character knows about the ghouls in the cemetary, he'll stay away from it, and start warning people about going there. From the point-of-view of an ignorant society, that's insane behavior.)
...so the characters will likely live. The question is if they regret living.

...or if they go all the way, they might actually die. That's up to player choice. "It looks dangerous down in that pit, and there are thunderous roars, but we want to know what's down there, damnit! Pierre, if we don't make it back, then inform the authorities!", "Okay. You use your ropes to descend into the darkness, your lantern as your only illumination. It's a long way down, but the monstrous roars are closer now, along with the flapping of wings. After that all Pierre hears is screams, vanishing into the darkness." This is a situation that a DnD character will expect to survive, but a CoC character shouldn't. The players became too daring and they paid the price. They should have just packed up and went home. There's a short Lovecraft story about a man who's dreamt for ages, where the protagonist just goes "Nope! Not going to his apartment - F that! Just imagining what I'll find there, is keeping me up at night.".

I could roll a die, of course: "Will they live if they descend down that pit?" ...but then there's two outcomes: If they make the roll, then that certain death is no longer certain. Everything in the mythos can technically be survived, and the mythos is no longer the mythos. ...or the roll fails and they die anyway, whereupon the players will feel they were killed due to a failed die roll instead of a thrilling conclusion. Either way the mood is ruined.

Dice will also take away from the agency of the players - not add to it. If you make a clever choice, a bad die roll can still overrule that choice half the time. That's why dice makes the game less thrilling for me: It doesn't matter what I do if it's all random anyway.


You seem convinced that in DnD you roll for everything you do. But thats not the case. There is most of the time no need to roll for everything. You talk to a guard and try to convince him of that there is a murderer about and he needs to call for backup - DM checks that the character has proficiency in persuasion and decides based on that how likely it succeds. You don't need to roll for everything if you don't like that playstyle. You can even narrative fights just by looking at their stats if you want to. But it's never just up to the DM to decide what works. Even the DM has limits in what he can do.

Allowing a stat to decide what works, or a dice, isn't exactly freedom either. At least a DM can be argued with. I cringe every time a player comes up to a guard and goes "Uh, hi. How's it going? Uh, there's something going on over there. I think I saw some shady people mucking about. You should probably go over there and check it out. Don't worry - I'll stand guard." and then rolls a success despite not even putting any effort into sounding convincing. Maybe some DMs will allow for crazy things like that to work, but a good DM would be rational and reasonable. If you rely on dialogue instead of a score, they will be that much more engaging and thrilling.

Sorry if I'm rambling a lot. Hopefully I understood you correctly.

[RunningHill]

Dice will also take away from the agency of the players - not add to it. If you make a clever choice, a bad die roll can still overrule that choice half the time. That's why dice makes the game less thrilling for me: It doesn't matter what I do if it's all random anyway.

Allowing a stat to decide what works, or a dice, isn't exactly freedom either. At least a DM can be argued with. I cringe every time a player comes up to a guard and goes "Uh, hi. How's it going? Uh, there's something going on over there. I think I saw some shady people mucking about. You should probably go over there and check it out. Don't worry - I'll stand guard." and then rolls a success despite not even putting any effort into sounding convincing. Maybe some DMs will allow for crazy things like that to work, but a good DM would be rational and reasonable. If you rely on dialogue instead of a score, they will be that much more engaging and thrilling.

Sorry if I'm rambling a lot. Hopefully I understood you correctly.

English is second language so thanks for being understanding!

The reason of having stats is that it allows players to play something they are not. If you are forcing the rule that they need to roleplay what they say all the time (some does that in DnD as well) you will be punishing players who are not that talkative. They might be excellent roleplayers but their personality is more of a support person than a talker. With your system they wouldn't be allowed to play a talker because the GM would rule against them each time due to their unconvincing improv.

In this rule lite version of CoC - do you plan to have any rules at all? So far it seams that the only core rule is that the GM decides everything. The rules I seen so far is that of the setting (natural laws, local laws) but not how you interact with it. Just curious how you plan to make it. How do you decide how much knowledge a character has of ancient history and stuff like that? How does the player know if their character has any knowledge of ancient history?

[MooCow]

English is second language so thanks for being understanding!

The reason of having stats is that it allows players to play something they are not. If you are forcing the rule that they need to roleplay what they say all the time (some does that in DnD as well) you will be punishing players who are not that talkative. They might be excellent roleplayers but their personality is more of a support person than a talker. With your system they wouldn't be allowed to play a talker because the GM would rule against them each time due to their unconvincing improv.

Yeah, I completely understand roleplayers who want to play people with different skills and knowledge. I've done that plenty of times. However, in my particular CoC setting, the characters are playing thinly veiled replicas of themselves. This is done for three reasons:
First of all, the player characters aren't special. They may have better social standing than the average player, but not something that will give them an edge in a conversation. If they have poor social skills, then so be it. Hopefully my campaign can make them work on improving those real life skills.
The second reason is immersion: They are meant to identify with the characters.
The third reason is that you don't want to spend lots of effort on making a good role for your character, only to have him die every other adventure. If you've played Paranoia, you know the concept of clones, and how they're simple to prevent grief when they die. Players won't have multiple clones in my campaigns, but you get the idea.



In this rule lite version of CoC - do you plan to have any rules at all? So far it seams that the only core rule is that the GM decides everything. The rules I seen so far is that of the setting (natural laws, local laws) but not how you interact with it.
Simply without any stats. Their character sheets will keep track only of their possessions, their contacts, and various player notes. Those are the most important tools to a helpless CoC amateur investigator.


Just curious how you plan to make it. How do you decide how much knowledge a character has of ancient history and stuff like that? How does the player know if their character has any knowledge of ancient history?
Player: "GM, since I'm a historian, have I read anything about this medieval family?"
GM: "You only vaguely recall that they married off their daughter to some German price. Nothing relevant to why they'd be in possession of this book. ...but there's always your private history collection, or you can go to the library."
The GM simply decides how much they know on a plot by plot basis, and this prevents failed rolls from leaving players with no clues.

[Bidmaron]

Hey Moocow please don’t take this wrong as I am sure what you are describing could be entertaining. However it is not a game:

Game definition
a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

That is why most here are not in active support. We are here for role playing games not participatory fiction, which is what you are describing.

[MooCow]

Hey Moocow please don’t take this wrong as I am sure what you are describing could be entertaining. However it is not a game:
Game definition
a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
That is why most here are not in active support. We are here for role playing games not participatory fiction, which is what you are describing.

Roleplay
- (intransitive) To act out a fantasy, especially with a group.
- (transitive) To act as a character as part of a fantasy, especially with a group.

...but just because the luck element is removed from a game, that doesn't mean that the skill element is removed. It takes wit to make the right decisions. In real life there are no dice, and no perfectly random determiners, yet it is just as full of demanding things that require skill. In most action computer games, there is no randomness as well. Each level is already planned out ahead by a designer, and yet the player feels like he's actively participating in a game world when he's playing it.

[Samzagas]

Not to be mean, but I believe that your original questions have been answered and any further discussion is not really accomplishing anything.
It has already been established that you have different ideals (at least when it comes to roleplaying games) than most in this topic. All their arguments and your counterarguments are logical and viable but since there is no real answer on who has the right idea perhaps you should move to the next step.
I'd recommend that you should either accept that your views are going to make it hard to find players, but you desire to pursue them nevertheless or you could perhaps alter your current vision and try to fit yourself into a more popular style.
At the end of the day, it's a game and all that matter is that you and your players enjoy it.

[MooCow]

Not to be mean, but I believe that your original questions have been answered and any further discussion is not really accomplishing anything.
It has already been established that you have different ideals (at least when it comes to roleplaying games) than most in this topic. All their arguments and your counterarguments are logical and viable but since there is no real answer on who has the right idea perhaps you should move to the next step.
I'd recommend that you should either accept that your views are going to make it hard to find players, but you desire to pursue them nevertheless or you could perhaps alter your current vision and try to fit yourself into a more popular style.
At the end of the day, it's a game and all that matter is that you and your players enjoy it.

I already knew from the start that my games would be odd. The Sword & Sorcery one is designed to BE odd. It just wasn't clear to me what the players would be at most at odds with. ...but now I know. It's surprising, yet somewhat expected.

If I'm to guess here, I'd say that you're annoyed that I've been replying to people for four pages. To me it's just courtesy to explain myself to people, but maybe it's annoying to you somehow. Do you think I should ignore further replies and just abandon the thread?

[Samzagas]

I don't think that abandoning the post would be the right thing to do (too rude for my taste), but you could declare an end. Now, if you enjoy replying or you are hoping to get something out of this, even is it's only entertainment, then do carry on.

[MooCow]

I don't think that abandoning the post would be the right thing to do (too rude for my taste), but you could declare an end. Now, if you enjoy replying or you are hoping to get something out of this, even is it's only entertainment, then do carry on.
See, this isn't just about me and my conceptions, but about other people's conceptions. A lot of people here don't know anything outside of DnD-style roleplaying, so apparently they come here and tell me that what I'm describing isn't even a game, and I'll gladly correct them on it. Maybe they'll join my group one day in the distant future, now that they're aware that there are more than one way to play.

[Samzagas]

I must admit that there's a lot of people who don't know any play style other than the D&D way, but it is a great stepping stone into the hobby, let them progress by themselves.
However, you seem to be enjoying yourself here, so I'll stop meddling in your business and be on my way.
Good luck finding players.

[damned]

MooCow providing you are not taking offense and are happy to let the conversation continue then I am.
Please everyone keep the conversation civil and constructive.
In the immortal words of Dalton "Opinions vary"

[MooCow]

I must admit that there's a lot of people who don't know any play style other than the D&D way, but it is a great stepping stone into the hobby, let them progress by themselves.
By now the 5th edition Player's Handbook is 320 pages big. A dice-less, stat-less system handbook, can be as small as zero pages. Which one should be "the first stepping stone", is obvious to me. I've played DnD, and lots of other RPGs, but only once have I read through an entire freaking rulebook, and it took me about a month to do. People at school mocked me for always reading it during the breaks, and I became known as "The [insert RPG title here] Guy" - no joke. That's not what I call a stepping stone at all. That's a giant mountain. That's cruel and unusual punishment in some countries.


However, you seem to be enjoying yourself here, so I'll stop meddling in your business and be on my way.
Good luck finding players.
Thank you.

[MooCow]

MooCow providing you are not taking offense and are happy to let the conversation continue then I am.
Please everyone keep the conversation civil and constructive.
In the immortal words of Dalton "Opinions vary"

I think that's actually my cue to stop posting. See, I don't understand what "keeping things civil" means. I THINK I do, and then I always end up surprised when I'm banned from forums. In my appeal I always ask what I said that was so wrong or offensive, but the mods will never tell me. ...so I'm out.

[LordEntrails]

You won't be banned here. Not for anything like what you have been saying or doing. In the time here I can only think of one person who was banned (twice). But they used offensive language repeatedly and called people names and all sorts of things.

Not that damned can't explain himself, but I think he was just trying to make the point by explicitly stating it (since it is so easy for people to misconstrue connotation and tone in a written medium) that as long as people are being civil (which everyone is) they are welcome to continue gaming related discussions :)

[MooCow]

You won't be banned here. Not for anything like what you have been saying or doing. In the time here I can only think of one person who was banned (twice). But they used offensive language repeatedly and called people names and all sorts of things.
Not that damned can't explain himself, but I think he was just trying to make the point by explicitly stating it (since it is so easy for people to misconstrue connotation and tone in a written medium) that as long as people are being civil (which everyone is) they are welcome to continue gaming related discussions :)

Okay. See, I'm extra scared since I've bought DLC, and don't know what would happen to that if I'm banned from here. My first plan was to never post at this forum at all, but that plan seems to have failed. My backup plan was to never disagree with people here, and that seems to have failed as well. My third plan is now to never let the mask slip. I'm not good at pretending to be human, but I'll try my best.

[RunningHill]

The forum has little to do with your license of the game. And this is not the only place to find others interested in Fantasy Grounds.

I like picking other peoples brains and enjoyed the conversation. I don't agree on some of the opinions but since it's opinions and not facts I'm not concerned trying to convert anybody.

But comparing to action oriented computer games seems a little wrong. There you have a visual element you don't have in rpg. Unless you play with minis and are fine with that you hit the enemy as long you mini is facing the right direction. And even if its only how you line up your aim towards the hitbox of the enemy it's still known to the player what happens then he pulls the trigger. He knows that the guns does X damage and the enemy can take XX damage. In your game as I understand it the only thing the player knows is that he knows nothing. What happens is up to the GM. It's no control at all to the player. I think thats might be the main problem you will face with your game.


Otherwise it sounds like a storytelling rpg and if you label your game with that you will get fewer upset players who thought they there getting a rule light rpg.
I have seen some great plays during storytelling rpgs that should have been impossible with dice rules. But they have mostly been in chats without a GM...

[MooCow]

The forum has little to do with your license of the game. And this is not the only place to find others interested in Fantasy Grounds.
Some forums won't let you even access their site upon a ban, and I have to have this site linked to my Steam account - something I find extremely questionable, BTW - in order to even get access to my DLC. I don't know how things work, but there's a non-zero chance that I'll get robbed if mods here won't like me.


But comparing to action oriented computer games seems a little wrong. There you have a visual element you don't have in rpg. Unless you play with minis and are fine with that you hit the enemy as long you mini is facing the right direction. And even if its only how you line up your aim towards the hitbox of the enemy it's still known to the player what happens then he pulls the trigger. He knows that the guns does X damage and the enemy can take XX damage.
Well, first of all, there is no combat in my game world. The characters will never have a physical fighting chance against the mythos. The rare cases that they encounter something like a little ghoul, it's like a human encountering a xenomorph: There might be running involved, but it will be a pointless kind of running, which they will only survive through plot. My setting takes place before the invention of the revolver, and there are laws against possessing firearms. The way to handle suspicious people, it to alert the authorities and let them handle it on their own.
I will still use minis, but that'll be for the purpose of map exploration only.


In your game as I understand it the only thing the player knows is that he knows nothing. What happens is up to the GM. It's no control at all to the player. I think thats might be the main problem you will face with your game.
That's only the case in the Sword & Sorcery game, which does have rules and dice. It's sort of a polar opposite, just for the sake of utilizing that row of dice that's always tantalizingly present underneath the chat window.
In the CoC scenario, not knowing about things like the mythos, is expected. The mythos is supposed to be a mystery to explore. The moment you know its hit dice, the horror is absolutely ruined. The rest of the world is a common setting that I'll describe plenty of.


Otherwise it sounds like a storytelling rpg and if you label your game with that you will get fewer upset players who thought they there getting a rule light rpg.
Yes, I'd like to call my game a storytelling game, but then White Wolf copyrighted "The Storytelling System", which is still a system with rules and dice, so now we can't have nice things anymore. ...but I believe that I did refer to it as such once in this topic, and never a rules light RPG.


I have seen some great plays during storytelling rpgs that should have been impossible with dice rules. But they have mostly been in chats without a GM...
Without a GM? THAT seems like something impossible. I tried to let my players do that when I couldn't make it to a session once, and the next thing I know they had expanded their operation across the globe, acquiring giant X-Com bases and anything their imaginations could invent, because I wasn't there to stop them, or explain that the game didn't even take place on Earth.

[LordEntrails]

Some forums won't let you even access their site upon a ban, and I have to have this site linked to my Steam account - something I find extremely questionable, BTW - in order to even get access to my DLC. I don't know how things work, but there's a non-zero chance that I'll get robbed if mods here won't like me.

I understand the concern. But dont worry, Smiteworks runs Fantasy Grounds nothing like the Orr Group runs Roll20.

I guess it's possible they could do something like you contemplate, but I cant imagine they ever would. Doug is not that type of person. And from what I remember, that one user who was banned was actually publicaly offered a full refund if they wanted it. No idea if they took up the offer.

Also note, the moderators here are community volunteers and not Smiteworks employees. So we dont have the ability to do any such thing. The only ones that actually are employees are listed as "developers", and from a practical point the two that would have the authority to do any such thing would be ddavison (Doug) and Moon Wizard (John). And you can look at their profiles and see what they have posted to get an idea of who they are.

As for the Steam thing, it's only if you purchased DLC via Steam that you need to link that account. Others can address that more if you still have concerns.

[MooCow]

I understand the concern. But dont worry, Smiteworks runs Fantasy Grounds nothing like the Orr Group runs Roll20.
I guess it's possible they could do something like you contemplate, but I cant imagine they ever would. Doug is not that type of person. And from what I remember, that one user who was banned was actually publicaly offered a full refund if they wanted it. No idea if they took up the offer.
Also note, the moderators here are community volunteers and not Smiteworks employees. So we dont have the ability to do any such thing. The only ones that actually are employees are listed as "developers", and from a practical point the two that would have the authority to do any such thing would be ddavison (Doug) and Moon Wizard (John). And you can look at their profiles and see what they have posted to get an idea of who they are.
Betrayal is nothing new or unfathomable to me. All humans are made out of flesh, and flesh will always be weak, its mind hating what it doesn't understand and what it cannot relate to. I don't trust humans - especially not when it comes to caring for the inhuman. I only trust dead things.


As for the Steam thing, it's only if you purchased DLC via Steam that you need to link that account. Others can address that more if you still have concerns.
I just don't see how it's necessary to give them things like my password and username at all. They get paid from Steam like everyone else. Maybe it's a way to avoid Steam from taking that huge percentage that I've been hearing about.

[RunningHill]

Sounds like you have some issues you need to work on or you try hard to be portrayed deep. I would love discuss game theory some more but not I'm not doing it with anyone who thinks I would be their enemy. Lighten up my friend, the world ain't darker than you let it be.

[MooCow]

Sounds like you have some issues you need to work on or you try hard to be portrayed deep. I would love discuss game theory some more but not I'm not doing it with anyone who thinks I would be their enemy. Lighten up my friend, the world ain't darker than you let it be.
It's not a matter of being an enemy. It's something in human nature. It's complicated to explain. Take my latest thread, about The Black Madonna, for example. For some reason it's locked now. I don't know why. The confusion is starting again. If I don't stop posting, it will be everywhere, and I'll get banned again.
Thank you for your time.

Edit: No, it seems the locking was likely just due to human error.

[damned]

I just don't see how it's necessary to give them things like my password and username at all. They get paid from Steam like everyone else. Maybe it's a way to avoid Steam from taking that huge percentage that I've been hearing about.

Its because of the nature of the FG platform. It has a library of 1400+ DLC and multiple products get updated every week and several new products come out most weeks. Steam is quite a bit more rigid than FGs own platform in being able to push out new versions - especially with Live, Test and Dev channels as well.
Building FG to support the content from Steam without those login interactions is not a viable option for a niche product in a niche hobby.

[Trenloe]

I just don't see how it's necessary to give them things like my password and username at all.
You don't give Fantasy Grounds your password and username. The screen where you signed in to Steam to allow your accounts to be linked detailed this:

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30893