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

[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.