As I've explained many times before, I got into Call of Cthulhu with its first edition all the way back in 1981 and I've owned and played every edition of the game up through sixth, all of which were essentially identical rules-wise. However, I haven't played the game in many years, but I've lately begun thinking about the possibility of returning to it in some fashion. Chaosium has released some rather nice-looking supplements and adventures over the last few years, suggesting that this new edition has been well received, hence my curiosity.
At the same time, I'm a grumpy old man. I remember that, when 7th edition was announced, I was none too keen on many of its purported rules innovations (like percentile characteristics) or by the tone of its designers regarding how they had "improved" upon Sandy Petersen's classic game. Consequently, I haven't picked up the latest edition or any of its supplementary material. Am I mistaken in having avoided it thus far?
I can't say much about 7e. My favorite edition is the GW hardback. But I'm always on the lookout for scenarios, which I can easily adapt to whatever rules I'm using. The 7e starter set is tempting me.
ReplyDeleteI'm old and grumpy too, and while I haven't played the new edition, I believe that many of the adventure scenarios designed for the 6th and 7th editions are far better than most from the '80s. They feel more transgressive and genuinely Lovecraftian as opposed to the pulpy tone of classics like Masks, Orient Express, etc. I'm thinking of products like Berlin (2019), The Stars are Right (2004), The Things We Leave Behind (2016), Revelations (2013), etc. But regarding the 7e rules themselves, I have no opinion since I haven't played by those rules. I'm wary of some of the innovations in game mechanics as you are.
ReplyDeleteSomeone who has played the old editions know they have some oddities. While none where showstoppers, they where clunky. I consider the game one of the best, like you say, melding rules and content. But, some parts feel like they suit RQ better than CoC, and I think the combat system in general still could be made to better fit this game and its themes and feel.
ReplyDeleteTo me, 7th ed fix and smooth out all those issues. I think they probably should have done this revision earlier, but for Chaosium reasons they didn't.
I still have all my old books and scenarios and they can be played with the new rules, as the changes are not that kind. But, if I play any of the old scenarios today, I wont't hesitate a second to run them with the 7th ed rules. I love the old ones, and they have not become worse. I will admit I have not used the chase rules, so they are not part of this assessment.
The only problem with the 7th ed rules in English is that the 7th ed rules in Swedish translation looks much better. I know, I know. Silly, but that's the only thing that clearly be better than books from Chaosium.
I did only a little with previous versions, but it is very very similar. they brought in IDEA rolls, to fix stuck sessions, and the car chase mechanic, oh and moved stats to d100 (just multiply by five). Other than that, very much the same. converting is easy, I run old scenarios all the time
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, the changes in the new edition are a bridge too far so I've never picked up 7th edition. In any case, I long ago started using the rules in the Big Gold Book when playing Call of Cthulhu which, in my mind, are the best iteration of the BRP ruleset. I had hoped that 7th edition would build upon the BGB but they went in a different direction. The good news is that it is a simple matter to backward convert any of the new scenarios or campaigns if any of them should interest you.
ReplyDeleteI stopped at 6th. There are so many adventures that are really good from previous editions that are compatible. As far as 7th, I'm not too impressed. I'm not all too keen on Chaosium taking previous scenarios and updating them for a "more sensible modern audience".
ReplyDeleteThat's been a concern of mine, too, but I honestly haven't looked too closely at their recent releases to confirm my suspicions.
DeleteCompletely agree, Blackstone.
DeleteBeen playing off and on since 1982. Apart from some minor tweaks to combat (YMMV), the major changes are hard and extreme successes straight off the skill roll, spending luck, and bonus/penalty dice instead doing %adds. All works pretty nicely as far as I’m concerned. Not sure I’d call it the ‘new’ edition when it’s been out for 11 years though!
ReplyDeleteThis hardly needs to be said within the context of this blog, but when you've been gaming for 40+ years, an 11 year-old ruleset is "new"; indeed, anything post 1990* seems "new"-ish in a subconscious sort of way to me. I'm not advocating this latter perspective at all, mind, and honestly, I think it might well stem from the shock to the system Unearthed Arcana was back in the day. For myself, as I had no clue to the inner machinations of TSR at the time, the whole book felt like a missive from another planet. That EGG's name sat atop this edifce meant that I had to open the door, but I got lost wandering the rooms. We never used any of it.
Delete*Excepting the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, which fell apart physically - twice - as we used it. Such a great system.
It's robust and backwards compatible, indeed it's mostly the same game. The percentile stats isn't so much a change as it is a streamlining of the scenario standard of making checks at STATx5 / STATx3 (what would have been a CONx5 check is now just a CON check, for instance, and instead of a CONx2 or CONx3 check, you'd just ask a player to make a "hard check" by rolling under half the stat).
ReplyDeleteThe most significant change is actually removing the Resistance Table and replacing it with a contested roll mechanic (the player rolls against the Keeper or another player and they compare degrees of success. This is a more modern mechanic than a chart, and the RT apparently intimidated some people (and anecdotally I've heard some tables didn't use it). Whether this is an unfortunate design choice, an overdue update from 1st generation RPG game design, or just a thing that happened and you'll just switch between contested rolls and mentally calculating an RT result out of habit is a matter of personal preference, I think.
The other biggest changes, I think, incorporate some things like Luck spends and advantage/disadvantage rolls, which were already pretty common house rules and remain optional in the new edition.
They also made a big deal about finally having chase rules, but I don't know why: personally, I think the chase rules are cumbersome, inefficient, and not very useful; and sort of a solution in search of a problem since most Keepers can probably think of better ways to resolve a chase scene.
It's largely good, and there's no reason not to switch over to 7e. That said, it's the same BRP game, mostly, with changes that are mostly related to simplifying math at the table, so I wouldn't say there's much reason *to* switch unless you want to run new published scenarios/campaigns without having to convert them back to 5e/6e.
I don't like it.
ReplyDeleteThey have decided to solve problems that don't really exist by making some bizarre changes and overcomplicating pretty much every section of the game. Car chases are now 16 pages of rules. Combat has so many rules that the "simplified" flowcharts are a two page spread. There are two different difficulty resolution systems and their implementation is inconsistent.
I'll be the first to admit that the game was getting a bit creaky by the fifth/sixth editions, but you don't fix that by adding more stuff.
(As an aside, while it also has some issues, the current version of Delta Green is a much more successful update of the game, although there's a -- pedantic -- argument that it's not CoC at all but a RuneQuest hack.)
All that said, I do like how Luck is used in CoC7. I backport that to my CoC5 games.
"Car chases are now 16 pages of rules." Ooof, did not know that. I can't recall such chases in HPL, now that I think on't. He did have a rather heavy-handed way of hand-waving escapes, however; something along the lines of "How he managed to escape the [monstrous x] as he fled through endless [fungoid/eldritch/deserted/x] [warrens/crypts/streets/x] he was never able to say." Eh, perhaps some chase rules are warranted.
DeleteI've always used some sort of opposed roll, perhaps a series of them for long chases.
DeleteThat's 16 words to do what they did in 16 pages.
My biggest problem with 7th ed isn't that its complicated, its that the rules are explained in an overly verbose way (hence the bloated page count). Trying to find a rule at the table and digest it was a complete pain.
DeleteI found myself wishing over and over that someone had worked some Gavin Norman "OSE magic" over the whole thing.
I hate text bloat, so it sounds terrible to me. Glad I have the old Games Workshop edition.
Delete"...I haven't played the game in many years, but I've lately begun thinking about the possibility of returning to it in some fashion."
ReplyDeleteHey James, if Call of Cthulhu is to be the next game you run, given your recent posts on Alan Moore's ideas of magic, and the occult inspiration of pulp adventure stories, you should take a look at Alan Moore's valentines to H.P. Lovecraft: 'Neonomicon'
and 'Providence.' Both are in trade paperback now.
I think you might find them interesting.
I play in a 7E game, though I still run 6E. Degrees of success on skill rolls and spending Luck (which is now a resource that goes up and down in play) to make rolls are the major changes. Multiplying stats by 5 just takes away possibilities (formerly you could roll stat x 5, stat x 4, stat x 3, etc.; in the new system you can only roll the equivalent of the old stat x 5, old stat x 2.5, and old stat x 1. Combat is more complicated, though not grotesquely so. In the Pulp version it's very different - Talents change everything. I've never used the chase rules.
ReplyDeleteIt’s the same old game, except Chaosium has bolted on some “New School” ideas that are all the rage right now. Unnecessarily, IMO.
ReplyDelete• Advantage/Disadvantage rolls
(just apply a modifier and roll…)
• Character Ideals, Goals, Morality, etc
(just roleplay your character)
• Some generally “Over-Rulesy”
modifications to gameplay
(Keep it simple)
All-in-all, it’s the same game, you can just see where they tried to add some “Modern” flourishes that the 5e crowd might appreciate.
Some might refer to these changes as pandering.
DeleteI haven't really cared about post-5E, and when the 2E box reprint was kickstarted, I did that. It's still the best version of the game, minimal rules, just enough setting to play, not flooded with non-Mythos monsters. You can make your own stuff for it. Use the old White Dwarf "Cthulhu Now" articles for '80s.
ReplyDeleteMore often now, I play Apocthulhu/Cthulhu Eternal, which are much simpler games and have great setting books (The Night Lands!) and the Book of Yog-Sothothery.
Regardless of the rules, the various adventures and sourcebooks for 7e have been excellent and are definitely worth checking out.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the feeling about the Gumshoe Cthulhu rules system? An offense against gaming, a way to step off the whole nth-edition fiddly churn, or...?
ReplyDelete(Asking both James and the commentariat.)
The central premise of Gumshoe -- don't let investigations get derailed by failed skill rolls -- is basically how most people I know play CoC and other investigative games anyway. It's a decent bit of GM advice with a 200+ page rulebook added on.
Delete(I say "decent" because I don't think it's the best solution; I think the Three Clue Rule is better and feels less like Easy Mode.)
As a ruleset, Gumshoe is fine. The division between investigative and action skills is a bit clunky and gets even more creaky with variants that lean into the action side. For example, Night's Black Agents is great fun but the expanded action half of the game is broken; perhaps that's why it's so fun.
Not a big fan of the Gumshoe system, but the monster book they put out for it, The Book of Unremitting Horror, is an unsung forgotten gem. Some very creepy critters that would fit in any modern horror game.
DeleteI think it's a solution to a problem that in my experience never actually arises.
DeleteCoC7e is not a bad game, but it's full of unnecessary trendy mechanics and streamlining attempts that in the end don't streamline anything.
ReplyDeleteThanks to putting an emphasis on extreme and hard success now you have to write down three numbers for every skill. Instead of simply halving, doubling, or adding a modifier, now you also have the option of using advantage/disadvantage rolls, because you absolutely must have more than one mechanic to handle difficulty and success level. Combat was simplified in some places, then complicated in others. Chase scenes are ridiculously overblown. There are way too many safety measures now with luck, pushing, and tamer death rules.
On the other hand, I don't have any issues with the percentile characteristics. They have been there in RQ/BRP since the beginning as characteristic rolls. I also like pushing, it's a cool risk vs reward mechanic. Some skills were merged, and I wish they went further with merging them.
Make no mistake, I played quite a bit of CoC7e and enjoyed my time with it. But I do find its design misguided and messy. I find the simplicity of classic CoC more elegant and I will keep using it when I have to GM (or Keep?) a CoC session.
It's good and better than past editions. Pushing rolls, advantage/disadvantage, and degrees of success are better mechanics than previous editions. The Luck rules are useful, if you like that sort of thing. The Pulp version adds a lot of fun mechanics if you want to run pulp. Nothing has been lost with the elimination of the Resistance Table and the change to stats. The combat rules are perfectly sensible.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, though, any differences in play between earlier editions and 7th are going to be swamped by the differences from GM to GM and from table to table.
Two minor problems: as others have said, I don't think the chase rules are particularly successful. And the rules for automatic weapons are atrocious (as they have always been): everyone should just adopt Delta Green's lethality rules for that, which makes automatic weapons terrifying and deadly and simple to resolve.
The new adventures are mostly better, although, as always, they're not all classics. Viewed without nostalgia, a lot of old published COC adventures were very railroad-y and just sort of tours of Lovecraft stories (hey, it's a Mi-go!). Of course, it makes sense that the early adventures would focus on that, but it's good that Chaosium (and others) have started to strike out for new territory.
I played 2nd edition back in the day and backed the 2e KS for nostalgia and to get all of the supplements. I'm enjoying 7th and can't really think of any complaints. Earlier stuff is still easy to convert and I like the chase rules and the other mechanics that have been added.
ReplyDeleteI like 7e fine. I mostly use it for one shots (I played a game of Pulp and a standard game at a con this weekend). I prefer the Delta Green rules and would probably use them for an ongoing game. I think the idea that the 7e rules were pandering to DnD 5e players is absurd. They came out the same year and CoC was developed first.
ReplyDeleteLooked at it, not impressed, zero interest. My (recently deceased) Cthulhu campaign I ran with BGB rules, which is hardly a radical departure from pre-7th edition rules anyway.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my experience goes. I began with 5th and 6th. I had sold a lot of my old books back in the mid 2000's. I began collecting 7th and feel it's a solid edition. I have zero issues translating old material into the "new" rules set.
ReplyDeleteThe percentile statistics are the only real revelation, and I agree with it. If you look back at the old material - you commonly see "Con x5" - or something to that effect. It's just a simple tweak to make that math straightforward. There are also degrees of success. This is akin to when you'd see a lower number as a multiplier on those old format rolls.
My one complaint is that they are doing a lot of rehashes of old material, and sometimes not completing them. The recent version of Mansions of Madness comes to mind. I do enjoy many of the new scenarios and supplements. I personally suggest Down Darker Trails, but I enjoy westerns and western/horror hybrids.
Our gaming group occasionally switches to CoC for a few sessions or more when we need a change of pace from D&D or Traveller or whatever. All the players have run CoC games at some point. Personally, I am completely happy with my 3rd edition hardcover (original purchase) for these sessions and have no plans to change. My friends have mostly adopted 7th edition rules. As a player I can say their games run fine and the flavor remains, but as many people have already posted, there seems to be a fussiness to 7th edition in that the designers felt they needed to fix things that weren't broken, mostly just to update rules to current and fashionable concepts. Nothing so catastrophic as to spoil my feelings for the game, but pretty unnecessary as far as I'm concerned. The switching of ability scores to d100 is the most annoying as it does cause some havoc when trying to use older gaming material.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as odd when someone gets touchy about some sacred cow being improved upon. Granted, sometimes it fails but improvements of great things do happen (not to mention greatness and improvement being subjective). Maybe their tone put you off, but intended or not yours comes across sounding like things can be improved upon. I love CoC and have played since the first edition came out but Peterson was just a man and to imply what he did can't be improved upon is just not based in reality. Again, maybe that wasn't your intent.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, even as a grumpy old man I like 7th but those who don't care for change are likely better off sticking to what the know and love.
Conversely, I find it odd that some folks get touchy about people preferring originals. Not everything has to be on a continuous stream of "new." I still run the original 1978 RuneQuest, and have been finding I have a preference for earlier editions of games rather than the shiny new versions.
DeleteNot all changes are seen as improvements by all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have GM'ed Cthulhu from 2nd edition forward and think that classic system is best. Delta Green/Cthulhu Eternal is sleak edition about that system and best you can get. Our group played with 7th edition for one campaign (Masks of N) and after that I felt that I want to return to classic system. I use my own selection of skills and some home rules.
ReplyDeleteThere are some parts in 7th that reduce lethality lot. Systems like use of Luck and pushing rolls. Lot of new changes in system feel like a they are done by reason to change something. I felt same about new Pendragon edition.
I like lot about Trail of Cthulhu, but all my players don't dig it. Otherwise I think i would use it.
Some things I don't like about 7th edition material: Scenarios & campaigns are very text heavy. I think that old Shadows of YS was about 60 pages long, and you went half around the globe. More is sometimes less.
I don't like when Chaosium changes things from past to make them similar to modern values. History is history and we have to learn about it. I don't have to read how evil person Lovecraft was, when I read material based on his works. Is it that you don't recognise wrong anymore, if somebody doesn't tell you it. Lastly, Cthulhu is supposed to be horror game. Do you need to have warnings that scenario have horrible things included in it?
I don't hate 7th edition. I thing some of my players liked it a lot (they stayed alive longer). It's not just right for me. I have all the editions from 2nd upwards (I sold 7th ed. books) and I think Games Workshops hardback edition is best of them.
They should republish the Games Workshop hardback with a couple extra scenarios in the back.
ReplyDeleteI played a whole bunch of Call of Cthulhu, starting with the 5th edition in the mid-90s (I still play it but less so). I personally really like what they've done with the 7th edition, even though they also added a bunch of stuff I don't necessarily appreciate. I like percentile stats, which eliminate the annoying multiplications, and I like that the Resistance Table is gone. I don't care too much about modifiers-vs-bonus/penalty dice debate, but I appreciate that it speeds up play. I don't like that the competency of PCs has gone up dramatically, and the lethality has gone down. The base game feels a lot less "horror" and more "pulp action" now, which I think is what old fans don't like, and is what made the game more popular than ever.
ReplyDeleteThese days, when I play CoC, I basically play 7th edition without the "push roll" mechanic and a couple of other tweaks. I use the Luck mechanics in one-shots but not in campaigns. I have, on occasion, used the "pulp" rules to great fun, when it fit the intended game tone. If I wanted to get fancy, my "ideal" CoC would probably be something like 70% 7th edition, 30% 5th edition.