Building from my collection of mythos-related games and book, as well as my interest in integrating props into tabletop games, I’ve gradually developed a fondness for displaying my collection. In some areas it’s modest, in other areas less so. I have dubbed this constantly evolving display my Shelf of Madness.
And I’ve recently taken to creating some props and display pieces of my own.
I’ve posted pictures of some of these items here and there, and I’ve gotten a few requests for a more detailed description of some items, where they are from, etc. So I figured I could start posting some of that here as well. That way when I post some new acquisition or creation and someone sees something in the background, I’ll have a place where I can point them to check out what’s in the collection.
You can see all the posts describing the Shelf of Madness here.
One of the things I want to include in this project are rules and guidelines that actually teach players and Keepers how to play the game. That might seem like a no-brainer, but it’s amazing to me how many professional tabletop roleplaying games out there don’t actually do this. You’ll probably find plenty of detailed, case-by-case rules and a hoard of great setting material. You might have a brief overview of roleplaying game concepts, but a lot of the details of how to really play the game are often summed up as “find someone that already knows how to play and learn from them.”
There are a few reasons I think this is a real problem within the tabletop gaming community in general, but one of the big reasons is that there are a lot of different styles of games and play at the table. When you don’t clearly describe the style of game you’re going for and align your rules to match, how do you expect players and GMs to play the game the way you intended?
So I plan to include reasonably comprehensive rules and guidance for both players and Keepers. And with that in mind, one of the most important parts of any roleplaying game is how to resolve the actions of the characters. Action resolution is the core gameplay loop, so it seems logical to focus on providing solid guidance for this first.
Note that while OTF borrows a lot from more narrative games, it still places the primary narrative responsibility (and authority) on the GM/Keeper. In other words, the Keeper is the one narrating the results most of the time. The reason for this is simple: It works best for an investigative horror game.
So here are draft versions of both an overview and a more detailed breakdown of Action Resolution in OTF. If you have comments or questions, please post them in this thread on our SubReddit.
Action Resolution Overview
I. Present the Situation
1. Keeper Sets the Scene (Describe the Scene and present Choices, Sources of Opposition, and Obstacles)
II. What Do You Do?
2. Players provide Intent and Approach.
III. Yes, No, or Roll?
3. Yes, No, or Maybe? – Are all possible outcomes interesting? Is this a possible branch in the story?
IV. Here’s How We’re Going to Play This Out…
4. Set the Stakes
5. Single Roll, Single Roll with Help, or Pacing Mechanism?
6. Obstacles and Opposition
7. Core Action and Skill(s)
V. Roll Some Dice
8. Roll Dice, Invoke Aspects, Use Boosts
9. Determine Outcome
VI. Here’s What Happened…
10. Narrate outcome. Apply changes to Aspects, free invokes, boosts, etc.
11. Scene Complete?
Action Resolution Breakdown
I. Present the Situation
1. Keeper Sets (or Resets) the Scene.
a. Keeper presents situation – a choice the Investigators must make or immediate problem to deal with.
b. Describe scene visually (Aspect), add a detail (Aspect), add goals and points of interest (Aspect), add exits, finish with any obvious Sources of Opposition or Obstacles.
c. Consider if the situation appears the same to all characters
i. Differences in Skills, Sanity, Mythos can all impact how Investigators perceive the world.
II. What Do You Do?
2. Players imagine their Investigators in that situation and decide how the character acts in response.
a. Investigators react to Sources of Opposition, attempt to overcome Obstacles, or make a Choice.
b. Keeper and players discuss the action until a clear Intent and Approach are identified.
c. Who is participating in the action? Who is taking the lead? What are other characters doing during the action?
III. Yes, No, or Roll?
3. Keeper determines if action succeeds, fails, or should be randomly determined
a. Keeper determines if the action is even possible.
i. Is the action possible within the fiction? Can the approach actually work?
If the answer to both questions is No, then the action fails; go to step 9. (Say No)
b. Keeper determines whether the outcome needs to be randomly determined.
i. Can the action plausibly fail? Does failure carry risk or cost? Is failure interesting?
If the answer to all questions is No, then the action succeeds; go to step 9. (Say Yes)
ii. [Possibly consider if possibility of failure is appropriate to pacing.]
c. If the action is possible, and the opposition or possibility of failure is interesting, then Roll.
IV. Here’s How We’re Going to Play This Out…
4. Set the Stakes
a. What are the possible outcomes? What interesting thing will happen if the action succeeds? What interesting thing will happen if the action fails?
b. Always consider Success at a Cost, especially if the action involves a Core Clue. Consider what kind of opposition is involved and how things could go badly.
c. Both the Keeper and the players should have a basic idea of the Stakes before moving on, but the precise details will be determined in Steps 9 & 10. Occasionally, the Keeper might leave the players in the dark about the Stakes for failure.
5. Keeper determines how to randomly determine the outcome.
(Single roll, Teamwork, or Pacing Mechanism?)
a. Emphasis and Pacing?
b. Single character or multiple characters working together?
If multiple characters, are they using the same Approach (same skills or different skills?) (Help vs. Challenge)
c. Opposition and Obstacles? What is the Opposition’s Intent? (Contest vs. Conflict)
6. Keeper sets Opposition/Difficulty
a. Active Opposition or passive Difficulty?
b. Set Opposition or Difficulty relative to Investigator skill?
c. Consider Aspects in play
7. Keeper determines which skill and core action are being used.
a. Keeper uses the Investigator’s Intent to determine which core action or pacing mechanism applies.
b. Sometimes the player is simply rolling to Oppose an action by an NPC or the environment.
c. Keeper uses the Investigator’s Approach to determine which skill applies to each roll.
V. Roll Some Dice
8. Dice are rolled or pacing mechanism is played out, Aspects are invoked, Boosts are used.
9. Keeper determines the mechanical Outcome of the roll or pacing mechanism (success, tie, failure, or success with style), and determines appropriate outcome (short-term) and repercussions (long-term), including any costs (success at minor/major cost).
a. If action is automatically successful (Step 3.b.) consider which Investigator succeeds based on skills.
VI. Here’s What Happened…
10. Keeper describes (narrates) the results of the action of the players, which results in a new situation. Make any appropriate changes to the Aspects in play, free invokes, boosts, etc.
11. Keeper determines if the Scene is complete.
a. If the Scene is not complete, reset the Scene (go to Step 1).
b. If the Scene is complete, Transition to next Scene.
One question that pops up from time to time is how to actually instill fear into horror games. There’s plenty of techniques for setting the atmosphere – especially for games like Call of Cthulhu (CoC) – but I recently came across some really useful guidance in the newly released ALIEN RPG. And since it plays upon the idea of “fear of the unknown” it’s certainly suited to a Mythos game. I definitely plan to use this in my future games. And I also realized that I had unwittingly done so in a past game as well.
Cover of the ALIEN RPG from Free League Publishing
The ALIEN RPG repeatedly highlights that it is a horror game, and it briefly outlines three different kinds of fear (and how to use them). Combined with an understanding that the tension of fear has to periodically be released, I see a lot of potential here. The three stages of fear the game points out are Dread, Terror, and Horror. Here’s how they are described in the ALIEN RPG (Note that the game refers to the GM as the Game Mother):
“Creating horror in a roleplaying game is not always easy. Overdo it, and the players aren’t scared anymore—downplay it, and the game drags on. The key to Game Mothering horror is to manage pacing properly and keep the major threat hidden as long as possible. To do this effectively, you need to carefully manage the stages of fear in the game: dread, terror, and horror.
DREAD: The sense that something bad is about to happen, but no-one is really sure what or why. Dread is the first stage of fear in the ALIEN roleplaying game and should be employed as often as possible. The key to using dread is planting seeds and watching events unfold. The players know something terrible is about to take place, but without knowing what it is, they can’t do anything about it. This dread may evolve to the next stage, but sometimes it won’t—and that’s fine. Examples of dread:
A control panel indicates that the airlock was just cycled manually whilst all of the crew are accounted for on the bridge.
Someone finds blood on the walkway. The ship’s cat is missing.
A strange and leathery egg is found in a crashed derelict ship. It’s like something is alive in there.
TERROR: You feel terror when you know something bad will happen any moment now. It is no longer a question of if but rather when it will take place. From a roleplaying perspective, the feeling of terror is the most effective feeling of fear as the PCs are at their most helpless state. Therefore, terror often involves the scariest moments in a gaming session. Use it selectively for maximum effect. Examples of terror:
A squad of marines investigating an old mine steps into something slimy. One of the marines hears a hissing sound. She realizes that something is directly above her.
A colonial marshal following a killer in the deep bowels of a space station realizes that she is the prey.
A pilot on a stranded shuttle barricaded in the cockpit hears pounding on the access hatch. Something wants in.
HORROR: The ultimate form of fear is horror. Horror is the moment when the danger reveals itself. It is the moment of climax. The payoff that the earlier stages of fear have hinted at. But because of this, it is also less scary than terror. When horror hits, the game mechanics take over. You draw initiative and fight it or try to escape. Horror is vital to the game, but it should be used rarely and is often best utilized late in a game session rather than early. Examples of horror:
A corporate agent turns around and stands face to face with an alien baring its teeth.
The egg opens and a crab-like creature lunges at the closest crew member, attaching itself to her face amidst the screams of her friends.
Black, lightning-quick creatures crawl through the walls and roof towards the marine squad.”
After reading this a couple weeks ago, I immediately began thinking of ways to incorporate this into how I GM. Then, this morning, I realized this also helped explain one of my more successful scenes from a previous game.
Last year, I ran the Peru Prologue for Masks of Nyarlathotep. (I used it as a test for my WIP alternative to CoC’s mechanics: Our Terrible Fate.) The players were my two children and my mother. This was still fairly early in the scenario, but they were already a little paranoid – not freaking out or overreacting, but generally distrustful of everyone. (Also note that I used two play aids during the game that came in towards the end of the scene. I had a printed card showing what the monster looked like – not always appropriate for CoC but worked in this case – and I had Syrinscape’s MoN audio program on my laptop.)
(Spoiler alert: This won’t reveal any big details from the scenario, but it may ruin this scene if you intend to play it.)
The investigators were visiting a professor at the local university museum. The professor’s assistant was translating an old journal that may provide important clues. They are introduced to the professor and are having a conversation. As that wraps up, the professor mentions that his assistant should have arrived already. He suggests that the investigators could go down to the archive room and check on her. (Dread: What happened to the assistant, and what are we walking into?)
The investigators head down and discover her dead body. (This initially provided a small bit of tension relief.)
Then they looked over the body and discovered the nature of the strange wounds and emaciated state. (Dread: What could have done this?)
Then they notice bloody footsteps leading away from the body to another exit from the room. “We are NOT following those footsteps!” (Dread: What left the footsteps, and where did it go?)
The investigators then hear screaming from upstairs. (Dread)
Rushing upstairs, they hear signs of a struggle from inside the professor’s office. (Dread leading into Terror)
Heading inside, they see what appears to be a man clutching the professor. His back is to them. (Terror: It’s right there. What is it, and what’s it doing?)
The strongest investigator, a boxer, decided to grab the figure from behind to pull him/it away from the professor and restrain him. I narrated that the figure easily broke free from the investigator’s grasp and flung him back a few feet. It then turned and snarled at the investigators, revealing at strange mouth on an otherwise human-looking face. (At this point, I played the snarling sound effect in Syrinscape and showed the players the card so they could see the monstrous form of the villain.) (Horror: Big reveal.)
At this point, my son actually got up from the table with an “Oh, hell no!” and started pacing around. Everyone was on edge up to that point, and I think it was the snarling sound effect that really pushed him over the edge. This was immediately a big tension relief in terms of fear, but some of that tension was immediately replaced by the tension of “Okay, now that we’re face to face with this thing, what do we do?”
This scene was easily one of the highlights of our session. (Though admittedly, that may have been because I screwed up some other scenes. But that’s another story.)
Work continues on my efforts to create an adaptation of Fate Core to place investigative cosmic horror. One area of the rules that I remain a little unsure about is also one of the first pieces of Fate Core I originally wanted to change – character advancement. Ever since I first read through the rules for character advancement, something about it has bothered me, and today I read something that helped me realize why.
Fate Core’s character advancement revolves around the concept of milestones. The basic idea is that there are minor, significant, and major milestones that generally occur at the end of a session, scenario, or story arc. You can ‘spend’ a milestone to change or advance your character.
I understand that there’s a lot about this system that works really well – and is far better than generic XP system – but there’s always been this inherent nagging feeling I’ve had that just turned me off from these milestones. Part of me simply thought a session is not a standard unit of measuring anything so why should it be used to pace character advancement? Turns out that’s really close to why this bothers me, but it’s not the whole thing.
I’ve also come across numerous examples online of this system not working the way I feel it should. Players using their milestones to change a character’s skills and stunts, not based on what has happened to the character recently, but based on what they thought would be more useful in upcoming play. To me, that is counter to focusing on the story – something Fate normally places a great emphasis on.
I’ve also seen some really great things happen with milestones, and I like how it helps to align how the characters change with how the world changes around them. So I’ve been tempted to just leave it alone and see what happens.
However, today I read something that helped me realize why I don’t feel right about milestones, courtesy of the Angry GM.
First, I read a couple of posts about types of scenes, the importance of pacing, and how these ideas interact to help bring about great, memorable, and fun stories. Then I came across this post about sessions. There’s a lot of great stuff here, especially in the context of the emphasis Fate places on the importance of the fiction – the story – itself. Then there’s where something clicked for me:
Anyway, in RPGs, we have this metagame concept of “the session.” You know, of course, that every week or every two weeks or whatever, we get together and play a chunk of the RPG game. Whatever game we can fit into three hours or four hours or five hours, that’s what we do. And we pick up next time where we left off last time.
The problem is that sessions don’t care about the story. They don’t care about the game. The narrative. They don’t care where arcs begin and end, where adventures begin and end. While RPGs are essentially episodic, the episodes have NOTHING to do with the narrative.
So sessions don’t generally have any connection whatsoever to the story. They are not connected to the fiction you are trying to create at the table. So then it hits me: By tying character advancement to sessions, you are inherently introducing a barrier between character advancement and the fiction.
It’s not just that a session isn’t a consistent way to measure time or experience – which is part of what initially bothered me – it’s that sessions are often disruptive to the pacing of the fiction, and by using them in advancement we are creating an additional obstacle to integrating character change and advancement naturally into the story.
So, how do I fix this in my game? I’m not sure yet, but I’m thinking it’s going to be through some combination of two basic ideas:
Minimize or eliminate any reference to sessions in character advancement & change (probably from other system mechanics as well).
Integrate sessions more fully into the pacing of the story and flow of the game.
I still want to provide a lot of guidance and tools for Keepers in the game, so the second option will probably work well with that, but I may tinker with the first option as well. Now that I finally have a little better grasp on what bothers me about milestones, it should be much easier to put together the kind of advancement system I want in the game.
I’ve reached a point where I feel comfortable posting some of the actual game text I’ve written in the hopes of getting some useful feedback. I’ve got a fair bit written, so there should be enough to get some first impressions and thoughts on presentation. I’ve updated the draft content posted to this point to using a knowledge base system, which should make it easier to read through.
For the time being I am calling this work-in-progress game of mine Our Terrible Fate. That may change down the road, but for now it will do.
There’s a lot of background and detailed explanation elsewhere on the site, but here is where I am going to post some of the actual draft text.
I’m always appreciative of feedback – be it criticism, comment, or questions. You can post feedback on the base113 Games subreddit.
Update: A PDF of the first chapter is now available as well. While there’s not much art, the layout should be much easier for many to read. Just click the link through to the draft text, and you should see a link to the PDF version along with an example image of the layout.
Available excerpts of this dark text currently include what is essentially the first chapter of the book, which will serve two purposes:
Giving a new player this chapter should tell them everything they need to know to begin play.
This chapter should introduce new Keepers to the game, give them an idea of how the game is run, and how running it may be somewhat different from other games.
Links to the current draft content and our subreddit (to post feedback) are provided below:
This post is actually a more detailed response to a question on Reddit about prepping for a Call of Cthulhu scenario. Unfortunately, the comment limitations forced me to post an abbreviated response, so this is the more detailed post. It’s still a little rough, and far from comprehensive, but these are the basics of a method for prepping to run an investigative scenario. It can be extremely helpful for newer Keepers, as well as help reveal potential pitfalls in published scenarios before running them.
This applies primarily to prepping pre-made/published scenarios (including sandbox campaigns), but most of this can still apply to more free-form or improvised scenarios to one extent or another.
Read through the scenario to get some basic familiarity.
Identify the Fail-State. (Or if you like: Identify the Impending Doom)
What happens if the investigators fail – or if they don’t become involved at all?
This really helps understand what’s going on behind the scenes and is very useful when the investigators get sidetracked and you need to instill a sense of urgency.
For many scenarios this is fairly obvious – something like the cult summons a Great Old One, and so the apocalypse begins. But it’s amazing how many scenarios don’t really go into this – even popular ones like The Haunting, Paper Chase, etc.
What does success look like? What do the investigators need to accomplish to end the scenario successfully?
I’ve actually had scenarios flounder at the end because we couldn’t decide where to actually end things – this helps with that.
More importantly, it lets you determine one crucial thing…
What conclusion do the players need to reach in order for the investigators to be successful?
In the Masks of Nyarlathotep Peru Prologue, for example, the investigators need to return a gold artifact to its place in a pyramid in order to end the scenario successfully. So the players need to reach the conclusion that the artifact must be returned to the pyramid.
Understanding what conclusion the players must reach helps you identify which clues are really important and recognize holes in the scenario that could cause the investigation to stall.
Identify Locations & Characters. Make a list of all the locations and characters in the scenario. Also list any important artifacts, tomes, etc.
If you’re not sure if you should include something in these lists, ask yourself this question: Can this place/person/thing provide the investigators/players with information that will help them reach the conclusion or help them find other clues? If so, add it to the list.
Build Clues (Identify, Categorize, Organize, Fill Holes)
I’ve been meaning to write a blog post on this subject, but here’s the quick version.
This step is arguably the most central to how I prep for investigative scenarios, and in some ways it’s also what’s different about how I prep. Essentially, you are going to re-read the entire scenario and write down every clue you can find. Then you’re going to categorize and organize them.
Distinguish between clues and their sources. A translation of an ancient tome is not a clue, but the information contained within it likely includes many clues.
Treat clues as discrete, individual pieces of information – and write them that way. Write each clue as its own brief phrase or sentence, separate from other clues. If it’s remotely conceivable that the investigators could learn one piece of information but not the other, then they should be two separate clues.
This will likely result in a long list of clues – I had nearly 60 clues for the Masks Peru Prologue.
Categorize each clue as either Core or Supporting.
Core clues either lead to more sources of clues (locations, characters, etc.) or are vital to the players reaching the correct conclusion. Keep in mind that the players need not understand the conclusion to reach it. For example, the players don’t need to understand why returning the golden artifact to the Peruvian pyramid will resolve thing, as long as they figure out that it’s necessary.
Supporting clues are everything else. They don’t lead to new sources and are not critical to reaching the correct conclusion, but they do provide more information that explains things. These are the clues that help the players understand what’s going on. They might even help players reach the correct conclusion early, but they’re not necessary.
Organize your clues by the location(s) where they may be found. This can overlap into the next couple of steps if clues could be available only at certain times (in specific encounters). Also consider that clues can be static or floating.
If a clue can only logically be obtained in specific locations or encounters, then it is a static clue.
If a clue could easily be assigned to multiple locations/encounters, consider making it a floating clue. The location of floating clues is not determined ahead of time, instead the Keeper includes it in whichever encounter makes the most sense during play (or whenever the investigators need some new information to move things along). For example, the Master’s Last Will and Testament contains some important clues, but it could reasonably be found in several places throughout the house (or even elsewhere). The Keeper waits until the investigation has progressed a while, then when the investigators search the next possible location of the Will, the Keeper provides it.
Make sure that there are sufficient Core Clues to lead players to the correct conclusion. Also make sure that there is a clear path (or paths) lead to each of your Core Clues, locations, and encounters. Consider how the investigators would need to interact with each potential source of clues in order to obtain all of the Core Clues. You may find some holes in your scenario that you need to fill.
Holes that can cause the investigation to stall are often caused by the players needing information pointing to a specific location or source, but there is either no actual clue providing that information, or the action necessary to reveal that clue is not intuitive. Making a Clue Map can help identify these gaps.
For example, in Dead Man Stomp, the players need to end up going to a funeral the next day (where they receive more clues), and the latest version of the scenario makes it very clear that the Keeper needs to get them to understand the funeral is important. However, there are perhaps two clues that lead to the funeral, and there is very little that would even lead to the investigators receiving those clues. Understanding the holes in the scenario from this perspective makes it obvious why so many Keepers run into challenges when running it.
Identify Encounters & Opposition
Working through your list of locations, identify the encounters that could occur at each. Some locations may only have a single encounter, while others could have several. For each encounter, identify what opposition exists. What do the investigators have to overcome to accomplish their goal(s) in the encounter (obtain the clues or items, get assistance, escape, etc.)? In other words, what rolls do they need to make and against what? (This bit could vary somewhat depending on what system you’re using and your preferred style of play.) Some encounters may not have any opposition, if a helpful character or other source of information is simply providing clues now that the investigators have located it.
Encounter Summaries
Write a brief summary of each encounter, including:
Encounter Location
Character(s) introduced & character(s) present
Core and Supporting clues available in the encounter
Other relevant items, artifacts, tomes, etc. found in the encounter
Opposition that may be faced
Handouts or props that may be found in the encounter
Clue & Encounter Maps
Optional but very helpful (especially for longer/more involved scenarios), make Encounter and Clue Maps.
Encounter Map simply shows how encounters lead to one another (determined by the clues provided by each).
Group encounters at the same location together. Use arrows to lead from one encounter to others. If you have multiple pages, consider color-coding by location. Note which encounters are optional. Consider using different markings to show which pathways are based on Core Clues and which are Supporting.
Clue Maps are more involved, but this is where everything can come together.
Shows how encounters and investigator actions lead to clues, and how those clues lead to other locations and encounters. Full map includes all clues and encounters, but I also find it useful to make a second Clue Map with just the Core Clues and how they lead the players to the correct conclusion.
I’ll post examples from my Masks Peru prep, as that will probably be more helpful than trying to explain. Here’s a PDF of those clue and encounter maps.
Figure out what props you want and get them together.
I’m working on a method for playing CoC scenarios with my family that includes making cards for clues, locations, and characters. It’s been extremely successful so far and helps avoid some common issues that can come up in investigative games. So one of my last steps is to make these cards – along with some blank ones I can use if unexpected stuff comes up in play.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in the past couple of years I have played two Call of Cthulhu scenarios with my family. The first game, The Haunting, did not go as well as I wanted. The second game, the Peru Prologue to Masks of Nyarlathotep, went far better. I learned a lot from both sessions, and studying those experiences can point to what worked well and what didn’t – pointing to a preliminary list of features for my game.
I’ve also played a fair bit of both Mansions of Madness and Arkham Horror: The Card Game, not to mention numerous other board games. Again, examining what I liked and what I didn’t should help define some more features I may wish to incorporate.
Differences Between The Haunting and Peru
There are a few things I did differently when playing these two scenarios. While The Haunting didn’t go badly, my kids had a difficult time with it. We also didn’t really engage the system that much, and wading through the content of the prop handouts I used consumed a lot of time without a lot of benefit in terms of driving the investigation forward (great for immersion though).
System
When we played The Haunting, we used the Trail of Cthulhu conversion. There were very few dice rolls, and in general we didn’t engage the system except for during character creation. We didn’t quite reach Corbitt before we had to stop, which assuredly would have used the system due to combat. Not sure that would have gone well anyway, since we didn’t use the system much leading up to it.
For Peru, I used a work-in-progress version of the system I’m working now, which is a custom adaptation of Fate Core. There were a few parts of the system we didn’t engage with as much as we probably should have, but that was due more to some mistakes on my part as GM. I should have made the difficulty of rolls known to everyone, which I think would have helped drive the Fate Point economy. (I was leaning on my past experience of using unknown difficulties to help build suspense, but that wasn’t necessary.) I probably called for a couple of rolls I shouldn’t have, since I didn’t have any good ideas for complications from failure. And I should have called for a few more defense from horror rolls when the investigators encountered something strange or horrific.
Overall though, we definitely used the system a lot more in Peru, and it never felt like we had an excessive number of rolls. I had already put together a conversion doc that helped me quickly identify what skills would typically apply. However, even when the players wanted to take some action that wasn’t explicitly covered in the scenario, the Fate system made it easy to quickly identify a skill and mechanic to handle what they wanted to accomplish.
Character Creation
I think one of the differences that had the biggest impact for my group was how we got started with everyone’s characters. Our first time around we created characters from scratch using the ToC rules. This got the adults interested in their characters, but we spent a lot of time on this – and since we didn’t engage the system much, it was largely pointless. The choices of professions and such was interesting, but no one had a clue how the numbers for the skills would be relevant. We ended up spending around two hours on creating characters, whereas if we had spent less time on this we probably could have finished the scenario. More importantly, the kids were completely lost during this part. There were way too many choices for them to pick from, which turned them off from the beginning.
When we played Peru, I converted the pre-generated characters over to my Fate Core implementation and presented them to the players. So three people were choosing between about 8 characters. Since I was using a version of Fate, each investigator had a handful of aspects that provided a quick summary of the character, which made it easy for everyone to see how the investigators were different from one another and make a choice. After the investigation got started, I also had each player come up with a Drive for their investigator – basically a goal or concern they had related to the scenario or the other investigators. We didn’t have much opportunity to actually use those Drives in the scenario, but it allowed a bit of customization without requiring a lot of time.
I’ve though quite a bit about how best to handle creating characters in my game. I like the idea of starting with pre-generated characters for the first scenario or two and then allowing custom characters to be created. I also think providing the option to use pre-generated characters in later scenarios could useful – especially if you have additional players join the group. The option to customize pre-generated characters could also be useful. I want character creation to be quick and simple, but still allow for player choice and customization. When it comes to creating investigators from scratch, I’m also thinking of starting with a limited number of choices and then expanding them over time. This makes it easier to get familiar with the process without being overwhelmed and helps support character creation being quick.
I’ll probably deviate a fair bit from typical Fate Core character creation. The focus on the player characters in cosmic horror is very different from that of vanilla Fate Core, and the likelihood that investigators will die or go insane is usually fairly high in these types of games. I want the players to be invested in their characters, but not feel so attached to them that they are put off when they have to be replaced.
Character Creation Design Goals
Incorporate pre-generated characters
Allow pre-generated characters to be customized (Drives, Stunts, Ties)
Allow creation of new characters
Quick and simple character creation combined with player choice and customization
Limited initial character creation options that increase over time
Character creation is one of the areas where I have some developed, but a lot planned conceptually. I’ll create a separate post delving into this in more detail.
Clues
A central element to investigation-based gameplay is the discovery and interpretation of clues. One mythos game that really embraces this idea is Trail of Cthulhu, and it also touches on there being different types of clues. Building on this idea and adding a Fate twist, I handled clues a little differently with Peru than I did in The Haunting. This ended up working to great effect.
When we played The Haunting, I used lots of props, so there were plenty of documents that provided clues to the investigators. While these were great for immersion, they did little to overcome some of the common challenges with investigation games. Without going too much into it here, the players had difficulty parsing through the documents to separate the clues from the fluff, keeping track of the clues they had uncovered, and piecing together clues any sort of helpful way. When we ran Peru, which has far fewer physical documents, the players nevertheless had a far easier time keeping track of clues and figuring things out. They still had to find the clues and interpret them, so the core of this kind of gameplay remained intact without many of the usual challenges. (They even interpreted the clues incorrectly, but were still able to bring about a generally successful conclusion to the scenario.)
The first thing I did was to give clues a little more of a defined structure. Rather than a document or “the information Mr. Knott told you” being treated as a clue, each piece of relevant information obtained from those sources is a separate, discrete clue. So a document may contain several clues, each of which is written as a short, bite-sized, phrase or sentence. (Each Clue is also an Aspect, which has some other interesting advantages, but more on that elsewhere.)
I then created cards for each Clue, which were given to the players as the investigators uncovered them. I still gave the players documents and other props, which continued to provide immersion, and the players only received the Clue cards once they had read the documents. The Clue cards proved extremely helpful. The players could use them to keep track of and review what they learned and easily differentiate between actual clues and information that was just fluff/detail. I also categorized Clues as either Core (vital to the successful completion of the scenario) or Supporting (helpful or background info, but not indispensable), which is useful when determining how to handle investigator efforts to find those Clues.
Clue Features & Design Goals
Clues written as Aspects on Cards
Clue types – Core, Supporting, Floating
Use props whenever possible for documents, etc.
Clue and Encounter maps for the Keeper/GM
Some Clues lead to other scenarios (Fragments, Seeds, Hooks)
Locations
Mock up of Boston board used in The Haunting
One thing I had a lot of fun with when we ran The Haunting was a map of the locations in the scenario. I printed a large 20s-era map of Boston and put it on a bulletin board. I then printed out small collages of images for each place and pinned them to the board, with thin yard tacked between the place and its location on the map. As new locations cam up in play, I added them to the board. Gave everything a nice investigation/conspiracy feel and provided the players with some images to help visualize each location.
However, using this board did have a couple of issues. First, it was rather large. We had to either let it take up one whole side of the table or put it off to the side, which meant the players had to get it and walk to it if they wanted to look at the images or reference the map for any reason. It also meant that any time a new location was added, it took a minute to post it to the board and tie it to its location. Most importantly, using the board meant that putting everything away between sessions either took up a lot more space or a lot more time.
When we played Peru, I took a page from Arkham Horror: TCG and decided to use cards. In that game, each location is represented by a single card. Obviously, this doesn’t take much space, and it has the added benefit of allowing for any size location to be represented in the same way. I made a card for each location that contained its name, an image, and an aspect or two describing the location. I started out with only the starting location in play. As places came to the attention of the investigators during the scenario, I put the cards for those locations into play (assuming they knew enough of the location to actually get there).
In practice, this worked extremely well. The players were provided with an array of options of where to go, and as they gathered Clues and learned more they revealed new locations. Essentially, it provided a visual path to follow. They still had to decide where to go and what to do when they got there, but they always had some idea of where to go to look for more Clues.
I also created a sort of “board” for the Ruins in Peru. The idea was to echo the process of exploring a location in Mansions of Madness. I showed the players the map of the Ruins and they described what they were doing as they checked them out, but once they went underground, I laid out tiles representing the tunnels under the ruins. They started out with only a couple of tiles branching in two or three directions. As they explored I added more tiles (and also a few Aspects that described the environment). Combined with the creepy sound effects of the Peru module for Syrinscape that I was using, the players were definitely spooked and cautious. It worked fairly well, even with just basic white tiles with no art. The descriptions provided by the Aspects and the process of revealing the map only as they explored it, plus the atmospheric sound effect, was more than sufficient to set the mood and keep them on edge.
There were a few things that need to be refined too. I think providing the players with the map of the ruins worked okay, but I think using cards to represent each area of the ruins could have some benefits. The ruins on the surface were kind of an odd middle ground between the “Encounter” and “Investigation” levels of the game, so I need to look at that some more. When there wasn’t anything of consequence for a couple of tiles in the tunnels, the process of “Which way do you go? That way. Here are more tiles. Now where?” got a little tedious and pointless. Obviously, Mansions of Madness has a lot more structure defined with turns, actions, and such, so I’ll have to work on how to structure this Investigation level of play better. I hadn’t really delved into that yet for this first play through, so all in all it went well. And of course having art for the tiles would be a big improvement. I’m a little concerned that while converting scenarios to this system should be fairly simple for the most part, creating tiles for the Investigation of specific locations could be a challenge and big time sink.
Location Features & Design Goals
Support quick set up and tear down
Include image and descriptions/Aspects for each location
Use cards for locations at most levels of gameplay
Put location cards into play as players learn of them
Player pieces can be placed on cards to indication their location during Encounters
Investigation of locations transitions to tile-based board/map with player pieces
Additional tiles are added as players explore
Support additional locations not specified by the scenario, as players desire to visit other places
Non-Player Characters
In games like Call of Cthulhu, keeping track of all the non-player characters the investigators come across can sometimes be a bit of a challenge. This can be such a big issue in larger campaigns that Chaosium’s most recent edition of the epic Masks of Nyarlathotep includes 12 pages of NPC portraits that Keepers can present to players just to help them keep things straight. It’s always a good idea to provide information in more than one form (spoken, text, images, etc.) whenever practical, since different people have an easier time processing and recalling information in different ways.
There aren’t that many NPCs in The Haunting, and only one of them is all that memorable. Since we didn’t reach him during our play through, NPCs weren’t that big of a deal during that game. On the other hand, investigators in Peru will actually get most of their clues from NPCs. There is a lot of repeated interaction with different NPCs, and even one that uses an alias. Again, I used cards for each NPC, including the image from the scenario guide and a couple of descriptive Aspects. Worked really well for helping the players get a quick impression and keep track of everyone.
One thing I need to do differently is with the Aspects for each NPC. I included some information on the cards that the PCs wouldn’t reasonably be aware of at first. I need to focus on basic first impressions and allow for additional details to be added as they are uncovered. Additional details/Aspects could be physically written on the cards, put into play as separate cards, or an alternate version of the card could replace the original. I actually used the last approach for one of the named NPCs in Peru whose “true physical nature” is revealed partway through the scenario.
Character Features & Design Goals
Use cards for each named NPC or mob
Include name, image, and descriptions/Aspects for each character
Allow for additional details of NPCs to be revealed and put into play, beyond what’s on their card initially
Wrap Up
Obviously, there are plenty of other elements to the game – details on the investigators, character advancement, tying scenarios together, etc. – but these are the big ones that made a clear difference in our two games, so they are taking center stage to start out. As I mentioned, I already have more developed or planned for character creation and clues as well, which I’ll hopefully get around to posting in the near future.
One of the things I want to include in this project are rules and guidelines that actually teach players and Keepers how to play the game. That might seem like a no-brainer, but it’s amazing to me how many professional tabletop roleplaying games out there don’t actually do this. You’ll probably find plenty of detailed, case-by-case rules and a hoard of great setting material. You might have a brief overview of roleplaying game concepts, but a lot of the details of how to really play the game are often summed up as “find someone that already knows how to play and learn from them.”
Differences Between The Haunting and Peru
The first thing I did was to give clues a little more of a defined structure. Rather than a document or “the information Mr. Knott told you” being treated as a clue, each piece of relevant information obtained from those sources is a separate, discrete clue. So a document may contain several clues, each of which is written as a short, bite-sized, phrase or sentence. (Each Clue is also an Aspect, which has some other interesting advantages, but more on that elsewhere.)