[CoC + DitV] Will This Work? ? ?

[Rustin]

If this is in the wrong forum please move.

The very thing DitV solves is the exact problem I've always had with Call of Cthulhu-- both as a GM and Player. The problem is the "uh oh, They're going to figure out what's wrong (the horrible evil lurking in the shadows) Poker face: on!" I hated being the bluffer, and I hated being forced to just sort of know that the old man, in the creepy hut has clue #7 which is the critical clue to defeat the evil plot.

So I'm sitting at the laundry mat, sort of just doodling and thinking, and I ask myself: could I run Cthulhu without mystery?  No, not really-- the greatest fear is the fear of the unknown. If I let the mystery out of the bag it kills the tension. Yet, I think, I could run it by allowing the NPC's relationship to the unspeakable mysterious horror be known.  I bring the conflict in by associating all NPC to the horror of that which really shouldn't be named.  When they learn the relationship of the things to this mysterious force, the horror grows; they get a hint of what the horror is through the filter of how it impacts the NPC's.   

The association resembles the town creation rules. The Town becomes a lurking horror.

X= the horror, the thing that shouldn't be known, the lurking evil.

We start with an NPC, though it could be a place, or a group.   

1.   Curiosity.  NPC encounters X and becomes curious.   They investigate and learn something about X.
a.   Farmer Pete follows some lights deep in the woods next to his house.  A sudden flash, Pete feels weak.
2.   Greed.  NPC learns enough about X to profit off of it (emotional, monetary, greed for knowledge.. profit has many forms.)
a.   Farmer Pete realizes that, because of his sacrifice to the lights, his crops have done well this week.
b.   Consequence/Hook, clue: NPC's healthy relationships are hurt. "Farmer Pete is spending more time in the woods. neglecting his wife and kids.  ."
3.   Dabbling.  NPC learns enough about X to really begin to like it, they can ignore the horror and really learn what X is.  .
a.   Consequences/Hook/Clue: NPC takes more harm either emotionally, physically or to their sanity.  The local area, family, friends etc .. are scared or physically threatened. NPC may become more secretive now.
b.   Pete begin Sacrificing Cows to the lights which causes his crops to thrive.
4.   Sorcery. NPC is exploiting X to the fullest degree. NPC has harmed or is planning on harming others, the area.  Some evil that is long and lasting. Murder.
5.   Insanity. NPC has lost self to X.  NPC is open to control and domination by Elder Gods, Outer Gods.. those unnamable fellows, or maybe just a more powerful Sorcerer who has domination over a more powerful X.
6.   End of World is hastened. NPC, as the hand of a Mindless God is now part of a larger complex evil, call it X'  (X prime).

So, the PC's get a letter from a sister, wife of Farmer Pete.  She found a dead cow in the woods mutilated (she hit the curiosity stage only). 

That's two NPCs, but we can do more.

NPC two, The Cult of the Sorrowful Hand. A group of people at Insanity level.  They have also discovered the lights in the woods, and have found that every Summer equinox a human sacrifice to the lights gets them lots of powers. 

Maybe throw in one more NPC.

Geologist Habbib. He is in from England looking at the rock formations, and he has found that X has a slight relationship to some outcroppings to the north. He is at the almost Greed stage. 

So now we have three NPC that will, once they learn of the Investigator's meddling, will confront and escalate.  You get Pete, who wants to have thriving Crops-- and beginning to go Mad, he maybe murderous already.  You have wife who wants her old Pete back. You have Habbib, who wants to write a thesis on the relationship of lights to rocks but all the cow sacrifices are messing things up, so he also wants Pete to stop, but he doesn't see the harm with the rock formation.  Then you have the Cultists, who what well enough left alone, maybe they want Pete to join his cult? Maybe they want Habbib to tell them what he's learned.  Then you have X itself-- which may or may not be eliminated.  NPC's may well have the knowledge of how to destroy X.  Stakes "Do I get Pete to tell me how to weaken X?"

The NPC trial could all have happened in the past. Research reveals that 40 years ago Dr. Blake got to Dabbling level 3.  If they get his journal more information....

Perhaps X is not a thing that can be solved-- the PC's can only influence the NPC's to not dabble with such things.  Or the only way to solve X is to deal with the NPC's which fuel it.

Though all X's will have a sanity challenge up front. The first thing at stake in any conflict with an X would be "Does my mind grasp the Horror of trait #1 of X?" Fallout would be psychological damage.   Not sure how this would work....

Ok, as I get more specific, I can see bigger issues trying to shoehorn DitV mechanics to CoC.  I would want it to be much more deadly. Sanity Fallout would have to be much more creepy.

What I do know is, I'll never run a CoC adventure the same way ever again.  DitV has really thrown my regular gamming assumptions into chaos...but a good chaos.

Rustin

[lumpley]

Hey Rustin, good to have you here.

Have you seen this old thread?
[DitV] Delta Green in the Vineyard

You might find it helpful.

-Vincent

[Judd]

I'd handle insanity through fallout and permanent fallout.  I'm not sure there would ever have to be an overt conflict concerning sanity.  I like the more subtle degrade that would come from choosing to take fallout here and there.

After a few sessions, your character would have an interesting and colorful array of fallout items that could be given a Lovecraftian vibe but your PC would still be quite play-able.

Especially when your P.C. whips out his 2d8 of Mind Strains With Mathematical Equations for Non-Euclidian Architecture.

[John Harper]

I agree with Judd (fallout is the way to go), but I do think that sanity conflicts might happen every now and then. Kind of like the "do you die?" conflict, you could have a "do you freak out and start drooling?" conflict in certain circumstances.

[DamienNeil]

Would insanity work as fallout useable by the opposition?

"I search the building, floor by floor, for the manuscript.  Raise 4+3."  "I roll your 'allergic to architecture' trait for 2d10.  A nine!  As you progress higher, you are overcome by the realization that the building is *watching* you.  The doors leer at you suggestively and a faint cackling arises from the light fixtures.  With a choked scream, you turn and run for the exit.  Turn the Blow with a 9 plus a 6 for a Raise of 15."

[lumpley]

Your opponent using your traits against you was part of Dogs' earliest design, but I ditched it in favor of the d4s (which are awesome and work exactly how I'd want). Resurrect it if you like!

Insanity could also work like Demonic Influence, mechanically.

-Vincent

[DamienNeil]

I like the current design of d4s for Dogs, but having insanity as a trait your opponent uses against you just feels right to me.  It takes control of your character out of the player's hands, which would *usually* be a bad thing--but is just perfect in the case of insanity.  Not only is the character losing his grip on himself, but the player is losing his grip on the character.

[Blankshield]

What I would do for insanity is really simple, albiet two stage.

The first is just what folks have suggested: use fallout as writ, and add "...or goes insane" to the "Dies"  Mortally wounded becomes "...or is driven temporarily over the edge."  Follow-up conflict for that becomes an attempt to restore their santity instead of their health.

The second is a teeny change to the rules: Ritual can't be ignored.  By anyone. (instead of just demons or sorcerers)

If you really want to emphasize the creepy bad evil, expand the number of dice you can get for what the PC's have seen.  Dogs caps out at 5d10 for Hate and Murder; looks like you could reach 6d10; shift a couple of the A's and B's up to the main level, and you could easily reach 8 or 9d10 for conflicts involving someone at the End of the World stage.

James

[Rustin]

Vincent-

That was a great thread.    Very helpful.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

So many options to work Sanity with-- the DitV mechanism works well even when you approach the problem from different angles (what's at stake, or sanity fallout, or both!).

I'm thinking two broad categories: Eerie/Horrible or Paradigmatic Shock.

Upon seeing whatever it is the stakes are "Do I keep my wits?"

Heart + mythos trait + any applicable trait vs.  *variable challenge
(say you shoot a gun at what you think is a person, but it is really a ghost-- the bullet goes through, you can appeal to your worldview understanding of bullets to keep yourself grounded).

Mythos is always a 1d4 trait.  It represents your familiarity with the bizarre.

Eerie/Horrible are events that just don't seem right, or are just gross.  The fallout consequences would be mild, but a chance to give you some mythos. 

Paradigmatic Shock occurs when you see something certain to deal a blow to your worldview.  You see a ghost, you read a text that explains what the world really is.. etc.

As your mythos trait goes up, so does your ability to take fallout--and it is the fallout that will eventually send you to the asylum.  It could also be used in non-sanity situations, but when it is used the sanity fallout chart should be consulted. (best not dwell on those thoughts that you know.....)

Fallout consequences would be different depending on whether it was an encounter with just the eerie and horrible or something that really called your worldview into question.

Fallout consequences, if rolled high enough would be gaining more mythos.  It could also be something specific to whatever caused the harm.  The fallout need not be immediate.  Something like "tomorrow you'll have a horrible nightmare that will leave you emotionally fragile (1d4) for 2 weeks."

Fall out dice for eerie/horrible 1d8's.
Fall out dice for a Paradigmatic Shock would be 1d12's.

If your mythos trait is between 1-5 d4's take top dice, between 6-9 take top two, 10+ take top three. 

You could get a wide range of consequences with the larger distribution of numbers.
Whether you use the same chart or not just would depend on how much effort goes into making the charts.   The top number (36) would be: madness sets in. give your PC to the GM.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Mythos is always a 1d4 trait.  It represents your familiarity with the bizarre.

Or maybe supernatural knowledge is to Cthullu stories as guns are to Westerns -- so maybe in CoC+DiTV, you have traits like "Mythos 2d10 + 2d4."