Hi,

This is my first post to the Forge. I’m posting here because a friend said to me that the members of the Forge are helpful in the sense they can identify what sort of games you would like, and also put “names” to aspects of game play that I probably don’t know about.

I started role-playing quite a few years ago, with the Dungeons and Dragons Basic rules. Since then I’ve played a little and refereed a lot of D&D and Runequest. I’ve also very briefly played in a dozen games including Call of Cthulhu, Cyberpunk, Hawkmoon, Mage, MERP, Paranoia and Paranoia XP, Shadowrun, SLA Industries, Warhammer Fantasy Role-play, and most recently DnD3.5. Although I’ve been into role-playing for twenty years I consider myself a novice, because I’ve had many long periods where I either couldn’t find a game, or the games available didn’t interest me.

Recently at my local gaming club I played in two games; Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, and Call of Cthulhu.

The Warhammer game began badly; with one of the other players getting pissed off because he rolled mediocre attributes. The referee, a passionate fan of the Warhammer world, then went on to describe in great detail our journey to the city of Nuln in Empire. For those who don’t know Warhammer, the Empire is roughly similar to the historic Holy Roman Empire. Anyhow once we had seen the graphic ugliness of the docks of Nuln we had to find an inn. On the way we got attacked by some thugs, who we defeated, but the fight felt arbitrary, rather than exciting, with victory going to those with the luckiest dice rolls.

At the inn, the referee gloried in role-playing the NPCs in great detail. I envy his acting skill, for he can role-play a meek wrench or scary priest with great panache. Our characters stayed the night, and ended up being asked to hide and dispose of the body of an important person who died that night while visited by temple prostitutes. A great deal of what followed was pure farce, trying to hide the body from all number of intrusions by priests of death, and the suspicious innkeeper. While it was nerve-wracking and so exciting to some degree, the farce continues for ages, and longed to be somewhere else, for instance, defending Helm’s Deep from the Uruk hordes (yes, I’m a LOTR film fan).

Particularly annoying was the arbitrariness of the system and general pathetic-ness of our characters. Our skills were in the 20-40% range, so more often than not we failed. Often we had to move the corpse around, which required Strength rolls, but our Strengths were low to medium, and we kept failing, so the referee kept asking us to make seemingly endless Strength rolls. In the end if felt stupid and lame, endlessly making another Strength roll only to fail yet again.

On a player level I had one bad experience, with one player (out of character) agreeing only to help us move the body if my character gave his character my reward for disposing of the body. I said no, and he the player left the session early that evening.

Eventually we got the body out of the inn, only to find it was not a corpse, but a temporarily unconscious vampire, which quickly enthralled us all, and demanded we help it in its scheme to destroy the temple of love.

We were dragged to the temple of love, where the vampire let us go inside, on some pretext. Inside the temple priestess agreed to help us, if we helped her summon an ‘angel’ to destroy the vampire waiting outside. As you can guess, the angel turned out to be a chaos demon that killed the vampire, and god knows who else.

The scenario left me feeling numb. Not at one point did I feel I had a meaningful choice. Our characters knew nothing about the city, had no contacts, and were physically pathetic. The referee enjoyed every minute of it, describing everything in glorious detail. He made no attempt as far as I can tell, to give us clues about what was going on, choices or opportunities to do anything different. It felt like everything turned out exactly as he had planned. I never got a sense of him giving us opportunities to make an impact in the world. It was more like we were expected to gap with awe at the world, love the world, and thank him for letting us intrude in his beautiful world. The few time where was conflict it was either meaningless, the thugs, or we were defeated extremely quickly, the vampire. I basically felt disappointed and used.

The referee is a really nice guy, and as I said his acting and knowledge of the world is superb. His campaign didn’t last long, in the next scenario; the party was killed, cut to pieces in our first real fight.

The Call of Cthulhu game I joined was a very mature game. Many players had come and gone, the hard-core players all had veteran investigators, some of which had gone mad with all the horrors they had witnessed.

In my first session I only watched. The investigators were involved in a car chase, being pursued by a truckload of cultists. As they drove down winding country lanes the player’s investigators shot every gun they had on ‘em. The players warned me that this sort of action was rare in their game, and sometimes no dice would be rolled in a session. I created my character, a history-teacher with an interest with occult archaeology, and the referee emailed me loads of ‘newspaper clippings’ so I could get a gist of what had happened before.

While never a strong investigator-type person, I diligently read and reread all the newspaper articles and drawn up my own conclusions and dozens of questions, questions I would ask the veteran players. I began the second session eager to find answers to some of those questions, and inject fresh energy into the game.

The second session was a great disappointment. The players had decided that they didn’t want their characters to investigate the occult any more, but instead they wanted their characters to read books. Reading books in Call of Cthulhu gives you knowledge of the occult, as well as spells and raises your Cthulhu Mythos skill. I was gutted, as the players spent the second session rolling up new characters, I sat there bored, my enthusiasm ebbing away.

In Runequest I had seen a related problem, to that of the Cthulhu book-reading. Players often would rather train up their characters skills than actually adventure. In my campaign I eventually limited the players to only spending 8 weeks on training their characters, before I enforced this rule, players would train their characters for anywhere up to three years. When training is so painless and rewarding, it tempts players to take the easy route to power, and to avoid the hard and dangerous task of adventuring. I see books in Cthulhu has being a similar problem, rather than adventure to find a clue or secret, it is easier just to read about in some book. If Runequest ever threatened to be Trainquest, then Call of Cthulhu had become Bookquest. Oddly I never suffered or worried about the Tickquest problem of Runequest that other referees mention.

By session three the players had their new characters and we began the latest investigation. What I should mention here was the cool fact that all or at least most of the investigations were apparently linked to one huge meta-storyline.

The investigation involved us searching a house and digging up its grounds; destroying a stone circle before the next full moon, otherwise some really nasty things were going to happen and many innocents would die. So, the party put together the plans to launch a raid on this house and it’s grounds. Involved in our raid were about a hundred odd fisherman, hired to do the dirty work.

Our convoy sailed to the house, it was on the coast, and began to disembark. The owner of the house, however was not easily daunted and told us the police chief was his guest. Despite our superior numbers, the other players lost their nerve, and we abandoned the whole operation. The fishermen were paid as promised, and our group fled back to London, tails between their legs.

What is particularly galling for me is I was so disgusted with the cowardliness of the other players and myself that I never played in that game again. In hindsight I should of pushed for a full confrontation, because at least the game for me would of either ended in excitement or success, rather than end in boredom - Better to die a hero, than live the life of a coward, etc.

The actual game play was all talk. Little very was actually done, and very little actually happened. The referee and one of the players loved to talk, loved the sound of their voices, loved doing the accents, mannerisms, etc.

I noticed that few skills were ever used. I found this ironic considering how concerned the referee and players were about getting their character statistics correct, as if they were rules lawyers in character creation, but forgot about the rules once the game started. It felt like tuning up a formula one sports car to go to local shop to buy some milk. Instead of wasting four hours creating perfectly stat-ed characters, they could of spent only a hour just highlighting their characters key skills and abilities (and spent the remaining three hours gaming).

While I like action films, I do watch many different genres. I find that in the stories I enjoy, things happen, people don’t necessarily have to die or suffer violence, but things do happen, people’s lives do change. In the short time I was part of that Call of Cthulhu campaign nothing happened, and I was bored.

David

David,

Welcome to the Forge.

Good summaries of your recent experiences. I notice that games with reputations for chewing up hapless characters in situations beyond their abilities make up a significant part of your games played. Is that because other people advocate playing those games? Or does the idea of playing the underdog appeal to you strongly?

It may help if you tell us about your best game experience in your history. It is hard to tell much from being bored by a game where nothing much happened; we all dislike that.

I wonder how open to new gaming experiences the guys in the gaming club are. If you showed up with a new game, say Burning Wheel for example, who would you have that'd be eager to try it?

John

Hi John,

Thanks for the hello.

As for my expectations, they differed slightly with each game.

I knew Warhammer was gritty, but the referee hinted that I might find a way for my Dwarven character to help his people and find a way to combat the orcs. It feels now that was never a genuine possibility, and only a dupe to get me into his game.

Likewise I knew Cthulhu was bleak, but I hoped that I might eventually discover what happened to the missing expedition and why, and experience some cool horror, mind-numbing moments. But for the short time I played nothing much happened. Cthulhu didn't match its hype.

I must state at this moment, that obviously many people both love and enjoy the two games, so I'm not stating they are bad games in any way, only that those particular games I played at my local gaming guild did nothing for me.

As for playing the underdog, well kind of. If you mean by underdog someone who one day will win, like Rocky or Luke Skywalker, then yes that does appeal to me. If you mean underdog as doomed to lose or die of mediocrity or boredom, then no.

I cannot say if players of the guild might be open to new games such as Burning Wheel, although my knowledge of Burning Wheel is limited to quickly reading a few reviews tonight. I felt in general the guild was very cliquey, and so not inherently open-minded to new players or new ideas. A few others, who visited the guild, roughly agree with my sentiment.

I've found a promising gaming group, based at someone’s house. I've only played one session, but it was great fun. I only hope this continues. I may well post about it soon.

Finally, can I ask if you are a fan of the Burning Wheel. I briefly read the Duel of Wits rules, and they look fascinating. I've never seen a game with verbal combat rules.

David

David,

From where I sit, it just seems like you're not a good match for the groups you were playing with.  I've had some experience with WHFRP and a huge amount of experience with Call of Cthulhu and even by very traditional standards it seems you were done an ill turn in both games.

So, my advice to you is to find players who are more in tune with what you want out of gaming.  Specifically, you seem to want a game where the decisions your characters make have a noticable effect on the game world (which seemed your largest specific gripe with the WH game), and GMs who, well, have interesting games (which seems your problem with the COC game).

I'm sure that other people hereabouts will give you specific suggestions for games; they'll largely be very good games, but what it seems to me is your problem is the guys down at the gaming guild don't seem to match your play style at all.  What you want out of gaming isn't something that's real important to them.

I would advise if you can find some people in your area who do play indie games you should try hooking up with them.  A lot of things that indie games do address very specifically the problems you had -- they are designed to make player decisions important and they're often designed with aggressive scene framing (and if they aren't designed that way, the players of the games will often do it, anyway) so play concentrates on the interesting stuff.  I can't guarantee, of course, that you'll like indie game techniques, but a lot of your specific complains seem to be addressed by a lot of indie games and certainly by the Forge generally.

Hello David,

How do you feel about running games?  I suspect that is the quickest way to get a game going that you'll like.

I would suspect that Burning Wheel would go over well with the crowd at the gaming club.  Gritty fantasy, with a gnarly but rewarding combat system.

==Ed

David,

The possibility of playing with an independent group not deeply entrenched in boring habits makes this discussion more hopeful.

I never played Burning Wheel or even made a character. My buddy has a copy which I've glanced at. We don't play it because he's got his own games he writes. I mainly know about it from forum discussions. The way it is designed to give players traction in play was just the first thing that came to mind reading about the WFRP game.

John

A few others, who visited the guild, roughly agree with my sentiment

Hi Chris,

I found the players in Warhammer to be mostly passive, and happy to be led around. In Cthulhu the players seemed to enjoy creating their characters, the background, etc.

For me, I hungered for more active players, who wanted to “get things done”. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that a lot of time was spent with people “acting”. Every gamer wants some limelight, but it felt that precious time was being wasted by too much “acting” and also people would get into long arguments about what to do and end up doing nothing.

I felt the odd one out because people at the guild appeared to be happy with how things were.

Very recently I’ve found a new group of players who seem to play a style of game closer to my heart. The system they use is DnD3.5.

Out of interest, I’m not sure what indie games are. What indie games do you like?

David

Hi again John,

John wrote:
The way it is designed to give players traction in play was just the first thing that came to mind reading about the WFRP game.

Ed,

I do like the idea of running my own games, but am a bit nervous to do so because I'm not a confident speaker. I'm currently working on my own version of Runequest called Runecults. It always seemed to me sad that every referee runs the game he wants to play, but when I did run Runequest and the old D&D I found happiness in making the players happy. For me the reward was seeing them go home with smiles on their faces, and the obvious "Great game Dave".

Can you summarise how Burning Wheel combat works?

David

Hi K.

The DnD game is same one that Rob Alexander has mentioned recently in Actual Play. I've only just joined so I've not personally seen the events he has posted about, but from the one session I've taken part of, it is good solid DnD fun.

The game is set in a small-enclosed land, isolated from the rest of the world by impassable mountains on three sides and an endless sea to the west. The game is iconic DnD in many ways with the adventurers mysteriously appearing in the land with no explanation to how they got there, or how they can get back home. The other players have a cleric, sorcerer (played by Rob), rogue and Dwarven warrior, with my character being an Elven ranger.

We each have very defined strengths, with some nice overlap. For instance both the dwarf and me shine in darkness, and both the rogue and me shine in stealth and scouting. The Dwarven warrior is both our tank and killing machine with two attacks, although the rogue is deceptively powerful with a nasty backstab. The sorcerer does little fancy (no offense Rob), but is a godsend with his bulls strength and haste buffs and is the spokesperson, while the priest although being low key is vital for his healing. My elf can put down a neat volley of arrow-fire, like a mini-Legalos, and has some sweet perception skills.

The game began slow with the other players sorting themselves out in town, and struggling to get some direction. Not only does the world, with its swamp of sorrows, and the player mix feel iconic, but the quest is too. Many years ago, a magical artefact defeated a great evil. Afterwards the artefact was broken up and hidden by the forces of good. As you can guess our mission is to retrieve the bits in time to stop the re-occurrence of the great evil.

Today we travelled to a cave and fought troglodytes with their nasty smells, slimes, which were cool for their ability to split up and grapple, a monstrous centipede which dropped down from the celing and this awesome three armed uber-ape which threw rocks.

There was nothing flash about the game, but honestly it was the best role-playing experience I’ve had for years.

I can only hope today wasn’t a one-off fluke and the future weeks will be the same.

Finally, I was impressed by the DnD3.5 system, which felt very elegant, with its player friendly maths, and cool way it allowed every character to be different and feel worthwhile.

David

Hello David,

Brilliant descriptions of your actual play. They should be nailed to the door of the Church of Roleplaying* under the title: How not to roleplay.

Your descriptions already contain the analysis of why you didn't have fun. In the first game, play was pointless because you (a) had no influence over what was happening, and (b) were spending your time rolling for useless things. In the second game, play was equally pointless because, well, nothing happened. At all. What you want - and I'm almost sure it is what the players at that gaming club also want, but have given up looking for - is simple play that is not pointless.

That still leaves a lot of options open, and I'm not sure why several people start talking about Burning Wheel. That might be a very good choice, but so might D&D, My Life with Master, Polaris or even WFRP/Cthulhu with a group that didn't suck. Were I you, I'd start by enjoying the D&D game you entered - if you guys play it as you should, this could be a lot of fun. Once you've regained the confidence that roleplaying can be a reliably fun activity, start looking around at some systems that actively promote play that is not pointless. Maybe D&D will be your top game, maybe you'll choose one of the new-fashioned indie games that are so popular around here.

You mention that you're not sure what indie games are. "Indie" stands for "independent", and means that these RPGs are creator-owned. This doesn't say a lot about what kind of games they are, of course, but there nevertheless is a very visible overall difference between most indie games and most big company games. This difference is that the big company games tend to be very traditional, which I would tentatively define as: the GameMaster has absolute power over everything but the intentions of the player characters; the GM is supposed to think up a story; the game system is used to see whether you succeed or fail at tasks (such as 'can I crack the safe?') rather than conflicts (such as 'do I find the secret documents?'); there is little or no attention to the structure of the narrative. Most indie games, on the other hand, are built to facilitate a story right there at the gaming table, without a GM having thought it up beforehand; many are all about thematic stories and their structure; they often trade narration around; and they generally resolve conflicts rather than tasks.

All of this sounds very abstract, I'm sure. Looking at some Actual Play posts on this forum may clear things up considerably. Or try to find someone who's willing to run an indie game for you, like My Life with Master, Polaris, The Mountain Witch, Sorcerer, or Dogs in the Vineyard.

* Yes, that was a lame metaphor.

Hi David,

Now I realise the need for meaning choices, and having traction. For me, having fun is the most important thing.

Or try to find someone who's willing to run an indie game for you, like My Life with Master, Polaris, The Mountain Witch, Sorcerer, or Dogs in the Vineyard.

Hi Victor,

Thanks for the introduction to what indie means.

I think in the past I was a bad referee, in the sense that I would sometimes say no to the players, when they wanted to do something not covered by the rules, or I would sabotage their attempts to do things that I haven't planned for.

As a player I've experienced that feeling of being powerless and it is miserable. After the referee shoots down so many of your ideas you start to give up trying, and either end up playing it safe, getting into an argument with the ref, and either way soon quitting.

The Warhammer ref would give me grief for not "acting", which I felt was harsh, as it is the weakest part of my skills, and his strongest. If a narrative game means I can make decisions and choices that mean something that is good, if it means more competitive acting, that is bad (for me at least).

Anyhow thanks for you input.

David

Hiya Rob,

Hope all is well.

Rob wrote:
If you went to the games club and asked them why they play, I dare say that "to have fun" would feature prominently among the responses. ....
That said, when I was at that club, a lot of the players seemed bored a lot of the time.

Hi Dave -- Sorcerer & Sword is a supplement to Ron Edwards' game Sorcerer.  The main Sorcerer rulebook implicitly assumes a modern day occult sort of game, but Sorcerer & Sword adapts the game to Pulp Fantasy stories, like Conan and the Lankhmar stories.  It's pretty much at the top of my "want to play" list.

There should be some sample mechanics listed on the website under the "Apprentice" download, which should give you a feel for how the game works. 

Based on your criteria of --
(a) rolling dice where it actually means something very important, and
(b) having stuff actually *happen*--

Sorcerer might be a good fit for you.  It's the least "pointless" game I know.

David,

Then mostly the problem is solved, if you found a group you synch with.  ;)  From where I sat, it just seemed pretty obvious that these guys weren't for you.  You had your thing that you wanted to do and they had their thing they wanted to do -- and there's nothing wrong with playing how you enjoy, but you want to have choices and get to the action and these people didn't, so it's good you found another group, I'm thinking.

diadochi wrote:
Out of interest, I’m not sure what indie games are. What indie games do you like?

diadochi wrote:
The Warhammer ref would give me grief for not "acting", which I felt was harsh, as it is the weakest part of my skills, and his strongest. If a narrative game means I can make decisions and choices that mean something that is good, if it means more competitive acting, that is bad (for me at least).

Hi,

Thanks for telling me about indie games. From what I've read in the past games it seems that part of what indie games are about is achieving general (important) goals against specific tasks (which often are pointless). The strongest example I read was the difference between a lock picking roll to open a safe to recover some documents, against a general find the document roll. So with indie games or is that narrative games you can do a lot more, because a lot more can be condensed down into one roll?

I do have a mechanical mind, so I'm not sure indie games are my only path to salvation. The idea of using specific skills to achieve do the little things appears to me. I do appreciate that such games can often give the player less choice, and trap his character in mediocry.

Finally, thank you to everyone who replied to this thread.

Regards,

David

diadochi wrote:
So with indie games or is that narrative games you can do a lot more, because a lot more can be condensed down into one roll?

diadochi wrote: I do have a mechanical mind, so I'm not sure indie games are my only path to salvation. The idea of using specific skills to achieve do the little things appears to me. I do appreciate that such games can often give the player less choice, and trap his character in mediocry.

To dissent slightly from Joshua,

A lot of Forgie games are pretty limited.  This isn't true of all of them, but (and this ties in to the issue I have with people willy-nilly suggesting the Game of the Month as the cure to troubled player's ills) many of them have an extremely tight focus that is very limiting.

Take My Life With Master -- it is about playing the minion of a Gothic monster where the minion breaks free of the Master, and is largely about fear vs. reason.  If you don't want to play a Gothic monster addressing those themes, well, tough.  Same with Polaris, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc., etc.  A lot of Forgie games are pretty limited because they are about very narrow character ranges, in very specific settings, and increasingly with pre-determined resolutions.  That does limit player choices a fair bit.

Others aren't, obviously.  A game like Universalis can be used in a large number of game types, obviously.  But I think it is fair to say that many Forge games can be quite limited.

A quick comment about "Focused" Games---

A few years ago, I would never have considered buying a game like Sorcerer.  "What?  The game is only about dysfunctional relationships, and demons, and how far would you go for power?  What if I wanted to play a different kind of story?  Bah!  I have no desire to play such a limited game.  Give me something like D&D, or GURPS, where it's more open-ended."

But it actually turns out that it's hard to get a gaming group together sometimes!  It's especially hard to find 4-5 adult players who can commit to a fixed, weekly or bi-weekly schedule beyond 3 months.  Really, you're lucky if you can put a game together for six weeks before Real Life disrupts the whole thing.

So: in practical terms, you might only get a limited opportunity to do the story/scenario you had in mind.  For a lot of people, the "open-ended" aspect of D&D or GURPS will never get used--it's like winning a romantic getaway for two, when you can't get a date.  Not everybody has this problem--but I'd bet a lot of people do.  The major factor in limiting the growth of the hobby is the difficulty in finding committed players.

With that in mind, a "tightly focused" game is less of a problem.  You've got 5, maybe 10 sessions, before schedules change, interests fade, etc.  The fact that a single campaign of Dogs in the Vineyard would get predictable after 50 sessions isn't an issue.  But for the 5 or 10 sessions you do have, and for the story you might want to tell--Dogs is perfectly designed for that.  Not a single wasted word, not a single pointless rule.  (Who cares about rules for drowning?  Seriously.  In all the D&D games I ever played, the issue never came up.)  Absolutely everything in the book is completely, totally relevant.  It flawlessly delivers, "Holy policemen in the Old West."

The trick with Forge games, is that you have to figure out what you want, ahead of time.  Once you know the kind of experience you're looking for, a well-designed game will give it to you every time, frequently with minimal effort on your part.

Hello,

You guys are not helping David. This isn't about representing other games, or talking about Forge this or that. This is about the experiences with Warhammer and Call of Cthulhu, and talking about why they did't work well.

Please help David with that. Use terms from the Glossary, that's what they're for. Explain that he walked into broken social and creative situations, and that satisfaction cannot be gained from the processes he saw there.

That's what this thread is for. I can't do all this by myself. You guys have to do it too.

Best,
Ron

All right, so, back on track, and this is me trying to be a good Forge citizen:

diadochi wrote: The scenario left me feeling numb. Not at one point did I feel I had a meaningful choice. Our characters knew nothing about the city, had no contacts, and were physically pathetic. The referee enjoyed every minute of it, describing everything in glorious detail. He made no attempt as far as I can tell, to give us clues about what was going on, choices or opportunities to do anything different. It felt like everything turned out exactly as he had planned. I never got a sense of him giving us opportunities to make an impact in the world. It was more like we were expected to gap with awe at the world, love the world, and thank him for letting us intrude in his beautiful world. The few time where was conflict it was either meaningless, the thugs, or we were defeated extremely quickly, the vampire. I basically felt disappointed and used.

The referee is a really nice guy, and as I said his acting and knowledge of the world is superb. His campaign didn’t last long, in the next scenario; the party was killed, cut to pieces in our first real fight.

While I like action films, I do watch many different genres. I find that in the stories I enjoy, things happen, people don’t necessarily have to die or suffer violence, but things do happen, people’s lives do change. In the short time I was part of that Call of Cthulhu campaign nothing happened, and I was bored.

diadochi wrote: On the way we got attacked by some thugs, who we defeated, but the fight felt arbitrary, rather than exciting, with victory going to those with the luckiest dice rolls.

Hi David,

Welcome to the Forge!

First, I wanted to put out there that this isn't where "you are going wrong".  There's a lot wrong here, but it's not due to any action/inaction on your part.  In fact, you did something right in all of this- you recognized that this wasn't fun for you and you decided to stop- something a surprising number of people in this hobby don't seem to get.  "If the milk is bad, don't put it back in the fridge..."

Fundamentally the experiences you have described are the result of several fallacies common in mainstream gamer culture, which add up to lots of not-fun for many people.  Let's just start with some fundamental concepts, and maybe you'll see what I mean.

A.  There are many different ways to play and have fun (even with the same rules)
B.  Many of these different ways are different enough that they do not work together.

In contrast, most gamers believe that if you get a willing group together, and decide to start playing, it "ought" to lead to fun.  Which is like gathering a random assortment of "people who like sports" and deciding to play a game.  Without any indication of which game it will be, or what the rules are until you're already playing...  A trial and error recipe that will end up in more not-fun than fun experiences.

Can you describe what game experience(s) were exceptionally fun for you, in contrast to the not-fun you've just had?

Chris

Regarding wimpy characters-- this may be an artifact of Warhammer rules.  I haven't played, so I can't comment constructively.  I know that D&D has elaborate rules to construct "equal" battles, so that in theory every roll makes a difference.  Does Warhammer do that?

Rob wrote:

Regarding wimpy characters-- this may be an artifact of Warhammer rules.  I haven't played, so I can't comment constructively.  I know that D&D has elaborate rules to construct "equal" battles, so that in theory every roll makes a difference.  Does Warhammer do that?

Not in the older edition that I've seen. In fact, D&D 3 is the only system I'm aware of that has a fully developed system for doing that.

David, if you're still looking for us to put names to things:

Whiff Factor
The effect of a high failure-rate for a given Resolution mechanic, especially when the rate does not accord with the character's expected competence. A common source of Deprotagonizing; usually considered a Design flaw.

Deprotagonize (Paul Czege)
To limit or devalue another person's opportunity to establish their character as a protagonist during Narrativist play. Note that this is specific to Paul's use of Protagonism strictly in the limited Narrativist context.

Protagonism
A problematic term with two possible meanings. (1) A characteristic of the main characters of stories, regardless of who produced the stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set of behaviors among people during role-playing, associated with Narrativist play, with a necessary unnamed equivalent in Gamist play and possibly another in Simulationist play. In the latter sense, coined by Paul Czege.

Illusionism
A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS. Term coined by Paul Elliott.

In the case of the WarHammer game, it sounds like Frustrated Author Syndrome.  The GM sounds like he's made a competent story, with lots of nice acting.  That's great.  He should write it down in short story form and keep it as far away from the gaming table as possible.  Actually, now that I think of it, he would probably really enjoy PrimeTime Adventures (Sorry to suggest a different game, Ron, but it really does sound like this guy is happier making stories than playing games).

In the case of the Call of Cthulhu group...  well, that's just plain, old bunkering.  Yeah, y'all are completely right.  This crew has survived too long.  If I were their GM (God help them), I would have wiped them out long ago.  Especially considering that very few Lovecraft protagonists survived a whole story, let alone a series.  An example would be that while their characters are studying, one of them becomes increasingly obsessed with some dark grimoire they picked up on their last adventurer.  Of course, he becomes enthralled by something horrifying, and it's up to the rest of the group to stop him.

In the case of you, I'd say that your guild simply does not enjoy the same kinds of play as you.  I'd suggest you try a couple completely different games with them to see if you can all enjoy something different together.  If they flatly turn you down, I'd find a new group.  If y'all don't really enjoy playing the new game together, I'd find a new group.  If they enjoy the new games, I'd play both the old and new with them.  Heck, relationships are all about compromise, but not when they're dysfunctional.