Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Chaosium Digest Volume 02 Number 07
Chaosium Digest Volume 2, Number 7
Date: Sunday, June 6, 1993
Number: 1 of 3
Contents:
On Chaosium (Lynn Willis) MISC
Review: Castle of Eyes (Liam Routt) MISC
Review: Return to Dunwich (Jason Corley) CALL OF CTHULHU
The Term Investigators (Lynn Willis) CALL OF CTHULHU
A Method of Describing Mythos Books (Matt Grossman) CALL OF CTHULHU
Good Glory and Bad Glory (Eric Rowe) PENDRAGON
--------------------
From: chaosium@netcom.com (Chaosium)
Subject: On Investigators and Chaosium
System: Misc
I was reading through your digest, mostly concerning Cthulhu and
Elric, since those are my current areas of interest. Quite a lot of
interesting stuff; congratulations. A few rambling comments occur to
me.
The way you guys use the word "Chaosium" resembles the way I use
"IBM," ie, to indicate some gigantic and faceless corporate entity.
As a company, we deserve a different representation of scale. There
are currently exactly six of us. Everyone has crucial roles to play,
and multiple responsibilities. We are mostly lateral in
decision-making. Four of us have appreciable hands in writing,
editorial, art assignments, and/or layout. (Charlie would be the
fifth, mostly with items like T-shirts and the Cthulhu for President
kit.)
When you see somebody's name attached to the word "project" on the
title page of a Chaosium publication, you can be sure that individual
has had a major hand in practically everything connected with that
book or box. If you have attacks or compliments concerning particular
books, make them personal; the company is a legal fiction,
representing the legal and physical umbrella. It is a little file of
paper in Sacramento, the state capital. Chaosium itself has never
made a decision, and (I promise you) can't even read.
That said, there are identifiable Chaosium approaches and attitudes.
For instance, we have very free hands in coming up with and completing
projects. The limitations are the laws of libel and obscenity, some
tiresome requirements by comics and game stores concerning nudity and
sexual behavior, an ever-present shortage of money and time, our own
talents and creativity, and our own stupidities and blind prejudices.
For instance, and as a matter of course, there is no review of book
content or approach by anyone here except the project leader.
-- Lynn Willis
--------------------
From: lro@melb.bull.oz.au (Liam Routt)
Subject: Review: Castle of Eyes
System: Misc
I have been trying to convince myself to write this review for a
number of weeks now, but something has been holding me back. I am a
close friend of the author, Penelope Love, and have seen the
development of the Castle of Eyes story and setting from its early
days. That makes me a very biased observer. Realizing that it is
probably impossible for me to be truly objective about the book has
made it quite difficult for me to actually get to writing anything
about it. Bear with me here, and forgive me if I am just that little
bit too close to things to make out the details.
The Castle of Eyes, if I am not mistaken, began life as an extended
campaign for the Stormbringer system. Those not familiar with the
Australian roleplaying scene (and I imagine that's most of you), will
be unaware that Penelope is one of the acomplished scenario writers in
Melbourne. It was not at all suprising that she should be writing
material for Stormbringer, as a number of people here are involved
with the game.
Penelope has written quite a number of notable scenarios over the
years, but she has always been a writer of fiction at heart, I think.
Those who keep track of who write what will know her name from a
number of Call of Cthulhu books and scenarios, most notably "Terror
Australis" and "Tatterdemalion" (in Fatal Experiments). But such a
person might not be aware that she has been writing fiction for quite
a while.
You can tell that Penelope is a writer when you read her drafts. They
speak to you in the way that the pages of a novel do: the images leap
off the page at you, and build fantastic settings out of thin air.
There is something about the attitude, the direction, of someone who
thinks of themselves as telling a story first, and writing a scenario
only later. I don't know how much of that spark survives the
editorial and revision process, because I have not actually sat down
to read any of Penelope's published material, until now.
I have had the pleasure of participating in scenarios written by the
brightest lights in the Australian roleplaying scene. Countless hours
have been spent exploring all manner of fantastic visions and stories.
But, when anyone asks me what scenario I enjoyed the most, which one
really came alive, I tell them that "The Castle of Eyes," Penelope
Love's Stormbringer campaign, was the pinnacle.
There is a lot that goes into a great roleplaying experience: the
story, the characters, the players, the mood, the gamemaster, even the
setting in which the game is played. I don't for a moment believe
that Penelope's campaign had the best players, or was played under the
best circumstances (we played a few hours a week, in the evening in
the middle of the week); there was something else about it that made
it truly exceptional. I think that it must have been a combination of
the story itself, a tangled web of fine intrigue, interwoven with a
variety of motivations and underlying concepts, and the vivid
characters who peopled it. It is no secret that my character fell
tragically in love with one of the most important personalities in the
Castle; I usually find the development of such relationships to be
forced, and meaningless in roleplaying games. In this case, however,
it was the strength of this character, and more importantly the
contrast between her and those who surrounded her, that brought her
personality to life.
All of the characters in the Castle are the result of competing ideals
and motivations; there is little that is clear-cut in the Castle.
There was never a time when I felt overwhelmingly that one side or
another of an argument was unquestionably correct. Sure, we choose
sides, but we didn't necessarily believe that what we were doing was
destined to be right in the end. To truly be in the midst of such
dilemmas is a rare roleplaying pleasure, I find.
The stories in the campaign chronicled the decay of a society as it
was confronted with new ideas from an outside world that it had never
seen. The player characters were the central pieces in what became an
intricate game as the various factions in the Castle tried to stave
off the inevitable collapse of their centuries-old traditions, and
ensure their own power after the apocalypse. Ever the unwitting
pawns, even when we acted on our own advice, we found that we were
serving the wishes of more than one of the Castle's figures.
Gradually the intensity built, through a series of well-crafted plots
and sub-plots, until we reached a fearful climax, the likes of which
is rarely attempted, and almost never succeeds. A battle raged for
sessions, a battle that kept us truly on the edge of our seats.
Compromises were made, encounters won and lost, until finally a
resolution was reached. The magical ride came to a graceful end.
The novel of the Castle of Eyes tells the story of a stranger.
Alliole finds herself alone in an unfamiliar place without even the
comfort of her own past. Those around her all seem to expect
something from her, and yet almost everything she does seems to bring
the Castle closer to a frightening confrontation with itself. No
matter how she tries, she is unable to shake the spectre of fate that
follows her, nor is she able to shrink away from her desire to know
the truth about the place in which she has found herself - a truth
that has lain hidden for ages.
The book is more subdued, I think, than the campaign was. Where we
might have dashed off on tangents, Penelope is able to reign things in
and focus her characters more intently upon what surrounds them. The
story is, if anything, more compelling for this focus. The central
character, Alliole, is a truly tragic heroine, and she manages a
graceful transformation through the events the story chronicles. The
novel is able to portray the characters of the Castle in a stronger
fashion than the scenarios. Obviously, the author is able to take
more time to establish situations and reactions in a novel than in the
improvisation of a roleplaying session. The understanding that
Penelope gained from that improvisation shows, though, in the
characters that she exposes, I think; they have a flexible,
believable, framework that story-book characters often seem to lack.
Castle of Eyes is not a cheap book. It has not been published by one
of the established fiction houses. Its presentation, while
attractive, never quite seems to be the same as the books we are used
to buying of the shelves of our favourite paperback bookstore. It
bears all the marks of a foray into a new market place. Chaosium has
put it out for the world to read without even a link to its line of
roleplaying games (there is nothing in the book that ties it even
remotely to the worlds that Moorcock described). That is quite a risk,
especially when one considers that the author is all but unknown to
the general public.
Its a good book though, one that I think does deserve to be read. I
don't for a moment believe that it will be to everyone's taste; I am
not a fan of the genre myself, and probably would never had read the
book (despite Penelope's involvement) had I not participated in the
scenario. I am glad I did read it, though. Its not the best book I've
ever read, but it is a powerful story, compelling and vital. You
can't hope for much more than that, especially from a first novel.
I pointed out at the beginning of this review that I am a biased
observer. I have been too close to the story for me to be able to
adequately judge the results. I ask you, the reader, to take a grain
of that bias with you when you next go into that bookstore: let me
help you take "Castle of Eyes" off the shelf, and settle down to read
it.
Liam Routt
Darcsyde Productions
--------------------
From: corleyj@GAS.uug.Arizona.EDU (Jason D Corley )
Subject: Review: Return to Dunwich
System: Call of Cthulhu
Here's my review of _Return to Dunwich_, which I picked up last week.
As with the other Lovecraft Country books, RtD is broken into two
parts: the town directory-style listing of buildings and people, and
the included scenarios. The difference is that there is a
preliminary-style scenario at the beginning of the book (instead of
exclusively at the end).
The quality of the scenarios in the book is very questionable. I have
read and reread them, and they get a bit clearer with each attempt,
but as a GM, I don't know exactly what story the authors are trying to
tell with these scenarios. So, I will probably end up cannibalizing
them and assembling my own. Don't get me wrong, they have all kinds
of good scares in them, but as for good stories? Better write your
own on this one.
However, the directory puts every other Lovecraft Country book to
shame, including _Arkham Unveiled_. There are a lot of interesting
people and places, but what's more important, there are a lot of
_totally uninteresting_ people and places that can be either a help or
a hindrance to the investigators, _depending on how they act_, just
like real life. I like this. The map is also one of the best.
All in all: a good book. Maybe not to buy new, but you don't need to
wait until the secondhand stores have it. Look for it in a discount
store. ;-)
--------------------
From: chaosium@netcom.com (Chaosium)
Subject: The Term Investigators
System: Call of Cthulhu
In-Reply-To: V1.4 "Investigators"
The word 'investigators' is not a synonym for 'detectives.'
Investigator is not an occupation choice. It refers to what
player-characters mostly do in COC. When I write the word
investigator, and I do it more than I should, it means
player-character. I don't like player-character as a term, because
it's longer and because it's clumsy at the end of lines, often needing
two hyphens. An investigator can be a character of any background,
dilettante to stevedore. Golly. The notion that anyone would read
the word in its secondary meaning never occurred to me.
-- Lynn Willis
--------------------
From: Matt Grossman <MGROSSMAN@hamp.hampshire.edu>
Subject: A Method of Describing Mythos Books
System: Call of Cthulhu
A while back, on the now defunct Mythos Delvers mailing list, Guy Bock
proposed a new way of describing mythos books. I recently heard of
this, and I like it. here it is:
"Each tome should have a general listing of the subjects it covers.
For example:"
The Pnakotic Manuscripts
TOPICS
Astronomy (as it relates to the mythos) 40%
Pre-prehistorical history 15%
other 1%
SPELLS
other 5%
"Each subject is given a percent chance of having a *specific* fact
included. A general or related fact will be found at double the
listed chance. Spells will be difficult to learn as most books do not
list all the requirement needed to perform a spell. The percentage
given for each book represents the fraction of all the information a
character will need to perform a spell successfully. When a character
accumulates enough books with (for example) a cumulative necromantic
spell score of 100%, he will be able to successfully cast spells in
that category. If the cumulative score is less than 100%, then that
is the chance for success."
Obviously, using this method will require some work. For example,
this method does not integrate well with the Cthulhu Mythos skill as
published. One possibility is to dump this skill (sacrilege!), or
possibly rule that only mythos induced insanity can grant the skill
(ie it can only be learned by direct experience). I personally am not
very happy with the Cthulhu Mythos skill as written (if you can learn
about the mythos by reading books, why not physics or accounting?)
Using Guy's method, mythos books still remain valuable as reference
works and of course still carry their sanity cost; but learning about
the mythos requires much more study, and characters will be forced to
actually use the books, instead of the old read/gain Cthulhu
Mythos/discard.
Clearly, if this method is going to be used, it would be nice to agree
on what the books actually are about, what info/spells they contain.
Used in conjunction with the study time formula in TUO 6, this should
provide quite a detailed way of handling mythos books. If anyone else
on the digest is interested in such a project, I would certainly be
glad to help coordinate, and the Digest would be a useful way to
spread this information.
PS Guy, are you out there? If so, do you have any comments?
Matt Grossman
Hampshire College
mgrossman@hamp.hampshire.edu
--------------------
From: Eric Rowe <rowe@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Good Glory and Bad Glory
System: Pendragon
Glory in Pendragon is the object of the game for characters. To quote
3rd edition "Glory measures a character's fame, success, confidence,
importance, influence and status." It is used to compare status and
importance between knights and is also a general measure of fame. It
condenses all that is known about a knight through stories and rumor
into one number. Upon meeting a knight, you will have heard of
several of his deeds in the past and this will enable you to better
know how to act and react to him. Glory in no way measures the
quality or type of actions the knight is known for; this is reflected
in a character's traits and passions. By looking at them it is fairly
easy to get a general impression of how good/evil a knight is and how
to react.
What I have to suggest is a simple modification that allows a more
specific telling of how good/evil a knight is as well as allowing more
versatility in response to previous knowledge. The idea is that Glory
comes in two forms, bad and good. Some Glory earned is considered bad
and listed separately from other Glory which is listed as good. Their
sum is still used exactly as Glory normally is. However, with two
separate numbers listed it is easy to quickly tell how evil/good a
knight is without looking at all the traits and passions.
This also allows something interesting when meeting a knight
previously only heard of. Normally a Heraldry or Recognise roll is
made. If it is a success the GM reveals what is known about the
knight. However, it is possible that as most knights are known to
have done both heinous as well as chivalrous acts that players may
have only heard of some of the stories. In this method after a
Heraldry success, opposed rolls based on good and bad glory divided by
1000 are made. Whichever success is better is the type of glory the
players have heard mostly of. If both rolls fail, then while they
will know of the general Glory status of the knight they will not know
specifics as to how evil/good the knight is. In this method it is
possible to occasionally get the wrong impression of another knight's
personality. A simple example is that it is possible that a knight
meeting Sir Balin would have only heard of his one heinous deed and
not of his many chivalrous ones. They would know of his great Glory
level, but perhaps think him evil despite his truly honorable nature.
Good Glory and Bad are awarded at the same time, and can even come
from the same action. Here are some examples. A knight marries into
a family known for adultery and industry. Of his 300 (in this case)
glory, 150 is awarded as good and 150 is awarded as bad, representing
opinions and preconceptions people will now have when meeting him. In
another case, some knights save a village full of peasants from evil
knights who were starving them. However, the knights were tricked
into eating human flesh by the evil knights. If the whole adventure
was worth 50 glory, perhaps 10 of that might be bad. Most people
relaying the story will not mentions the disgusting parts and leave 40
Glory as good. Of course most actions will be simply either all good
or all bad Glory awards, dependent upon the action.
Hopefully this method will increase the occasional misunderstandings
between knights that makes Pendragon so entertaining.
Eric
rowe@soda.berkeley.edu
--------------------
The Chaosium Digest is a Discussion Forum for Chaosium Games which do
not have another specific area for discussion. To submit an article,
mail to: appel@erzo.berkeley.edu
