darkconspiracytherpg.info

Linden wrote:I always get slightly irate when people say in Call of Cthulhu "you go mad and then you die." That seems to me putting a straitjacket on how the game is to be played even before its started.

Of course it isn't really true as C of C supports a wide variety of styles, but it does point out that DC has never been big enough to have a stereotype attached to it.

And in the vein of the old Saturday Night chats (something I missed out on because my timezone meant local time was something absurd like two in the morning!) and the tone of the game, I don't think I ever actually ran DC exactly as described in the book. I always had some variation of the theme but the core components were all in place. And I rarely if ever, had my games set in the USA (I mostly set them in Europe), so yeah, I was one of the "alternative" crowd haha!

In regards to DC not being big enough to have a stereotype attached to it, I think also that Linden's point about DC supporting so many different styles and not being known for just one or two also contributed to the lack of stereotyping. I always found this to be a main strength because it let me have the leeway to play with different elements and indeed, play the game in ways different to the book - including using totally different gameworld backgrounds.

Another strength of DC for me was the designer's decision to have the game as "monsters hurt humans, humans hurt 'em right back". When I first started running games, there was already someone running Cthulhu (and very well too, not in the "you go mad and you die" straightjacket" way that some people seem to think the game should be run), so I wanted any horror game I was going to run to be different enough that it wouldn't interfere or cross over into the others territory. My first DC games were very much corporate conspiracy style with various weirdness going on, lots of layers of Igors and the like but with little in the way of the alien presence and next to no Dark Lord interference.
But back to the point... One of the most telling comments about the difference between DC and other horror games for me was the Players saying something along the lines of "Now we can get some payback!". My game crowd enjoyed the idea that they could use whatever tools were available to hurt the enemy, be they modern or ancient weapons, fire, electricity, circular saw, crushing by truck and so on

ReHerakhte wrote:. I always found this to be a main strength because it let me have the leeway to play with different elements and indeed, play the game in ways different to the book - including using totally different gameworld backgrounds.

I very much agree with this. I think it's a game that rewards GMs who are prepared to think flexibly about what sort of world/setting/mood they want for their campaign. When I ran my last campaign I had a bit of resistance from one player who'd run his own back in the 1990s and didn't think much of DC. Ironically, now the campaign is over he's the one who keeps pestering me to start it up again. I've been a player in a CoC game he ran and it has to be said he's rigid as a GM; wants to dictate what characters people have so there's a "balanced party", favours a railroad adventure style, and reads at length from the book (box text is my pet hate - it's boring). That's the first time I've met someone with that GM style and, while I suspect they're by no means untypical, it seems to me they are going to have particular difficulties running Dark Conspiracy - it's not a game where everything is spelled out in stone.

Incidentally in my last campaign I made extensive of the Cyberpunk UK sourcebook. It's abysmally written but has some good ideas and adventure seeds in amongst the dross, plus I picked it up dead cheap off ebay.

Deleted for repetition

All I can say Linden is "Ouch!" I've never had to play under a GM like that specifically but I have played with a GM who is a computer programmer and he runs games like a computer programme i.e. it follows a script to the letter, if you don't meet the correct conditions, then nothing happens.
Frankly it's more than boring it's frustrating in the extreme (to the point where it makes me want to swear!)

What I have noticed though, is that he is one of the first Players who will deviate from the team to go off and do his own thing - it's like he revels in the freedom as a Player but he's unable to give that same freedom to anyone when he runs a game

Warning: a small rant ahead.
As for the "balanced party" crap (and yes it's one of my major hates in any sort of gaming), anyone who believes that a party needs to be balanced completely misses the point that a team is made up of strengths and weaknesses and it's those differences that make the team not just interesting but a hell of a lot more flexible - a balanced party means every encounter has to be "balanced" as well, which is all so damned mechanical it's predictable... and predictable is boring to the point of making the game bland...
And I should stop now because I did mean this to be just a little rant!

ReHerakhte wrote:And in the vein of the old Saturday Night chats (something I missed out on because my timezone meant local time was something absurd like two in the morning!) and the tone of the game, I don't think I ever actually ran DC exactly as described in the book. I always had some variation of the theme but the core components were all in place. And I rarely if ever, had my games set in the USA (I mostly set them in Europe), so yeah, I was one of the "alternative" crowd haha!

I very much doubt anyone ever ran DC exactly as described, even back at the start

ReHerakhte wrote:
What I have noticed though, is that he is one of the first Players who will deviate from the team to go off and do his own thing - it's like he revels in the freedom as a Player but he's unable to give that same freedom to anyone when he runs a game

Strangely enough (or possibly not) that mirrors my own experience. Possibly we've identified a particular type here?

As for the balanced party it's not something I have any interest in at all. I want my players to generate and run characters they're happy with and can do some interesting roleplaying with. I don't think a party should be predicated on some kind of tactical equation about how useful they're going to be in a fight.

Yes, definitely agree with your last statement in its entirety.
My argument against the "balanced party" concept , once I've got past the ranting and frothing at the mouth stage, is that it's mechanical and formulaic and the games that stress the concept become mechanical and formulaic in due course.
D&D 3rd Ed. did that sort of thing, where they had figured the percentage of party resources you should expend per encounter, how many encounters it should take you to level up, at what levels you should be acquiring magical items and so on - it doesn't allow much room for randomness.

ReHerakhte wrote:Yes, definitely agree with your last statement in its entirety.
My argument against the "balanced party" concept , once I've got past the ranting and frothing at the mouth stage, is that it's mechanical and formulaic and the games that stress the concept become mechanical and formulaic in due course.

Again, totally agree. I've heard the later incarnations of D&D encourage that sort of play.

Despite my general dislike of fantasy rpgs I'm playing a PC in an Advanced Fighting Fantasy game at the moment. I checked out the original Dungeoneer rulebook and rather liked its slightly irreverent style and simplicity of play. We've had a few difficulties with the rules not being clear but it's been good fun so far. We also seem to have a balanced party, Elf, Dwarf, Wizard and Fighter (or as I prefer to describe him "generic thug"). Quite by accident I assure you.

Everyone just needs something to do, the adventures need to reflect that. Don't put thugs in a refined settings or expect thieves to be combat tanks.

ReHerakhte wrote: Another strength of DC for me was the designer's decision to have the game as "monsters hurt humans, humans hurt 'em right back".

This was my favourite part of DC. It was never a hopeless battle against overwhelming odds, sure the odds were tight, but a clever, well organised and well-equipped team could make all the difference. There was an article about DC in one of the old UK independent RPG mags and the writer (Jonathan Turner, I think) essentially compared the horror in the game to those scenes in modern/future horror films where a character sits dissecting a threat, looking for a weakness. For all of it's mystical overtones in places, this was firmly scientific horror and in the words of Dutch Schaeffer, "If it bleeds, we can kill it".

KeiBu wrote:

ReHerakhte wrote: There was an article about DC in one of the old UK independent RPG mags and the writer (Jonathan Turner, I think) essentially compared the horror in the game to those scenes in modern/future horror films where a character sits dissecting a threat, looking for a weakness. For all of it's mystical overtones in places, this was firmly scientific horror and in the words of Dutch Schaeffer, "If it bleeds, we can kill it".

Back in Demonground days I asked him about republishing his old work from that mag and he agreed. After GDW went he's been into Delta Green ever since that came out, and I daresay he'll be at ConTinuum in August so we'll have a catch-up (which will doubtless involve alcohol consumption and fruity language!)

Phulish wrote: Don't put thugs in a refined settings.

I think there's some good roleplaying possibilities in that kind of situation. For some reason I'm reminded of the late Princess Margaret and her dalliance with actor-cum-professional villain John Bindon...

Morthrai wrote:

KeiBu wrote:

ReHerakhte wrote: There was an article about DC in one of the old UK independent RPG mags and the writer (Jonathan Turner, I think) essentially compared the horror in the game to those scenes in modern/future horror films where a character sits dissecting a threat, looking for a weakness. For all of it's mystical overtones in places, this was firmly scientific horror and in the words of Dutch Schaeffer, "If it bleeds, we can kill it".

Back in Demonground days I asked him about republishing his old work from that mag and he agreed. After GDW went he's been into Delta Green ever since that came out, and I daresay he'll be at ConTinuum in August so we'll have a catch-up (which will doubtless involve alcohol consumption and fruity language!)

I think I remember the reprint of the Echo Squad material, which I had already used excessively in my own campaigns.

Hmm, I must try and dig that out.