SavAce
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- May 28, 2018
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 1,418
I think that's a valid way to look at it. It's a game where the rules focus on 1 thing, but in campaign mode those rules won't necessarily be used all that often. It's an unusual case for sure, unlike almost any other RPG.Which is an example of the attributes not mattering for a large part of the gameplay, no?
I don't think I'd try to argue that random character generation, or a lack of concern for balance or competency is a majority feeling (I really don't know). On the other hand, I don't think bringing up things like CoC, DCC or Paranoia is "kind of cheating" either, as it directly provides evidence of a player base that is not as concerned about the "balanced PC who is a competent hero" role. In fact, Call of Cthulhu is no small thing, being a quite popular game with a million editions, and a variety of spin-off games based on the same or related fictional origins (Trail of Cthulhu, Realms of Cthulhu, CthulhuTech, The Yellow King, other stuff I don't track, as I'm not a huge Mythos fan). Beyond playing Grogs and such, I've also had extensive experience in my GM (or me when playing as a GM), handing out characters in that "in this scene they play NPCs, sometimes vs. other players' PCs" way, enough that I think there is strong evidence that most RPG players enjoy playing characters in a variety of roles that aren't just "I want to imagine I'm a hero." Like, players can really ham it up and RP some really memorable characters and enjoy themselves. Sometimes, due to how memorable they are, they recur and the same player plays them as needed. In the same way being handed a pre-gen might take players to places they might not otherwise go, having players take over NPCs takes NPCs to places the GM might not otherwise go.I've actually seen people who kind of object to grogs in principal, but among those that didn't, they didn't because they didn't consider them "real" PCs; they were effectively NPCs a player sometimes operated (the fact they're treated as a group possession reinforced this).
Past that--I don't think I ever said every single person felt this way--if that was true we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I'll say an awful lot of people do, however, and I suspect (but cannot prove) that the majority do, though. To make it extremely clear, and its an easy thing to go off in the rails in these kinds of discussions, that's not a moral judgment.
(Though CoC is kind of cheating. Its like talking about Dungeon Crawl Classics and noting people are not bothered by losing characters. People going into those are kind of expecting things to go badly. Paranoia too, far as that goes).
Even beyond this, I'd mention more RPGs, some of which challenge the "Players want to play competent" and others the "Hero" parts of your reply: Vampire: The Masquerade - Usually some kind of competent, but at the bottom of the totem pole and often not very concerned with heroism, almost sort of a survival thing. Sorcerer - A game that generally assumes a bad fate for the PCs and is about exploring the temptations of working with demons. A variety of games people argue the "RPG-ness" of, given variously the "Story Game" or "Narrative" label, such as Fiasco, Durance, My Life With Master, Dialect, Ten Candles, Poison'd...
I think this is slightly misrepresenting my point, though I doubt you're doing it deliberately.
Yes, there's the fundamental "I'm playing a game and want things to go well" but this goes well beyond that. Much of the hobby is people wanting to play some analog to a fictional hero. Most of those are defined, at least in part, about what they're good at. If they have the sense they're not good at anything (and that's going to be relative to what's going on around them to at least some degree) its not going to feel like a good experience, but it isn't about "winning" per se.
Well, I'll note that statement didn't come out of me, but I also think its true more often than not; most games are not DCC, CoC or Paranoia.
I think the core of what makes a hero is that it is someone willing to take great personal risk or make a real sacrifice for the sake of the greater good, regardless of their station in life or ability, and that it can only be expressed in actions taken in play. Atticus Finch, George Bailey, Tom Joad, Oskar Schindler, Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men. A person who shoots lasers out of their eyes or is the best pilot in the galaxy can be a hero, villain, or something in-between. Someone who sacrifices themselves for the sake of the greater good can be a hero regardless of if they're a fresh-faced, clumsy kid recruit in a horrible modern war, or the greatest warrior in the land riding upon the wings of Pegasus. I know you mean hero more in the sense of, like, an action/adventure hero, or the protagonist in a procedural, and most likely more of us are involved in action/adventure roleplay than not. Or maybe you mean "protagonist" more than hero? I also get that sometimes most of us want to play a protagonist who is kind of a bad-ass (or is at least recognized as solidly competent) in a particular area of endeavor, and that random chargen can interfere with that. I only bring these other hero type characters, or games not about heroes or capability to mind to keep the breadth of what the roleplaying hobby is in our awareness, so that it doesn't get lost in all of the talk about INT points and the attribute break-points that net you 3 AP in RuneQuest, etc. All of the talk about different random attribute schemes to possibly minimize the downsides of random roll, and niche protection concerns and power levels... it's all valid enough talk, but also feels like it's about a very particular kind of roleplay, and way of seeing what the "game" in RPG is. How people feel about balance and/or random chargen can all vary depending on the different style of RP going down, I believe.
Or maybe I'm blessed with a dozen odd-ball friends in my local gaming group who are willing to play it both/all ways, at least for a few sessions.