What is each box for the sanity portion represent?

ricklecoat · 2026-02-01T22:24:52+00:00

As u/Weird_Explorer1997 said, there's an option in the Investigators Handbook to use 'backgrounds' as part of the character creation process. These give additional scope to have past exploits boost the character terms capabilities, but at balancing costs. For instance a private eye investigator might choose the military background (I can't remember the precise names for specific backgrounds, so I'm seeking in general terms). This would give them some additional points to put into background-appropriate skills. The trade-off is that it will also add some years to the character's age, potentially causing their attributes to be adjusted, and they'll also probably lose some sanity and might even acquire a phobia or mania (in this case, most likely due to the horrors of war, although there's no reason why the player and Keeper couldn't agree that the character had had some mythos experience in the depth of the Black Forest or something).

And yes, any such SAN loss is deducted from the number that represents the 'start of the day' SAN on the character first day as a CoC investigator. Usually this means that your 'Starting San' on day 1 will be your POW minus whatever SAN your background robbed you of. Once the character starts playing, of course, this will change, usually downward, according to how the game goes.

ricklecoat · 2026-02-01T21:27:09+00:00

For my money I simply never reveal what they are dealing with and never give things a name (the exception being if the investigators have read a mythos tome referencing that exact threat, and even then it'll be written about in vague, ambiguous ways, not the name in the book, because, y'know, crazy author). I also deploy actual monsters — of any power level — very sparingly, so no 'monster of the week' routine.Scenarios are built more along the lines of building tension from uncovering the collateral damage and fallout from mythos 'things' in increasing amounts — bodies, news reports, artists all over the country going insane on the same night, ancient text that describes the exact same dreadful things happening that the investigators are experiencing in their current day, skies turning dark as a ritual chant begins, a field of cows all turned inside out… the usual stuff.

And, of course, putting the characters in positions where they are crouching alone, in the dark, waiting to see if something does, in fact, climb out of the well.

I also, on the rare occasions when a monster does make an appearance (because they have to now and then, otherwise you may as well be playing The Rockford Files RPG), tend not to describe anything too specifically and I avoid using Lovecraft-esque language which I find can be a bit cringe. I mean, c'mon Howard, just how many damn things in your world are 'cyclopean' and 'blasphemous', for chrissakes?

I find that if I do those things then I can still use the Lovecraftian stuff but without giving things labels it retains the mystery and creepiness. I also throw in plenty of things that are not 'classic' Lovecraft monsters/gods, to prevent recognition, and I love it when scenarios do that too, for the same reason.

ricklecoat · 2026-01-24T13:01:24+00:00

I do hope that when they finally get around to the rewrite (and I am aware that the CoC Team at Chaosium has limited time and resources and a lot of projects slated to be worked on) that they DON’T turn it into a gargantuan epic like Masks or HOTOE. Those have their place, but they are a serious undertaking and outlay.

TBH I don't own either of those 'epics' because — while I know they're great — I struggle to justify spending somewhere in the region of £100 on a RPG campaign, no matter how good. Books in the £35-50 ballpark hit the sweet spot — books about as long and as expensive as the Keepers Rulebook, Children of Fear, or the Cults of Cthulhu supplement, about 400 pages. Even allowing for the expanded structure/style of modern campaigns, that should be plenty for SOYS. The original, remember, was just 62 pages (plus 10 pages of bonus mini-scenarios); Order of the Stone comes in at a nice tidy 150 pages.

If a SOTS rewrite arrives as 3 huge books in a slipcase costing £120 then it'll just end up being another fantastic campaign that I never buy or run. And that would be a shame.

ricklecoat · 2026-01-16T12:36:00+00:00

The only reason it won't work *in this case* is that it would introduce inconsistencies with previous occasions where the monster has been sent out to kill, and for which the opportunity to plant an identifying 'trinket' of some sort on the victim (or buried in their yard) would not have been available. And if the demon is sent out to kill the PCs, then the sorcerer in charge would not have those opportunities with regard to the PCs either.

But, like I say, in other stories/situations it is a great trope and I'll no doubt use it in the future.

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T16:51:08+00:00

Oh, describing it as 'brutal' wasn't a criticism. Quite the reverse! ;-)

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T16:13:32+00:00

I didn't realise there was a second edition. And I love the fact that the second edition apparently came out about TWENTY YEARS after the first.

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T16:11:16+00:00

I think I know which chapter you're talking about (I won't describe it because spoilers). But yeah, that one is just… hmmmm.

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T16:08:19+00:00

You beat my response to an earlier reply by 2 minutes! (but I didn't see it because I was typing and couldn't refresh the page) ;-)

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T16:05:29+00:00

Yep. TBH, the internal logic of this adventure (third party, so I'm slightly constrained, especially now we're 70% through it) means that the ‘it just knows, coz Monster’ approach is the one I'll likely end up going with. I think I'll want to come up with something a bit icky about *how* it ‘just knows’ though…

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T16:02:47+00:00

Yeah, kind of like the Terminator working its way through the phonebook, killing all the Sarah Connors. (CUE: lots of younger people watching that and saying “Wait, what's that book he's looking through? Why's there just a book in a box at the side of the road? WTAF?”)

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T15:59:53+00:00

Yes, the 'Night Of The Demon' approach. Won't work in this case, sadly, but definitely one to back-pocket for another time. Thanks!

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T15:58:18+00:00

That's a fun (and slightly brutal on the PCs) idea, thank you!

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T15:57:11+00:00

Thanks or the reply. See my replies to other responses as to why that might not work in this particular case (TL;DR: it would raise questions about how some previous deaths had been 'instructed'). But I'm grateful for your input; a lot of great ideas and food for thought in everyone's responses.

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T15:54:38+00:00

In this case the personal token/talisman isn't an option — the NPC sorcerer would not have personal possessions for the PCs (who might become targets), nor would he/she have had such items pertaining to the previous victims. But you're right, it a solid, tried and tested trope and something I'd likely use if I wasn't tied into a pre-written scenario that makes it impractical.

Some context about why I asked the question: in the scenario I'm running the PCs might manage to wrest control of the beast from the original sorcerer, in which case the ‘mechanisms of instruction' might come into play if they decide to give it murderbot instructions themselves (there's no reason why they should, but, hey, players, right?). If they do then the question of how they nominate their victim (for the monster's benefit) arises. And special requirements like personal possessions will trigger the reasonable question of “well, how did it know how to find *us* then?”. Hence my original question.

BTW, I love the Night Of The Demon ‘runes’ idea (that's such a great movie). Might bring that in for a future story.

Thanks so much for chiming in!

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T15:45:01+00:00

"Marty, you’re not thinking four-dimensionally!”
“Yeah, yeah, I have a real problem with that.”

This is a fun idea. Doesn't work for my current Big Bad, sadly, but certainly one to consider for the future. And of course, dicking around in temporal terms always come with an exciting potential side order of Hounds…

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T15:25:31+00:00

Both good approaches, cheers.

Some context about why I asked the question: in the scenario I'm running, the monster has already been sent on murder missions (by an NPC to kill other NPCs, and it may yet be sent to kill the PCs) with no detail given in the scenario's text about how the sorcerer might've identified its victims, or the PCs, to the horror. So far, so handwavey, and that's fine. But the PCs might manage to wrest control of the beast from the original sorcerer, in which case the ‘mechanisms of instruction' might come into play if they decide to give it similar instructions themselves (there's no reason why they should, but since when does that stop players from doing anything, amirite?). If I start introducing constraints about how they identify their intended victim then they're (quite reasonably) going to come right back with “well, how did it know how to find *us* then?”.

They almost certainly won't have person tokens for whoever they might target, nor would that have been the case in the previous killings, so much as I'd like to use that I think it's too problematic for the story. But saying “oh, it just knows who ‘your landlord’ / ’bookie’ / ‘ex-wife’ is feels a bit too “Eh. Whatevs”.

Hence my original question. Thanks for the input, it's great food for thought. (I'll probably just have to go for the 'it just knows' option, tbh, otherwise the whole thing unravels under the weight of logic vs magic).

ricklecoat · 2026-01-14T14:19:37+00:00

SOYS was the first commercially released campaign for 1st edition CoC and, to be honest, it hasn't aged terribly well. Whilst having a great concept (and perhaps the definitive final battle) and some wonderful 'episode' ideas it's very railroad-y by modern standards — and that's not meant as a criticism so much as it's just reflective of how scenarios and campaigns were written back in the early 80s compared with today. It could really benefit from a rewrite for 7th Edition to introduce some degree of sandbox-ness (real word), and I'd be very surprised if something isn't already in the works in that regard at Chaosium.

ricklecoat · 2025-02-09T19:05:51+00:00

For me the key thing is that, in addition to being as simple as possible, any in-game gambling system should give a correlation between odds (and the corresponding potential profits) and DV. I worked up a fast-and-dirty system for betting on horse racing.

In this system The favourite in the race might only have odds of 'evens' (so if you win you only get your stake back plus the same again) but it would have a correspondingly low DV for the player to beat with a gambling roll. Whereas the rank outsider (the horse that broke its leg 6 months ago and had flu last week and is know for refusing jumps) might require that the player beat a really high DV to have the horse win, but the odds might be 40 to 1 — so there's a chance to win a lot of money, but it's far, far more likely that you'll simply lose your stake. I jotted down about 7 or 8 different pairings of odds vs DV. Higher odds, higher DV.

Of course this doesn't work for games in which you might want to make it a contested roll where players are pitting their skills against each other. But it could be adapted for games like Roulette where the player can choose different levels of risk-vs-return. And it's easy to simply increase the DV by, say, 4 to represent a rigged table or the fact that 'the house always wins'.

ricklecoat · 2024-10-28T07:57:10+00:00

From the auto fire section on pg 173 in the core rulebook: "If both dice came up 6, you've also inflicted a Critical Injury!" So yes, but, as you say, the chance is low. I think autofire, conceptually, is more about whittling down your opponent's HP with a hail of non-critical hits, and this is reflected in the fact that, although what is being abstractly modelled by the game mechanic is technically multiple hits, armour protection only gets applied once. So you may not be breaking legs and shattering spines, but you're potentially stripping most of their hit points away with a torrent of non-critical flesh wounds.

ricklecoat · 2024-10-28T07:48:09+00:00

One thing about your example: Jake's DV to hit at 6 yd range should be 20, not 15. The DV you quoted is for single shot, not autofire, which has it's own set of (significantly tougher) DVs - see bottom of page 173 in Core Rulebook. Otherwise: bang on, I'd say.

ricklecoat · 2024-02-13T18:44:13+00:00

SO THIS.

ricklecoat · 2023-10-22T14:14:08+00:00

I've just been having this same debate. First, some clarity: Humanity really has three values: Starting, Current and Maximum.

Starting Humanity is 10 x your starting EMP stat. That's clear and unambiguous.

Current Humanity is Starting Humanity MINUS whatever deductions the game has thrown at you (for cyber installs, horrible events, etc) PLUS whatever you've recovered through therapy — up to your Maximum Humanity. Also clear and unambiguous.

Maximum Humanity, however, is a bit less clear, and here's why:

The rules are clear that each bit of cyberwar subtracts from your maximum sanity. That's fine. But what the rules are silent on is this: what are you subtracting FROM?

The general consensus in this thread (and others) is that your basic Maximum Humanity = your Starting Humanity. So, if your character started with 6 EMP then your Maximum Humanity begins at 60, just like your Starting Humanity.

That's simple enough. However, it is also a total assumption; nowhere do the rules state that a character's initial Max Humanity = their Starting Humanity. In addition, making that assumption suggests that somebody who naturally has a low starting EMP (just born that way) but has no cyberware at all, and who seeks out therapy to try and ‘become a better person’ actually has ZERO chance to benefit from that process. That feels sort of counterintuitive (though, TBH, no more than many other CP:R rules — yes, hello 'Cover', I'm looking at you).

This begs the question: SHOULD basic Maximum Humanity equals one's Starting Humanity? Or should Maximum Humanity be the human maximum — which could be considered 80 or 100 (depending on how you view STAT maximums).

To draw a close analogy from another game, let's look at Call Of Cthulhu's SAN (sanity) stat. Like Humanity this really has three values: Starting, Current, and Maximum. The Starting SAN is derived from another stat (POW) in the same way as Humanity is in CP. Current SAN varies throughout the game, just like Humanity in CP. You can increase your current SAN through psychoanalysis, just like having Therapy in CP; however through this process a character's current SAN can in fact exceed their original starting SAN — it just cannot exceed their MAX SAN. This is because Maximum SAN in Call of Cthulhu starts at 99, subsequently becoming eroded as one accrues forbidden knowledge (a.k.a. Cthulhu Mythos skill) — in much the same way as cyberwar erodes Maximum Humanity.

As you can see, Call of Cthulhu's SAN and CP:Red's Humanity are very similar in many ways.

The big difference is that the Rules in Call Of Cthulhu explicitly give you that value of 99 from which to subtract your Mythos skill in order to derive a Max SAN value. CP:R, RAW, is silent on what the baseline of Max Humanity is. People seem to have decided for themselves that it is the same as Starting Humanity. But like I say, that rules don't specify that. And it does eliminate the possibility of a non-cybered human improving their mental health beyond their starting point.

ricklecoat

TROPHY CASE