Supplement V: Carcosa

[Chambers]

The DM for our every-other Tuesday night game wants to run a game of Carcosa (http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/products/carcosa). I had vaguely heard about it and knew it was an OSR game in a weird setting, but that was about it. Decided to find out more about it and here's a couple of the reviews/discussions I found.

RPG.net Review. (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14486.phtml)

RPG Blog 2 review. (http://www.rpgblog2.com/2008/10/carcosa-controversy.html)

Dragonsfoot Review. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=32395)

RPG.net forum review. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?419884-OD-amp-D-Review-of-Supplement-V-Carcosa)

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I enjoy reading Sword and Sorcery stories by Howard, Burrows, and am a fan of Lovecraft. On the other hand, I don't want to play a game where acts of sexual violence are included in the rules.

Has anyone played this game or at least read about it? What are your thoughts on it?

[Diskhotep]

There is a running thread at somethingawful.com (Games forum: Traditional Games: FATAL and Friends - Mockable and Obscure RPGs) where people are giving detailed reviews of various RPG's (not just the horrible ones).

Carcosa is one of the ones covered, and I have to say I would probably choose any of a number of alternate games to enjoy this genre (Savage Worlds, FATE, PDQ, Dungeon World, BRP, Runequest, etc.) While not the worst game reviewed there, the content was so questionable I can't ever see myself playing it.

But check with your DM - if memory serves the part of the review covering the system was moderately complimentary of some of the mechanics, so maybe he is just using the rules and cutting out the more awful elements of the fluff.

[Inglenook]

They make an abridged version of the game, I believe, that leaves out some of the less appetizing sections. What's more offensive than the actual subject matter is the fact that it's done solely in an attempt to be edgy. It's enough to say that rituals require unspeakable acts; it's unnecessary to explain how many preteen virgins must be violated, and strangled with their own hair. :smallannoyed:

And the mechanics are sort of awful, in my opinion. You have to roll SO MANY TIMES to accomplish anything. Subtables within subtables within subtables. And 90% of the monsters are so overpowered that there's very little point rolling—you're going to go mad or be killed horribly. Sort of fitting for the mythos, and it works great in a mystery game like CoC, but frustrating in a game that's so hack-and-slash.

I'd advise your DM to take the basic idea for the setting (Cthulhu-inspired wasteland bizarro-horror) and apply it to some other system.

[Matthew]

From what I understand the "edgy" elements are marginal in terms of the whole work, and the alternative rules are probably more offensive. Ignoring these two blemishes, I am told the content is otherwise imaginative, interesting and useful; certainly the art LotFP produced for the commercial edition looked very cool to me:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jf00bWJzwHQ/Tk1BPUzifRI/AAAAAAAABC0/Zv3EDmgZ_mc/s1600/Space-Alien-Technology.jpg

If that was the initial selling point, there was no hint of intentional controversy, and I had formed no opinion of the online personality of the author, I would have almost certainly bought into it.

[Totally Guy]

the online personality of the author

I thought he interviewed ok on the Jennisodes. What else has he done?

[Matthew]

I thought he interviewed ok on the Jennisodes. What else has he done?

He posts regularly as Geoffrey on the Dragonsfoot and Knights & Knaves websites, amongst others. The interview I watched was much more endearing than his online presence, which tends to be very "more old school than thou, everything sucked after 1981".

[hamlet]

Eh . . . I have issues with the guy. Seems a lot of his stuff of late is "edgy for the sake of edgy" and really doesn't give a lot to the topic at hand. I've not read Carcossa, so take that with a grain of salt, but if it's anything like one of his latest efforts in which a character has magic spider web shooting genitalia, I'd just as soon give it a pass.

I do, though, admire his gumption to follow through with his assertions, to put his money where his mouth is, and to build a semi-successfull business out of it. He gets lots of credit for that, just not his taste.

[SimperingToad]

When I read the unabridged text samples (few as they might be), my immediate thought was that the guy has some issues, and I quickly dismissed any thought of delving further into it. Not that Cthulhu is my thing to begin with.

But what got on my nerves (for whatever strange nitpicky reason), is that he deliberately termed this as 'Supplement V' for OD&D, as if this were some official piece of the game. 'A Supplement for the OD&D Game' would have sufficed, but putting on airs of officialdom put me off.

One wonders if Gary would have approved BITD.

[Totally Guy]

Are there existing supplements I to IV for OD&D? Can you tell me what they are?

[hamlet]

Are there existing supplements I to IV for OD&D? Can you tell me what they are?

Supplement #1 is Greyhawk. Lots less about the world and more about special new rules. The druid and the assassin.

Supplement #2 is Blackmoor. Some rules and an adventure. Worth getting if you can find it. Used to be up on the web somewhere, but I can't swear that it's still there, nor to the legality of it.

Supplement #3 is Eldritch Wizardry (also known as "that cover that makes your mother worry about your hobbies). New spells, new monsters, new items. Psionics rules that are kind of interesting. Demogorgon and Orcus make their appearances.

Supplement #4 is called Deities and Demigods as I recall. Precisely what it says on the cover.

Interestingly, there is already, supposedly, a supplement #5 called Kalibruhn. Never published, though the notes for it were sold a little while ago. No real idea of its content except what Noble Knight says in its sales copy.

[Matthew]

Supplement V was Swords & Spells, it seems to me, mass combat rules for D&D.

[hamlet]

Supplement V was Swords & Spells, it seems to me, mass combat rules for D&D.

I've not heard of that one.

[SimperingToad]

Swords & Spells was a supplement, but it makes no claim of being number V. Why? Beats me. I thought it was a natch myself.

I believe the real Supplement V was supposed to be Rob Kuntz's Kalibruhn, but as mentioned, never published.

#1 = Greyhawk - Includes the thief and paladin as PCs; adds percentile strength, new levels of spells, more on variable weapon damage
#2 = Blackmoor - Adds the monk and assassin as PCs; adds hit locations and the Temple of the Frog adventure
#3 = Eldritch Wizardry - Add various demons and devils and psionics; Druids as PCs
#4 = Gods, Demigods & Heroes - 'Nuff said
(#5) = Swords & Spells - Mass combat rules

[Matthew]

I've not heard of that one.

It is TSR 2007:

http://www.tsrinfo.net/archive/dd/dd-sas.jpg

[Chambers]

Thanks for the history lesson. :smallwink:

I brought up my reservations to the DM and group via Facebook and he immediately backed off. He knew people might have a problem with it, so he was cool about not trying to push it. We've discussed some of the dice rules for Hit Points that Carcosa used and they'll probably make a showing in our upcoming games.

[hamlet]

You might also want to check out a book from Labyrinth Lord:
Realms of Crawling Chaos (http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductDetail.asp_Q_ProductID_E_2147459311_A_Inven toryID_E_2147906780_A_ProductLineID_E_2137422379_A _ManufacturerID_E_2145084226_A_CategoryID_E_16_A_G enreID_E_)
Same kind of material, but vastly superior presentation and execution in my opinion.