Apesar de já ter jogado o rpg Call of Cthulhu (CoC), baseado na mitologia criada pelo escritor norte-americano H.P. Lovecraft, devo confessar que não sou muito fã do jogo. Um dos grandes atrativos do rpg, para mim, é a evolução dos personagens. Gosto de ver meu bardo/super-herói/oficial de nave estelar crescendo e mudando ao longo do tempo. Em CoC, isso é pouco provável de acontecer devido à notória alta letalidade do jogo. O único crescimento possível é dentro do espaço de tempo da campanha, que pode não durar muito. Além disso, um mesmo personagem de CoC participar de mais de uma aventura parece incongruente com o material que serve de fonte para o jogo. A história deveria ser a aventura da vida do personagem, aquela que ele contará a seus netos — se sobreviver.
Já para outras pessoas, o problema do jogo é o caráter depressivo da ambientação, onde a humanidade está fadada a ser destruída por horrores cósmicos que não tem capacidade de compreender. No entanto, há gente que considera o jogo otimista, como Balbinus, da RPG.net. Reproduzo abaixo a primeira mensagem (em inglês) do tópico que ele abriu lá sobre o assunto.
I have run CoC campaigns where the party ultimately failed (and one where the world was plunged into madness and terror, oops), but the majority of them I’ve run they did actually defeat the forces of entropy and chaos at least for the time being.
I always saw CoC as in some senses quite an optimistic game. Yes, we’re doomed in the long run and all that. But in the long run we’re all dead as the saying goes. For now, despite the prospect of madness, disfigurement, death or worse (most of which can produce a fair bit of black comedy) a small band are prepared ill-equipped as they are to risk themselves for the greater good. It’s profoundly heroic really, at least that’s how I always saw it.
Played with selfish PCs, CoC flatly fails. If the PCs aren’t basically heroic, in choices if not in attributes, then after their first encounter with the mythos they realise how dangerous it is and all sod off home. There’s only a game if the PCs decide “someone has to do something about this” and then appoint themselves to be that someone.
Last time I ran CoC for any length of time it ended with several characters dead and two lost through a gate, due to another character’s random act of stupidity. Bit of a downer ending in some ways, but before going down they did defeat the bad guys, so although they didn’t make it back (in play anyway, there was a theoretical chance they might offscreen), they still basically won. Just not without cost. Last time I ran it at all, the PCs weren’t really that altruistic, so the game sort of fizzled. It needs that optimistic note, if it’s all hopeless then there isn’t really a game.
CoC is an optimistic game, because it assumes the PCs care enough to put their lives and sanity on the line for strangers, and I think that’s a profoundly optimistic assumption in what it says about human nature. The whole meatgrinder angle, it’s a side issue, a product of convention and tournament games, it’s not really I think where the game’s heart is.
Thoughts?