Darkness & Dread vs. Heroes of Horror

Psion · Nov 21, 2005

I actually rather like Heroes of Horror.

There is some good stuff in Darkness & Dread. I am just not interested at all in the first "Warhammer d20" section of classes in the book. I am not interested in redefining my d20 play experience to have horror. AFIAC, D&D is so rife with Horror elements anyways, I don't feel that a drastic rules alteration is needful or desireable.

I really dig the stuff about unkillable entities in Darkness & Dread. That is a perfect illustration of the right sort of tool to instill more of a horror feel.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that redefining character creation to make wimpy characters works counter to the purposes of horror. Because AFAIAC, horror comes best when it stands in stark contrast to the world at large. Redefining the whole game world to be all about horror IMO takes away from the emotional impact of horror elements when they do appear.

Even inasmuch as I might wish to entertain a campaign in which general play is not horrific but less fantastic characters are desirable for other reasons (again, because I wouldn't want horror in every session), Grim Tales seems a better solution to me than the inflexible character design rules in Darkness & Dread.

MerricB · Nov 21, 2005

Psion, how does Heroes of Horror work as a counterpart to Lords of Madness?

The latter book is one I don't like especially much, partly because it reads like it really wants to discuss horror campaigns but doesn't.

Cheers!

frankthedm · Nov 22, 2005

MerricB said:
Psion, how does Heroes of Horror work as a counterpart to Lords of Madness?

The latter book is one I don't like especially much, partly because it reads like it really wants to discuss horror campaigns but doesn't.

Could it be that is the "Slot B" to the Heroes of Horror "Tab A"? I liked the horriffic campagn ECLs, a very nice little reminder.

HoH is a darn nice book, far better than wotcs other recent hard covers. I have Darkness N' Dread from the FFG $5 book sale and had not perused it. Must try reading it soon.

Starman · Nov 22, 2005

MerricB said:
I'd probably start from a positive point because I *don't* like Ravenloft. I hate the necessity of taking people to another world to run horror adventures it created. I'm not well versed in existing horror games (although I've played Call of Cthulhu).

Have you had a chance to check out the 3rd edition of Ravenloft? One of the best changes they made was moving away from PCs who traveled to Ravenloft from other worlds to PCs who were native to it.

Joël of the FoS · Nov 22, 2005

Starman said:
Have you had a chance to check out the 3rd edition of Ravenloft? One of the best changes they made was moving away from PCs who traveled to Ravenloft from other worlds to PCs who were native to it.

I was going to say it. The focus of Ravenloft moved a while ago from weekend-in-hell type adventures for outsiders PCs to 100% Ravenloft campaign with PCs born in Ravenloft.

For the record, I also liked HoHorrors, there were fun ideas in it, even for a Ravenloft DM. A friend DM in FR plans to use some of it in his game too. The PC-DM contract for example, is a fun addition to most fantasy campaigns.

For those who know both, how is Darkness and Dread for Ravenloft?

Joël

Aus_Snow · Nov 22, 2005

Psion said:
There is some good stuff in Darkness & Dread. I am just not interested at all in the first "Warhammer d20" section of classes in the book. I am not interested in redefining my d20 play experience to have horror. AFIAC, D&D is so rife with Horror elements anyways, I don't feel that a drastic rules alteration is needful or desireable.

Fair enough. What are these horror elements you speak of, though? I am honestly curious, nothing more or less.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that redefining character creation to make wimpy characters works counter to the purposes of horror. Because AFAIAC, horror comes best when it stands in stark contrast to the world at large. Redefining the whole game world to be all about horror IMO takes away from the emotional impact of horror elements when they do appear.

Hm. Let me see here. Why is it that you (apparently) consider (so-called) "wimpy characters" to be any less "in stark contrast" to real horror than 'non-wimpy characters' (i.e., standard D&D types)? How is lessening PCs' access to fire-and-forget kewl powerz (for just one example) in any way "[r]edefining the whole game world to be all about horror"?!

Those implications appear to make absolutely no sense at all, on any level.

Even inasmuch as I might wish to entertain a campaign in which general play is not horrific but less fantastic characters are desirable for other reasons (again, because I wouldn't want horror in every session), Grim Tales seems a better solution to me than the inflexible character design rules in Darkness & Dread.

Cool. Each to their own.

I'm A Banana · Nov 22, 2005

To me it simply seemed (and this may well be the case) that HoH was trying to pull off full-fledged horror while clinging firmly to everything that defines D&D. I submit that this is an impossible task.

I submit that if you think it is an impossible task, you haven't thought hard enough about it.

Though perhaps your needs for a horror campaign are more specific than mine. I'm happy making players sweat and squeal and turn white before they roll their dice. All I need are eyes widened and pulse quickened. I don't need a new ruleset to do that, though advice can come in very handy.

Still, I do find myself wishing that there was more mechanical advice on how to play a game that felt horrific with the roll of the die and less "Go read these other books! They're spooooooky!"

Aus_Snow · Nov 22, 2005

mhacdebhandia said:
I rather like Heroes of Horror, which is part of the reason I'm irritated by suggestions that D&D is too high-powered to do horror - because that book demonstrates the falsehood of such comments.

OK. Now if you'd just said that to begin with, there'd at least have been a little more context in which to place some of your rather unpleasant condescension.

statements like "You can't do horror in D&D as written" are just plain wrong.

Who has ever made that statement? Please point the way, and we can all start anew from there.

But if you must go on and on (and it seems you must. . . *sigh*) about how modifying the rules to better facilitate certain non-default styles of play, analysing, refining and playtesting those modified rules, and providing practical advice, suggestions etc. to go with them is "the easy way out", and how "you just have to think", go and tell that to all the RPG writers and others who work on projects that do precisely that, and those who have done so in the past. See what they think of your. . . *ahem*. . . 'theory'.

jdrakeh · Nov 22, 2005

Kamikaze Midget said:
I submit that if you think it is an impossible task, you haven't thought hard enough about it.

On the contrary, I've thought about it quite a bit. I didn't mean to imply that it's not possible to scare players in a D&D game or that it's not possible to mingle elements of horror into High Fantasy, merely that full-on Horror (as a genre) requires some additional rules past what is in the core books, while simultaneously loosening your grip on the 'can do no wrong heroes of legend' worldview that the core books default to.

Sure, you can run a spooky D&D campaign (see Ravenloft), but you're still playing largely flawless heroes in a world surrounded by horror. Which to be fair, is really not common at all in Horror as it exists as genre outside of D&D. This (I suspect) is why the Taint rules in HoH were introduced. Note that scary moments exist in a lot of books and movies that aren't classified as 'Horror' by genre.

That's the thing that a lot of people don't understand - as a genre, Horror has some very specific tenets. It isn't just window dressing or sweaty palms. Those are parts of Horror as a genre, but they aren't the whole show. And I submit that the whole show and D&D are mutually exclusive, as many of D&D's sacred cows trump required Horror genre tropes and vice-versa.

HoH, Ravenloft, etc are High Fantasy first with a bit of Horror slapped on for effect, not Horror colored by High Fantasy. That is, in all of these products, High Fantasy takes precedence over Horror (but as I mentioned, given the nature of D&D, that's pretty unavaoidable). Now, some 3rd Party stuff (like Midnight, Darkness & Dread, Grim Tales, Fear Effects, etc) are more focussed on Horror, but specifically because they move away from many default assumptions of D&D.

So far, I've heard lots of people say that this isn't true now (and many of same said people have accused me and others of not being able to understand why that is) but none of them can explain their position when put on the spot (well, past a 'Neener-neener! You can't think!' ad-hominem), so I have a hard time taking them seriously.

Psion · Nov 22, 2005

Aus_Snow said:
Fair enough. What are these horror elements you speak of, though? I am honestly curious, nothing more or less.

Creature types like abberations, undead, and demons, are right out of horror. Necromancy is right out of horror. The classic "save the maiden from the dastardly sacrifice" plot (and a dozen other common D&D plots) are right out of horror.

Hm. Let me see here. Why is it that you (apparently) consider (so-called) "wimpy characters" to be any less "in stark contrast" to real horror than 'non-wimpy characters' (i.e., standard D&D types)? How is lessening PCs' access to fire-and-forget kewl powerz (for just one example) in any way "[r]edefining the whole game world to be all about horror"?!

It's not that vulnerable characters aren't convenient in creating an adventure with horror feel. They are.

It's the persistence thereof. Character creation is a choice that persists throughout the campaign. The feeling of weakness can follow you throughout the campaign, and after a while, the "charm" of feeling vulnerable, and the benefit that is has in feeding into the horror feel, is gone. You totally lack the capability to make the players feel as if they lost power, because they never had it. And it's more difficult to get the same response from players if they know it is coming... and if you design your characters specifically for horror, they will.

So yeah, making characters more tepid can assist the feel of horror. But I consider this a short term solution that ultimately robs you of the exhiliration of more punctuated horror experiences in a campaign that does not otherwise focus on it.

AFAIAC, the little EL guidelines in Lords of Madness are a much more productive way to create horror feel than forcing players into alternate, tepid character generation, because you can use it selectively.