Darkness & Dread vs. Heroes of Horror

mhacdebhandia · Nov 22, 2005

Aus_Snow said:
No, really. Go back and look at your own posts before pointing at that one. In fact, look no further than the above-quoted post, for starters. You consider only WotC's books to comprise 'D&D'? OK, but many would (actually, will and do) disagree. I am one of them. Deal.

The OP was regarding comparisons between HoH (by WotC) and Darkness and Dread (by Fantasy Flight Games). Take it up with them (or Fantasy Flight, perhaps), if you believe that option to be unworthy of consideration, and inappropriate in a conversation about horror and D&D.

For that matter, toss your copy of Unearthed Arcana (if you have one) out the window. Oh, it's by Wizards of the Coast, and explicitly for D&D, but it's full of unnecessary variant rules options. They are, after all, the easy way out.

There's a difference between D&D and d20. Change too much of D&D and you're playing d20 fantasy. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's even possible that it's better than D&D for most purposes, but there you are, all the same.

My comment was directed at the fact that you seem to despise the way D&D as written handles character abilities, as evidenced by your highly pejorative description of them as "fire-and-forget kewl powerz". I'm unsure that someone with such a viewpoint can contribute much to the question of what's best for doing horror in D&D, given that the majority of D&D players can be assumed to not share that opinion. Otherwise, like you, they'd be playing d20 fantasy.

(Even if you dispute my division between D&D and d20 fantasy, the latter point stands. If you don't like the way D&D as written works, what exactly qualifies you to address the question of how to do X in D&D?)

Aus_Snow said:
You prefer D&D 'as is', for horror campaigns?

No. I have to wonder if you're reading what I write, now.

I said I find it more interesting and clever to write horror stories that don't require you to change D&D; it's clever in the same way that writing poetry according to set principles is clever. Not always necessary and not always appropriate, but I admire those who can produce great work within a set of restrictions (the Petrarchan sonnet form, D&D-as-written).

If I were going to run a horror campaign I most likely wouldn't use D&D, or even d20. I agree that it limits what you can do - in fact, that's what I've been saying myself. I also happen to be saying that I'm impressed more by people who successfully run horror in D&D without changing the rules than I am by people who successfully run horror in D&D by changing the rules - because I do firmly believe that the work of balancing D&D for lower power and/or lower fantasy is easier, albeit still a worthy achievement.

Aus_Snow said:
Careful there, you might start edging toward being reasonable.

I've been reasonable. My comments were never "Low-fantasy horror is crap and stupid", they were "People who always recommend changes to make D&D more low-fantasy when people talk about running horror irritate me, because it's not necessary." I didn't see any indication in the original post that the Auld Grump wanted to heavily alter D&D for the purposes of running horror, you know? If he had asked "What books are good for making D&D easier to run horror in?" your comments might have been more immediately relevant.

Instead, you assumed that everyone agrees with you that D&D's "fire-and-forget kewl powerz" make horror impossible. And that irritates me.

mhacdebhandia · Nov 22, 2005

Crothian said:
Nightmares of Mine is a non d20, non RPG specific book published by ICE (Iron Crown Enterprises) written by Kenneth Hite.

Either here or at RPG.Net I've seen it mentioned that the third edition of GURPS Horror, also written by Kenneth Hite, revises and expands upon his advice in Nightmares of Mine.

Aus_Snow · Nov 22, 2005

mhacdebhandia said:
I've been reasonable.

No. No, you haven't. That you are either a) blissfully ignorant of that fact; or b) unwilling to face up to it, is neither here nor there.

I didn't see any indication in the original post that the Auld Grump wanted to heavily alter D&D for the purposes of running horror, you know? If he had asked "What books are good for making D&D easier to run horror in?" your comments might have been more immediately relevant.

Actually, if you'd been reading so far, you'd know that one of the books they're considering using does exactly that: "heavily alter D&D for the purposes of running horror". So they must at least be contemplating the possibility. Now do you comprehend? Right, finally.

Instead, you assumed that everyone agrees with you that D&D's "fire-and-forget kewl powerz" make horror impossible. And that irritates me.

Rubbish. You are easily irritated by your own delusions then, I take it. [snotty voice]I have to wonder if you've been reading at all[/snotty voice] - no, seriously. . . I do wonder.

For that matter, 'kewl powerz' is a silly, tongue-in-cheek term, oft-used on the net, as I'm sure you're aware - you only recently mentioned RPGnet, right? Well then, you know what I'm talking about. People who play and like Exalted direct it at that game. D&Ders do the same to theirs. . . etc., etc.

I play and like D&D! There, that should help clarify it once and for all (I hope).

More importantly by far, I didn't once say that horror is made impossible by using D&D's RAW. Not once. Please, prove me wrong - I know you want to!

edit --- only this time, try reading before replying.

MerricB · 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.

Worse and worse. So now you can't run horror unless you decide to run a horror campaign? And you can't do any other sort of story?

I want horror in whatever campaign setting I like, not a new campaign setting that is only suited to horror.

mhacdebhandia · Nov 22, 2005

Aus_Snow said:
More importantly by far, I didn't once say that horror is made impossible by using D&D's RAW. Not once. Please, prove me wrong - I know you want to!

I don't have any interest in proving anything to you. I'm perfectly aware that I can't convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion, which is first and foremost that it's irritating when people assume the best or only way to run horror in D&D is to reduce the power of the player characters.

However, since you asked:

What do you call your assertion that D&D's "fire-and-forget kewl powerz" detract from the conditions necessary for horror, if not a suggestion that it's difficult (if not impossible) to do horror in D&D-as-written?

To quote: "'deadly & low-magic' rules changes (in amidst everything else) to better faciliatate true horror / dark fantasy etc"; "I believe taking away their flashy spells and magic swords is a good additional measure to take, 9 times out of 10".

"Better facilitate true horror" is not exactly an ambiguous opinion. Now, mate, it's your right to have this opinion! I'm just saying that it's disappointing that this is what nine posters out of ten post, because I don't think the number of cases in which such measures produce a noticeable improvement in the conditions required for telling horror stories in D&D exceed five out of ten. Half the time, it doesn't help one bit.

Aus_Snow · Nov 22, 2005

mhacdebhandia said:
I don't have any interest in proving anything to you. I'm perfectly aware that I can't convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion, which is first and foremost that it's irritating when people assume the best or only way to run horror in D&D is to reduce the power of the player characters.

Well, three things there. Firstly, there is a *world* of difference between "best" and "only", particularly when you have stated that someone else was claiming the one ("only"), when in fact they were only ever claiming the other ("best". . . well, actually 'better' would be the correct interpretation). Please consider this fact. Secondly, reducing magic (for example) does not necessarily mean reducing power, per se. Check out Iron Heroes (by Malhavoc Press), as a highly visible current illustration of that point.

Oh and last but not least, you go on to in fact try to prove certain things to me in the following ways, to which I will respond honestly, each in turn:

What do you call your assertion that D&D's "fire-and-forget kewl powerz" detract from the conditions necessary for horror, if not a suggestion that it's difficult (if not impossible) to do horror in D&D-as-written?

Hm, I think you are taking paraphrasing to the next level there, but hey - I'll bite. I have certainly said that (IMO) certain types of game/ruleset and therefore also certain 'meta' assumptions therein lend themselves better to horror, and certain others do not lend themselves so well to it. That's the extent of it though.

To quote: "'deadly & low-magic' rules changes (in amidst everything else) to better faciliatate true horror / dark fantasy etc"; "I believe taking away their flashy spells and magic swords is a good additional measure to take, 9 times out of 10".

That's right. I would stand by those statements as holding true, now as then. Note that I have not resorted to the use of absolutes. That was not (as you may have assumed) to mince words, or conceal a dubious agenda or um. . . whatever else. It was simply because those statements taken to their logical extremes (or illogical ones, I suppose) would not be representative of my beliefs in the slightest.

"Better facilitate true horror" is not exactly an ambiguous opinion. Now, mate, it's your right to have this opinion! I'm just saying that it's disappointing that this is what nine posters out of ten post, because I don't think the number of cases in which such measures produce a noticeable improvement in the conditions required for telling horror stories in D&D exceed five out of ten. Half the time, it doesn't help one bit.

I wasn't intending to be ambiguous. Read above.

But OK, as for the rest: Fair enough! I respect your right to your opinions, too. That was never in doubt. I disagree of course with some of them (and I'd be surprised if you didn't know that by now), but as long as you realise and acknowledge that it is just opinion on your behalf (for example, "five out of ten" - where's the evidence?!

) - as it is on my own, I can't see any reason why we need argue further.

jdrakeh · Nov 22, 2005

mhacdebhandia said:
No. Don't mischaracterise my arguments.

I'm not mischaracterizing anything. You've repeatedly and specifically characterized horror that strays from D&D's established tenets by way of optional rules that lower the power level of characters and/or settings as being 'the easy way out' and hailed the alternate approach as somehow being more cerebral. I've even cited specific examples of this criticism from your own posts.

Saying "I like low fantasy!" and then spending the rest of your four or five paragraph post dismissing it out of hand as being intellectually inferior to your favoured high fantasy mode of play is disingenuous at best, and extremely insulting at worst. The fact that you've done this repeatedly now and can't see it (or refuse to admit it) is a problem.

Given this, I can see that continuing any discussion with you is rather pointless - you continue to level ad-hominem criticism of low-fantasy and those who indulge it, while trying to dismiss that criticism with a hand wave and a "I like low fantasy! Really, I do!" disclaimer. again, disingenuous at best, insulting at worst.

Add to this the fact that you've offered up exactly one example to support your stance compared to the ]i]dozens[/i] of examples that have been put forth to contradict it (and that this one example had to create a new definition for the word 'powerless' in order to make any sense) and you've got... well...

Let's just say that I can see this isn't going anywhere. Or at least anywhere good. I wish I could say that it has been a pleasure, but I'd be lying if I did so. I'm bowing out of this discussion.

Psion · Nov 22, 2005

Aus_Snow said:
Thank you for taking the time to back up some of your claims. That at least is appreciated.

Sarcastic tone noted.

Well, OK - that's what you believe. On the other hand, my own experiences and observations have led to me strongly disagree with that entire paragraph, a paragraph that is the expression of one consistently very biased opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

And your stance is, contrariwise, fact?

I think you have never played in a low-magic or gritty roleplaying campaign. Is that right?

Wrong.

Or perhaps never in a good one. Let alone run one. I have no idea why that seems to be so. . . could be this kind of phrasing: "making characters more tepid". *shrug*

So my choice of wording leads you to some conclusion about my play experiences?

I could just as easily turn this rationalization around and say that you using the term "kewl powerz" is an indicia that you have never had a good high fantasy campaign.

But I realize that that would be a attempt to objectivise my own opinion and dismiss the rather more obvious and less confrontational take that we have different tastes.

Hm, there's that word again. Eh, whatever. So you like Lords of Madness? Good for you. Now, is that any reason to go making faces at other options?

You are the last person to be accusing me of that, given your attempts from the get-go to strawmanize and tear down opinions of those that don't agree with you.

Henry · Nov 22, 2005

Gents, let's please tone down a sarcastic remarks. It's getting too heated in here for a good discussion. I'd rather people be able to discuss horror & DnD without being subjected to a horror show all its own.

Thanks.

TheAuldGrump · Nov 22, 2005

Henry said:
Gents, let's please tone down a sarcastic remarks. It's getting too heated in here for a good discussion. I'd rather people be able to discuss horror & DnD without being subjected to a horror show all its own.

Thanks.

Thanks Henry.

Back to the regularlly schedueled program:

So, unlike HoH Darkness & Dread (I would abreviate that as well, but the term D&D might be confusing...) changes some of the core rules, and includes PC classes that are somewhat weaker. I can understand that, though it is less useful for implimenting a horror scenario or three into an otherwise run of the mill Iron Kingdoms game, say. But better for running an all horror campaign.

How are the fear mechanics?

The Auld Grump