Darkness & Dread vs. Heroes of Horror

Aus_Snow · Nov 22, 2005

Psion said:
And your stance is, contrariwise, fact?

See, there's the difference. I never claimed it to be so. Unlike you, with regards to your own *opinions*. That is the only problem, right there.

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.

Incorrect. I have merely been responding to *others* doing exactly what you describe there, yourself being one of them. Kindly look to your own behaviour and 'tone' before casting aspersions. Thank you.

I have been completely clear that my opinions are just that, "from the get-go" in fact. If certain others could merely do that, there would have been no argument in the first place.

I would rather there hadn't been, but I will not stand idly by while people trash-talk about other people's styles, preferences or beliefs in a rather rude manner, when it's totally uncalled-for, much less when I have been personally the subject of parts of it, directly or otherwise.

Psion · Nov 22, 2005

Aus_Snow said:
See, there's the difference. I never claimed it to be so. Unlike you, with regards to your own *opinions*. That is the only problem, right there.

I am trying really hard to see the limitation of internet communications and not get angry at these kinds of assertions. But it's difficult.

I never put forth my position as fact; in this I don't see myself as any different than you.

I could understand the confusion if, as is often the case in forum post, I didn't qualify my statements. But looking back at my initial post in my thread (which, if you look at the footer, has no edits at this time), I clearly see "I feel" and "AFAIAC" (multiple instances.) So I think to imlpy that I was putting forth my opinion as fact is indefensible.

This argument did not begin because I was attacking your position on the book. I was offering my opinion of the book without comment on your position. But when you saw that my opinion of the book differed from yours, you stepped in and commenced to deconstruct it by strawmanning it.

Desdichado · Nov 22, 2005

Kamikaze Midget said:
genre is useless to me...
I don't care about genre...
Genre is meaningless to me...
Genre isn't important to me...

Got it. Maybe you're posting in the wrong thread, though?

Psion · Nov 22, 2005

Joshua Dyal said:
Got it. Maybe you're posting in the wrong thread, though?

Not at all. I think its central to the discussion of this thread.

If you think horror is best as a campaign encompassing genre, Darkness & Dread may suit your needs better.

If you think horror is best handled as an element or transitory state of an otherwise diverse campaign, Heroes of Horror may be more to your liking.

Desdichado · Nov 22, 2005

mhacdebhandia said:
I've been reasonable.

Not really. Or, if you have, you've been phrasing yourself and communicating very poorly, because from where I'm sitting, it looks like you clearly said one thing, and then backpedaled like crazy when you got called on it.

Using D&D to do horror seems kinda quixotic to me, despite mhacdebhandia and Psion's stances. Can I turn my screwdriver around and use the handle to pound nails into my deck? Sure, but why would I, when I can pick up a perfectly good hammer? Can D&D do horror? Sure, but why should I use it, when I've got better alternatives?

To me, it seems Heroes of Horror is about trying to use D&D to do horror, which is a difficult and--in my opinion--quixotic (I really like that word) task. However, if what you want is D&D, but with a touch of horror, it's a great option.

Darkness & Dread is a good book that I like a fair amount, and much of what it contains could apply to a D&D game, but it has a very lengthy chapter that provides a kind of d20 version of WFRP rules, and the rest of the book does kind of assume you'll be using them, or something like them. Psion may find it a waste, but I thought it was quite well done, and a charming alternative. I highly recommend it, but you have to recognize that you're not really playing D&D anymore if you use them; rather you're playing a game that's optimized for horror and somewhat resembles D&D. The fear checks are a nice addition that could be used in any game, too--in fact, later chapters are nice bolt-ons, although I still think they work better with the alternate chargen rules presented in the earlier chapters.

d20 Call of Cthulhu has some of the best horror GMing advise (system independent) ever written, and has the added bonus of a lot of d20 gribblies that you can use. Heck, I use Hounds of Tindalos and byakhee in all kinds of D&D games, since why not--here's stats right here. It also has the Sanity rules, but the more I see of them, and other alternatives, the less I like them. They're really kinda clunky; a legacy to the original horror game, but not something that's been cleaned up and updated in a long time. Or ever, really. They feel obsolete.

Of course, if you really want to go hardcore, you probably need to pick up something like Unknown Armies, but that's probably more horror gaming than you're looking for.

I'm A Banana · Nov 22, 2005

However, if what you want is D&D, but with a touch of horror, it's a great option.

That's where it's seeming quixotic to you. That's all Psion, mhacdebhandia, and I care to get out of Heroes of Horror, I believe. That's why the idea is related to the topic at hand, effectively being: "They offer different things for different kinds of goals." HoH creates horrific game of D&D. I wouldn't expect anything else from a WotC D&D supplement. So to criticize it for not being what it obviously didn't set out to be is an empty gesture. And that means that it is possible to do horror in D&D. Maybe not adhering to all the tropes required by the genre police, but enough to shock, terrify, and distrub the players and the PC's. Enough to use horror as an element of drama.

Whereas if you want a game more defined by the tropes of Horror (tm), then it's not going to do the job -- CoCd20 and Grim Tales and the like do that job just fine.

What Psion states (and what I agree with) is that in order to have that shocking, terrifying, disturbing effect on players they have to not expect the horror to come. If you're playing CoCd20, you expect to be driven insane. It's not horrific or unknown, it's practically in the job description. If you're playing Grim Tales, you expect things to be, you know, grim. An achievement of a "grim" mood isn't any great accomplishment, it's just doing the job it's supposed to.

In order to achieve the horrific effect, the idea is that you need to have a game that isn't FOCUSED on horror, but that has elements of it included. That horror only has meaning in relation to a less horrific common baseline. Something can't be disturbingly wrong when disturbingly wrong is the normal course of events. Which is a reason why HoH may be considered a better supplement, and be more effective at horrifing players, even if it doesn't cleave to the sacred cows of the genre as defined by the genre police.

Desdichado · Nov 22, 2005

Kamikaze Midget said:
What Psion states (and what I agree with) is that in order to have that shocking, terrifying, disturbing effect on players they have to not expect the horror to come. If you're playing CoCd20, you expect to be driven insane. It's not horrific or unknown, it's practically in the job description. If you're playing Grim Tales, you expect things to be, you know, grim. An achievement of a "grim" mood isn't any great accomplishment, it's just doing the job it's supposed to.

On the other hand, it's been my experience that for players to really get that horror vibe, they have to be on the same page as the GM from the get-go. Do you go to horror movies not knowing that they're going to be horror? Or if a movie is unexpectedly more horror than you thought, do you enjoy that? In my experience, most people do not. Same thing for games; folks usually do better if they anticipate the atmosphere of the game, and buy into it, and help create and maintain it. Call of Cthulhu isn't a very horrific game if the players say, "hey, I'm going insane anyway; why not try to give the Deep Ones a wedgie so I can go out with a few laughs?" D&D isn't a very horrific game if the players just attack everything, and then get resentful if it doesn't work out for them, because it was a "horror moment."

ruleslawyer · Nov 22, 2005

JoeGKushner said:
I didn't really find HoH mostly flavor advice. There is a lot of solid crunch in the book with two new core classes, some interesting PrCs, more interpetations of taint, monsters, magic items, spells and other bits.

"Flavor advice" might have been going a bit far, but the main usefulness of the book, IMHO, is on inserting a horror style into your games. It may be that I find the classes and PrCs a bit bland; sorry.

I'm A Banana · Nov 22, 2005

Do you go to horror movies not knowing that they're going to be horror? Or if a movie is unexpectedly more horror than you thought, do you enjoy that?

The question is, what is more effective as horror: House of 1,000 Corpses, or A History of Violence? Scream, or Natural Born Killers? What is more HORRIFIC?

The former adhere to the tropes of horror and people walk in and have fun and scream and walk out and continue their day. The latter are other genres with elements of horror that surprise, shock, and deeply affect the individuals. The former play with genre law and adhere to genre tropes. They're safe, so to speak. They obey the rules and play nice with others. The latter, however, are horrifying, because they don't.

I don't expect or demand that D&D supplements change D&D. If I wanted a splatterpunk game, I don't need D&D. If I wanted a game inspired by the old Universal Studios monster movies, D&D isn't well suited.

But if I wanted my players to feel frightened, terrified, outclassed, and on edge....D&D is absolutely capable of doing that. And one of the best ways to do that might be to change the game subtly, so that the normalcy of D&D contrasts with the wrongness of these new challenges. When what is normal seems abnormal, fear and horror result, even if the specific genre specifications are not clung to.

mhacdebhandia · Nov 22, 2005

jdrakeh said:
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.

Since I do not have the feelings that you attribute to me, I can only suggest that your method of making inferences is faulty.

My original post, to paraphrase, was merely commenting that I'm tired of hearing the idea that the best way to run horror in D&D is to convert it to a low-fantasy, high-deadliness game.

Now, I actually do like low fantasy. I don't read high fantasy novels (well, not since I grew out of Dragonlance in my teens). Among the fantasy novels I packed for a long plane flight recently were Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories and Robert E. Howard's Conan stories. In gaming terms, I like Iron Heroes and GURPS just as much as D&D - I tend to think more about D&D because it's the game that my circle of gaming friends all have in common, but that's it.

I have also repeatedly stated that I, personally, would probably not use D&D to run a horror game. I don't have an interest in defending its utility in running horror because it's how I play - instead, it's just because I don't see anything about the horror genre that implies its protagonists can't be as competent, skilled, tough and fearless as D&D characters tend to be.

Here is my position: I don't agree that the sort of things Aus_Snow was suggesting are good or essential for "true horror" or "dark fantasy" are necessarily positive or necessary. At best, they're okay to have; at worst, they add nothing and take nothing away, just change things in a direction which has no impact on the game's ability to run horror.

If you don't agree that it's possible to alter metagame principles to run a perfectly good game of horror in D&D, that's your prerogative. I think it's much more interesting than the alternative, but you shouldn't read that as snobbishness - except to the extent that any preference is snobbish.