D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[Hussar]

When we've played it (a couple of one-shots) we haven't been especially Cthulhu-ish. But the sanity rules are an important part of the system.

The author says that he intends it for use with published scenarios, but we've used it for full improv and it's been great! Just get the players to establish an initial situation/puzzle that they're investigating or involved in (an investigative version of a kicker) and go from there.

Heh, there's a bit of irony here. When we talked about importing horror and Cthulu stuff into D&D, I believe it was @dave2008 who mentioned that sanity rules weren't necessary.

It's just interesting how we all prioritize different things. To me, a Cthulu game that doesn't have some sort of sanity death spiral isn't really Cthulhu at all. It's just tentacly horror.

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry, ir was just a handy historical analogy. No judgement on the beliefs intended.

I trust your good intentions. It was more of a FYI.

Heh, there's a bit of irony here. When we talked about importing horror and Cthulu stuff into D&D, I believe it was @dave2008 who mentioned that sanity rules weren't necessary.

It's just interesting how we all prioritize different things. To me, a Cthulu game that doesn't have some sort of sanity death spiral isn't really Cthulhu at all. It's just tentacly horror.

But this again goes back to a point that I made how the necessary elements or breaking points of genre play/emulation will differ between people. 5e can work for @dave2008's low magic games, but it wouldn't necessarily work well for either of us or what we are looking for in a low magic game. So our solution is to look elsewhere because hacking the game isn't worth the effort, particularly when plentiful valid alternatives exist.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I trust your good intentions. It was more of a FYI.


But this again goes back to a point that I made how the necessary elements or breaking points of genre play/emulation will differ between people. 5e can work for @dave2008's low magic games, but it wouldn't necessarily work well for either of us or what we are looking for in a low magic game. So our solution is to look elsewhere because hacking the game isn't worth the effort, particularly when plentiful valid alternatives exist.

Yup. To me, though, I struggle with how you can manage cosmic horror at all when the majority of 5e is being super heroic in combat with cosmic horrors. It requires violating a core assumption of 5e (that combat is an option) and you're just dismissing 80% of the system if you try. Not really sure negating 80% of a system counts as still using that system.

And I say this as someone who trends toward mythos. All things being equal, without pressure to avoid it, I will drift towards mythos horror. It's one of my mental ruts. So, I've done this in D&D. My only Big Plot 5e game was heavily mythos inspired. But, as @Hussar said, it was really more tentacley horror because, since it was 5e, combat was always an option, and a successful one. As such, it was just 5e with some flavor, but still pointedly 5e and therefore the primary genre was D&D.

I think a lot of this discussion stems from a failure to recognize that 5e already has some strong, baked-in, genre flavor. People are talking about changing genres with 5e, but the reality is that you're still strongly centered in the default D&D genre and have just added a bit of other genre spice. This is actually what I think many of the supporters of the OP actualky want but are confusing with an actual change in genre. I think because they are so rooted in the D&D genre they don't even notice it unless it's gone.

 

[dave2008]

Heh, there's a bit of irony here. When we talked about importing horror and Cthulu stuff into D&D, I believe it was @dave2008 who mentioned that sanity rules weren't necessary.

It's just interesting how we all prioritize different things. To me, a Cthulu game that doesn't have some sort of sanity death spiral isn't really Cthulhu at all. It's just tentacly horror.

Yep that was me. Again I was trying to recreate cosmic horror as I understood it from reading Lovecraft's work. I was not trying to recreate the CoC game. I've never felt that mechanic was particularly relevant for recreating what I've read of HPL.

It is interesting though that the new Ravenloft book will have Fear (mostly roleplay) and Stress (similar to CoC sanity mechanics) rules in it. I don't run a lot of horror, but I am curious about the simple approach WotC will undoubtedly take to these mechanics.

 

[dave2008]

This is actually what I think many of the supporters of the OP actualky want but are confusing with an actual change in genre. I think because they are so rooted in the D&D genre they don't even notice it unless it's gone.

I think a big issue has been people saying they want to borrow genre bits for their game and other people assuming they want to change the genre of the whole game/campaign when that is not what the suggested.

However, I also think there are others who are completely fine with changing the genre and are simply confused that some cannot understand that. There are also those that have a different understanding of what constitutes a particular genre. I personally don't think sanity rules are important for cosmic horror, but several others seem too; my idea of low magic is not the same as @Hussar's;etc. I can change 5e to make it what I want in low magic, gritty realism, or cosmic horror fairly simply. It may not meet someone else's definitions of those genres and they may even dismissed as not 5e anymore, but to me and my group it is a 5e genre swap and that is all that really matters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think a big issue has been people saying they want to burrow genre bits for their game and other people assuming the want to change the whole genre when that is not what the suggested.

However, I also think there are others who are completely fine with changing the genre and are simply confused that some cannot understand that. There are also those that have a different understanding of what constitutes a particular genre. I personally don't think sanity rules are important for cosmic horror, but several others seem too; my idea of low magic is not the same as @Hussar's;etc. I can change 5e to make it what I want in low magic, gritty realism, or cosmic horror fairly simply. It may not meet someone else's definitions of those genres and they may even dismissed as not 5e anymore, but to me and my group it is a 5e genre swap and that is all that really matters.

Well, cosmic horror is defined as coming up against the unknowable and the incomprehensible. If you "learn" things about the horrors, they are things that are incompatible with sanity, by definition. So, yeah, the core tenet of cosmic horror is that you can't stay sane in the face of the horror. The knock on to this is that you just can't beat up the horrors. Some, sure, but these are minor plot movers or serve to damage the sanity anyway.

You port this into D&D and you run into problems straight off. Firstly, D&D character's mental states are inviolable normally. They can be temporarily affected by a spell or condition, but even then the actual thinking of the PC is under the sole control of the player. This is a core tenet of D&D -- the player controls the PC's thinking and feeling. So, the effects of going against the incomprehensible is already running afoul of D&Disms. The second thing is that D&D characters are super charged with combat effectiveness, and the D&D ruleset requires monsters be built under the combat system. Not doing so tosses the majority of the ruleset.

All this goes to say that the actual genre of Cosmic Horror is largely incompatible with the D&D ruleset. You are not changing genres, in other words, with a hack that adds some mythos but keeps 5e recognizably intact. Instead, you're playing the D&D genre and adding in some Cosmic Horror spice. That you didn't go with any sanity loss is a great indication, here, not of your understanding of the Cosmic Horror genre (if so, then you misunderstand it's core components) but rather that you've chosen to prioritize the D&D genre over Cosmic Horror. You've chosen to play D&D with a few tentacle horrors and a few bits and pieces of scenery color. And that's great. But it's still 5e doing 5e with a few bits of extra color, it's not a change in genre to Cosmic Horror. You aren't doing Cosmic Horror, in other words, you've just borrowed some scenery -- the play is still D&D.

This is the issue, though. For people that actually shift to different genres, this is apparent. The change is not a matter of some scenery changes and a few tidbits tossed out, it is a fundamental shift in what's important and how things are expected to work. Genre logic changes between genres. So, when it's suggested that someone wants to do genre A, these assume that genre A is the actual goal, and recognize how hard it is to move to genre A with a game firmly rooted in genre D&D. So they recommend a game that does genre A well. But, the question is often misphrased or misunderstood by the asker -- they don't actually want genre A, they want genre D&D with some genre A set dressings. So, the recommendation for a different game seems insulting because the unstated ask is that genre D&D still be the primary genre, and how can you get that if you're not playing D&D?!

 

[Imaro]

Yup. To me, though, I struggle with how you can manage cosmic horror at all when the majority of 5e is being super heroic in combat with cosmic horrors. It requires violating a core assumption of 5e (that combat is an option) and you're just dismissing 80% of the system if you try. Not really sure negating 80% of a system counts as still using that system.

And I say this as someone who trends toward mythos. All things being equal, without pressure to avoid it, I will drift towards mythos horror. It's one of my mental ruts. So, I've done this in D&D. My only Big Plot 5e game was heavily mythos inspired. But, as @Hussar said, it was really more tentacley horror because, since it was 5e, combat was always an option, and a successful one. As such, it was just 5e with some flavor, but still pointedly 5e and therefore the primary genre was D&D.

I think a lot of this discussion stems from a failure to recognize that 5e already has some strong, baked-in, genre flavor. People are talking about changing genres with 5e, but the reality is that you're still strongly centered in the default D&D genre and have just added a bit of other genre spice. This is actually what I think many of the supporters of the OP actualky want but are confusing with an actual change in genre. I think because they are so rooted in the D&D genre they don't even notice it unless it's gone.

I'm curious... if you created the Cthulhu aspects... why was combat always an option? You yourself have argued that the DM can basically do anything in D&D 5e... if that's the case I fail to see why the DM cannot take combat off the table in certain circumstances if he wants to?

 

[Imaro]

Well, cosmic horror is defined as coming up against the unknowable and the incomprehensible. If you "learn" things about the horrors, they are things that are incompatible with sanity, by definition. So, yeah, the core tenet of cosmic horror is that you can't stay sane in the face of the horror. The knock on to this is that you just can't beat up the horrors. Some, sure, but these are minor plot movers or serve to damage the sanity anyway.

You port this into D&D and you run into problems straight off. Firstly, D&D character's mental states are inviolable normally. They can be temporarily affected by a spell or condition, but even then the actual thinking of the PC is under the sole control of the player. This is a core tenet of D&D -- the player controls the PC's thinking and feeling. So, the effects of going against the incomprehensible is already running afoul of D&Disms. The second thing is that D&D characters are super charged with combat effectiveness, and the D&D ruleset requires monsters be built under the combat system. Not doing so tosses the majority of the ruleset.

All this goes to say that the actual genre of Cosmic Horror is largely incompatible with the D&D ruleset. You are not changing genres, in other words, with a hack that adds some mythos but keeps 5e recognizably intact. Instead, you're playing the D&D genre and adding in some Cosmic Horror spice. That you didn't go with any sanity loss is a great indication, here, not of your understanding of the Cosmic Horror genre (if so, then you misunderstand it's core components) but rather that you've chosen to prioritize the D&D genre over Cosmic Horror. You've chosen to play D&D with a few tentacle horrors and a few bits and pieces of scenery color. And that's great. But it's still 5e doing 5e with a few bits of extra color, it's not a change in genre to Cosmic Horror. You aren't doing Cosmic Horror, in other words, you've just borrowed some scenery -- the play is still D&D.

This is the issue, though. For people that actually shift to different genres, this is apparent. The change is not a matter of some scenery changes and a few tidbits tossed out, it is a fundamental shift in what's important and how things are expected to work. Genre logic changes between genres. So, when it's suggested that someone wants to do genre A, these assume that genre A is the actual goal, and recognize how hard it is to move to genre A with a game firmly rooted in genre D&D. So they recommend a game that does genre A well. But, the question is often misphrased or misunderstood by the asker -- they don't actually want genre A, they want genre D&D with some genre A set dressings. So, the recommendation for a different game seems insulting because the unstated ask is that genre D&D still be the primary genre, and how can you get that if you're not playing D&D?!

Couldn't you have used the Sanity stat from the DMG along with the Madness rules?

 

[prabe]

Yup. To me, though, I struggle with how you can manage cosmic horror at all when the majority of 5e is being super heroic in combat with cosmic horrors. It requires violating a core assumption of 5e (that combat is an option) and you're just dismissing 80% of the system if you try. Not really sure negating 80% of a system counts as still using that system.

You seem to be saying that if, during a 5E campaign, a whodunit emerges from play, then the table is violating a core assumption of the game (if fighting things won't help you solve the whodunit), dismissing 80% of the system, and plausibly not using 5E. Am I understanding you right?

And I say this as someone who trends toward mythos. All things being equal, without pressure to avoid it, I will drift towards mythos horror. It's one of my mental ruts. So, I've done this in D&D. My only Big Plot 5e game was heavily mythos inspired. But, as @Hussar said, it was really more tentacley horror because, since it was 5e, combat was always an option, and a successful one. As such, it was just 5e with some flavor, but still pointedly 5e and therefore the primary genre was D&D.

My own campaigns tend toward dark and creep stuff, as well, though not explicitly Mythos. I'd have to talk to the players to see if they thought the overall shifted to Horror, or if they thought it still felt like 5E, or if they thought the tone shifted from arc to arc. I suspect it's harder to manage actual Horror once the characters get past a certain level--and I suspect different people define that "certain level" differently.

Of course, I don't see 5E as explicitly insisting that combat always be a good option in an adventure/situation.

I think a lot of this discussion stems from a failure to recognize that 5e already has some strong, baked-in, genre flavor. People are talking about changing genres with 5e, but the reality is that you're still strongly centered in the default D&D genre and have just added a bit of other genre spice. This is actually what I think many of the supporters of the OP actualky want but are confusing with an actual change in genre. I think because they are so rooted in the D&D genre they don't even notice it unless it's gone.

I think some people think of 5E less as a flavor and more as a foundational thing. Like, since you brought in flavor as a metaphor, I'll use expand it into a cooking metaphor. I have one basic recipe for meat with a pan sauce: The basic recipe is to season steaks with salt and pepper, cook them in butter, saute some shallots, deglaze with whiskey then broth, then mount/finish the sauce with Dijon mustard and cream. I can spin that approach bunches of different ways: I can change out the meat, or the seasonings (my own riffs on Indian, or jerk, or Cajun, or Old Bay, or Mexican ...) or the deglaze, or swap out the shallots for something else, or finish the sauce with something else. If I season pork chops with a funky tropical coffee rub, cook them in vegetable oil, saute onions, deglaze with rum, and finish the sauce with hoisin sauce and peanut butter, I'm still doing the same things but I'm making a radically different dish. I think some people would look at the ingredients and say it's something entirely different; I think some people would look at the process and say it's mostly the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm curious... if you created the Cthulhu aspects... why was combat always an option? You yourself have argued that the DM can basically do anything in D&D 5e... if that's the case I fail to see why the DM cannot take combat off the table in certain circumstances if he wants to?

Because I was playing 5e. If combat is not an option, then I've tossed the majority of the ruleset. If I'm going to do that, I should be playing a different game. I mean, I can do it, but that's pretty far past the point of violating the game's core assumptions.

To expand, if I let my players build characters, a large part of which is how well they do in combat, and then tell them that doesn't matter, I'm not adhering to the social contract that was established when we started with 5e. I'm being a dick.