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

[Thomas Shey]

As I said before, simply establishing that any game can work for setting or genre play is a bit of a banal claim. It's mainly changing the shade of lipstick and dresses that your pet pig is wearing.

But its absolutely true. In the same sense that you can do almost any job with almost any tool depending on your standards of how well the job needs to be done and how much work you need to do to make it work.

I mean, let's be real, how good a job a given game system does at Task X is always going to be on a continuum. At one end someone is always going to see what's being done as hammering nails with a wrench, but at the other end you're always going to have people who find even the most dedicated tool for the job either insufficient or just, wrong. All only finding yourself on one end of that divide has said is that enough experience hasn't passed. This doesn't mean I think all positions on the line are as equally reasonable or generally useful, but I don't think seeing it as anything but a line does this sort of discussion any good.

I also think that this tends to involve communities invested in their pet games or systems. Some in the Fate community claim that Fate can do anything, but then you also have people like Rob Donoghue, one of the creators of Fate, saying "Umm...no it can't. Please stop saying this." Or you have people using the Cypher System who claim that it can do everything. I got chewed out for even asking fans what they thought the limitations of the Cypher System were. Nearly anything that wasn't "there are none" were unacceptable answers.

As I mentioned upthread, that's absolutely a thing. In regard to Fate I referred to it at one time as "so apparently its a desert topping and a floor wax." It gets very complicated with general purpose systems because there's a wider range of things people want to do that will be covered, and thus less likely they'll be able to see the cases where it doesn't seem like it to others as relevant. (This is, of course, not even getting into the people who will find that they don't think the system does what they want it to for anything, which complicate the issue because its how they're liable to see comments about it not being good for X thing.)

 

[FrozenNorth]

As I said before, simply establishing that any game can work for setting or genre play is a bit of a banal claim. It's mainly changing the shade of lipstick and dresses that your pet pig is wearing.

It really isn’t though. Any more than saying that a certain genre or type of game can’t be done in a certain system.

Saying that a game can work for a particular genre is a statement about how much the claimant is willing to “hack” the game (often a fair bit), and a statement about what they consider important about the genre emulated (such as @dave2008 stating that he doesn’t consider insanity rules a core portion of cosmic horror).

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure how to address this, again I can't argue you shouldn't or don't feel that way. Can I ask whether your feelings are based on actually playing and using the rules?

I have neither seen them in play nor used them. I do have experience running games like Shadow of the Demon Lord, which I would probably default to if running dark/horror fantasy in the vein of Darkest Dungeon, Bloodborne, Diablo, etc. The insanity rules are more thoroughly integrated in the system, including the monster list. I would also consider using Torchbearer, especially given how it inspired Darkest Dungeon. Or even adapting something like the Alien RPG, because I like its stress mechanic, and the flatter character power curve.

Yes, they are pretty much staples in the type of fantasy I like to run think dark/horror fantasy in the vein of Darkest Dungeon, Bloodborne, etc... While not Lovecraftian horror per se... it strikes man of the same notes.

For transparency sake I will state that I have a few other houserules... around vices and virtues that characters have and how indulging in your vice(s) and/or exhibiting your virtue(s) can rebuild your sanity (again inspired by Darkest Dungeon).

I will not deny that there are definitely similar notes of encountering unspeakable horrors, dark cultists, and the like. But it's good to know that someone actually uses these rules. I'll be sure now to add you to my short tally of people I encountered here on this forum who do use them.

But when and how do you apply the rules? What triggers it? Who makes the call? When and how often do characters make saving throws against insanity or roll on the madness chart? How do you decide which chart to use for which occasion?

I would think silence means those using them have pretty much got them working the way they want... I used them but I felt no need to come on here and ask for help, they're simple, they get the job done and they are not hard to grasp. Honestly I'm not sure what advice I would need.

You would think that, but I can't say I agree with that reading either, because that generally doesn't conform with how discussion normally goes IME. There are many simple optional rules that people still regularly ask about help, advice, or hindsight experiences. People are usually eager to share what they are doing or advice about using optional rules when asked (or even when not). If people are having positive experiences using it, then we would likely hear about it more as well. But, simple mechanic or not, people in general aren't even asking others about their experience using madness or talking about using it. Again, in academia at least, they say it's far better to hear negative feedback than hearing nothing at all, which ranks among one of the worst insults to your work in academia along the lines of "I found it interesting." Silence is a damning remark.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Sure, but when trying to recreate the fiction of it in D&D, it seems like there is a pretty big tonal difference in how players are assumed to approach problems. The lethality and insanity in CoC isn't necessarily meant to replicate Lovecraft perfectly, but it is, according to Sandy Peterson, meant to put a little caution into the players such that combat isn't the primary modus operandi of play. In contrast, combat and spells are the primary problem-solving tools that D&D 5e provides players. Or in the words of Linus: "That's what D&D is about, Charlie Brown." You can deal with cosmic horror in your D&D games, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if the players treat that cosmic horror like an '80s action hero or a MCU superhero would: "How can we punch that thing in the face while making a marketable quip?"

It seems that this aspect would be super easy to hack, to the extent that I wouldn’t consider it a hack at all.

Campaign takes characters from level 1 to 6 (you could even use milestone levelling if you want to slow character progression even more). Tone down the number of combats. Monsters tend to be overleveled compared to the party, and are given even more deadly abilities above and beyond.

Session Zero you hammer the theme to the players. Since I am a firm believer of “show, don’t tell”, as a DM, you also use one of several standard techniques to show them how deadly the monsters are.

Personal favorite, during the first session, give the players level 3 pregens. Have the monster utterly wreak them in 2 rounds in an ambush without the players getting a good look at the monster. Tell the players that their level 1 characters are going after that same monster.

 

[Aldarc]

It really isn’t though. Any more than saying that a certain genre or type of game can’t be done in a certain system.

Saying that a game can work for a particular genre is a statement about how much the claimant is willing to “hack” the game (often a fair bit), and a statement about what they consider important about the genre emulated (such as @dave2008 stating that he doesn’t consider insanity rules a core portion of cosmic horror).

You could take 5e and without changing any of the game whatsoever use it to roleplay Jane Austen fiction, because simply playing a setting and/or genre is easy. This is what I mean and possibly @Campbell means here as well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And to bring back in the issue in the OP (lo these many pages ago): If someone is running a D&D 5E campaign, and they see a caper coming, and they ask for advice on running it, they're looking for hacks or techniques or other tips for doing it in 5E, and telling them they should play another game is ... at best unhelpful.

Yes. Exactly. Pointing out what those games do to support what they're after is helpful. Giving specific warnings about roadblocks and pitfalls you've encountered is helpful. Telling someone they're wrong to want to try to run cosmic horror in DnD because you don't see how to get what you would want from such a game with DnD is, as you say, at best unhelpful.

It really isn’t though. Any more than saying that a certain genre or type of game can’t be done in a certain system.

Saying that a game can work for a particular genre is a statement about how much the claimant is willing to “hack” the game (often a fair bit), and a statement about what they consider important about the genre emulated (such as @dave2008 stating that he doesn’t consider insanity rules a core portion of cosmic horror).

It's also kinda odd to me that the discussion has gone from "Stop telling people they can't do a given thing in DnD, you don't know their group, priorities, or gameplay preferences" to the silly strawman arguments that act as though we are saying that any system can do any genre, tone, or theme just as well as any other system. Even though I, and everyone else who even kinda agrees with my general position, has never said that, or implied it, and most of us have explicitly said otherwise.

And some folks wonder why they're on my ignore list...lol

It seems that this aspect would be super easy to hack, to the extent that I wouldn’t consider it a hack at all.

Campaign takes characters from level 1 to 6 (you could even use milestone levelling if you want to slow character progression even more). Tone down the number of combats. Monsters tend to be overleveled compared to the party, and are given even more deadly abilities above and beyond.

Session Zero you hammer the theme to the players. Since I am a firm believer of “show, don’t tell”, as a DM, you also use one of several standard techniques to show them how deadly the monsters are.

Personal favorite, during the first session, give the players level 3 pregens. Have the monster utterly wreak them in 2 rounds in an ambush without the players getting a good look at the monster. Tell the players that their level 1 characters are going after that same monster.

Yeah the whole dynamic of unbeatable monster just isn't at all contradictory to the mechanics of 5e. The fact that some folks consider a campaign constrained to certain levels to be anything other than a completely normal campaign type is also very strange, to me.

Also, use the optional massive damage rule from the DMG, and the slower healing rules.

Oh look, we haven't even houseruled anything.

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but when trying to recreate the fiction of it in D&D, it seems like there is a pretty big tonal difference in how players are assumed to approach problems. The lethality and insanity in CoC isn't necessarily meant to replicate Lovecraft perfectly, but it is, according to Sandy Peterson, meant to put a little caution into the players such that combat isn't the primary modus operandi of play. In contrast, combat and spells are the primary problem-solving tools that D&D 5e provides players. Or in the words of Linus: "That's what D&D is about, Charlie Brown." You can deal with cosmic horror in your D&D games, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if the players treat that cosmic horror like an '80s action hero or a MCU superhero would: "How can we punch that thing in the face while making a marketable quip?"

When we played our Cthulhu Mythos adventure we played all martial characters and we used house rules to make it very lethal (much more so then our standard game which pretty lethal compared to stock 5e). The rest was presentation or already in the 5e rules. That was it, just a few paragraphs to take stock D&D 5e to D&D 5e cosmic horror edition.

All we need for the tonal shift was to make combat very lethal and that was easy to do. YMMV.

FYI, I posted the rules way back in post #159, but here they are again:

1. No caster classes (we were specifically playing an adventure based on the short story Call of Cthulhu, but I think you could add magic if you wanted)
2. Our standard AC and DR house rules (not required, but my group will not play without them)
3. Our standard BHP, rest, and healing house rules (not required, but my group will not play without them)
4. Revised HP rules: no Con Bonus to HP, you get 1 HP for each D6, 2 for a D8, 3 for a D10, and 5 for a D12. (This is what makes it really lethal.)
5. Added lingering injury variant rules. (This is what makes continuous combat dangerous)

 

[prabe]

When we played our Cthulhu Mythos adventure we played all martial characters and we used house rules to make it very lethal (much more so then our standard game which pretty lethal compared to stock 5e). The rest was presentation or already in the 5e rules. That was it, just a few paragraphs to take stock D&D 5e to D&D 5e cosmic horror edition.

All we need for the tonal shift was to make combat very lethal and that was easy to do. YMMV.

FYI, I posted the rules way back in post #159, but here they are again:

1. No caster classes (we were specifically playing an adventure based on the short story Call of Cthulhu, but I think you could add magic if you wanted)
2. Our standard AC and DR house rules (not required, but my group will not play without them)
3. Our standard BHP, rest, and healing house rules (not required, but my group will not play without them)
4. Revised HP rules: no Con Bonus to HP, you get 1 HP for each D6, 2 for a D8, 3 for a D10, and 5 for a D12. (This is what makes it really lethal.)
5. Added lingering injury variant rules. (This is what makes continuous combat dangerous)

So ... First thing I gotta say, here, is that I'm observing things and not intending them as criticism or attack. The fact I wouldn't want to play 5E under those rules, and therefore wouldn't install them as a DM, is absolutely irrelevant to your table, and it doesn't mean y'all were doing anything wrong.

Those rules would certainly radically alter the lethality level--which was the intent. They seem--and this might also be intentional--as though they might make for a game that didn't feel like 5E. Or, at least, not much like 5E as played at a table that doesn't already use your "standard house rules."

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, but how does D&D fail to express that?

There’s the old criticism of the Deities and Demigods book that once you give stats to a creature, the players will want to kill it.

I find that to be a very accurate assessment of the situation, and it’s one of the reasons that when it comes to cosmic horror, D&D handles it best in small doses. A prolonged game with those kinds of themes would need some real reworking of the rules to the point that one should likely just try another game.

This is because sooooo much of D&D is combat based that once you remove combat as the main focus, the remaining rules are anemic.

The fact that someone else has never had a caper be successful in D&D is completely irrelevant to that.

But not relevant to the fact that they may suggest another game. It’s quite possible someone may find the same challenges with D&D as it relates to a shift in genre.

I feel a bit dizzy....

 

[Ovinomancer]

And to bring back in the issue in the OP (lo these many pages ago): If someone is running a D&D 5E campaign, and they see a caper coming, and they ask for advice on running it, they're looking for hacks or techniques or other tips for doing it in 5E, and telling them they should play another game is ... at best unhelpful.

This is the motte argument to the OP's bailey, which is not so limited in scope. This obvious and hard to disagree that if someone is currently running a D&D game and asks for help to do a sideline in that game, recommending to switch to other games is unhelpful. Very solid, very defensible position. But, the OP actually complains about being recommended other games at all, even when asking input for a new game start, because the assumption is the OP wants to play D&D. This is much less defensible and quite silly. Whenever this is solidly challenged, though, the retreat to the motte usually follows. And, now, the motte is being oresented as under attack, when it isn't.