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

[dave2008]

Unfortunately, this is a non-answer that actually doesn't address what I'm talking about, because it also says that a player on a failed sanity check might roll on the madness tables. Again. Which one?

You don't have to use Madness at all with Sanity. That is my answer. They leave it up to DMs to decide and I am fine with that. I generally believe I can make better choices about my game than WotC can. However, I completely understand that some people want something more robust and clearly defined.

 

[dave2008]

Didn't get the memo? It already has. See the madness and sanity rules in the 5e DMG.

Glad you're finally coming around

 

[Imaro]

You don't have to use Madness at all with Sanity. That is my answer. The leave it up to DMs to decide and I am find with that. I generally believe I can make better choices about my game than WotC can. However, I completely understand that some people want something more robust and clearly defined.

Watch it now, having an opinion and advocating for it...might be construed as you dismissing everyone else's

 

[dave2008]

The game has not evolved in any really substantive way. Newer editions have tweaked things a bit here and there is about all. I don't think SAN specifically has really changed in any way, except I seem to recall that early versions had a % of your max SAN as the trigger for temporary insanity vs 5 points in 7th Edition.

I just checked, because I still have my books, we played 4th edition. So it must have been late 80's early 90's when we played, not mid 80s like I previously stated. Clearly my temporally relative memory is not so strong.

 

[Aldarc]

You don't have to use Madness at all with Sanity. That is my answer. The leave it up to DMs to decide and I am find with that. I generally believe I can make better choices about my game than WotC can. However, I completely understand that some people want something more robust and clearly defined.

You don't have to, but the point is that these two systems are potentially meant to be used together or one could provide additional insight for use regarding the other. It doesn't help that discussion seems to pivot between using one or both systems.

Glad you're finally coming around

As you may have surmised, my insanity score is rapidly approaching 0. Despite my best efforts, some of the discussion in this thread has become a cosmic horror in itself.

 

[Manbearcat]

In the horror genre I am only familiar with CoC. Do you have any examples of games or mechanics or both that provide mechanical support for horror. I personally can't imagine a rule to support horror, but it is likely either:

1. Limits of my experience and creativity colliding to not see what is possible, or...
2. Personal TTRPG tastes that dislikes such mechanics (IDK, I haven't seen them).

Consider Dread's Jenga resolution mechanic.

What do you need for horror?

* Vulnerability (physically, mentally, emotionally)

* A teetering sense of control over outcomes...particularly if that spirals


So if you want systemitize actual horror, you need to actually inject play with these things. Horror cosplayed is not actual horror. Because there is too much control and not enough vulnerability.

So consider how best to systematize these things. The jenga tower as a resolution mechanic is a great way. Its also why GM Force (a GM going outside of the rules to actively subordinating player input/volition) is a useful technique. However, you can systemitize GM Force so that it no longer becomes actual Force (see (b) below) because its now inside of the rules to subordinate player input/volition. (a) A jenga tower as a primary resolution mechanic and/or/also (b) the GM having some kind of table-facing currency that ebbs/flows and builds up like a Doom Pool in MHRP that the GM can deploy at their discretion to wrest control of the trajectory of play from the players and say "this awful thing happens right now" are two robust means to ensure the above.

If you look at the inverse, this is precisely why D&D struggles to do actual horror (eg not cosplayed horror). Its because PCs are so robust (in every way, including controlling recharge/recover mechanics) and the resolution mechanics don't possess all the facets that make (a) and (b) work (actual GM Force or GM-facing mechanics feel very differently upon play than something like a Jenga Tower or a scary Sword of Damocles like Doom Pool...perpetually building toward some terrible end).

 

[Umbran]

I definitely don't think Sanity points from CoC supports horror, and I can say that from personal experience.

The problem is not really in the Sanity Points. It is in the limited understanding people have of mental illness. It is the same thing that makes Malkavians in Vampire really stupid as commonly played. Mental illness is neither wacky, nor funny. If, in losing sanity points, your character becomes a person who should be wearing a big red clown nose, yeah, you won't be leaning into horror.

If, on the other hand, as you lose sanity points you play to creep the ever-loving crap out of your fellow players, you will support the horror.

 

[Imaro]

If you look at the inverse, this is precisely why D&D struggles to do actual horror (eg not cosplayed horror). Its because PCs are so robust (in every way, including controlling recharge/recover mechanics) and the resolution mechanics don't possess all the facets that make (a) and (b) work (actual GM Force or GM-facing mechanics feel very differently upon play than something like a Jenga Tower or a scary Sword of Damocles like Doom Pool...perpetually building toward some terrible end).

Isn't this at odds with the argument that DM's can do anything they want in 5e. This is a serious question and I'd like to know how both the players can have too much control and the DM have absolute control (and I understand if that's not your position and won't take offence if you say that).

 

[loverdrive]

Now you can claim a bad DM might mess it up because he's not constrained but then we're assuming a bad DM when it comes to a loose framework but a good DM (who follows procedure and agendas and etc.) when it comes to a game like BitD

You see, the main difference is, even an utterly mediocre GM can grab BitD, just follow the rules and get pretty decent results. Just following the rules of D&D can lead to a great game remembered for centuries or a game so naughty word everyone within a mile from the table would get hanged without a trial by the role-playing secret police. Or anything inbetween.

A good, experienced game master can run a game with nothing more than a sheet of paper, a pen and two asscheeks, sure. That's how I start my design process, and it works great to me. But can we count on a good, experienced game master when designing rules? Of course not.

Then, there's another thing worth discussing. You can't know what you don't know.
When you already are familiar with the genre, know the tropes and stuff, that's one thing. You can emulate it to some extent, even if you end up putting more work into it than necessary.

But what if you don't know the thing the game is about? To hell with newschool, let's talk oldschool. I know pretty much nothing about caving, but when I use, say, Veins of the Earth, I get a claustrophobic cave-dwelling experience that I wouldn't be able to get on my own -- again, because I can't know what I don't know.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Mod note:
Dude. You were just warned about the toxic behavior. Stop with the personal accusations.

That post was written before I read the warning. I hadn't got to the page yet.