• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

I don't understand. If you don't restrict classes, surely more was needed to be removed for your Cthulhu hack? I think hixing the pea behind "my players usually choise fighters and rogues" is a tad disingenuous.
It was separate post that I responded to a little differently. For the Cthulhu game we banned all caster classes because there was no magic in the short story Call of Cthulhu and it doesn't fit our idea of cosmic horror.

In another post I said the change from my standard game was no wizard, because we only have a wizard caster class in our group. I guess it was a bit disingenuous, but I wasn't really think about it. I wasn't trying to confuse or be sneaky, it just happened.
Why do your players usually select martial classes? Given how useful magic is in D&D, I'm guessing you have some punitive changes to magic use that they just don't want to deal with.
Most of my players like to play martial classes. Everyone once in a while someone branches out (like our current wizard), but they all trend towards martial classes.

I don't change PC classes* at all. We have a low magic world, but if a player wants to play a magic character we just understand they are an exception.

*I don't consider this as changing classes, but full disclosure we don't allow ASIs. PCs have to take feats.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I am looking for examplez. What constitutes a SAN check? Just saying they work like the other ability checks isn't helpful -- I know what an STR check dies, it tests a feat of strength. What feats of sanity are there? I don't get it conceptually, and, given how you keep providing an answer that is akin to "you just do it," I'm curious if you actualky have a better understanding of what SAN is used for.
I posted the Sanity rules earlier in thread. It gives advice on when to call for a San check or save. It is pretty light and it is clearly not integrated with monsters so you would have to rely on the DM to determine this.
 

I posted the Sanity rules earlier in thread. It gives advice on when to call for a San check or save. It is pretty light and it is clearly not integrated with monsters so you would have to rely on the DM to determine this.
This statement confused me slightly... are the other ability checks integrated with monsters? Or are you talking about saves... because those would be an ability of the monster to invoke a San save or... X happens. At least I think that's how most monsters that cause saves are written up.

EDIT: Also remember it's in place of Intelligence checks so again... general is in that section... the specifics given in the sanity section (mostly examples) would supplement that section. This is why I'm having a hard time with the "not integrated" line of thought... I'm not seeing what isn't integrated with D&D as a whole.

EDIT 2: Just to clarify... this doesn't mean I think everyone should like the implementation... only that mechanically I don't see any problems with it as far as integration goes.
 
Last edited:

There are examples in the DMG... you have the DMG... why would I need to write out examples when you can just look there?

In my particular campaign nearly anything revolving around understanding, learning about, etc. the Stygia would require San to replace an Intellect check.

EDIT: In your campaign it could be Cthulhu... or the Dark Gods... or the horror that is Hello Kitty... and honestly this is one of the reasons I don't want the rules dictating to me how to use a tool because every campaign I run, much less those run by others may decide to use the tool in a different way or with different things, or with different effects... and I prefer that... even enjoy it more than a totally homogenous experience in every game I play.
This would mean that the more sanity I have, the easier it is to understand the isane horrors of whatever. That doesn't make much sense to me, that I can learn/know/decipher many more insanity causing bits of information the more sane I am. In other words, the more Sanity I have, the more insane things I can know/learn/decipher. Vice versa, the less Sanity I have, the less able I am to know/learn/decipher insane things.

This is odd.
 

Again I get you like PbtA and FitD... I mean you even published a game under FitD so there's the incentive of more players for your own game...but you do get that some people may not like this style of game... right? Let me be clear, you don't have to come around to my preferences but I get the impression that you think alot of your statements are objective truths. If that's not the case and you are talking personal preference just say so but even this post above seems to push that having constraints, codified agenda, principles and moves is the objectively better way to go for a ttrpg and it's not, not for everyone.

I don't think any GM is acting without constraints. The specific constraints most GMs operate under are less formalized than something like Apocalypse World, but no less real. There are a whole host of unspoken expectations that go along with traditional play. I get that you never feel constrained in that type of play environment, but my personal experience involves feeling deeply constrained on both sides of the screen, never feeling like I can really push hard in the same way I can running Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, et al.
 

I am not really trying to defend anything. I have come to a realization during these discussions that a TTRPG game can't do horror. Rules can't make you feel horror. I didn't expect to come to this realization, it is just where the conversation took me.
That's a reasonable position and not one I'd argue against per se, and it's one I've heard espoused on and off since the 1990s.

Personally I sympathize with that position, but I think you can create a situation where it's a lot easier for the DM and players to mutually create a kind of viable horror atmosphere, especially if you're going for certain types of horror - gothic horror and body horror for example are, imho, a lot easier to make work than slasher horror, because it's way too easy for the latter to turn into Scream, and that only works as horror in a sort of one-shot.

I think the one big mechanic type that virtually all horror could be helped by is mechanics that stop the PCs being able to act in completely rational and sensible ways.

This is the biggest bar to to horror in TT RPGs in my experience. The players and how they run the PCs. Even cooperative players who say they want horror, tend to run their characters in an extremely level-headed and practical way. It's like every single character is basically Ripley in Alien. If every character in Alien was Ripley, no-one would have got the facehugger on their face in the first place, and even if they had, they wouldn't have been let back in the ship, or would have been hard-quarantined for a long period (possibly the entire rest of the journey), and what's more the person not being let back on or being quarantined would have been totally understanding and reasonable about it.

CoC often works as horror despite this, not because of sanity, but because of relative PC helplessness. Even if the players are running the PCs are totally level-headed, the utter helplessness against a lot of mythos creatures undermines that, and panic can set in. Often it just doesn't though. I've CoC groups do stuff like calmly run a last stand against some monster as it kills them one by one, or everyone decides to hold off the monster so one PC can get away, even though, if they RPing to the hilt, that might not be what would happen. The thing is though, it's easy to find an excuse to be rational in these situations, and if you don't have any mechanics to break that up, it's going to happen a lot.

If was looking for one mechanic to promote a horror vibe it would thus be some kind of panic mechanic. Something that, some of the time, took control of your PC away from you temporarily, or let you act, but only within constraints. This is not a mechanic it would be hard to retrofit to D&D, either, but you'd need to recalibrate combat expectations and the like based on it. You'd also want it to broad enough that it could apply out of combat. Ideally the behaviour would relate to some personality concept chosen by the player.

Reading VRGtR I noticed they had some nice stuff with motivations for characters in a horror settings (mostly cleverly unhelpful motivations), and I think there are some inspirations there for the personality concepts. Some characters would be prone to fleeing, others freezing, others hiding, others determinedly repeating the same actions, however fruitless, and so on. I think you'd want such a mechanic to have more nuance and personality than typical fear mechanics, which just force PCs to flee or suffer penalties. The point overall, would be to break up the plan the players had, and force the to improvise and potentially panic a bit more (obviously some of this can also be done on the monster design side).

Another thing I've been considering is some sort of "survivor bounty", i.e. whichever PC or PCs survive, they get some kind of edge the other PCs don't, next time, maybe make it granular, like there are four conditions you need to avoid to get the "full benefit" (half-health, downed, er... I'd have to think about the other two), and these conditions would basically be at least somewhat antithetical to calm team-play. Make it so players are incentivized to have their PCs act in a more survival-oriented way, and a slightly less cooperative one.

Oh man actually god, maybe Survivor the TV series has an idea here, maybe in the horror campaign only one of you can be the "Final Girl" or Sole Survivor or w/e. You're sort of gamifying horror here but what you're trying to do is simulate that "will to survive" that PCs often gladly abandon in favour of teamwork and so on. Kind of abandoning that whole "everyone is a winner" tenet of RPGs, but maybe that's part of it. Hmmmmm. This would need a lot more thought.
 

This would mean that the more sanity I have, the easier it is to understand the isane horrors of whatever. That doesn't make much sense to me, that I can learn/know/decipher many more insanity causing bits of information the more sane I am. In other words, the more Sanity I have, the more insane things I can know/learn/decipher. Vice versa, the less Sanity I have, the less able I am to know/learn/decipher insane things.

This is odd.

Nope it is how level headed and rational you can stay while comprehending something that causes insanity and madness. If you're succumbing to the madness you're not understanding it on a rational level you're giving into it and thus rational understanding wouldn't be gained. I'm curious why being more insane would let you comprehend (which is still a rational process) anything better. The trope usually isn't that the ramblings of a madman aren't more intelligible to another madman... It's usually a rational thinking doctor or psychologist who pieces them together...but is slowly infected with madness as he does.
 

Basically. I don't technically restrict player classes in my standard game, my players just pretty much always pick fighters or rogues. Now, what is different is that NPC casters are extremely rare in our standard world. The most powerful caster in the whole world (except for a monster, maybe, and the PC wizard) is a 12th level cleric. There are maybe 4-6 magic users at 10th level (again in the whole world) and most don't get beyond lvl 5. Level 5 is generally considered an archmage in our world.
See, this rolls right back to my point about the idiosyncrasies of a given table making advice very problematic. See, in our campaigns, I'm the only player out of 6 or 8 that ever chooses a class that has no spells. Currently, with my newly formed group of 5, we have 1 rogue and 4 classes with access to spells- warlock, rune knight, shadow monk and wild mage. Two full casters, two, kinda casters that can cast a lot of spells at higher levels, and one character with no spells. And, frankly, that's about the lowest I've ever seen in 5e. Even when I tried to do a low magic game in my Thule campaign, they came back with two rangers, a paladin, and a monk. Three out of the four characters in the game were 1/2 casters. In a game that I pitched as trying to do low magic. :erm:

So, yeah, of course our experiences would be wildly different.
 

Ahhh, @Imaro, now I understand what you were talking about with replacing Int with San. I thought you meant you could replace Int checks like KNowledge checks. You were simply talking about the baseline of how San works. You aren't really replacing anything. You're just using the rules as written.

Sorry for the confusion.
 

This statement confused me slightly... are the other ability checks integrated with monsters? Or are you talking about saves... because those would be an ability of the monster to invoke a San save or... X happens. At least I think that's how most monsters that cause saves are written up.
I was talking about saves. No monster currently calls for a San save, so you have to implement it on the fly. Not a big deal for me, but could be for others.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top