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

[Imaro]

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.

Ok this I agree with... though there is the guidance that a failed save can use the madness tables.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

If you wear the same straightjacket every day, it starts to feel normal. Then, when you look at a different jacket, you only notice the new restrictions, you don't notice the new freedoms.

When I run D&D, I am heavily constrained by the need for balance in running. NOT necessaily encounter balance, but the need to balance that I've created all of the obstacles against that I have to adjudicate all attempts to overcome them (encounter balance is a subset of this). If I don't nail this balance, the game is too frustrating and I lose players or it's too easy and I bore them. This is a limiting straightjacket.

When I run BitD, I have this jacket taken off. I don't have to care about balance -- I am to be a firehose of adversity! I am limited in other ways, true, like that I can't do whatever I like in the fiction because I require the players to try something so I can frame it and/or fail at their attempt so I can narrate consequence. Even here I am far more limited in sccope than in D&D. It's a different jacket, but if you're only used to the D&D fit you only see this limitation -- you completely miss that you can finally be totally off the chain as far as pouring on the challenge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

The DMG has suggestions. Basically SAN operates as a 7th stat (like good old Comeliness), though they are vague about how you obtain a value for it (I believe just suggesting "rolling" - like so much in the 5E DMG it is profoundly half-arsed).

Basically you roll SAN as an ability check when you do things like decipher forbidden lore, understand the ravings of a madman, overcome your own madness, understand truly weird magic, etc. - you'd presumably be rolling it alone or with a skill (replacing the normal stat).

You roll SAN as a save when you see a Far Realm creature, when contacted telepathically by something alien, when a spell tries to make you go mad, when you enter a plane where alien physics apply, or when you have a save that involves taking Psychic damage.

Failed SAN ability checks have no consequence. Failed SAN saves "may" cause madness (short-term, long-term or indefinite). It's unclear what should influence the "may" or type of madness. If it's the latter two kinds you lose a point of SAN permanently.

So it's clearly not a horror mechanic in a conventional sense, but serves a role a bit more like SAN in CoC, of creating meta-edginess in the players. I also think the ability check usage is super-dumb - it should be REVERSED - i.e. the lower the SAN, the higher the bonus on ability checks involving it - that's what fits the material that has inspired it. Whereas for saves it should be harder to save as it gets lower. But that's just another example of the DMG half-arsing it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

See I find the push hard statement weird with 5e specifically since it's baseline is slightly easy D&D...IME. I feel like as long as I follow the encounter guidelines and the advice on DC's... I can push pretty hard in D&D 5e... Or admittedly I may be missing what you mean by this. If I am please explain further so I can better understand.

 

[Imaro]

The DMG has suggestions. Basically SAN operates as a 7th stat (like good old Comeliness), though they are vague about how you obtain a value for it (I believe just suggesting "rolling" - like so much in the 5E DMG it is profoundly half-arsed).

They actually give 3 methods... if you are rolling stats, you roll. With point buy you receive 3 extra points and with the array you receive an extra 11 to the array.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Huh. This is the reverse of the trope embraced by cosmic horror.

 

[Imaro]

So it's clearly not a horror mechanic in a conventional sense, but serves a role a bit more like SAN in CoC, of creating meta-edginess in the players. I also think the ability check usage is super-dumb - it should be REVERSED - i.e. the lower the SAN, the higher the bonus on ability checks involving it - that's what fits the material that has inspired it. Whereas for saves it should be harder to save as it gets lower. But that's just another example of the DMG half-arsing it.

Does this fit the source material? I have always interpreted it as mental resilience allows one to stave off madness so that you can understand and use the dark gods book...but exposure to it causes madness to take hold and grow... not the reverse where every bloke in the insane asylum would be a master magus if given the dark gods book... that doesn't seem right.

 

[Imaro]

Huh. This is the reverse of the trope embraced by cosmic horror.

I don't think it is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When I run BitD, I have this jacket taken off. I don't have to care about balance -- I am to be a firehose of adversity!

I don't feel the same way myself in PtbA games, because there are so many potential hard moves you could make, and they could range from stuff that's going to just make things a bit harder, to things which make things vastly harder or virtually impossible. I haven't DM'd BitD though, maybe it has a much narrower range of hard moves allowable? With stuff like DW though I always find myself holding back - not going for the maximum adversity, but rather what is going to make things interesting/scary/exciting/funny.

I understand what you mean re: jacket though. Oddly I felt 4E D&D was best for that, because in 4E, if I balanced an encounter properly, I could go absolutely all out and try to do everything I could to kill the PCs with the monsters I had available, yet everyone would have a good time. Never before had an RPG really offered me this opportunity. In earlier editions of D&D, if you went all out, you'd simply TPK the party sooner rather than later, because the encounter-balancing was either non-existent (1E/2E) or so bad it was literally worse than non-existent (3.XE - the CR system there is literally more misleading than eyeballing it). 5E is mediocre at this. It's not actively bad like 3.XE, and the systems provided are a bit better than just eyeballing it, but you can't just do things right and then go all out unless you <3 regular TPKs. You don't need to fudge rolls or anything, to be clear, just not go for maximum adversity tactics at all times (to be fair this often lines up well with RPing the enemies anyway).

They actually give 3 methods... if you are rolling stats, you roll. With point buy you receive 3 extra points and with the array you receive an extra 11 to the array.

Fair enough, I misremembered that. They still half-arsed it by not having SAN reversed when making ability checks though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does this fit the source material? I have always interpreted it as mental resilience allows one to stave off madness so that you can understand and use the dark gods book...but exposure to it causes madness to take hold and grow... not the reverse where every bloke in the insane asylum would be a master magus if given the dark gods book... that doesn't seem right.

Er, that's exactly how it works in the source material, so "doesn't seem right" seems to suggest unfamiliarity with Lovecraft. Crazy or at least part-crazy people are better at casting spells in that, yes. And the theme that you have to go a bit mad to understand the Mythos is absolutely ever-present.

I don't think it is.

You're wrong, and it's hard to see why you'd think you were right, because it's pretty clear. Lovecraft's stories are not about level-headed and sensible individuals sanely staving off the Mythos with their sensible spells, for god's sake.