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

[Ruin Explorer]

how do you cast a spell without functioning at least somewhat rationally?

Sigh.

Spells in the Mythos aren't rational formulae to be calmly and clinically understood. This isn't Harry Potter or D&D. They're mind-breaking things.

How do you comprehend a book if your mind is totally taken over by madness?

Mythos books aren't like, engineering texts or something. They're not about rational understanding, not for humans.

If more madness equals more understanding and more power why do we see that there is a point where madness no longer allows any of that.

Because humans are weak. Humans are insignificant. The human mind is pathetic.

This is what cosmic horror is about. Your profound insignificance and inability to comprehend the truth of the universe. Even attempting to do so will gradually destroy you.

Put it another way - "rationality", as humans see it, isn't the "real" rationality. Only Mythos beings are truly rational actors in Lovecraft's universe, and to us weak humans, their actions appear insane. If we try to mimic them, we become insane. Because we're humans, and we're one of the lesser races of history. We don't even last that long before we're replaced.

 

[loverdrive]

Yeah that sounds like a pretty key different between BitD and other PtbAs. I mean, here are the principles for DW:

Draw maps, leave blanks •  Address the characters, not the players •  Embrace the fantastic •  Make a move that follows •  Never speak the name of your move •  Give every monster life •  Name every person •  Ask questions and use the answers •  Be a fan of the characters •  Think dangerous •  Begin and end with the fiction •  Think offscreen, too

"Think dangerous" is the closest one, but that's clarified to basically mean "you should threaten everything, and make the world worse if the PCs don't help", not "Go for the hardest moves you can imagine".

I mean... You shouldn't go for hardest moves, no. But you shouldn't pull your punches either -- you should make a move that follows.

If you've described how a dragon fills his lung with the air and prepares to unleash a torrent of stone-melting flame, then when the Fighter says "Nah, I ain't gonna flinch. The moment he opens his maw, I'll lunge my lance inside!" and gives you a golden opportunity, you don't say "Oh, ok, the fire burns you, take 12 damage". You say "You manage to drive your spear deep into its flesh, you hear its shriek... And the whole world disappears in the hellish flame, your flesh melts from your bones and you find yourself staring into the deep blue eyes of Death herself. This was one glorious Last Breath, wasn't it?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is this in the tropes article referenced earlier?

Yes, spread throughout.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For horror it really depends on the game. In D&D nothing quite as scary as level drain for example (that makes some monsters ten times more scary than they would otherwise be). For most games thought he most effective mechanic I think for inducing fear is playing into the recurring dream may of us have of not being able to move: paralysis (whether caused by a monster's ability or a product of fear). To me that has always been what gets me the most and what seems to work on my players the most. Personally I like it is there are different degrees of paralysis as well (so you can have a range from feeling like you are moving in mud or in slow motion to being utterly unable to respond)

In terms of fear arising during play through events and what happens. I think a lot of that is about experience, sensing the opportunity but also the mindset of the group. Horror is something that requires a certain amount of buy-in, and it is something you can become numb or jaded to. So I think allowing for a range of tones, and for the horror to emerge naturally is what has worked best for me over the years (forcing horror can be counterproductive).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You making a facile argument here, that you might have a different idea and that this idea may strike you as harder in some sense. Okay, so what? I said that the game handles hard moves just fine, and the feeling you have to pull punches for the game to be better is on you. You can throw as hard as you want and the game is built to handle this. You don't ever have to pull a punch.

This doesn't mean you always have to swing for the fences, but ratger that you always can swing for the fences. You still have to follow the fiction, though, you can't just yell, "SURPRISE DRAGON."

You've failed to explain how my argument is "facile" in any bad way, so that's really just kind of a weird insult-y way of admitting I'm "technically correct, the best kind of correct".

Certainly you appeared to imply that there's some kind of mandate or principle to "swing for the fences" in all PtbA games, and I was being weird, but even a cursory examination of DW (which I have in front of me) shows that definitely isn't true there. And the range of moves you have is frequently extremely constrained.

As for "limited only by the fiction", well one good example in DW where I feel like you're demonstrably wrong is debilities. You can basically go wild inflicting them on PCs (nothing suggests otherwise), and equally you can do stuff like rip out people's hamstrings or chop off their arms and so on whilst staying within the fiction, and you going hog-wild on that is going to very rapidly see the adventurers all crippled or incapable, and unless they have the right magic, which they probably don't.

Also in the D&D-style settings "SURPRISE DRAGON" can be following the fiction (though at least in DW there's a decent chance they'll beat it). I can think of multiple D&D adventures featuring a "surprise dragon". Hell, Thunderspire Labyrinth, H2 for 4E, had one for example (a Green Dragon in a place that makes zero sense and where the attempted explanation for its presence does not at all make the situation better).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you've described how a dragon fills his lung with the air and prepares to unleash a torrent of stone-melting flame, then when the Fighter says "Nah, I ain't gonna flinch. The moment he opens his maw, I'll lunge my lance inside!" and gives you a golden opportunity, you don't say "Oh, ok, the fire burns you, take 12 damage". You say "You manage to drive your spear deep into its flesh, you hear its shriek... And the whole world disappears in the hellish flame, your flesh melts from your bones and you find yourself staring into the deep blue eyes of Death herself. This was one glorious Last Breath, wasn't it?"

Sure, I guess part of it is that my players are cautious types and the moves they make are going to be phrased in such a way that they aren't that suicidal. Unless they are. If you know what I mean. Which I suppose is an example of the sort of collaborative fiction going on.

But there are a lot more situations where, as a DM, you have a choice, you could potentially pile stuff on, like a common wolf could rip out a PC's hamstring as well as doing damage, but you're not going to do that, because whilst it's obviously "within the fiction", and "swinging for the fences" you would do that, you'll quickly end up with a pile of crippled PCs, which is obviously not what DW is intended to be about. It also violates the principle "be a fan of the characters", I would argue. Dying gloriously in dragonfire is A+ DWing, sure but that player wanted to die - he knew what was coming, and he phrased his move very carefully - that's completely in-line with the principles.

I will say as an aside the funniest thing in DW is when players complain about not having to roll. I narrated the results of a move our Ranger made a few weeks ago, which, I didn't feel warranted a Volley roll, he could definitely have done it and following the principles rolling wouldn't have added anything. So he achieved exactly what he set out to, and then he's like "But don't I have to roll?" and I'm like, no... and he's like "Are you sure...?" - sigh lol. To be fair most of the other players would never look a gift horse in the mouth that way.

TLDR - I believe with DW at least, the principles, particularly "being a fan of the characters", conflict with springing the absolute maximum adversity I can imagine (which is a pretty high level of adversity) and which is allowable w/in the fiction on them.

 

[Imaro]

Sigh.

Spells in the Mythos aren't rational formulae to be calmly and clinically understood. This isn't Harry Potter or D&D. They're mind-breaking things.

So it's the act of interacting with the spell that causes madness... not madness that allows one to interact with the spell.

Mythos books aren't like, engineering texts or something. They're not about rational understanding, not for humans.

Because humans are weak. Humans are insignificant. The human mind is pathetic.

This is what cosmic horror is about. Your profound insignificance and inability to comprehend the truth of the universe. Even attempting to do so will gradually destroy you.

Yep... exactly. It's the truth that drives you mad, not madness that allows you to interact with the truth.

Put it another way - "rationality", as humans see it, isn't the "real" rationality. Only Mythos beings are truly rational actors in Lovecraft's universe, and to us weak humans, their actions appear insane. If we try to mimic them, we become insane. Because we're humans, and we're one of the lesser races of history. We don't even last that long before we're replaced.

Okay let's put the term rationality to the side and use San as it is presented in the DMG (as this is what we are really discussing)... it is the minds ability to stay level headed and not be broken by the unearthly things that they see or comprehend. DO you think being stronger in this ability would or would not allow one to interact with the mythos better or worse?

EDIT: Remember sanity and madness are 2 separate but inter-related things.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, spread throughout.

Where? And I'm not asking for your interpretation but a clearly stated trope.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah that sounds like a pretty key different between BitD and other PtbAs. I mean, here are the principles for DW:

Draw maps, leave blanks •  Address the characters, not the players •  Embrace the fantastic •  Make a move that follows •  Never speak the name of your move •  Give every monster life •  Name every person •  Ask questions and use the answers •  Be a fan of the characters •  Think dangerous •  Begin and end with the fiction •  Think offscreen, too

"Think dangerous" is the closest one, but that's clarified to basically mean "you should threaten everything, and make the world worse if the PCs don't help", not "Go for the hardest moves you can imagine".

I tend to think of it more along the lines of "make a move that follows," i.e., the fiction. When you have established the dragon as a threat that is gathering its fire-breath to shoot straight at the PCs, then any hard moves should follow from that danger established. It doesn't necessarily mean "make your hardest move possible," but the game also advises to "let your moves snowball" and use hard moves to follow up with ignored soft moves. This is also the sense I get from Apocalypse World. Admittedly not in DW, but in Apocalypse World itself, Baker writes:

“Make as hard and direct a move as you like” means just that. As hard and direct as you like. It doesn’t mean “make the worst move you can think of.” Apocalypse World is already out to get the players’ characters. So are the game’s rules. If you, the MC, are out to get them too, they’re plain [trucked].

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.

There is again a sense that the threats should snowball, hitting the PCs hard, and having it flow from the fiction.

I hope that helps.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah that sounds like a pretty key different between BitD and other PtbAs. I mean, here are the principles for DW:

Draw maps, leave blanks •  Address the characters, not the players •  Embrace the fantastic •  Make a move that follows •  Never speak the name of your move •  Give every monster life •  Name every person •  Ask questions and use the answers •  Be a fan of the characters •  Think dangerous •  Begin and end with the fiction •  Think offscreen, too

"Think dangerous" is the closest one, but that's clarified to basically mean "you should threaten everything, and make the world worse if the PCs don't help", not "Go for the hardest moves you can imagine".

I would say that the most important is:

Make a move that follows
When you make a move what you're actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it.

This is specifically about honoring what's been established in the fiction and following through on that. About not making a different move which is somehow less harsh, or pulling your punch.

I think when you take this princple and then add "Think dangerous" then you've got a clearer picture of what is being suggested.