• 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

Part of being a fan of the players' characters is believing in them and being willing to follow them on their journey wherever that might lead. There's obviously a balance there, but pulling your punches all of the time is not really being a fan of a characters. Sometimes yes, but if you are really a fan of the characters you give them a chance to pull through and you play to find out what happens wherever that may lead.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
This is exactly what I mean, though.

Make the move that follows means you can't just swing for the fences, you can't be the "adversity firehose" described, you have to think about what follows. You don't pull the punch but you also don't go for the hardest hit you can think of, you go for the one that complies with "follows" and "fan".

It sounds like in BitD the principles and "Desperate" thing make this a bit different.
Part of being a fan of the players' characters is believing in them and being willing to follow them on their journey wherever that might lead. There's obviously a balance there, but pulling your punches all of the time is not really being a fan of a characters. Sometimes yes, but if you are really a fan of the characters you give them a chance to pull through and you play to find out what happens wherever that may lead.
Thanks for trying to teach grandma to suck eggs lol ❤️ This is something I knew when I was like 15. If you go back to where I was originally discussing this, you'll see I'm responding to the idea of being an "adversity firehose". It may just be that @Ovinomancer has a way lower standard for what he considers an "adversity firehose" of course lol.
 
Last edited:

I am still very curious about the specific point of contention. You say it is easy to make the player feel they have lost even when then win. How is this easy? What techniques do you apply here to do this easily? Say my party just defeated an eldrithic horror by fighting to stall it as a distraction while reversing the incantation to summon it. What is needed here to make this pyrrhic?
Just spitballing here... (and in conjunction with my other suggestions of ramping up the deadliness of monsters and using low-level characters)
  • reversing the incantation removes most of its power. The remnant must reside in a host. Which PC volunteers to sacrifice themself and become an evil NPC under DM control?
  • A monster possesses a beloved NPC. The players must kill the beloved NPC.
  • The players defeat the monster but suffer the effects of being exposed to corruption. Mummy rot is nasty. If the players don’t have anyone who can cure disease magically, no changes to the disease are necessary. Otherwise, the rot resists even magical healing.
  • Aging, and don’t limit it to 1d10 years. If the party is mixed short and long life span, roll (1d4+1) x 10 % of lifespan at birth;
  • Blight. The area around the fight is corrupted for miles around. The PCs now have to help the village they saved abadon their home and move to a new area.

To me, the most important thing is that the adventure should never be as simple as you described it. It should never be “OK, we need to distract the eldritch abomination for 1d10+1 rounds while a character reverses the incantation”. It should be “in order to reverse the incantation, you have to call upon a different eldritch entity. By doing so, you have increased their power in the world AND you have incurred a debt they have called in”.
 


This is exactly what I mean, though.

Make the move that follows means you can't just swing for the fences, you can't be the "adversity firehose" described, you have to think about what follows. You don't pull the punch but you also don't go for the hardest hit you can think of, you go for the one that complies with "follows" and "fan".
Sometimes I like to think of soft and hard moves such that the soft move telegraphs imminent repercussions of follow-up hard moves. It's the orange-red circle that lights up around the boss in the dungeon/raid. If you choose to stand there, it's at your own peril, but don't be shocked when it one-shots you.
 

You do onow that TV trope articles are heavily referenced, yes? Dig through the links a bit -- they're important to understanding.

Just point me to what I should be looking at. I looked through it earlier and didn't see what you were talking about.

Also...
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.
 

This is exactly what I mean, though.

Make the move that follows means you can't just swing for the fences, you can't be the "adversity firehose" described, you have to think about what follows. You don't pull the punch but you also don't go for the hardest hit you can think of, you go for the one that complies with "follows" and "fan".

It sounds like in BitD the principles and "Desperate" thing make this a bit different.
Ah, I understand you now. Yeah, you don't get to be an adversity firehose :)

In Blades, position mechanics just create social contract before adjucating the roll result, so you can't chicken out, and don't have any reason to - it's not like they weren't warned, right?

It's not that different from establishing the risks beforehand in other games, but it certainly helps.
 

This is exactly what I mean, though.

Make the move that follows means you can't just swing for the fences, you can't be the "adversity firehose" described, you have to think about what follows. You don't pull the punch but you also don't go for the hardest hit you can think of, you go for the one that complies with "follows" and "fan".

It sounds like in BitD the principles and "Desperate" thing make this a bit different.

Thanks for trying to teach grandma to suck eggs lol ❤️ This is something I knew when I was like 15. If you go back to where I was originally discussing this, you'll see I'm responding to the idea of being an "adversity firehose". It may just be that @Ovinomancer has a way lower standard for what he considers an "adversity firehose" of course lol.
No, you absolutely swing for the fences. The game handles it just fine. You're confusing the constraint to follow with having to pull punches. You do not ever need to pull a punch. This is my point. You've mistaken what I've been saying for some exhortation to do the worst thing possible at all times ignoring the other principles. This is not it at all. It's that when you swing, you never have to check that swing for other considerations. You should make a move that follows, yes, but that move doesn't need to pull it's punch, ever. You said you were finding that you were choosing moves to make a better story or set up the next bit. This you shouldn't do. That's what I'm saying -- you don't need to pull the punch to make the game work; it will handle your hardest just fine.

Which was why I said your argument you could imagine something worse was facile -- my argument wasn't about that so you imagining something you think is worse is an okay, sure, whatever. Didn't go to my point.
 

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 think that @Imaro is correct. The only two cases of “heroes” using magic in Lovecraft that I can think of are Prof. Armitrage in “The Dunwich Horror” and the unnamed narrator in “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward”. In both cases, the heroes were sane, and using the magic does not seem to have had an impact on their sanity.

Oh, there’s also one whose title escapes me about a person who uses dream magic to travel across the realms. I fon’t think his sanity is affected either.
 

So it's the act of interacting with the spell that causes madness... not madness that allows one to interact with the spell.
It depends how you define madness I guess. But we were actually talking about SAN primarily.

My contention is that a lower SAN is inevitable if you understand Mythos stuff. You might not go insane immediately I agree. But you will be closer to going insane, and more likely to go insane.

There's also a lot of stuff in Lovecraft where people don't full understand stuff until they're losing it.
Yep... exactly. It's the truth that drives you mad, not madness that allows you to interact with the truth.
I don't agree. They're intertwined. There's literally no human in Lovecraft who understands this stuff and is still fully sane. That's not arguable. If such a character existed, they'd stand out as a dumb Mary Sue-type character in defiance of the norms of the setting, but they don't, not in Lovecraft (possibly in a derivative writer but I can't think of one off-hand).
DO you think being stronger in this ability would or would not allow one to interact with the mythos better or worse?
Now you're redefining SAN outside the DMG definition, though.

It's a possible to define a stat that isn't SAN that does what you want, you might actually call Alienation or something (ALN). The more Alienation you have, the easier it is to understand Mythos stuff and the less damaged you are by contact with Mythos stuff, but as your ALN goes up, you'd check to gain what seem to mere human minds, madnesses. When ALN exceeds 20 you go out of play.

This would align with the Mythos. As you become less human through knowing more truths, you would understand stuff even better, and the madness checks should be when you gain ALN, not lose it - and yeah it makes sense that you'd do better with psychic attacks and stuff.

However, that's not SAN as per the DMG.

The problem with SAN is that it goes down and that makes you less able to "understand the ranting of a madman", for example. That doesn't track with the Mythos. SAN goes down when you fail SAN saves and suffer madnesses. Yet when that happens to Mythos characters, they become more likely to understand the rantings of a madman - there's a lot of "FINALLY I COULD SEE!" stuff.

Underneath the hood, I think the problem is that they tried to have a single mechanic serve two masters with different needs. SAN is meant to be a sort of "death spiral" mechanic, making it more and more likely that you fail certain saves and go crazy and fail saves and go crazy and so on. But they also try and use it as an "Occult" stat, to understand weird happenings, which doesn't make sense at all.

So here's an approach that could work:

You have TWO new stats. SAN and ALN. Ok. So SAN you create normally (roll, buy, etc.). ALN is 20 minus SAN. So if you have a SAN of 14, you have an ALN of 6. Maybe the player just picks the stats and they have to total to 20.

SAN is used only for saves. It's used for pretty much the same things as suggested.

ALN is only used for ability checks, and is used solely for understanding things humans should not be able to understand. Like you should not be able to understand what some ranting madman is actually talking about, but if your ALN is high enough, maybe you do. And so on. Pretty much the same list as before.

If you fail a SAN save, and your SAN is 11 or above, roll a d20, on a 10 or more nothing happens, less than 10, lose 1 SAN and gain 1 ALN.

If you fail a SAN save, and your SAN is between 10 and 4, roll a d20, on a 10 or more, you can choose to lose 1 SAN and gain 1 ALN or gain one short-duration madness. Less than 10, lose 1 SAN and gain 1 ALN or gain a long-term madness.

If you sail a SAN save and your SAN is 3 or less, lose 1 SAN and gain one indefinite madness.

(We'd need a better and more thematic set of "madnesses" here, preferably one that isn't really real-world insanity-based, but more "how people go mad in Lovecraft"-based to minimize or even eliminate disability-shaming etc. - more dramatic and ridiculous and not real stuff like depression or outright delusion - indeed any delusions should be Mythos truths, if somewhat misunderstood)

Whenever you roll 20 on a ALN ability check you can choose to gain 1 ALN and lose 1 SAN.

Anyway, this is like a quarter-arsed system and I'd need someone to write the Mythos-appropriate "madnesses" but I think it would do the job better than what is suggested in the DMG.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top