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

[Ovinomancer]

The benefit is being able to decipher the ritual in the Necronomicon that is going to save you and possibly the seaside village you are in... I'm not really a fan of mechanics that incentivize you to purposefully make bad things happen to your character. As far as control... isn't not being in control, relevant, etc the point of cosmic horror? And fun is relative, if you are buying into a horror game you are purposefully engaging with things that would otherwise be unfun. Some people would say no game where their character ultimately goes insane is fun and if put in said game regardless of the incentive would avoid it. You have to have buy in for horror period.

Man, that's a gish gallop. Did you want to toss in the kitchen sink? Because, none of the things you're talking about here address my point or they bring into so many other questionable things as to just be chaff.

The Sanity mechanic in the DMG doesn't allow you to decipher the Necronomicon unless the GM allows it specifically -- it's not a tool in the hands of the player, it's another thing for which you ask permission. The main use for Sanity is a save replacement in the Madness rules. I haven't forgotten that you've explicitly made it clear that you do not use Sanity for how you're arguing here, but instead only as a save replacement. You were quite emphatic on this when I first asked you how Sanity might be used otherwise -- a position which you also, at that time, told me I couldn't ask about without allowing you to just say you used it as a save option for the Madness rule. So, yeah, the fact is that you're not even invested in the arguments you're making, it's just an exercise in internet arguing at this point -- you don't even use it as you're arguing it can be used.

The point about Cosmic Horror is about the genre, not the game mechanics. Otherwise, we can go to the extreme on that and say that no game mechanics are needed because there's no need for choice in Cosmic Horror, I'll just tell the players a story. This is obviously bogus, and so is the argument that the mechanic you do use shouldn't offer choices. The Cthulhu Dark ruleset offers lots of choice and still ends up driving hard into madness anyway. The fun there is to see how it happens. A Sanity mechanic shouldn't be punitive, causing players to avoid parts of the game whenever possible, it should reinforce and incentivize the play we want, which is the PCs sacrificing to try to stop the horrors from consuming what they love, even if it costs them their sanity. This is the play you want in Cosmic Horror, not PCs trying everything they can to avoid being hit with a hurt stick of the Sanity/Madness rules in the DMG. Those actively incentivize players to avoid anything to do with them.

For the preference you have to not incentivize PCs to do things that are harmful to them, I question this strongly. You clearly have no problem incentivizing players to go into dangerous situations and fight monsters at risk of life and limb. Given you use the Madness rules you clearly have no problem incentivizing players to get into situations where you can hit them with the Madness stick. Incentivizing players to do harmful things to themselves is an inescapable part of almost all RPGs -- the idea is that you are doing dangerous things that can kill you, maim you, hurt the things you love, cause you to go mad, end the world, etc. Yeah, this is something you absolutely do, you just don't like certain iterations of it where it's clear the player can gain a benefit for a harm within a single mechanic. Spread it out a bit -- if I spend some hitpoints and daily abilities and risk dying, I get loot and XP and the GM tells me more story stuff -- and it's just fine.

This bit is what I'm talking about with understanding incentives in games. You clearly haven't thought hard on the incentive structures present, because you've missed that you're heavily engaged in a strong incentive feedback loop already, but you're claiming you dislike such incentive loops.

Finally, the "fun is relative" argument is cliche. It's doesn't illuminate anything at all, and is an excuse to not examine play and see where it can be improved. Because someone has fun with a terrible subsystem doesn't mean that you can stop -- fun is had. It's very possible to improve that and get more fun, because fun isn't zero-sum. I might have fun in your game in spite of the Madness rules because I like playing with Bob across the table and we make our own fun and the killing monsters part of your game I really like. No, "fun is relative" is not a good argument, because even if we disagree on what's fun, there's always room to consider the mechanics and see if we can remove impediments to fun or add more. You cannot just assume that where you landed is where the fun is maximized or even good enough.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, and the result is exactly what I say above -- you don't really decenter combat because of the other strong incentives to combat, you make XP a matter of GM whim (you get it when the GM decides you do), and you've lost a tool to incentivize play you want by not attaching XP to that.

I wasn't commenting on the rest, just the part I quoted. However, now that you brought it up:

IMO, the best way to decenter combat is to make it dangerous. We do that in a our standard campaign to some extent, but I turned the dials to 11 when I ran a Cthulhu adventure in 5e. That made combat really unattractive!

 

[Imaro]

Man, that's a gish gallop. Did you want to toss in the kitchen sink? Because, none of the things you're talking about here address my point or they bring into so many other questionable things as to just be chaff.

The Sanity mechanic in the DMG doesn't allow you to decipher the Necronomicon unless the GM allows it specifically -- it's not a tool in the hands of the player, it's another thing for which you ask permission. The main use for Sanity is a save replacement in the Madness rules. I haven't forgotten that you've explicitly made it clear that you do not use Sanity for how you're arguing here, but instead only as a save replacement. You were quite emphatic on this when I first asked you how Sanity might be used otherwise -- a position which you also, at that time, told me I couldn't ask about without allowing you to just say you used it as a save option for the Madness rule. So, yeah, the fact is that you're not even invested in the arguments you're making, it's just an exercise in internet arguing at this point -- you don't even use it as you're arguing it can be used.

Show me where I said I only used it as a save mechanic for madness... You were adamant about madness not working because it used Charisma and Wisdom... which are primary for some spellcasters and I said Sanity puts everyone on even footing to address your specific issue with it, this had nothing to do with how I used it... I later detailed how I use Sanity and madness in my campaign when dealing with the Stygia... which was not... "I use it as a save for madness".

The point about Cosmic Horror is about the genre, not the game mechanics. Otherwise, we can go to the extreme on that and say that no game mechanics are needed because there's no need for choice in Cosmic Horror, I'll just tell the players a story. This is obviously bogus, and so is the argument that the mechanic you do use shouldn't offer choices. The Cthulhu Dark ruleset offers lots of choice and still ends up driving hard into madness anyway. The fun there is to see how it happens. A Sanity mechanic shouldn't be punitive, causing players to avoid parts of the game whenever possible, it should reinforce and incentivize the play we want, which is the PCs sacrificing to try to stop the horrors from consuming what they love, even if it costs them their sanity. This is the play you want in Cosmic Horror, not PCs trying everything they can to avoid being hit with a hurt stick of the Sanity/Madness rules in the DMG. Those actively incentivize players to avoid anything to do with them.

Wait what... how do you logically get from mechanics don't matter to the specific mechanics have to be ones that offer player's choices? What cosmic horror requirement is this?? The only thing you need is some form of incentivization for them to engage with the mechanics... I prefer player buy in and goals vs mechanical widgets that tempt... but both do the job.

For the preference you have to not incentivize PCs to do things that are harmful to them, I question this strongly. You clearly have no problem incentivizing players to go into dangerous situations and fight monsters at risk of life and limb. Given you use the Madness rules you clearly have no problem incentivizing players to get into situations where you can hit them with the Madness stick. Incentivizing players to do harmful things to themselves is an inescapable part of almost all RPGs -- the idea is that you are doing dangerous things that can kill you, maim you, hurt the things you love, cause you to go mad, end the world, etc. Yeah, this is something you absolutely do, you just don't like certain iterations of it where it's clear the player can gain a benefit for a harm within a single mechanic. Spread it out a bit -- if I spend some hitpoints and daily abilities and risk dying, I get loot and XP and the GM tells me more story stuff -- and it's just fine.

Again I didn't say don't incentivize but you seem to have tunnel vision... I can incentivize my players without it being hardocded in to the rules. If you prefer that approach it's cool but it's not a requirement.

This bit is what I'm talking about with understanding incentives in games. You clearly haven't thought hard on the incentive structures present, because you've missed that you're heavily engaged in a strong incentive feedback loop already, but you're claiming you dislike such incentive loops.

Again I am speaking to cosmological horror and why my players would engage in the San/madness rules in D&D. If you're extrapolating any further than that then we aren't speaking to the same things.

Finally, the "fun is relative" argument is cliche. It's doesn't illuminate anything at all, and is an excuse to not examine play and see where it can be improved. Because someone has fun with a terrible subsystem doesn't mean that you can stop -- fun is had. It's very possible to improve that and get more fun, because fun isn't zero-sum. I might have fun in your game in spite of the Madness rules because I like playing with Bob across the table and we make our own fun and the killing monsters part of your game I really like. No, "fun is relative" is not a good argument, because even if we disagree on what's fun, there's always room to consider the mechanics and see if we can remove impediments to fun or add more. You cannot just assume that where you landed is where the fun is maximized or even good enough.

It's not cliche, it's true. It should illuminate that your way isn't the one true way and whatyou find fun isn't for everyone else... so declaring something not fun is kind of pointless in a discussion unless we are talking about you specifically... are we? I'm not. My players enjoy the creepy effects of the madness table (in moderation), the chance of risk that is involved in dealing with something Stygia related and the chance at discovering something new... none of these is enjoying playing with Bob. You've literally never played at my table and have the arrogance to try and lecture me on what is or isn't fun for my group as well as why they should want to do something... do you realize how arrogant that is?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't commenting on the rest, just the part I quoted. However, now that you brought it up:

IMO, the best way to decenter combat is to make it dangerous. We do that in a our standard campaign to some extent, but I turned the dials to 11 when I ran a Cthulhu adventure in 5e. That made combat really unattractive!

So, there's two cases here. In one, you've made combat more dangerous, in the other, you made combat nearly impossible to survive. Let's look at these.

In the first case, this doesn't decenter combat, it changes how players engage combat. Combat is still strongly incentivized, because without it I don't get loot as easily, I have to rely on GM whim for XP, and I'm not using the one part of the rules that it player facing and leverageable. So, now, it's more dangerous, but I still want combat as a player -- it's where my rewards are. So, I'm going to focus on nova combat abilities to do damage as quickly as possible. I'm looking at good scouting/warning abilities, so I can set up combat on my terms. I'm looking to create synergies with my party, so we nova more effectively. And, I'm looking to have abilities to let me control my rest/recharge cycle -- spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut become important, as well as high efficiency between combat healing. These are now incentivized due to this change -- combat is decentered.

Now, I already know you've addressed the XP trigger -- you've chosen to move that to the GM decides column, meaning PCs don't earn XP for combat, but this is a different change, necessary to address a different incentive. You also have a rather uncommon situation where everyone plays non-casters, which I find really odd and still halfway suspect that there's something you've done to make casting punitive in some way. This cuts in an interesting way as it means more problem solution is mundane and like to violence but also that the PCs can't leverage the spell system to effectively increase nova capabilities. Not sure how that plays out. I'll hazard a guess that, given how extensively you've already modified the base game, you have also nerfed a number of those spells like Leomund's Hut. However, all of this is really playing whack a mole -- it doesn't deincentivize combat so much as remove the tools to do it well.

For the second, this isn't quite de-incentivizing combat, it's straight out negating the combat system by overtuning. You've essentially removed the single largest portion of the game by saying, "sure, you can try to use those rules, but you'll just lose and die." That's a disincentive, sure, but it doesn't leave much of 5e intact afterword. Most of the class abilities are pointless, the majority of the rules are pointless, etc. It's not a careful retuning into a new shape, it's an old style lobotomy with a sharp spike and a hammer.

 

[dave2008]

So, there's two cases here. In one, you've made combat more dangerous, in the other, you made combat nearly impossible to survive. Let's look at these.

I didn't read past this, just a quick glance, because, IMO, this is not accurate. It is a sliding scale not one or the other.

It have seen this (making combat more dangerous) work in various ways with multiple people/groups. I can't say it works for you and your group, but it works for many people I have played with. Now, do other factors play a roll in it, most likely. However, IMO the biggest factor is the danger level of the combat.

As an example: I experienced this directly in one of my 4e groups. They were new to D&D and RPGs and played in the gung-ho style 4e generally promotes. Once I started ignoring the encounter guidelines and started making encounters more dangerous they very quickly changed their strategy and tried to find ways to parlay or avoid combat. No more guns-a-blazing into every encounter! It works, sometimes surprisingly well.

 

[Aldarc]

It does not.

Cosmic Horror from VRGtR:

Spoiler

Cosmic Horror​

Cosmic horror revolves around the fear of personal insignificance. The genre is predicated on the idea of entities so vast and so genuinely beyond our comprehension that we cannot fathom their simplest motivations. To see them is to become lost in their magnitude and the evidence that we have never, will never, and could never matter to the cosmos at large.

The genre deals with how alien forces might alter us, perverting our expectations and understanding of autonomy, debasing our minds, and separating us from what makes us human. Sometimes it is the result of a process we invite. Other times it simply happens, an accident of circumstance we can only hope to survive.

However you spin it, this genre involves a loss of control, an absence of autonomy, and the sense of insignificance within an indifferent universe.

In addition, consider the following genre tropes when creating your cosmic horror domain:

• There is no good or evil, no law or chaos.
• Be vague. Cosmic horror emerges through imagination and the indescribable, not details.
• At its best, cosmic horror makes characters feel gradually unmoored from their familiar reality.
• Cosmic horror is about ineffable forces driven by motivations humans can’t understand.
• Cults, forbidden books, and strange symbols form the cornerstones of cosmic horror.
• The genre has a history of framing marginalized demographics as monstrous and stigmatizing mental illness. Be aware and avoid those tropes.

There is a lot more tables and advice, but that is the definition they are using

IMHO, it seems as if WotC is trying to move away from language such as "madness" and "insanity" due to the aforementioned stigmatizing of mental illness, though you nevertheless see veiled allusions to these ideas: e.g., "debasing our minds," "loss of control," "gradually unmoored from their familiar reality," etc.

Schwalb's upcoming Tales of the Weird Wizard was previously called "Shadow of the Mad Mage," but this was also changed due to pushback regarding mental illness.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think it will be interesting to see how the mechanics in the new Ravenloft book match the DMG mechanics. If they don't, then, well, that pretty much says it all right there.

So, is this a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation? If WotC doesn’t change the mechanics, will you conclude that the mechanics were clearly good and effective?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So taking this lens to the Sanity system, even @Ruin Explorer's version, and there is no benefit to engaging with this system. It's all bad.

I don't disagree lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How does Tic learn magic (EDIT: and Leti)? Does he/she go insane like some of the members of the lodge? How does TIc summon a shuggoth (I think that's what it is called) to fight for him? Is it by being insane and cackling mad? They learn magic and grow in their understanding of the mythos without going mad but there is a tangible mental toll at times. So I would say the San/Madness mechanic models this well enough. There's a chance you gain some minor madness from exposure but you can grow more knowledgeable and powerful in the mythos without going insane.

????

SAN doesn't interact with learning or using magic in D&D. And no, there's no sign any of these characters even have the slightest "minor madness". That's why I point to the Fear/Stress rules, which reflect a "tangible mental toll".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I actually believe Milestone leveling has become the new norm and XP is shrinking.

That's certainly what it looks like to me, and it's not at all recent. Ever since the concept of milestone leveling was popularized in what, late 3.5E, I've seen people adopting it, and I keep seeing it. I believe it also tends to be supported by official adventures (I haven't read enough to be sure its universal). I suspect if you polled all D&D players perhaps a majority would be using that or something like it, with the smaller portion using XP, but you never know.