• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Fear & Horror Checks in Curse of Strahd (or beyond)

CapnZapp

Legend
The DMG presents these optional rules - is anyone using them? If so, why and how's it going? If not, why not?

I'm mulling it over myself. I like some measure of mechanical fear / horror, but I don't know that these mechanics really do what I'm looking for. They read more like a way to force your PC to act like they are afraid/horrified, and less like a way to make the player feel that creeping sensation, and roleplay accordingly. Though perhaps my suspicions are unfounded!
No, they are very crude and very in-your-face. I see them as the very first stab at a solution a newbie designer would take, before really thinking about it.

And they are also not working. Like, at all.

First thing: their effects are way WAY to powerful, compared even to high-level spells. This needs at least the immediate fix is to allow a save each round, like for most spells.

Second thing: the DMG doesn't define exactly what gets rid of Madness, but it suggests Lesser Restoration (among other spells) does away with all effects and all madness points. But why go to the trouble with all those mechanics if a simple level two spell can make all of it completely toothless...?

Third thing: some "earlier" (supposedly lighter) effects are in practice much more damning than "later" (more severe) effects. Being afflicted with the shivers for 50 hours(!) is extremely crippling. Being afflicted with a new character flaw you don't have to roleplay is nothing in comparison.

Verdict: those rules are practically useless as written.

I recommend you listen to the other posters in this thread for much more useful advice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Another way to create suspense in your game, is by giving the players secrets.

When I had my players make characters for Call of Cthulhu, I gave each one of them an ominous black envelope. Inside was a piece of paper, with 3 simple creepy backstories. I told them to open the envelope, read what was inside, and choose a secret for their character. They would need to keep this piece of information hidden from their fellow players, or take sanity damage if it was ever revealed.

The idea was to give each player a simple piece of creepy backstory that would hook into the main plot. So at times one player would have an idea what was going on, but would be unable to tell his fellow players about it. This creates suspense and paranoia around the table.

I also told my players that they could optionally come up with something of their own, after discussing it with the DM. But all of the players liked the options so much, that they decided to just pick one (some of the players wished they could pick more than one secret, because they were all pretty fun).
 

ZzarkLinux

First Post
There is one feature in Sophie's Curse that I think is a great example for horror and tension. It's part of a larger process that gamers will go through to improve their survival, and of course it terrorizes people along the way. I'll put it into a spoiler, but I'm sure there's some way to import it into adventure design.

Game spoiler
[sblock]Sophie's Curse has a complex mechanic to give a "SafePoint" to the user. The game is still terrifying on many levels, even with this mechanic! Ordering from "player fail" to "winning the game" it goes:

(1) Blind Playthrough (player skips reading the instructions)
The player won't realize that a SafePoint exists. It's hard to spot in-game.
Result: The player makes progress, but will die many times, until ...

(2) Newbie Playthrough (player reads the instructions)
The player knows of a SafePoint, and sees the location by checking an in-game laptop.
But: they only checked once, then stopped examining it. The SafePoint >changes< at random points in the game.
Result: The player makes more progress, but will eventually die in their SafePoint until ...

(3) Skillful Playthrough (player checks SafePoint on laptop often, realizing it changes)
The player knows of a SafePoint, sees the location on the in-game laptop, and periodically re-checks the laptop to reassess the SafePoint location.
But: they over-rely on the SafePoint as a crutch, and camp the SafePoint only leaving to reassess the location. The SafePoint >only works when< the lights are flickering and resetting.
Result: The player makes more progress, but will eventually die in their SafePoint until ...

(4) Expert Playthrough (The player constantly examines the SafePoint, uses it wisely, doesn't camp it at bad times, and also has luck on their side)
This is tough, but manageable. There is randomness for more escalation, but overall the strategy "works".
But: There are no buts
Result: The player makes it through the night and beats the game.

Of course, the >character< still dies at the end anyway. That's how horror works. But you win ![/sblock]

In other words, the game has several "secret" mechanics that players must work to discover in order to survive. The mechanics are designed such that:
- Players that play blind get a guaranteed loss
- Players that unearth tools but fail to thoroughly examine them get a better loss
- Players that unearth and study tools but get complacent in their knowledge will get a better loss
- Players that seek knowledge, use tools, remain vigilant, and and know when to cut-bait-and-flee will get the best and most satisfying loss :) So design your horror rules with these ideas in mind.
 

ZzarkLinux

First Post
Overall I agree with most points, but some of your theories don't fly for me. Space Stations with horrible monsters are less scary than forests? Have you watched a playthrough of Dead Space?

I'll provide an example from one of my D20 Call of Cthulhu games, to give you a better idea of how this works. And like I said, its not the sanity system that creates the fear. Its all in the storytelling..

That is a good spooky read. I do have some questions about your execution of your session:
- Did you have characters pre-roll their saving throws or sanity checks?
- How often did you bring out the battlemat during this adventure?
- How often did you "announce facts as the DM" versus telling the players what they perceive?

When I had my players make characters for Call of Cthulhu, I gave each one of them an ominous black envelope. Inside was a piece of paper, with 3 simple creepy backstories. I told them to open the envelope, read what was inside, and choose a secret for their character.

Communicating with individual players is a good goal. It's one of those things that seems hard to do at the table, but really worthwhile when it works. Did you make other attempts to give individual information after character creation, maybe during a session?
 

Overall I agree with most points, but some of your theories don't fly for me. Space Stations with horrible monsters are less scary than forests? Have you watched a playthrough of Dead Space?

I have Dead Space right here, and it doesn't scare me quite as much as a game like Fatal Frame does. When the game builds suspense, it works. But when it is throwing gruesome stuff at the screen, it stops being scary. And because a space station is not a relatable setting, it has to try harder to be scary than other games.

The point is not that a space station can't be scary. It can be. But the parts of it that are scary, are emotions that we can relate to in real life, such as fear of the dark, claustrophobia, etc. As soon as the game starts looking like it is trying to be a horror film, it is a lot less scary. Nothing is more scary, than how the player scares himself. And so, the less obvious the scares, the bigger the suspense.

Take for example a game like the classic Resident Evil. Its not the zombies or the dogs that are scary. Its the walking around in a big house, and hearing creepy sounds from off screen that is mildly scary, mixed with the anticipation of a jump scare. In fact, you very quickly get desensitized to the monsters, and when you reach the underground lab, most of the suspense is gone. Because an underground lab is very much a staple of horror movies, and not relatable in the slightest.

And then take a game like Fatal Frame. They'll have you walk through some creepy hallway, with a human-sized box in it. And every single time you have to pass the box, expecting something might happen. And quite often it never does. They'll have you opening a door, and have a kimono hanging right behind the door, and the more paranoid you get, the easier you end up scaring yourself with stuff like that. I think it's because you're not always feeling everything is scripted. The rules are unclear, and anything could happen. And yet you are in a setting that is some what relatable. Additionally, because Fatal Frame is all about ghosts, the 'monsters' all look humanoid, making them extra disturbing.

I think a horror game might be even scarier if it's not inside a creepy old house, or a creepy space station. Put the game in just a normal house at night, and I think you could scare the pants off the players. And I think this works for tabletop role playing too.

That is a good spooky read.

Thanks, hope you enjoyed it.

- Did you have characters pre-roll their saving throws or sanity checks?

As soon as they came face to face with something scary or disturbing, that is when they would roll their check. The outcome would then affect how they'd role play the scene, and what information I would give them.

- How often did you bring out the battlemat during this adventure?

Never. Call of Cthulhu is more about storytelling, and not so much about combat. We didn't use any battle grid or miniatures. I simply described the scene, often with a simple drawing of the house, and we rolled checks. I tried to keep the maps simple and not too detailed, because I wanted the players to picture my description in their head, not the drawing of the map. The map was purely there to lend clarity to the lay out, and the locations of rooms and doors.

Blake's house detailed.jpg

- How often did you "announce facts as the DM" versus telling the players what they perceive

I'm not exactly sure what you mean with "announcing facts as a DM". When I describe a scene to the whole group, it's always from their collective point of view. I would sometimes describe what their character felt, without taking control of their character away from them. I always want to make sure that I'm not dictating how their character reacts. That is up to them to decide.

But when it came to personal experiences, then I would get more into their psyche. Since I knew the secrets they had chosen for their characters, I would know which things their character would relate to. So the description would contain references to things that they would understand, but the rest of the players would not.

I try not to describe any parts of the story from an outside perspective, like for example a narrator in a book would. They do not know what they cannot see. I think such narration is best reserved for the ending of the campaign, when the players have a right to know what the outcome of their actions is. But during the game itself, they do not know more than what they witnessed. So they have no idea what happened to Angela after they escaped on their motorbike. They also don't know what became of Robert Blake. But they did visit the cemetery later on in the campaign, and opened his family crypt, where they found the urns containing all his previous attempts at conceiving a child with his ghoul bride. Ewww!

Communicating with individual players is a good goal. It's one of those things that seems hard to do at the table, but really worthwhile when it works. Did you make other attempts to give individual information after character creation, maybe during a session?

Yes. Often I'd make cryptic references to things that only one particular player would understand. If however the information was too difficult to convey through innuendo, then I could always take the player aside, or hand him a note.

It's fun when only one player knows what's up. However, I try not to let this interrupt the session too much. I want all of the players to still remain involved. And its fun for them as players to hear some of the puzzle pieces, but not seeing the whole picture yet. So I think if you can clue one player in, without taking him aside, that is more fun for everyone involved.

For example, one player had a personal secret that he had seen a silver Mercedes at a traumatic event in his life, a long time ago. But throughout his life he kept thinking he'd see the same car in the distance every now and again. So when the car showed up in the story, I simply said:

"You see what looks like a silver Mercedes, and to one of you it looks very familiar."

And the one player would go: "Oooooh craaaap!", while everyone else around the table looked at him with astonishment, wishing they knew what he did.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top