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

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, cosmic horror is defined as coming up against the unknowable and the incomprehensible. If you "learn" things about the horrors, they are things that are incompatible with sanity, by definition.

It's a philosophical issue, but I think the cosmic horror genre simply has that wrong. The universe being unknowable and incomprehensible is something cosmologists deal with all the time, without going insane. They just stick all the weirdness in a box and go on with their lives.

 

[dave2008]

Well, cosmic horror is defined as coming up against the unknowable and the incomprehensible. If you "learn" things about the horrors, they are things that are incompatible with sanity, by definition. So, yeah, the core tenet of cosmic horror is that you can't stay sane in the face of the horror. The knock on to this is that you just can't beat up the horrors. Some, sure, but these are minor plot movers or serve to damage the sanity anyway.

Again that is a definition of cosmic horror, but I was explicitly referencing my experience from reading HPL, not someone else's definition, posibly even the standard definition, of cosmic horror. The sanity mechanic in CoC didn't make me feel like we were playing a HPL story and that is what I want in my "cosmic horror," and that is what I was able to achieve with my D&D 5e hacks.

I mean in the story Call of Cthulhu a person literally rams a ship into Cthulhu, after seeing the rest of his group destroyed by it, and then escapes.

PS The adventure I ran for my group was an interpretation of Call of Cthulhu were the events happen in a more linear fashion (not through flashbacks) to the protagonist (players).

 

[Imaro]

Because I was playing 5e. If combat is not an option, then I've tossed the majority of the ruleset. If I'm going to do that, I should be playing a different game. I mean, I can do it, but that's pretty far past the point of violating the game's core assumptions.

Combat should still be an option (it happens in some of the mythos stories)... cultist, mutated fish people, etc are all on the table... but again I don't understand why you wouldn't make something like Cuthulhu himself not able to be bested in a combat encounter. And no I don't think the games core assumption is everything is beatable by combat, that seems to be a bias you hold.

To expand, if I let my players build characters, a large part of which is how well they do in combat, and then tell them that doesn't matter, I'm not adhering to the social contract that was established when we started with 5e. I'm being a dick.

Again no one said combat was totally off the table, but there are creatures that are just more powerful than the PC's... creatures they cannot best at their current level in a straight up combat... and a significant, though I can't claim a majority of DM's play D&D in a way where you can absolutely encounter a creature like this and you Should be smart enough to run. Is this being a dick?

 

[Imaro]

Again that is a definition of cosmic horror, but I was explicitly referencing my experience from reading HPL, not someone else's definition, posibly even the standard definition, of cosmic horror. The sanity mechanic in CoC didn't make me feel like we were playing a HPL story and that is what I want in my "cosmic horror," and that is what I was able to achieve with my D&D 5e hacks.

I mean in the story Call of Cthulhu a person literally rams a ship into Cthulhu, after seeing the rest of his group destroyed by it, and then escapes.

PS The adventure I ran for my group was an interpretation of Call of Cthulhu were the events happen in a more linear fashion (not through flashbacks) to the protagonist (players).

I am curious but how many of the protagonists in H.P. Lovecraft's stories actually go insane. I'm not well read on his stuff (not a fan of cosmological horror as it does nothing for me in the horror department) but I feel like I once read somewhere that this is a very exaggerated trope when it comes to his stories and even moreso with stories about the mythos that he didn't write.

 

[dave2008]

Because I was playing 5e. If combat is not an option, then I've tossed the majority of the ruleset. If I'm going to do that, I should be playing a different game. I mean, I can do it, but that's pretty far past the point of violating the game's core assumptions.

To expand, if I let my players build characters, a large part of which is how well they do in combat, and then tell them that doesn't matter, I'm not adhering to the social contract that was established when we started with 5e. I'm being a dick.

I guess this is where we differ. My group started with 1e so fighting has always tended to something you try to avoid if you can. Fight first is not integral to the D&D experience IMO.

Having a bunch of combat rules is just nice for when you get into combat. I don't feel like I am playing a different game if I don't use them much. I mean every time my group levels up we have a whole session on downtime where we don't use combat at all. We still feel like we are playing D&D though.

 

[loverdrive]

I am curious but how many of the protagonists in H.P. Lovecraft's stories actually go insane. I'm not well read on his stuff (not a fan of cosmological horror as it does nothing for me in the horror department) but I feel like I once read somewhere that this is a very exaggerated trope when it comes to his stories and even moreso with stories about the mythos that he didn't write.

Approximately two, but that's dependent on the definition of insanity.

There are plenty of things that could drive people insane, though.

 

[Imaro]

I've always thought combat rules were so granular and detailed because it is the area of the game where character death is most likely to be an outcome.

 

[Imaro]

Approximately two, but that's dependent on the definition of insanity.

Thanks I was just curious and had nor real reference.

 

[dave2008]

but I feel like I once read somewhere that this is a very exaggerated trope when it comes to his stories and even moreso with stories about the mythos that he didn't write.

That is definitely my recollection, but I have read a lot recently except the short-story Call of Cthulhu. It is interesting in that story a character actually attacks Cthulhu (ramming a ship into it) and because of that is able to escape. Also, the narrator of the story does not go insane, but is paranoid that cultist will get him, but it is also justified paranoia based on what happens to other characters he investigates.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Couldn't you have used the Sanity stat from the DMG along with the Madness rules?

Counterfactuals are not usually illuminating to an example of play. I mean, he could have played Trail of Cthulhu, too. What-ifs are not where you want to go, here.

That said, the Madness rules in the DMG are abjectly terrible. They are non-integrated, incoherent rules that fight the rest of the system instead of adding to them. I mean, they add to existing things on the GM's whim, are based off of WIS and CHA saves which means that melee classes are gimped while those that dabble in the arcane are stronger against them -- an inversion of the tropes. Further, the impacts are either negligible or incapacitating, and not much between. Finally, all of the "permanent" madness effects tie into the BIFTs and are totally ignorable -- there is no teeth at all to enforce them. So, what you end up with using the Madness rules are trope inversions, effects that are either incapacitating or ignorable, and then only in the short term. And the effects that are incapacitating are all tightly tied to the combat engine.

This is what happens when you try to slap a poorly conceived rule on top of 5e. You find out that what appears to be the big problems, like permanent insanity, are actually unenforceable in the rulesset and the only effects you have that have teeth are tied into the combat rules.