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

[Aldarc]

It doesn't seem poorly conceived, and there are effects throughout the madness tables that have nothing to do with combat. I think your being a little disingenuous here or you didn't really look over the tables.

I think it's poorly conceived. I have looked over the tables. But overall I don't think that it's a matter of combat or not. It just feels on the whole like a half-baked afterthought that they wrote just to say that they had rules for madness. "We wrote 1-2 pages of madness tables and a page about a sanity score. Let's call it a day." Obviously YMMV.

But I've never heard of anyone use these rules. I see a lot of people homebrew or publish rules for madness and insanity as if they didn't exist in the DMG. I don't recall if the new Ravenloft book will reference them any. It sounds like they are shifting to some other subsystem for horror rather than use what they already made. That's usually a red flag, for me at least, of a half-baked or "meh " sub-system.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Things that work tend to be true in the way they need to be,

Which is how cosmologists continue to operate. You put one foot in front of the other and you move down the road. The foot, the road and the movement may not be real in any fundamental sense, but it's true enough for us to get on with our lives. You do not need to believe in a fundamental reality to remain sane.

unless you're arguing that it could change tomorrow.

I'm arguing that there is no way to prove it won't all change tomorrow. That the universe is rational is something that has to be assumed in order to do science, it is not provable with science.

You seem to, oddly, be putting forth that claim that since I cannot prove that the Sun will not rise tomorrow for reasons we cannot comprehend that it therefore means the Universe is incomprehensible. You've subbed in a requirement to prove a negative in order to defend the argument that you cannot prove the Universe is comprehensible. Rather, logically and scientifically, it would be better formulated to say that you need have only one instance of something truly incompressible to show the theory the Universe is comprehensible is incorrect. The inverse, that I can't say the Sun will rise tomorrow until it does, is a flawed argument requiring a negative proof.

Negative proof is the only kind of proof science deals with. You can prove something is false, but you cannot prove something is true, because however many times you repeat an experiment and get the same result there is now way to prove that the next experiment won't produce a different result without actually doing the experiment.

To say that we may never fully understand the universe is an acknowledgment of the shortcomings of mankind, it's not a statement on the nature of the universe. We may not understand it, like a goldfish may not understand literature. But, we do understand literature, so it is comprehensible, if not to goldfish. This is a shortcoming of goldfish, not of literature.

This may be the case. Or it may not. It is, as I said, faith, not science. From what I have learned of cosmology, I'm pretty sure humans can't comprehend it, since we are already relying on computers to do a lot of the thinking for us. Whether is could be comprehended by hypothetical intellects as far beyond us as we are beyond a goldfish, I doubt that too. As a wise person once said "it's turtles all the way down".

Here is one for CoC players: there are beings as far beyond Cthulhu as Cthulhu is beyond humanity. And another set of beings beyond them, and beyond them, and beyond them...

 

[Arilyn]

I gotta say, I've this thread has prompted me to actually look at the Cthulhu Dark rules. That's genius in four pages. Incredibly thematic, simple rules. I wouldn't at all say these are generic rules, they're very much aimed at emulated a specific feel of game and genre, but for that, absolutely brilliant. I love how Insanity is so integrated into the game -- it is the motivating factor!

Probably my least favorite part is the bit where another player can just decide that they want you to fail and challenge your action. As a concept, this isn't horrible, but I dislike how it's at no risk to the other player -- it doesn't feel like it has the heft and weight of the rest of the system. It feels... cheap? It's consequence free, too easy, and I'm not sure it's really needed to add to the drive of the game.

It's an impressive game in 4 pages. Usually these super short games don't work for me. I have the same reservations about a player deciding another player's action fails. It wouldn't be abused at our table, but does feel like an odd rule. But have yet to try it out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah that's not good, being put on a ignore list for having a different opinion - especially when the OP has phrased the question such as to harvest differing opinions. If the OP simply wanted validation for their opinion then the original question was badly posited.

Wouldn't be the first time I've seen people do that on a forum. But what do I know, I'm apparently on their IL from some prior exchange that I don't even remember.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But this again goes back to a point that I made how the necessary elements or breaking points of genre play/emulation will differ between people. 5e can work for @dave2008's low magic games, but it wouldn't necessarily work well for either of us or what we are looking for in a low magic game. So our solution is to look elsewhere because hacking the game isn't worth the effort, particularly when plentiful valid alternatives exist.

Its an issue you always have to deal with regarding this sort of discussion. When I'm feeling snarky, the way I frame it is "Any game can work for any genre or setting--for some values of 'work'." But its also true. If someone is willing to force enough elements manually, or the element doesn't matter, or at least don't matter as much as other properties of the experience at hand, its going to be really, really hard to convey what the real benefit of a more dedicated tool for the job is. I've been on both sides of that divide, as some comments I've made in this thread may show.

 

[Imaro]

No, I mean that 5e doesn't cover the same genre space as Cosmic Horror, and many of it's core genre logic parts actively fight against Cosmic Horror. Actually doing the genre of Cosmic Horror requires gutting so much of the 5e game that it would no longer be 5e.

I don't think anyone said vanilla 5e covers the same genre space as Cosmic Horror... but let's be clear the Mythos stories came out of the age of pulp and there was even cross-pollination with sword and sorcery, so it's not so far as to make 5e incapable of branching off into it. And no it doesn't really take gutting any of it only, adding to it.

I think the problem here may be that people are using the d20+mods vs DC with the GM deciding what happens is 5e, so anything that doe things this way is also 5e. That's an entirely facile definition, though.

You said Sanity and Madness. You can go back and look. I looked at Madness, because all Sanity does is change the lead-ins for the Madness rules. It's an optional subssystem for an optional subsystem. It does nothing on it's own without the Madness rules.

I already addressed this. Your complaint was that Madness checks used Cha or Wis which would give spellcasters an advantage that was inimical to the tropes of cosmological horror... I'll state it again (ands it's been posted in this very thread) Sanity eliminates that incongruity with the genre tropes in a pretty elegant and non-intrusive way.

I mean, you can be hurt that I didn't talk to the Sanity rules, but they are an option to an option. I felt dealing with Madness clearly and cleanly as the primary optional rule for these things was more direct to the point. However, sure, you've managed to point out that there's one argument of mine that can be addressed by adding a new stat to all characters, which has other knock on effects like making everyone MAD now, since the combat debuffs from the Madness systems should be prioritized to be avoided, and now you have the build question of whether or not those will be common in the game or rare, which is entirely up to the GM.

I'm not hurt, and don't address me or my emotional state... address the argument. So you're cherry picking to support your assertions. Because Sanity doesn't fit your pre-conceived conclusion that 5e can't do cosmological horror... it doesn't count. Really a Sanity check makes every class now MAD... by that logic every class is already MAD because there are spells and abilities that can affect any of their abilities to force a save in combat... You are seriously reaching Lol!! Why not just say my bad it does address that trope and move on?? I mean the game gives you extra points, an extra roll or an extra number for the array. So not seeing the major problem you are here.

Again, how do Flaws play? They aren't meant to be constant bits, but used to earn Inspiration according to the rules. You're now requiring a specific approach to play, one not even associated with a ruleset, to make the rules work.

Flaws are already a part of the rules. However nothing inherent in cosmological games necessitates long-term madness be enforced through in-game mechanics. We just had Cthulhu Dark presented as an example of a game that doesn't.

Here's a kicker -- I fully want players to fully inhabit and advocate for their PCs, to roleplay with integrity. But I also think having to tell a player how to roleplay is a terrible idea -- it's up to them to do this, it's their fun, not mine. If my game becomes ruined because a player has a different idea what roleplaying their character looks like, then that's my problem, not their. My goal is to have a game and system that encourages roleplaying, not one that demands a specific approach. I don't have a problem with roleplaying in my games -- my players are great! But I'm also not partial to telling them what they have to roleplay, ever. The Madness rules are telling players how to roleplay.

Honestly, if you're fully engaging the 5e rules, then the one bits of the Madness rules that actually engage roleplaying with integrity are the Flaws of permanent madness. These are incentivized by the ruleset via Inspiration. But, most people totally ignore this entire system, and instead rely on the GM policing proper roleplaying so that the GM can force roleplaying onto the players, like how the Madness system works.

I mean, look at Cthulhu Dark. It incentivizes putting your sanity on the line, but leave it as a player choice. The penalties for failing an Insanity roll is that you roleplay your insanity. How is entirely up to the player -- nothing is enforced by the GM.

Lol!! But you were just claiming there were no teeth to the madness unless there were mechanics that enforced the effects of madness... wouldn't that be telling your PC's how to roleplay? I'm a little confused on which approach you are advocating for? As for Flaws and inspiration and people totally ignoring the system (I'd love to get a proper poll going for this to get an accurate picture)... I would assume if you are using these rules... well you would use the rules in their entirety, what I can't speak too is how well the rules do when you choose not to follow them... at least that's not what I'm discussing.

Yeah, okay, those don't primarily hurt the combat pillar. Remember, without any immediate pressure the short term madness is over in minutes and so doesn't really matter. Long term, most of those are so debilitating that they incentivize sitting out until they wear off. I mean, if you have a few levels of exhaustion, which somewhat mimics most of these, you would take every action to remove them because they will get you killed in combat.

Come on, man.

Well duh, without immediate pressure the short term effects don't matter is missing the point... If I have an old god forcing it's way into our universe and need to finish reciting the ancient ritual in minutes to close the portal and looking upon it's dark magics just sent my character into fits of screaming, laughing, and weeping for 1d10 mins... well it could have a very big effect.

The same for long term, I would argue that if the PC's have the option to choose to sit out for months, until they feel better... well your issues have nothing to do with the rules and more to do with how you are choosing to run horror. Lol... you must run very laissez-faire & lackadaisical horror games.

I guess it's my turn... Come on, man.

 

[dave2008]

You are not. If a cosmic horror arises, and you're moving entirely into that genre, then you're ignoring 80% of the ruleset.

What do you mean by this? I have heard you mention combat, but combat is still a part of most cosmic horror. You don't fight Azathoth (though I did make stats for it), but you try like hell to stop the cultist (and their eldritch minions) that are trying to summon it. What other rules are you "required" to ignore to give you cosmic horror.

Personally, when we played out the story Call of Cthulhu in 5e we only used martial classes, but the game didn't suffer for it. It was mostly investigation, but we had some combat. It felt like both D&D and Cthulhu to us (of course it helps when Cthulhu actually makes an appearance).

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I say this as someone who trends toward mythos. All things being equal, without pressure to avoid it, I will drift towards mythos horror. It's one of my mental ruts. So, I've done this in D&D. My only Big Plot 5e game was heavily mythos inspired. But, as @Hussar said, it was really more tentacley horror because, since it was 5e, combat was always an option, and a successful one. As such, it was just 5e with some flavor, but still pointedly 5e and therefore the primary genre was D&D.

I suspect it depends on how you feel about Howard's approach to Lovecraftian style horror as compared to Lovecraft himself. There are a number of Lovecraft-adjacent elements in some of Howard's stories, but they're still in a style of story where combat is absolutely an option; he just tended to stay away from the high-level elements where a guy with an axe couldn't still make a difference.

 

[pemerton]

Probably my least favorite part [of Cthulhu Dark] is the bit where another player can just decide that they want you to fail and challenge your action. As a concept, this isn't horrible, but I dislike how it's at no risk to the other player -- it doesn't feel like it has the heft and weight of the rest of the system. It feels... cheap? It's consequence free, too easy, and I'm not sure it's really needed to add to the drive of the game.

As best I can recall, when my group has played this system it is me, as GM, who has made the call on whether or not to roll a die for failure.

It's possible we've had one or two PvP "opposed checks", but if so I've forgotten any details of them.

 

[Arilyn]

I just want to step into the debate going on about science. We are progressing and there appears to be underlying truths and a logic that holds up. We can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are in anyway correct. It's possible I'm just a figment of my dog's imagination.

However, we aren't finding glimpses of ancient uncaring gods. Mathematical formulas aren't literally driving anyone crazy. There are puzzles and mysteries, but these excite scientists rather then send them screaming into madness. Lovecaft mythos is so unknowable and strange that no one can even formulate coherent theories. It gets into your head, but you can't truly grasp any of it and you know that there are things that shouldn't exist but do, and so many tentacles! And you are utterly insignificant to these beings who, for the most part, utterly don't care.