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

[dave2008]

Sanity does absolutely nothing on it's own. This is a strange statement.

That is a strange statement, but that is not what I said.

In the 5e DMG Sanity is an ability score and it used just like any other ability score: for checks and saving throws. The DMG then gives advice on when to ask for Sanity check or save. If you fail or succeed on a Sanity check or saving throw the DM determines the result just like any other ability check or save. Additionally:

"A failed Sanity save might result in short-term, long-term, or indefinite madness, as described in chapter 8, "Running the Game."

In truth they are independent systems. The can work together, but they do not have to.

 

[dave2008]

He's saying it literally doesn't do anything w/o Madness and he's right.

So, you take out Madness, and RAW Sanity can't even decrease (see DMG). But let's say you have it so when you'd acquire a madness SAN decrease. But that's a new rule you're adding.

Now SAN can go down and will go down because every time it gets lower it gets more likely to decrease.

Eventually it hits zero, but RAW, nothing happens. So you'd need to have a new rule for what happens then too.

This is not true. The issue I see is that people seem to think the Sanity rules (which I posted up thread) are something the are not. Sanity (in 5e) is an ability score. It has the same affect on the game as any other ability score: checks and saving throws. The DMG gives advice on when to ask for Sanity check or save. If you fail or succeed on a Sanity check or saving throw the DM determines the result just like any other ability check or save. Additionally:

"A failed Sanity save might result in short-term, long-term, or indefinite madness, as described in chapter 8, "Running the Game."

Madness is simply a possible result of a failed Sanity save, it is up to the DM. That and the following sentence (about contracting a Madness reducing your Sanity score) are the only references to Madness in the Sanity rules.

FYI, the Running the Game chapter is simply about how to adjudicate ability scores (and includes things like degrees of success, multiple checks, etc.) and has nothing to do with Madness. In truth Sanity and Madness are independent systems. The can work together, but they do not have to.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I agree with this.

I think there are probably ways of reconciling D&D-ish level-up with winning at a cost. Not in AD&D, maybe not in 5e (I don't know it well enough), but in 4e I reckon it could be done.

Yeah, again I invoke Laundry Files as the model. The protagonists DO clearly 'level up', by the end of the third or fourth book the main character has taken over his bosses old job, he's 'saved' the world a dozen times, and he can sling computational magic, wards, etc. around with the best of them. His wife is equipped with a violin from 'hell' which can probably destroy the world, etc. Of course their relationship has gone south, they are both pretty close to insane, and all they are doing is slightly prolonging the time until the 100% certain destruction of human civilization, probably the Earth (at least as we know it), and certainly the, if they are fortunate, death of all the characters. D&D isn't specifically a very good model for the action in the books, but 4e at least would handle it better than 5e ever could. Heck, in that universe you could certainly become an 'epic' character. It just wouldn't mean anything when Case Nightmare Green comes along (presumably it wouldn't ever actually happen in the campaign, but you'd inevitably get killed or worse at some point anyway).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think the AD&D insanity system is very useful for Cosmic Horror. It would be a poster child for a free-floating, non-integrated mechanic that parallels @Hussar's forgettable iron rations!

I think the AD&D version is basically equivalent to the 5e version in terms of the criticisms @loverdrive listed. The consequences are much more severe, but nothing tells you how to use it, at all, really.

Beyond that, the FUNDAMENTAL problem is, as she said, there's nothing but disincentive for the game to go there. It is just like saying to the players "hey, here's a pool of acid for your PCs to walk in!" Guess what? They aren't going to walk in there. If they do it is only because you offered them some big carrot, a huge treasure or something. What do the characters in a Mythos game DO? They confront this sort of thing out of necessity and it is balanced against other outcomes, and that happens mechanically (and in fact my assertion that CoC is basically a crap game is because it exactly DOES NOT do this in any mechanical sense). Cthulhu Dark for example allows you to specifically achieve results against the mythos by exactly one method, putting stress on your sanity (even then you presumably have to go through other fictional position to get that chance).

5e has perverse incentives here, mainly because the system IS tacked on. There's no clear advantage to risking your sanity, or motive to do so. Sure, you may end up getting hit with SAN checks. You may even need to wade through that 'pit of acid' but there's nothing like the idea that you actually use your understanding of Mythos stuff to solve the problem, and that this is THE ONLY WAY to solve it. In The Dunwich Horror, the protagonists learn what is happening, starting with a fortunate incident, but from there they have to read the Necronomicon, go to a village full of nasty horrors, see lots of terrifying stuff, and enact an actual magical ritual. Even in CoC this literally requires spending SAN points. You simply cannot avoid it. In 5e you would find a back door, use some spell to avoid the badness, wait till you were higher level to deal with the problem, etc. Heck, the trope in D&D is you only get hit with problems you CAN solve, the monsters are the right 'CR', etc. You can break that, but it is still not a game that has a good model for this. At best the 'feel' of the game is wrong and has to be actively subverted along with the specific rules.

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry I missed replying to that this thread moves fast and I can only really post intermittently

1. How, why and when did I apply the sanity rules? To answer simply it was GM fiat that relied heavily on genre tropes and used the guidelines in the book around what should be rolled for. I didn't use stock monsters (or at least the ones I did were reskinned heavily so that they were not recognizable) and decided which ones evoked a sanity check... Mostly monsters from a place in my campaign world called the Stygia ( At a high level it's a realm/dimension of people, places, ideals, creatures that never were and have been imprisoned in this never-realm for so long that they have gone mad and when released into our world spread madness like a disease). So anything from the Stygia along with select creatures, items, etc. outside of Stygians sanity checks were decided by DM fiat. As a note CR or level was often used as a determiner for how severe the check was but there were exceptions as I didn't want the sanity and madness to have a predictable feel.

This is one of my problems with the Madness rules. They are a little too vague and rudderless, while also relying a little too heavily on GM fiat, which may as well be "roll when I feel like it." I don't find the guidelines in the book particularly helpful, and we can get into that later.

3. I don't write up play examples... I don't really have the time (or the desire) to write up play except what I need to know from session to session. I could possibly provide notes but that won't show how it plays out at the table. This campaign went on hiatus when the pandemic started and with Ravenloft releasing and my group all vaccinated the plan is to start back up soon... I may start recording my sessions though and if I do I will try and post that.

That's fine. It was more of a "great if you have some to give, but okay if you don't" thing.

I feel each individual campaign should decide this for themselves either via GM fiat or group decision, but if you need the book to tell you here are the suggested causes...

Sanity Checks
-Deciphiring a piece of text written in a language so alien that it threatens to break a character's mind
-Overcoming the lingering effects of madness
-Comprehending a piece of alien magic foreign to all normal understanding of magic

Sanity Saving Throws
-Seeing a creature form the far realm or other alien realms for the first time
-Making direct contact with the mind of an alien creature
-Being subjected to spells that affect mental stability
-Passing through a demiplane built on alien physics
-Resisting an effect conferred by an attack or spell that deals psychic damage.

IMO this is more than enough of a framework of examples for me to extrapolate from for my own needs. I don't need the game to give me hard cases because my world isn't the same world as the designers.

Part of my problem is that these are mostly GM fiat and vague. The GM may choose to call for rolls for these things. Or they may not. The GM calls for a sanity saving throw or ability check? What's the DC? What count as alien creatures? What are demiplanes built on alien physics? Which spells affect mental stability?

Furthermore, on a failed save, what happens? The DMG tells me that the players might result in short-term, long-term, or indefinite madness. But these don't strike me as of equal weight in terms of debilitating the character. Any of these things may reduce the additionally optional sanity score. But there are no guidelines for when to pick one table versus another table. None that I can find. GM fiat?

I think at this point it just becomes a Sanity point loss system. Truth at this point I'm seeing a alot of broad, preference statements about the madness rules (I don't like this particular madness result) which is cool but nothing that seems wrong with the actual mechanics of it.

IMO, the mechanics are a little too loosely attached. I get it. They are optional rules. But when you look at a game like SotDL, which I know you have, which provides more concrete triggers and incorporates it into the bestiary, spells, and such. You are frightened for a number of rounds equal to your insanity score. Insanity equal to your Will causes madness, and you roll on the madness chart. There are guidelines for minor, major, severe, and extreme situations that may impose a boon or bane on the check depending on the severity. You can reduce your insanity by basically leaning into your insanity and selecting a quirk. You gain insanity when resurrected. Insanity can potentially break concentration. Paths also may have insanity mechanics. It's some GM fiat, albeit with more defined guidelines, but a lot of integrated mechanics.

 

[Imaro]

This is one of my problems with the Madness rules. They are a little too vague and rudderless, while also relying a little too heavily on GM fiat, which may as well be "roll when I feel like it." I don't find the guidelines in the book particularly helpful, and we can get into that later.


That's fine. It was more of a "great if you have some to give, but okay if you don't" thing.


Part of my problem is that these are mostly GM fiat and vague. The GM may choose to call for rolls for these things. Or they may not. The GM calls for a sanity saving throw or ability check? What's the DC? What count as alien creatures? What are demiplanes built on alien physics? Which spells affect mental stability?

Furthermore, on a failed save, what happens? The DMG tells me that the players might result in short-term, long-term, or indefinite madness. But these don't strike me as of equal weight in terms of debilitating the character. Any of these things may reduce the additionally optional sanity score. But there are no guidelines for when to pick one table versus another table. None that I can find. GM fiat?


IMO, the mechanics are a little too loosely attached. I get it. They are optional rules. But when you look at a game like SotDL, which I know you have, which provides more concrete triggers and incorporates it into the bestiary, spells, and such. You are frightened for a number of rounds equal to your insanity score. Insanity equal to your Will causes madness, and you roll on the madness chart. There are guidelines for minor, major, severe, and extreme situations that may impose a boon or bane on the check depending on the severity. You can reduce your insanity by basically leaning into your insanity and selecting a quirk. You gain insanity when resurrected. Insanity can potentially break concentration. Paths also may have insanity mechanics. It's some GM fiat, albeit with more defined guidelines, but a lot of integrated mechanics.

See and your post convinces me even more it's a playstyle thing. D&D's playstyle is not to have specific procedures that run the game and I don't think they are necessary to have a good horror game. Now you can claim a bad DM might mess it up because he's not constrained but then we're assuming a bad DM when it comes to a loose framework but a good DM (who follows procedure and agendas and etc.) when it comes to a game like BitD. In actuality, when claiming whether something can or cannot be done well in a particular system, we should be talking about this from the perspective of two GM's proficient in their respective playstyles... not bad DM'ing in one style and good DM'ing in another.

 

[Umbran]

or you are intentionally trying to distort the record.

Mod note:
Dude. You were just warned about the toxic behavior. Stop with the personal accusations.

 

[dave2008]

Furthermore, on a failed save, what happens?

Like any save it depends. One of the DMG recommendations is:

• Resisting an effect conferred by an attack or spell that deals psychic damage

So a failed save would result in the attack or spell dealing full psychic damage and whatever other effects happen on a failed save. Just like any other ability score.

 

[Thomas Shey]

T

We are somewhat unfairly not including them in the "actually designed" category, even though you, from direct experience, know HERO/Champions is. I mean, why don't I exclude HERO, because I'm only familiar with it in the context of emulating superhero stuff. However, I have a lot more experience with GURPS (albeit only up into the early '00s).

I'm going to snip a lot of your response, for a couple reasons, but I want to respond to a few things about it.

I think its absolutely legitimate to argue that both GURPS and Hero are not ideal for every job, ironically for opposite reasons; Hero was originally designed as a superhero game, and GURPS was originally designed as an elaboration on In The Labyrinth, and thus for more or less gritty fantasy and modern gritty action. As such, the farther away from those you get, the more heavy lifting is needed with either of them. In addition, they have fairly opposite approaches to genre support; Hero really wants you to use the tools at hand to construct what you need, and supplies the minimum number of additional rules needed to cover ground its superheroic bones don't properly handle, while GURPS is generally a believer in adding whole new subsystems and other things to bolt on.

I also think the suggestion of naive design (in the sense I believe you're using it) is at least a defensible position, since Hero was first designed in 1981, and GURPS in 1986. There's obviously been considerable design water under the bridge since then, and while the systems have been refined multiple times since then, their basic design principals haven't, and they've been in some ways very conservative in their refinement (to the best of my knowledge a metacurrency was not officially introduced in Hero until its 6th Edition (and if it was prior to that, it was 5th), its still optional and very clearly an afterthought).

That said, I have to note that your experience with GURPS is showing its age. So is mine as far as that goes (my experience with the newest edition is very limited), but is a bit fresher than yours. That doesn't mean your experience was illegitimate in the time frame you're using (the overuse of the core GURPS magic system was absolutely a thing) it just means its ignoring the evolution of the system (even the prior edition of GURPS provided in supplemental materials at least a half dozen different magic systems of pretty wildly different sorts).

As such while there's some relevance and legitimacy to you considerations, you're overstating it because you're largely talking about decades old versions of the systems, and some of your objections have been addressed.

And of course there are more modern generic systems that one can argue about the design, but one can't suggest they're naive EABA and Savage Worlds come to mind (ironically, they have a philosophy similar to Hero and GURPS respectively in terms of genre support, though they come from different focal points than either of those).

SECOND EDIT - Total aside, but do you have any insight into why Champions went for this pretty complex/fiddly "squad combat" motif in its combat design (particularly stuff like segments)? I'm guessing it was before your time and my presumption would be that it came out of familiarity with various wargame-ish concepts, and as such I would characterise that as "naive" design, but perhaps the actual thing was that they wanted a highly tactical superhero game, not one that emulated the genre and its tropes and so on.

Some from column A, some from column B (and no, it was not before my time; technically my involvement with the system predates the existence of the system as such, but that's a long story not relevant to this thread). Also, you have to understand there were large parts of that which were what they thought of as emulating elements of the genre. As an example, the phase/segment system was designed to represent things like the generic tendency for supers, no matter their basis, to be able to be far more reactive than most mooks and agents are in the genre (which is why you have things like the speed gap between them. The fact its very fiddly and tactical was based on the perception that since combat takes up so much of a typical superhero comic's "landscape" that it should be detailed and very interactive (see my comments about medium mattering). Now, can you these days argue something more narrative like Supers! RED with its much more narrative focus is more appropriate for the genre? You absolutely can. But you have to make the argument, and part of the argument turns on how important the game elements of RPGs is.

TLDR here is that while its obvious that the design is naive (in the sense that it didn't have a lot of other models to work from), its not thoughtless; most everything was done for a reason, and the reasons were seen as appropriate things to represent the genre as seen by the people involved at the time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is not true. The issue I see is that people seem to think the Sanity rules (which I posted up thread) are something the are not. Sanity (in 5e) is an ability score. It has the same affect on the game as any other ability score: checks and saving throws. The DMG gives advice on when to ask for Sanity check or save. If you fail or succeed on a Sanity check or saving throw the DM determines the result just like any other ability check or save. Additionally:

"A failed Sanity save might result in short-term, long-term, or indefinite madness, as described in chapter 8, "Running the Game."

Madness is simply a possible result of a failed Sanity save, it is up to the DM. That and the following sentence (about contracting a Madness reducing your Sanity score) are the only references to Madness in the Sanity rules.

FYI, the Running the Game chapter is simply about how to adjudicate ability scores (and includes things like degrees of success, multiple checks, etc.) and has nothing to do with Madness. In truth Sanity and Madness are independent systems. The can work together, but they do not have to.

Literally none of which supports horror mechanically except potentially using madness.