D&D General Horror is hard

[bsss]

Tying interpretations and attempts at horror in TTRPGs to particular game editions and their survival mechanics is begging to set up a strawman. First, horror can be told in a group setting without D&D mechanics, via other games (or no games at all!), so clearly there is no causal relationship between horror and D&D mechanics; even if the scope of the thread is D&D, we don't need to look only at D&D to understand how we might do it. Second, the mechanics of D&D can be ignored on a whim (e.g. "I sleep and regain my resources"; reply: "no you don't, not in this game") so they are not real obstacles, the players objecting about overriding certain mechanics in the book in order to tell a horror story just means the table is not aligned. As the OP said.

I have struggled with this thread a lot as it drifts into discussing D&D limitations because I don't think any edition's style really precludes horror in a game, but that's because horror is broad, and not defined by body count (especially the "heroes'").

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You need to go back multiple editions to 1989

I said 1st edition. I’m going back to 1982. 89 is for young whippersnappers.

 

[Remathilis]

I said 1st edition. I’m going back to 1982. 89 is for young whippersnappers.

Hey now, I resemble that remark!

 

[MGibster]

Exactly. Then again, I'm told OS players were never attached to their characters anyway since life was cheap, so I don't know why a player would be scared to lose one.

For me, risk of death in D&D is part of the fun. Some of my best memories are of my PCs dying a horrible, pointless death. Receiving a hook to the face wielded by a hillbilly ogre and going from full health to death in a single blow was good, clean fun so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Remathilis]

For me, risk of death in D&D is part of the fun. Some of my best memories are of my PCs dying a horrible, pointless death. Receiving a hook to the face wielded by a hillbilly ogre and going from full health to death in a single blow was good, clean fun so far as I'm concerned.

But here is the crux of the argument: death cannot be feared if it is"fun". Several posters have made references to the player fearing for their character's life. The idea that "energy drain is scary" is rooted in the idea that players fear a horrible, pointless death. You cannot create that kind of reaction in a player if death is also part of the fun. A character dying has no stakes to the player, save for wherever losses in gear or XP there is. You roll up a new PC and try to do better. So unless the player has an unhealthy attachment to the character that would be dying, it's not very likely you're going to stimulate a true fear reaction. At best, you'll get an aversion reaction (a Skinner box where cheese and electric shock is replaced by wight and energy drain).

All to say that trying to make a player fearful via mechanics is a delicate balance of the player wanting to be afraid and the having a reason to be vulnerable, and trying to legislate that with fear checks or one-hit kills isn't going to work. Especially when players are willing to go "damn, that was epic. Hand me some d6s" after that character dies.

 

[AlViking]

For me, risk of death in D&D is part of the fun. Some of my best memories are of my PCs dying a horrible, pointless death. Receiving a hook to the face wielded by a hillbilly ogre and going from full health to death in a single blow was good, clean fun so far as I'm concerned.

There's a big difference between death being a possibility and death being highly likely or even practically guaranteed. If I know my character is probably going to die or have the last several sessions wiped out by level drain I'm not going to care. It just becomes a pawn and I have a half dozen new PCs written up to take their place.

I don't want the cavalry coming in to save my bacon if I'm in danger but I also don't want disposable characters because then risk and death are meaningless.

 

[Remathilis]

There's a big difference between death being a possibility and death being highly likely or even practically guaranteed. If I know my character is probably going to die or have the last several sessions wiped out by level drain I'm not going to care. It just becomes a pawn and I have a half dozen new PCs written up to take their place.

I don't want the cavalry coming in to save my bacon if I'm in danger but I also don't want disposable characters because then risk and death are meaningless.

I think to make death a frightening event, you would have to create a scenario where death is uncommon (characters have a reasonable chance of survival), and meaningful (death has weight both mechanically and narratively). Thus, when it happens it's viewed as a tragedy, not a statistic.

 

[tetrasodium]

I said 1st edition. I’m going back to 1982. 89 is for young whippersnappers.

2e is the last edition that needed silver or +1 weapons for a wight. Going back even further when it was also still the case does not change that.

The game can be many things to many people. But the main thing it needs to be doesn't change.

It needs to be a game people enjoy spending their time playing.

It can be many things sure, but beyond the entirely subjective claim that monsters like previously mentioned 3.x & earlier ones with mechanically scary teeth the discussion is becoming one that is effectively little more than "those now missing mechanically scary elements were a good thing because those mechanically scary elements equipped the gm with monsters that impacted how the players/PCs behaved in play at the table" vrs some entirely subjective flavor of "call it frustrating not scary" or "that's not my entirely subjective definition of horror so don't you dare mention it". What is especially odd is that using a different entirely word for the point about those mechanics impacting play like "$word" simply results in the "frustrating not scary" crowd defending the currently useless version of those monsters by complaining that impacting play in those ways isn't"horror".


We all have a subjective opinion on a wide range of things, but there's not much to discuss beyond "ok" when a position starts and ends with nothing aside from that subjective opinion rather than some ways about how play is impacted for good or ill.

 

[Sorinth]

What difference does it make what word is used to label it in a discussion about the impact of having/,not having those monsters equipped with abilities that cause it? That sounds like an irrelivant distinction or a total confirmation demonstrating the problem 5e created. Either you found the still credible monsters like the ghoul Ghast eight wraith rust monster beholder & do on $WORD:

• and changed how players played their PC
  • In the first case the "$WORD" choice used to label it is irrelevant because the gm was able to choose monsters that had an effect on play.
• And they didn't care and played exactly the same totally unconcerned about the risk regardless of how much the gm tried to telegraph it
  • In the second... the fact that a player felt $WORD as a result of the GM's chioce of monsters & efforts to telegraph risk was an entirely irrelevant thing with zero impact on play & there was no reason for monster design to be depowered to remove consequence & risk from the GM's toolbox in service of playerswith such an extreme lack of concern that no GMis incapable of conveying anything to a player who refuses to acknowledge any attempt to telegraph risk other than " SPEAK TO THE HAND! LEEEEREROOOOYYYYYYY JEEEEENNNNKKKIIIINNNNNNSSSS". Such a 5e style depowering of monsters is just servicing a player who is squarely in the bullseye for the "find better players" mantra.

What matters is the impact on play and the GM's ability to use those monsters in an adventure to impact player behavior.

Is this not a thread about the Horror genre? The word/label matters because not every word/label fits the genre.

 

[AlViking]

I think to make death a frightening event, you would have to create a scenario where death is uncommon (characters have a reasonable chance of survival), and meaningful (death has weight both mechanically and narratively). Thus, when it happens it's viewed as a tragedy, not a statistic.

Any tool in a GM's box that is used to frighten players - which for many players isn't going to happen no matter what - is used too often or too capriciously is going to loose it's effectiveness no matter what game you're playing.