D&D General Horror is hard

[Paul Farquhar]

No. I keep talking about things like how a bunch of monsters specifically named lack the sort of scary mechanics that allowed them to fill a role that was relevant to horror. If those mechanics made the game easy or hard is a different matter unrelated to horror

So tell me, just how old were you?

 

[AlViking]

The question strikes me as the sort of thing I've seen in players who lacks the experience playing those old editions for fun and interacting with those who did the same rather than an exclusive diet of 5e player that would never consider gming. Why do you act as if I was never one of those players and that I have never spoken to players who voiced the same kinds of "That was freakin' scary" comments as 234 up there?

I'm not playing at your table and would probably never even encounter a scenario where I might even be in a place where it's up for consideration, why would I care what you as a gm want to do just because I can speak of tools that as a gm and player can speak about gm tools that I miss?

Also "enforce"? Id use a term like "inspire" because those monsters inspired in me over the very real risk they posed for my characters over the years. What's with the endless yellow journalism style framing? I talk about the importance of plausible risk/consequence and you tell me that I just want to kill PCs. I talk about various monsters were scary on a mechanical level and you tell me that Im trying to "enforce" player behavior.

As I've said many times, your "scary" is my "frustrating". The fact that you seemingly can't accept that things that you consider scary were never, ever scary to me is not my problem. I think level drains, taking away items of specific types of builds (i.e. rust monsters and warriors in heavy armor) and so on were poor design that always felt like they promoted an adversarial relationship between GM and player.

I also don't think forcing - sorry "inspiring" - specific behavior is my job as GM. There are plenty of times when there are situations the group should not rush headlong into is obvious. I set up a dangerous scenario, give the players enough information for them to realize that it's dangerous and they decide how to approach it, I don't need level draining rust monsters with the plate clad fighter cowering in the back to make it happen.

There is more than one approach to horror and to increase the risk level for the PCs than the old school threats you keep pushing.

 

[tetrasodium]

So tell me, just how old were you?

This is just silly and starting to look like an effort to get personal. The last time I played or ran 3.x was while Bush or Obama were in office. That would have put me in my 30s with a mortgage and career at the time.

As I've said many times, your "scary" is my "frustrating". The fact that you seemingly can't accept that things that you consider scary were never, ever scary to me is not my problem. I think level drains, taking away items of specific types of builds (i.e. rust monsters and warriors in heavy armor) and so on were poor design that always felt like they promoted an adversarial relationship between GM and player.

Irrelevant and proven so because you only grow more insistent when they complaint is given a concession by calling them neutral terms like MECHANICALLY-$WORD. However in the interest in ending that irrelevant and pointlessly obvious effort to invoke "give the players what they want... Wotc did polls for fun, that can't be fun"I will conced on the term by calling them MECHANICALLY-$WORD monsters and similar to force the dog whistle out into the open when you inevitably choose to consider telling me why the system must not include support for something I enjoy. I expect the same courtesy with that or some other entirely neutral term in return.

I also don't think forcing - sorry "inspiring" - specific behavior is my job as GM. There are plenty of times when there are situations the group should not rush headlong into is obvious. I set up a dangerous scenario, give the players enough information for them to realize that it's dangerous and they decide how to approach it, I don't need level draining rust monsters with the plate clad fighter cowering in the back to make it happen.

I was not aware that you were in a position at wotc where you were authorized to decide what is the "job" of a gm. When did you take that position and what is it called, or is this yet another example of OneTrueWayism where you insist that every other table follow your personal norms even when you are not part of it?

There is more than one approach to horror and to increase the risk level for the PCs than the old school threats you keep pushing.

Only one of us seems to be making points that align with that more than one way to play sentiment though bIt's quite clear that I agree on that point given that you literally made the claim while quoting a post of mine asserting as much. You however have consistently argued that the system must not support any style of play or include options that you would not personally choose to use.

 

[Distracted DM]

You know what, thinking back to my 2e and 3e days- what was genuinely fear and or anxiety-inducing?
In Ravenloft when our abilities weren't working, or drawing extra attention, or fighting things that we couldnt handle cuz they were immune..
And level drain or other permanent wounds.

 

[AlViking]

This is just silly and starting to look like an effort to get personal. The last time I played or ran 3.x was while Bush or Obama were in office. That would have put me in my 30s with a mortgage and career at the time.


Irrelevant and proven so because you only grow more insistent when they complaint is given a concession by calling them neutral terms like MECHANICALLY-$WORD. However in the interest in ending that irrelevant and pointlessly obvious effort to invoke "give the players what they want... Wotc did polls for fun, that can't be fun"I will conced on the term by calling them MECHANICALLY-$WORD monsters and similar to force the dog whistle out into the open when you inevitably choose to consider telling me why the system must not include support for something I enjoy. I expect the same courtesy iof that or some other entirely neutral terms n return.

I was not aware that you were in a position at wotc where you were authorized to decide what is the "job" of a gm. When did you take that position and what is it called, or is this yet another example of OneTrueWayism where you insist that every other table follow your personal norms even when you are not part of it?

Only one of us seems to be making points that align with that more than one way to play sentiment though bIt's quite clear that I agree on that point given that you literally made the claim while quoting a post of mine asserting as much. You however have consistently argued that the system must not support any style of play or include options that you would not personally choose to use.

You have "proven" nothing. I'm expressing my preferences, my opinion. I don't pretend to know better than anyone else and if I say "It's not my job to..." it's just a way of expressing how I personally view my role as DM. We still have mechanical penalties and saying there are no penalties is simply not true, they simply aren't the penalties you personally enjoy. The good news is you can modify monsters to have whatever penalty you want to throw at your players. I'd suggest you listen to them if they tell you the penalties are not fun of course, but nothing stops you from implementing rules that I think were poor design.

The game is is designed for people to have fun and sometimes the needs and preferences of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I accept that the game evolves over time. There are a few things from older editions I prefer and sometimes I figure out how to implement them in my home game.

Fun doesn't mean there is no challenge, no risk to the characters. Fortunately that risk is still central to the game just like it has always been.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is just silly and starting to look like an effort to get personal. The last time I played or ran 3.x was while Bush or Obama were in office. That would have put me in my 30s with a mortgage and career at the time.

And 2nd edition? Because things like wights and level drain were small beans in 3rd edition, where the real nightmare was making sure you had the right prerequisites for your next feat.

I don’t think D&D has changed much. I think you have changed (as have I) and the things that were exciting when you were young no longer do it for you.

 

[tetrasodium]

.

And 2nd edition? Because things like wights and level drain were small beans in 3rd edition, where the real nightmare was making sure you had the right prerequisites for your next feat.

I don’t think D&D has changed much. I think you have changed (as have I) and the things that were exciting when you were young no longer do it for you.

The omissions you note from the 3.5 mechanical "nightmare"§ elements is an oversight of your own making rather than a myopic concern.

Wights are not the only example I raised of mechanical elements that 5e stripped away the parts that made them into something with a functional role for MECHANICALLY-$WORD§ that was relevant to "horror". They are just the one that you and s couple others focus on.

The nerve wracking nail biting element in d&d are things like rust monsters mind flayer wights ghasts wraiths who in the party carries what and question like "can we as a party carry that thing we'd really like to carry to get the treasure we feel like we need" because those were difficult choices and extremely credible risks up until 5e.

[/Spoiler]
You are right that attribute damage from a 3.5 wight was not as big of a "nightmare" as the nasier 2e ones, but the point is that they still had a functional & credible mechanical role in that "nightmare" pillar even if the pillar itself expanded to include more monsters and mechanical subsystems that you and a couple others ignored in service of OneTrueWayism where even word choice used to refer to a particular style of mechanic is met with outraged dog whistles.

With 5e though, those subsystems are vestigial at best and often designed to undermine the pillar they once contributed to while the monsters are entirely incapable of even standing in the "nightmare" pillar's shadow.

§ "nightmare" is pulled from the quoted post, "$WORD" is unquestionably neutral. The endless dog whistle over word choice used to refer to mechanics has no more standing than the OneTrueWayism it keeps trying to champion.

 

[nevin]

As I've said many times, your "scary" is my "frustrating". The fact that you seemingly can't accept that things that you consider scary were never, ever scary to me is not my problem. I think level drains, taking away items of specific types of builds (i.e. rust monsters and warriors in heavy armor) and so on were poor design that always felt like they promoted an adversarial relationship between GM and player.

I also don't think forcing - sorry "inspiring" - specific behavior is my job as GM. There are plenty of times when there are situations the group should not rush headlong into is obvious. I set up a dangerous scenario, give the players enough information for them to realize that it's dangerous and they decide how to approach it, I don't need level draining rust monsters with the plate clad fighter cowering in the back to make it happen.

There is more than one approach to horror and to increase the risk level for the PCs than the old school threats you keep pushing.

truth there. I think the biggest problem is almost all D&D players are playing to be Hero's. Your chance of getting a full table of D&D players that want to play horror is tiny at best. The design of the game is set up to play hero's thus all the "horror" stuff does suck for horror. I really think the only decent solution is to find a game system made to play horror.

 

[tetrasodium]

truth there. I think the biggest problem is almost all D&D players are playing to be Hero's. Your chance of getting a full table of D&D players that want to play horror is tiny at best. The design of the game is set up to play hero's thus all the "horror" stuff does suck for horror. I really think the only decent solution is to find a game system made to play horror.

Not at all because this is about if the game system should include supporting mechanics or not... Backup. Before doubling down on this "find a different system" in defense of the system itself not assisting the GM in running it with supporting mechanics count the number of 5e Ravenloft books wotc has put out. By my count that number is Ravenloft:curse of strahd, Vrgtr, and Ravenloft: the horrors within. One of those was marketed as a "horror toolkit"

Wotc obviously feels there is a market, they just treat the system itself as if it's frozen in amber and forgot that sometimes painful mechanics serve an important role

 

[MGibster]

As I've said many times, your "scary" is my "frustrating". The fact that you seemingly can't accept that things that you consider scary were never, ever scary to me is not my problem. I think level drains, taking away items of specific types of builds (i.e. rust monsters and warriors in heavy armor) and so on were poor design that always felt like they promoted an adversarial relationship between GM and player.

I suspect you're far from alone and the vast majority of players so disliked rust monsters & level drains WotC decided to remove them from the game. Like I said earlier, the majority of D&D players I knew would rather have their character die than lose levels or treasured magic items. But that's probably because most games I've been in let players character new characters at the same level as everyone else. Maybe if they had been forced to make 1st level characters they would have preferred level drain to death.

You know what, thinking back to my 2e and 3e days- what was genuinely fear and or anxiety-inducing?
In Ravenloft when our abilities weren't working, or drawing extra attention, or fighting things that we couldnt handle cuz they were immune..

The last really, really good horror campaign I was a player in was Night's Black Agents in their Dracular Dossier campaign. One of the things that made it great was the uncertainty. We never quite knew the extend of our enemies abilites, their strength, or even who they were. Every encounter was tense because of the unknown which is great for a horror game. I do remember AD&D's Ravenloft where spells didn't behave as they should which made for some interesting gaming.

truth there. I think the biggest problem is almost all D&D players are playing to be Hero's. Your chance of getting a full table of D&D players that want to play horror is tiny at best. The design of the game is set up to play hero's thus all the "horror" stuff does suck for horror. I really think the only decent solution is to find a game system made to play horror.

Bingo. No matter what D&D setting I'm in, it's still D&D. It's going to feel like D&D. For me, that's okay. I love Ravenloft, but if I want a horror game I'm going with another system.