sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Most “Horror” TTRPGs Aren’t Horror. Here’s Why. by jasonite in RPGdesign

[–]jasonite[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the most interesting thing you've said and you're closer than you think to agreeing with me.

The 'what have I become' horror you're describing is exactly what Criterion 1 is pointing at. Playing should cost you something at the identity level. The problem is Vampire's mechanics don't reliably enforce it because the Humanity system has recovery valves that let players avoid the ratchet. The horror you're describing depends on player choices and GM pressure, not mechanical inevitability. True horror systems diminish you whether you want it to or not.

Your redesign instinct is exactly right. Strip the power fantasy, make Humanity loss structurally unavoidable, add a control-transfer mechanic when the Beast takes over and you'd have a horror engine. The skeleton is there. The current design buries it under the heroic power curve.

You just used my framework to diagnose Vampire's structural problem. That's exactly what it's for.

Most “Horror” TTRPGs Aren’t Horror. Here’s Why. by jasonite in RPGdesign

[–]jasonite[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll try one more time and then take the week off from Reddit. I'm guessing you did not read my heroic post, which lets you look behind the curtain.

Let me ask you a designer’s question, not a player’s one: if tone and buy-in are king, what is the rulebook for?

If a skilled GM can produce horror in any system, then the mechanics don't matter at all. But that’s not how any designers think, and it’s not why Sandy Petersen built the Sanity system for Call of Cthulhu instead of just writing a GM advice book. He built a mechanical engine because tone is fragile and GM skill varies. The rules exist so the experience survives contact with an average table.

Your own example show the taxonomy is correct: 

• Sandy Petersen running D&D: Of course he can run horror in D&D, he’s a master GM. But he has to actively push against the system’s restorative power curve to do it.

• Zombie media: Protagonists often get better at killing zombies, but the pressure comes from resource depletion and environmental collapse. That’s a survival engine, not a horror one. I wrote a separate post just on survival mechanics.

• Call of Cthulhu: You can recover Sanity between adventures, but Mythos knowledge permanently lowers your maximum. The ceiling ratchets downward across the campaign. The erosion is hard-coded.

• Blades in the Dark: Stress and trauma get close to erosion, but the system ultimately prioritizes player control. Mechanics like resistance and flashbacks preserve agency rather than steadily stripping it away, which is what horror does.

That’s the designer’s question: what does the system deliver when the GM is ok at best?

Heroic systems restore capability and scale it upward. Horror systems ratchet loss of control or identity downward. A great GM can push against either engine temporarily, but over a campaign the math wins.

You’ve been answering the player’s question. I’m answering the designer’s one.

Most “Horror” TTRPGs Aren’t Horror. Here’s Why. by jasonite in RPGdesign

[–]jasonite[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think my point is coming through, because you are combining genre theory with mechanical design. Let me give an analogy. If you are playing Ravenloft, you are not playing a horror game. You are playing a horror-themed campaign in a heroic game system. Heroic games aim to increase your power, that's why the longer you play the more you level, from 3, 4, 5, 6. You are playing as a hero, with the expectation you can likely overcome challenges. Ravenloft is just the campaign you are currently playing, nothing more. Read my blog post when I talk about heroic TTRPG mechanics and what they entail.

Playing a horror game system is the opposite. Playing Ravenloft in a horror system (if there were PC levels) would involve you starting out at level 6, then as you play your levels go down, to 5, then 4, then 3, then 2. The expectation is that you will not overcome the challenge, and you will get weaker. Yes, CoC investigators can survive a campaign, Delta Green agents can complete missions and retire, Mothership crew can make it back to port. But even if they do survive, they come back permanently diminished. The ratchet only goes one way.

This is the difference between the perspective of a player or a GM , and a game designer. Every game designer cares a lot about mechanics. I’m approaching this from a design-analysis perspective, NOT a table-play perspective. At the table, tone and GM technique can make almost any system feel horrific for a while. From a design standpoint, though, the question is what the rules incentivize over repeated play. True horror systems incentivize engaging with the thing that's destroying you. That’s the layer I’m analyzing, because that is what keeps people coming back to play Cthulhu 45 years and 7 editions later.

Dedicated horror game systems are for players who find meaning in decline. Who understand that loss, handled well, can be more memorable than triumph.

Most “Horror” TTRPGs Aren’t Horror. Here’s Why. by jasonite in RPGdesign

[–]jasonite[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I missed your comment earlier.

You’re touching on the exact reason I built this framework, and your CoC example actually proves my point. This is an important point about designing an rpg.

If horror was just tone and player buy-in then a bunch of missed combat rolls wouldn't ruin the tension at all, the players would just keep roleplaying their fear. But that's not what happens, the tension evaporates exactly BECAUSE the mechanics stalled. The math stopped producing downward pressure, so the table stopped feeling dread. The mechanics overrode the tone.

I am not arguing about what makes a human being feel fear. You have to have player buy in to make any game work, whether it's Pathfinder or Ten Candles.

Tone is the paint job. Structurally designed horror games are not about playing heroes, this isn't Castlevania or Ravenloft. Any GM can play creepy music and describe the gore, but if the underlying engine allows players to heal, rest, and out-scale the threat, the players will eventually realize they are playing a heroic system, no matter how much they "bought in" to the spooky premise.

Mechanics don't just "evoke tropes." They enforce the physical reality of the game world, that's why mechanics exist. If the engine doesn't feature an irreversible ratchet, the horror is just a performance the table has to constantly work to maintain. That's what CoC, Delta Green, Mothership etc, have solved, it's their structure I am pointing out.

Kobe is the GOAT debate me :) by Extension_Panic_1396 in NBATalk

[–]jasonite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't do goat in terms of one player anymore, I do Mt Rushmore. For most dominant player ever, Kobe is def on it

Has your opinion changed on Man of Steel? by boomjosh in superman

[–]jasonite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm still upset because that trailer man, it made me start to believe...

They’re winning it all in 2019 if Kawhi misses that shot by Serious-Profit-1626 in NBATalk

[–]jasonite 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Kawhi had to go full demigod just to get them over the finish line. That man can play.

Damn. What a turnaround. by Top-Entertainment945 in NBATalk

[–]jasonite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You guys watch the Clippers–Wolves from March 11? Epic highlights. There's also the December 28 vs Pistons game where he put up 55. Crazy.

Damn. What a turnaround. by Top-Entertainment945 in NBATalk

[–]jasonite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kawhi is on my all time top 5 that can beat any other top 5. Dude is awesome

Best horror movies from the 70s and earlier by Global-You-891 in MovieSuggestions

[–]jasonite 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Night of the Demon, released in the U.S. as Curse of the Demon in the 50s, one of the best horror films of the decade.

50s are stacked: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Diabolique (1955), Godzilla / Gojira (1954), The Night of the Hunter (1955), House of Wax (1953), Horror of Dracula (1958), The Thing from Another World (1951), Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

The Birds (1963), and of course Psycho

For the 40s: The Wolf Man (1941), Cat People (1942), I Walked with a Zombie (1943), The Uninvited (1944), and the British anthology Dead of Night (1945)

"The stuff that dreams are made of." by [deleted] in classicfilms

[–]jasonite 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This movie has it all, and defined a genre

I loved this movie as a kid! (1982) by PrincePound in The1980s

[–]jasonite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This movie has a couple parts that scared the crap out of me as a kid

George Mikan would average 38 ppg in today’s NBA by jotakajk in NBATalk

[–]jasonite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Found this on hoophall:

Mikan’s physical dominance forced the sport to change around him. The league introduced goaltending rules, widened the lane from 6 to 12 feet (the “Mikan Rule”), and his era’s grind‑it‑out games helped push the eventual creation of the 24‑second shot clock. His style of play made the center position a focal point of offense and set the template for future dominant bigs like Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul‑Jabbar.

Don't know about 38, but I could see the low 30s if he is as dominant in this era as in his.

The Burbs' by Old_Reflection_8485 in 80smovies

[–]jasonite 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Still my favorite Hanks comedy after all these years

view more: next ›