ah, my kingdom for a life's work

[RandomCasualty2]

That's not how the formula works. The formula is that you get told straight up at the very beginning that the killer is on the loose. You almost invariably get the name of the villain, and the viewers of the movie (the people who are supposed to be scared by it) actually get to see the villain's powers up close and personal, usually in the first scene and often before the opening credits have even rolled.

You're thinking of slasher movies, which really don't work well at all in a tabletop RPG for horror factor. Because again, these guys are just monsters, and players hunt monsters all the damn time. It's very hard to actually make that scary in table top. You can do it in a videogame or a movie, but without any special effects, in an RPG it's really lacking. And it comes off as just a game run by a killer DM.

Because pretty much, you're playing a mundane character, and your options are limited as it is. Further, the monster just has better numbers than you. Even if you suspect that the slasher happens to be hiding somewhere, there's really no way you can find him before it's too late, because your spot sucks and his stealth is high. So what choice do you really have there? Yeah, basically you can just die.

While you seem to want to accurately simulate a slasher movie in mechanical terms, there's not going to be any of the fear and terror flavor that is carried over.

You seem to want a monster hunter RPG instead of a horror RPG. Basically it sounds like your protagonists are more similar to a weak ass Buffy, where people hunt down a bunch of monsters. Unlike Buffy though, these monster hunters usually don't win, so their attrition rate is very high, so it's like a revolving door of cast members.

The monsters have rules. The monsters have names. The monsters give specific voices to the darkness or you just don't care. Because every single person will die.

The monsters may have rules, but you shouldn't necessarily know them. Part of that is finding them out.

For instance, take Freddy Kreuger. He kills you when you sleep. That much you know. But do you know if it's possible to beat him in a dream somehow? What happens if you try to control your dream? What if you research his background to try to find a way to lay his spirit to rest?

There's a lot of stuff you can try. And of course, there were lots of Nightmare on Elm Street movies where people tried that shit. You had one where they tried to pull Freddy out of the dream and kill him in reality, you had one where they turned into wizards and shit in the dream world and tried that. You had some where they tried to bury his bones on consecrated ground, and lots of other ideas.

Now you really don't know if those plans are going to work, but trying them is certainly pretty scary. Because you really don't know if you're throwing your life away for nothing and you also realize that you could have made other decisions. And that's good, because the PCs feel like they have some power in that situation.

In the "killer DM" scenario, it's pretty much a matter of whatever the PCs do, they're probably going to die. Unless they find some way to grossly cheese out the rules so that their characters can get powerful enough to beat the slasher, which probably just results in your DM making the slasher even more powerful, because the whole point of the game is to be mechanically hosed.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Because pretty much, you're playing a mundane character, and your options are limited as it is. Further, the monster just has better numbers than you. Even if you suspect that the slasher happens to be hiding somewhere, there's really no way you can find him before it's too late, because your spot sucks and his stealth is high.

Zombies aren't stealthy and alert; they're just dangerous and hard to kill. The invisible man isn't a hulked-out combat monster; he's just invisible.

[Edit] It seems as though you're assuming an 'invisible zombies' scenario, where the monster has no weaknesses and is just better than all the players put together in every way. [/Edit]

[RandomCasualty2]

Zombies aren't stealthy and alert; they're just dangerous and hard to kill. The invisible man isn't a hulked-out combat monster; he's just invisible.

It seems as though you're assuming an 'invisible zombies' scenario, where the monster has no weaknesses and is just better than all the players put together in every way.

Well often, they really are. I mean in a zombie movie, it's just not one zombie, it's a zombie horde. That's what actually makes zombies so deadly is the fact that there's a lot of them. And as I've said on numerous occasions.. zombies aren't really going to make people afraid. We've all fought zombies in D&D, and they're run of the mill creatures. Nothing that makes us scared anyway.

As far as the invisible man, basically that entails the PCs just finding a locked closet and sitting there with their guns armed for when the door opens and nobody is standing there. Either that or creating some kind of elaborate flour scattering device to make him visible. This assumes something indoors.

Of course, if you're dealing with someone invisible hunting you outside, like in Predator, you're basically fucked if you can't outrun it.

[Username17]

Recall that a horror movie setup is almost certain to not be level based, but rather skill based. Many people can run faster than Jason can, and practically everyone is better at dancing and convincing other people of ideas. D&D is a very bad model to even look at, because it's not going to use that rule engine or anything like it. You're going to use something actually made for modern roleplaying: WoD, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, or whatever (my choice should by now be obvious). And that means that there's no reason whatever that you are going to be particularly suffering on any particular skill match-up with the killer just because there's almost certainly no way for you to take it on in a straight fight.

And that's kind of the point. You hide in the bushes knowing that you can probably escape the slasher that way, but you probably want to avoid fighting him with whatever weapons happen to be on hand, because that you know that probably won't work. Dice should of course be rolled right in the open in order for people to see the grim reality of a natural 20 on Leatherface (or whatever it is that he's rolling to try to find your character). A death or an escape should be open and fair so that people know that the dice they are rolling really matter and carry consequence.

And yeah, if you escape long enough to get to some weapons and a plan, then you can presumably kill Leatherface. Maybe you can even do it before he even kills anyone you care about. And that's the goal, that is what keeps you on your seat edge. The fact that taking more risks and innovating a strategy might really save your friends or sacrifice them for nothing.

If you just run it like a D&D game, then of course it's going to feel like a D&D game. But a horror game is not a D&D game. And assumptions about it don't carry water.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

And yeah, if you escape long enough to get to some weapons and a plan, then you can presumably kill Leatherface. Maybe you can even do it before he even kills anyone you care about. And that's the goal, that is what keeps you on your seat edge. The fact that taking more risks and innovating a strategy might really save your friends or sacrifice them for nothing.

Honestly what you've described doesn't sound very exciting for a table top RPG. It would work for a LARP or something similar, but for a tabletop RPG, what you're talking about is essentially just a skill check.

You pick your best skill, like stealth, and you try to use it, and then Leatherface tries to find you. Maybe he finds you, and then you die. Or maybe he doesn't and you get away.

In any case there's very few real options for the player. What you do is already dictated by the fact that you know Leatherface's stats. So you pick the skill matchup that's best for you. Maybe that's athletics versus athletics, or maybe it's stealth versus perception. I don't know. But in any case, that's all the strategy is about. Pick the most optimal choice, and then hope you roll well.

In any case, it's pretty much like a save or die, or a series of save or dies if you use some kind of extended skill check mechanic. But in any case, it's just not all that exciting. You know you picked the best choice you possibly could and then you're at the mercy of the dice. And really, there's no imagination there. You're just playing craps. And while gambling can be scary if you've got something really valuable on the line, not many people are going to care about an ultimately expendable character in an ultra lethal game system.

[Username17]

You pick your best skill, like stealth, and you try to use it, and then Leatherface tries to find you. Maybe he finds you, and then you die. Or maybe he doesn't and you get away.

In any case there's very few real options for the player. What you do is already dictated by the fact that you know Leatherface's stats.

Here, let me turn that around for you so you see the true irony of this statement:

"You pick your best skill, like stealth, and you try to use it, and then Leatherface tries to find you. Maybe he finds you, and then you die. Or maybe he doesn't and you get away.

In any case there's very few real options for the player. What you do is already dictated by the fact that you don't know Leatherface's stats, so it's a sucker's bet to try to do anything except what you are best at."

---

The problem with this line of inquiry is that it negates the variances in situation and tactics. Maybe you're trying to lure Leatherface into a trap so you want to get seen and then run away from the chainsaw. Maybe you're splitting up to scout out more territory quickly and you're all sneaking around and hoping that whoever happens to be in Leatherface's area isn't seen. I don't know, and neither do you!

There is absolutely no way for you to say at this level of (non)development whether there are meaningful, interesting, and arguable tactical choices. But since the basic plot line seems to be "dudes fucking die in horrible ways at a fairly steady rate until the monster is stopped, and some of those dudes may be PCs" - then I'm guessing that the answer is "yes." Anytime the default assumption is that playing conservatively is not safe, you're not at all safe in assuming that there is a single "best" thing to spam over and over again.

But while there are really games that fall into this complaint of yours quite squarely (4e D&D comes immediately to mind), it is in no way associated with you knowing or not knowing the stats of enemies. And you pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

D&D is a very bad model to even look at, because it's not going to use that rule engine or anything like it. You're going to use something actually made for modern roleplaying: WoD, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, or whatever (my choice should by now be obvious).

I'll agree there since a level system implies progress in overall competence, which is antithesis to being a victim in a horror story.

If anything, characters get worse over time. They might grab items or situations that help in short term but even those tend to be distractions from the natural urge to run away.

[Manxome]

I'll repeat that Betrayal at House on the Hill is a great game, with...a couple unfortunate flaws. Almost everyone I've introduced to the game has loved it, gamers and otherwise, and I've played it like 50 times. And actually written a bunch of new scenarios for it, too. Personally, I think I enjoy it more for the "brand new strategic problem every game" angle than the atmosphere, but most people would probably say the opposite.


Regarding the fear discussion, I'll back Frank in that it's not very scary if you have no idea what you're facing, and I have an anecdote to back that up. Which I'm sure will be summarily spat upon by anyone holding the opposite view, but I'll relate it anyway.

My alma madre has a game called Happyville wherein a few players are secretly designated as villains and everyone wanders around the school hallways jumping out at each other while the bad guys slowly pick people off. There's a bunch of different variations where the bad guys have different abilities; vampires turn people into their thralls, necromancers raise a bunch of zombies, etc. Before the game starts, players decide what scenario they're playing and describe the villain's powers for any newbies (this is a logistical necessity, since the newbies might very well be the bad guys).

At one point, I thought I could get people really paranoid by making up a giant list of characters with different special powers, printing summaries of their abilities on cards, and letting people pick them out of a bag, so that no one knew what anyone else was playing and the bad guys could have weird powers you'd never expect. As it turns out, this game was tremendously successful in that everyone had a great time playing it...but no one was scared. In fact, they spent an inordinate amount of time laughing at all the crazy stuff people were able to do.

The games that actually get people paranoid are Vampire, Abhorsen, and Werewolf--basically, the ones with specific, powerful villains (the fact that they all create spawn also probably helps). Because those are the games where you are actually in imminent danger a sizable fraction of the time, and the guy who was your buddy five minutes ago may now be trying to kill you, and you know that. The first test run of Abhorsen (where it turned out things were rather slanted in the necromancer's favor) ended with some of the best fighters running madly around the building fighting off swarms of undead and trying to find the necromancer, and one of them commented after the game that if we could duplicate his experience, but with an actual chance of winning, that would be awesome.

Admittedly, this game involves live action, and the game is structured such that it collapses from the word go unless the players voluntarily go along with the premises. But I think the principles are still sound. It's easier to get yourself scared if you're aware of a specific and significant threat than if the other players simply get to break the rules in ways you can't predict, because you can't imagine your grisly fate unless you know what to be scared of.

[erik]

Someone sneezed in Brazil?
SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING.

Shut the fvck up, you retard. What the fvck, am I expected to hear racism from you, of all people?

Just... wow.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9225 ... careo3.gif

I've played Pandemic 2 a bunch, and that madagascar gif is funny from it's excessive truthiness. Friggin Madagascar. I was so happy the time I finally slipped past their (and peru's) defenses and took out the whole she-bang.

As for racism and Brazil... wtf?

I was of the perhaps misinformed belief that Brazil was at least as ethnically diverse as the United States. During a world goverment poli sci class in college, we spent a week or two on Brazil, and that was one of the factoids I remember- that they are a ethnically diverse country.

Yeah, look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Demographics

Wikipedia seems to back up this belief.

Brazil has the largest population of Italian origin outside of Italy, with over 25 million Italian Brazilians,
the largest Japanese population outside of Japan, with 1.6 million Japanese Brazilians,
the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East, with 10 million Arab Brazilians.
As well the second largest German population outside of Germany, with 12 million German Brazilians,
the second largest Spanish population outside of Spain, with 15 million Spanish Brazilians,
the second largest Polish population outside of Poland, with 1.8 million Polish Brazilians.
However, the largest and oldest European ethnic group in Brazil is the Portuguese Brazilian, and most Brazilians can trace their ancestry to an ethnic Portuguese or a mixed-race Portuguese. A characteristic of Brazil is the race mixing. Genetically, most Brazilians have some degree of European, African, and Amerindian ancestry. The entire population can be considered a single "Brazilian" ethnic group, with highly varied racial types and backgrounds, but without clear ethnic sub-divisions.

I'll just assume Bigode had no idea about Brazil's makeup and was just jumpy for some reason.

[edit: changed wiki quote to spoiler block, trimmed down quoted stuff]

[Judging__Eagle]

If anything, characters get worse over time. They might grab items or situations that help in short term but even those tend to be distractions from the natural urge to run away.

I'd prefer the BaHoH method.

Your stats can up up and down; to a set maximum. If any stat goes to 0, you're dead (no strength), crippled (no speed), catatonic (no will), insane (no wits).

Of course, you could very easily do things such as farm the stat boosting rooms, to max out a stat.

The problem of course being that you completely gave up your turn to move the stat in question up one point, or could barely move around since you had to end your turn in the stat-boost room.

Of course, some game required this, such as those that required a wits or will roll to perform a task, but you might not have anyone in the group who could reliabley do the task.

Also, the game was very unique in one regard, the dice has blank sides.

So, even if you had a max sized dice pool (7 ever, for anything) you could very well get nothing on your roll, and lose to someone who had one dice and rolled a 2.



Actually, that might be a way to keep everything on the RNG in TNE.

Dice can roll 0's, and you don't get bonuses to rolls, only more dice.

In such a system, a Balor could face a child, and potentially be defeated in a fight (not necessarily killed, but beaten for that scene).

[CatharzGodfoot]

Shut the fvck up, you retard. What the fvck, am I expected to hear racism from you, of all people?

Just... wow.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9225 ... careo3.gif

...

I'll just assume Bigode had no idea about Brazil's makeup and was just jumpy for some reason.

He may have been referring to the racist caricature used in the animated image.

[JonSetanta]

He may have been referring to the racist caricature used in the animated image.

How much fail can we pack in one thread?
OK Catharz, it was the picture that got to Bigode.. so he responded to it before I linked.

[CatharzGodfoot]

He may have been referring to the racist caricature used in the animated image.

How much fail can we pack in one thread?
OK Catharz, it was the picture that got to Bigode.. so he responded to it before I linked.

Assuming he had already seen it.

[Manxome]

Of course, you could very easily do things such as farm the stat boosting rooms, to max out a stat.

No you can't. You ought to look at the errata and get the revised scenario books. No, seriously, the game was rushed to print before it was finished (I have first-hand testimony to that effect), you really want the fixes. One of the scenarios doesn't even include stats for the monsters.

Of course, the revised versions still have a few key problems, so you may also want to take a look at this thread at BoardGameGeek.

And while I'm already dropping links left and right, you can get the material I wrote for the game here, if you're interested. No special playing components required.

[Judging__Eagle]

Honestly, most of the errata'd things work, but I'd allow the using of a room that boosts a stat more than once.

Partly because in doing so means that you're doing nothing else, so the economy of actions is still preserved. Also, you are doing one of two things when in those types of room.

1) Trying to win, if everyone's stats have been damaged, the rooms may be the only hope they have to winning.

2) Forcing yourself to lose, if you dick around in a room boosting your might it could very well not matter and you've probably not only screwed yourself, but your whole team since you haven't helped with exploring of the house or fighting of the enemies.

Plus it's beleivable for some people to spend minutes scouring a library for a book that will contain "The Ritual"; or pray in the Chapel in order to build your determination before you confront the enemy. The weight room and exercise room seem like edge cases, but who know, maybe you find a good set of running shoes or a weight-lifting support belt in round 1. In the next round you find some adrenaline or testosterone pills or ampules and pop them back. In the next round you "test out" your muscles by lifting the wieghts or "warm up" your legs on the treadmill.

Since room draw and placement is random, I really don't think that it matters if a person sits in a room or not. First the room has to be drawn, next the character needs to get to the room; and given the way that the game is played, neither happens that easily.

It's a call that each group that plays will have to make.

My group plays a little differently, mostly we only have Omen rooms end your turn, since we want the game to move along a bit faster than it is usually paced.

[Manxome]

You still draw a card in each room, and then just keep moving? It's not clear to me that that would make the game go any faster, though it certainly changes tactics and may dramatically swing the difficulty in several haunts (many haunts involve exploring or running from monsters, and this change makes it possible to do those MUCH more efficiently).

But at least under normal rules, a reliable +1 to one stat is better than you can expect to find (on average) by exploring, and there's little (strategic) reason before the Haunt begins that all players wouldn't max out their stats. There are almost always more heroes than traitors, so this is almost always good for the heroes, and you're more likely to be a hero than a traitor; even if other people continue exploring, you probably raise your chances of winning by making yourself more powerful instead (though you also reduce your chances of being the traitor). You might get a haunt where that particular trait doesn't benefit you, but that's no worse than getting an event that might boost or lower a random trait by the same amount.

It's very rare to be totally unable to make a trait roll required for a haunt. In my ~50 games, I don't think I have ever been in a situation where there was no hero who was capable of rolling high enough to win, and I'm not sure we've even had a situation where any hero was incapable of rolling high enough.

You can certainly play how you like, but...I've played quite a lot and spent a lot of time analyzing the math behind the game, and I can't imagine repeat-buffing being anything but bad for the game.

[erik]

I'm not sure we've even had a situation where any hero was incapable of rolling high enough.

That's damned impressive. I'm guessing you're not counting dead players.

I've only played a few times, but we definitely had people who were such longshots at certain challenges due to poor/drained attributes that they need not bother (and instead busied themselves with other tasks). In one game I and another guy got put down to 1 die in a trait or two before the haunt had begun. I think it was a relatively easy haunt though, since the other guy became the traitor. It could have gone very bad for us since almost everyone had gotten hosed by ability damage to some extent.

I think we had the errata on hand (pretty sure we had it printed out), but we definitely do not allow repeat benefits from attribute boosting rooms. That's just cray-zay. Allowing constant movement until you get an omen seems a little cheap. That's basically instantaneous movement through safe squares, which can be a bit much. It definitely synergizes with stat-farming to silly heights though.

[Manxome]

I'm not sure we've even had a situation where any hero was incapable of rolling high enough.

That's damned impressive. I'm guessing you're not counting dead players.

You're correct. I'm also not counting long shots; 3 dice against a TN of 6 is a low enough chance (1 in 27) that you should probably be supporting the team in other ways, but it's not impossible. I'm also not counting times that you can't immediately succeed if the scenario gives you ways to get a bonus on your rolls (considering that one of the quests has a target number in the ballpark of 20, but you spend most of your time doing subquests to get bonuses on that roll).

We also have a special house rule for keeping dead players interested in the game. On your turn, if you're dead, you can attempt a "resurrection check" by rolling one die. On a 0-2, there's no effect, but on 3+ you come back to life...(for those not in on the joke, the dice are numbered from 0 to 2. And no, you can't use It Is Meant To Be, it's a joke rule.)

But I digress. My point was, the typical range of stat variation and the typical range of target numbers are such that it's very uncommon for a necessary roll to be totally impossible without buffing your stats, especially if your players tend to be conservative before the haunt begins (as mine do). Target numbers higher than 6 are almost unheard of, and while people occasionally get a trait of 1 or 2 before the haunt begins, it doesn't happen every game, and when it does happen, odds are that that's not a required trait in whatever haunt you get (or that the TN will be only 2-4). And in combat, you can win with 1 die, because your opponent could always roll 0.

[Judging__Eagle]

Yeah, it happened when I had taken the game, but only took the contents, not the whole game on a trip.

While we were playing I realized that I had left the rule book at home and forgot that you ended your turn after you drew a card.

When we realized that we had made a mistake, we stopped and limited it to stopping after you drew an omen card.

[Bigode]

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9225 ... careo3.gif

Reference to Pandemic 2.

Ah, the retardation isn't yours ...

I'd ask you about the "of all people' but I really don't care.

"Sex in Baltimore" should suffice for you to know why it'd be strange from you if it had been literal, as opposed to the same from "Amerika über alles!" Republicans.

Assuming he had already seen it.

Seeing it now didn't help, for sure.

As for racism and Brazil... wtf? (...) I'll just assume Bigode had no idea about Brazil's makeup and was just jumpy for some reason.

Jumpy in using the word "racism" in place of something else perhaps more appropriate? Possibly. But I still alluded to the apparent belief (not necessarily from Sigma) that Brazil's some kind of jungle and we have no public health (which, see, always gets more hilarious when from the U.S.A.). As for not knowing Brazilian racial makeup, that'd be hilarious for a Brazilian.

I was of the perhaps misinformed belief that Brazil was at least as ethnically diverse as the United States. During a world goverment poli sci class in college, we spent a week or two on Brazil, and that was one of the factoids I remember- that they are a ethnically diverse country.

Though some of that data might look a bit distorted, given that many of those populations are regionally clustered.

---

Oh, yeah - "alma madre"?

[Cynic]

Oh, yeah - "alma madre"?

I was a little confused by that as well. But I just assumed it to be a colloquialism.

Alma mater means beloved or nourishing mother.

So I don't really see it as too big a jump for "Alma madre."

I know the Madre as a mother agave plant. So I'm guessing it's either an folk etymology, mondegreen, or an eggcorn.

[Manxome]

Oh it's always possible I made a thinko.

I meant the university from which I graduated.

[Draco_Argentum]

As for not knowing Brazilian racial makeup, that'd be hilarious for a Brazilian.

Maybe you've just never looked out a window?

[Bigode]

As for not knowing Brazilian racial makeup, that'd be hilarious for a Brazilian.

Maybe you've just never looked out a window?

To clear the issue: I did say "racism" was probably not the most appropriate word. I look out windows (more like down the street, in fact) more than I'd like to, that's for sure (and not for ethnocentric reasons, before someone jumps with that).

[JonSetanta]

Hmm good one, even if you've gone off on a racism tangent rather than of disease OR horror.

"Sir! Someone caught the clap in a Baltimore public school!"
"Which one?"
"All of them."
"SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING."

That's real horrorshow.... especially after growing up near kids that seemed to break out with pinkeye and/or head lice every week.