Sanity\Insanity?

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

WFRP has a great insanity system, IMHO. Check it out when you get a chance, trechriron.

WFRP: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Thoth-Amon

[tesral]

As a closet game designer I am terribly curious what WOULD be a good insanity system? The one is Nemesis seems detailed. Also, with fear, do you not believe in uncontrollable terror? How would you emulate that in a game? Again, I am not "challenging" you, I am sincerely curious in your opinion.)

One that didn't rip control of the character away from the player. Most I have seen the PC's sanity score drops below a certain level and they crack all the way and become an NPC. That isn't much fun.

I would favor a gradual slippage. Every time you blow a sanity roll, you pick up phobias, quirks and manias until your character slowly goes over the deep end. You might even design the PCs insanity tree before hand. But that gives you a chance to play with it, have some fun with it. Not simply see it as having the character ripped away from you.

Main thing, don't take control of the character away from the player, and make sure they have a way to recover. The relentless and unstoppable slide to madness is the reason I don't play CoC. You lose, so why even start?

[darelf]

I have been not completely turned off by Dark Heresy's system of corruption and insanity. I'm still wary of it, but it is definitely the least horrible that I have seen. I have almost been impressed by it.

As far as fear is concerned, this may be a very personal choice, in that I have in fact used rules to give the idea of being "stunned" by fear or surprise, but no more than that.

I enjoy more making the actual players feel the fear of situation, and then having them RP out what their characters would do. WARNING: This requires a pretty big buy in by experienced players. They have to be willing to play out what they think their character would actually do in response to the fear that the character is experiencing. This is impossible for some people, and requires a lot more thought and experience and a willingness to "lose" for the sake of the game.

[Webhead]

...I would favor a gradual slippage. Every time you blow a sanity roll, you pick up phobias, quirks and manias until your character slowly goes over the deep end. You might even design the PCs insanity tree before hand. But that gives you a chance to play with it, have some fun with it. Not simply see it as having the character ripped away from you...

The (admittedly few) times that I got to run CoC, gradual descent was how I handled it. As the PCs dug deeper and deeper into the "truth" of reality, their mind developed quirks as a defense mechanism against things that it could not comprehend. The player still kept control of the character and had fun role playing them getting weirder and more unstable as time went on. And there are paths to recovery in CoC. They are slow, arduous and require commitment...which is part of what makes them fun. If it was easy to recover from madness, it would kind of lose meaningfulness.

...The relentless and unstoppable slide to madness is the reason I don't play CoC. You lose, so why even start?

One of the players in my group has a similar perspective on CoC and while I respect his (and your) right to hold that opinion, it always bugged me. The only time you "lose" in CoC (or in any RPG really) is if you give up.

CoC is about a subtler and more personal kind of heroism. The PCs are like candles in the darkness, striking out in the name of defending everything they know against the encroaching and oppressive darkness. Like the man who stood before the tanks at Tiananmen Square, refusing to yield in the face of utter obliteration, because taking a stand is the right thing to do.

The point of CoC is that you are hopelessly overwhelmed but that you fight back anyway, refusing to surrender to despair, defeatism and cowardice, both because that would be worse than death and because you can still make a difference, if only to push back the darkness for one more day. The PCs are just "normal" people, not kings or warriors or people with great power. Because of that, they can be more heroic because they put themselves in very real, meaningful danger every step of the way. They are willing to sacrifice themselves to hold their world together just a little longer.

Heroism in CoC is rescuing a little girl from a group of cultists who want to sacrifice her, or killing a mad priest before he can turn the townsfolk into mindless slaves. It's not about epic powers and slaying armies, it's about holding together the threads of humanity and being the hero that no one else is willing to be. The intrusion of the maddening "reality" of the Mythos should be one of slow, creeping realization that everything the PCs understand to be "true" and "real" is actually just a thin layer protecting their minds from forces beyond their comprehension.

When played right, CoC is a lot of fun. You can't stab your way to victory in CoC. You have to rely on intelligence, wisdom and courage to guide you. And there are victories in CoC, even if they are victories on a smaller, more personal scale than most RPG players are used to.

[tesral]

When played right, CoC is a lot of fun. You can't stab your way to victory in CoC. You have to rely on intelligence, wisdom and courage to guide you. And there are victories in CoC, even if they are victories on a smaller, more personal scale than most RPG players are used to.

I understand the game, I've played the game, own the game, but the insanity system assures that you lose. Eventually your character will succumb to madness, it is unavoidable, the more you learn the sooner it happens. So in fact, there is no way to ever prevail against the darkness, it will get you.

I run a modern horror game. I know how it works. they have a chance to win. Just me but I prefer a game with a positive outlook other than you will positively go mad.

I have been not completely turned off by Dark Heresy's system of corruption and insanity. I'm still wary of it, but it is definitely the least horrible that I have seen. I have almost been impressed by it.

Remind me not to ask you for an endorsement..

[Webhead]

I understand the game, I've played the game, own the game, but the insanity system assures that you lose. Eventually your character will succumb to madness, it is unavoidable, the more you learn the sooner it happens. So in fact, there is no way to ever prevail against the darkness, it will get you...

Yes, it will get you and that is the heroic sacrifice. CoC "heroes" put themselves in harm's way to protect something greater than themselves. If you save just one innocent little child from the slobbering horrors, you have "won"...even (and perhaps especially) at the cost of your own sanity and stability. Some people take that to mean that you are destined to "lose" because your character will pay the ultimate price. I say, that's what makes a hero. Players in my CoC games "win" all the time. They win by making a difference for others at the cost of themselves. It's not for glory, wealth or power. It's because it is the right thing to do.

I run a modern horror game. I know how it works. they have a chance to win. Just me but I prefer a game with a positive outlook other than you will positively go mad.

Ask my players, I'm an optimist through and through and I'm all about heroics and a positive game. I don't run non-heroic games. I don't run games where the players choices don't matter or they can't make a difference. Those things are not mutually exclusive with CoC. It's just a matter of scope. In a game like D&D, character have "big victories" like slaying armies, banishing hordes of demons and dethroning evil despots. CoC is about "little victories", the kind that might never be known or understood by anyone other than the party, but they are still victories.

The very first Star Wars campaign that I ever ran ended with the PC and his entire group of allies facing a "suicide mission" head-on. They knew it was suicide, but someone needed to do it, and they were the only ones with the courage to volunteer...and they all died...but even in death, they made a difference to the overall scope of that final battle. Because of their sacrifice, the mission was successful and my player was bleeding enthusiasm over how it all ended. He was stoked. One of the most satisfying games I ever ran.

My 2 SAN.

[Mindbomb]

I actually love the taint system from Heros of Horror for D&D 3.5. I think mixing the visual and mental aspects together was a fun twist on the whole scenario.

[trechriron]

I actually love the taint system from Heros of Horror for D&D 3.5. I think mixing the visual and mental aspects together was a fun twist on the whole scenario.

I need to check that out!

[Grumpy Old Man]

I don't care what system is in play. If the DM is nuts enough to think going insane is going to bother me as a player or my characters self esteem I am willing to go along with it. After awhile they stop doing that to me.

[Engineer Doramos]

I like insanity in a game with the right genre and when players are ready for the idea. I use my own insanity rules, which provide for a gradual drift into a choice of different madnesses, if they're not careful with their actions, but the genre is science fiction. I don't use it to punish characters or knock down their self esteem but because of the cool times I have had as a player and a dm with other system insanity rules. I also have psychic and holy abilities that can ease insanity, and of course there is psychology, and events which remove some of it.

I loved my Call of Cthulhu characters who went insane, one became an NPC in an asylum with tons of spellcasting power that a later character of mine visited with the main group. And I actually was motivated to retire another character from adventuring before he totally lost his mind for role-play purposes. That was all my choice, it suprised the Ref. Then, there was the one character in a game of my own creation who rolled up an insanity with my old insanity system that caused his character to become more and more sociopathic. It was cool to see how he played it, and since there was a person in the group who was playing an evil character, they formed a little consipracy. But that was a good role-play group, I don't think the same setup would work as well for people who don't get into the story as much.

I've also seen players that hate insanity rules and fear as well, saying it was stupid. I respect their stance that they don't want to play a game where they lose control. If you don't like something, you don't like it. I think its a matter of perspective where you choose to look at why you are playing the game. Is it for a deep sense of story and rewarding character development, or is it to delve into a fantasy world where you feel empowered and fun. I personally think you can mix the two.

Of course, you can't have every game be like Call of Cthulhu in regards to insanity. That system is designed for that specific experience. If you're not playing CoC to be like a Lovecraftian character, you are playing a different game, and the insanity rules might not seem as cool. That's why my insanity system is more toned down.

DnD 1st edition had insanity rules in the orginal DMG but that was pretty much unplayable ... You could get dementia praecox or catatonia haha.