demonology 101

[Sidhain]

Of course one should consider--Who are Horror novels written to scare?

Most Horror novels intent--is to scare  the reader.

You can't create an actual emotional response in a fictional creation.

Fear in fiction is only a mechanical action that is guised as emotional response, (a simulation of sorts) or  alternatly a construction designed to create a  sympathetic/empathetic reaction within the reader.  Fear in an RPG should also be addressed as "Who is meant to be scared"

If it's just the character--arguably, it's not a Horror RPG at all, it may have dark/"occult"/mysterious elements--but without that identification of Player(Reader) and Character your not touching the elements that /make/ horror a distinct genre.

[hardcoremoose]

I'm not sure this thread is going anywhere, but being the horror maven that I am, I can't help but to respond.

Sidhain makes some very good points.  If all you're interested in is a fantasy game with the trappings of a horror story, then by all means, stick with your spooky setting, creepy voices, freakish monsters, and all the rest of the parlor tricks.  But don't expect it to be scary.  These are largely the same things that horror films and literature have repeated for decades, with little to no success.  Their failure is twofold:

1) They always aim for the lowest common denominator among their audience (meaning they don't go far enough).

2) They lack a basic level of interactivity.

This last is especially important, because rpgs have it.  They can be totally interactive.  Sadly, much of what I have read here places far too much emphasis on GMing techniques, as if the vaunted title of GM conveys some automatic understanding of how to suck players into the game and make them care.  It's both presumptuous and misguided to believe that anyone will know exactly what buttons to push to get someone else to react in a specific, desired way.  Oh, sometimes you get lucky - there are some things that most people react to in a nearly universal fashion - and maybe some of you are just that damn insightful, but for most of us it's like flailing around blindly in the dark, hoping to hit a target.  Filmmakers and authors have to do this because they can't speak to each individual member of their audience, see what makes them tick, and then cater the experience specifically to them.  A GM, however, can.

Horror rpgs are easy.  Instead of spending time and energy trying to get the players to care about your creation, let them do some of the work.  Let them create some stuff, like NPCs; by doing so they are saying "this is what I find interesting...this is what I care about."  Then fuck with that stuff.  Or better yet, make them fuck with it.

These aren't new thoughts.  I've said them before.  I just don't think they're being said enough.

Take care,
Scott

[Sidhain]

Well Scott, I would agree. Except most the players I've had in every game are the sort who literally hand the reigns to me and say "Please lead us" literally asking me to create the entire effect myself. I've been very succussful in doing that in Horror games with many compliments by my players ("Woe I didn't expect that, can we play again?" "Er your all dead..." "So we like this game, we'll play new characters in this same world...")

It's fundamentally the "Entertain ME!" style of play that draws a lot of people to television, video-games.  I as a PLAYER prefer to have some control/input into the game, and willingly offer the same when I'm GM but most people don't take me up on it.

Most  people I've gamed with  think that's the job of the GM.

I'm not opposed to it...(Interestingly enough I ran a game for my nephew and niece once--13 and 9 respectivly, and my niece at 9 wanted that kind of input...never having played an RPG before) so with hope the next generations of gamers will get it *L*

[Jared A. Sorensen]

If it's just the character--arguably, it's not a Horror RPG at all, it may have dark/"occult"/mysterious elements--but without that identification of Player(Reader) and Character your not touching the elements that /make/ horror a distinct genre.

If the character is a good one (and the game mechanics can either help or hinder the process of creating a "good" character), then whatever scares that character will scare you. Unless you're a sociopath, I guess.

If I go to see Arachnaphobia or Eight-Legged Freaks, I will be scared. (duh, I'm arachnaphobic...I'll be under the fucking seat drenched in cold sweat). But that trick only works if you're afraid of spiders. If some squeamish person goes to see Resident Evil, they'll be scared. Because there are zombies munching human bodies in it. It's gross! If you go see SCREAM, you might be scared by all the sudden "jump scares" and loud noises. But that's just a basic human response to shock.

A really effective horror movie gets under your skin because you can empathize with the frightened characters. Their fear becomes your fear. Just like a good character's joy will become your joy, their grief will become your grief.

- J

Hitchcock said shock is a bomb suddenly going off under your chair. But suspense is just knowing the bomb is under your chair.

[hardcoremoose]

Sidhain,

I know where you're coming from.  Those kinds of players exist, and I'm not here to say that everyone has to embrace authorial/directorial power.  Dowon in my Player Investment thread, I suggest that there are lots of ways for players to communicate their interests tot he GM, and that attentive GMs will pick up on this stuff and incorporate into the game.  The job is made more difficult for the GM of horror game though, for while a player may readily communicate about the things he thinks are "cool", he's less likely to be up front about what makes him nervous or uncomfortable.  This is where a well designed game wills tep in and ask the players those questions directly, and I don't see too many of those sorts of games around.


J-

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think the connection between character fright and player fright are necessary.  Indeed, I have a preference for games where the character is a source (or the of fright for the player (like in The Whispering Vault).  That's just me, though.

And in reference to the Hitchcock quote, you should ask Paul about his cool "Bomb under the Desk" game mechanic. It's the coolest suspense-based game mechanic I think I've ever seen (again, that's just me).

- Scott

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think the connection between character fright and player fright are necessary.  Indeed, I have a preference for games where the character is a source (or the of fright for the player (like in The Whispering Vault).  That's just me, though.

And in reference to the Hitchcock quote, you should ask Paul about his cool "Bomb under the Desk" game mechanic. It's the coolest suspense-based game mechanic I think I've ever seen (again, that's just me).

Scott, yes. WV is a great example of a horror game where the point is explicitly NOT for the GM to squick the players. It's for the characters to be the scary things frightening the players.

And Paul? Dish on this bomb thing!

[Paul Czege]

And Paul? Dish on this bomb thing!

Scott, you leak like a colander!

Okay...you've got a target number and a ten-sided die. Roll equal-to or under the target number for success. If you aren't successful you can give yourself a re-roll by attaching a consequence to one of the numbers above your target number. If you roll that number on your re-roll, you get the consequence. If you rolled another failure, you can give yourself another re-roll by attaching a more extreme consequence to one of the remaining numbers above your target number. And so on, and so on, until you decide to settle for failure, roll a success, or a consequence. Say your target number is five and it's gone so far that you've attached a full five consequences above it, so you're down to your last re-roll and the consequence you just attached is the grisly death of your character. Your subsequent die roll is still characterized by suspense, nail-biting suspense, because even on a failure there's hope to squeak by with a minor consequence.

Paul