Systems for Hunting the Supernatural

[Quertus]

So, I was wondering if there were systems other than Hunter the… Reckoning(?) that involve playing as someone who hunts things that go bump in the night (EDIT: in a vaguely modern setting). My search turned up "Supernatural", which sounded like that was its thing.

So, had anyone played either of these systems, and want to provide feedback on how they fare? Any other systems anyone wants to recommend (for our against)?

[Thrawn4]

So, I was wondering if there were systems other than Hunter the… Reckoning(?) that involve playing as someone who hunts things that go bump in the night. My search turned up "Supernatural", which sounded like that was its thing.

So, had anyone played either of these systems, and want to provide feedback on how they fare? Any other systems anyone wants to recommend (for our against)?

Well, does it have to be about actively seeking out evil? How about surviving and eventually having a chance of surviving? Because in that case "Don't Rest Your Head" might be of interest to you. Haven't played it yet, but the manual is a pleasure to read.

Of course, there are also the Cthulhu systems. I think there is also a military supplement (checked: Delta Green) if you want to crank up the battles.

[Corneel]

There seems to be a Witcher TTRPG. Might be worth looking into.

[Arbane]

A game about hunting monsters? There's some indie game about dungeons and dragons I remember hearing about that involves fighting monsters....

Monster of the Week and Buffy the Vampire Slayer game come to mind.

Call of Cthulhu. Yes, really. Not everything in it is an insta-TPK.

Savage Worlds's Deadlands and Rippers work if you don't mind them being set in the 1800s.

[Quertus]

A game about hunting monsters? There's some indie game about dungeons and dragons I remember hearing about that involves fighting monsters....

Lol. I suppose D&D largely qualifies (although it also has animals, beasts, and vermin, let alone humanoids, that don't seem terribly supernatural). I should update the OP to indicate that, yes, I mean something vaguely modern. Sadly, that means ShadowRun or (scarily enough) CP2020 might be closer than D&D.

Of course, there are also the Cthulhu systems. I think there is also a military supplement (checked: Delta Green) if you want to crank up the battles.

Call of Cthulhu. Yes, really. Not everything in it is an insta-TPK.

So, CoC… has too much of a sci-fi vibe to its underpinnings for what I'm looking for. Playing in ignorance, it feels supernatural, but it's way too "space aliens" for what I want.

Well, does it have to be about actively seeking out evil? How about surviving and eventually having a chance of surviving? Because in that case "Don't Rest Your Head" might be of interest to you. Haven't played it yet, but the manual is a pleasure to read.

There seems to be a Witcher TTRPG. Might be worth looking into.

Monster of the Week and Buffy the Vampire Slayer game come to mind.

Savage Worlds's Deadlands and Rippers work if you don't mind them being set in the 1800s.

OK, so Don't Rest Your Head, Witcher, Monster of the Week and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Savage Worlds's Deadlands and Rippers, on to of Hunter and Supernatural? That's quite the list. Anyone have any experience with any of these 8 systems?

[Feddlefew]

What kind of monster hunt do you want?

Monster of the Week is more about the investigation of the monster, learning it's weaknesses and fending off attacks until the PCs can engineer a situation where they can defeat it. But if your players want to focus on combat this really isn't the system for it.

I'd personally recommend against using Don't Rest Your Head for this. It's a survival horror system that follows genera conventions more along the lines of Silent Hill or The Evil Within than The Witcher or Supernatural.

Edit: Word of Caution- Monster of the Week is a Powered By the Apocalypse system, so once the scenario is introduced the GM is entirely reactive. The GM does not roll dice. Instead they have a list of moves they can use in response to the PC's actions. It takes a little getting used to.

[Eldan]

The Dresden Files (and especially Dresden Files Accelerated, the second edition) is a FATE system for modern urban fantasy. Should work pretty well and ingame, has a few organisations of mostly mortals or mortals-ish who hunt the supernatural, like the Fellowship of St. Giles (they hunt vampires in mostly South America) or the Venatori Umbrorum (demons and lovecraftian horrors).

[Kardwill]

The Dresden Files (and especially Dresden Files Accelerated, the second edition) is a FATE system for modern urban fantasy. Should work pretty well and ingame, has a few organisations of mostly mortals or mortals-ish who hunt the supernatural, like the Fellowship of St. Giles (they hunt vampires in mostly South America) or the Venatori Umbrorum (demons and lovecraftian horrors).

And in DFA, the pure mortal archetypes (the bookworm who knows too much, the cop, the rich guy, the monster hunter...) recieved some love and are now perfectly valid characters, with their own sets of "powers" and trouble. I always felt that the mortals were treated as second rate characters in the crunchier DFRPG ("Here, have 2 more points to buy boring feats instead of the awesome powers that petty much everybody else has.")

[Eldan]

Religious characters, if they are true believers, are pretty darn powerful, though.

[Pelle]

So, CoC… has too much of a sci-fi vibe to its underpinnings for what I'm looking for. Playing in ignorance, it feels supernatural, but it's way too "space aliens" for what I want.

It comes with rules for traditional gothic horror monsters like vampires and ghosts, that you can use instead of the space aliens if you want to throw them out. But the game is more based on the assumption that you will run away from the monsters (or blow them up with dynamite), than hunting them directly...

[Thinker]

For monster hunting games, I have the most experience with Monster of the Week and Delta Green.

Monster of the Week
Monster of the Week is a Powered by the Apocalypse game where people hunt monsters in the vein of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Supernatural, or The X-Files. Powered by the Apocalypse means that the system is based on the Apocalypse World engine. The GM comes up with a situation involving a monster and comes up with what will happen if no one gets involved to stop the monster along with some locations, bystanders, and traits for the monster itself like its motivation, its weakness, minions, and any special abilities that the monster may have. The idea is to make it easy for the GM to improvise and build on their prep during the game.

Gameplay involves the players stating their actions to try to investigate the monster, discover its weaknesses, minimize collateral damage, and put an end to its wicked ways. Players only roll dice when their action invokes a move - for example, a player says "I'm going to try to trick the guard into letting me through by pretending to be an intern. Then, I'll go around back and open the door for everyone else." The GM would call for a Manipulate Someone roll. All rolls are 2d6 plus some rating, Cool, Tough, Charm, Sharp, and Weird, which range from -1 to +3. A 10+ on a roll means that the player was successful and gets what they wanted out of the situation. A 7-9 means that the player was partially successful, doing what they stated, but at some cost, a complication, or the reveal of an unwelcome truth (for example, the guard lets you through, but as you are walking down the hall you hear a low, guttural growl coming from the custodian's closet). A roll of 6 or lower means that normally the player probably doesn't do what s/he set out to do AND there's some sort of complication or cost or maybe even direct danger to the player.

You can think of the roll as determining who controls the narrative outcome. On a 10+, the player controls what happened so s/he gets everything that she wanted. On a 7-9, it's a mix - the player and the GM split the narrative control with the player doing what s/he set out to do (though, not necessarily what s/he wanted) and the GM introduces something bad. On a 6 or lower, everything is up to the GM. The catch is that everything has to fit logically into the game's fiction so far. The GM can't say, "The monster leaps out of the darkness and shreds Lenny with a single, vicious attack" when the characters are walking around in daylight and they've already learned that the monster uses mind-control, not shredding. Similarly, just because a player rolls a 10+, that doesn't mean that s/he gets to fly through the air and drop the monster from a thousand feet in the air just because it would be cool.

Difficulty is adjudicated by the GM deciding on how risky the situation is and how effective the character's actions would be in the situation as it has been described. An outcome would be worse if the player is in a worse situation. If the player is trapped in a building surrounded by werewolves and tries, but fails, to leap out a window and into a nearby tree, the penalties might include the player falling out the window and into their midst, having a werewolf burst through the window just as s/he is about to make the leap, or even have a werewolf start climbing the tree. On the other hand, failing to talk your way past a guard might only involve you being kicked out of the building. Effectiveness is similar. If the player is surrounded by werewolves, no matter how good a roll s/he makes, she can't say "I shoot all of them with silver bullets and get away unharmed." At best, she might shoot one or two, but then have the rest of them close in to start to tear her apart. In my experience, players often weigh in on how risky they think a situation is or how effective their actions are.

The players have playbooks, which are basically character classes, that define their moves. Moves are the triggers for when rolls happen and will unlock new options for players. A player can say that she really hates werewolves, but unless she's playing The Wronged, she won't get any special bonuses when fighting werewolves. All of the playbooks are thematically appropriate and are generally pretty tightly focused on an archetype from monster hunting fiction. Power balance isn't much of an issue since characters don't get that much more powerful; they mainly just get more options. There are also general moves that all players have access to that trigger their rolls. Similarly, the GM has their own moves that dictate what the GM can do in the game and are pretty handy to refer to when you're not sure what to do next.

I like Monster of the Week and have played a few campaigns of it with my RPG group. It's rules light enough not to have a lot to remember, but has enough versatility that I have been able to use it for Weird West monster hunting and modern day monster hunting without very much difficulty.

Delta Green
Delta Green is a Basic Roleplaying System (BRP) game that has a lineage in Call of Cthulhu. It is a modern day game about members of a shadowy government organization that investigates supernatural sightings and contains them. It was originally a setting for Call of Cthulhu, but a few years ago received a full release as its own standalone game. It leans pretty heavily into the horror of monsters and forbidden knowledge and conspiracy fiction like the X-Files. There was also a release that uses the Gumshoe rules, but I haven't played that one so I will exclude it from this discussion.

Delta Green gameplay is a lot more traditional than Monster of the Week. The GM is encouraged to establish the entire adventure ahead of time, including what clues there are and what they mean. This requires a lot more prep-work, but if the prep is done, can lead to a smoother game than one with heavy improvisation. Players roll d100 to roll under their stat + skill score, modified by difficulty, based on the situation. The game is pretty rules-heavy with skills for just about every action imaginable.

Players are built based on professions (similar to classes). They give access to various skills that will come in handy during the investigation. Fighting the monster is likewise straightforward - hit points, armor, roll-to-hit.

I love the Delta Green setting, but these days I don't have time to learn complex new systems so I didn't have as good an experience with it. I've been considering trying a Monster of the Week game with a Delta Green inspired setting.

[Lord Torath]

Shadowrun could be run that way. There are a number of 'supernatural' critters available, and you could run teams focused on hunting them down.

[Quertus]

Looking over this thread, I've been trying to figure out how to evaluate the various systems, exacerbated by the fact that I'm not sure what I want out of a system.

Spoiled for length.

Spoiler: how do we rate systems?

Show

I'm not sure what I want out of the system. So… what could I want?

Monster breadth: monster of the week

Are there lots of different beasties, to facilitate a "monster of the week" game?

D&D: High. Few games sport such an extensive bestiary.

WoD: Low-Mid. There's a few critter types, but IME they feel kinda samey.

Monster depth: I'm an "X" Hunter

Is there enough depth to a single species that you could make a campaign out of just that creature?

Monster predictability: do monsters follow known weaknesses?

If I try to kill werewolves with silver, or expose vampires to sunlight, will it kill them?

There's no right answer here. This is purely a matter of taste / style.

World of Darkness: Mid. There's a few common weaknesses, and a lot of individual optional weaknesses.

-----

Tactical Combat: is it fun to kill the monster?

D&D: High. D&D works as a war game.

Puzzle Monster: is it fun to kill the monster with its weaknesses?

D&D: Low-Mid. Very few monsters have significant weaknesses, so finding them either isn't interesting, or the game feels frustrating / is too deadly if you don't. Unlike me, most people don't enjoy puzzle monsters in D&D.

CoC: Mid-High. It's nice finally giving the indestructible horror what for. It's the "finally" bit where I wonder if we couldn't do better.

Rich systems / system breadth: is it fun to do stuff that is not killing the monster?

D&D: Low-Mid. D&D has rather limited noncombat systems that are boring to play. On the plus side, depending on edition, it had few to no social rules, so the social minigame is actually engaging.

WoD: Low. It has systems for everything, and those systems are boring.

ZOMG: is it fun to run away from the monster?

D&D: Low. Not only does this feel wrong for most players, but it's also very difficult to successfully evade monsters.

CoC: Mid-High. It definitely feels right, running away from stuff in CoC. But I'm not sure that it's exactly fun.

-----

The Virgin Lives: can you successfully play "normal" people?

Is the system designed such that, if we play ourselves - or our noncombatant, mythology-clueless distant relations - they could actually succeed?

D&D: Low.

Superman vs Godzilla: can you successfully play demigods?

How well does the system support truly powerful beings well above human norms?

D&D: High. Both heroes and monsters scale to literal demigod level.

-----

Fantasy feel: are the monsters integrated into the world?

CoC: Low. They're space aliens.

D&D: High. Mutated humans, magical experiments, created by the gods. Even their space aliens feel fantastic.

Character variance: do different characters feel different?

-----

Then I feel like I should add things for how easy the game is to play, how much replay value it has, how much the system fights certain moods, viability of homebrew, etc.

And pain points, like how you're always playing the same character traits (guy who goes bonkers when he realizes we aren't the center of the universe, pyrophobe, etc) in certain systems.

[Morty]

Hunter: the Vigil is the new WoD/Chronicles of Darkness version of Reckoning and more or less what Reckoning should have been. Which is to say, mortal humans fighting the supernatural, not people with angels plugging into their heads.

[BWR]

The Laundry, based on Charlie Stross' Laundry Files books, is basically the convergent evolutionary twin of Delta Green. Except that math is literally magic, the good guys are most definitely not nice, and the world is ending, and your worst enemy is the boss who gets at you for not doing your paperwork properly.
Sort of like "Yes minister" meets Delta Green. It also runs on BRP. And I would check out the books, because they are excellent.

[Telok]

While a lot of the more famous and currently in vogue Call of Cthulhu monsters have a "space alien" vibe it's not exclusive and you don't have to use them. I've read CoC scenarios that were straight ghost, zombie, mummy, witch, stories. Just don't use the "space alien" monsters and it's fine.

[Thinker]

Looking over this thread, I've been trying to figure out how to evaluate the various systems, exacerbated by the fact that I'm not sure what I want out of a system.

Spoiled for length.

Let me try to answer your ratings for Monster of the Week.

Spoiler: MotW Ratings

Show

Monster breadth - Are there lots of different beasties, to facilitate a "monster of the week" game?

Low-Mid. There are a few monsters in the game book, but it focuses more on telling you how to create your own beasties. There are a few stock monsters in the game-book, but the game tells you how to come up with monsters rather than providing a repository for you to use. I'm sure you could find a beastiary on the Internet though if you were interested in running this game. The focus on monsters is their type - Beast, Breeder, Collector, Destroyer, Devourer, Executioner, Parasite, Queen, Sorcerer, Tempter, Torturer, and Trickster. Each type has a motivation, which more or less tells you how to play the monster. Monsters are made unique by the special powers you give them, their attacks, whether or not they have armor, and their weakness. The GM prep for the game lies mostly in coming up with new monsters.

Monster depth: I'm an "X" Hunter - Is there enough depth to a single species that you could make a campaign out of just that creature?
Yes. First off, there is a class that is called "The Wronged", which is built entirely around the concept of tracking down and destroying a single type of creature. To keep it interesting, I would suggest giving new types to new encounters with variations on the same creature. For example, you might have a vampire that is a Beast - it's gone feral and no longer cares about hiding itself and just wants to destroy and kill. The next one might be a Queen - it wants to control things from the shadows. After that, they encounter a Sorcerer who seeks to unlock the arcane power of the ancient vampire god. Give them all similar powers and weaknesses and you've got a whole game or at least a story arc focused on a single breed of monsters.

Monster predictability: do monsters follow known weaknesses?
This depends on the GM. The GM should come up with appropriate weaknesses when making the monsters.


Tactical Combat: is it fun to kill the monster?

Monster of the Week (like all PbtA games) does not focus on tactical combat. The GM tracks how dangerous the situation is and adjudicates results based on that. You can come up with tactical scenarios, but the game is light on specific combat rules and modifiers. The game does assume that you're going to be fighting the monster and that's pretty much always the climax of the game. It's fun, just not tactical.

Puzzle Monster: is it fun to kill the monster with its weaknesses?

The only way to fully defeat the monster is to use its weakness against it. Otherwise if the monster loses a fight it, it is assumed that it escaped, resurrected, and so on.

Rich systems / system breadth: is it fun to do stuff that is not killing the monster?

Low to Mid. There's a lot of focus on the investigation and the game assumes that at least some of the characters are semi-competent. Instead of trying to uncover clues, investigation is about the players asking questions when they're at relevant locations. There aren't really any subsystems and everything runs the same way.

ZOMG: is it fun to run away from the monster?

This depends on the monster and the situation. I've had players stand and fight while others have fled to escape. Because the consequences always depend on the fictional position, there's no blanket answer for whether or not to flee. It also depends on the monster's abilities and weaknesses. If a monster is stronger at night, the players should probably flee. Whether or not it is fun may vary depending on the player.

-----

The Virgin Lives: can you successfully play "normal" people?

Yes. There is a class called The Mundane who plays a bit like Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They get lost, get into trouble, etc. Rescuing The Mundane grants XP to both the Mundane and the rescuer, rewarding them for playing to type. That's not to say that the Mundane should stay out of the fight - they're just worst at it than some of the other characters. Most of the classes stick to normal human limitations.

Superman vs Godzilla: can you successfully play demigods?

Varies. Some of the classes scale to demigod level - The Chosen (like a Slayer from Buffy), The Monstrous (a redeemed monster), The Spooky (a possessed person who can tap into their power), The Spell Slinger (a wizard), and The Divine (an angel of sorts) all have higher than human powers. I'd say none of them approach DnD epicness, but all of them scale to be well above what you would expect from a human.

-----

Fantasy feel: are the monsters integrated into the world?

Up to the GM. For most settings, no - players seem to like having a Veil of sorts that keeps most people unaware of the supernatural. But, it's your game so it can be up to you.

Character variance: do different characters feel different?
Absolutely. You're limited to one player for each class. While the core mechanic is the same for everyone (2d6 + Stat), they all have a treasure trove of unique abilities. And they tend to work well together even with varying power levels.

Ease of Play:
This is one of the main selling points of the game. It's pretty easy to pick up and play. If you know the core rule, the only other things to remember are the basic moves and your own character's moves.

Replay Value:
This varies by GM. If you can come up with enough different story arcs, it is easier to play long-term.

Viability of homebrew:
Very high. The game relies on the GM to make up the monsters.

Pain Points:
If you're not good at improvising, the game probably isn't for you. Then again, if you're trying to get better at improvising, the game has a ton of advice for how to make that easier.

[ErdrickOfAliaha]

So we're talking about hunting the supernatural and no one mentioned the Monster Hunter International setting for Savage Worlds?

Cons first: characters with a pronounced lack of investment in a skill are sometimes/often surprisingly good at said skill thanks to exploding dice; ranged combat is far easier for the attacker than melee; shotguns at very close range are realistically devatating.

Pros: system makes giving the PCs allies easy because PCs are in charge of them for combat; initiative is NOT dice based, you use playing cards; simple injury and death mechanics.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are, like, bajillions of urban fantasy/horror type systems. Rather than just throw out our favorites, what kind of stuff are you looking for in a system beyond "fight monsters in the modern day?" Like, how much rules complexity, where you'd like to be on the narrative-vs-simulationist spectrum, what kind of power levels you'd like players to have, mechanical quirks that drive you crazy, and so on.

[Mutazoia]

Wow...nobody's mentioned "Ghostbusters" yet?

[Lord Torath]

Let me try to answer your ratings for Monster of the Week.
*snip*
Pain Points:
If you're not good at improving, the game probably isn't for you. Then again, if you're trying to get better at improving, the game has a ton of advice for how to make that easier.

Did you mean "improvising" there, instead of "improving"?

[Sutekh]

Beyond the Supernatural by Palladium fits the bill as well.

[Quertus]

There are, like, bajillions of urban fantasy/horror type systems. Rather than just throw out our favorites, what kind of stuff are you looking for in a system beyond "fight monsters in the modern day?" Like, how much rules complexity, where you'd like to be on the narrative-vs-simulationist spectrum, what kind of power levels you'd like players to have, mechanical quirks that drive you crazy, and so on.

As I babbled (I think in a spoiler), I'm not actually sure what I'm looking for. I hadn't realized I'd be spoiled for choice. So now I'm trying to at least glance at some of these many choices (thanks, Playground!), to see if I can lay out some better criteria. Hopefully I'll make another pass at that in a few days.

[Thinker]

Did you mean "improvising" there, instead of "improving"?

Yes. Thanks for the catch. As I was typing, I was thinking improv-ing, as in to improv. Which I realize now is much more confusing than just typing improvising. I'll fix it now.

[Pelle]

Isn't there a Witcher rpg? Haven't seen it, but the source material protagonist is a monster hunter after all.

[Feddlefew]

As I babbled (I think in a spoiler), I'm not actually sure what I'm looking for. I hadn't realized I'd be spoiled for choice. So now I'm trying to at least glance at some of these many choices (thanks, Playground!), to see if I can lay out some better criteria. Hopefully I'll make another pass at that in a few days.

Have you asked your players what kind of game they want? If you can narrow it down by determining how crunchy and how combat focused they're in the mood for, you should be able to cut the number of systems you'll be researching down significantly.

[Quertus]

Have you asked your players what kind of game they want? If you can narrow it down by determining how crunchy and how combat focused they're in the mood for, you should be able to cut the number of systems you'll be researching down significantly.

Let's just say that my target audience - much like most of the groups I've gamed with this century - is uninterested in such conversations, and/or incapable of contributing meaningfully to such conversations.

So I'm struggling to take minimal data, and find something that we won't hate.

That's one nice thing about going the homebrew option - it's much easier to change gears if something isn't working.

[Mordar]

I agree with the not-CoC comments here, based totally on what I think you're (Quertus) wanting. It is perhaps my second favorite RPG of all time and it does have my favorite/the best investigation skill framework and design intent, but I don't think its a good fit here.

If you're willing to go with old/out of print (but still accessible in plenty of ways)/rebooted games I would recommend the original game intended to portray the Van Helsings of the world protecting mankind by hunting down the terrible creatures of the night...Chill. It was certainly quick to learn and easy to play, presented an array of critters and the capability to make more, and it doesn't carry any of the wrongheaded misconceptions about CoC.

I don't have any experience with the 2015 Growling Door Games version, but the Pacesetter product was good, and the Mayfair revision seemed solid as well.

Good luck!

- M

[Knaight]

InSpectres arguably fits, being essentially a Ghostbusters game. That said the really obvious candidate that hasn't been mentioned yet is Mythender, a game where you end myths. Mostly this involves murdering your way through a pantheon of gods while trying to not accidentally ascend to godhood and be put down yourself, all the while struggling to relate to and stay among the humans you nominally are, seperated from them by the giant piles of divine power you've stolen.

[Quertus]

Turns out, what I really want is… complicated. I want a particular feel - or set of feels - that, to my mind, sound like they should be implemented at the group level, not the system level. But, point is, even for me, I want the system to make things as easy as possible, and certainly not get in the way of doing things a certain way.

So, on to the specifics. And I'll use 3e D&D as a (counter) example.

So, I want a system where you can fight monsters (and where there are monsters that are probably out of your league). D&D can do that.

But I also want players to feel victorious when they beat a monster without combat - when they blow the roof off a group of vampires, or drown a werewolf by flooding the sewers, or free a ghost by bringing its killer to justice. 3e D&D in particular seems to produce players who feel like that's "cheating", like that wasn't a proper "challenge".

Speaking of challenge: one of the problems I have with 3e is that people really complain when you homebrew or (heaven forbid!) change monsters. I want a system with a good supply of creatures, but where I can change or homebrew without ruffling feathers.

I want a system where running away is a viable tactic. And where the subsequent "survival" doesn't feel like "failure".

I am leary of games with social mechanics. But, for this game, it's not a no-sell (in part because I will be GM).

I want a system that makes it easy for players to think outside the box / for GMs to adjudicate such ideas.

In short, when the PCs encounter a monster (or evidence thereof), I want the players to be able to choose to fight, run, talk, investigate, research, defeat with McGuffin weakness, or anything else that they can think of, and for those actions to feel good and be fun, without the system getting in the way.

In 3e, it's easy to make combat feel good, and talking feel good. I want a system which makes any approach to monsters feel good.

I want the players to be able to play characters who are powerful, weak, knowledgeable, ignorant, themselves or not, and not fight the system doing so.