From a thread started by Shark! reply 15

Let's start by defining a few things:

Genre: a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.

Lore: Lore is the background information that enriches your game's story, characters, and setting. Worldbuilding is the act of designing and developing your game's environment, culture, history, and logic. Both are essential for creating immersive and engaging games that draw players in and make them care.

Ergo Genre IS a shorthand for the type of world and the characters (both PC and NPC), adventures, rewards, cultures, etc. in it. While Lore is what the GM establishes as true for the GameWorld prior to starting the campaign and what has transpired since it started.

I live me a kitchen sink Gonzo campaing as much as the next geek, but if you pitch to me a Space Opera and then after we start playing you turn it into Cthulhu in Spaaaaaace! I'm bouncing.

Genre AND Lore are useful shorthands and contribute to the internal consistency of the GameWorld.

Discuss

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 02:34:15 PM
Ergo Genre IS a shorthand for the type of world and the characters (both PC and NPC), adventures, rewards, cultures, etc. in it. While Lore is what the GM establishes as true for the GameWorld prior to starting the campaign and what has transpired since it started.

I live me a kitchen sink Gonzo campaing as much as the next geek, but if you pitch to me a Space Opera and then after we start playing you turn it into Cthulhu in Spaaaaaace! I'm bouncing.

Genre AND Lore are useful shorthands and contribute to the internal consistency of the GameWorld.

There's a difference between internal consistency and external expectations.

It seems to me that what you're talking about is external expectations. It's quite possible to be internally consistent that the PCs don't know anything about Cthulhu at the start of a space opera game. Cthulhu is waiting in the dark until the stars are right, after all. So in some future, mankind starts exploring the stars and they are largely unaware of the horrors.

Likewise, one of your examples was where dragons were only unintelligent beasts - but then the PCs start encountering intelligent dragons. What if intelligent dragons kept themselves hidden on that world, making sure humans didn't know about their intelligence? That's internally consistent.

If there are surprises in store for the PCs, how much do you tell the players about what it is ahead of time? It's common to generally let players know. So, in a Call of Cthulhu game, the players know that they'll be encountering Lovecraftian horrors even though (usually) the PCs don't. How much surprise is acceptable for the players, though? I think it depends on the group, obviously.

I think it's doable to have something like "there's something weird going on, but I won't tell you what" as long as the general tone doesn't changed too much. I think of playing something like Cabin in the Woods, where the players initially think it is a straight horror game but it turns out to be a conspiracy horror game.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2023, 03:27:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 02:34:15 PM
Ergo Genre IS a shorthand for the type of world and the characters (both PC and NPC), adventures, rewards, cultures, etc. in it. While Lore is what the GM establishes as true for the GameWorld prior to starting the campaign and what has transpired since it started.

I live me a kitchen sink Gonzo campaing as much as the next geek, but if you pitch to me a Space Opera and then after we start playing you turn it into Cthulhu in Spaaaaaace! I'm bouncing.

Genre AND Lore are useful shorthands and contribute to the internal consistency of the GameWorld.

There's a difference between internal consistency and external expectations.

It seems to me that what you're talking about is external expectations. It's quite possible to be internally consistent that the PCs don't know anything about Cthulhu at the start of a space opera game. Cthulhu is waiting in the dark until the stars are right, after all. So in some future, mankind starts exploring the stars and they are largely unaware of the horrors.

Likewise, one of your examples was where dragons were only unintelligent beasts - but then the PCs start encountering intelligent dragons. What if intelligent dragons kept themselves hidden on that world, making sure humans didn't know about their intelligence? That's internally consistent.

If there are surprises in store for the PCs, how much do you tell the players about what it is ahead of time? It's common to generally let players know. So, in a Call of Cthulhu game, the players know that they'll be encountering Lovecraftian horrors even though (usually) the PCs don't. How much surprise is acceptable for the players, though? I think it depends on the group, obviously.

I think it's doable to have something like "there's something weird going on, but I won't tell you what" as long as the general tone doesn't changed too much. I think of playing something like Cabin in the Woods, where the players initially think it is a straight horror game but it turns out to be a conspiracy horror game.

You have to be kidding me:

I have mentioned several times (bot here and in the original thread) that if YOU pitch ME a Space Opera game, and then spring on me Cthulhu im bouncing. Agreed that it's a fact I've said that?

Okay, now I am the player, what I know isn't what my PC knows. Agreed?

So, it's quite possible for YOU to pitch me a Gonzo/Weird/Horror/whatever + Space Opera game and for me to agree to that. Which entails me KNOWING (or suspecting) certain things about the Game Wolrd, what it doesn't entail is that my PC knows jack shit about what I know. Agreed?

Now, lets say you pitched me a Hulks & Horrors meets Star Wars game and I said yes, you didn't mention anything else about the campaign. Then AFTER we start playing you suddenly spring on me I don't know, Magical Girls or Toon mechanics being a  thing. I'm bouncing, it's no longer the game I agreed to.

Everytrhing clear so far?

Regarding the Dragons: IF you established that in this world Dragons are just beasts (as a part of the pitch) and then you spring on me intelligent Dragons you're trying to kill the party or are just dumb  IMHO. So I'm bouncing.

You're trying to kill the party BECAUSE the PCs would have prepared to encounter a Beast, a Dragon but with the mind of a beast, which is a different kettle of fish than a smart one.

Notice how I keep saying (both here and in the other thread) SPRING on me?

Because I know damn well it's possible and desirable to insert surprizes for the PCs, but there's a smart and not douchbaggy way to do it and then there's just droping a smart Dragon on the party.

Yes, it's external expectations, as in those of the players (which is what I've been talking all along), BUT those expectations are informed by the Genre AND Lore in your Game World/Campaign.

Now that we have established that the player isn't the PC let's address your "one shots" quip on the other thread:

I find it interesting that YOU seem to think that it's okay to spring anything on the players because it's a one shot, how far does this power extend? Can I have the PCs raped? Graphical Torture? Mind Control?

Once more, I'm not talking about what the PCs know or don't, I'm talking about the players, so we sit to play a Toon one shot and you decide that PCs CAN die but didn't tell anybody before we agreed to the game. Who is the asshole?

Genre, Lore AND System establish the expectations of THE PLAYERS in regards to the campaign, it's a very different thing if I pitch you a Kitchen Sink Gonzo campaign and I have a Castle with sexy vampires commanding an army of nazi vampires, BECAUSE by the nature of the game being Kitchen Sink Gonzo you should expect weird shit to be a thing in the Game World, of course your PC might not know what the fuck he's seeing, and he should react accordingly but YOU should have the expectation that weird stuff IS a thing.

Do you need any more clarification?

I feel I do better with lore than maintaining consistent genre. Part of this is just that depending on who I'm playing with, sometimes folks can be a bit unpredictable or weird in terms of their approach and reactions to things. I feel like character consistency and immersion is part of maintaining a stable genre, and on the flipside the DM has to be able to hold things together at the level of game feel and theming when things take an unexpected turn or under improvisational duress.

I usually have pretty consistent and detailed lore and world, though. (NGL, module and prep heavy play does help me a lot with that.)  I can even for the most part keep them in motion, if I've got them and their main factions detailed enough in motivation and the like. I do sometimes leave things for players to find out that will change the feel of the lore and world, but I also try to telegraph that in advance, and do what I can to make sure things are consistent with what is to be revealed and that players aren't sold  a false bill of goods in any campaign pitch I may have given. That is to say, I may not always tell everything to my players, and sometimes they even encounter information that can be misleading or rumors and the like that are outright false... but I also try to ensure player expectations for the campaign concept writ large are not gonna be a fake-out or a letdown.

So yeah, I'm a little shaky on genre, and that sometimes bites at campaign feel or engagement or immersion. But when it comes to in-game world and lore consistency I do alright. I can indeed confirm that for me at least both feel important, even if I may not always actualize my intent perfectly with them. 

I feel it's important to clearly communicate the kind of game the players can be expecting to play.  If using genre and lore is what works best at your table, then that's the best way for you and it's useful. 

I find it's better to write up a prologue chapter to a story to set the scene most of the time.  I usually describe an event that's taken place and I sprinkle in some world building details to flesh out the story.  Is this using genre and lore?  Maybe.   

Genre is useful in games for the exact same reason it is in in anything else. It's a condensed way of conveying a lot of information in a small number of words. Tell me something is "fantasy" and that could mean anything from Harry Potter to Berserk. Tell me it's "Howardian Sword & Sorcery" or "Reformation-era folk horror" and I have a lot more to go on.

Don't get me wrong. I do think fantasy as a literary genre has suffered from it's tenets becoming too codified, particularly from it getting split off from science fiction. It can and does stifle innovation, but clear(er) terminology is always useful.

Genre is doubly useful in RPGs, because of the requirements of a shared imaginative space. Tabletop games don't have the luxury of visual presentation that videogames, films and comic books have, or the lengthy exposition a prose novel can get away with. Multiple people are imagining the game space at the same time, and there's an advantage to having them all imagine basically the same thing. Genres are a shortcut to facilitate that.

Where genre is more useful in RPGs than in other mediums, I suspect lore is less so. You have to have some of it, for the aforementioned shared imaginative space reasons. I recently tried to start a campaign with no defined setting. I just said "it's D&D world. you all know what that means. As long as something fits in D&D world, it's ok for the game". My players actually petitioned me to pick a published setting to put it in.

That said, a lot of the fun of lore is in going out of your way to discover it, and tabletop roleplaying is generally a very "in the moment" activity. In a single player videogame, you're free to stop playing to read item descriptions or just wander around a level thinking about the history. Less so, when you're playing D&D. Granted, you can go to youtube in between sessions and watch lore videos, just like for any other medium, and maybe that'll feed back into the way you play, but I've found role-players are less likely to do so. Possibly that's because RPGs are more character and goal-oriented, by which I just mean that most players are more interested in their character and what they're trying to do, rather than in the world itself.

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 22, 2023, 08:57:15 PM
Genre is useful in games for the exact same reason it is in in anything else. It's a condensed way of conveying a lot of information in a small number of words. Tell me something is "fantasy" and that could mean anything from Harry Potter to Berserk. Tell me it's "Howardian Sword & Sorcery" or "Reformation-era folk horror" and I have a lot more to go on.

Don't get me wrong. I do think fantasy as a literary genre has suffered from it's tenets becoming too codified, particularly from it getting split off from science fiction. It can and does stifle innovation, but clear(er) terminology is always useful.

Genre is doubly useful in RPGs, because of the requirements of a shared imaginative space. Tabletop games don't have the luxury of visual presentation that videogames, films and comic books have, or the lengthy exposition a prose novel can get away with. Multiple people are imagining the game space at the same time, and there's an advantage to having them all imagine basically the same thing. Genres are a shortcut to facilitate that.

Where genre is more useful in RPGs than in other mediums, I suspect lore is less so. You have to have some of it, for the aforementioned shared imaginative space reasons. I recently tried to start a campaign with no defined setting. I just said "it's D&D world. you all know what that means. As long as something fits in D&D world, it's ok for the game". My players actually petitioned me to pick a published setting to put it in.

That said, a lot of the fun of lore is in going out of your way to discover it, and tabletop roleplaying is generally a very "in the moment" activity. In a single player videogame, you're free to stop playing to read item descriptions or just wander around a level thinking about the history. Less so, when you're playing D&D. Granted, you can go to youtube in between sessions and watch lore videos, just like for any other medium, and maybe that'll feed back into the way you play, but I've found role-players are less likely to do so. Possibly that's because RPGs are more character and goal-oriented, by which I just mean that most players are more interested in their character and what they're trying to do, rather than in the world itself.

When it comes to D&D or similar games, I ALWAYS choose a modified Greyhawk, meaning some monsters are more/less rare, some PC races are/aren't available, some spells may not exist, some magic schools might be outlawed. Of course whatever you knew about the geography might be incredible different from what it's actually there.

That's MY starting point, from there I tailor the world to fit the idea I have in my head.

After that's done then I pitch it as a High/Low Fantasy Greyhawk-ish campaign and pick a world map that isn't Greyhawk (most of the time).

But then I hate with a passion threading the same terrain over and over, so I make it fresh for me and my players, if I'm importing monsters from a different setting (let's say Dark Sun) I'll inform them in the pitch I'm doing so, not which ones or from where.

When I said Lore I meant the one I as the GM make BEFORE the campaign starts or what's established as true by the actions of the players (say they accidentally killed a major BBG without knowing), well now that's part of the history/lore of the game world.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 04:21:50 PM
Notice how I keep saying (both here and in the other thread) SPRING on me?

Because I know damn well it's possible and desirable to insert surprizes for the PCs, but there's a smart and not douchbaggy way to do it and then there's just droping a smart Dragon on the party.

Yes, it's external expectations, as in those of the players (which is what I've been talking all along), BUT those expectations are informed by the Genre AND Lore in your Game World/Campaign.

I agree that there are bad ways of doing surprises and good ways of doing surprises. The good way is to take into account whether the players will enjoy it. If so, it's good.

What I'm saying is that not everything has to be fixed in stone from the beginning. A campaign can shift direction as long as the GM and players are willing to buy into it. This means that everyone should have fun with it, but I think it's pretty easy to do a check-in with players and see how they feel about the change. If they don't like it, then it can be changed. This is related to the topic I started under

Fun with Transforming PCs

Point being, players can start playing a PC - but then not mind if they change, or even *want* their PC to majorly change. They might like it if the campaign takes a new direction. For example, the DM might introduce a whole new part of the setting - like a Hollow Earth in a pulp campaign, or an underworld with evil elves (when previously elves were established as good) that no one previously knew about, or a secret order of intelligent dragons (when previously dragons were thought to all be beasts).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 04:21:50 PM
Now that we have established that the player isn't the PC let's address your "one shots" quip on the other thread:

I find it interesting that YOU seem to think that it's okay to spring anything on the players because it's a one shot, how far does this power extend? Can I have the PCs raped? Graphical Torture? Mind Control?

Once more, I'm not talking about what the PCs know or don't, I'm talking about the players, so we sit to play a Toon one shot and you decide that PCs CAN die but didn't tell anybody before we agreed to the game. Who is the asshole?

This seems to be miscommunication. In the other thread, I was talking about "gonzo" games that use very disparate elements -- using the examples of Paranoia, Macho Women With Guns, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, and others. In these games, it's accepted that one can have things like time-traveling nazis. As an example - my one-shot adventure "Bill & Ted's Heinous Mission" for Paranoia.

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/billandted/

Gonzo elements can be a surprise, but they aren't necessarily a surprise (i.e. in Bill & Ted's, they're known). Further, a surprise doesn't necessarily involve gonzo elements. My rules about gonzo don't necessarily apply to all twists/surprises.

For surprise twists in one-shot games, I can think of:

1) I signed up to play a diceless game where the only thing we knew was that we were playing important people in the world when China literally vanished from the Earth. The surprise was that it turned out that we were all characters in a massive computer simulation.

2) I GMed two one-shot games along the lines of retro "Agents of SHIELD" in the 1950s, supposedly reining in "mad science" - but my twist was that all of the "mad science" were dramatized versions of real scientific breakthroughs. So, they had to stop the inventor of the defibrillator from his Frankensteinian bringing back dead people, for example.

Surprises in a game can be fun in my experience. Obviously it's possible to suggest un-fun surprises ("Rocks fall everybody dies"), but that doesn't invalidate the concept.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 02:34:15 PM
if you pitch to me a Space Opera and then after we start playing you turn it into Cthulhu in Spaaaaaace! I'm bouncing.

That is how a proper Cthulhu campaign that is faithful to the feel of the books should go. The players shouldn't be prepared for cosmic horror. Having said that it is a game and I get your point.

Quote from: jhkim on September 23, 2023, 03:11:18 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 04:21:50 PM
Notice how I keep saying (both here and in the other thread) SPRING on me?

Because I know damn well it's possible and desirable to insert surprizes for the PCs, but there's a smart and not douchbaggy way to do it and then there's just droping a smart Dragon on the party.

Yes, it's external expectations, as in those of the players (which is what I've been talking all along), BUT those expectations are informed by the Genre AND Lore in your Game World/Campaign.

I agree that there are bad ways of doing surprises and good ways of doing surprises. The good way is to take into account whether the players will enjoy it. If so, it's good.

What I'm saying is that not everything has to be fixed in stone from the beginning. A campaign can shift direction as long as the GM and players are willing to buy into it. This means that everyone should have fun with it, but I think it's pretty easy to do a check-in with players and see how they feel about the change. If they don't like it, then it can be changed. This is related to the topic I started under

Fun with Transforming PCs

Point being, players can start playing a PC - but then not mind if they change, or even *want* their PC to majorly change. They might like it if the campaign takes a new direction. For example, the DM might introduce a whole new part of the setting - like a Hollow Earth in a pulp campaign, or an underworld with evil elves (when previously elves were established as good) that no one previously knew about, or a secret order of intelligent dragons (when previously dragons were thought to all be beasts).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 04:21:50 PM
Now that we have established that the player isn't the PC let's address your "one shots" quip on the other thread:

I find it interesting that YOU seem to think that it's okay to spring anything on the players because it's a one shot, how far does this power extend? Can I have the PCs raped? Graphical Torture? Mind Control?

Once more, I'm not talking about what the PCs know or don't, I'm talking about the players, so we sit to play a Toon one shot and you decide that PCs CAN die but didn't tell anybody before we agreed to the game. Who is the asshole?

This seems to be miscommunication. In the other thread, I was talking about "gonzo" games that use very disparate elements -- using the examples of Paranoia, Macho Women With Guns, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, and others. In these games, it's accepted that one can have things like time-traveling nazis. As an example - my one-shot adventure "Bill & Ted's Heinous Mission" for Paranoia.

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/billandted/

Gonzo elements can be a surprise, but they aren't necessarily a surprise (i.e. in Bill & Ted's, they're known). Further, a surprise doesn't necessarily involve gonzo elements. My rules about gonzo don't necessarily apply to all twists/surprises.

For surprise twists in one-shot games, I can think of:

1) I signed up to play a diceless game where the only thing we knew was that we were playing important people in the world when China literally vanished from the Earth. The surprise was that it turned out that we were all characters in a massive computer simulation.

2) I GMed two one-shot games along the lines of retro "Agents of SHIELD" in the 1950s, supposedly reining in "mad science" - but my twist was that all of the "mad science" were dramatized versions of real scientific breakthroughs. So, they had to stop the inventor of the defibrillator from his Frankensteinian bringing back dead people, for example.

Surprises in a game can be fun in my experience. Obviously it's possible to suggest un-fun surprises ("Rocks fall everybody dies"), but that doesn't invalidate the concept.

If you make a change and then need to check with your players you're either playing with children/immature people or you're very bad at GMing.

Let me explain things AGAIN, since you seem intent on missunderstanding:

A Pulp campaign... Introducing hollow earth isn't a surprize to the players (unless they are too young and/or culturally stunted

A Fantasy campaign... Introducing Drow isn't a surprize to the players (unless they are too young and/or culturally stunted.

Introducing smart Dragons when they have been established as beasts... It can be done in two broad ways: You just drop (spring on the players if you will) one on the party or you give them hints and clues BEFORE they face one if they choose to do so. The first one is something ONLY an asshole GM would do.

Gonzo is Gonzo, everything goes (almost).

Your anecdotes are irrelevant.

Now adress my points or don't.

Quote from: Ruprecht on September 23, 2023, 10:07:47 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2023, 02:34:15 PM
if you pitch to me a Space Opera and then after we start playing you turn it into Cthulhu in Spaaaaaace! I'm bouncing.

That is how a proper Cthulhu campaign that is faithful to the feel of the books should go. The players shouldn't be prepared for cosmic horror. Having said that it is a game and I get your point.

I beg to differ: The PCs shouldn't be prepared at the start of the cosmic horror thing. The Players that sign up for a Space Opera game are in their right (and IMNSHO should) to leave the campaign and tell the GM to go fuck himself.

Let's use an example we all know:

The players sign up for a Fantasy campaign, then in the first megadungeon the party goes to you designed it to be like Tomb of Horrors (without ANY warning that you might do such a thing), even if it doesn't ends up in a TPK.

IMNSHO there's no difference in springing certain things on your players to the "Rocks fall everybody dies" GM.

Again: I sign up for a game of Toon, then the asshole GM rules that the bullets killed my character, it's the exact same thing as making a bait-and-switch with pitching one genre and then springing on the players something totally different.

I don't think you read my whole post.

On the very specific topic of mixing "space opera" with lovecraftian horror: It's funny, because one of the campaign ideas that's been sitting on my backburner for several years is almost literally that. Personally, I'm leery of the term "space opera", because outside of Star Wars, no one seems to know what it means, but the idea was retro-sci fi with a dash of Lovecraft. It would have been a space point-crawl, with PC adventurers racing across the galaxy to reach Lost Carcosa and prevent the awakening of Azathoth.

Couple things though:

1) I would absolutely signal to players out in advance of what kind of game it was. The tagline I've used to pitch it is "Flash Gordon vs. the Cthulhu Mythos"; and relatedly...

2) I know going in that the concept intrinsically foregoes the possibility of a true cosmic horror tone. One of the things which a game genre does is inform how the players will react to things. In a "space opera" (whatever that is), the expected reaction to a monster is to face it head on, with a smile on your face. Even if I didn't do anything to hint to my players that Flying Polyps were going to show up in my game, I'd have no right to expect my players to react with terror, and no right to be mad when they instead made a quip about the Polyps being ugly and fired phasers at them.

Horror requires more in the way of player buy-in than any other genre, and cosmic horror doubly so. It's virtually impossible to scare a player who is determined not to be scared. Let's be honest: unless you accept the assumptions of a Lovecraftian worldview, a Mi-Go is just another alien. On paper, a Moon Beast or a Gug is a lot less threatening than a Dragon. Drop Cthulhu himself on your players; if they haven't accepted the premise that it's a horror game and they're supposed to be helpless in the face of cosmic terror, he's just going to be an overpowered monster, another "rocks fall; everyone dies" scenario they'll probably complain about after the session.

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 23, 2023, 02:30:49 PM
On the very specific topic of mixing "space opera" with lovecraftian horror: It's funny, because one of the campaign ideas that's been sitting on my backburner for several years is almost literally that. Personally, I'm leery of the term "space opera", because outside of Star Wars, no one seems to know what it means, but the idea was retro-sci fi with a dash of Lovecraft. It would have been a space point-crawl, with PC adventurers racing across the galaxy to reach Lost Carcosa and prevent the awakening of Azathoth.

Couple things though:

1) I would absolutely signal to players out in advance of what kind of game it was. The tagline I've used to pitch it is "Flash Gordon vs. the Cthulhu Mythos"; and relatedly...

2) I know going in that the concept intrinsically foregoes the possibility of a true cosmic horror tone. One of the things which a game genre does is inform how the players will react to things. In a "space opera" (whatever that is), the expected reaction to a monster is to face it head on, with a smile on your face. Even if I didn't do anything to hint to my players that Flying Polyps were going to show up in my game, I'd have no right to expect my players to react with terror, and no right to be mad when they instead made a quip about the Polyps being ugly and fired phasers at them.

Horror requires more in the way of player buy-in than any other genre, and cosmic horror doubly so. It's virtually impossible to scare a player who is determined not to be scared. Let's be honest: unless you accept the assumptions of a Lovecraftian worldview, a Mi-Go is just another alien. On paper, a Moon Beast or a Gug is a lot less threatening than a Dragon. Drop Cthulhu himself on your players; if they haven't accepted the premise that it's a horror game and they're supposed to be helpless in the face of cosmic terror, he's just going to be an overpowered monster, another "rocks fall; everyone dies" scenario they'll probably complain about after the session.

I wholly agree, horror is really hard to run, you must sell it really well to have the players buy in.

Space Opera + Horror? Dang, I wouldn't even try it, for the exact same reasons you mention.

But, as a player, if I signed up to your "Flash Gordon vs. the Cthulhu Mythos" game I have no right to be mad when Chtulhu decimates the party. It's part of the expectations that this is a game where no one comes out alive/unchanged (which includes but it's not limited to going batshit crazy or becoming a monster yourself).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 23, 2023, 05:05:17 PM
I wholly agree, horror is really hard to run, you must sell it really well to have the players buy in.

I find running horror very easy to run.  I've actually caused players to leave the table temporarily out of fear.  It's odd because I don't like horror, either in games or in other media.

The biggest key to running horror successfully is being able to control information.  You want the players to be able to experience the environment viscerally.  Always give the players details about the effects of the environment on their senses.  Visual cues should be the least explained.  (Don't hide details the PC would notice naturally though.)  OTOH, you want to slowly drip in details about the source of horror you're putting in.  If you can give evidence of the source over a long period of time, you can amp up fear, disgust, and unease to the point where players will show obvious signs of fight or flight.

With monster horror, this is very easy.  Make NPCs disappear and then bloody items from them show up.  Difficult signs of the monster should appear, like partial foot prints or claw marks.  The PCs should hear movement in the distance.  Never tell the players what the monster is only describe it, then only describe the part they glimpse.  Remember to keep up the environmental descriptions and associate something like a distinct smell or a temperature drop with the monster.  At some point, you want to give indirect evidence of the power of the monster to the players.  My favorite for fantasy is to have a creature from the monster manual that is slightly weaker than the monster be discovered by the party showing signs for being attacked and killed violently.

One last tip is putting things out of place to create a sense of unease.  The strong scent of blood in a bathroom, the cart driver is missing but his left shoe is in the driver's seat, a child says something that he shouldn't know but is highly accurate, etc.