Designing my own system; how to work the imposition of "fear" effects?

[System Ufera]

I'd use a Morale system based on Will save, using a base DC 10 (threatened) + modifiers.

With success the PC overcomes their anxiety and carries on however if the fail then consider the Variance from DC (eg if I roll 10 vs a DC of 25 then Variance = 10 Panicked)

Variance
0-5 Anxious = -2 Morale checks
5-10 Spooked = - 5 Morale, vulnerable
15 Panicked = -10 Morale, vulnerable and cowering
20 Terrified = -10, vulnerable and Flee

Unfortunately, the way my system works would make it hard, if not impossible, to implement a "variance" mechanic based on distance from success/failure on the roll. It's a modified percentile system, with a number you have to roll below (your character's ability) AND a number you have to roll above (the difficulty of the task). Basically, if you succeed, the farther you get from one, the closer you get to another. As such, variance is primarily handled by other rolls, such as damage rolls; fear could work in a similar way, but that's the alternative system I was talking about, where there would be too many things to keep track of. Your previous suggestion, about certain fear effects having a set amount of fear that they cause, sounds like it would certainly improve on that in terms of simplicity; so far, that seems like the best option.

...and wizards are supposed to be expert spellcasters. Doesn't stop me from playing them, or casting spells.

Janx makes a good point about the game's theme: your PCs can't be heroic if the rules force them to be scared. And you make a good point about the GM's duties: some GMs can't instill fear in their players.

What to do?

• Write GMing rules. If there are reasons in the game for PCs to be fearful, teach the GM how to convey this.
• Impose subtle hints. You don't have to tell PCs that they're terrified, but you can give them some clues. If you impose multiple levels of fear, your PC might say "well, I'm three levels away from being able to control my character." So for example, impose an initiative penalty, a motor-control penalty (DEX, if you're using it), or vision penalty (eyes keep darting toward safety), but just enough take make a PC notice, but not feel out of control.
• Allow your PCs to roleplay. Don't use a fear mechanic, which is basically a penalty. Use a bonus for roleplaying the fear. In Fate, you'd offer a Fate Point. In Modos RPG, you'd award a Hero Point. In D&D 5, you could give Inspiration (although D&D has at least one fear level too).

I'm not sure I understand the second option you're proposing; first you're saying that subtle hints could be given, but then you're talking about defined mechanical effects... could you please clarify what you mean?

Your other suggestions don't feel like they would fit what I want for my game. Personally, I think it's too subjective, and as a person who tries to be as objective as possible, I don't think I would want to play a game that relied on such a mechanic. My game, as it is designed, reflects that mindset; even the flavor of the setting operates on a set of laws that govern how things work (even magic has to obey the setting's laws of physics, for example). Of course, I understand that some people might not like that, and I could try to allow for more subjectivity, but if I did that, I'd be going into territory that my brain is not "wired" to understand, and I think that that would diminish the quality of the end product.

 

[GMMichael]

Fair enough. You can play a simulation, you can do improvisational acting. You can do something inbetween, and call it an RPG.

What I meant in point 2: if you're going to impose fear penalties, stop at level 1. One level is enough. Possibly more than enough. And don't make it complicated - like the examples I gave. Simple and sufficient.

 

[steenan]

I think you can have fear effects in a heroic game. The trick is implementing them mechanically in such a way that they don't prevent characters from acting and being efficient when they are scared, but highlight that they act despite fear. Heroes aren't heroes because they don't feel fear; they are heroes because they are scared, but do the right thing anyway. So the fear mechanics in a heroic game should leave the choice in player's hands, while raising the stakes.

In Fate, when a PC is scared, there is an aspect that represents it. The GM can then compel it, giving the player a choice: take a fate point and run or pay a fate point and act despite fear.

Another approach would be, instead of giving penalties for being scared, introduce a possibility of a critical failure. When one acts when scared, their chance of success do not change, but if they fail, they fail hard. So you ask the player: do you really want to take this risk?

 

[Tonguez]

I don't see why Fear should be treated differently to any other 'status effect'. Really the Morale check should be a saving throw to avoid fear and allow the PC to then act normally, if they fail then why shouldn't they be compelled to act in a certain way?
If it was a paralysis effect then the PC would save or be paralysed and then roleplay accordingly - they don't get to continue being effecient in their chosen role so if they fail the morale check then they also be spooked/panicked or terrified and act accordingly to that.

 

[Hyper-Man]

You should check out the Presence and Presence Attack rules from the HERO System. It already covers what you are trying do and more.

 

[Janx]

I don't see why Fear should be treated differently to any other 'status effect'. Really the Morale check should be a saving throw to avoid fear and allow the PC to then act normally, if they fail then why shouldn't they be compelled to act in a certain way?
If it was a paralysis effect then the PC would save or be paralysed and then roleplay accordingly - they don't get to continue being effecient in their chosen role so if they fail the morale check then they also be spooked/panicked or terrified and act accordingly to that.

fair point.

as an add on to this, one of my points was that I didn't feel comfortable making a PC run away. I felt like that should be a tactical decision by the player because the monster is too strong.

Considering Tonguez idea, if the status effect for fear is a scary penalty that makes confronting the monster extra dangerous (ex. combat), then a smart player will run away so they can regroup and find a new way to remove the advantage from the monster.

 

[Hyper-Man]

You should check out the Presence and Presence Attack rules from the HERO System. It already covers what you are trying do and more.

See page 101 of the linked document - http://cporter.net/rpgs/books/HERO/5E/Sidekick.pdf

This is a generic system so the Presence Rules can be adapted to ANY any setting.

 

[Dustin DePenning]

I agree what others are saying about not wanting to force the players to behave a certain way. In real life, your own fear may not "force" you to do something, it just puts you in a psychological state that inclines certain behavior. So I'd go along the line of a penalty-based status effect rather than morale points or forced behaviors.

How many status effects do you have in your game? I find that you don't need very many status effects. Multiple events can cause the same status and still make sense narratively. For example, being sick and being afraid can cause they same -2 to rolls (or +5% to difficulty, in your game).

If you get your status effects cleaned up and intuitive, that's half way to making the system simpler. After that, go with some of the suggestions other have with morale bonuses making you resistant to fear or removing fear penalties. It's clean and classic to handle it that way.

 

[System Ufera]

I agree what others are saying about not wanting to force the players to behave a certain way. In real life, your own fear may not "force" you to do something, it just puts you in a psychological state that inclines certain behavior. So I'd go along the line of a penalty-based status effect rather than morale points or forced behaviors.

Hmm... The problem I have with this is the fact that the primary reason I want to keep the "forced" behavior (in actuality, it's actually more like "limited" behavior - if you're terrified, you can't move closer to the source of the fear, unless that's the only obvious exit) is the fact that the status effects can also apply to NPC's and enemies, and as I said before, I don't want to design my game too subjectively.

How many status effects do you have in your game? I find that you don't need very many status effects. Multiple events can cause the same status and still make sense narratively. For example, being sick and being afraid can cause they same -2 to rolls (or +5% to difficulty, in your game).

I have a lot of status effects in my game, and some of them have come up a lot in playtesting (especially since many damage types have status effects attached to them - significant Fire damage causes Burning, for example). Currently, I have the following:

[SBLOCK]
-Bleeding: Ongoing damage until healed; occurs automatically if dropped below 0 HP
-Blind: Huge penalty to physical abilities; must make perception check when attacking to attack correct target; cannot be effected by visual effects such as illusions (unless the blindness is itself caused by a visual effect)
-Burning: Ongoing Fire damage; increases per round as the fire gets bigger
-Challenged: Basically like the defenders' Mark from DnD 4e
-Confused: Take random action every turn
-Damp/Drenched: Vulnerability to Cold/Lightning damage; helps resist Fire damage
-Dazed: Fewer "action points" to spend on things to do per turn (pretty significant in my game)
-Dazzled: Impaired vision; gives penalty to certain physical abilities
-Dead: Obvious
-Deaf: Penalty to checks related to making or using noise; cannot be effected by audio effects
-Disabled: Almost Dying (such as being stabilized, but not healed, from Dying); risks going back to Dying if put under stress
-Distracted: Penalty to all abilities and defenses; opens up possibility of Sneak Attacks
-Dying: Negative HP; imposes Bleeding 3
-Encumbered: Carrying too much stuff; hinders movement and can cause Fatigue
-Fatigued/Exhausted: Cannot run; penalties to physical abilities
-Helpless: Much easier to attack and damage; usually caused by paralysis/stunning, unconsciousness, or being completely unaware of danger
-Immobilized: Cannot move
-Numbed: Penalty depends on which body part is numbed
-Paralyzed: Cannot physically act
-Spooked/Panicked/Terrified: The thing we're discussing
-Stunned: Cannot mentally act
-Unconscious: Helpless; happens when dropped to 0 or lower HP
-Weakened Body: Half physical damage; penalty to physical abilities
-Weakened Mind: Half wizardry spell damage; penalty to mental abilities
-Weakened Will: Half sorcery spell/miracle damage; penalty to personal abilities

I had some other status effects which have since been removed, including Swarmed (occurs when fighting swarm-type enemies, such as clouds of insects) and Traumatized (occurs when enough damage is received in a short period of time; severely limits character's abilities). I also have a race-specific status effect (not removed), called Pre-Fatigued (has no penalties; acts as a buffer before actual Fatigue), for an extremely durable race.
[/SBLOCK]

 

[Dustin DePenning]

That seems like quite a lot of status effects. Is each one mechanically unique enough to warrant rules space? It's quite a lot to navigate for your average player.

Just a tought, but if enough of those have similar effects, maybe you can roll them all into the same status. Like have a generic "vulnerability to (blank)" status, and have actions give out specific tagged versions (vulnerability to Cold, vulnerability to Lighting). So rather than remembering what drenched does, have a generic effect that drenched interacts with. You can then use that generic effect in more ways "This spell weakens elemental resistances, causing Vulnerability Cold, Lightning, Fire (etc.)"

Same goes for Weakened. Maybe that should be a generic effect, with a specific tag of the name of the attribute it effects ("Weakened Strength, Weakened Dexterity"). And it's always -2 or something.

Again, just thinking more generic, overarching status effects with specific tags that make the game more intuitive and top down rather than situation-specific. If you take the situation-specific route of design, you'll be tempted to make a status effect for each and every thing that could happen in your game: "What about a status for depressed?" "what about a status effect for concussed?"

Also, try to think of stand alone rules that interact with existing conditions rather than making new ones. For example, "pre-fatigued" may not be a necessary condition. Perhaps the rule text just reads: once per day, this character can choose to automatically remove the Fatigued status."

Overall your system seems incredibly granular and simulationist – which can be really fun – but streamlining can help make it more intuitive.