How do you scare your players?

[Rechan]

Well, here is my review. I hope you appreciate my efforts and give the review a good rating...

I want you to know that I just bought that book after reading your review.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I too plan on buying this book in the near future. I think SJG should pay you royalties for any sales that stem from your review. 5 Stars!

 

[Mallus]

With puns!

Wait, that's not how I scare them, that's how I cause them actual pain.

 

[Jhaelen]

I love the horror genre but sometimes it can be difficult to actually "Scare" the group. I've actually only participated in one session where any of the players had a genuine fear response.
[...]
To those GM's out there who have successfully scared their group... how did you do it?

Well, I've managed to put 'the fear in them' a few times, but that's slightly different from creating an atmosphere of horror.

The former can be achieved by using mechanical effects. Monsters that seem unbeatable or deal huge amounts of damage in a very short time seams to capture everyone's attention real quick...

But the 'horror' thing is something I don't understand completely myself. There is one memorable incident from my 2E Dark Sun campaign. The party started exploring Under-Tyr and found it to be crawling with ghostly beings. Most of them were really harmless but vivid descriptions caused the players to be extremely cautious. When they finally encountered an enraged 'ghost-composite' (similar to the 3E Caller in Darkness) that attacked them, I started to put pressure on them.

Normally, I allow the players to take all the time the want to make their decisions. This time I started a countdown if they wouldn't decide fast enough. I also stood up and walked around the table to get closer to the players attacked by the ghost.

It worked so well that one of the players actually asked for a timeout. It took me a bit by surprise but he really seemed to be upset, so I said okay and took it a bit more slowly after the pause.

So, I think it's mostly a combination of encountering something unknown (in Darksun all undead beings were unique), detailed descriptions and creating a feeling of urgency.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway...

Make sure your players are actually interested in this in the first place. Just because they're playing a "horror" game doesn't mean they want somebody trying to jack with their head.

It'd be considered poor form for me to get up and punch the GM in his face because my character is pissed off. I fail to see how it's anymore acceptable for the GM to try and play head games with me in an attempt to have my character be scared.

Yeah, I get that a lot of people don't agree with me. And I get that some people like it when the GM plays games and tries to freak out the players. I'm not saying you're doing it wrong. I'm saying not everyone wants that.

And no, the answer is _NOT_ "Well, don't play a 'horror' game then." There's groovy games out there that are classed as "horror" (Nightspawn, Beyond the Supernatural, Delta Green, Witch Hunter: Invisible World) and I enjoy them.

I do know that if a GM decided to run a "horror" game and started trying to play mind games, I'd simply get up, collect my stuff and walk out. Then again, I don't believe that "bad gaming is better than no gaming", so don't tend to put up with crap I don't like.

 

[Jack99]

I want you to know that I just bought that book after reading your review.

So did I.

 

[jdrakeh]

To those GM's out there who have successfully scared their group... how did you do it?

I make consequences. . . ah. . . consequential. For example:

In D&D, taking resurrection magic out of the game completely will do this. The problem with RAW resurrection magic is that it makes one of the game's most ostensibly worst consequences completely inconsequential. When death isn't permanent, there's little (if any) sense of threat, and so players don't do much to plan around it — if they die, they can just get somebody to bring them back fromt he dead. No big deal.

Even the loss of levels and such is a pretty minor inconvenience compared to real, permanent, death. This being the case, it doesn't phase more experienced players (though it does discourage foolish actions better than resurrection magic with no penalties does). So, basically, in this case, the idea is to make death, as a consequence during actual play, matter. Consequences need real teeth if they are to be taken seriously as consequences.

Now, that said, I'm not hot on "save or die" throws because they make death a totally random occurance that careful planning and tactical play have absolutely zero impact upon. This is just as bad as marginalizing death by making it completely inconsequential. In this case, the problem is that death lacks any meaningful association with poor planning and/or bad character decisions and, thus, it's not a consequence at all but, rather, just another random occurance.

So, to sum up, I find that the best way to elicit real fear from players is to tie consequences specifically to bad decisions made by their characters, while also making sure that those consequences have a real (i.e., not easily negated) impact on said characters.

YMMV.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Atmosphere, both in-game and the general feel of how your playing.

I personally don't think rules, or game-system, etc. really hinders or encourages horror as much as some people assume. I think with the proper atmosphere and fluff any game-system can feel horrific. Yes, some rules are better suited for horror since their based around them, but they can be just as non-horrific as any other.

I found too a big thing is drawing the players in, don't have pizza being ordered in the middle of a horror session and have the doorbell knock them out of the game. Or, have a tv on in the background on a comedy station, if the players lose their focus and you lose your pace (like any good horror film) so goes the horror.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I make consequences. . . ah. . . consequential. For example:

In D&D, taking resurrection magic out of the game completely will do this. The problem with RAW resurrection magic is that it makes one of the game's most ostensibly worst consequences completely inconsequential. When death isn't permanent, there's little (if any) sense of threat, and so players don't do much to plan around it — if they die, they can just get somebody to bring them back fromt he dead. No big deal.

Even the loss of levels and such is a pretty minor inconvenience compared to real, permanent, death. This being the case, it doesn't phase more experienced players (though it does discourage foolish actions better than resurrection magic with no penalties does). So, basically, in this case, the idea is to make death, as a consequence during actual play, matter. Consequences need real teeth if they are to be taken seriously as consequences.

I wonder if it would work not to threaten the PCs themselves (or close NPCs like family, friends, lovers) - just show how everyone else will die or be transformed into some horrific creature in whatever is creating your horror scenario. And they must really feel that if they fail, things go bad on a big scale - like every single human in a 100 mile radius transformed into an undead, or having his head explode, or maybe just everyone being infested by a parasite that will control their brains...

Well, I am not sure it would work or is enough...

I suppose another part of horror is the fear of the unkown and the uncertainity. That a monster might be hidden behind the face of a perfectly normal person - that suddenly lashes out and tries to kill you - and then disappears again. That a monster might be behind every corner...

 

[jdrakeh]

I think with the proper atmosphere and fluff any game-system can feel horrific.

I would argue that no amount of fluff will make a game with few (or non-existant) consequences horrific, given that the players know they will never face any real, substantial, threat from a brush with danger or, at least, that they will always be able to recover from such a run in with minimal effort. Fear is, by definition, an emotional response to threats and danger. If you remove the threats and the danger in a given setting, you eliminate the fear stimuli.

Rules are what give consequences form in actual play. In a setting that has rules for permanent, horrible, death. . . death is horrible and permanent. A setting that lacks such rules, will also lack permanent and horrible death. For example, compare a setting in which death is an easily mitigated, largely inconsequential, nuisance to one where death is a common, very final, end. One of these settings is inherently more horrific than the the other by virtue of its presentation of death as consequence.

I'm of the opinion that one can employ as many horror tropes as they want (e.g., vampires, skeletons, black magic, etc) but if these things have no discernable effect in actual play (i.e., they pose no credible threat or present real, consequential, danger), they're just window dressing and utterly lack the power to elicit the emotional response of fear from the players.