Top Gear vs D&D: Fear

[Andor]

Well, while there is some disagreement about the role of fear in a D&D game it seems we have a achieved an unprecedented level of agreement for enworld with regard to the tv show Top Gear. To wit: It rocks.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Fear has kinda been present. MAGICAL fear has always been around, both from spells and dragon auras and such. 3e had intimidation rolls against will saves to demoralize and, with feats, do even worse.

Also, Top Gear is p. awesome.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't really think that morale/fear/sanity/horror rolls are a good mechanic. For starters, they tend to end up with ridiculous situations ("My character is mortuary worker. Having just discovered a body of someone whom I do not know, he goes stark raving mad and develops a phobia of fish.").

The cthulu stuff is the worst: reading the fiction, characters going nuts with fear typically black out (which almost inevitably saves their life) or take a short term course of life-saving action. Playing the game, characters going nuts attack their friends or develop bizarre phobias.

Possibly the only system I actually like for morale is the one from godlike, which eliminates rolls in exchange for choices.

When threatened with a morale/fear/horror situation you make your roll and if you faile, you have a choice. Run in panic or cower in fear and generally don't contribute for a while, and you get to lose half your current willpower. Tough it out and ignore it, and it costs all of your current willpower.

Losing all your willpower is a bad thing. It means you don't have it to spend, and in godlike it means your super powers don't work. It also means your actions are all penalised. It also means you start losing points from your maximum willpower if you fail another morale check.

And then there's a ton of easy ways to get your willpower back through medium term actions (having a good nights rest, visiting family and friends, defeating foes and rescuing damsels). You can also permanently decrease your willpower limit in order to gain some back (which is really the only option if you chose to tough it out and want to use your powers or be effective). If your maximum willpower ever hits zero, THEN you go crazy.

The big difference is that insanity under this system is a choice: You effectively have to deliberately sacrifice your sanity for effectiveness in order to go insane, and even then you could potentially do it over and over again and just buy back the willpower (or alternatively spend the points in making sure your cool stat plus the appropriate skill is 10, in which case you never fail a check that isn't incredibly difficult). In order to go insane otherwise, you would have to be repeatedly subjected to terrible situations, always lose and never get any respite.

 

[Morrus]

I see morale as part of the hit point pool. Hit points represent damage, fatigue, luck and morale (which is why some fear effects do psychic damage).

A monster reduced to zero hit points may merely be out of morale. Or it may be mortally wounded. Or a dozen other things, all abtsracted by that nebulous pool of "hit points".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I see morale as part of the hit point pool. Hit points represent damage, fatigue, luck and morale (which is why some fear effects do psychic damage).

A monster reduced to zero hit points may merely be out of morale. Or it may be mortally wounded. Or a dozen other things, all abtsracted by that nebulous pool of "hit points".

One thing I found interesting about Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2E was that, if you at 0 or below hit points, you didn't drop or anything like that. But any hit now is a critical hit which will likely hit or kill you.

While the system doesn't suggest hit points to be mere "morale" (it does not really use the D&D abstraction and ablative hit point model), it is an interesting take on things.

As long as you have more than 0 hit points, nothing seriously bad happened. But if you go below, you're out of luck, morale, skill, endurance, and if you're hit, you will probably go down.

If I wanted to make hit points in D&D more "realistic", I would probably use bloodied and 0 hit points as such state. The first time bloodied is the first time you are wounded - albeit slightly only then. Anytime you are dropped to 0 hit points or less, you take serious wounds. In a way that's already what the game suggests to happen, but the rules don't go so far as modelling actual injuries with long-term penalties.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip

If I wanted to make hit points in D&D more "realistic", I would probably use bloodied and 0 hit points as such state. The first time bloodied is the first time you are wounded - albeit slightly only then. Anytime you are dropped to 0 hit points or less, you take serious wounds. In a way that's already what the game suggests to happen, but the rules don't go so far as modelling actual injuries with long-term penalties.

I agree, as for the rules not moddelling actual injuries; well you could use the diease rules and permanent/temporary loss of healing surges. Loss of limbs, eyes and so forth are more complicated and would require reworking stats ans skills and more serious injuries than that are effective end to an adverturing career. Unless there are magical means of regenerating missing bits.

There was a time when I was into such stuff but not really any more.

There is also the issue of hit locations and frankly most systems i have seen for this can produce some rather odd results on occasion.

 

[mmadsen]

I like the notion of a game informed by realism, especially those elements of realism that also find their way into adventure fiction -- and the key difference between an ordinary warrior and an exceptional warrior has always been that a great warrior is a brave warrior.

Interestingly, everyone's first reaction to the idea of adding fear back into the game is say, "I don't want my PC to run away!" They don't seem nearly so quick to address the flip side: "When my PC glares at the bandit-king's henchmen, they drop their spears and run away!"

I've cited Grossman before, but this passage bears repeating:

Bagpipes, bugles, drums, shiny armor, tall hats, chariots, elephants, and cavalry have all been factors in successful posturing (convincing oneself of one's prowess while daunting one's enemy), but, ultimately, gunpowder proved to be the ultimate posturing tool.​

Under 3E's rules, for instance, a successful intimidate check leaves the target shaken for 1 round, when it should probably leave them shaken indefinitely, potentially frightened, and even panicked.

Plenty of cinematic heroes are so cinematic because they stare down their enemies and win the fight before it even begins. Also, a lot of cool-looking combat gear -- plumed helms, war standards, etc. -- is cool-looking specifically in order to be literally awesome.

Imagine a glowing magical sword offering +4 to intimidate.

An important observation -- along the lines of "I don't want my PC to run away!" -- is that PCs should be given meaningful choices, not simply told that they run away. Heroes of Horror recommends redefining frightened to get around this problem and to increase the distinction between frightened and panicked. Instead of having frightened mean -2 to rolls and you must run away, it can instead mean -4 to rolls.

This actually ties in with one of the Meta-Mechanics Worth Stealing, Grim Tales' fight or flight mechanic:

When faced with something that provokes a horror check, characters have a choice -- flee, and then face an easier check, or stand their ground and risk the consequences. The kicker is that each player decides in secret, and everything is revealed at once. Watching one guy stand his ground while his comrades flee is just priceless.​

 

[ferratus]

I'm not interested in a return to earlier edition morale checks. I much prefer to resolve such issues based on the needs of the story or encounter.

Sure, when you are following a story morale checks aren't particularly necessary, as the DM keeps the chain of events in hand to try and build the action towards a crescendo.

But what about sandbox or dungeon-linked campaigns that have no overarching story arc? Surely, there could be a big role for morale checks to play in those types of campaigns?

 

[mmadsen]

Sure, when you are following a story morale checks aren't particularly necessary, as the DM keeps the chain of events in hand to try and build the action towards a crescendo.

But what about sandbox or dungeon-linked campaigns that have no overarching story arc? Surely, there could be a big role for morale checks to play in those types of campaigns?

I think the point is that rolling for morale can lead to implausible results. No set of rules, combined with a random die roll, is going to properly reflect what would or would not make a group of warriors turn and run -- at least not without a few glaringly bad corner cases.

Of course, that's a general argument that goes beyond just morale issues, but human behavior -- or intelligent-creature behavior -- is one of those things that's quite easy to get wrong with inflexible rules. DM judgment goes a long with, especially combined with a few flexible rules.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Hm, Jeremy Clarkson as an otyugh-nilbog crossbreed...this would explain everything!