Fear and Loathing In TFT

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

You have two choices, basically: Either treat each such trait or ability as a Talent and roll vs. IQ, or add an additional set of attributes, a'la the Personality score option in ITL. Both are obviously 'workable' in the sense that it is easy to come up with versions that function well in play. So, the choice really has to do with your game design aesthetics.

If you are a minimalist then I'd say add a handful of relevant talents, accept that IQ is just a score that means 'how good I am at non-DX or ST based talents', and treat it as you would Charisma, Sex Appeal, New Followers or Diplomacy or any number of other talents that involve thoughts and emotions. The risk is that you go bananas and write 100 of these sorts of new talents, or make up a new sub system for each, and now you are playing something that looks casually like TFT but is much more bloated.

If you add new attributes it will be more aesthetically pleasing in the sense that things like bravery or piety can develop separately from other IQ based talents, and perhaps that seems more 'right' or true to human character. But of course now your character sheet has a half dozen attributes and lots of old material needs to get revised - it feels more like a significantly new edition or even new game.

No, I can't accept any correlation between IQ/INT and bravery, that just doesn't wash with me. There are brave stupid people and brave clever people, and the reverse. So either it's a talent or a new attribute. No other option I can see.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Plain old 3d6 roll could make sense, modified by GM according to any effective roleplaying of the character's history. I'd give Heniochus the Brave a bonus to stand fast, if only because he thinks he can settle everything with his sword.

If an advantage/disadvantage system is introduced, Bravery, Prudence, and Cowardice might all be descrived in terms of morale/fear/horror rolls.

To my mind, this should be used only for the BIG stuff (Cthulhu) or the transitory stuff (who gets initiative when surprised by something unnatural). I would not roll for fear against natural foes.

Agree completely with this; especially the last part.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

No, I can't accept any correlation between IQ/INT and bravery, that just doesn't wash with me. There are brave stupid people and brave clever people, and the reverse. So either it's a talent or a new attribute. No other option I can see.

Well, I disagree completely with your position here, so now where are we? While innate bravery may not be directly tied to IQ, the ability to realize a situation is overwhelming and respond accordingly is somewhat cognitive, no matter what you say. More importantly, a Morale check is not the same thing as a Fear check. A Morale Check is a roll to determine whether or not a particular individual believes the fight he's engaging/about to engage in is worth the personal risk -- and many factors can make a difference in that decision (loyalty to friends, sheer numbers of opponents, belief that the cause is worth the sacrifice, desire for revenge, whatever). A Fear check, on the other hand is to gauge an instant, reflexive, reaction to something genuinely horrifying or terrifying. And IQ as just as logical to roll against for that purpose as anything else would be -- in fact, more so, because most fears originate in our minds anyway, whether consciously or subconsciously.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by JLV

Well, I disagree completely with your position here, so now where are we? While innate bravery may not be directly tied to IQ, the ability to realize a situation is overwhelming and respond accordingly is somewhat cognitive, no matter what you say. More importantly, a Morale check is not the same thing as a Fear check. A Morale Check is a roll to determine whether or not a particular individual believes the fight he's engaging/about to engage in is worth the personal risk -- and many factors can make a difference in that decision (loyalty to friends, sheer numbers of opponents, belief that the cause is worth the sacrifice, desire for revenge, whatever). A Fear check, on the other hand is to gauge an instant, reflexive, reaction to something genuinely horrifying or terrifying. And IQ as just as logical to roll against for that purpose as anything else would be -- in fact, more so, because most fears originate in our minds anyway, whether consciously or subconsciously.

That's the sort of complex argument that TFT really doesn't need, so I think it's best left to house rules if you want to delve that deep.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

That's the sort of complex argument that TFT really doesn't need, so I think it's best left to house rules if you want to delve that deep.

And, again, I disagree. The argument is neither that complicated nor a part of any rule. Simply stated, the rule would read to roll 3d6 against IQ under certain conditions -- as Mr. Jackson noted, the extremes (Cthulhu) or the transitory stuff. Not too complicated after all...

[DouglasCole]

From a "use what's there" perspective, would it be crazy talk to treat fear as an attack, and then assess impairment by a die roll? So one might attack with fear with a 3d6 roll against a base level (say 8) for mundane "boo!" stuff. If the attack succeeds, the effect is maybe 1d6, treated as a penalty?

The only reason I deal with this in this way is I'm a big fan of not inventing new mechanics. If there's no "saving throw" type thing already, and the usual method of testing for an effect is a success roll followed by an effect roll (in combat, to-hit then damage), then using that and trying to figure out what the hit roll, the skill being rolled against, and the damage roll would be are the real trick.

Depending on how strong "talents" usually are, one could make the base fear check a certain number and then use talents to boost it to represent particularly fearless folks (this is what GURPS does with both Fearlessness and Unfazeable). Effect rolls could be independent (if you're scared, roll 1d6 for shock), or based on margin of success (which will tend to cluster due to bell curve, but then you can get the rare case where you basically just go pants-wettingly terrified, which might be fun for amusement value).

[JLV]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

From a "use what's there" perspective, would it be crazy talk to treat fear as an attack, and then assess impairment by a die roll? So one might attack with fear with a 3d6 roll against a base level (say 8) for mundane "boo!" stuff. If the attack succeeds, the effect is maybe 1d6, treated as a penalty?

The only reason I deal with this in this way is I'm a big fan of not inventing new mechanics. If there's no "saving throw" type thing already, and the usual method of testing for an effect is a success roll followed by an effect roll (in combat, to-hit then damage), then using that and trying to figure out what the hit roll, the skill being rolled against, and the damage roll would be are the real trick.

Depending on how strong "talents" usually are, one could make the base fear check a certain number and then use talents to boost it to represent particularly fearless folks (this is what GURPS does with both Fearlessness and Unfazeable). Effect rolls could be independent (if you're scared, roll 1d6 for shock), or based on margin of success (which will tend to cluster due to bell curve, but then you can get the rare case where you basically just go pants-wettingly terrified, which might be fun for amusement value).

In my opinion "treating it as an attack" would be an excellent way of handling it -- plus it immediately allows for "specialized" attacks by ghosts or spirits that CAN'T attack you physically, but can scare the hell out of you. It also, by logical extension, allows you to address things like "gaze" attacks by things like Basilisks and Gorgons, or "sonic" attacks by things like Banshees, etc., by using a similar mechanism...

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

And, again, I disagree. The argument is neither that complicated nor a part of any rule. Simply stated, the rule would read to roll 3d6 against IQ under certain conditions -- as Mr. Jackson noted, the extremes (Cthulhu) or the transitory stuff. Not too complicated after all...

What about a 3/IQ or 3/ST roll, whichever is better for the figure? IQ is obviously more than intelligence in TFT. It's really everything mental - IQ, willpower, perception, sensitivity, memory, and education. So it isn't that irrational to make fear horror rolls against damage.

ST is obviously more than what you can lift. It's everything physical except manual dexterity, hand-eye coordination and agility - strength, health, willpower to some degree, pain tolerance and even attractiveness maybe. It stands to reason that someone who is physically superior to most of his species would tend to be more courageous and confident. So a 3/ST roll isn't unreasonable.

Or, you could give the character a 3/IQ or 4/ST roll if you think ST is less of an analogue for courage.

[sir_pudding]

Unless you are Hunter S. Thompson, I don't think that fear and loathing are especially connected, and I don't think that a system that tells you what your character dislikes is especially desirable anyway.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Unless you are Hunter S. Thompson, I don't think that fear and loathing are especially connected, and I don't think that at system that tells you what your character dislikes is especially desirable anyway.

Different strokes for different folks. Still, a way to game fear/horror/disgust is not a bad idea, since players tend to forget that the reality of some hideous monster can be quite a bit worse than looking at a little piece of cardboard on a paper map.