No fleeing in the Fright Check Table?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

"Run like the legions of hell are nipping at your heels and don't look back" would fit on the table, though.

In fact you can substitute anything that similarly limits you tactical options for stunning or fainting and it still works just fine, compare the Awe and Confusion versions of the table. So replacing stunning with run, no other actions possible while running and defend at whatever the stunning penalty normally is, and fainting with drop everything that might possibly weigh you down and flee in panic for an extended period works fine if you want to use an equivalent of fright checks for situations in which running is an option.

I'd prefer to roleplay those, but if your players insist on never running away making terror checks when the odds are obviously overwhelming isn't a ridiculous thing to do.

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I'd prefer to roleplay those, but if your players insist on never running away making terror checks when the odds are obviously overwhelming isn't a ridiculous thing to do.

In fact, I've seen players send their characters to their certain deaths instead of having them retreat from a situation they felt hopeless and frustrating.

So, well, I'm going to make a wider and heavier use of intimidation. Is it ok to give intimitation levels to inanimate things, a chasm, a building in flames or a croc-infested pond?
When the time comes to roll a true Fr.Check, I'll feel free to substitute the results for effects appropiate to the specific character and situation.

Thankyou all!

[muranternet]

Wouldn't the instinct to escape, aside from being just a good decision in the face of something dangerous, be more of a Will check, made more frequently than a Fright check?

I.E. the sort of thing you make when you, as an average suburbanite, see a gang of armed thugs moving purposefully down the street in your general direction as opposed to a Thing Man Was Not Meant To Know(tm).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

In fact, I've seen players send their characters to their certain deaths instead of having them retreat from a situation they felt hopeless and frustrating.

So, well, I'm going to make a wider and heavier use of intimidation. Is it ok to give intimitation levels to inanimate things, a chasm, a building in flames or a croc-infested pond?

It wouldn't mean anything.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

In fact, I've seen players send their characters to their certain deaths instead of having them retreat from a situation they felt hopeless and frustrating.

That doesn't sound like a problem of inadequate fear mechanics.

[Kromm]

The decision tree goes like this:

Fright vs. flight or fight? Decided by Fright Check.

If failed, fright.
If passed, flight or fight.

Flight vs. fight? Decided by roleplay.

The first decision is imposed on the character by the circumstances. The second one is left to the player.

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

So, well, I'm going to make a wider and heavier use of intimidation. Is it ok to give intimitation levels to inanimate things, a chasm, a building in flames or a croc-infested pond?

This is an interesting idea. I like it. I've been wondering how to model longer lasting, general fear that was less intense than mind shattering Fright.

So a chasm, for example, could have an Intimidation of 12. Climbing along its edge would require a quick contest of Will. Your MoF penalizes your Climbing, Per to notice the giant bat swooping, etc.

Anyone see any problems with this?

[Kromm]

It's functionally identical to saying, "Roll Will at -2. Failure gives a penalty equal to your margin." That involves one less die roll, and while not 100% the same, is close enough without invoking the weirdness of skills for inanimate objects. (Notably, some wag will say, "Gosh, if there are 30 of us, we're immune because one user of Intimidation can only work on 25 people." Then some writer will respond with a rider to avoid that.)

[Edges]

Excellent.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's functionally identical to saying, "Roll Will at -2. Failure gives a penalty equal to your margin." That involves one less die roll, and while not 100% the same, is close enough without invoking the weirdness of skills for inanimate objects. (Notably, some wag will say, "Gosh, if there are 30 of us, we're immune because one user of Intimidation can only work on 25 people." Then some writer will respond with a rider to avoid that.)

And of course, worse situations can impose higher penalties, as less stressful situations can get bonuses. Adjust To Taste. That's a handy note, and I'm going to scribble this down somewhere. I can't say I've had a lot of problem with suicidal PCs, but it's something for the toolkit.