Sanity and other Soul-shaking horrors

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

These are caricature traits, not character traits.

They are, but they aren't free from roleplaying options. For example:

Greedy: "Failure means you’ll do whatever it takes to get the payoff, however illegal or ill-advised."

But "whatever it takes" can be quite a range of options even for exactly the same bribe - You can agree to take the job and actually do it. You can agree to take the job and [lie] to claim the reward. You can kill the person offering the money and loot it from their corpse...

Gluttony: "Failure means you partake – regardless of the consequences."

But you have a choice between falling on the meal like an animal and taking a bite and complementing the chef.

Cowardice: "Failure means you must refuse to endanger yourself unless threatened with greater danger!"

You can scream in terror and curl up into a ball, politely but firmly refuse, offer spurious reasons why you shouldn't....

There's a range of options and approaches available even for most of the extreme phrasings (which I think are intended to be suggestive anyway, though I know some people disagree on that). Even if you disagree though, failing a disadvantage check doesn't usually force you to take the *most* insane action with the worst possible consequences, you do get a degree of choice most of the time.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

These are caricature traits, not character traits.

If you take them at a 6 or less sure. But if you buy them at a reasonable level, then when you do decide to resist the Disadvantage, the Character is usually capable. But if the Player doesn't want to be hamstrung by their disad, maybe they shouldn't take that disad?

Take it as a Quirk, where it's always resistible and is just personality flavoring.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

If you take them at a 6 or less sure. But if you buy them at a reasonable level, then when you do decide to resist the Disadvantage, the Character is usually capable. But if the Player doesn't want to be hamstrung by their disad, maybe they shouldn't take that disad?

This logic implies that you should only ever take mental disadvantages at the very severe (6) level, both because you might as well get full points for your insanity and because it makes more roleplaying sense than mild (15) levels. Someone who likes food has quirk: foodie. Someone who has trouble not eating even food which he 100% knows to be poisonous (but delicious) is mentally ill, Glutton: 6-9. Someone who can usually resist the temptation to overeat but occasionally (15) pigs out regardless of whether or not he knows that food to be poison is... a cartoon caricature?

Again, the issue is that the only situational modifier is for the strength of the stimulus, not the context or consequences of indulging. It undermines roleplaying.

I agree that taking quirk-level only is one possible solution, but as a GM I mourn that solution because traits like Cowardice and Greed are conceptually quite interesting. Hence the house rule to make them more attractive to roleplayers.

[b-dog]

I will say one thing and when using Lovecraftian madness with DF I think phobias like fear of tentacles or darkness is sort of lame for a PC failingFright checks for interacting with Elder Things.For one thing the PC can’t really do anything and DF is all about action so instead I like disadvantages that make the PC alien to the mortal realm and also give him compulsions to interact with Elder Things. Having a PC develop a craving for human flesh seems like something a PC might develop from reading Eldritch tomes or casting spells to summon Elder Things. Or maybe the PC wants to dissect others when he sees that they are injured? And of course the PC will develop a compulsion to read more Eldritch tomes and spell books when he sees them and will feel a compulsion to want to play with any Lovecraftian artifact that he finds or try to summon any Elder Thing he can from a spell book and desire to communicate with Elder Things. If he is a wizard he will try to use gate magic to go to the dimensions that Elder Things live on. He might even get a split personality where the fragments of the consciousness of Cthulhu take over his mind from time to time and of course the PC will do monstrous things to his fellow PCs. Anyway, I like the idea of interacting with Things Man was not meant to Know turn the PC into an alien monster instead of just cowering in terror when he sees an octopus.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

This logic implies that you should only ever take mental disadvantages at the very severe (6) level, both because you might as well get full points for your insanity and because it makes more roleplaying sense than mild (15) levels.

Not at all. As I mentioned; take the least severe when you want to RP the flaw generally but want to easily avoid failing a Self-Control roll when it's probably a 'very dangerous' indulgence.

But yes, if you plan to never resist your compulsions, then of course take the most severe. I've done this on characters where I wasn't ever going to have them resist their flaws.

I also routinely add Limitations and Enhancements on these types of Disads to flavor them, curtail them, and make them worse.

Someone who likes food has quirk: foodie. Someone who has trouble not eating even food which he 100% knows to be poisonous (but delicious) is mentally ill, Glutton: 6-9.

No, that's worse than a 6.

But this is where I feel having a GM involved is the magic: I see there as being a vast gulf between "Make a self-control roll when presented with a tempting morsel or good wine that, for some reason, you should resist" and "Make a self-control roll when presented with a tempting morsel or good wine that will kill you if you if you eat it".

Especially at a -5 cost. But then again, I also add bonuses and penalties to Self-Control rolls.

The Glutton (SF 12) is present with Fugu prepared by a world famous chef, in a top tier restaurant, with EMTs on stand-by? I'd penalize the attempt to resist, probably at a -8 and a reduction in exp for the session for even trying to resist.

Inversely, Fugu prepared on a back-alley vendor cart, by a palsied chef, with no hospital within an hour drive? I'd probably give them a +10 to the roll and extra exp if they didn't roll and just indulged...

Again, the issue is that the only situational modifier is for the strength of the stimulus, not the context or consequences of indulging.

Situational modifiers are up toe GM "Like all success rolls, self-control rolls are subject to modifiers." It's right there in the RAW, it just doesn't give the GM any pointers, so I say stretch your wings and develop some Situational Modifiers.

Hence the house rule to make them more attractive to roleplayers.

Agreed, I've also been doing that since... ah, way back when Kromm mentioned using penalties instead of induced behavior in Social situations (NPC attempting to sway PCs and PCs vs PCs), it's just an easy fit to so many other situations it was a gimme.

Works perfectly for Fright Check situations too, instead of running in terror, the PC has a penalty to all actions that aren't running in terror (or whatever the result of the Fright Check was).

I've even built leveled Perks and Quirks based on overcoming Fright Check penalties.

[sjmdw45]

Situational modifiers are up toe GM "Like all success rolls, self-control rolls are subject to modifiers." It's right there in the RAW *snip*

That's not an accurate quotation. There's no analogy drawn to "like other success rolls". Here's the actual wording in context:

"Self-control rolls are subject to modifiers. Exceptionally mild or severe stimuli can give bonuses or penalties; drugs, magic, pain, and countless other things can influence your resolve. See the disadvantage description for specific exam-ples." -Adventurers pg 55

The descriptions use language strongly suggesting that consequences are not among the factors that influence self-control rolls; only stimulus strenth and things like drugs, pain, and magic that weaken will. Descriptions underline this by giving no examples of bonuses for consequences or context, except in rare cases where the disadvantage interacts with another disadvantage (Greedy -> Honesty), NOT other character traits (Greedy -> honesty, or lechery -> honesty).

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Agreed, I've also been doing that since... ah, way back when Kromm mentioned using penalties instead of induced behavior in Social situations (NPC attempting to sway PCs and PCs vs PCs), it's just an easy fit to so many other situations it was a gimme.

Hey, good for you. But someone who reads Adventurers pg 55 won't have any way to know not to follow the rules as written. That's what I'm pointing out to readers of this thread. Glad we agree.

[Rolando]

In the list of things that modify a self control roll you missed the part that says "and countless other things".

As a GM you can modify the roll because the consequences are particularly harsh.

One key aspect to interpret RPG rules is not too get to fixated in what is written in those rules.

As a GM you must make the game and rules make sense, if something don't make sense adjust it, the rules are tools, use them for good effect.

[Dalin]

In decades of playing GURPS with many hundreds of players, I've never yet played at a table that was super-literal about running disadvantages, though I read about it online frequently. But, one important RAW-compliant way to overcome mental disadvantages in DFRPG is a Sense of Duty:

Originally Posted by Adventurers, p. 65

On the upside, if other disadvantages would interfere with your commitment, the GM will overrule those, too.

This means that anyone with Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions) can, in extremis, suppress a disadvantage for the good of the group. In my own games (and the way I teach it to new players at our DFRPG camp), this means that people typically roleplay their disads voluntarily. In critical situations, a player might roll to resist. If they fail, the rest of the party can intervene, even with an oral command, "Don't eat it!"

I do like the idea of taking a penalty to success rolls in lieu of succumbing. That definitely fits the spirit of the rules.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

That's not an accurate quotation. There's no analogy drawn to "like other success rolls". Here's the actual wording in context:

-Adventurers pg 55

Ah right, DFRPG. Mea culpa, I reflexively refer to Basic.

[restlessgriffin]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Greedy: "Failure means you’ll do whatever it takes to get the payoff, however illegal or ill-advised."

You seem to be entirely overlooking modifiers. In the case of murder family for $10K, that's immoral and illegal so it's going to be at least +10 modifier, probably +20. Not to mention as GM, why would you even consider the need to roll!

Now lets say the proposal was to murder the PCs cheating wife, who he no longer loves ...

Now even if the PC takes the deal, there is a time factor involved. Initially he agrees to the deal. That doesn't mean he carries out the murder, just that he agrees to do so initially. A lot can happen in the time it takes to plot the murder ... He can roleplay the actions initially and change his mind later.

Gluttony: "Failure means you partake – regardless of the consequences."

And they will probably end up with Fat or Overweight disad also. Again modifiers apply though. Family has been after you to lose weight, doctor says you need to lose weight or it's gonna kill you -- diabetes, high-blood pressure and you just had a heart-attack last month ...

Lots of modifiers, but if you crit fail, off to Baskin-Robins. Again time alters things so will you may have a +10 modifier today, as time goes buy things may swing the other way. A huge feast is before you (Thanksgiving in the US perhaps) ...

Cowardice: "Failure means you must refuse to endanger yourself unless threatened with greater danger!"

See Samwell Tarly (Game of Thrones).

Bloodlust: "Failure compels you to try to kill your foe instead – even if that means compromising stealth, straying from a plan, or (in town) breaking the law."

Starlord vs Thanos.

Compulsive lying: "Make a self-control roll to tell the truth even to your friends (roll out of sight of the other players!). Failure means you lie – regardless of the consequences."

Wasn't me! Said every guilty criminal, even on the witness stand.

Kleptomania: "Failure means you must try to steal it."

This is a mental illness.

Miserliness: "Failure means you won’t spend the money."

Marriages have been ruined due to this.

Obsession: "Make a self-control roll whenever you believe (rightly or wrongly!) a course of action would bring you even a bit closer to this. Failure compels you to pursue that path regardless of the consequences."

Pyromania: "Make a self-control roll whenever you have an opportunity to set a fire, attack using fire, or stand around appreciating a fire. Failure means you do exactly that, regardless of the consequences."

Again, this is a mental disorder! Not rational.

Many of these are conceptually interesting from a RP angle, but that insane "regardless of the consequences" clause makes them infeasible to roleplay as written, except for a madman.

These are caricature traits, not character traits.

If a player ROLEPLAYS the Disadvantages they take, most of the time there shouldn't be an issue. And by the way, isn't this part of a Sanity thread regarding Lovecraftian horrors? The characters should be not just picking up disads, they should possibly be losing their grip on reality! Sure they light a match in a gunpowder factory, better than having Cthulhu get you!

What you list are consequences when player wants to AVOID roleplaying the disadvantage. It's extreme because it is going to the worst case scenario. So the player SHOULD roleplay the disad and not go there!