Fright Checks, Damage, and Scaling

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Where the rules mean "X% of FP" or "Y% of HP," they spell that out. The game definitely doesn't assume that you should translate "X FP" and "Y HP" into proportional effects for victims whose FP or HP aren't of order 10. Similarly, if the rules intend "Effect Q, or effect R if the victim is immune to Q," they say so. Otherwise, immunity to Q means winning the lottery in this case. A basic GURPS design principle is that if something that costs points reduces the danger of a threat, then that's the desired effect. That's why danger-reducing traits cost points in the first place.

Thanks for the answer about the premature aging, that kind of makes sense. Although then again, a failed Fright Check isn't injury - aging or otherwise - from an external attack, but rather from one's own physiological response to fear, so although Unaging should invalidate any aging effect, I feel like a level or two of Short Extended Lifespan maybe should indicate appropriate scaling up or down. I would also argue the same about scaling the years of youth one could gain via Leech (Steal Youth). Unless the Lifespan traits are more like Vulnerability and IT:DR, but for years of aging, I guess. I have always thought it also made sense that if a character took disadvantages like Weakness, but had lots of HP, the internally-generated injury due to their disadvantage should also scale up (or, rarely, down) appropriately.

I thought that the HP injury might be argued to scale because at least some of those HP losses sound like they may be due to collapsing (as in the impact of your body hitting the ground as you lose all muscle control and / or pass out). If that's true, then more massive creatures failing a Fright Check and being indicated to have collapsed would, I would think, have their injury scaled up because (maybe not at HP/10, but representing increases due to weight when falling).

Or, alternatively, the HP loss is due to cardiac damage / shock from the fear. Either way, both "explanations" for the injury seem to justify scaling of that injury, either with mass, HP, or fitness (HT) or something like that.

Also, if someone was playing a deciscale campaign where some of the characters have fractional HP (if this optional rule is allowed), then a Fright Check result that would deal out 1 HP of injury would be much harsher, potentially insta-killing them. It all depends on what the actual real-world injury is actually meant to be when you hit a Fright Check result indicating a 1 HP injury or something like that.

[Dammann]

Is the fright check result that deals a point of damage like the aging result (that is to say, one suggested result to choose from)? While I don't memorize all my players' character sheets, I feel certain I'd remember that one of those characters was a tiny 0.5HP character.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Dammann

Is the fright check result that deals a point of damage like the aging result (that is to say, one suggested result to choose from)? While I don't memorize all my players' character sheets, I feel certain I'd remember that one of those characters was a tiny 0.5HP character.

Results:

"30 – Catatonia. Stare into space for 1d days. Then roll vs. HT. On a failed roll, remain catatonic for another 1d days, and so on. If you have no medical care, lose 1 HP the first day, 2 the second, and so on. If you survive and awaken, all skill rolls and attribute checks are at -2 for as many days as the catatonia lasted."

AND

"32 – Stricken. You fall to the ground, taking 2d of injury in the form of a mild heart attack or stroke."

Possibly others, that I didn't see or fall back to these. The HP injury is unambiguous. You also get HP injury results in Powers from failed Awe and Confusion Check results.

[Flyndaran]

That's definitely a case for scaling. Heart attacks and comas don't injure small creatures more than large.