Sanity and other Soul-shaking horrors

[Rolando]

Many quirk level disadvantages are the best way of handling mild mental "damage" and corruption.

The regular mental disadvantages are always roleplayed, not just rolled for effect.

I believe GURPS/DFRPG handles that quite perfectly..

Remember a compulsive behavior may be mild or harsh, and then it may have a low or high self control roll, so there are two axes for control.

Following the example of a snake themed horror dungeon adventure (with some snake themed overland horror adventure), failing some sanity rolls make one of the characters nervous of small hiding spaces like holes in a wooden floor or walls, also behind cabinets, packed firewood, etc. The effect is just mild discomfort and mostly roleplaying, the character don't like to be near those unless they can see it or be ready if something comes from it, probably tell some hireling or fellow character to "watch that hole there" while passing by, this is a quirk (-1)

After more adventure and more sanity loss the player may get something new (fear of darkness, quirk level) or dial the fear of "snakes in hidden holes" up and turn it into a -5 Compulsive Behavior (check for monsters in small holes or cracks) with a self control of 15. Still a very mild disadvantage that is mostly roleplayed and pushes the character to take some time to check for evidently dangerous holes in floor or other places snakes can come from, but most people will find it barely amusing if at all, probably just party member will notice this character is taking some extra time to check for weird places or holes that are obviously empty, or things like checking the same hole twice.

After more sanity loss (this one is king rolling high when making fright checks), the disadvantage may still be -5 but with a self control of 9 or make it -10 disadvantage (will check for unusual places like cabinets and be nervous of people carrying lots of stuff like packed firewood) and keep the SC of 15 or maybe 12, so the character will not act like a maniac most of the time, but now fellow character see something is going on this character is probably not talking about.

That is why the disadvantages are great as sanity loss symptoms, you can control severity and frequency, also intensity by changing the compulsion to check holes (as fear of hidden snakes or monsters) to an actual phobia of snakes or monsters, or delusion (the snake god is going to get me through one of those dimension doors in the holes in the walls!).

Also, remember not all fright checks will result into sanity loss, you may tally the failed rolls (and by how much some of the nasty roll succeeded probably) for some nasty horrors. So sanity loss is more a flavor thing and not a crippling freakshow maker.

Also remember, each failed roll or even some successful rolls, if not by enough, will lower the will for future fright checks if they are related and/or if the situation gets worst.

If you have access to GURPS Horror it will help a lot more too, in many ways, it is a good read by itself.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Rolando

The regular mental disadvantages are always roleplayed, not just rolled for effect.

I believe GURPS/DFRPG handles that quite perfectly..

Roleplaying quirk-level disadvantages like Lechery works fine, but the mechanics of self-control rolls is where it all falls apart, because roleplay is complex and situational, whereas self-control rolls are simplistic and context-free.

I may as well share my houserule for restoring roleplay to mental disadvantages:

1. Roleplay your mental disadvantages per their description.

2. If you try to resist your mental disadvantages, make a self-control roll per DF Adventurers.

3. HOWEVER, on a failed self-control roll, you are not forced to act out the disadvantage. Instead, choose between

3a. Act out the disadvantage, per DF Adventurers as usual, OR

3b. Accept a distraction penalty on all success rolls until you overcome the disadvantage. A pyromaniac might find his mind drifting back to that one PERFECT bonfire that he could have set (if not for the fact that it would have killed the party); a lecher might find himself fantasizing about an attractive individual; these undermine readiness. The penalty is -1 for a mild disadvantage (self-control roll 15), -2 for moderate cases (12), -3 for severe (9), and -4 for crippling (6). New self-control rolls can be made after 1 hour, 1 day, and every day thereafter. A successful self-control roll ends the distraction and allows the character to put it out of their mind.

Result:

Roleplaying takes precedence, and you don't have to worry about being forced by die rolls to act out of character. If you're playing a devoted family man with Greedy (12), you can roleplay your greed to your heart's delight in every way that makes roleplaying sense, without the danger that you will murder your own family just because someone offers you $10,000. The very worst that could happen is that you'd be distracted, obsessed, and guilty for a while about the fact that part of you WANTS to take the $10,000 and perhaps fantasizes about having all that money.

[Rolando]

That is a good house rule, I usually don-t have problems with self control rolls because my players tend to not use them much, instead they roleplay the disadvantage and we tend to go along in a way that doesn-t disturb the adventure nor the other players.

I can see why the rule may be kind of all or nothing as written tough.

For serious games it may upset the drama and turn the game into something silly, but again, there are multiple ways a pyromaniac can act or a lecher when losing self control, and many of them may be very serious and not silly at all, but at the end these are serious disadvantages (-15), so those are better not granted until a lot of sanity is lost.

If you grant -1 to -10 as sanity lost effects you will probably will be fine with no house rule.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Roleplaying quirk-level disadvantages like Lechery works fine, but the mechanics of self-control rolls is where it all falls apart, because roleplay is complex and situational, whereas self-control rolls are simplistic and context-free.

Well not really. What happens if you fail a self control roll isn't usually specified in any detail. The reason for that is the roll is to avoid the problem entirely, and the intended effect is if you fail it, you have to role play your problem even though you didn't want to in this scene. If you are [already] roleplaying your disadvantage to the satisfaction of the GM, you don't need to attempt a self control roll in the first place.

But yeah, distraction penalties are a pretty reasonable way of "playing" a disadvantage in a scene if you can't think of a better one, or your group dynamic means the GM needs to impose something mechanical.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Well not really. What happens if you fail a self control roll isn't usually specified in any detail.

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

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

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

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."

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."

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

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

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."

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.

[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.