Mad as Bones (Pyramid #3/103) - Does it replace Fright Checks?

[Kallatari]

Going over the article Mad as Bones with the new Stability Point (SP) rules mechanism to measure mental sanity/mental hit points, etc., and I was wondering if that system is meant to completely replace the Fright Check?

It's obvious by what is written in the article that one of the conditions for losing an SP is the Fright Check, or "fear." It pretty much duplicate the Fright Check rules identically (i.e., same modifiers), except that if you fail the Fright Check roll, rather than following-up on the Fright Check Table to see what happens (which varies from stun to gaining permanent disadvantages), you now instead lose 1 SP. Does this mean the Fright Check Table is no longer required? Or do you apply the Fright Check Table effects normally and you lose 1 SP?

I was wondering because, by the rules in Basic, a failed Fright Check will cause you to at least be stunned for a moment; it therefore has an immediate impact on combat if something scary jumps out at you. With Stability Points, you just lose 1 SP but can continue to act normally and thus has no immediate impact in combat (unless of course you had already lost a bunch of SP previously and that's the SP that tips you over the edge).

I find the latter disappointing as it removes the impact of fear on combat, and thus think you should keep the Fright Check Table as well. But if you keep it the normal Fright Check Table, then does that not run the risk of double-penalizing with respect to acquiring disadvantages (i.e., once by Fright Check and once by SP loss)?

One implementation concept I do have is that a failed Fright Check would result in being stunned for margin of failure and lose of 1 SP... but no role on the Fright Check Table. So this keeps the "stunned by fear" factor, but doesn't delve into the going insane part that the SP now represent. Does that make sense?


A related question: should Fright Checks possibly result in more than 1 SP being lost? Perhaps making it based on the margin of failure (or maybe 1/2 or 1/3 margin)? I'm still not completely sure if that would be a good or bad thing. It makes it more likely that a single really scary event can drive you insane (give you mental disadvantages), which can happen in the actual rules on a really bad Fright Check Table roll with a single Fright Check but can't happen by just losing 1 SP with these new rules.


Anyway, I was wondering how others have implemented that Fright Check vs Stability Points rules, or just have thoughts on how to do so.

[Hide]

AFAIK the system doesn’t replace fright checks, it adds a couple of extra secondary attributes related to your mental stability. If you fail the fright checks, you’ll suffer the normal consequences but also your character’s stability points will be negatively affected.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Hide

AFAIK the system doesn’t replace fright checks, it adds a couple of extra secondary attributes related to your mental stability. If you fail the fright checks, you’ll suffer the normal consequences but also your character’s stability points will be negatively affected.

Pretty much this.

[Kallatari]

Thanks for the answer.

[Kallatari]

Figured I'd re-use the same thread as, although a different question, it relates the same article.

This question relates to Mental Disturbances and self-control rolls. I think I'm failing to understand why you lose SP if you fail a self-control roll.

The end of that section says if you voluntarily give in to a disadvantage, you actually regain SP. That makes sense; people do their vices because it makes them feel good and thus is relaxing for them.

Alternatively, you can try to resist by making a Self-Control Roll. So here, I also sort of get it. The moment you try to resist, that would indeed cause mental stress. But what leaves me confused is that if you do resist you aren't stressed, but if you give in, you are and lose SP.

So, I have a compulsive stealing. If I steal, I feel good and regain SP. If I try to avoid stealing and make a Self-Control Roll, I had a bit of a stressful time, but it's good (no SP loss) and I can prevent myself from stealing. But if I fail the Self-Control Roll, after my mental struggle I give in and steal... but instead of enjoying it and regaining SP, I end up losing SP?

Is this meant to imply some sort of "I feel guilty/bad about it and thus lose SP?"

Why wouldn't resisting not cause an SP loss since you're in an area of temptation and must constantly struggle not to give in? Granted, I can see a meta-game reasoning here: people shouldn't be punished for resisting their disadvantages, otherwise why bother with Self-Control Rolls.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Why wouldn't resisting not cause an SP loss since you're in an area of temptation and must constantly struggle not to give in? Granted, I can see a meta-game reasoning here: people shouldn't be punished for resisting their disadvantages, otherwise why bother with Self-Control Rolls.

Another meta-game reason - if resisting caused loss of SP, and failing the roll didn't, people with high control rolls (i.e. who aren't very strongly influenced by their disad) will be losing a lot more SP than those who have low checks and are in the thrall of their disads. This means people with low self-control rolls get more points back and suffer less.

Also, it's often bad roleplay to resist a disad, so doing so should come at a cost. Giving in without rolling has a reward, trying to resist has the cost that if you fail you lose rather than gain SP. Success means you resist, no SP cost - presumably not succumbing to the disad is reward enough.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Is this meant to imply some sort of "I feel guilty/bad about it and thus lose SP?"

Pretty much, yeah.