The Rules of 14, 16, & 20

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I reduced the cost of DX to 10/level above 16 and IQ to 2/level.

Given the much higher cost of DX, I assume you decouple IQ from Will and Per, but not decouple Basic Speed from DX?

Originally Posted by evileeyore

In my home game I ignore the Rule of 14. I apply the "Rule of 20 minus BAD" instead. So a monster set at BAD 6* imposes a maximum Fright check of 14. A monster of BAD 0* imposes no maximum fright check.

Don't you mean minimum fright check of 14?

Such a rule seems much more reasonable (even if it does mean that fright checks can be equally dangerous even if one character who is far braver than another).

Originally Posted by Critical

By your own logic and arguments, this will not happen. The guy with the 20 Will will be in much better shape against the minor things than he will against the "dread master demon" that imposes a -10 penalty to fright checks.

No, I did not write that the "dread master demon" would have a large enough penalty to make the rule of 14 inapplicable, just that it would presumably be large enough to have a relatively small impact. For example, a -6 would qualify for that. In that case, the guy with Will+Fearlessness 20 would have his modified Will reduced only by one by the rule of 14, some thus the relatively small impact in that case (compare for example with a penalty of 0 in which case the modified Will would be reduced by 7).

The cases where the rule of 14 is inapplicable aren't very relevant. The only effect of the rule of 14 is to make all other fright checks equally difficult even if one of them is a minor horror and the other is a "dread master demon".

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Given the much higher cost of DX, I assume you decouple IQ from Will and Per, but not decouple Basic Speed from DX?

Correct. I use PKitty's House rule on Will and Per.

Don't you mean minimum fright check of 14?

Maybe? I mean the maximum their "Bravery" score* can be is 20-BAD.


* Will + Fearlessness + Combat Reflexes + etc.

Such a rule seems much more reasonable (even if it does mean that fright checks can be equally dangerous even if one character who is far braver than another).

Everyone is still affected by any "Bravery" penalties before the maximum cap is applied, so some characters are going to rolling against a much lower score, while everyone is ensured to have the larger possibility of being negatively affected by the indescribable horror.

The only effect of the rule of 14 is to make all other fright checks equally difficult even if one of them is a minor horror and the other is a "dread master demon".

Yup.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Critical

By your own logic and arguments, this will not happen. The guy with the 20 Will will be in much better shape against the minor things than he will against the "dread master demon" that imposes a -10 penalty to fright checks.

Let's look at this with the guidelines from Horror.
For a guy with Will 20, he rolls against 13 (Rule of 14 means you always fail on a 14 or higher) if he finds a single unremarkable dead body (from +6 if properly prepared for burial to +0 for a typical victim of violence), a cellar stuffed full of horribly mutilated corpses (-1 for large group, -3 for mutilation), the horribly mutilated body of his wife (-3 for mutiliation, -4 for loved one), or the severed head of his daughter (-1 for mutilation, -6 for Dependent).

When dealing with monsters, everything from dog-sized creatures (+1 for size) to hideous monstrosities that blot out the sun (-1 for appearance, -6 for size) is equally frightening to him. Seeing a spirit in the garden out of the corner of his eye (probably +0, comparable to a momentary apparition in a mirror) and having said garden open up and spew out zombies (-7) are functionally equivalent. If he's investigating reports of cannibals attacking and devouring people in the city subway tunnels, a piece of graphic, realistic graffiti depicting such an attack (+0) has a roughly 15% chance of causing him to freak out... as does discovering his entire family are part of the cannibal cult, and so was he until he lost his memory of it (-7).

That's... something of a problem.

[Tom H.]

My intuition has been that the rules of 14, 16, and 20 are all casualties of the bell curve distribution of the 3d6 mechanic.

Effective skills seem to be more meaningful toward the middle of the curve, rolls of 10-11. And less so when futile, toward or under 3, or of little challenge, toward or beyond 18.

These rules would not be necessary in a linear d20 mechanic like D&D because an effective skill and difficulty target number are always in proportion and don't risk being additionally warped by being out of balance with a fixed bell curve.

There may be some strengths to the GURPS bell curve, but since the curve doesn't automatically adjust to extreme scores, the scores have to be adjusted to fit the static curve. Hence the necessity of the arbitrary rules of 14, 16, 20.

In fact, I would prefer to refer to these rules in a more descriptive way such as skill caps. (Somebody let me know if you have a better term.)

I haven't fully analyzed all the strengths and weaknesses of the GURPS 3d6 mechanic, but the issue with the skill caps makes the system less elegant. I have to remember lots of exceptions and can't just trust the simplicity of the base mechanic.

Don't get me wrong--I like GURPS, but this seems to be a known complication.

I would also include another adjustment into the same category as these skill caps. There is an accommodation for regular contests when both contestants have extremely high or low scores (p. B349). The mechanic here is to shift both scores until one of them is at 10. No coincidence that that is at the middle of the bell curve. Hence, trying to make the rolls more meaningful.

Finally, this is my intuition about the rules. If I have missed the actual reason for them, I could stand to be corrected.

[Critical]

Originally Posted by Andreas

No, I did not write that the "dread master demon" would have a large enough penalty to make the rule of 14 inapplicable, just that it would presumably be large enough to have a relatively small impact. For example, a -6 would qualify for that. In that case, the guy with Will+Fearlessness 20 would have his modified Will reduced only by one by the rule of 14, some thus the relatively small impact in that case (compare for example with a penalty of 0 in which case the modified Will would be reduced by 7).

You just said "large." -10 is a large penalty. If we're talking about a game where player characters have attributes as high as 20, a super frightening demon that imposes a -10 to fright checks is hardly over the top, and makes a material difference to someone with a high will.

[Critical]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Let's look at this with the guidelines from Horror.
For a guy with Will 20, he rolls against 13 (Rule of 14 means you always fail on a 14 or higher) if he finds a single unremarkable dead body (from +6 if properly prepared for burial to +0 for a typical victim of violence), a cellar stuffed full of horribly mutilated corpses (-1 for large group, -3 for mutilation), the horribly mutilated body of his wife (-3 for mutiliation, -4 for loved one), or the severed head of his daughter (-1 for mutilation, -6 for Dependent).

When dealing with monsters, everything from dog-sized creatures (+1 for size) to hideous monstrosities that blot out the sun (-1 for appearance, -6 for size) is equally frightening to him. Seeing a spirit in the garden out of the corner of his eye (probably +0, comparable to a momentary apparition in a mirror) and having said garden open up and spew out zombies (-7) are functionally equivalent. If he's investigating reports of cannibals attacking and devouring people in the city subway tunnels, a piece of graphic, realistic graffiti depicting such an attack (+0) has a roughly 15% chance of causing him to freak out... as does discovering his entire family are part of the cannibal cult, and so was he until he lost his memory of it (-7).

That's... something of a problem.

Why is that a problem? Are you basing this on some empirical data about the nature of fear that I am not aware of? Why do you assume it should work differently?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Critical

Why is that a problem? Are you basing this on some empirical data about the nature of fear that I am not aware of? Why do you assume it should work differently?

It seems at least narratively weird that a character would be equally spooked by hearing a song his dead grandmother liked playing from apparently nowhere and having her show up in person along with all her dead friends to pinch his cheeks and eat him all up. Does that mean that the two events are equivalent to the character?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Critical

Why is that a problem? Are you basing this on some empirical data about the nature of fear that I am not aware of? Why do you assume it should work differently?

Well, because one case is seeing the dead body of someone you didn't know at a funeral, and the other is finding your daughter's mutilated corpse. Clearly the latter should cause more of a freak out than the former, but with Rule of 14 and high Will, it doesn't.

Granted, doing away with Rule of 14 simply shifts the goalposts (now that guy reacts to the anonymous funeral the same way as finding a closet full of horribly mutilated bodies), but that's just an issue with GURPS wanting 17 and 18 to always fail, simply because "zero chance of this happening" is narratively boring, and means rolling dice is without purpose. That's also a rather small chance of the character being affected (less than 1 in 50) so that such discrepancies aren't too terrible, as opposed to the significantly larger probability associated with Rule of 14 (right around a 1 in 6 chance).

If you feel everyone everywhere should have at least a 1 in 6 chance of a freak out when confronted with anything that can cause someone without a relevant phobia to suffer such, Rule of 14 covers that. I don't feel that's accurate, however - last wake I went to didn't seem to have anywhere close to one in every 6 people get mentally Stunned upon seeing the deceased.

[sir_pudding]

If the total bonuses to Fright Checks exceed a certain number then you probably shouldn't roll at all. Seeing a corpse at a funeral is at least good for the bonus for preparation, and probably some others. Regardless, it is a silly thing to call for a Fright Check for.

[Anthony]

The rule of 14 on fright checks is only needed because will can exceed 13. If you're uncomfortable with people being fearless, why let them take that much will in the first place?

It also has somewhat dubious history, as the rule of 14 for will checks was invented in 3rd edition as a patch for self-control rolls in 3e being will rolls, meaning 16 IQ or Will plus a bunch of mental disads was highly abusive.