Fright Checks, Damage, and Scaling

[JCurwen3]

Some results of Fright Checks can lead to premature aging, or collapse and subsequent HP damage.

There is nothing that suggests that the aging or HP damage be scaled, but should it? Are there any previous rulings regarding this?

For instance, if a Fright Check led to a major physical change, which can include losing years of lifespan, should it be scaled with levels of Extended or Short Lifespan, such that long-lived creatures like elves don't just laugh off an extra year or so, and short-lived races don't end up getting one foot prematurely in the grave?

And for HP, which roughly represent mass (and Fright Check HP loss represents collapsing / falling), and are scaled for healng purposes, should it be scaled to maxHP/10, such that a 20 HP creature takes 2 HP, and in a deciscale campaign a 0.5 HP creature takes 0.1?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

For instance, if a Fright Check led to a major physical change, which can include losing years of lifespan, should it be scaled with levels of Extended or Short Lifespan, such that long-lived creatures like elves don't just laugh off an extra year or so, and short-lived races don't end up getting one foot prematurely in the grave?

I definitely wouldn't scale Age. You need to make sure those Ageing traits make a difference. Otherwise they're free points/useless.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I definitely wouldn't scale Age. You need to make sure those Ageing traits make a difference. Otherwise they're free points/useless.

You probably just should choose some other effect in such cases. The important thing for that Table result is that the character should gain some combination of physical disads that come to -15 points.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

You probably just should choose some other effect in such cases. The important thing for that Table result is that the character should gain some combination of physical disads that come to -15 points.

Wait, so the character spent 15 points on Unaging (a rare hazard), only for the GM to retroactively [change the] hazard to something else? Harsh.

[Kromm]

I agree that if some random effect happens to be one that would bounce off a character's specific immunity, that character should get to win the lottery and be unaffected. There's no point in taking specific immunities if the GM does end runs around them whenever they ought to kick in. Imagine a hero blowing the roll not to trigger a trap (equivalent to failing that Fright Check), the trap targeting a random hit location (equivalent to the roll on the Fright Check Table), the hit location coming up "neck" (equivalent to our aging result), and the GM moving it to the vitals because the character spent 5 points on Injury Tolerance (No Neck). Not cool.

More generally, if somebody happens to have 100 HP or 50 FP or whatever, then random nasty things happening to him shouldn't get that much worse to punish him. Such traits cost points, presumably paid to minimize the impact of bad stuff that interacts with them. One of the main reasons for buying lots of HP or FP, for instance, is to have insurance against things that would lay out folks with relatively few HP or FP. Fright Check results aren't special in this regard.

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.

Obviously, there are some manifestly "unfair" genres like horror where the GM may choose to suspend this principle, but then the GM owes the players an up-front declaration of this before they spend points. Retconning how large HP totals, Unaging, etc. work in play is very, very uncool. And really, it's better just to follow the general advice that in such "unfair" genres, particularly horror, the protagonists should be ordinary folks of modest power, not people with superhuman capabilities. The implicit contract given to superhuman heroes is that they do in fact wade through dangers that Just Plain Folks can't ignore; that's why such characters are a poor fit here.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Wait, so the character spent 15 points on Unaging (a rare hazard), only for the GM to retroactively [change the] hazard to something else? Harsh.

There is no specific result on the Fright Check Table that calls for aging the character as the outcome. The entry for 24 gives "age five years" as one of the suggested possible effects for that result. GMs are free to pick something appropriate for the circumstances.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I agree that if some random effect happens to be one that would bounce off a character's specific immunity,

Not really applicable because there is no result on the Fright Check table which says just "character ages 5 years" There's a GM chosen "major physical effect" which could be aging.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not really applicable because there is no result on the Fright Check table which says just "character ages 5 years" There's a GM chosen "major physical effect" which could be aging.

The point being that if the GM cites the effect and only then recalls that the victim has Unaging – and this sort of thing happens all the time, since few GMs memorize every character sheet – then the GM is obliged to say, "Oh, well, I guess you're immune." It's no different from the GM forgetting that some PC has a power that gives him DR 100 on the skull but nowhere else, having an orc hit him on the top of the head, and then saying, "Oh, wait, he wouldn't have tried that if he had seen your Mega-Skull field . . . the orc hit you in the vitals instead." The GM's fallibility here is just another face of randomness.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The point being that if the GM cites the effect and only then recalls that the victim has Unaging – and this sort of thing happens all the time, since few GMs memorize every character sheet – then the GM is obliged to say, "Oh, well, I guess you're immune." It's no different from the GM forgetting that some PC has a power that gives him DR 100 on the skull but nowhere else, having an orc hit him on the top of the head, and then saying, "Oh, wait, he wouldn't have tried that if he had seen your Mega-Skull field . . . the orc hit you in the vitals instead." The GM's fallibility here is just another face of randomness.

I can get behind that. The general question of whether aging should scale is taken care of, and if I pick an inappropriate effect for a Fright Check failure, it's fair for you to call me on it. GM's, just prepare as best you can :)

[Kromm]

Some of the best fun I've had as a GM has involved me forgetting the PCs' abilities. I remember the time I had some liches try to capture a fantasy party by using a fancied-up Elixir of Sleep. Which worked just fine . . . except on the one PC who had sold part of her soul for Doesn't Sleep in order to better study necromancy. Unfortunately for the other PCs, perhaps, that PC was quite happy to make a deal with liches. It all worked out well in the end. :)