Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2022, 07:17 PM   #11
tbone
 
tbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: What's the point of the rule of 14?

I asked this same question over on the DFRPG forum, got helpful responses from Kromm and others, and posted the results on my page of DFRPG Q&A.

Which I now bring to you here, by casting Cut-and-Paste:

Quote:
Why does a Fright Check always fail on a roll of 14 or higher?

Question: A Fright Check is a modified Will roll that works like any other, with one unusual difference: a “cap” of 13 on the character’s resistance to fear, meaning that any roll of 14 or higher always fails. Is there a game balance-related or other particular reason for this small complication? (Source: Forum thread)

Answer: See the thread for Kromm’s detailed responses. My summary of these: a) It’s a carry-over from how GURPS games Fright Checks (“The Rule of 14” from BS p. 360); b) the causes of a Fright Check in DFRPG are generally supernatural or other overwhelming sources of terror, not mundane causes, justifying the change in procedure; and c) the cap ensures that monsters’ Terror ability has some chance of working even against delvers who often have ridiculously high resistance to fear (even the nerdy scholarly types who get that high resistance simply from high IQ, with its included Will).

Commentary: As expected, there are reasons for the cap, and they’re solid enough. I don’t expect GMs using the rule as written to run into any problems.

That said, I can’t stop giving the cap some side-eye, for reasons including these:
  • I’m not sure about this idea that Normal Norm, who settles for a modified Will of 13, and Fearless Frieda, who spends a lot of points on modified Will of 14 or even far higher (from Will, Fearlessness, etc.), both fail a Fright Check on the same 14+ roll. As I see it, when Frieda makes those purchases, she’s saying, “I’m spending these points so that Fright Checks affect me less than they do Norm.” But the game says in reply, “I’ll take those points, thanks, but you still fail as often as Norm.” Hmm.
  • It seems particularly unfair to Frieda to fail on a roll of 14+ when circumstances grant Fright Check bonuses that allow even NPC scrubs a modified Will of 13+.
  • When Fright Checks are unpenalized, the cap seems unfair to Frieda; when Fright Checks are penalized heavily enough that Norm and Frieda both have to roll vs 13 or some lower number anyway, the cap becomes irrelevant. In between those cases, when the roll is penalized modestly, the cap serves only to lessen the difference between Norm’s and Frieda’s chances of success. That’s not some problematic thing, but is it necessary?
  • I appreciate that the cap injects a fun chance that even a stalwart like Frieda will occasionally freak out. But I’ll note that normal critical failure rules already handle this.
  • I don’t see a particular in-game reason why Fright Checks should fail with some special frequency created by the cap. After all, GURPS offers a cheap perk (Rule of 15 in Power-Ups: Perks; Brave in Dungeon Fantasy 11: Power-Ups) that allows raising the cap anyway. And GURPS and DFRPG alike happily let any character off the fright hook entirely by buying Unfazeable.

These are minor objections, though. I think the objection involving Fright Checks at a bonus is the strongest, but DFRPG doesn’t bother itself with these (such as Fright Checks for “mundane” stuff like dead bodies). Furthermore, fair to Frieda or not, having a lot of randomly-dictated Fright Check failures can be fun. And, while the Fright Check cap does make for a rules complication (which is what spurred my original question), it’s a very small one – far smaller than miscellaneous other rules complications that I happily accept or even invent. All in all, the designers’ thoughts behind the cap are well taken.
In short: If we were designing 5e, I'd drop the Rule of 14 as a (small) complication that just doesn't feel necessary to me. But as it stands, there is intent and reason behind it, and I can appreciate that. (In particular, taking a look again now at the DFRPG thread, I think post #7 by Kromm does a good job of arguing for the Rule.)
__________________
T Bone
GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com

Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated)

(Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.)
tbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2022, 08:46 PM   #12
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: What's the point of the rule of 14?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post

As for Unfazeable, I have trouble with accepting it as a truly mundane advantage,
Things Man Was Not Meant To Know don't exist in a purely mundane game.

So Frights Checks in a purely mundane game have mundane sources only and Unfazeable is probably not a big deal.

Then in games that do have Things Unfazeable might have a non-mundane source.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2022, 11:37 PM   #13
VIVIT
 
VIVIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: The Wired
Default Re: What's the point of the rule of 14?

I'd expect a bona fide TMWNMTK to have a Cosmic form of Terror (possibly Confusion-based rather than Fright-based) that crushes your puny mortal Unfazeable underfoot without even realizing it's there.

As for realistic uses for a mundane Unfazeable, I can see an Accessibility-limited version being useful as a way to put a point value on the implied immunity to mundane FC sources for things that might frighten others but which count as "ordinary" to you. I can see this being useful in the same civvie-centered sort of game where Pacifism (Reluctant Killer) is the default and not having it is an advantage.
VIVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2022, 09:13 AM   #14
GarenLiLorian
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Default Re: What's the point of the rule of 14?

My own house rule is to use the difference between the character's effective Will and the cap as a bonus to the 3d6 roll for consequences. So when Fearless Frieda--with an effective 18 Will--rolls a 14 for a fright check, she rolls 3d6-4, with 0 and below counting as a single second of stun. This allows high Will and Fearlessness to continue to matter, while maintaining the desire for Fright Checks to be meaningful.
GarenLiLorian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2022, 05:58 PM   #15
edk926
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Default Re: What's the point of the rule of 14?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VIVIT View Post
I'd expect a bona fide TMWNMTK to have a Cosmic form of Terror (possibly Confusion-based rather than Fright-based) that crushes your puny mortal Unfazeable underfoot without even realizing it's there.

As for realistic uses for a mundane Unfazeable, I can see an Accessibility-limited version being useful as a way to put a point value on the implied immunity to mundane FC sources for things that might frighten others but which count as "ordinary" to you. I can see this being useful in the same civvie-centered sort of game where Pacifism (Reluctant Killer) is the default and not having it is an advantage.

Horror has a limitation on Unfazeable called Familiar Horrors that works kind of that way.
edk926 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fright check, rule of 14

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.