|
|
Post by barna10 on Oct 24, 2020 7:40:46 GMT -6
Palladium games have a Horror Factor mechanic. This handles the "horror" caused by encountering the strange, supernatural, scary, etc.
For instance, a skeleton might have a HF of 7. You basically make a save and roll over this or your PC is horrified.
I am mixed on including something like this in my new D&D campaign. It handles the 1st level character having a spine of steel and being scared by nothing!
We have the basics of this with morale for npcs/monsters, and dragon presence, but not a general mechanic.
Have you used something like this in your games?
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 24, 2020 11:11:24 GMT -6
1st-level PCs should be afraid of most things, Horror Factor or not  I seldom use such a mechanic except for the most horrific beings, or if an encounter is build on the effect so that the real challenge is not overcoming the monster, but overcoming the fear of the monster. As a player, I dislike mechanics that use a simple die roll to see if my PC is running away in panic (and being useless or even simply running to his death), that's not a lot of fun. I prefer to roleplay fear. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Oct 24, 2020 11:15:06 GMT -6
Normal underworld exploration should be enough to utterly freak players out.
Your two biggest tools are
1. proper pacing to build suspense, and
2. fear of the unknown.
Throw the players a curve-ball once in a while. A coffin full of unknown orange goop is more stress-inducing than a coffin with an undead monster. When I'm a player, something just a bit unusual will completely unnerve me - eg. a room has an angled floor. My imagination goes nuts, and my nerves are immediately shot.
The scariest moment I've ever experienced was the first time I ran into a one-way door - when I realized that our company had no way of getting back and we were probably going to all die as soon as we ran out of torches.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 24, 2020 13:28:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by barna10 on Oct 24, 2020 13:41:50 GMT -6
Requested access
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 24, 2020 13:56:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Oct 25, 2020 11:05:24 GMT -6
1st-level PCs should be afraid of most things, Horror Factor or not I seldom use such a mechanic except for the most horrific beings, Same here. I was considering a bravery stat, I was torn between that making the players slaves to their stats and why not, they should be role playing to their stats already. That said. As DM it is my job to bring the horror. After a few encounters I should have players jumpy and a little unsure of their surroundings using descriptions of all five senses. In our last session a troll attacked, the party had every opportunity to run, some “recalled” the lore about trolls and started yelling to run now and faster as they went. One stood and fired a bow, with the intent to run after that—due to encumbrance, that was not going to happen—the troll got a hot and a killing blow (the character was damaged already). The scene involved the troll slamming the character into the wall, breaking their spinal cord, in shock and unable to move they watched as the Troll went on take off and arm and start to eat from it. It was horrific. |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 25, 2020 12:23:06 GMT -6
My above doc's mechanics could be simplified by saying that pre-Hero-lvl PCs must Save vs. Terror, but Hero and up level PCs don't need to bother because of the increase in the size of their cojones.  |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Oct 25, 2020 13:19:06 GMT -6
My above doc's mechanics could be simplified by saying that pre-Hero-lvl PCs must Save vs. Terror, but Hero and up level PCs don't need to bother because of the increase in the size of their cojones. The mechanic is nicely done. In the end it is a morale check. I might barrow this for NPCs. |
|
muddy
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 159 
|
Post by muddy on Oct 27, 2020 13:19:15 GMT -6
Very nicely done - are the effects cumulative? Non-corp + underground = add three to difficulty?
I might be tempted to use it in a way that didn't become routine - the first time a PC met a terror inducing type of creature, a thereafter check was passed for those creatures, or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 28, 2020 1:51:47 GMT -6
Very nicely done - are the effects cumulative? Non-corp + underground = add three to difficulty? yup. I agree: 1st encounter. If the PC runs away, the check will have to be done again. However, if the PC defeats that kind of creature, there is no more need for the check. I know "morale"-type checks are not popular among long-standing players for their ever-steadfast PCs, but coming from a wargaming background, I don't have a problem with it, really. I kinda like a low-level adventure to resemble a classic ep of Scooby Doo: "ZOINKS! A gh-gh-ghost! Run, Scoob!" |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Oct 28, 2020 8:06:10 GMT -6
The mechanic is well done, quite similar to a morale check so fits in well with OD&D. I don't think there is a better horror mechanic than Insanity from CoC though.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 28, 2020 13:56:41 GMT -6
Perhaps a PC with exceptional INT (=Velma), will be skeptical of the phenomenon, and Reason will prevail over fear: a generous bonus to the roll will all but ensure the brainy PC will not run away in the face of the unknown. Then again, sometimes even Velma ran away too, carrying everyone else!
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 28, 2020 22:54:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 29, 2020 1:36:09 GMT -6
I'd honestly avoid trying to be too realistic when it comes to fear (and phobias) in RPGs. Some folks may have RL issues you're not aware of.
Plus, the adventurers are adventurers. Normal people might have to roll a Fear test before even going out on adventure, let alone descending into a crypt filled with horrors. The adventurers are probably all a rather jaded and/or demented bunch and only extreme situations (that would have normal men cower in fear or break down instantly) will break their resolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 29, 2020 2:45:53 GMT -6
Plus, the adventurers are adventurers. Normal people might have to roll a Fear test before even going out on adventure, let alone descending into a crypt filled with horrors. The adventurers are probably all a rather jaded and/or demented bunch and only extreme situations (that would have normal men cower in fear or break down instantly) will break their resolve. How much experience with terror and eldritch horrors do you assume first-level adventurers have? For me, a 1st level fighter is a hardy boy holding a sword for the first time; a 1st level magic-user is one who's just learn to cast his first spell; and a 1st level cleric has just discovered the difference between a cross and a mace. I also change the fighter's first level title from Veteran to Flunky, like Dave Arneson used. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 29, 2020 5:48:55 GMT -6
Eldritch horrors would be an extreme situation in which I might include a fear mechanic.
To me, once a character has a level in a class, they're not complete noobs. They're more experienced than "normal men", as in Chainmail. And as opposed to level-0 townsfolk in DCC.
I think, an adventurer would probably be afraid of a walking skeleton as much as they would be of a brigand - both will attack and may mean death. In a world where magic exists and people know that undead and such creatures exist, I don't think that an adventurer would be too terrified to fight against them, unless they with an army.
Of course, that heavily depends on the atmosphere of your campaign: In a Ravenloft-esque gothic setting, horror may play a more prominent role than in (to choose an extreme) a pulpy vampire slayer-campaign. In a "standard" high fantasy setting, a walking skeleton would probably be more welcome than a human enemy, as the skeleton is probably less robust and less intelligent.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 29, 2020 6:03:35 GMT -6
In a "standard" high fantasy setting, a walking skeleton would probably be more welcome than a human enemy, as the skeleton is probably less robust and less intelligent. That's the beauty of OD&D. There is no standard high fantasy setting. Of course, that heavily depends on the atmosphere of your campaign: In a Ravenloft-esque gothic setting, horror may play a more prominent role than in (to choose an extreme) a pulpy vampire slayer-campaign. Wouldn't characters in a gothic setting be more familiar with - and thereby less terrified of - undead and other forms of gothic horror than other characters from other worlds? |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 29, 2020 8:59:46 GMT -6
Might there be a way to reverse engineer the Turn Undead Matrix, to scare off player characters, instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Oct 29, 2020 10:58:12 GMT -6
When I'm Level 1 and have, at best, 6 hit points, the prospect of *anything* inflicting 6 hit points of damage in a single hit creates existential horror...
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 29, 2020 12:49:31 GMT -6
That's the beauty of OD&D. There is no standard high fantasy setting. OD&D to me is a rules system with an implied setting. I wasn't referring to this implied setting as "standard high fantasy". The standard high fantasy setting is present in many games, even OD&D games run by those who like that kind of setting. Wouldn't characters in a gothic setting be more familiar with - and thereby less terrified of - undead and other forms of gothic horror than other characters from other worlds? No. A gothic campaign setting usually has most people living in fear of the supernatural as it's a often a constant threat to their existence. There usually aren't many heroes around and those who are present sometimes have their own dark side. Gothic settings emphasize the dark aspects of folklore and fantasy, while in many fantasy settings these entities may exist but be a part of a huge pool of monsters even worse. In a gothic setting, the evil supernatural is often not weighed up with anything good. There's only evil in the darkness, but no God of Light to help, as in high fantasy. Magic is often rare or more for the evil folks, and only sometimes the heroes can also employ magic to their aid. There's no greater power to pray to and often no hope. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 29, 2020 13:27:04 GMT -6
OD&D to me is a rules system with an implied setting. I wasn't referring to this implied setting as "standard high fantasy". The standard high fantasy setting is present in many games, even OD&D games run by those who like that kind of setting. I don't think a setting is implied. If the LBB were given to two players and they were instructed to create a world using the information therein, I doubt the worlds would have much in common. They would have different maps, dungeons, cities, power structures, etc. They will draw off different sources of inspiration. They will contain different themes. One player might choose to ignore Monsters and Treasure completely; the other might be a loyalist. Greyhawk, Blackmoor, the Wilderlands, Carcosa, and the Isle of the Unknown all draw from the same rulebooks, but yield completely different results. No. A gothic campaign setting usually has most people living in fear of the supernatural as it's a often a constant threat to their existence. There usually aren't many heroes around and those who are present sometimes have their own dark side. Gothic settings emphasize the dark aspects of folklore and fantasy, while in many fantasy settings these entities may exist but be a part of a huge pool of monsters even worse. In a gothic setting, the evil supernatural is often not weighed up with anything good. There's only evil in the darkness, but no God of Light to help, as in high fantasy. Magic is often rare or more for the evil folks, and only sometimes the heroes can also employ magic to their aid. There's no greater power to pray to and often no hope. So if we take two fighters: one from Vampire Land, a gothic horror world, and another from a Bunny Horror World - which is exactly the same in all ways except it is populated only by normal humans and killer bunnies (think Monty Python)* - Vampire Land fighter will be more terrified of a werewolf than the Bunny Horror World fighter? *The far reaching - and perhaps excessive - similarities provide a baseline that normalizes all other variables and makes a more direct comparison is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 30, 2020 3:28:26 GMT -6
I don't think a setting is implied. If the LBB were given to two players and they were instructed to create a world using the information therein, I doubt the worlds would have much in common. They would have different maps, dungeons, cities, power structures, etc. They will draw off different sources of inspiration. They will contain different themes. One player might choose to ignore Monsters and Treasure completely; the other might be a loyalist. Greyhawk, Blackmoor, the Wilderlands, Carcosa, and the Isle of the Unknown all draw from the same rulebooks, but yield completely different results. I didn't say that the implied setting covers all aspects, did I? Dungeons and cities, for example, aren't even part of what "setting" usually means. Looks like you have a different understanding of the word. Take your examples and check for the stuff that's in the LBBs - humans & demi-humans, fighters, clerics, wizards... There's your implied fantasy setting. If the LBBs didn't feature demi-humans but covered blackpowder weapons, I highly doubt that your example settings would exist in the same way. If tanks and space ships were in the equipment section, it would be even more different. So if we take two fighters: one from Vampire Land, a gothic horror world, and another from a Bunny Horror World - which is exactly the same in all ways except it is populated only by normal humans and killer bunnies (think Monty Python)* - Vampire Land fighter will be more terrified of a werewolf than the Bunny Horror World fighter? *The far reaching - and perhaps excessive - similarities provide a baseline that normalizes all other variables and makes a more direct comparison is possible. Not exactly sure what you're even saying there, actually. If a Bunny Horror World would be the same as a Gothic Horror World apart from the killer bunnies (are they PCs or monsters?), their fear of werewolves would of course be the same. Why would it differ? It's in what you say yourself: They're the same apart from the killer bunnies. If the killer bunnies are monsters they'd be afraid of them too. That's why a gothic setting like Ravenloft would play out the same, no matter if dwarves and elves existed or not, because the setting of gothic horror isn't changed by that fact. If you inserted, for example, the sun god Ra who tends to help out people by sending banishing light rays, then you'd change the setting. Because that's a supernatural entity on the good side which is usually absent or passive in gothic horror as I know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 30, 2020 7:13:52 GMT -6
Take your examples and check for the stuff that's in the LBBs - humans & demi-humans, fighters, clerics, wizards... There's your implied fantasy setting. If the LBBs didn't feature demi-humans but covered blackpowder weapons, I highly doubt that your example settings would exist in the same way. If tanks and space ships were in the equipment section, it would be even more different. I don't see those as a setting. Clerics, fireball, and minotaurs are setting components and could (or might not) be placed in a particular setting (Middle Earth, Dying Earth, etc.). If an implied setting exists, which is it? Certainly something must exist (in this case, exist as a thought-object) before it can be implied. Not exactly sure what you're even saying there, actually. If a Bunny Horror World would be the same as a Gothic Horror World apart from the killer bunnies (are they PCs or monsters?), their fear of werewolves would of course be the same. Why would it differ? It's in what you say yourself: They're the same apart from the killer bunnies. If the killer bunnies are monsters they'd be afraid of them too. [/div][/quote] Because the fighter from the Traditional Gothic Horror World (AKA, Vampire World) may have more experience dealing with werewolves. If not, he has probably heard of heroes slaying them (they haven't overrun everything, so something must be preying upon them, too). He has a non-zero change of having heard stories of their weaknesses. Whereas the fighter from Bunny-Only Gothic World, a werewolf would be completely unheard off, and therefore, more startling. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 30, 2020 9:54:42 GMT -6
Middle Earth, Dying Earth, Greyhawk... to me these are explicit settings. If I changed the way wizards work in Middle Earth by introducing Dying Earth-style "techno-wizardry", it would no longer be Middle Earth. The implied setting of OD&D is a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting with typical historical elements like castles, knights, feudalism etc., mixed with folklore and legend (magic, monsters, some treasures and demi-humans). Magic is rather common as there exist many magical monsters, magic items and spells, which (to me) makes it a high magic setting. The land is dotted with patches of civilization, with chaotic wilderness in between. There is at least one landmass and one ocean. There are cosmic powers of Law and Chaos at work, and some mortals participate in the struggle. From the cleric titles we can assume they're servants of a god (or several gods) with some special laws to follow (like no edged weapons), although we don't learn why. In fact we don't even learn where their magic comes from. The god(s) may or may not exist or have existed, it's not stated. In the implied setting of OD&D, I could change the way wizards work to techno-wizardry without breaking the setting, as it's never spelled out how magic works and there are enough holes in the setting to fill as we like. I could also use technological magic alongside mystical magic, if I wished. If I changed clerics to be sword-wielding battle-mages I'd change the implied setting (edged weapons and combat spells). I'm still not sure about your example of Vampire World vs Bunny-Only Gothic World. If the werewolf is unheard of in Bunny World, it's not the same setting plus bunnies any more... Being experienced in fighting a certain horror may or may not be a positive thing, in my opinion. It would surely depend on how your previous experiences went. If you just barely survived your first werewolf encounter and saw your entire group die at its claws, you might be even more afraid of them then if you never heard of them or only knew that they're supposed to be dangerous. The specific monsters aren't necessary for a Gothic Horror setting, though. It's the tone, as I tried to explain above. It's dark, it's without (or just little) hope because darkness looms over everything. The Curse of Strahd Ravenloft adventure for 5E explains some nice features of such a setting: There's no escape from that world - if you tried to escape, you'd die in the dark woods, killed by monsters or by some mysterious fog. Not even our heroes can overcome this. In some settings you might be able to fight the forces of darkness, but you can never defeat them, only hold them back. A victory is often only temporary, or a small victory. In high fantasy we're used to heroic heroes who can slay the dragon or the lich and return with glory and plunder, maybe even rising in power and ruling themselves like in OD&D. That'd be rather unusual in a gothic setting.
And now I suggest we stop discussing what a setting is and what a gothic horror setting is, and return to the idea of implementing a horror mechanic in OD&D, as I doubt our discussion is going anywhere from here. |
|
