Fear- Roleplayed, or Crunched?

[Ozfer]

I'm wondering what you playgrounders think- When a character is presented with a potentially frightening situation, should fear be an option for roleplay, and roleplay only? Or, should a characters stats determine if they are debuffed/forced to run away?

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think WFRP 3e (not sure about 2e) strikes a nice compromise: Fear does nothing aside from build your character's stress (there's also the more potent Terror effect that also fatigues you). Being overly stressed has mechanical consequences but you have a lot of freedom to choose how your character reacts to this stress.

[Megaduck]

I'm wondering what you playgrounders think- When a character is presented with a potentially frightening situation, should fear be an option for roleplay, and roleplay only? Or, should a characters stats determine if they are debuffed/forced to run away?

Roleplayed. I feel that all emotions should be roleplayed as the point is playing is to be able to feel those emotions.

So if you're playing a horror campaign and the players aren't scared or horrified then that is an issue that mechanics are not going to solve.

If you're playing high fantasy then the players want the feeling of being massive hero's.

It's all about the DM helping people feel what they want to feel.

[valadil]

Depends on the game. I don't think role played fear works so well in a tactical dungeon crawl. Thematically those games are usually full of brave heroes and discretion is rarely the better part of valor. A hero being brave in the face of fear is better represented by overcoming willpower checks and penalties than by a player making subpar tactical choices in order to express fear.

Games where the players aren't heroes, adventurers, soldiers, or hardened criminals are another matter. Come to think of it this is pretty much my answer to role playing a character coming to terms with murder thread.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The purpose of fear in an RPG has to be properly understood before it can be put into a game. Not all games should have a fear mechanic. However, for some games, using mechanics to build fear and tension is a very worthwhile endeavor.

You can have two takes on this. One: you can seek to build up fear in the player. Two: you can seek to model the stress of fear on the character.

In the first case, you need a mechanic of uncertainty with devastating consequences for the character. Case in point: Dread, which is pretty much a perfect mechanic. Any time your character takes a risk, you pull a block from a Jenga tower. The player is in total control of the action, and as the tower grows, so does the uncertainty. It taps into a very primal suspense and tension.

I know it's been mentioned that if the atmosphere isn't making the players scared, you shouldn't be worried about mechanics, but having a mechanic to induce player fear doesn't mean that the atmosphere has failed. Indeed, it can be a wicked enhancer.

In the second case, it can also be a very worthwhile mechanic. You could either offer a reward to a character as they act on their fear (the reward increasing as the fear ramps up), or increase their penalties for actions which go against the source of the fear. Or, you could (this is the more old-school approach) force them to make saving throws against their fear, whenever they're at a critical decision point (i.e. do something or run/flinch/freeze in that one moment).

Whatever the system, it should involve two elements. One, a building of fear; the character should begin to get stressed, little by little, as things happen. Two (and this can go along with the first), an increasing risk of "snapping". Three, bad consequences (of some sort, major or minor), when there is snapping.

Personally, I'm a big fan of "as fear increases, taking a primal fear reaction becomes a tempting way to mitigate its effects". You could run some interesting mechanics around that, especially if the instinct only temporarily mitigates the fear effect, which means that taking that instinctual action is still bad in the long run. Maybe even worse in the long run.

I also don't buy the argument that fear can be dismissed as roleplayable emotion, because there is something far more visceral about fear than that. Fear is deep-seated, and it comes whether we want it to or not. All we can do is attempt to manage it.

I think that people seeking to roleplay fear often underestimate it, just as players roleplaying combat will overestimate their character's hit-to-miss ratio. Rules can help that not to happen.

[PaperMustache]

I tend to trust the DM's judgement. Most times when an action or a monster or something give my character a fear status, there's a good reason in character. Maybe it's magical fear, maybe there's something I missed about it that I can ask questions about, maybe it's something about the setting that most people find this thing terrifying and it 's a plot hook. If it's important it's interesting, if it's not the penalties aren't anything that ruins my chances of survival past a will save and some quick thinking anyway. At least in my experience.

[NichG]

Hm, this is a tricky one for me. I'd say that supernatural fear - that is, fear that is being imposed without a visible cause - pretty much needs to be crunched in some part. This is because, due to the fact that the fear is fundamentally 'sourceless', it isn't something that you can really understand or react to in a natural way (i.e. it is something that imposes fear upon you, rather than something that is 'frightening').

That said, getting players to actually feel a thrill of fear at something is an awesome talent for a GM to have, and can lead to really rich scenarios, roleplay, etc. Few actually have it though. Also, it can be really uncomfortable for some players, so its something that really needs to be understood to be a part of the campaign ahead of time.

One kind of funny fear is metagame fear. Give something you want to be scary in character things that are scary out of character. Don't waste equipment destruction on gimmicks like rust monsters - instead, have a demon that can possess gear and permanently turn it hostile to its owner (well actually I think this exists in D&D except perhaps the permanent bit). Barghests are scary because, despite being fairly low CR, they can really utterly kill a character, and a player who knows what one is might realize this out of character. This might be better to model dread though.

[Water_Bear]

My go-to answer is that Players should be able to choose for their characters to be afraid at any time and for any reason, but when the rules say you're afraid that's all she wrote.

Characters having actual emotions and responding like human beings (or like Elves, Werwolves, Catgirls, Space Squids or whatever) is always to be encouraged. Players trying to weasel out of playing by the rules because "my character wouldn't be afraid" is an attitude which needs to be corrected.

[GoatToucher]

Fear Crunch and Fear RP do not always go hand in hand.

If there is a distinct mechanical effect at play, dice are rolled, effects are totaled, and, maybe, RP is to be had.

I am loathe to tell people that they are afraid for a lot of the reasons mentioned here: primary being that I don't like to tell people how to run their character (save for extreme, game disrupting circumstances). I had an example come up the other weekend: Group of three come up against a two headed troll a couple CR above their pay grade. The Tough Guy Barbarian meathammer steps up and commences to get claw/claw/rent/bit to the tune of 1/3 of his HP in round one.

So I sez to him, I sez: "I'm not going to tell you that you are frightened, but what just happened was frightening."

The character was more circumspect in the rest of the fight, but did not sacrifice his dignity: merely some of his bravado, which promptly returned at fight's end, much to the amusement of all.

[Medic!]

If a mechanical fear-effect is in place, that's pretty cut-and-dry, but as far as just the PC being scared of something because it's intimidating (as opposed to Intimidating) or just did something gruesome to an NPC/other PC...I fall back on "Don't tell me how to feel."

Some folks like to play their fantasy heroes as absolute stereotypical trope-type heroes, always with a wise-crack, laughing at danger, etc. Some like a more realistic kind of hero. Mechanically there's no difference between "I ain't skeered...*FULL ATTACK!*" and "OH GOD GET AWAY FROM ME! *FULL ATTACK*"

It really depends on the player, and on the PC. If I'm an 18 str/con Crusader or Barbarian...buddy I ain't skeered. If I'm a halfling rogue with the Craven feat, there's a 50% chance of vomitting after a physical confrontation.

End of the day it's all about what makes the game fun.

[Totally Guy]

Why would you ever choose to have your character be scared when it really mattered? In which games is it accepted behaviour?

[Neon Knight]

Why would you ever choose to have your character be scared when it really mattered? In which games is it accepted behaviour?

Presumably you might in a FATE RPG like Spirit of the Century or Dresden Files, in order to invoke a relevant Aspect or to receive a fate point.

[Darius Kane]

Both. When rules say the character is frightened, he is, and the player should roleplay accordingly. But that doesn't mean that outside of rules a character can never be scared. Taking subpar or even possibly detrimental actions for the sake of roleplaying is encouraged and rewarded in my games. And if the players find or homebrew themselves a mechanical way to support their roleplay, that's even better. For example the Craven feat for a cowardly PC or some kind of Flaw.

[Neon Knight]

In the first case, you need a mechanic of uncertainty with devastating consequences for the character. Case in point: Dread, which is pretty much a perfect mechanic. Any time your character takes a risk, you pull a block from a Jenga tower. The player is in total control of the action, and as the tower grows, so does the uncertainty. It taps into a very primal suspense and tension.


You see, for me, whenever I played Dread or even thought about it, I can't stop giggling. To me, there's something inherently funny about Jenga, let alone using Jenga to decide someone's fate, that I just cannot take it seriously at all.

Then again, when you think about it, the regular method of numbers on a page, dice rolls, and math hardly screams terror either, so maybe it is just me.



I also don't buy the argument that fear can be dismissed as roleplayable emotion, because there is something far more visceral about fear than that. Fear is deep-seated, and it comes whether we want it to or not. All we can do is attempt to manage it.

I think that people seeking to roleplay fear often underestimate it, just as players roleplaying combat will overestimate their character's hit-to-miss ratio. Rules can help that not to happen.

Isn't that true of all emotions? You can't banish sorrow, you just manage it. You can't banish anger, you just manage it. Both of these can have physiological as well as psychological effects, just like fear. Why is fear special? Anger or sadness can also cause one to make incorrect decisions at key moments. By this argument, why is fear singled out and given special attention and treatment when other equally important and powerful emotions are not? Keep in mind that the OP was talking about games in general, not horror games specifically.

And not everyone is the same when dealing with emotions. Some people have more emotional control than others. Some people feel the affects of emotions stronger than others. Your assertions about the nature and power of fear seem overly broad and generalist, when what we are dealing with is a very specific and personal subject matter.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Unless fear is a major part of the theme of the game (Dark Heresy, for example) then mundane fear should roleplayed, while supernatural fear should be mechanical (and also roleplayed).

[Jane_Smith]

I used a simple trick to make my player's almost literally crap themselves. Its very simple.

They were fighting a nightmare demon, who, obviously, picked on them in there sleep and drained there sanity over time (via nightmare spells, feeblemind, etc - he had wealth for his level and was extremely patient/intelligent). As they became weaker-willed, it finally appeared to strike at them for real and used a special fear aura I made for it - it was nothing more then a simple frightful presence. However, to the player's who failed there will saves, I gave them each a handout.

I told them they took a -6 penalty to all there physical scores, there current hit points were halved, they gained a 50% spell failure rate, became fatigued, and gained a -2 penalty to all attack rolls, saves, and skill checks. I told them this outright for the suspense. They began to panic and role played, rightfully, being terrified of this monster who could so easily strip them of there power - because they were scared oocly as well.

The truth was? I did not actually change there stats at all except for the fear condition. I treated them as having a normal spell failure chance, stats, etc otherwise. But they didn't know they were still at almost full power, and began to make tactical retreats, etc. The warrior was smart enough to catch on after about 5-6 rounds of them running like chickens with there heads cut off and he made an attack against the demon and it landed easily even with his power attack penalty with an average attack roll, and rallied the others to shut up, turn around and focus it down. But the fear aspect was still alive and well for most of the encounter, and that is all that matters.

Moral of the story: Use fake (or even real) mechanical means to bring real terror to your group, and the roleplaying will follow suit when they are in the right state of mind.

[Xuc Xac]

Why would you ever choose to have your character be scared when it really mattered?

For the adrenaline boost to strength from the "fight or flight" response?

[Frozen_Feet]

Both. A mechanical rule is useful for adjucating fight-or-flight responses, especially in the case of NPCs, and in cases of over-riding phobias. In regards to the latter, do note there are two kinds of fear: rational, which is based on assessment of the situation, and phobic, which is irrational, paralysing and often impossible to overcome. Rational fear is best left to roleplaying, but phobic fears are easier to deal with mechanically, because you often can't trust players to play them correctly.

I haven't really had need for fear rules, though. On the contrary, I've had problems with my players playing their characters as too cowardly, apparently because my descriptions trigger phobic fears in some of my players.

[Gamer Girl]

I'm wondering what you playgrounders think- When a character is presented with a potentially frightening situation, should fear be an option for roleplay, and roleplay only? Or, should a characters stats determine if they are debuffed/forced to run away?

In general, Fear should be a role playing thing. Simply put, mechanical fear is just boring. Fear, or any effect that removes the control of the character from the player is boring. One of the worst things to say to a player is ''oh your character does this, so you just need to sit there.'' And most games will have plenty of physical things that can ''take control'' of a character, like the character getting knocked out or trapped or such. So the game does not need more loss of control things.

Mechanically, fear works best as a slight penalty. With the idea of the fear more physically effecting a character then effecting their mind.

But the best way to do Fear, is all Role-Playing. And that is scaring the player, not the character. When a character, mechanically, runs away, the player just sits there and waits to be allowed to play again. But when the player is afraid, then they act accordingly and role-play being scared.

When you just tell a player ''oh the demon is so scarey you run away" that is boring. When you describe how the demon cleaves through five knights and drinks their blood and then have the player role play to save their character that is fun.

[NichG]

The way L5R did fear was to offer incentives. Basically, you could face the fear and take a penalty to dice rolled (which could be harsh, since it could cut into your kept dice, and the higher the TN you had to check against for the fear, the more dice it'd remove). Or you could flee, and keep all your dice for escape-related actions. The player has a choice, but certain choices are encouraged mechanically over others.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Isn't that true of all emotions? You can't banish sorrow, you just manage it. You can't banish anger, you just manage it. Both of these can have physiological as well as psychological effects, just like fear. Why is fear special? Anger or sadness can also cause one to make incorrect decisions at key moments. By this argument, why is fear singled out and given special attention and treatment when other equally important and powerful emotions are not? Keep in mind that the OP was talking about games in general, not horror games specifically.

And not everyone is the same when dealing with emotions. Some people have more emotional control than others. Some people feel the affects of emotions stronger than others. Your assertions about the nature and power of fear seem overly broad and generalist, when what we are dealing with is a very specific and personal subject matter.
Actually, it is true, and there's no reason you couldn't tackle those emotions. But I think the reason that fear crops up, again and again, is because it's such a root and primal emotion, and because horror tends to pop up in game situations very frequently. Sometimes, it's the whole genre...and other times, it's just horrific elements, which are often found in dungeoncrawling, thanks to Evil.

And maybe there is something special about fear. After all, it's the only primal human emotion that gets an entire genre dedicated to that. But that's not a question I have the answer to. I just observe.

As for why I'm relying on generalizations, that's because the question as it stands is a pretty general one. Mechanics for a game must by nature be rather general in some scope, else they risk being inaccessible to some gamers.

Also, as was noted, phobic fear is almost always underplayed by players, because it's impossible to overcome and not always predictable. Plus, if players have no incentive beyond verisimilitude to roleplay well...I don't trust them to roleplay fear well.

(That, and the idea of a mechanic that reinforces the roleplaying is just cool. I think that way too many people get hung up on the idea that mechanics only exist to hold players accountable. They're far more than that. Mechanics are atmosphere and a "sixth sense", if you will, conveying dramatic information in a concise way. Mechanics can help to provoke reactions in a way that theatrics don't cover. Why not leverage all of the power at your disposal?)

[Neon Knight]

Actually, it is true, and there's no reason you couldn't tackle those emotions. But I think the reason that fear crops up, again and again, is because it's such a root and primal emotion, and because horror tends to pop up in game situations very frequently. Sometimes, it's the whole genre...and other times, it's just horrific elements, which are often found in dungeoncrawling, thanks to Evil.

And maybe there is something special about fear. After all, it's the only primal human emotion that gets an entire genre dedicated to that. But that's not a question I have the answer to. I just observe.

If I could beg a favor fo you, could you expand on your position a bit more? What makes fear more "primal" than anger, love (or perhaps lust), or joy? Since emotions are hardly things when can study objectively and scientifically, via direct observation, but rather something we can only describe subjectively to others, how can we rank some as more primal than others?

Neuroscience is hardly a complete field. Every course, textbook, and position I've read/experienced on the issue has given me the impression that the exact nature and functioning of emotions and the conscious mind itself is still not quite understood. So I would like to inquire as to what you base this position on, as if there has been some development that I have missed that allows you to make this determination so readily then I would be delighted to hear it and be better informed.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in neuroscience or any related field. I have touched upon the subject in explorations of psychology, sociology, and biology, but am by no means an expert. From what I understand, there are several different systems or approaches to classifying and categorizing emotions, but none of them are considered definitively authoritative.

I must also confess that the genre comment does not match my own observations. What is the comedy if not a dedication to joy? What is the romance if not a dedication to love? From infancy, we display a wide variety of emotions, fear only one among them. From my own observations, I do not see much evidence to support fear being particularly more "primal" than any other given emotion.




Also, as was noted, phobic fear is almost always underplayed by players, because it's impossible to overcome and not always predictable. Plus, if players have no incentive beyond verisimilitude to roleplay well...I don't trust them to roleplay fear well.



My own personal observations and experience with the relevant field don't really support a divide between rational and phobic fear (And "phobic fear? Doesn't that just mean something like fear fear?" Phobos is simply the ancient Greek word for fear, if my understanding is correct. Hence arachnophobia, literally meaning spider fear). From my understanding, fear can be divided into the mental or psychological, and into the physical or physiological of the "fight of flight" response, being the work of the sympathetic nervous system and various hormones, most classically adrenaline (more properly epinephrine).

It has also been my understanding that the two influence each other heavily. Mental fear can trigger a physical response, and a physical response caused by sudden stimuli may cause a mental emotion of fear. However, almost any fear can be controlled, although typically this requires repeated exposure and conditioning, with exercise of will. Hence military training, and therapy to overcome extreme phobias. It is not impossible, however, that a particularly exceptional or willful individual, or one with a great deal of emotional experience and control, might be able to spontaneously control fear to a greater degree than the average person. This is all just my understanding, however, and I may be incorrect.

In my own games, both as DM and player, all participants accord one another with a high level of trust, in particular to portray their characters accurately, well, and to always select the most interesting course of action.




(That, and the idea of a mechanic that reinforces the roleplaying is just cool. I think that way too many people get hung up on the idea that mechanics only exist to hold players accountable. They're far more than that. Mechanics are atmosphere and a "sixth sense", if you will, conveying dramatic information in a concise way. Mechanics can help to provoke reactions in a way that theatrics don't cover. Why not leverage all of the power at your disposal?)

For me, mechanics have always simply been for the purpose of generating random resolutions to events for which we have no desire to have a predetermined outcome or where a predetermined outcome might not be desirable. I have never considered mechanics as a means to hold players accountable, but I have also never considered them either as atmospheric or as a "sixth sense". I have also never considered mechanics as having an ability to provoke reactions. To me, mechanics are the logos to story's pathos.

It does seem to me that we have different relations to and levels of trust between players in our games, and a different use of mechanics, which might in part account for the differences in our position.

[Jay R]

It's not an easy question, and the quick answer in either direction is overly simplistic.

Certainly I understand the idea that people want to play their own characters, and feel that it's unfair when the DM controls them.

But nobody gets upset when the DM says, "You can't open the door; it's locked," or "You can't swing your sword; you're in chains."

People need to realize that not all bonds and restraints are physical.

If the player alone can determine what emotions the character feels, then the emotions work as no real emotions have ever worked, and she is role-playing a robot, not a person.

My general rules are based on the twin facts that:
A. There are some emotional reactions that do in fact control our actions, against our will, and
B. You're role-playing heroes, not average people.

Given the situation Gimli faces at the entrance to the Paths of the Dead, I would do what Tolkien did - tell the player about the emotional reaction, and let the player decide that the character focuses his will and marches in.

Telling them that they have an emotional reaction is fine. telling them they have an emotional impulse to do something (run, surrender, hide) is likewise fine.

Telling them how they respond to that impulse is a dangerous thing to do. It should be allowed, but it should also be rare.

Also, I prefer to reserve it for low-level characters in new situations. The first time they ever see Undead, for instance, I think its reasonable to have them panic. (I saved one party's lives that way. But I immediately followed it with, "You are now safe, your heartbeats are slowing down, and you are ashamed of your terror. You have now seen the dead walk, and know that you will see it again. You steel your hearts, and know that you will never give in to that same terror again.")

In short, give them emotional reactions, and impulses. It helps set the mood. But the times when that determines their actions should be very rare.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

If I could beg a favor fo you, could you expand on your position a bit more? What makes fear more "primal" than anger, love (or perhaps lust), or joy? Since emotions are hardly things when can study objectively and scientifically, via direct observation, but rather something we can only describe subjectively to others, how can we rank some as more primal than others?

Neuroscience is hardly a complete field. Every course, textbook, and position I've read/experienced on the issue has given me the impression that the exact nature and functioning of emotions and the conscious mind itself is still not quite understood. So I would like to inquire as to what you base this position on, as if there has been some development that I have missed that allows you to make this determination so readily then I would be delighted to hear it and be better informed.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in neuroscience or any related field. I have touched upon the subject in explorations of psychology, sociology, and biology, but am by no means an expert. From what I understand, there are several different systems or approaches to classifying and categorizing emotions, but none of them are considered definitively authoritative.

I must also confess that the genre comment does not match my own observations. What is the comedy if not a dedication to joy? What is the romance if not a dedication to love? From infancy, we display a wide variety of emotions, fear only one among them. From my own observations, I do not see much evidence to support fear being particularly more "primal" than any other given emotion.
"Fight/Flight" is well-regarded as one of the most instinctual responses. Fear itself isn't a sophisticated, developed emotion like love or hate. It's something that just triggers.

Again, I note that horror games seem to be a lot more popular than comedy games; more often, I notice that comedy is added into a pre-existing game, as compared with the fact that there are a large number of standalone horror games in existence.

There's gotta be something to that, don't you agree?

My own personal observations and experience with the relevant field don't really support a divide between rational and phobic fear (And "phobic fear? Doesn't that just mean something like fear fear?" Phobos is simply the ancient Greek word for fear, if my understanding is correct. Hence arachnophobia, literally meaning spider fear). From my understanding, fear can be divided into the mental or psychological, and into the physical or physiological of the "fight of flight" response, being the work of the sympathetic nervous system and various hormones, most classically adrenaline (more properly epinephrine).

It has also been my understanding that the two influence each other heavily. Mental fear can trigger a physical response, and a physical response caused by sudden stimuli may cause a mental emotion of fear. However, almost any fear can be controlled, although typically this requires repeated exposure and conditioning, with exercise of will. Hence military training, and therapy to overcome extreme phobias. It is not impossible, however, that a particularly exceptional or willful individual, or one with a great deal of emotional experience and control, might be able to spontaneously control fear to a greater degree than the average person. This is all just my understanding, however, and I may be incorrect.

In my own games, both as DM and player, all participants accord one another with a high level of trust, in particular to portray their characters accurately, well, and to always select the most interesting course of action.
See Frozen Feet above for an explanation of "phobic fear", that's where I got the term from. And in some games, a control of phobic/instinctual fear is indeed appropriate. But in others, it makes far more sense that the control of fear is totally outside the scope of the players.

For me, mechanics have always simply been for the purpose of generating random resolutions to events for which we have no desire to have a predetermined outcome or where a predetermined outcome might not be desirable. I have never considered mechanics as a means to hold players accountable, but I have also never considered them either as atmospheric or as a "sixth sense". I have also never considered mechanics as having an ability to provoke reactions. To me, mechanics are the logos to story's pathos.

It does seem to me that we have different relations to and levels of trust between players in our games, and a different use of mechanics, which might in part account for the differences in our position.
You should consider it, though. Because mechanics can be all of those things, if you ease out of traditional gaming preconceptions. I think that a lack of openness to new ideas is one of the reasons why RPGs aren't more widespread. For too many people, they remain the elaborate wargame that D&D is.

I would go so far as to argue that the story is not pathos; the story is logos, pathos, and ethos, divided up into mechanics (logos), roleplay (pathos), and narrative trust (ethos), the three elements inseperable and reinforcing one another.

When one element is reduced in capacity, the whole story suffers as a whole. If, however, you work to weave all three elements together, so that they rely on one another, you escalate the game.

[Blue Lantern]

@Jay R
I don't agree with your argument, emotional reaction is the single person response to a situation, it should't be a situation in itself, and each response is unique.
Of curse in real life there are similarities to variour responses to a situation due to the fact that we have the same underlying structure, but that does not mean that everyone wil have the same exact feeling.
To me dictating a character emotion is not too different from dictating their action, In a way I consider it worse because it is limiting the player role playing itself, there is a difference between

To take the undead example, yes panic is the most likely reaction but by no means the only one.
There could be one that, for so,me reason, is not afraid at all.
The one that deep down is afraid but put a brave face and doen't show it.
The one that is visibly afraid but act either way.
The one who lashes out an fight while panicked.
The one who is paralized by fear or runs away.
Another one who is more curious by the phenomenon that afraid.

A player has the right to decide to be each one of those or something else entirely, as long as it is reasonable and fits the personality of the character itself, even in the case of new players I believe that an OOC comment on their roleplaying is better that a psychological railroading of sort.

[Frozen_Feet]

My own personal observations and experience with the relevant field don't really support a divide between rational and phobic fear (And "phobic fear? Doesn't that just mean something like fear fear?" Phobos is simply the ancient Greek word for fear, if my understanding is correct. Hence arachnophobia, literally meaning spider fear). From my understanding, fear can be divided into the mental or psychological, and into the physical or physiological of the "fight of flight" response, being the work of the sympathetic nervous system and various hormones, most classically adrenaline (more properly epinephrine).


"Phobos" was originally just a greek word for fear, yes, but "phobia", in modern psychology, refers to a specific sort of fear, symptoms of which I described already. It's distinct from conscious ("rational") fear stemming from assesment of a situation. A person who is afraid of spiders "because they're poisonous" is not arachnophobic - someone who runs away screaming, or freezes, or faints from fear upon sight of any spider is arachnophobic, to give an example.

Someone said it's "not fun when players lose control", but that's exactly what a phobic fear causes - loss of control. That's why I feel something like a saving throw is an appropriate mechanic for these emotions - they do allow for a chance for the player to remain in control and dictate his character's actions as he sees fit, but it also reflects the very real chance of the character losing his **** (perhaps literally).

[Neon Knight]

"Fight/Flight" is well-regarded as one of the most instinctual responses. Fear itself isn't a sophisticated, developed emotion like love or hate. It's something that just triggers.



One might argue that things like attachment, dislike, and curiosity are equally instinctual, being evident from early infant-hood. Fear is instinctual, sure, but so are many other emotions. I don't see love or hate as being either sophisticated and developed. Attachment and love in particular seem instinctual for social animals, as humans are. I think this is a point on which we will have to respectfully disagree.




Again, I note that horror games seem to be a lot more popular than comedy games; more often, I notice that comedy is added into a pre-existing game, as compared with the fact that there are a large number of standalone horror games in existence.

There's gotta be something to that, don't you agree?



I don't want to confirm or deny such an assertion without actual examination of the data, which would require a study and systematic analysis of the data and then the generation of relative statistics. There are plenty of indie horror games, sure; there are lots of indie everything games, really.

I will definitely say that horror games have a more than marginal presence on the market, although the current month may be amplifying that effect.




See Frozen Feet above for an explanation of "phobic fear", that's where I got the term from. And in some games, a control of phobic/instinctual fear is indeed appropriate. But in others, it makes far more sense that the control of fear is totally outside the scope of the players.



Ah, I see. My mistake, then. But phobias are a specific mental disorder. Surely they're more of a marginal case.




You should consider it, though. Because mechanics can be all of those things, if you ease out of traditional gaming preconceptions. I think that a lack of openness to new ideas is one of the reasons why RPGs aren't more widespread. For too many people, they remain the elaborate wargame that D&D is.

I would go so far as to argue that the story is not pathos; the story is logos, pathos, and ethos, divided up into mechanics (logos), roleplay (pathos), and narrative trust (ethos), the three elements inseperable and reinforcing one another.

When one element is reduced in capacity, the whole story suffers as a whole. If, however, you work to weave all three elements together, so that they rely on one another, you escalate the game.

Well, you've at least given me something to think about. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and to expand upon your views.

___


"Phobos" was originally just a greek word for fear, yes, but "phobia", in modern psychology, refers to a specific sort of fear, symptoms of which I described already. It's distinct from conscious ("rational") fear stemming from assesment of a situation. A person who is afraid of spiders "because they're poisonous" is not arachnophobic - someone who runs away screaming, or freezes, or faints from fear upon sight of any spider is arachnophobic, to give an example.

Someone said it's "not fun when players lose control", but that's exactly what a phobic fear causes - loss of control. That's why I feel something like a saving throw is an appropriate mechanic for these emotions - they do allow for a chance for the player to remain in control and dictate his character's actions as he sees fit, but it also reflects the very real chance of the character losing his **** (perhaps literally).

Ah, I see. I did not realize you were referring to the clinical term. True phobias are not that common, though; They're technically an anxiety disorder, and really usually only get diagnosed when the behavior is severe enough to impair day to day living. Someone who thinks spiders are icky (like myself) might jokingly say "I'm an arachnophobe" but really one isn't unless the fear of spiders in the present or abstract is severe enough to disrupt daily function. That might be a problem with how we diagnose mental disorders, but it seems to me that this a rather marginal case (which you did indicate in your post.)

I still don't quite agree with the categorization of fears into phobic and rational categories. For example, where does a jump-scare fall in this scheme? It is quite rational to respond to a sudden sound in the dark with an unknown source, and yet such actions are often quick and autonomous. Where do you place raw stimuli which occur too quickly to be "reasoned out" like a danger assessment might be, but don't fit the criteria for a phobic fear either?

[The Dark Fiddler]

Ah, I see. I did not realize you were referring to the clinical term. True phobias are not that common, though; They're technically an anxiety disorder, and really usually only get diagnosed when the behavior is severe enough to impair day to day living.

Phobias are probably the closest real-world analogue we have to supernatural fears that might come from creatures such as demons and dragons, though, and phobias are an interesting way to flesh out a character, so they may not be as out there as you say.



I still don't quite agree with the categorization of fears into phobic and rational categories. For example, where does a jump-scare fall in this scheme?

That's something you'll have to take up with psychology, then. To answer your question, though, I'd imagine that they'd fit into the rational category, in that they're based on the logic "OH GOD SOMETHING SUDDEN IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS oh wait no it's just my friend in a mask."

[Neon Knight]

Phobias are probably the closest real-world analogue we have to supernatural fears that might come from creatures such as demons and dragons, though, and phobias are an interesting way to flesh out a character, so they may not be as out there as you say.

Are they, though? What a phobia really is is an anxiety disorder characterized by a disproportionate response to certain stimuli beyond the response that they warrant. They seem a bit like the allergic reaction of the sympathetic nervous system. It's overreacting and overcompensating to a stimuli. Supernatural imposed fear seems more like it would be like directly stimulating the sympathetic nervous system or the processes controlled by it into action. Maybe. Neurology is still an incomplete field, and I'm hardly an expert, so maybe I'm completely wrong. But that seems the more likely route.

As for phobias being "interesting", I've never particularly felt so. I suppose if we wanted to establish whether phobias are considered an interesting way to flesh out a character by RPers in general, we'd have to find a survey or analysis on the subject with data to support such a claim. Still, I can acknowledge that some might find them interesting, even if I don't.



That's something you'll have to take up with psychology, then. To answer your question, though, I'd imagine that they'd fit into the rational category, in that they're based on the logic "OH GOD SOMETHING SUDDEN IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS oh wait no it's just my friend in a mask."

Psychology doesn't talk about phobic fears, though. They would talk about anxiety disorders, or possibly phobic disorders. I would like an authoritative source for there being only two categories. I'm not an expert, but I've never encountered this classification schema before. If there has been some development or discovery that allows them to make this determination, I would be delighted to be informed about it.

I find putting it in the rational category "because it is based on logic x" to not fit because it is not based on logic. It is based on a reflexive, autonomous, instinctual response to certain stimuli. There has been research establishing that certain stimuli produces instinctive fear responses, without any conditioning, experience, or logic to back it up. That doesn't fit either category.

[huttj509]

I think in terms of gameplay, it depends on the purpose and source in question.

I was playing L5R, and after encountering politics, humans, ok, did tick off a supernatural servant of a dragon, but still, I felt I knew what to expect.

Then we reach a castle, find an entire minor clan dead, rents in the castle wall looking as if some gigantic claws just tore through the stone, and a 40-foot tall man shaped creature made entirely of corpses rises up. We damage it some, and it steps on the Emperor's representative, absorbing him to heal itself.

At that point, I was rolling my Overconfident check to see if I was allowed to run, no artificial fear needed (I failed, but managed to make some tactical maneuvering while shooting entirely ineffective arrows at the thing, so as not to be in the line of having corpses thrown at me until it mysteriously left, I'll learn why in a couple weeks when we can finish the module. Was fun to have it wiping the floor as we barely hurt it with me yelling "come on guys, we can take it!").

Something like a dragon with a magical fear ability? It might not be out of line to say "yes, you've fought things this size before, and yet something seems to overwhelm your reason. You cannot explain it, you cannot reason past it, you are afraid." It would make sense for this to be imposing a penalty to attacks or something the same as a magical spell might.

[Craft (Cheese)]

"Fight/Flight" is well-regarded as one of the most instinctual responses. Fear itself isn't a sophisticated, developed emotion like love or hate. It's something that just triggers.

Again, I note that horror games seem to be a lot more popular than comedy games; more often, I notice that comedy is added into a pre-existing game, as compared with the fact that there are a large number of standalone horror games in existence.

There's gotta be something to that, don't you agree?

Well, there are definitely gamers who aren't into horror: I'm one of them. I honestly suspect the reason why we don't see, say, WAFF RPGs or Erotic RPGs (well, serious erotic RPGs) is because the territory is unexplored rather than because horror and heroism are somehow special.

[Reaper_Monkey]

To answer all the questions about why you would want it crunched I give you this:

A fear stimulus generates one of the most important survival traits we have, that of fight or flight - the response to which will very much vary depending on the exact situation and the persons involved. Ultimately however we either fight back against the threat, or run away from the threat. D&D is loaded full of rules about fighting, as its basically only a few steps up from a hack-n-slash engine (and some still play it as that anyway). So in the cases where we fight, we've rules to govern how well we do that (even with moral bonuses/penalties), so when it comes to flight (no, not that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm) sort) it's logical that we should have rules to govern what occurs then too.


It may seem like an RP issue, but that is because you are overlooking that when it comes to fight or flight you don't choose how to react - your subconscious does a very quick analysis of the situation and tells you what to do. After that response you can start to rationalise and use higher-cognitive functions to control your actions (and change them should you be doing something silly like fighting nothing, or a wolf when you really shouldn't be) - but in the heat of the moment you're not choosing how to act.

That isn't to say you can't steel yourself for something you expect to face, or train your subconscious through repeated exposure (simulated or actual) to act in more beneficial ways - but those would just be bonuses which favour a set outcome rather than a full gone (RP chosen) conclusion. In the same way as military training grants to hit bonuses and knowledge skill checks allow you to identify threats more accurately to prevent you acting in a dangerous way.


As such I think fear should be crunched and dictate your response, and how you act because of that response should be roleplayed. In the same way as you get to choose to attack the caster instead of the heavily armoured tank when in combat, whilst saying something witty or just grunting - you can choose to scream like a girl or swear like a drunken dwarf when you panic, whilst favouring the exit or the nearest cover as you flee.

As such something even as simple as a three stage outcome (after failing to overcome your fear, with a Will save or whatever it might be) of "You fight", "You flee", "You freeze, roll again next round" is enough for me (with some sort of duration) - and then allow players to choose how to RP within that dictated action. Which may include bull-rushing over zombies in the way of the door whilst fleeing, or utilising tactical retreats whilst fighting - just so long as you don't stand and fight when your brain is telling you to run and don't turn tail when your brain says fight (or do either when your brain is saying "omg what is happening?").

In cases where the GM and Player disagree on if its an appropriate reaction you can always call for another check, for instance the GM might call for another check to bullrush zombies out of the way of the exit, where a Fight action allows them to proceed, a Flee action means they must seek another exit/path, and a Freeze action delays the character as they attempt to assess the situation (but probably allows the player to succeed in the action they wished to do before the roll on the next turn, as your higher brain functions at least gets some say by that point).

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Side note: Burning Wheel actually hardcodes what Reaper_Monkey's talking about. Each character has a "Hesitation" stat (derived from their Will stat), and a "Steel" stat (determined during character creation). When you're in an appropriate situation, such as facing something tremendously horrific or taking a wound, you roll Steel to reduce Hesitation. The remaining Hesitation tells you how many actions you lose control for. Your actions are then limited to being dazed, running in terror, and fainting. (I may have forgotten one.)

It's a nice way to handle that instinctive fear impulse while still providing control. It can also save players from nasty situations that they'd otherwise be too stubborn to flee.