Fear and Madness

[DrBargle]

Aside from still wondering whether there is a difference between a character being unable to act because he is surprised and a character unable to act because he is terrified, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the fear and madness rules in Necromantic Arts.

'I don't believe in rules for fear and madness,' is a fair enough response, but given that I am comfortable with rules for fear and madness, seeing them as no different for rules determining success at social tasks, or combat, and rules governing the effects of wounds, I am keen to hear if the Necromantic Arts iteration of fear and madness rules works well...

 

[alex_greene]

If you understand fear and madness, you'll realise that they do not follow rules by definition. They are the irrational response to the irrational situation you have thrust upon them, and as such you can't tell if your character's going to go like some Shakesperean characters, roaming about the corridors weeping and wailing or obsessively scrubbing hallucinated blood from hands that can never be clean again - or will he go down the Rorschach road, a broken figure fighting crushing guilt at his failure.

Trauma is a permanent change to a character. Flashbacks, PTSD, survivor's guilt, phobias - hard enough to cure them in a world where we know what we're doing. I've yet to read of a fantasy world where people consider madness to be an injury to the mind, or maybe a wound to the soul, rather than outright demon possession or - worse yet - something catching, marking the benighted soul as a permanent social outcast.

It's a lot more complicated than just "Okay, you failed the roll, so you are now in insane mode, so your character each combat round can only either flee and take no actions to defend yourself, or gibber in the corner. Roll a d6 and consult this table (points to table in book)."

 

[havercake lad]

I use the ones that were printed in a Mongoose Elric book. It makes deamon summonming more hazardous for novices and raving insanity befalls several key characters in the novels such as Yyrkoon and Theleb Kaarna.

I thought the Elric book only referenced the Necromantic Arts book for sanity rules?

I like the idea of having insanity be a possible consequence of hazardous magic.

The Elric Companion book had a section on Insanity.

 

[DrBargle]

It's a lot more complicated than [...]

But, surely that applies to everything in a game. Physical trauma is a lot more complicated than, 'you take a major wound, make a resilience roll'. Finding a fence in a busy port city is a lot more complicated than, 'tell me what you want to do and make a streetwise roll'. A game is a simplified abstraction. As a WFRP and (not very often) CoC player I'm perfectly happy with the game simplifying and abstracting fear and mental trauma. Particularly if the characters are going to encounter entities from the outer dark...

 

[alex_greene]

It's a lot more complicated than [...]

But, surely that applies to everything in a game.

Not when it comes to something permanent that changes who the character is into something no longer recognisable as the character the player rolled up. Having her character turn from being a sassy, saucy lady with a swinging sword into a violent, aggressive, dark alcoholic because she saw a werewolf one night and her dice randomly rolled a 00 tends to be a lot too much for many players. I've heard complaints of "This is not my character any more" enough to realise that you don't let such dramatic twists enter a story as a result of a simple, random dice roll.

Character death, sure. That's bad, but you can always have some cleric come along and Resurrect her. Major Wounds, again that sorcerer with his Regenerate spell. No problem. Or the sorcerer gives the character some sort of tattoo over her heart that gives her the healing factor of Wolverine. Whatever. The heavy magic spells available in Legend mean that you can even walk away from having your POW drained almost to nothing, with the right spell. But you can't walk away from depression, PTSD or a phobia; the trauma stays in the character and can never be just handwaved away; only suppressed and controlled, an act of will which is itself noticeable as changes in the character's old habits and mannerisms.

But changing a character's personality altogether, damaging it beyond recognition, because of a dice roll and an intransigent GM who can't see past the RAW to realise that he just derailed his own game and possibly alienated his players by turning his fantasy into something else? Unless you state outright to your players that this sort of thing is likely to happen to your characters I would not entrust adding crunchy rules for insanity and fear to a game. Derangements add dramatic flavour and as such, they belong in the realm of role playing, not roll playing.

This is a personal issue for me - I dislike attempts to codify rules for insanity into a simple crunchy game mechanic, because it trivialises and demeans me, the players who game with me and my non-gaming friends. They have enough to deal with without "Oh, sorry to hear you've got depression. Failed your SAN rolls once too often, eh?"

 

[Loz]

Ophelia in the Scottish Play

I think you'll find she's in the Danish Play...

 

[Prime_Evil]

Ophelia in the Scottish Play

I think you'll find she's in the Danish Play...

But it's not as scary as the Scottish play

 

[rust]

But you can't walk away from depression, PTSD or a phobia; the trauma stays in the character and can never be just handwaved away; only suppressed and controlled, an act of will which is itself noticeable as changes in the character's old habits and mannerisms.

Well, it would take less than five minutes to design a spell able
to heal a psychological trauma just as well as the current spells
heal a physical trauma, so I do not really see a problem. Call of
Cthulhu has the psychoanalysis skill to deal with psychological
traumata, a magic heavy game like Legend should logically use
a spell for the same purpose.

 

[jwpacker]

Not when it comes to something permanent that changes who the character is into something no longer recognisable as the character the player rolled up. Having her character turn from being a sassy, saucy lady with a swinging sword into a violent, aggressive, dark alcoholic because she saw a werewolf one night and her dice randomly rolled a 00 tends to be a lot too much for many players. I've heard complaints of "This is not my character any more" enough to realise that you don't let such dramatic twists enter a story as a result of a simple, random dice roll.

If you as a GM have assigned the results, or you as the player have had the results thrust upon you, of a failed sanity check, sure, I could see being a bit put out by that.

But if you've a good GM, the result requires a consultation with the player. What can we have happen, you and I together, to make the results of this terrifying experience appropriate to your character, and continue to tell an interesting story together.

What it comes down to is this - nothing that happens in the game, to the character, should ever be done in such a way as to seem like a punishment for bad dice rolls. Make them all into opportunities. Your saucy swordsmistress above shouldn't have all those changes piled onto her, but maybe inserting a bit of insecurity at first - her ability with the sword and her can-do attitude failed her on the last outing, so maybe she's worried that it'll happen again, and has to work through the situation over the course of a number of adventures.

Yes, it's still a mandated change based on an unlucky series of die rolls, but it's a collaborative change. If you wanted a game where your character can only change in positive ways, you might be better off playing D&D.

 

[rust]

Indeed, it is a most important difference whether the dice roll
results in the referee taking over the character or in the cha-
racter's player roleplaying his charmed / terrified / whatever
character according to the limits agreed upon by referee and
player. In the first case the player has temporarily lost control
of his character, in the second case the dice roll leads to an in-
teresting roleplaying challenge.

 

[tneva82]

I hope to never have to tell a player how he has to run his character. But I'm sure as heck okay with telling him that, based on a roll, this is the general overall result, and letting him role play the results.

Always the best option Provided you have players who are willing to do that rather than just concentrate on figuring how to get maximum amount of xp's.

So character starts to suffer from madness? Fair enough. Any good rpg'er ought to be willing to roleplay that one. We aren't here to simulate reality but to create story so who cares if it's not scientifically 100% accurate representation of madness provided it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief.

 

[hanszurcher]

I hope to never have to tell a player how he has to run his character. But I'm sure as heck okay with telling him that, based on a roll, this is the general overall result, and letting him role play the results.

This is usually how it's done. Players that really play it to the hilt should also receive something for the effort.

Unknown Armies has some interesting suggestions for role-playing insanity.

...
What it comes down to is this - nothing that happens in the game, to the character, should ever be done in such a way as to seem like a punishment for bad dice rolls. Make them all into opportunities. ...

You hit the nail right on the head. It's important for the GM to make sure the the outcomes of dice rolls, whether successes or failures, are interesting.

 

[hanszurcher]

I think my players would have to take exception to having control of their characters removed from their hands and placed in mine as a result of a poor dice roll. ...

Do you usually allow your players to dictate the outcomes of failed rolls?

I don't let the dice dictate the result of the test. In the case of whether the characters stay their ground or bolt, go mad or die, I let the players know the risk, and I give them the choice. Do their characters have what it takes to stand their ground, do they go mad, do they soil themselves and run away, whatever. If they go with making that choice for themselves, I tell them the consequence - if they stand their ground, they die; if they gaze at the Lamia, they lose their minds to lust; if they choose madness, they acquire some symptom which will impair them.

And if they can't make up their minds, then I let them roll the dice and let the random dice determine what happens.

The dice become the final arbiter - not the first.

And sometimes you have to trust your players to be more mature, and not so hidebound by the need to follow rules all the time.

GM fiat vs Dice Roll ... but in the end you've still imposed control on the PC's fate. Only this time he didn't get to use the Persistence Skill he invested so wisely in. It thus could be argued the players have actually lost more control over the fates of player characters than gained.

...I've yet to read of a fantasy world where people consider madness to be an injury to the mind, or maybe a wound to the soul, ...

Weapons of the Gods

 

[tneva82]

Yes, it's still a mandated change based on an unlucky series of die rolls, but it's a collaborative change. If you wanted a game where your character can only change in positive ways, you might be better off playing D&D.

IS story where nothing bad happens even interesting?

Is story where permanent bad CANNOT happen even able be interesting?

Flaws and deficits are half the fun. They can provide nice plot hooks for further stories. Shining paragrams of perfect warriors who are good at everything and bad at nothing are rarely interesting characters

There's generally reason why villains tend to be more popular than the heroes...And it boils down to heroes being TOO perfect all too often. Perfectionism is boring.

So you fail a roll. Just take that as an opportinity for making collaboratively into an even more interesting character

 

[hanszurcher]

Yes, it's still a mandated change based on an unlucky series of die rolls, but it's a collaborative change. If you wanted a game where your character can only change in positive ways, you might be better off playing D&D.

IS story where nothing bad happens even interesting?

Is story where permanent bad CANNOT happen even able be interesting?

Flaws and deficits are half the fun. They can provide nice plot hooks for further stories. Shining paragrams of perfect warriors who are good at everything and bad at nothing are rarely interesting characters

There's generally reason why villains tend to be more popular than the heroes...And it boils down to heroes being TOO perfect all too often. Perfectionism is boring.

So you fail a roll. Just take that as an opportinity for making collaboratively into an even more interesting character

Explains why my favorite flavor of D&D is Ravenloft.

 

[Redcrow]

Yes, it's still a mandated change based on an unlucky series of die rolls, but it's a collaborative change.

Whenever I have GMed WFRP or any other game with insanity rules and one of the characters develops an insanity I always collaborate with the player to find something that not only fits the situation in which the insanity was acquired, but also fits the character and what the player would find interesting to roleplay.

I don't find rules for insanity to be any different than rules for poison, disease, paralysis, charms, etc., and I've never viewed any of those things as 'punishment for bad die rolls', but as roleplaying opportunities that can add tension/drama to the game. YMMV.

 

[tneva82]

Yes, it's still a mandated change based on an unlucky series of die rolls, but it's a collaborative change.

Whenever I have GMed WFRP or any other game with insanity rules and one of the characters develops an insanity I always collaborate with the player to find something that not only fits the situation in which the insanity was acquired, but also fits the character and what the player would find interesting to roleplay.

I don't find rules for insanity to be any different than rules for poison, disease, paralysis, charms, etc., and I've never viewed any of those things as 'punishment for bad die rolls', but as roleplaying opportunities that can add tension/drama to the game. YMMV.

One of funniest madness I have ever got was in mage:ascension back looong time ago. Character started to speak out his thinking aloud. When my mage suffered mental damage I practically begged the GM to let me get that one. Cracked me up from the moment I read the entry

 

[Redcrow]

One of funniest madness I have ever got was in mage:ascension back looong time ago. Character started to speak out his thinking aloud. When my mage suffered mental damage I practically begged the GM to let me get that one. Cracked me up from the moment I read the entry

TBH, I've had many characters over the years who have developed insanities and I've enjoyed roleplaying nearly every one. I really like the one you describe and I'm sure I could have alot of fun with that as well.

Not an insanity, but the last game I played in my character was blind and believe it or not I had a great time roleplaying that. I quite often get more enjoyment from my characters flaws/foibles than I do from their strengths/powers. IMO all it takes is some imagination and a good sense of humor to turn flaws into fun.

 

[hanszurcher]

Aside from still wondering whether there is a difference between a character being unable to act because he is surprised and a character unable to act because he is terrified, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the fear and madness rules in Necromantic Arts.

'I don't believe in rules for fear and madness,' is a fair enough response, but given that I am comfortable with rules for fear and madness, seeing them as no different for rules determining success at social tasks, or combat, and rules governing the effects of wounds, I am keen to hear if the Necromantic Arts iteration of fear and madness rules works well...

I'm interested as well. Think I'll post around.

 

[Prime_Evil]

It's worth noting that Super Genius Games produced a Taint and Sanity sourcebook for MRQ I that is still available on RPGNow:

Taint and Sanity

All of the new rules and statblocks in this book appear to be designated as Open Game Content.