Also to those saying Wookiees are supposed to have low willpower based on how Chewbacca acts, who says all Wookiees act that way? What How a character acts does not depend on what race they are.

Chewbacca is pretty much the only canon example of Wookiee behavior. So, yes, while I see that stereotyping "every Wookiee acts like Chewbacca" is a stretch, it's fair to say that "Chewbacca is one of the only, and certainly the most promulgated, representation of Wookiees in the canon." Nobody is saying you have to act like him, only that he is (presumably) acting out some of his species' traits - hair trigger, loyalty, and acting more on instinct than rationally.

This is where the RP comes in: you can have a Wookiee who acts level-headed when he loses and doesn't dive on every pile of raw meat he sees, usually without a check. Now if you haven't eaten for 4 days I think the GM is entitled to call for a Discipline check to not grab that dead animal and eat it, and with Willpower 1 and Discipline 0, I think you'll be hard-pressed to succeed. That's not an imposition on role-playing, that's enforcing the rules even-handedly.

Ccarlson101: if I want my character to be something, I shouldn't have to put points into a skill, I should just be able to role play my character as having that characteristic.

Yeah now it just sounds like complaining/wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Roleplay how you want but don't expect a Willpower 1 character to succeed Fear checks, it's just not reasonable. And he can still be a cocky badass when the dice aren't on the table, but when mechanics are in play you have to put your money where your mouth is. GMs typically decide how Threat and Despair play out, but next time you fail fear check without a Despair, I encourage you to give your GM a different suggestion for interpreting the dice, and role-play it accordingly. But it strains disbelief when someone who makes no effort to be mentally disciplined shrugs off encountering the horror that is Darth Vader as easily as a trained Jedi might, as I guarantee that Jedi will still be afraid, just more in control of his fear.

Also to those saying Wookiees are supposed to have low willpower based on how Chewbacca acts, who says all Wookiees act that way? What How a character acts does not depend on what race they are.

I'm going to be bold and say yes - all wookies act this way. This is how the Star Wars universe works. Much in the same way that all planets are Single Biome Planets, all Hutts are slimy gangsters, all Twi'lek girls are exotic dancers, all Rodians are bounty hunters, all Corellians are cocky hotshots, all Toydarians are ferengi-like businessmen and yes, all Wookies are loyal with anger management issues.

That's just how the setting is.

I think some of you may be missing my point. This post isn't about fear checks and how I think my character shouldn't have to deal with them, it's about how the rules limit role playing capabilities by giving stats for mental aspects based on race. I don't think a player should have to burn four sessions worth of experience to make his character act the way he wants it to. It is a role playing game after all.

And to the comments about my GM making us run away on fear check fails and therefor contradicting my earlier statement about him being a good GM: I talked to him and he said it was only due to the characters miraculously failing the checks with like one despair and two failures.

Also to those saying Wookiees are supposed to have low willpower based on how Chewbacca acts, who says all Wookiees act that way? What How a character acts does not depend on what race they are.

I think you may be missing some of our points as well.

When you are creating a character, you are essentially making him unique among his species. He is no longer "Wookie NPC1" he is now "Badass Wookie PC". You spend that XP to make he tough and fearless. So, for your concept, you want to invest some of that original 90XP into Brawn and Willpower because those are the governing characteristics for the skills you want your character to have. If you are unhappy with the way your character is playing out and your GM is willing to work with you, maybe you can rebuild him in a way that makes him more immune to fear.

As for my criticism of your GM; My sinde remark was a bit rude. I apologize.

However, it does sound like your GM is using Fear checks in a fairly clumbsy way. And that is completely understandable;Fear checks are one of the trickier things for a GM to impliment smoothly. I think that a GM can handle them this way:

Instead of saying "You failed a Fear check and are therefore pooping your Wookie shorts while running away crying." a GM might instead say "You are in a dark, dank ruin. All you hear is the soft echo of your footsteps...or is that another set behind you? You stop to listen, the sounds of steps on stone continue for another second then just deathly silence marked by your own ragged breaths. Out of the darkness...whispers." Then the GM can say something like "Okay guys, this is kind of freaky so I'm going to ask for a Discipline/Cool check."

A failure here would be along the lines of, "Jamie, these whispers are really putting you on edge, you're going to suffer a bit Strain and get a Setback for the encounter."

Then the GM has used a Fear check without telling the PCs they are afraid or taking control out of the players' hands.

That's just like, my opinion man.

Ccarlson101: if I want my character to be something, I shouldn't have to put points into a skill, I should just be able to role play my character as having that characteristic.

Here... let's try it like this.

"I want my character to be an amazing vibrosword fighter. But why should I have to put points into Brawn and Melee to make this happen? If want my character to do something, I shouldn't have to put points into a skill. I should be able to role play my character as having that characteristic."

Why should Brawn be any different from Willpower, after all?

I'm giving up on this thread, and unfortunately, this website as well. Almost nobody is actually interpreting what I said the way it was meant to, and I've gotten very little constructive feedback due to that.

I think Kaosoe had the right idea. The mechanics are there in order for your character to be able to interact with the universe, not to dictate how your character is played. Ideally, you want your stats to aid you in your role playing, but there's a lot of narrative ways of being creative with what you've got. For instance, an Intellect of 1 doesn't necessarily mean that you're a moron. You could be above average in intelligence, but maybe choke when trying to remember something in a tense situation. Maybe your reasoning skills are just fine (how the player plays his character), but you're mechanically inept, or have a bad memory (low Mechanics or Knowledge skills). A gregarious player with a character who has a Presence of 1 can "be himself" and talk up a storm with the NPCs, but maybe he's just a nice guy and they don't take him too seriously, or maybe haggling for a better price just isn't his thing. Kaosoe's example of interpreting the setback die for fear checks is also a perfect example of this. You don't necessarily have to be visibly afraid if you fail, it just might make you mad and off-balance.

Conversely, having a high stat doesn't mean that you have to play a brainiac, the life of the party, or someone with an iron will. That 4 Intellect doesn't necessarily mean you're a genius, but maybe you just have a really good memory, or your parents paid for the Star Wars equivalent of an Ivy League education, or you're just naturally good with mechanical things. You can play your 4 Presence character as a quiet, unassuming sort of guy, but maybe he's just has an imposing look, or has very logical arguments for things and people listen to him. And that 4 Willpower? Your character can still be a drug addict, or jump into situations without thinking. But maybe people just take you for someone that shouldn't be messed with (high Coercion), or you just have a really good grasp of what's going on in your local environment (high Vigilance), or you're just oblivious to things that other people generally freak out about (high Discipline).

I'm giving up on this thread, and unfortunately, this website as well. Almost nobody is actually interpreting what I said the way it was meant to, and I've gotten very little constructive feedback due to that.

Unnecessarily dramatic. Real talk: you got lots of constructive feedback, you just didn't like any of it.

I'm giving up on this thread, and unfortunately, this website as well. Almost nobody is actually interpreting what I said the way it was meant to, and I've gotten very little constructive feedback due to that.

But in this game, there is exactly a stat and skill for that.

If that's not what you're saying, well, if almost *nobody* is interpreting you properly, I wonder where the fault lies? There are quite a few people here willing to help, if you make an effort to clarify.

I don't know if this game is for you (or games like it). Most RPGs on the market are based on the assumption that a character's capabilities are reflected in their stats.

If that is something that you (or your group) don't subscribe to, then find a game that fits your playstyle. I recently played Dungeon World – which is much more driven by narrative than stats. That may be a good place to start.

Your group should try playing FATE. Take the Never Backs Down From a Challenge aspect. You'll have exactly what you want...

...Until your GM compels you to jump off a cliff when someone Double Dog Dares you.

I'm giving up on this thread, and unfortunately, this website as well. Almost nobody is actually interpreting what I said the way it was meant to, and I've gotten very little constructive feedback due to that.

No, everyone is telling you that if you don't invest points into having a good Willpower and/or Discipline you will suck at fear checks. Everyone in interpreting exactly what you wrote. The fact everyone is telling you the exact same thing might be an indication of something.

I'm giving up on this thread, and unfortunately, this website as well. Almost nobody is actually interpreting what I said the way it was meant to, and I've gotten very little constructive feedback due to that.

Okay, clarify what you mean then. I read it as "My concept is a bad ass Wookiee. Why shouldnt my badass Wookiee be fearless and brave right out of the gate?" correct?

Well, we've already given you options on how to do that. Spend all your starting experience points on raising your willpower attribute and spend the first couple of games worth of earned experiance on your discipline skill.

You then said "Why should I spend points on what my character (as dictated via concept) should already have?"

Well, I hate to break it bucko, but EVERY system is going to require you to put points in things to be good at it. If you want to be an unflinching badass, Champions requires a higher Ego, WEG Wars will require a willpower of 4D or 5D and up, D20 Wars will require a CHA (or was it Wis - its been so long since I played), GURPS will require a high IQ and WILL, in Toon a high Smarts is almost mandatory and Ghostbusters: The RPG will require cool. And that's just what I have on my shelf.

Face it - if you want to be brave, you gotta pony up the points.

Now, if that's NOT what you said, then please clarify. Because that's what everyone else here read it as.

Sounds to me like the GM is over using the fear mechanic. Fear should not come up very often.

It ties in perfectly with what I'd got planned it for my campaign! A group of the military were going to "jump ship" with a load of hardware when the Empire arrive in the system we're running in to set up a resistance cell... I wanted a way to tie my edge players into the rebellion somehow & this would work brilliantly!

Sorry... Managed to post that in the wrong thread somehow Apologies

It might also be worth noting that Fear does not replace Coerce. You should ask your GM if he is using Fear properly.

Generally speaking, and this is just a suggestion, Fear would be used by things that wouldn't normally have access to a Coerce skill. For instance:

- These things you're fighting that have laser beams on their tentacles (or whatever it is) have stats built for them. These stats may or may not include Coerce. At the very least, they would have a Willpower, and as such, their ability to instill Fear in you should run off of it. Coerce is used for Intimidation, which is essentially what he is trying to play off as Fear. Moreover, this Coerce ability would only affect one target at a time.

- Fear on the other hand is used for situational or environmental things such as a gigantic Metal Gear with a friggin' Rail Gun pointing at you. Or perhaps a comet crashing into the ocean creating a massive tidal wave that would probably destroy you and the ship you're on if you can't reach the proper altitude in time. Or, it could simply be that you're in a part of the story where you fall asleep some place and wake up when you're old in a sort of Rip Van Winkle manner.

- Also, Fear might be generated by a Krayt Dragon who was letting out a relaxed sigh, though to the player who is on the other side of the canyon who just heard a brain crushing emote from what sounds to be a Krayt Dragon, it appears the Krayt Dragon is letting out a massive roar. Now, the thing to note here is that the Krayt Dragon would indeed have a Coerce skill. But in this context, he isn't actively trying to threaten or Intimidate anyone or anything. He is behaving normally. But, the players hear something ridiculous around the canyon wall, and would naturally have some kind of a reaction to a sound that appears to be extremely threatening. Thus, they are being Intimidated by a sound.... not a Krayt Dragon.

It sounds to me like your GM isn't using Fear properly. He should be using Coerce.

As for your Wookie having a low Willpower or Cool (I think it's cool that challenges Coerce and Fear, I can't remember) it's just a part of the game. If you can't find a cheap way to at least alleviate your character's deficiencies, then just roll with it and keep it in mind next time. I was in a 2 year long D&D campaign with a friend of mine GMing, and he would make us roll Spot like every three minutes. Since Spot isn't typically something that people would generally try to increase, when we made our characters, we didn't give it much thought. However, for the next campaign, you better believe Spot was one of those skills that was a top priority on everyone's character. So... you just learn from it and consider it.

It seems to me that your GM is using this Fear mechanic in much the same way - as a quick filler to allow interesting things to take place. Even still... Fear has a really bad debilitating affect on a player where as missing a Spot at worst is an isolated thing.

I think some of you may be missing my point. This post isn't about fear checks and how I think my character shouldn't have to deal with them, it's about how the rules limit role playing capabilities by giving stats for mental aspects based on race. I don't think a player should have to burn four sessions worth of experience to make his character act the way he wants it to. It is a role playing game after all.

I'm kind of with everyone else in saying that you don't have to burn four sessions of experience, you just don't super min-max your character on creation. I'm semi-sympathetic because you sound like you didn't really know what you were doing when you created the character, but only semi-sympathetic because what you did was basically disregard role-playing aspects when designing your character. You thought that you could ignore what you'd actually created and play a different character than what was on your sheet. You did some variation on thinking you'd get away with playing your character with better mental abilities than they actually had and you've got called on it because the game actually has things that depend on a character's mental abilities.

if I want my character to be something, I shouldn't have to put points into a skill, I should just be able to role play my character as having that characteristic.

That's not the way the game works. If the game did not measure mental and psychological traits, then we would have a game where everyone just put everything into physical stats and you got to choose between a strong character or an agile one.

I'm fairly smart. But if I want my character to be so then I feel obliged to spend the points to give them decent mental stats. Otherwise it's not fair on those players who do put decent stats in those traits yet whose characters are no braver / smarter / strong-minded than mine who just dump-statted them.

It is a role-playing game.

Btw, Fear checks should normally come in when you think you might / will lose. A bully doesn't make a fear check when he picks on a smaller kid. He does when he wants to charge in and rescue his friend from a group of young adults. A tough person with no great character, is exactly that - situationally brave only. Spend a few points in the relevant skills. Problem over. Or ask your GM if they'll let you tweak re-balance your stats very slightly.

Half of roll playing is building the character you want to make. While it seems somewhat limiting to burn XP in order to make a character build behave the way you want it to, it really isn't. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to have limitations like this. The problem is you're not thinking about the limitations properly. Time for an abstract thinking exercise:

Imagine you were playing a table-top RPG. In this table-top RPG, you can be a sphere, a cube, or a pyramid. Those are your three choices of class/race... whatever. That's all you get. What you're saying in this thread would be the same as saying you want to play a cube, but still be able to flawlessly roll down an incline like a sphere, because that's how you want to play your cube. But because the game provides you with rules that follow a reasonable concept of elementary physics, you find it to be very limiting, because you think a cube should be able to roll down a hill like a sphere does, without having to shave the edges... because that's what you want to play.

I'm sorry. But I just don't understand how someone could justify what you're expecting. Role Playing is all about the journey. When you make the character you want to play - you aren't actually playing the character you want to play. You are playing the character that will one day become the character you want to play. You have to get there, first. This reflects typical story-telling fundamentals in every medium ever created. It's called the character arc - otherwise known as the rising action, the falling action, and the climax. Investing 3 or 4 levels worth of XP to make your cube behave like a sphere is the very act of playing your character's character arc.

In this game system there are skills, characteristics, talents, obligation, motivations and of course, roleplaying. Which is pretty cool.

Our game:

Female Wookie is scared spitless at the sight of a Rylothian Lylek monster chomping down on two badass bounty hunters, but she really REALLY wants to make sure the Trandoshan bounty hunter who SKINNED and ATE her brother is dead over there farther into the shadowy cave behind that rock. I mean we saw detached Trandoshan limbs flying around, but they _are_ pretty tough. So she looks at the rest of us, hesitates, then starts sneaking reluctantly forward with her slug rifle.

Meanwhile, my badass-in-own-mind gunfighter / experienced TIE pilot deserter is scared too. (Everybody is scared of something. My character sat in vacuum, strapped a glass house to his spacesuit and flew it into combat for 6 years. Yet he discovers he's terrified of being dismembered and drug off by some armored cave crab monster thing. I hate this planet!)

I screwed up my courage (which didn't screw very tight) and decided OK, if she goes, I'm going with her. Then I thought, F this and hit her with two stun bolts in the back and we carried her out of there. Stripped the dead human badguy threw him in the cave and fired numerous bursts into the cave mouth and limped like hell out of there.

When the Wookie woke up, the Bothan convinced her she'd been hit and passed out and that the Trandoshan was dead.

All was good until another character we ran into a couple of days later mentioned she had picked up the Trandoshan at another entrance of the cave and took him to a hospital - gee thanks. He had drug himself through the cave with one arm and no legs. Then escaped from the hospital to parts unknown before we got there. Fracking Lyleks.

I haven't been ripped apart yet by an enraged Wookie, so it's still good... so far. Of course, for other reasons I just had to admit I'd been an Imperial Naval officer in my past life. This is Not Going Over Well in our group. The Drall already tried to get me killed and the Wookie hasn't had a chance to decide yet. Now if the mouthy Drall brings up the whole stun-the-Wookie-in-the-back episode... you may see me running through Mos Eisley followed by an enraged Wookie, a Bothan, a Drall and two screaming Twi'Leks (one white, one green) - and me without Unmatched Mobility yet!

Ccarlson101: if I want my character to be something, I shouldn't have to put points into a skill, I should just be able to role play my character as having that characteristic.

That's pretty much what my GM does. I've never rolled a Coercion check, or a Discipline check, but there have been plenty of situations where people have been scared out of their gourd from this 2.4m Wookiee that is built like a Tank who is talking to them in Shyriiwook and giving them honest-to-goodness friendly advice.

Think about what your reaction would be if you were to see Shaq standing in front of you, painted up like a Zulu warrior and holding Zulu combat weapons, and talking to you in a foreign language that consisted mostly of gutteral sounds and screams. Even if what he was telling you was the directions to the nearest ATM, you'd probably be pretty scared.

That's not really what nmk was arguing for. It's that old disconnect of playing an Intellect 1 character, but IC coming up with the kind of tactics that would feasibly require higher intelligence to consider. Thus what he wanted is closer to metagaming since the player is smarter than the character but the character benefits from the player's smarts without having any actual in-game investment into being smart. That's abusive of the rules.

That's not really what nmk was arguing for. It's that old disconnect of playing an Intellect 1 character, but IC coming up with the kind of tactics that would feasibly require higher intelligence to consider. Thus what he wanted is closer to metagaming since the player is smarter than the character but the character benefits from the player's smarts without having any actual in-game investment into being smart. That's abusive of the rules.

Well the OP's problem was twofold: first was the disconnect mentioned above, and second was the GM making his players' characters flee the fight whenever they failed a Fear check. Both of these things are totally not supported by the game system.

All the OP needed to do was talk to his GM and explain how Fear checks are designed to work. Then he wouldn't have to roleplay running away like a sissy.

If the OP still didn't want to deal with the consequences of failing a Fear check (usually just a persistent Setback die), then he just needed to spend some XP to raise his Discipline or Cool skill.