I'm late to the party on this one, but I thought I'd throw my two credits in. Our group usually forgets that the fear rules exist, but when we do remember them we try to use them. One thing I like about EotE is that fear is "only" a black die. As noted elsewhere in this thread, that's not too harsh. It's not like other games where it forces the character to run away without taking other actions. If anything, a character being able to triumph over fear can only enhance the story.

I'm generally not a fan of mechanically enforcing role-playing but I think in this instance there are clear benefits and I would like to get my players at least showing some semblance of normal human behaviour in the face of death.

Do you give setback dice to someone trying to do something while running through rubble? If so, why are you mechanically enforcing role-playing? The player could describe that they trip on a loose piece of rubble. There's no need for setback dice to be rolled.

I see the fear rules as a mental "rough terrain". The setback die is the human behavior of not wanting to die. It represents an adrenalin surge, shaking hands, uncertainty, ect. The subtle things that an outside viewer may not notice, the things that are exaggerated in film to show the audience that the character is scared. I would agree with not enforcing rules that take actions away from characters, such as enforcing running away without actions. In this game the character just has a usual setback, just like running through rough terrain or anything else that adds a simple black die to a check. Not that big of a deal.

Give the rules a try and if your group decides they don't like them then get rid of them. Maybe chat with the players about the fear rules and the times you might use them. Will you reserve them for when the group is going up against crazy odds, like an AT-AT or the man in black gunning for them? Or will you use it more often than that?

Happy gaming.

One reason I like the Fear rules is it is one other thing that spreads player interest into a broader skill set. It seems like a lot of tables ignore skills like Discipline(*), Resilience, Vigilance and/or Cool (allowing them to be swapped), etc., and I'd say that's a missed opportunity to push the PCs in a variety of capacities.

Not to mention: if you don't have fairly regular Fear checks, you've made the Confidence talent completely useless.

-------------------------------------

* except for Force users.

whafrog, I agree! I also like the Athletics and Coordination checks for the same reason.

When you've got players trying to fight on a tottering, fragile walkway or crumbling building and they're having to use Athletics or Coordination checks to leap over chasms or cling to the railings, it can add a lot to the encounter AND make them think about the value of those skills

When you've got players trying to fight on a tottering, fragile walkway or crumbling building and they're having to use Athletics or Coordination checks to leap over chasms or cling to the railings, it can add a lot to the encounter AND make them think about the value of those skills

That sounds kinda scary...

Just be fair to players if you plan on not using these rules - as you are changing the importance of skills such as Leadership and a number of talents.

The rules says that Triumph can be used "to cancel all previous penalties from fear check". Does it apply to a failed roll where triumph was rolled?

I do not agree its underwhelming. While its not exactly going to have the players lose control of their characacters (ala DnD fear where they hightail it in the other direction they do get....

Simple failure causes them to get a setback for wvery check for the entire encounter.While a setback is hardly massively detrimental when applied for ab entire encounter it is going to affect the PCs rolls at some point.

More significant is the callwd out 3 threat/ 1 despaie option of sttaggering a PC, meaning that they lose their first action for that encounter. Given that Id allow a 2 threat roll to immobilize the PC or if you feel that that is too harsh, for them to lose their free maneuvers, giving them the option of paying 2 strain to use one or 4 strain for 2. That 4 strain can hurt when later on in the encounter a saber user who relies on parry or reflect may run out of Strain.

Of course YMMV.

The rules says that Triumph can be used "to cancel all previous penalties from fear check". Does it apply to a failed roll where triumph was rolled?

I would say a Triumph spent to cancel out fear check penalties only affects previous fear checks in the same encounter. If you roll a Triumph in the first fear check of the encounter, you could spend it to ignore having to roll any additional fear checks that encounter.

This brings up a question for me, though. With Threats, you suffer Strain. If you end up rolling a Triumph on a second fear check, and you spend it to cancel penalties of the previous check, does that Strain heal?

And how often does a fearful encounter require multiple fear checks? I suppose if the door opens and Darth Vader is in the room, that would be a fear check, especially since your buddy had you convinced you were in a safe space. Then Boba Fett comes out of the closet. That might be an additional fear check.

Or getting attacked by a pack of gundarks triggered a fear check. And just as you think you're getting through the fight, a bigger, meaner, louder gundark appears. That would be an additional fear check, yeah?

The rules says that Triumph can be used "to cancel all previous penalties from fear check". Does it apply to a failed roll where triumph was rolled?

And how often does a fearful encounter require multiple fear checks? I suppose if the door opens and Darth Vader is in the room, that would be a fear check, especially since your buddy had you convinced you were in a safe space. Then Boba Fett comes out of the closet. That might be an additional fear check.

Or getting attacked by a pack of gundarks triggered a fear check. And just as you think you're getting through the fight, a bigger, meaner, louder gundark appears. That would be an additional fear check, yeah?

Yes, that will happen very rarely. I would say that in Episode Vi, Luke had to pass at least two Fear checks:

- The Emperor reveals that it is a trap - fear, fear about safety of his friends, he fails and strikes with anger at the Emperor

- Vader sense that he has a twin sister - again, fear for her, again he fails and charges on Vader with anger.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

The rules says that Triumph can be used "to cancel all previous penalties from fear check". Does it apply to a failed roll where triumph was rolled?

This brings up a question for me, though. With Threats, you suffer Strain. If you end up rolling a Triumph on a second fear check, and you spend it to cancel penalties of the previous check, does that Strain heal?

And how often does a fearful encounter require multiple fear checks? I suppose if the door opens and Darth Vader is in the room, that would be a fear check, especially since your buddy had you convinced you were in a safe space. Then Boba Fett comes out of the closet. That might be an additional fear check.

Or getting attacked by a pack of gundarks triggered a fear check. And just as you think you're getting through the fight, a bigger, meaner, louder gundark appears. That would be an additional fear check, yeah?

I wouldn't say that the Triumph lets the character recover strain. You could of course interpret it that way, nothing wrong with that, but my feeling is that the text refers to any setback dice incurred by previous Fear checks, increased difficulties due to Despair, and other such ongoing conditions. Strain is like wounds in that once you've taken any there are separate mechanisms that deals with recovery.

Again, just my personal take on it, but unless there were some very terrible circumstances I'd limit Fear checks to once per encounter. Potentially two, with one taking place before the characters enter the frightening location or similar, and then a second one when the terrifying monster makes its appearance. No more than that.

(Oh, and if Darth Vader just stepped into the room everyone is automatically immune to subsequent Fear checks. Otherwise it would be like the doctor telling you you have cancer and then afterwards mentioning that your cholesterol is a bit high.)

I agree about the Strain. It's like the other possibility for spending Threats in the fear check. Three Threats can be used to stagger you for the first round. It's not like you can take that back in a subsequent fear check. So, you've taken some Strain. That has to heal back using the normal mechanics.

As for the other part, I suppose it depends on what an encounter entails. An encounter can be more than just one bit of combat or interaction. It can be several, I would think.

If the PCs board a derelict ship floating in space, the whole thing can be a single encounter. In the entry room are some dead bodies floating around - despite gravity being turned on. Make a fear check. Later on, they find a pair of protocol droids wearing severed heads as hats and speaking backwards. Make another fear check.

I threw a Fear check out there last session. The party encountered a well armed mercenary that had trashed their base is operations, killed a bunch of their team and wrecked them in combat once. They argued that they weren't afraid of him because they're not. I'll be using fear again in the future, but I'm not sure how effective it is in enhancing their game.

In one of our early sessions the PCs exited hyperspace into the middle of a running battle. I had them roll a Fear check and two of the four PCs passed. The two that didn't pass were the ones manning the guns of their ship. One of the gunners found his Gunnery rolls neutralized by that one little black die. I won't repeat their responses but they were surprised just how effective it had been. Their ship had its HT halved before the gunners could eliminate all of the TIEs.

Our most recent session saw two PCs encounter the damaged Besalisk from the FaD CRB adventure by turning on the lights in the room they were in. I had them roll a Fear check and neither of them passed. But they both seem to recognize that it was a scary thing to suddenly see. One chose to fire his weapon and missed, the other grabbed him and ran back to the rest of the group.

My advice about Fear checks: use it sparingly and use it where it is dramatically appropriate and dramatically effective. The Fear effect doesn't have to represent the PCs cowering and wetting themselves but it can also represent the jitters of adrenaline spiking through them. Overuse can lead to the players spending precious XP on unnecessary ranks of Discipline when they don't really need it.

I'm late to the party on this one, but I thought I'd throw my two credits in. Our group usually forgets that the fear rules exist, but when we do remember them we try to use them. One thing I like about EotE is that fear is "only" a black die. As noted elsewhere in this thread, that's not too harsh. It's not like other games where it forces the character to run away without taking other actions. If anything, a character being able to triumph over fear can only enhance the story.

I kind of disagree. Fear is more than just setback die. On despair it's auto difficulty upgrade on everything, and with threat it's strain. And if we get out of dice mechanics, it's much more complex thing. As whole, it's very versatile system, which allows PCs handle effects of fear with limitless possibilities.

I've used it a few times, and the effect has been pretty underwhelming. The work to look up the rules for fear takes more time than it's worth for the fairly small effect fear usually has.

Umm... When the rules can be summarized to one sentence, it's easy enough to remember IMO. "Fear is setback die on failure, auto difficulty upgrade on everything with despair, and strain with threat." Latter part is actually normal threat rules, so you only have remember failure -> setback, and despair -> difficulty upgrade. And difficulties are totally normal and inline with everything else. IMO EotE fear rules are one of best in any game system I have used.

And taking account of narrative system: Just roll appropriate dice, and let PCs tell how fear affects them.

But more importantly, not just you HappyDaze, but all with similar opinion, what would be your requirements for not underwhelming fear system?

Also, don't forget that sometimes its appropriate to roll a fear check for the parties opponents.

For example, early on we got a job from some gangsters to mess up a gank bar in a very anarchic shadowport. We opened up with grenades and got very lucky on our rolls in the opening barrage (If I remember right, four grenades thrown blindly through the front door gave 7 triumphs total; also none of the rolls had threat or failure in their totals). When the fourth grenade pulled double triumphs the GM rolled a fear check for all the [surviving] gangsters.

The Enforcer PC in my game makes great use of Fear, it's hard for regular mooks to pass a PPP fear check. Between that and setback they might get from advantages/threats that are generated, it adds up.

Also, don't forget that sometimes its appropriate to roll a fear check for the parties opponents.

For example, early on we got a job from some gangsters to mess up a gank bar in a very anarchic shadowport. We opened up with grenades and got very lucky on our rolls in the opening barrage (If I remember right, four grenades thrown blindly through the front door gave 7 triumphs total; also none of the rolls had threat or failure in their totals). When the fourth grenade pulled double triumphs the GM rolled a fear check for all the [surviving] gangsters.

From one other game we played. PCs were quite accomplished paramilitary polices in dystopian scifi world. After about year of almost weekly games, PCs went to simple mission, which I had decided was an easy interlude between heavier scenarios, and I rolled appropriate fear checks for opponents, and PCs were amazed in a good way, as layman NPCs practically obeyed them, and gang member protagonist were scared away from fight by PCs.

Sometimes it really pays of to show players how powerful (and respected/feared) their PCs have come.

More thoughts.

Personally I always plan ahead about when to use fear checks. Sometimes this a bit hard, because I tend to let PCs drive the story, but precrafting setpieces has helped me with it. This also makes it possible for me to write notes about appropriate rules to my notes. I don't always use those encounters as I have planned, but I have the capability to introduce fear checks without checking from rules how they work.

Also, IMO fear checks should not be thrown to game without any preparation. When I incorporate them them to game, I always build the whole encounter to support the check and horror I intend to introduce to game. And by this I mean that subconsciously players guess that fear check and horror is coming, so it doesn't surprise them. Good horror in games requires quite a lot preparation from GM, and players need to accept the possibility for it. One of my favourite GMing books is Kenneth Hite's Nightmares of mine, which is all about horror in roleplaying games. Though it handles GMing from horror point of view, it's also a good guide how to build tension for non horror games. Actually in my opinion all action in games goes for certain kind of tension. All action movies for example follow the same tension-release pattern as horror. Horror just tries to amp it up to eleven.

Generally, my opinion about fear checks is that use them them when appropriate, not always, not in every session.

The best time to use fear is precisely when they aren't expecting it

You mean fear and surprise? Fear and surprise and a ruthless efficiency? And an almost fanatical devotion to the pope?