Post some of these fear systems DBG, since a quick search doesn't yield any results and I'm not ready to start digging deep into that site.

Here's a few tweaks:

-Players can ignore being on fire, but take any DoF from the WP test as flat -10 penalties to actions

-Ignoring you're on fire means you burn faster, which increases flame damage against you by d10 per round.

-Other players can help douse the flames, either with an assist to your Ag test, appropriate hardware or tech (last session, we opened an airlock to hard vacuum, for example), or using a grapple roll +20 due to your condition to suffocate the flames with a tarp.

Fear is also easily solved like this:

DoF on the WP test are incremental modifiers of -5 or -10 per DoF on any action against the source of the fear, and +5 or +10 boni on any action to get away from the source of the fear.

Oh, look, it took me only a few minutes to make changes that result in more player agency while maintaining the same brutal effects of fear and fire. Wow, game design sure is hard.

Game design is hard. Criticism is easy.

Your last suggestion on On Fire! tweaks is something that's pretty much already implied in the rules. The 1st two I'd have to see in play to make a call, but I suspect you'd find very few people using them for anything but putting the fire out; "Hmm, I can ignore the fire, suck at everything and die quicker, or I can put out the fire" Tough call. You probably need to specify what "ignoring" means in the context; if you're "ignoring" the flames to put them out, do you take the extra damage and/or penalty? Bear in mind that the current rules impose a fairly harsh -20 to put fire out under normal circumstances; are you going to lose that static penalty in favour of a variable one based on your WP test, or use both?

As for Fear; specify your definition of "action against the source" and "action to get away". Is this just a GM call, or do you want to codify what qualifies? Imposing a variable penalty based on DoF hardly addresses the problem brought up by earlier posters; the issue, as far as I understand it, is that Fear does little except impose a penalty and/or limit your actions. Your "fix" does quite the opposite; streamlines the effect, sure, but hardly in a thematic or interesting way. At the least the current "roll on a table" method gives you some flavour-text as to what's going on.

Two weeks ago, we had a sororitas and a deathkorpsman of Krieg both ignore their flame damage in exchange for laying hurt on a demon instead. We had a very nice scene of the battlesister to blast the creature with her heavy bolter til her very last breath while the luckiest guardsman (burning) alive charged in and tackled the thing with an armed krak grenade in each hand. The adept saved them by venting the deck of oxygen before they were too far in the negs. It was a three round combat that almost ended in a wipe, and probably would have, had we gone RAW and had them thrashing around doing nothing but trying to put out the flames. I decided to change things on the fly to give them more agency, because at that point, everyone expected those two characters to die anyway, so may as well go out in style. Then they got very lucky with the dice.

Point being, Warhammer 40k is full of zealots who may well sustain themselves on raw hatred of the heretic or alien even while they're being torn to shreds or burning alive. It's a kind of character action I'm more than willing to support in a 40k game, and I've sort of come to expect from a party of religiously fanatic space nazis willing to die for their emprah.

As for your questions regarding the action penalties and fatigue, they still apply of course. Not putting out the flames is, in regards to your character's survival, a fairly bad option and it should be, but I feel it important to provide a thematic outlet for that kind of character, rather than forcing a reaction that, while to their benefit, may situationally actually be out of character in the 40k verse.

As far as synergy with the fear rules, the WP test vs. being on fire is not actually a fear test vs. a fear rating, so strictly speaking they do not apply. Moreover, failing the WP test vs flame means you're essentially running around and utterly panicked, so you wouldn't gain a bonus anyway. The increased damage is something I'm somewhat iffy about as well, because it hasn't been properly tested by us yet (I don't regularily douse my players' characters in prometheum...flame weaponry was just appropriate for a daemon of Khorne in that situation ), but so far, removing the strictly codified responses for both being on fire (if succeeding at WP) and for fear has been positive.

I have yet to write out an exact list of literally everything that would provide a bonus or malus regarding fear. I don't feel it's strictly necessary either, when it can be codified more easily as follows:

Any action that would physically harm or is actively directed against the source of the fear gains a malus. Any action that involves putting more distance between yourself and the source of the fear, making yourself not seem a threat or evading its sensory perception , gains a bonus.

Fairly rough, sure, but easy enough to remember, I think. Moreover, I don't feel it necessary to codify examples of behaviour, which are inherently helpful, as hard rules and the only viable option according to a roll. Every character is different, and the rules should, within reason, allow for a wide variety of reactions. Examples can still be given, but they need not be forced when you can provide an incentive for them instead. Hunkering down into a ball, for example, is, when everything boils down to it, "making yourself not seem a threat" and depending on terrain, a stealth (if cover) or a charm/deceive (if in plain sight) roll. If you're not good at "seeming harmless", perhaps running away, with athletics, is a better option. This is on the premise that players will choose what their characters are good at, but also, that a person subject to utter terror will go with their instincts, and if they're a good, enduring runner, that may well be a flight reflex.

@DeathByGrotz: Hey, if it works for you and your group, more power to you. I'm not sure every group will get the same mileage; as I said, I'd have to test it with multiple groups before making a true judgement (and let's face it, I'm probably not going to go to that much effort!).

Making the WP test to resist "flailing and screaming" due to being on fire into a Fear test might not be a bad idea, as it goes, adjusting the fluff of the result to fit "being on fire" rather than "scary thing in front of you". You could even give different degrees of burn different Fear ratings; Fear (1) for most "normal" burns up to Fear (4) for being inside a flame-storm. Just a thought.

It's a good thought. I'll ask my group about it when we're all together next Sunday.

@cps: What other effects of Fear would you like to see aside from "action limiting" and "penalty imposing"?

As for the argument that there is more in 2E related to combat than 1e, I must semi-politely disagree. Rose-tinted glasses, if anything, is the problem here. The addition of mechanics like Influence and Subtlety explicitly means there are more mechanics for narrative than there were before.

In addition, the improved character creation rules allow for more robust and viable character design fitting into non-standard archetypes. Sure, the Aptitude system is a little less flexible than a free-for-all, but there is no way you can sanely argue that it's more restricted than 1e's Careers.

My opinion is that the Fear system cannot be fixed in isolation. The whole game's system is flawed in that it does not at all line up with the themes of fear, insanity, damnation, etc. The game needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

It wasn't me that made the claim, but DH1 wasn't any better. In fact, the fear rules in DH2 are a direct copy/paste from DH1. It may have appeared to be since PCs were a good deal weaker out of the gate than in DH2 and that made players cautious, but the rules haven't significantly changed in this regard in a decade or so.

+5 or +10 boni

Bonus is an English word and its plural is bonuses.

My opinion is that the Fear system cannot be fixed in isolation. The whole game's system is flawed in that it does not at all line up with the themes of fear, insanity, damnation, etc. The game needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Whilst I agree that the system could do with reworking, I'm intrigued as to how you'd go about it. I mean, assuming we're sticking with the classic "GW" stats, would you make such fundamental changes as changing from a percentile system to another dice-rolling mechanic, or would it be "skin changes" to the base system (different skills, uses of, talents, additional mechanics to implement fear/insanity/etc. and so forth)?

Whilst I agree that the system could do with reworking, I'm intrigued as to how you'd go about it. I mean, assuming we're sticking with the classic "GW" stats, would you make such fundamental changes as changing from a percentile system to another dice-rolling mechanic, or would it be "skin changes" to the base system (different skills, uses of, talents, additional mechanics to implement fear/insanity/etc. and so forth)?

Well like you said, game design is hard, and that's not how I make my living.

That said, I'm all in favor of butchering and grilling the sacred cows of gaming. The classic GW stats are bloated and could easily be consolidated down to 4 or 5. The percentile system is way too swingy and math-heavy and should be replaced (I personally don't enjoy tracking half a dozen +/- modifiers on every single roll).

The team that works on DH3 should make a list of themes they want the game to focus on, then design rules around those themes that reinforce them. In my mind, this is a good start:

1. Investigation is the primary activity of the players.
2. Fear, insanity, corruption, and damnation are the primary risks the characters face.
3. The resolution mechanic should be a single roll with a minimal amount of math on the player's part.
4. Combat is a last resort and is best avoided.

The rules for DH2 contract all of those.

The resolution mechanic should be a single roll with a minimal amount of math on the player's part.

There are players (myself included) that get enjoyment out of a certain amount of math in their roleplaying system.

Oh and by the way: bonus is also classical latin, where the plural is boni. If you use bonus as technical term boni would be correct.

The resolution mechanic should be a single roll with a minimal amount of math on the player's part.

There are players (myself included) that get enjoyment out of a certain amount of math in their roleplaying system.

Oh and by the way: bonus is also classical latin, where the plural is boni. If you use bonus as technical term boni would be correct.

My emphasis was more on the 'single roll' part. A certain amount of math I am fine with, but the 40k system has too much.

He wasn't using it in a 'technical' sense - bonus is very much a common English word used in conversation. And if you want to get all Latin-spergy with me, bonus is a feminine word which uses 'bonae' as the nominative plural declension. So boni is still wrong.

Bonus, bona, bonum is an adjective which means "good, beneficial", or, substantivated, "benefits/gentle men ". In a plural context discussing multiple or alternative boni, and using actual Latin grammar, we arrive at "boni".

The typical substanti-; you know what, I'm going to just state it in simpler terms, so you'll actually understand it.

"Bonus, bona, bonum are three forms of the same word. In Latin, words can be boys and girls. Bonus can be a different kind of word, too, like dog or cat. Usually, Bonus is a guy, because Romans knew how to check their priviledge and were definitely a patriarchy. If you don't know what patriarchy means, imagine a bunch of old guys in sandals and towels telling everyone what to do. Does that sound like fun? Well, it sure did for the Romans! Almost as good as killing barbarians; that means YOU kids! That's right, the Romans want to kill you, because you don't speak proper Latin. Here's how we'll prevent you from getting gored by a spear and fed to the lions:

First, pick up your pen and paper and write down 'bonus'. B-O-N-U-S. That's right, bon-us. The -us in Latin doesn't mean it's for everyone, though. In Latin, "-us" means "only for men". Now, the Romans were a simple folk, and when they turned a describing word into a thing word (we call those nouns by the way, but maybe that's too technical, kids!), they just left it at the basic word for the most part. So bonus stays bonus. Confusing? Maybe. But that's why you're a filthy barbarian and they're the greatest civilisation on earth. Where is the girl bonus, you ask? Sure, it exists, but it's not something that sees a lot of use. So if you want to use bonus in English, remember, bonus is a guy, and bonny boni is either a gentleman's club or the Blue Oyster Club from the Police Academy movies."

I'm also curious how deep you'd like to dig this hole for yourself, so please do kindly explain how speaking about rules and rules propositions or alterations on a forum for rules is not technical in context and use. I'd love to hear the convoluted dope trip of logic you must have conjured up to arrive at that conclusion.

Cool, you out-Latin'd me.

How about we just go with 'boni' just looking ******* weird to write in an English sentence and go with that. Firefox's spell check doesn't think it's a word and neither does any online English dictionary I can find. When I think 'technical writing' I think of engineering specs and complicated legal concepts given Latin names, not the rules for how to roll dice correctly and in what order.

...so please do kindly explain how speaking about rules and rules propositions or alterations on a forum for rules is not technical in context and use.

Whilst I found your exposition on Latin amusing, using "boni" instead of "bonuses" under the context is like throwing a "canum" into the conversation when you mean "dog". Sure, in a discussion about different breeds of canines, using the Latin names that we, as modern users of the language, have for them is appropriate because that would be a technical discussion in which the Latin is relevant. Randomly using a Latin term in a discussion that does not require it, however, is about as useful and relevant as using a French term or Spanish. Under the circumstances, I'm inclined to agree with cps inasmuch as "bonuses" would be the correct English plural of "bonus" and that using the Latin "boni", whilst grammatically correct Latin, is not grammatically correct English nor is it an appropriate use outside of "colourful language" in which you're only demonstrating your mastery (or not) of multiple languages (much as someone might say "Ciao" instead of "Bye").

Well...

You know, I believe you get it wrong.

What is combat fear roll? It means you fight something really scary. Nurgling, for example, is scary enough. Grox, charging on you, or dosens of smelt-rats united to smelt-king - is not enough (they haven't any Fear rating). So if you has not any profession that obliges you to fight daemons or some scary aliens (let's say tyranids), you haven't meet combat fear rolls often. And if you has that profession... well, he supposed to get some kind of defence.

For example, he can TRY TO KILL THIS THING AT ANY COST!!! (Frenzy talent, Strength and Offence, no prequesite, give you immunity to fear, pinning, stunning, fatigue).

Or maybe he just have guts. (Resistance: Fear, Toughness and Defence, no prequesite).

Or maybe he will master his fear with pain (Flagellant, Offence and Toughness, prequesite 30 WP).

Or maybe he is a psyker - somebody who should be terrified, seduced and corrupted by any threat nearby, so he supposed to master his fear and inner passions. And it works worse that you can imagine, because psyker have empowered WP, but he supposed to roll Fear and Corruption more that mundane persons (and if he don't then your DM doing something wrong).

@Jolly: Oh, I'm just messing with him, really. Boni and similar technical terms are more a habit than anything else, because I use them a lot irl at work.

@Aenno: Those are good, fun suggestions! I like them a lot. I'll have to think on how to balance them a bit, though. Perhaps it's a good use for fate points...

@Aenno: Those are good, fun suggestions! I like them a lot. I'll have to think on how to balance them a bit, though. Perhaps it's a good use for fate points...

Well, with fate point you can just reroll failed fear test or gain +10 to it. Just because it's something with your karma.

We're playing DH1, and half the party has faith talents that allow them to spend a fate point and, say, ignore a daemon's fear rating. Expanding on this, at this point in the campaign, and allowing a similar talent to be bought for the Death Korpser and the Sicarius, makes sense to me.

Although first edition was severely lacking in clarity on many issues, it had dozens of pages of narrative structure and personality effects to occur to players who suffered Insanity and Corruption.

I took a look at the 1st edition rulebook, I'd say it didn't change all that much in 2nd edition?

Please point out what the major differences are between 1st and 2nd edition. Those dozen dozens of pages of narrative structure in 1st edition seems to be present in 2nd edition as well? Maybe I overlooked something.

I picked up my book to challenge this but apperntly my memory is crap. You are right, other than a bit more flare and a more detailed/bigger table for the fear effects it is pretty much the same. I recant my claim.