I am GMing an upcoming FnD campaign with 2 Force users and an ex-bounty hunter. I will be using the Fear check to try and give them some conflict and cause other interesting things to happen, like it says in the book, "Fear leads to Anger...."

But I feel like they were supposed to complete that thought and never did. Like I want to sort of Homebrew an Anger check now, just for something else to test my Force users will with. Like if they see a something that would upset them, roll and if they fail or even despair, they see red and lose it for a moment. Has anyone come up with anything like this?

Use Cool.

So long as the mechanics don't dictate what the character does, it should work fine. That's what I like about the Fear mechanic, it doesn't dictate. Maybe something like:

if they lose it, they might get boost dice or upgrades for acting out of anger, with a commensurate increase in Conflict. If they choose not to act out of anger, they suffer setback or difficulty upgrades until they get themselves under control or let go of their negative passions. There should be some benefit though, to controlling your feelings.

I would suggest using discipline for an anger check.

Yeah, I might come up with an actual little thing like the chart for the Fear Check. And it would cause conflict points and boosts and setbacks depending on what happens.

I have it worked into my game mechanics. Players can "call on the dark side" when I tell them to take strain, they can choose to ask to take conflict instead. I've noticed they tend to do this when the stakes are high and they are mad.

Although a "rage" check could be interesting.. gives them boost die or even upgrades attacks, as long as they accept conflict.

I have it worked into my game mechanics. Players can "call on the dark side" when I tell them to take strain, they can choose to ask to take conflict instead. I've noticed they tend to do this when the stakes are high and they are mad.

Although a "rage" check could be interesting.. gives them boost die or even upgrades attacks, as long as they accept conflict.

Interesting.

Do you have a maximum limit? Does it matter if it's involuntary or voluntary?

I didn't make a hard and fast limit.. it's not a way for them to spend threat, it's a way for them to mitigate strain I'm putting out there..

Basically if it isn't obvious, the players has to make a case for why he's so emotional that he'd be pulling from the emotional reservoir the darks side hangs out in.

I like to keep things voluntary, that way when they force choke Padme, they know they only have themselves to blame

The way I see it, fear checks are not necessarily about fear, but the ability for a character to maintain composure, with failure resulting in him being emotionally or otherwise suffering from impaired thoughts, such as prebattle jitters.

Displine covers a large range of subjects, but the old cool check wouldn't hurt, especially in social situations. It would just mean that the person isn't necessary intimidated, but has a reason to be emotional about the situation.

Does not fear lead to anger?

Does not fear lead to anger?

A fair point, thinking about it. My players are often free to interpret their own rolls and if they make a fear check and get a black die, or some other effect, that doesn't necessarily mean they are trembling in a corner.. they could say that is them fuming with rage or being incredibly paranoid. The anger might be masking the fear, and mechanically nothing changes.. but the narrative flow is directed by the player.

I considered something similar, though I am not sure I would put it into a hard and fast rule.

Does not fear lead to anger?

A fair point, thinking about it. My players are often free to interpret their own rolls and if they make a fear check and get a black die, or some other effect, that doesn't necessarily mean they are trembling in a corner.. they could say that is them fuming with rage or being incredibly paranoid. The anger might be masking the fear, and mechanically nothing changes.. but the narrative flow is directed by the player.

There are various ways of explaining fear. I once used this explanation when the player of a droid questioned having to make fear checks. The strain or setback results of a fear check were not due to 'emotional' fear, but the reasonable delay in taking action as his programming sorts through conflicting goals - ie. "crossing this unstable walkway over a boiling lake of lava could result in an outcome that is detrimental to fulfilling my mission, and my continued existence."

And that is for even the most unemotional droids. I also point out that 'emotions' are a quirk of the heuristic "learning" droid brain. In other words, the same thing that allows droids to gain xp as a PC also makes them subject to the same Fear and Strain rules.

Granted, it doesn't sound like you're dealing with droids. The gist is that "fear" can take many forms.

As far as triggering Fear/Anger checks, I think the Anger one would come into play much more when the PC is in the below 30 morality range. Some would argue that a "Dark Sider" has control of their fear, but I think this is a self delusion that the Sith cling to. They have given themselves over to fear, and they feel it differently, more like an ally. But it still controls them. Vader was much more "Cool" and "Disciplined" about it. I would say that both Vader and Emo Ren fail their Anger checks in the cases we see them being destructive, but Vader generates enough Advantage to gain the benefit of being Intimidating rather than psycho.

So long as the mechanics don't dictate what the character does, it should work fine. That's what I like about the Fear mechanic, it doesn't dictate. Maybe something like:

if they lose it, they might get boost dice or upgrades for acting out of anger, with a commensurate increase in Conflict. If they choose not to act out of anger, they suffer setback or difficulty upgrades until they get themselves under control or let go of their negative passions. There should be some benefit though, to controlling your feelings.

Likewise, I would offer the opportunity to "act out" the rage in the narrative. I would offer suggestions. "You can smash the comlink that the bad news just came over. You can lash out, inflicting wound damage to the NPC that just told you bad news. (or possibly have one less minion NPC in your presence)