We all know Fear checks are pretty good things for hitting your players with. Blow that check, and you've got some nasty penalties coming your way, for the entire encounter, possibly some automatic Conflict. I realize they were originally written for Edge of the Empire, which is why it's focused on Fear, but why not turn it around and use it for things like Anger or Hatred?

An example, which I'll hopefully be pulling on my players soon: They're in Act I of Chronicles of the Gatekeeper, and have been working the Robin Hood angle on Reeve Marcolf. They've stolen a lot of his supplies to redistribute them to the people, and even turned some of his guards to their cause. We wrapped up last session with them sneaking back into town to try to depose him. I could just have a battle, but I'd like to throw in a twist.

When they arrive, they'll find the Reeve giving a speech to a bunch of the townsfolk, with a bunch of their fellows awaiting execution. These guys aren't even part of their Merry Men, they're just innocents who have accepted help from the resistance. Most likely, they'll have to watch at least one of these innocent people get his head chopped off, at which point I'll call for an Anger check. Mechanically, it's identical to a Fear check, and if they fail, they'll take a penalty for the encounter, as they struggle to keep their emotions in check.

Or... they can always Give In to their Anger, and avoid most of the penalties I throw their way. "Oh, you failed with Threat? That's a Setback Die and several Strain, as you feel a dark rage welling up inside you. Though I suppose you could just let it out. Three Conflict for Failing a Hard check, and another for each point of Strain you prevent? It's your call, of course..."

Implementing something like that is understandable, but it quickly raises the issue that at that point you're playing the players' characters for them. With fear, it's perhaps a bit more understandable since it's an emotion beyond most people's control. But with other emotions, you run the risk of dictating the characters feelings, making conflict seem unavoidable. If you've got your heart set on it, perhaps take it up with the players first to see if they're comfortable with it.

You raise a very good point. I still think the idea can work, but it shouldn't be overdone. Perhaps 2 qualifiers: first, it needs to tie in to an emotional strength/weakness. Second, I should spend a Destiny Point. I figure those are kind of my pool of, "Okay, the GM is gonna be a @&#$ now."

I've always allowed my groups' characters who have failed fear checks to give in to the fear and call on the dark side (trade penalties for inverse bonuses, for the duration of the encounter) in exchange for conflict at twice the difficulty with an addition conflict for every upgrade.

A character using dark side pips is essentially giving in to their anger /hatred /greed , that is what dark side pips represent. Example use bind, with light side pips only and you lock your opponent in place. Use dark side and you cause damage , this is your anger etc breaking through. So why reinvent the wheel, tapping into anger is already in the game.

Thematically, this has the problem not only of dictating emotions (as pointed out above) but also how the character reacts to or channels those emotions. Anger can be used in positive ways as well as negative ones, and this presumes that it will always be negative.

Mechanically this is liable to bog down the game with more checks - and things that might be upsetting, as opposed to fear-inducing, are a lot more common in most stories - and pretty much pushes characters toward being dark side and/or arbitrarily ineffective (or at least less effective) in situations where the system doesn't expect them to be. Neither is likely to be very amusing for the players. If you're intent on provoking a, "Fine, we'll write 0 Morality and use black pips since you're so ***** fixated on making that happen." outcome, this is one way to do it.

T

On 2017-5-28 at 1:01 AM, The Grand Falloon said:

We all know Fear checks are pretty good things for hitting your players with. Blow that check, and you've got some nasty penalties coming your way, for the entire encounter, possibly some automatic Conflict. I realize they were originally written for Edge of the Empire, which is why it's focused on Fear, but why not turn it around and use it for things like Anger or Hatred?

An example, which I'll hopefully be pulling on my players soon: They're in Act I of Chronicles of the Gatekeeper, and have been working the Robin Hood angle on Reeve Marcolf. They've stolen a lot of his supplies to redistribute them to the people, and even turned some of his guards to their cause. We wrapped up last session with them sneaking back into town to try to depose him. I could just have a battle, but I'd like to throw in a twist.

When they arrive, they'll find the Reeve giving a speech to a bunch of the townsfolk, with a bunch of their fellows awaiting execution. These guys aren't even part of their Merry Men, they're just innocents who have accepted help from the resistance. Most likely, they'll have to watch at least one of these innocent people get his head chopped off, at which point I'll call for an Anger check. Mechanically, it's identical to a Fear check, and if they fail, they'll take a penalty for the encounter, as they struggle to keep their emotions in check.

Or... they can always Give In to their Anger, and avoid most of the penalties I throw their way. "Oh, you failed with Threat? That's a Setback Die and several Strain, as you feel a dark rage welling up inside you. Though I suppose you could just let it out. Three Conflict for Failing a Hard check, and another for each point of Strain you prevent? It's your call, of course..."

There is a clear mechanical difference to fear in that fear can be debilitating and cause you to freeze, fumble and make your fine motor skills useless, this is the principle of teaching combatives instead of standard martial arts when training for unarmed when you are likely to be in life or death situations. Once your heart rate reaches a threshold a lot of trained skills requiring fine motor skills go out the window. Anger on the other hand doesn't do that, fearing for your life can. This all being said this is an RPG but I certainly wouldn't rule as anger having an effect on using skills in the game. The force has this covered by including black pips.

Trying to force a player's character to feel a certain emotion tends to rub a lot of players the wrong way, as you're essentially telling them how to play their character.

As noted, Fear checks revolve around a completely involuntary reaction, namely the "fight or flight" instinct, though notably fear checks don't inherently force the character to run if the check is failed; failed with Despair perhaps, but not just a regular failure.

With other "negative" emotions such as anger and hatred, different people react different ways to different situations. I honestly think those kinds of things are better handled by the Conflict mechanic, which is based not on just feeling those "negative" emotions but instead on what the character does with those emotions. Anger for instance can be a blind fury smashing everything in sight, or it can be harnessed into something productive that doesn't result in rash action or wanton destruction. Plus, there's the whole issue of introducing yet more skill checks in a system where every skill check should truly mean something to the scene in question.

I think a number of folks incorrectly buy into the idea that Jedi aren't supposed to feel emotions at all (probably based in large part upon Anakin's lines and wooden acting in the prequels), when the reality is closer to being Jedi aren't supposed to be controlled by their emotions.

The worst a fear check can do is stagger you with a despair. Essentially freezing you for a round.

And that sounds like a pretty unanimous "No, don't!" Okie dokie.

But I understand where he is coming from.

Yes dictating emotions can rub players wrong since they may wish to play there characters a certain way.

But unlike most other RPGs emotions DO mean something to a force user. And while yes the force die is supposed to represent that with the black pips, it fails to represent it in any meaningful manner that helps a GM tell a story. So yes I like your idea, but I do have my own two cents.

First, it should only come up when representing extreme emotions, so less anger more Rage. The only other emotion I could see would be obsession to something on the level of Gollum and the ring.

Second, the penalties / bonuses should fit the situation. As stated earlier fear usually would paralyze or force one to flee. While rage would narrow ones view and force them to act. So bonuses against the target of said rage and combat /offensive checks, and penalties for anything not the target and non-combat/offensive checks. If you want them to have a force related benefit tell them they can give in and when using dark pips its 2 conflict per but they don't have to flip a light destiny to use them for the conflict.

Third, is most important. How invested are your characters in the scene your showing. If your showing that scene to a character who is going along with the plan to make a quick buck then don't make them check. But yes a character who may be Bravery/Anger who is invested in the cause, I can totally see flipping out and acting despite both the character and the player playing him knowing better.

Rolling an anger check is already in the game.

You try to make a force check with FR 1 you have 12 results you can get 7 have darkside results (1 double) 5 have lightside results (3 are double) you roll darkside , at that time you are angry/ fearful / jealous etc ,you can use those pips but you are tapping your negative emotions. At this time you are affected by those emotions but not to the extent they affect the game unless they use force powers at this time.

Rack it up a bit you are now FR 3 your results get more varied as you can now more consistently use dark or light side pips, showing that as you increase your power in the force you increase your control over your emotions both positive and negative, you can consistently use minor powers but you can still often need more pips and have to dig into those negative emotions. So rolling your force dice is , in effect an emotion check for your state of mind at the time.

As a GM or a player if I take the plunge and use darkside pips for enhance:brawl then I narrate the check that it was a negative emotion that was involved somewhere. Ive even had a fellow player who is a light side paragon use a darkside pip voluntarily because they felt that their character would be angry at that time because of circumstances.

So why add in checks that force players to act based on an emotion, when the only time it makes a difference is when they make a force check, the roll is already there for this. To add more just adds more unnecessary rolls to the game for little effect. I like how the game doesnt impose fear, as such, on players, yes you get an impedance for the encounter (encounter long setback) with a despair you get a stagger on the first round, and with threat you get additional strain dmg equal to the number failure.

4 hours ago, syrath said:

1. As a GM or a player if I take the plunge and use darkside pips for enhance:brawl then I narrate the check that it was a negative emotion that was involved somewhere.

2. Ive even had a fellow player who is a light side paragon use a darkside pip voluntarily because they felt that their character would be angry at that time because of circumstances.

1. Yes, exactly. If a player doesn't narrate their action or if I am playing an NPC, I will narrate that the action was done calmly or with anger, frustration, fear, involved.

2. YES! I've had a player decide that they were going to use Dark Side pips intentionally as well, due to the influence of the Sith holocron they acquired.

12 hours ago, syrath said:

Rolling an anger check is already in the game.

You try to make a force check with FR 1 you have 12 results you can get 7 have darkside results (1 double) 5 have lightside results (3 are double) you roll darkside , at that time you are angry/ fearful / jealous etc ,you can use those pips but you are tapping your negative emotions. At this time you are affected by those emotions but not to the extent they affect the game unless they use force powers at this time.

Rack it up a bit you are now FR 3 your results get more varied as you can now more consistently use dark or light side pips, showing that as you increase your power in the force you increase your control over your emotions both positive and negative, you can consistently use minor powers but you can still often need more pips and have to dig into those negative emotions. So rolling your force dice is , in effect an emotion check for your state of mind at the time.

As a GM or a player if I take the plunge and use darkside pips for enhance:brawl then I narrate the check that it was a negative emotion that was involved somewhere. Ive even had a fellow player who is a light side paragon use a darkside pip voluntarily because they felt that their character would be angry at that time because of circumstances.

So why add in checks that force players to act based on an emotion, when the only time it makes a difference is when they make a force check, the roll is already there for this. To add more just adds more unnecessary rolls to the game for little effect. I like how the game doesnt impose fear, as such, on players, yes you get an impedance for the encounter (encounter long setback) with a despair you get a stagger on the first round, and with threat you get additional strain dmg equal to the number failure.

Syrath, seriously?!?

Were not actually talking about using a freaking force power, were talking about how emotionally stable a bunch of PCs remain while watching innocent people being butchered. Not only that but what if some of those characters Aren't force users, what are they immune to atrocities.

Seriously, syrath

2 hours ago, Leopardao said:

Syrath, seriously?!?

Were not actually talking about using a freaking force power, were talking about how emotionally stable a bunch of PCs remain while watching innocent people being butchered. Not only that but what if some of those characters Aren't force users, what are they immune to atrocities.

Seriously, syrath

I can understand that, but that is purely down to the PC'S and how they choose to roleplay that out. Mechanically it wouldn't affect the players though, and asking them to be forced to react a certain way, even in the fear check, a stagger is the worst you get. I hated fear checks in other systems where you are forced to rub away, but to force a player to role play X way takes the choice away from the player in exactly the same way forcing a player to run away in fear.

So if a player wanted to ignore said atrocity who am I to force their emotions on them, I know my own character would be. Everyone reacts differently, sometimes quite drastically so. Mechanically though it should make no difference. Kind to any fs player who takes opposed force pips by choice based on an to standpoint

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 7:07 AM, syrath said:

The worst a fear check can do is stagger you with a despair. Essentially freezing you for a round.

It can depend on the GM. I was in a pick-up game run by Sterling Hershey a couple years ago that was set in the TFA era, and my PC (a Resistance operative) failed an upgraded Fear check with a Despair, so he had my guy flee the scene as he mistook a tall, hooded figure in a black robe for one Kylo Ren. Certainly made sense that my PC would freak out at the concept of facing down the master of the Knights of Ren, especially since my pre-gen had average Willpower and no ranks in Discipline. My PC would have regained his senses and be able to head back to the fight, but the other PCs got ingenious (and it was getting close to quitting time for the game room) and took out the First Order baddies with some creative tactics.

4 hours ago, Leopardao said:

Syrath, seriously?!?

Were not actually talking about using a freaking force power, were talking about how emotionally stable a bunch of PCs remain while watching innocent people being butchered. Not only that but what if some of those characters Aren't force users, what are they immune to atrocities.

Seriously, syrath

Yes, seriously.

People can react to traumatic events in surprisingly different ways. Some fall into emotional shock and are unable to act at all as they struggle to process/comprehend the scene before them, some go into angry rants that accomplish nothing, others rush forward heedless of danger to themselves, others are motivated to act but do so while in a state of tranquil fury, while others are able to methodically/coldly rationalize the situation and act logically.

Human psychology is a very odd thing, and there's not really any telling how a person will react to a given situation until they're put into it. Add in the various non-Human species and their own psychological peculiarities, and things get even more complicated in regards to how a certain individual will react to a particular set of circumstances.

On 5/27/2017 at 7:54 PM, Nivrap said:

Implementing something like that is understandable, but it quickly raises the issue that at that point you're playing the players' characters for them. With fear, it's perhaps a bit more understandable since it's an emotion beyond most people's control. But with other emotions, you run the risk of dictating the characters feelings, making conflict seem unavoidable. If you've got your heart set on it, perhaps take it up with the players first to see if they're comfortable with it.

To me, this issue comes up no matter the emotion. Very few players that I've grouped with, are willing to have their PC's behavior dictated at all. They frequently break the 4th wall about it, and since they aren't afraid (they being the player), the PC isn't afraid. I think it's just an issue with gaming in general, the ability to let loose of control of your PC from time to time, based on outside influences.

As a GM, I have no issue with the idea of using the check for other emotions, to illustrate the fact that most people don't have an iron grip on their emotions, and fear is the only one that eludes them. People sometimes have unexplained bouts of sadness, or uphoria, ennui, etc. All of which, to me, fall under the same umbrella of "uncontrolled emotional responses". So I don't think it's unfair to tell a PC, that based on what's going on, especially outside influences, that they are feeling a certain way.

I wouldn't dictate how they behave under that influence, but I think it's perfectly fair to say that they are currently under said influence.

It still requires a buyin from your players to do so. Some might have better luck than others with that kind of thing. For players like myself, who view roleplaying as essentially improvisational theater, with some dice mechanics, I'm fine with rolling with it. For the more munchkin-driven players, the number crunchers, the min-maxers and the like, it's likely more difficult to get them to loosen up.

If you get group buy in for it, Im always for anything that improves role playing , I personally felt that using rolls to force PCs down a particular avenue isnt something I would do, fear is something that does have a physical effect on you once your heart rate goes past a certain threshold you lose control over certain functions as you go into fight or flight mode, which is different from being in a highly charged emotional situation, you are still albeit, sometimes nominally under control, and I dare say a mildly experienced PC will have seen enough gore not to be affected to the point of involuntary throwing up that someone a bit more green might. Telling a PC he gets a setback for an encounter because he is scared is a world apart from saying you are so emotionally distraught from seeing younglings who have been massacred by a Dark Jedi. Me, personally would be floored by such a sight and my PC may be, but not every player would be happy to role play this out , or have whatever feeling forced upon them dependant on a roll.

This or course is just my 2 cents

The important thing to establish very early on with any group is that the players are not their PC's. Their PC's can and will be deceived, charmed, scared and all those things. A fear check is indicative of how firm your character is. Sure, every character is fine to respond to the check within reason (some people freeze in terror, some people lash out in the slight of terror, some people start talking a lot e.c.t) but a failed check indicates that a character is affected in some way. Players can't just "Hang on, I'm not terrified at all!" "of course your not, but despite your firm belief, *insert name* grip on the blaster trembles in this situation, imposing a set back. Your character is fearful/uneasy in this situation." or "I'm not charmed at all!" "Well despite your better judgment, your characters conversation is guided away from the conversation at hand. After all, he's a family man like you, there is a mutual understanding that might make it difficult to turn on him." The result is in the dice and the player should make some effort to buy into the result. Heroes should fail frequently as otherwise there would be no struggle in the tale.

I would never however allow a failed check to gain conflict, it can feel like you are forcing them to reach a conclusion that they are not in control of and there are plenty of ways to generate conflict. Instead give them a carrot and stick situation frequently; give them situations that their force powers can greatly influence and are highly dependant to succeed on for certain agenda. Enhance during chases, seek for tracking an evasive

14 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

It still requires a buyin from your players to do so. Some might have better luck than others with that kind of thing. For players like myself, who view roleplaying as essentially improvisational theater, with some dice mechanics, I'm fine with rolling with it. For the more munchkin-driven players, the number crunchers, the min-maxers and the like, it's likely more difficult to get them to loosen up.

Have to say my group is big on mechanics, but we still play out our characters. Also were big on respecting the dice roll, had a session where I was using Charm to gain a female underworld gun dealers (don't remember her name which will sound double sad in a second) help on tracking down some of her regulars. Now in the closing check I had a phenomenal check with a triumph, which I used to make her a reoccurring contact, but the check also had a despair which the GM used to say I had for the next few scene, convinced myself I had found my one true soulmate. Which then got me brutally beaten trying to protect her when thugs showed up to silence her for talking to us.

At least to me and my group, the GM is a player too, and its his job at times to take what is happening in game and hit a player with an improve line and then say run with it. Personally I enjoy such challenges as they add entertaining quirks to a session, either to play or laugh your "rearend" off watching another player deal with it.

On 5/30/2017 at 11:17 AM, KungFuFerret said:

It still requires a buyin from your players to do so. Some might have better luck than others with that kind of thing. For players like myself, who view roleplaying as essentially improvisational theater, with some dice mechanics, I'm fine with rolling with it. For the more munchkin-driven players, the number crunchers, the min-maxers and the like, it's likely more difficult to get them to loosen up.

I don't even think they have to be munchkins to dislike control of their character being taken away from them. A lot of average-Joe players (myself included, when I'm not DMing) feel like their character is theirs and theirs alone. The exception to this is fear, which most players agree is a wholly involuntary emotion anyway. Now, a way I could see rolls for other emotions working properly is if the players had the choice of what their character does after they know what emotion they're feeling. Of course, at that point, you're taking a large part of the role-playing aspect out of a role-playing game. I feel like the players should act out their characters' roles, not the DM.

Just now, Nivrap said:

I don't even think they have to be munchkins to dislike control of their character being taken away from them. A lot of average-Joe players (myself included, when I'm not DMing) feel like their character is theirs and theirs alone. The exception to this is fear, which most players agree is a wholly involuntary emotion anyway. Now, a way I could see rolls for other emotions working properly is if the players had the choice of what their character does after they know what emotion they're feeling. Of course, at that point, you're taking a large part of the role-playing aspect out of a role-playing game. I feel like the players should act out their characters' roles, not the DM.

I disagree that fear is the only "involuntary" emotion that humans encounter. People are a mass of uncontrolled emotions at times, especially when in tense situations. Fear is not the only way someone reacts involuntarily. I see no reason to limit reactions out of the PC's control to just fear. As I said before, how they react to that emotional state is up to them, but that doesn't mean they aren't feeling other feelings. Embarassment, anger, envy, jealousy, all of these are involuntary. Fear is not unique