I'm homebrewing some NPCs for a campaign that will probably be run in an OSR or similar system, and I'd like to be able to give them an ability to instill fear in PCs, but I'm drawing a blank on how to do it well. It's got me thinking about the whole problem of how to do fear effects in general.

Infinite morale is one of those unspoken hero's advantages which PCs have in most RPGs, and for the normal stress of conflict that's fine, but it forecloses an entire interesting avenue of adversary design, and causes things to break down whenever you want an enemy to instill extraordinary terror. I really hate fear effects that work like MMO crowd control, forcing PCs to run away for a set number of rounds, after which they go back to normal. They're absurd. Effects which reduce PCs instantly to shell-shocked jelly aren't much better. I want an effect like the creeping terror of the Nazgul, not the instant mind-shattering of a Lovecraftian God.

At the same time, games that institute a system of degrading morale tend to just have the effect of giving characters two health bars, one of which then becomes useless because it's inefficient to split you actions between degrading the two. The only other solution I've seen is to make fear reduce certain stats or rolls. That avoids the problems of the other systems, but it makes fear the same as any other debuff; you could call the same effect "stun" or "confusion" or whatever and use the same mechanics to represent it.

It's possible that this problem is insoluble, but I wonder if anyone has encountered a fear effect system that solves it which I don't know about.

I completely agree with you that fear mechanics in TTRPGs often miss the mark. The usual implementations either strip players of agency or reduce fear to a mere math modifier, neither of which captures the experience of terror. The idea of a morale system akin to a second hitpoint track is intriguing, but as you mentioned, if employed specifically against players is likely to seem arbitrary and like GM-fiat.

The type of game also matters a lot. For better or for worse, when playing a game like Alien I'm expecting for my character to have moments where I lose control and do something I wasn't planning on doing. But in a game like D&D my expectation is different, and a fear effect that dictates character actions is off-putting. I fully admit this is an issue of my own play history, but this is relevant.

The structure of play is also relevant. Fear may work well in more narratively driven games, and I suspect if you utilize some form of game metacurrency (e.g. Fate points) can work reasonably well to encourage/discourage player decisions without stripping them of agency. If you're running a game with grid-based combat then I think fear effects probably 'feel' silly. Why is a Dragon fear-inducing if you're within 30' but doesn't affect anyone 35' away? The minutiae of game rules work against the desired effect of "Fear." Perhaps it's possible to find some middle-ground in which player agency is respected even as the psychological effects play a meaningful role, but I suspect that the ultimate result is often going to be overlaying some kind of metagame-resolution if you want to avoid dictating player actions.

I have struggled with this for a long time. The solution I'm using now is if a player fails a fright check, they roll with disadvantage on attack and on saves when within sight of the object of their fear. They also may not move closer to the object of their fear.

I don't know if I've balanced the penalties/loss of agency with there option to do other things besides advance on their fear. Still play testing this.

I only play fear effects as involuntary action that remove control from the character entirely (and for me, this extends to any "feeling", not just fear -- what a PC consciously "feels" is the jurisdiction of the Player in my opinion).

For example: "It turns to look at you and suddenly the room tilts. Your vision goes blurry and images start to race by your eyes. You hear a terrible pounding and shrieking scream in the distance growing louder, closer, filling your ears until you realize the scream is coming from your own mouth, and the pounding is your own heart as you race down the corridor away from the battle and deeper in the dungeon."

Note at this point the PC becomes conscious of their fear and can act freely again, returning to the battle etc. without fear. I don't reveal the fear until the PC can act voluntarily again. (Of course other PCs would notice, depending on the length of the effect, so the reveal might happen to the Player earlier, but the PC isn't aware until they control their own actions again.

Quote from: swzl on October 04, 2024, 09:36:28 PMI have struggled with this for a long time. The solution I'm using now is if a player fails a fright check, they roll with disadvantage on attack and on saves when within sight of the object of their fear. They also may not move closer to the object of their fear.

This method feels pretty realistic to me but also makes fear less uninteresting if all it does is cause a penalty to rolls.

I really like the Dread mechanic from Modiphius's Mutant Chronicles Resurrection.  Character's accumulated dread points and as the total increases, so does their fumble range.  So, while it's normally a 20 on 1d20, it can get as low as 16.  Fumbles primarily give the GM more Dark Symmetry points but the idea is solid.  When you're under stress, you're more likely to screw up.

Originally, players were expected to have hirelings and/or followers. And the monster group size could be upwards to 30 individuals. Therefore, whittling both sides down using morale checks made sense, especially since fights were never expected to be to the death. Nowadays, I think morale is a bit too reductive, unless dealing with large group sizes. I think it makes more sense to allow PCs to decide when to run or fight. NPCs can always be handled by fiat, when necessary.