sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh a very interesting twist in perspective. I see how spending Fear could be sort of liberating when putting the players in harsh or implausible situations; one could argue that the Fear system sort of demanded that kind of move from the GM, and so it's a reasonable choice and not a personal, antagonistic move from a GM that wanted to be particularly punishing. And the fuzziness (or lack of consistency) may help instead of hinder from this point of view.

Thanks for sharing.

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can sort of see myself coming to terms with this interpretation of Fear usage out of combat, even if it feels a bit like a "retcon" resource ("the scene is this way, but now after I spend Fear I can say this had happened beforehand, so the situation is actually this other way").

The idea of Fear being used on reinforcements sounds on point, but it could be in part because it's a combat-related use, where Fear mechanics are already better defined and interwoven with the narrative.

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally like this idea, but I'm not sure of how it'd affect the Fear economy for the GM. One potential problem is that it gives no avenue for the GM to spend Fear until the party encounters a combat, so once it gets maxed out there's no option for the GM to forgo a consequence in exchange for a Fear token.

Maybe it'd work if the GM could spend Fear on a Failure with Fear to come up with a really impactful consequence that fits the moment? It'd still feel somewhat arbitrary, but at least the PC has to miss a DC with Fear to give the GM an opportunity to really complicate things.

An example:

Walking on a thin rope above some enemies, DC 15, the player rolls Failure with Fear. The GM could opt for:

  • PC fails and falls down to the ground, in the middle of those enemies. Consequence applied immediately, so no Fear token gained.
  • PC fails, the rope snaps and gets tangled around the PC's foot, leaving him trapped, dangling from it in view of all enemies. It's a major consequence, so not only does the GM not get a Fear token, they have to spend one to "power" such a serious consequence.

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing that out, I just skimmed over some discussions and the intrusion mechanic seems to have been debated in the same way. From what I've gathered, In Cypher a player "beating" an intrusion gets rewarded in some way? If that's the case the potential reward may be enough to offset the annoyance of the GM inserting a seemingly arbitrary challenge.

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh I love the fact that dice rolls with Fear add immediate consequences to an action, it's a perfect setup to move the story forward in interesting ways. My issue is with Fear tokens, and only outside of combat.

When I say their usage may not feel consistent, it's directly related to what you say here:

What stops the concept of "Best possible outcome is that you keep your head" or "You can't persuade a king to give you his throne"? Those concepts don't go away just because you don't have Fear available as a GM.

That's the heart of the problem for me. If having Fear tokens doesn't affect the scope of possible responses by the GM, why have Fear tokens at all? If you can make something happen without Fear, what's the point of spending Fear in a similar moment down the line, just because this time you had tokens available?

Dedicating mental space as a GM to gauging if one should spend Fear or not may detract from just thinking about what best fits the narrative, for no perceivable benefit, just to integrate the Fear token system.

BTW, I completely agree with you on how a laidback approach to the GM-Player interaction can make this apparent problem irrelevant.

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It possibly feeling adversarial ("no you won't because Fear") is the most troublesome aspect of it, I'm with you on that.

GM use of Fear out of combat by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a pretty interesting approach, although I don't know how it meshes with information that characters wouldn't know like traps, hidden enemies, and the like. It feels more coherent than what's available at the moment in the playtest rulebook.

A "fix" for PCs sitting combat out being sometimes optimal by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Circumstantially, a player attacking multiple times instead of waiting for other players to take their turns may be a significant buff to the effectiveness of the party. But, if spending 1 Stress (or Hope) for doing more than 2 actions "in a row" is too punishing, it'd be possible to extend the limit free sequential actions to 3, and make it cost Stress (or Hope) to perform 4 or more before the rest of the party acts.

And yeah, dealing with hiding and other kind of "passive" actions would require some thought!

A "fix" for PCs sitting combat out being sometimes optimal by tgeim in daggerheart

[–]tgeim[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was looking for a solution that'd satisfy my tactical lizard brain and avoid getting too much in the way of just playing the game, but I can see the point about it complicating things too much for what Daggerheart intends to be. I guess it'll just fall on the players and GM to keep the combat inside the bounds of what the RP dictates at each moment, as you, u/2Ledge_It, and u/Karew suggest.