The Forge Archives

I ran a short series of Little Fears.  First off, the idea for kids and horror is genius.  I think it works really well, and players seem to be able to identify with their characters more and are more willing to be afraid.  Earlier concerns I had about how adults would not notice problems their kids were having worked out well.

For the most part, I think the game works really well, but I did have some issues with the mechanics which didn't feel quite right.

My biggest problem was contested rolls, or tests.  It seemed that often the two opponents would both succeed or both fail.  There wasn't always a clear result on what should happen.  Particularly when both fail.  And it just felt unsatisfactory.  Anything I might be doing wrong here? Or any hints on working this out?

My other problem is that capable kids are able to defeat/escape monsters pretty easily since it's just a Quiz based on their own stat.  I think this is more of a problem of my perception, since they I think their encounters with monsters turned out very well.  Still, any tips on to add variety here?

Are qualities meant to be chosen by the book?  I had a player who picked "Good Shot" (when throwing things or using his water pistol) but after not really using it, he wanted to switch to Athletic.  At first I let them make up qualities instead of going over the list, but I think they might have been short changed by choosing qualities that were fairly specific.  Then there are some qualities whch don't seem to have a clear game effect, like Bully.

Finally, and this mainly was a problem because it was a one shot: Innocence and Fear didn't seem to have much of an effect.  One chracter ended up with 4 Fear.  But no Innocence was lost.  Now, it might have been the style of game I was running (no soul sucking monsters and very little graphic violence), but how much of an effect should these stats have?  They seem very important.  Innocence in particular doesn't seem like it adds anything to the character in the short run, such as greater allowance of belief magic or some other effect.  Am I missing something here?

I don't want to give the impression I didn't enjoy the game, but after playing it I was left with these concerns about the system.  They aren't bad enough that we stopped in the middle of play to have to work something out.

Any thoughts?

Hey, thanks for the good words! I'm glad you enjoyed your session. Here are some answers to your questions. If these aren't satisfactory, just let me know. I'll do what I can to answer your questions.

RE: Tests

I actually haven't had this come up too often. As far as working it out, there are two options I see. The first is mechanical, give a +1 bonus to whoever gives the best description of what they're going to do. The second is to just not call for rolls unless absolutely necessary (of course, you may be doing this already).

Anyone have any other ideas on this?

RE: Defeating Monsters

Give monsters Qualities of their own that give penalties or bonuses to the players. (If I get to do a revised edition of Little Fears [and I very much want to], I am so gonna include that.) For example, Lullaby, a monster who lives in songbooks, is more powerful when music is playing. So, if a kid tries to act against him and The Teddy Bear Picnic is on TV  in the background, the kid would roll as if they had a negative Quality (add a die, keep the worst result). Alternately, dischord (spinning a record backwards, playing the recorder off-key) upset and weaken Lullaby so the kids attacking would get a bonus as if they had a positive Quality (add a die, keep the best result).

RE: Qualities

I encourage groups to come up with their own Qualities (and list them in the Little Fears forum!). If your players are making up Qualities that are too specific, help them broaden the label (and hence the definition and applicability).

You're right that some Qualities don't have a mechanical immediacy, but I think all of them _can_ come up in play. For example, a trait like Bully can give the kid a bonus if they're trying to intimidate another kid (since bullies usually have some reknown).

RE: Innocence and Fear

These Virtues shouldn't have a big effect on the characters in short-term play (unless you're playing in a *very intense* mode, such as the scenario "The Gentlefolk of Sawpequa County" from the upcoming BEDTIME STORIES: HEADLINES). Like you said, you didn't use soul-sucking monsters and there was little graphic violence, so I wouldn't expect a lot of Fear or Innocence flux. These really are best for long-term, continuous-character play.

Hi there,

You wrote,
"My biggest problem was contested rolls, or tests. It seemed that often the two opponents would both succeed or both fail. There wasn't always a clear result on what should happen. Particularly when both fail."

I guess I'm kind of puzzled about what you're saying. Can you give me a clear, mechanical picture of both opponents failing?

As I understand it, conflicts in Little Fears very clearly go one way or the other. If my character, li'l Billy, is being chased by the neighborhood bully, he rolls one or more dice against the bully's Feets attribute, trying to exceed it. That's going to succeed, or it's going to fail - nothing else.

How would it turn out that Billy fails and the bully fails? You aren't rolling for the bully, are you?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi there,

You wrote,
"My biggest problem was contested rolls, or tests. It seemed that often the two opponents would both succeed or both fail. There wasn't always a clear result on what should happen. Particularly when both fail."

I guess I'm kind of puzzled about what you're saying. Can you give me a clear, mechanical picture of both opponents failing?

As I understand it, conflicts in Little Fears very clearly go one way or the other. If my character, li'l Billy, is being chased by the neighborhood bully, he rolls one or more dice against the bully's Feets attribute, trying to exceed it. That's going to succeed, or it's going to fail - nothing else.

THe way I've read it, is tests are opposed rolls.  So, Billy rolls against the Bully feet (4) and gets a 3 so he fails.  The bully rolls against Billy's feet (5) and gets a 1, also fails.  Hmm, okay the both fail, so chase continues.  Next round they both get a 6, so both succeed.  Hmm, so the chase still continues?  That's what I would do, but it felt less than satisfactory.  Some of this could be solved narratively (Billy stumbles, but the bully tried to grab him and missed, then the bully grabbed Billy, but Billy tore himself free).  But when two character have high stats, it can take a while before a stalemate is broken.

These cases would be solved if it was just roll against their stat (and they get no roll).  But that's not the way I read it.  Maybe I'll have to check again.

Great suggestions Jason!

I like the adding bonuses for good descriptions, or maybe it gives a quality die.

I also love the idea for Monsters with qualities.

As far as Fear and Innocence: The problem I had was one player, after a two sessions, said that if Innocence and Fear weren't going to help too much in the one shot, then he might as well cannibalize them and get PP's for something else.

I did start using a loose system of temporary Innocence points to give strength against fighting against the supernatural (an extra die).  I might also have used it to help give strength to belief magic.

Hi Wildelf,

Quote from: YouTHe way I've read it, is tests are opposed rolls.
[snip]
But that's not the way I read it. Maybe I'll have to check again.

You were reading right, here's the section concerned :

QuoteFor a Test to be successfull you need to roll over your opponant's Stat (in turn, they need to roll over your child's Stat)

Ron, the "one-side" Tests you're mentioning is for interaction with monsters alone, I think. But it sounds like a nice rule alteration, did you play LF that way ? If yes, did you always do Tests this way, vs human and monsters alike ? How did it go ?

Take care,

Fabrice.

Hello,

My point has nothing to do with dealing with monsters. Never mind the monsters; we all know that's handled by the child rolling against his or her own attribute.

I'm talking about Billy and the bully. No monsters. They are rolling against one another's attributes, not their own.

The real issue here is task resolution vs. conflict resolution. If you are thinking of each action as a "swing" or a couple of seconds of in-game time, then you'll probably end up with the stalemating that Wildelf is talking about. If Billy, for instance, fails his roll against the bully's Feets, then he's caught. Now the bully swings (rolling vs. Billy's Hands) and Billy swings (rolling vs. the bully's Hands), and they both miss. Now Billy tries to run again, rolling against the bully's Feets. Repeat.

Little Fears works much more cleanly when a roll is about a whole goal. Does, or does not, Billy escape the bully? If he fails that rolls vs. the bully's Feets, he ain't getting away. He just ain't; forget that whole plan and forget about trying again. That conflict is over. Once up against one another with fists, think of it this way - if Billy hits the bully, that's it - the bully's going down, no matter how much damage he took. If the bully hits Billy, same goes. The conflict is about the fight's outcome, emphatically not about two gaming-constructs whittling down one another's life-points until one can't stand any longer.

Now, it doesn't always have to be one-roll; that's an extreme example. More than one, or separate pieces/phrases within a conflict, are just fine. But I strongly encourage playing Little Fears from that conflict point-of-view rather than from an "I do this," fail, "Oh, so nothing happens, OK, I do that," fail, "Um, so let me try this other thing," etc. Always think of the conflict at hand and resolve it.

Final point: many of our conflicts during play were not handled by two rolls, but by one (against the opponent's attribute, just as in the rules). We did use two rolls, again by the rules, when the two opponents were clearly going after different goals.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Quote from: youMy point has nothing to do with dealing with monsters. Never mind the monsters; we all know that's handled by the child rolling against his or her own attribute.

I'm talking about Billy and the bully. No monsters. They are rolling against one another's attributes, not their own.

Hum...why did I know that you would say that ?

Quote from: RonThe real issue here is task resolution vs. conflict resolution.

Yep, I know now. I still struggle to think that way using system cleary not telling you to roll that way. Here I'm referring to the exemple section of the Tests in LF, that clearly set a turn by turn approch.
The way you present things remind me strongly of Hero wars (in that one roll represent all the possible try to one course of action). Based on that, I think that it's a geat way to run LF.

Jason, did you ever run things that way ?

Thanks for sharing,

Fabrice.

Hi Fabrice,

You're absolutely right - my recommendation constitutes Drift away from at least some of the examples or text in the book. As I wrote in my review, Little Fears is an "abashed" design - certain elements of the text and rules have to be adjusted by a given group in order for play to be coherent. The fight scene example is one of my top picks for such text.

Best,
Ron