Its the way the games are written

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Mant at 2003-03-07 01:03:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

The combat systems of most games I've played are basically written "you fight until one side dies". Its not so much that all games need some sort of moral rules for NPCs (they don't) just that the combat section almost never mentions the possibility that people might surrender, or run away, or just fall on their needs ands scream "please don't kill me!". Or having badly hurt characters stop fighting and try and crawl away, or just hold themselves together in a corner.

Consequently I think the idea of these things happening often doesn't occur to GMs, especially new ones. Then you pretty much get stuck in a rut. For systems without personality or moral mechanics just some advice on handling NPCs in a fight would go a long way I feel. Most people won't fight to the death unless the are fanatics, or the stakes are very, very high.

Systems that don't really allow for wounded characters can compound it. If everyone is basically OK, critically wounded or dead its hard to get injured people trying to get out of the fight.

Mant

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Dasmen at 2003-03-07 07:11:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

It can also be that it's simply hard to break engagment in a fight in many roleplaying systems. Trying to escape offten means death, and death without really bringing down the one who got you.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Mike Ryan at 2003-03-07 08:27:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

This was one of the deliberate design decisions in D&D3E that I liked: you can always disengage, as long as do so reasonably (i.e. walk don't run) and aren't surrounded or way inside the reach of a big monster.

I think Mant might want to take a look at HeroQuest when it comes out. Contests, especially extended ones, are written with these thoughts in mind. Cinematic/literary fights rarely end with bloody heaps (to paraphrase the Hero Wars rulebook). A HW/HQ combat doesn't end when someone runs out of hit points or runs away (if you remember to do it). The contest ends when one side runs out of AP (Action Points which indicate the amount of advantage the contestents have in the contest). Whether the loser has surrendered unscathed, be lightly wounded, mortally wounded or dead depends on how badly the contest was lost (there's also a narrative element here, but that just determines the flavor not the degree).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Trombone4hire at 2003-03-07 12:20:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

What is this HeroQuest? Not the old board game, I'm sure. Please email me or reply.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jake at 2003-03-07 12:21:01
Converted from Phorums BB System

What is this HeroQuest? Not the old board game, I'm sure. Please email me or reply.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Mike Ryan at 2003-03-07 14:27:50
Converted from Phorums BB System

The revised release of Hero Wars (formerly known as Hero Wars 2nd Ed.) from Issaries, Inc. It's the current Gloranthan RPG.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jesse King at 2003-03-09 15:55:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

One really important point in how the rules relate to how players and NPC's behave in game worlds.

Most RPG's have combat systems that do not degrade a character's abilities as they become injured. Virtually NONE of them allow a character to act in any way once they have been disabled in combat (knocked out/killed).

Of course, this negates a lot of potential combat roleplaying situations. One rules change that makes a big difference is to state that a character that is incapacitated is NOT automatically knocked unconscious - they are simply unable to take any useful game action - no attack, no defense, no spellcasting of any kind, but let them crawl and continue to talk, at least until someone decides to put them out of their misery.

In the real world, there are many forms of injury which would essentially totally incapacitate a person without necessarily knocking them unconcious. They may simply lack the strength (or tendons) to lift a weapon any more. At that point, they better learn to roleplay quickly, cause only some fast talking is going to make a difference at that point.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Dasmen at 2003-03-09 20:57:09
Converted from Phorums BB System

To many movies have downed charaters, barrly able to move, strugle a bit, then shoot someone in the back while still prone. Also, many games have magic and/or Psychic powers drawn from will alone - so you can't have charaters ever totally incapitated while they are conscious. At the same time, having someone in such a winded state could make combat annoyingly completacted in some situations... when is someone in shock, when is someone unconscious, and when is someone just stuned...

It's ussually just not worth the book keeping.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Luke Silburn at 2003-03-11 08:40:34
Converted from Phorums BB System


Mike Ryan wrote:
-------------------------------
The revised release of Hero Wars (formerly known as Hero Wars 2nd Ed.) from Issaries, Inc. It's the current Gloranthan RPG.


Or rather, it *will be* the current Gloranthan RPG when it actually gets released. The schedule has slipped again.

Luke

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jesse King at 2003-03-11 18:39:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ah, I see your problem. When working with rules lawyers and younger players, I can certainly see the issue here.

The groups I have played with for a while now tend to be pretty mature, and our rules for 'Incapacitated but conscious' characters are pretty simple -

- NO use of skills or abilities whatsoever, regardless of how simple or by what method (physical, mental, magical, item), they can't even uncork a potion.

- Crawling movment rates only.

The assumption is not only that the character has been too badly injured to act - but that they are also so dazed, exhausted, or panicked that they no longer possess the wherewithal to resist, save via some witty remarks or final words before they expire (or are rescued, hopefully :)

We don't even bother to try to justify why they cannot act at all, we simply state that they cannot do so regardless of the details - this leaves no room for arguments or quibbling, and gives us the effect we want.

It works for us quite reliably. It might not if your group isn't used to interpreting rules by 'spirit' as opposed to 'letter' - but you could probably get it to work either way.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ashlin Evenstar at 2003-07-09 06:37:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

Greetings!

Jesse King wrote:
-------------------------------
NO use of skills or abilities whatsoever, regardless of how simple or by what method (physical, mental, magical, item), they can't even uncork a potion.

- So the character is essentially paralyzed?

Jesse King wrote:
-------------------------------

Crawling movment rates only.

- So the character is not paralysed? I'm seeing a contradiction here. If he cannon even uncork or potion or slide a pistol out of holster, how can he have the strength to push/pull himself and crawl? Seems like if he is strong enough to drag himself accross the ground, he shouldn't have trouble doing very light actions that involve his hands (unless they're missing of course).


Jesse King wrote:
-------------------------------
The assumption is not only that the character has been too badly injured to act - but that they are also so dazed, exhausted, or panicked that they no longer possess the wherewithal to resist, save via some witty remarks or final words before they expire (or are rescued, hopefully :)

-So a character is too dazed and loopey to cast a spell or use a psionic ability, but is completely capable of forming a strategy to dupe/negotiate with his attackers into letting him live? Again, I see some very contradictory notions here. Using a high mental process to influence other beings into doing what you want is akin to casting a low level/low requisite spell the character has been familiar with and cast multiple times in his life.

Jesse King wrote:
-------------------------------
We don't even bother to try to justify why they cannot act at all, we simply state that they cannot do so regardless of the details - this leaves no room for arguments or quibbling, and gives us the effect we want.

-So by totally limiting a player's options to "a few witty expressions before they expire" is adding to the roleplay experience? Players can toss in witty expressions at any point in the game. This rule adds nothing new. Maybe if the witty expressions bought them enough time to draw their weapon or cast a spell, then this rule would have some merrit. But adding a rule that states "once you hit zero life points (or whatever) you can crawl around and say stuff, but you cant do any other action period" would just make people go "Why?" I just see this type of rule getting ignored by players and probably ridiculed in reviews. Also, by not justifying why you have a rule totally makes the rule seem arbitrary and heavy handed. Kinda like the teacher that says "Do this worksheet because I told you to not because I'm trying to teach you something."

-Honestly, at any point in combat a GM or Player can have their character back off and try to negotiate their way out of it. It doesn't have to be when they are almost incpacitated. It can happen in the first round, after a character gets shot in the knee. The fact that it doesn't occur to players/GMs is a problem, and I do agree that something should be done about it. Perhaps in the combat section, a parragraph on non-lethal victories could explain retreat, surrender, etc. but not give any hard fast rules. Allow them to role-play it out since that is what we are trying to provide for anyway.

Peace,

-Ash

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sandy Antunes at 2003-07-09 07:50:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hi,

I think the idea is the character is dazed, not paralyzed, and thus can do only basic, primal stuff like 'crawl' or 'noisily expire'. A final witty remark isn't quite "high level negotiations in a crisis situation".

In fact, you summarize the initial problem quite nicely with:
>Honestly, at any point in combat a GM or Player can have their character back off and try to negotiate their way out of it.

The problem being, most systems don't have this, and most GMs don't take your point of view that allowing a back-off/negotiate action is 'reasonable.' So with that in mind, your idea:

"Perhaps in the combat section, a parragraph on non-lethal victories could explain retreat, surrender, etc. but not give any hard fast rules."

... is excellent. And in no way contradicts also having a rule that "at zero, you can merely crawl, grunt, or perhaps toss in a witty last remark."

Cheers,
Sandy
freelance

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by ImperiumRPG at 2003-08-13 03:34:32
Converted from Phorums BB System



Ashlin Evenstar wrote:
-------------------------------
"So the character is essentially paralyzed?"


No, but they are flapping loosely around on the ground, unable to manipulate a bottletop/cork.



"So the character is not paralysed? I'm seeing a contradiction here. If he cannon even uncork or potion or slide a pistol out of holster, how can he have the strength to push/pull himself and crawl? Seems like if he is strong enough to drag himself accross the ground, he shouldn't have trouble doing very light actions that involve his hands (unless they're missing of course)."


Dragging yourself away is a simple function of arms, legs, and even body, movements, wriggling around until you go in the right direction.

Doing anything like drawing a pistol requires dexterity that is lost in a dazed state. Holding your arm off the ground, and still, long enough to aim that pistol through blurry vision is nigh on impossible.


"So a character is too dazed and loopey to cast a spell or use a psionic ability, but is completely capable of forming a strategy to dupe/negotiate with his attackers into letting him live? Again, I see some very contradictory notions here. Using a high mental process to influence other beings into doing what you want is akin to casting a low level/low requisite spell the character has been familiar with and cast multiple times in his life."

A few points. 'Don't kill me! Please, don't kill me! I've got money!' is not a high level negotiating tactic. Bending the laws of physics/nature, no matter how many times it has been done in the past is not an easy thing to do (unless you're playing in a shitty high-and-easy magic setting). Can you remember the words to cast the spell? Or the exact 'shape' that your mind has to form in order to unleash that particular bolt of psychic energy? Can you bollocks. You're more worried about holding your intestines in and avoiding being killed than you are about killing the guy who just hit you.


But a good point on non-lethal victories. (I'm going to go and put one in my own rules set's combat system.) Unknown Armies has a section just like that, explaining that you're going to get arrested if you kill someone, or that as soon as one guy draws a knife, so does the other guy, and the fight only ends in injury or death. It even suggests that, instead of fighting someone, you run away and call the police - how many PCs normally ever do that until ~after~ they've killed the baddy in 'self defence'?.