TheRPGSite

In another thread...

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIn D20, you can't grab someone and hold a knife or whatever to their throat unless they're helpless. It's more or less impossible to make someone helpless without using magic or beating them unconscious. We resolved it with a cutscene and then an argument.

What game does that well?  I imagine it'd likely be a modern subterfuge/espionage game.  Anyone have any rules of their own for sneaking up on someone and holding them at knifepoint?  It'd be nice to have some options setup for either side of the arrangement.

Games that separate competence (e.g. skill levels) from health scales (e.g. hit points).  Basic Roleplaying leaps to mind, where your high skill levels in Listen or Spot Hidden may have to be overcome first, but if a stealthy attacker can succeed in sneaking close enough, the knife can easily overwhelm your hit points. No matter how your overall competence as an adventurer increases, your hit points will remain essentially static, and you'll remain susceptible to an up-close-and-personal attack from a knife to the throat, or a gullet full of poison.

!i!

Quote from: KingSpoomWhat game does that well?  

Any game that has a semi-competant GM.

Wanna talk about GM empowerment? This is it. The action isn't adequitely covered by the rules, so the GM must arbitrate what happens. Would it all depend on the GM? Yes, but I'm hoping that when your character decides to try this, the GM has enough common sense to figure it out (it's not that difficult). If not, you need to find another GM.

Without leaving the rules?  Burning Wheel.

If you win a Bloody Versus (entire combat in a single roll that can do damage) or your opponent surrenders in Fight! (the detailed combat system) they are at your mercy (autokill at the victor's discretion). Victor's option to colour this as a knife/sword/very sharp tuna/axe held to the throat if you want.

Or you could use skip Bloody Versus/Fight! and just use a Linked Versus Speed Linked to Power probably, the player could Link Stealthy vs Observation (or Intimidation?) to the start if the wanted. Depends on how they want to describe it happening. Linked Versus would probably my preference for doing it if the target was unarmed, especially if they weren't combat trained.

EDIT:  So three different system options to get your hostage in position in a conscious state if you want to talk to them (though Fight! is a bit tricky to make sure you take him conscious and don't kill him, you might want to use the target's BITs to make sure he surrenders?)  The bonus is if you rough him up a bit getting there it's easier to extract info from him. :D

No problem using this to leverage a 3rd character to talk to you "Give me the McGuffin or I slit your husband's throat." Only way for the 3rd character (or some other outside character) to counter that would be to either Intimidate or Stealthy successfully and then Hesitate on your Steel roll and the 3rd person (back in Fight! now) kills you, knocks you out, or Disarms the knife away before you run out of Stand and Drool actions.

Or they do the smart thing (because the above rescue would be risky as hell, though doable) and call for/agree to a DoW to bargin.


EDIT: And yes, this is one of a hundred reasons why I have yet to find myself at the table playing outside the rules in Burning Wheel.

You could do this with HeroQuest. Declare a simple contest with the goal of rendering your enemy helpless (the GM might even accept 'dead'). Win the contest (you should get a bonus for a surprise attack)

RQ? Let me see... without counting on getting a crit or impale... dagger does d4+2, GM probably accepts an automatic blow to the head (or wherever), average damage 4-5 (7-8 with d4 damage bonus) average head HP about 4. He will probably go down. But he won't in BRP without hit locations or equivalent.

Savage Worlds models this well enough for me using 'The Drop' special rule, if you have the knife to someones throat you are considered on hold and have +4 to attack and damage which should usually be more than enough. It's stealth rules are also very clear about how to approach this sort of situation.


Vadrus

What games does it well?  Any game with a half-competent fucking GM.

Quote from: droogRQ? Let me see... [...snip...] He will probably go down. But he won't in BRP without hit locations or equivalent.

Ah, point well made.  I was figuring on using the specific hit location.  I think the case could be made for a much-improved chance of a critical, or at least an impale, though.  This, however, goes toward the point others are making -- a competent GM goes miles toward making a system model any situation satisfactorally.

!i!

Quote from: jrientsWhat games does it well?  Any game with a half-competent fucking GM.

If, in a D&D game, I had a high level character who gets killed because the GM decides that a dagger to the neck is an automatic kill, but otherwise sticks to D&D rules and other D&Disms (like being shot several times with bows and act as if nothing had happened), I would fucking protest.

A good rules set cannot replace common sense, that's true, but it's true the other way around, common sense cannot replace a good rules set.

Iridium will do this.
1. A dagger to the head will kill. HP do not go up over level.
2. Move Silently could be used to sneak up. Skill can be use din combination so, if you wanted you could us Unarmed Combat to get the knife in position. I would most likely just use the Weapon Use (Knife) with any specializations.

A lot would depend on the situation. You could have other skills play in.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltIridium will do this.
1. A dagger to the head will kill. HP do not go up over level.
2. Move Silently could be used to sneak up. Skill can be use din combination so, if you wanted you could us Unarmed Combat to get the knife in position. I would most likely just use the Weapon Use (Knife) with any specializations.

A lot would depend on the situation. You could have other skills play in.

Bill

Hehe! In StarCluster games, you don't even need blade skill. If you successfully Sneak, you can kill at will. You can also successfully stunt in and kill using a Dash check with no weapon skill check, for that drop-from-the-rafters-in-front-of-the-guy throat slicing. :D

-clash

Well, a dagger to the throat is fairly lethal in GURPS, but its been a while since I read up on sneaking and grappling, but I don't think anything is wonky there.

Of course, you absolutely have to remember that slashing and impaling weapons get bonus damage multipliers. And in GURPS terms you are much better off stabbing him in the neck than slicing...

Hrm.. maybe I should quit while I'm ahead. :p

Quote from: jeff37923Any game that has a semi-competant GM.
Wanna talk about GM empowerment? This is it. The action isn't adequitely covered by the rules, so the GM must arbitrate what happens.

That's the ticket baby!
hopefully the GM also has players that can "run with it" for the sake of the adventure and (God forbid) fun of it all.
Once the rules lawyers start cracking the book begin referencing, I walk away.

Quote from: flyingmiceHehe! In StarCluster games, you don't even need blade skill. If you successfully Sneak, you can kill at will. You can also successfully stunt in and kill using a Dash check with no weapon skill check, for that drop-from-the-rafters-in-front-of-the-guy throat slicing. :D

-clash

Well, yeah, like I said, it could go a lot of ways. I have run it where all that was needed was a Move Silent check. To compare to your example, I have also had such Dash 'n Slash tactics using AGL stat checks, unskilled AGL+LUC check and even a Running skill check. I think most systems will handle that kind of thing. ;)

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWell, yeah, like I said, it could go a lot of ways. I have run it where all that was needed was a Move Silent check. To compare to your example, I have also had such Dash 'n Slash tactics using AGL stat checks, unskilled AGL+LUC check and even a Running skill check. I think most systems will handle that kind of thing. ;)

Bill

Actually, most systems will handle this kind of thing with a competent GM. I have a feeling KingSpoom's point was that very few games cover that situation specifically within the rules, especially given his other thread, and possibly that indie games cover this much better than trad games - which is probably true, because as we all know indie games tend to distrust the GM from the get-go.

-clash

Quote from: KingSpoomWhat game does that well?  I imagine it'd likely be a modern subterfuge/espionage game.

Spycraft 2.0 has a rule called terminal situations, and it is pretty much only invoked at GM discretion (and even then, requires an action dice expenditure.)

Right.  Any game with a competent GM can cover any situation you want.  I'm just looking at the rules in isolation here.  I don't care what type of game it is, as long as it covers the situation.  Especially true if the system gives options to the hostage/victim.  Just to be clear, I'm looking at the whole situation of having a knife at someone's throat, not just attacking someone's throat.  I'd like to see a system tell you "He succeeded on check Y, so now he can cut your neck at any time, but we'll pause here cause he probably wants to ask you something first".

I'll check out a couple of the games mentioned.

Quote from: KingSpoomJust to be clear, I'm looking at the whole situation of having a knife at someone's throat, not just attacking someone's throat.  I'd like to see a system tell you "He succeeded on check Y, so now he can cut your neck at any time, but we'll pause here cause he probably wants to ask you something first".

With that clarification, I'd reiterate my nomination of BRP (albeit with specific hit locations and close attention to the critcal and impaling hit rules).  Even with a knife held firmly to one's throat, the hostage in BRP still has a number of tactical options available (Dodge, Grapple, Fast Talk, etc.), although very, very few of them will trump the overwhelming advantage that the fellow with the knife has.  A fairly realistic scenario.

Also, as droog suggests, HeroQuest can handle this situation nicely, and it conveniently requires a competent GM to arbitrate the scenario to everyone's satisfaction.

!i!

Quote from: ClaudiusIf, in a D&D game, I had a high level character who gets killed because the GM decides that a dagger to the neck is an automatic kill, but otherwise sticks to D&D rules and other D&Disms (like being shot several times with bows and act as if nothing had happened), I would fucking protest.

Duly noted.  Blackleaf is still dead.  Get out here.  You don't exist any more.

QuoteA good rules set cannot replace common sense, that's true, but it's true the other way around, common sense cannot replace a good rules set.

Who said we were using good rules?  I thought you were talking about D&D.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaA fairly realistic scenario.

Oh, oh, oh! This reminds me, LARP using a knife from the kitchen drawer! :hehe:

I'm of the "One With A Competent GM" opinion, but if we wanna talk about rules systems and what-not, I suddenly thought of Risus.

See, in Risus, once you defeat the other mofo, he's yours.  Do whatever you want with him.  If you run him out of dice (or just beat him in a straight one-on-one roll or just beat a target number, if he's a mook), you can say whatever you want.  

Remember that scene in The Professional where the dude's on the phone, getting his apartment shot to crap, and he walks backward to a dark hallway and Leon melts out of the shadows and puts the knife to his throat?  That could be Leon using his Stealthy Fronch* Cleaner (4) cliche against the other guy's Panicky Fat Dude (2) and running him out of dice.

Then again...it could be Leon outrolling the other guy with a stealth-vs.-Perception contest in D6.  Or maybe they're playing T&T and Leon has a Stealth (Dex) talent, and he rolls real good.  Or they're D&D characters and the DM says, "'Kay, Leon, that'll be DC 25" or "You roll Stealth and he'll roll a Reflex save, but if he gets it, he can move."  In C&C the GM might say, "Challenge Level equal to the fat guy's level".  Or in GURPS....

...etcetera.  See?  Competent GM.

And if I figured it out...

*Did you just think of the mom in Better Off Dead?  Man, I hope so.

3.5!

You only have a fortitude save against the damage, and if it´s a rogue, it´ll be enourmous damage.

Never had problems with it.

Quote from: flyingmiceActually, most systems will handle this kind of thing with a competent GM. I have a feeling KingSpoom's point was that very few games cover that situation specifically within the rules, especially given his other thread, and possibly that indie games cover this much better than trad games - which is probably true, because as we all know indie games tend to distrust the GM from the get-go.

-clash

See, I think we are saying the same thing but let me check.

My point is simply, you probably should not be told (IMO) that you do A-B-C and the target's throat is slit. Why? For several reasons, chief of which would be repeatability. Players will grab onto that and use it to death. GMs will use it as a crutch and not think about the situation. My style of design favors everyone at the table thinking about what they are doing. I believe it is a desirable and entertaining element.

So, I favor having a set of options that can be assembled for the situation. Will Move Silent always allow you to slit someone's throat? No. Will it allow you to sneak up on the guard in the middle of the night? Maybe and most likely. Mods can come in with debris on the ground, position, and such. However, I have had players who insisted that the guard on the other side of the drawbridge with his back to a wall could be snuck up on with a successful Move Silent like magic. No cover, no distraction, just roll the dice and voila! Dead guard.

To me, that is not doing it well. Doing it well would include having the ability to assemble the parts to make a good plan. If the mechanics of neck stabbing is all we are talking about then you need 1. Areas and 2. Called shots. From what the OP has said, it seems he wants an overall solution. This would be mine.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt...Players will grab onto that and use it to death. GMs will use it as a crutch and not think about the situation. My style of design favors everyone at the table thinking about what they are doing. I believe it is a desirable and entertaining element.

.....To me, that is not doing it well. Doing it well would include having the ability to assemble the parts to make a good plan.

As the kids say in forums.  ++

EDIT: To add to that I found myself having trouble with the Burning Wheel example I was giving past Bloody Versus/Fight!  Not because it couldn't do it but because it's so situational. How is the player describing what they want to happen. What are the surroundings. The characters, etc.  It can get very detailed.  But once you have the described intent of the player, what they want to happen, determing the dice rolling task follows shortly, as does usually determining the consequenses of failure.  Especially from the player's choice of Skills used for extra help, that gives pretty good clues as to what the potential f*ckup is going to look like.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I think we are saying the same thing but let me check.

My point is simply, you probably should not be told (IMO) that you do A-B-C and the target's throat is slit. Why? For several reasons, chief of which would be repeatability. Players will grab onto that and use it to death. GMs will use it as a crutch and not think about the situation. My style of design favors everyone at the table thinking about what they are doing. I believe it is a desirable and entertaining element.

So, I favor having a set of options that can be assembled for the situation. Will Move Silent always allow you to slit someone's throat? No. Will it allow you to sneak up on the guard in the middle of the night? Maybe and most likely. Mods can come in with debris on the ground, position, and such. However, I have had players who insisted that the guard on the other side of the drawbridge with his back to a wall could be snuck up on with a successful Move Silent like magic. No cover, no distraction, just roll the dice and voila! Dead guard.

To me, that is not doing it well. Doing it well would include having the ability to assemble the parts to make a good plan. If the mechanics of neck stabbing is all we are talking about then you need 1. Areas and 2. Called shots. From what the OP has said, it seems he wants an overall solution. This would be mine.

Bill

We are saying the same things, Bill. The rules I cited were optional rules, used under the discretion of the GM. Sometimes they are applicable, and sometimes not, like sniping. I remember one time there was a guard against a wall who needed to be removed - no just sneaking up behind. One character climbed the wall, silently edged around, and garotted the guard from above - she was a sastra, with foot hands and prehensile tail, and could do such things. Unfortunately, she butchered the quality of success on the garotting, and the guard took forever to die, hammering his heels against the wall, hitting with his fist, and being incredibly un-stealthy. It turned into a very amusing moment, constantly brought up by my players as an example of how sometimes a success can be almost as bad as a failure.

-clash

We had a similar situation come up when 3.0 came out, although it was a ghost using possession and holding a broken bottle to his own / the victim's throat. I handled it by calling it a coup de grace. The character made his fort. save and survived, then the party beat him to unconsciousness to force the ghost out.

Am I now an official Competent GM?

Quotepossibly that indie games cover this much better than trad games - which is probably true, because as we all know indie games tend to distrust the GM from the get-go

It's not so much about Forge games (note Professor Rotwang's example of Risus). It's whether a game has a broad-based resolution system that takes some judgement into account. Those games do it very easily.

Suicide is a bit different James, interesting situation though.

I assume Settembrini was talking about a bound/unconscious person.

The reason why I think many/most games don't have deadly rules for slitting a held person's throat, assassinating them with one shot from afar, single-hit kills in general, deadly poisons that kill without a save, characters dying from heart attacks, and so on is that these things are generally not fun to be on the receiving end of as a PC victim so they take the toy away from everyone so that the PCs don't have to suffer that fate.

Quote from: droogIt's not so much about Forge games (note Professor Rotwang's example of Risus). It's whether a game has a broad-based resolution system that takes some judgement into account. Those games do it very easily.

What I was talking about was Forge games. They do tend to distrust the GM and they do tend to limit GM discretion if there is a GM. Note I say 'tend'! I'm well aware that Forge games, like trad games, sprawl all over in their intent. Because of this tendancy, Forge games also tend to cover situations like that, which would normally be left to GM judgement/fiat in trad games. My implication was that the broad based resolution in many Forge games is a direct result of GM distrust.

Risus, while hardly Forgey, is also hardly trad. It's broad based resolution comes from another direction entirely.

-clash

Quote from: John MorrowThe reason why I think many/most games don't have deadly rules for slitting a held person's throat, assassinating them with one shot from afar, single-hit kills in general, deadly poisons that kill without a save, characters dying from heart attacks, and so on is that these things are generally not fun to be on the receiving end of as a PC victim so they take the toy away from everyone so that the PCs don't have to suffer that fate.

True. I discuss that under sniping in the SC system optional rules. I have personally attempted as GM three times to snipe PCs. All three times I happened to fail - my dice were rolled openly, as always, and everyone could see that I wasn't fudging. All three times it was in a wartime situation where the PCs were not keeping to cover. If the PCs can snipe, so can the enemy. In any case the failures had the desired effect, and the PCs hugged cover. One case where failure was probably better than success.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceRisus, while hardly Forgey, is also hardly trad. It's broad based resolution comes from another direction entirely.

I have to disagree. In fact, Risus has a resolution system that is in the same line as much Forge thinking on conflict resolution. It's very similar to HQ, which was a big influence.

HeroQuest was a big influence on Risus?

Quote from: droogI have to disagree. In fact, Risus has a resolution system that is in the same line as much Forge thinking on conflict resolution. It's very similar to HQ, which was a big influence.

Risus influenced many games, indirectly including HQ. Both Risus and HQ influenced Forge designs. The reason Risus was designed the way it was had nothing to do with GM trust or distrust. The reason many Forge games siezed upon this line of thinking has lots to do with GM distrust. That's what I meant by coming from another direction. S. John's intent was very different. I know this from chatting intensively with S. John many times on IRC.

-clash

Quote from: jrientsHeroQuest was a big influence on Risus?

HQ was a big influence on the Forge games.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHQ was a big influence on the Forge games.

On some of the designers.  Hey, at least they had taste.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOn some of the designers.  Hey, at least they had taste.

!i!

Sorry! On many, I meant to say. I've been trying to be careful and accurate here.

-clash

S'okay.  It's fair to note, though, that lots of really good games have gone on to influence the people who gravitated toward The Forge, including some quite traditional ones.  Which is not to say that the designers of those same games were themselves Forge designers.

I quite like me some HeroQuest, but I was always very uncomfortable with how The Forge co-opted it into their ranks.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaS'okay.  It's fair to note, though, that lots of really good games have gone on to influence the people who gravitated toward The Forge, including some quite traditional ones.  Which is not to say that the designers of those same games were themselves Forge designers.

Absolutely, Ian! :D

-clash

Quote from: blakkieSuicide is a bit different James, interesting situation though.

I'd have handled it exactly the same had it been someone outside of the victim holding the knife rather than someone inside them.

QuoteI assume Settembrini was talking about a bound/unconscious person.

I wouldn't know. I was responding to the thread, not Sett's post.

Quote from: John MorrowThe reason why I think many/most games don't have deadly rules for slitting a held person's throat, assassinating them with one shot from afar, single-hit kills in general, deadly poisons that kill without a save, characters dying from heart attacks, and so on is that these things are generally not fun to be on the receiving end of as a PC victim so they take the toy away from everyone so that the PCs don't have to suffer that fate.

The man has hit the nail on the head and you can add to it PCs don't like it when other PCs can kill them with a single successful role. Take when Billy and Lazarus have just argued over who gets to keep the marshal's Colt .45. Billy gives in and Lazarus walks off happy.. Billy then shoots him from 6 feet away with a Colt Peacemaker. Now in the real world even Lazarus isn't coming back from that. If you are a calm headed killer you simply don't miss from 6 feet with an aimed pistol at a target the size of a man's back and if you get shot with a pistol like that from 6 feet away the exit wound will be about 5 inches across.
So in a game should a sucessful sneak mean Lazarus is dead? Or a sneak and a to hit with a big bonus? Or a sneak against Lazarus's perception ? or that and a to hit and a damage roll?
At some point you need to sacrifice realism for playability and whilst GM fiat can cover these situations it does tend to create tensions, especially in PC vs PC situations.
You can't kill a PC because they forgot to turn their motion detector alarm clock on it just makes for a game that isn't fun.

Clash,

On trust, and I'm going to word this in a large, sweeping figurative way here. Trust is a two way street. The trust broke a long, long time ago. I believe Gary's blustering, barely contained rage in the 1e DMG is a symptom of that, and a perpetuating cause. That further crippled effective communication. It is nigh impossible to build/rebuild trust with crappy communication.

I think seeing a lack of trust between players at the table is an excellent motivation. But there is a difference. Not a motivation rooted in "I don't trust them, so I will assert my authority/gain power over the other person", which IMO was Gary's folley. But a motivation of "how can we fix the communication, how can we provide tools to speak a common language, and ferret out the irritants that plagued us in the past, that held us ALL back".

I play BW, I think so highly of it, because I think it addresses the later. Was the motivation the former? :shrug: I don't know. I do know there are people that are motivated by the former that latch on to initiatives that have the later. That isn't constructive. *shrug* But at this point I don't think it matters as any vestiges of that have passed beyond significance. The result is what I care about now.

So now I've thrown away the GM screen (EDIT: and BTW that isn't a Burning Wheel mandated thing, I just saw it getting in the way too much). I've picked up rules that are broad, flexible, and concise. That foster communication between everyone at every turn. That are a reliable tool. And the result sitting in the GM seat is I have never felt more trusted or in control of the destiny of the table and the "story" in my life, it's not even close. And it isn't an illusion.

You want trust, you give trust. And top it off with solid, reliable communication. That goes for everybody. It's that simple.



"We don't know who struck first - us, or them. But we know it was us that scorched the sky." - Morpheus, The Matrix

How did this shift to a discussion of forge games?

Quote from: John MorrowThe reason why I think many/most games don't have deadly rules for slitting a held person's throat, assassinating them with one shot from afar, single-hit kills in general, deadly poisons that kill without a save, characters dying from heart attacks, and so on is that these things are generally not fun to be on the receiving end of as a PC victim so they take the toy away from everyone so that the PCs don't have to suffer that fate.

That's why I'd like to see some interesting choices for the defender in the situation.

I seem to remember in one edition or another of HERO system you could make an attack where you would roll to hit like normal but the damage wasn't applied until you wanted to, that could be a knife at the throat, covering someone with a gun etc. It wasn't an automatic kill either as you still had to roll damage. Not too bad a way to game it regardless of system, really.

Quote from: KingSpoomHow did this shift to a discussion of forge games?

Welcome to therpgsite.com :D

Quote from: KingSpoomHow did this shift to a discussion of forge games?

Sorry for my part in that.  I didn't feel like a continued silence about a lack of trust in GMs. *hands keys to the thread back to KingSpoom*

Quote from: blakkieSorry for my part in that.  I didn't feel like staying silent listening to yet more moaning about a lack of trust in GMs. *hands keys to the thread back to KingSpoom*

No moaning, blakkie. I was extremely careful on how I phrased every post. It was a statement of fact with no emotion of any kind. There was no regret, no approbation, no distress, no anger, no shock - nothing. You were reacting to something that wasn't there.

PS: I have never used a screen.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNo moaning, blakkie. I was extremely careful on how I phrased every post. It was a statement of fact with no emotion of any kind. There was no regret, no approbation, no distress, no anger, no shock - nothing. You were reacting to something that wasn't there.

I'll go back and remove the superlative. :p I think I kept the original post fairly clean though?

Truth is it's something that's built up over the last while. I'm pretty sure HinterWelt has mentioned 'trust of GMs' too, it kinda irked me. That original post was in direct response to you but it wasn't just motivated by you, and my last post isn't just about you either.

QuotePS: I have never used a screen.

I think that's one for the "things that you would have removed from RPG history if you could". :(

Quote from: John MorrowThe reason why I think many/most games don't have deadly rules for slitting a held person's throat, assassinating them with one shot from afar, single-hit kills in general, deadly poisons that kill without a save, characters dying from heart attacks, and so on is that these things are generally not fun to be on the receiving end of as a PC victim so they take the toy away from everyone so that the PCs don't have to suffer that fate.

Indeed, and the original example that started this thread, in my game, was of a blinded PC at 3/4 HP who was waving a sword around at other nearby attackers being grabbed in combat by a skilled opponent and having the knife held to his throat.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIndeed, and the original example that started this thread, in my game, was of a blinded PC at 3/4 HP who was waving a sword around at other nearby attackers being grabbed in combat by a skilled opponent and having the knife held to his throat.

I still hear laments of the "dead page boy that flanked" from an early 3e session I GMed. :haw:  It was a badly hurt Lv1...well I'm not sure what 'class'. In the middle of a large tower-top fight with IIRC level 6ish PCs and a bunch of military enemy NPCs.  The page boy had, I believe some chunk of wood in his hand (club) but I hadn't bothered to move him into attack.  The player then moved the PC into position of flank himself!  When it was turn of the nasty NPC on the other side of the flank there was much moaning that the page boy was hardly a threat.

Of course everytime the story got repeated, usually during any reference to AoO with that group, the page boy died a little more. I think he's now been reduced/elevated to a relic page boy finger bone that caused a flank. :(

Quote from: blakkieOf course everytime the story got repeated, usually during any reference to AoO with that group, the page boy died a little more. I think he's now been reduced/elevated to a relic page boy finger bone that caused a flank. :(

I am totally gonna re-read the flanking rules and ensure that they say nothing about the flanking models being... you know... still alive.

Then I'm gonna totally force that flank bonus from my GM the next time I play.


Because I'm a dick.

Quote from: SpikeI am totally gonna re-read the flanking rules and ensure that they say nothing about the flanking models being... you know... still alive.

LOL. Well I doubt that you'll be able to work a way for them to be a Threat in the technical sense if they are actually dead. The player's reasoning in this case was "well I don't care if he swings at my PC as hard as he can, I don't think he can hit me and he isn't going to do much damage even if he can".

Quote from: blakkieThat original post was in direct response to you but it wasn't just motivated by you, and my last post isn't just about you either.

Fair enough then! :D

-clash

Quote from: blakkieLOL. Well I doubt that you'll be able to work a way for them to be a Threat in the technical sense if they are actually dead. The player's reasoning in this case was "well I don't care if he swings at my PC as hard as he can, I don't think he can hit me and he isn't going to do much damage even if he can".

In the version of Fudge that my group does, when calculating multiple attackers, the player has the option of saying that their character isn't defending against some or all of them.  The downside is that the opponents they ignore get to hit them as if they were not defending.  So when I was running D&D 3.5, I would probably allow the PC to ignore the attack but let the NPC swing against their flat footed AC and if they hit they would be considered flanked because of reacting to being whacked.

Quote from: flyingmiceRisus influenced many games, indirectly including HQ. Both Risus and HQ influenced Forge designs. The reason Risus was designed the way it was had nothing to do with GM trust or distrust. The reason many Forge games siezed upon this line of thinking has lots to do with GM distrust. That's what I meant by coming from another direction.

I only disagree with you that the issue is distrust of the GM. The issue is rethinking the role of the GM. But the whole Forgeys-hate-the-GM meme has firmly taken hold.

Quote from: John MorrowIn the version of Fudge that my group does, when calculating multiple attackers, the player has the option of saying that their character isn't defending against some or all of them.  The downside is that the opponents they ignore get to hit them as if they were not defending.  So when I was running D&D 3.5, I would probably allow the PC to ignore the attack but let the NPC swing against their flat footed AC and if they hit they would be considered flanked because of reacting to being whacked.

I considered something pretty close to that but:
1) We were fairly new to 3e. I didn't feel competent at that point in changing rules.
2) We were fairly new to 3e. AoO and Flanking had enough cavets in it already that the players were having trouble with it. Adding more special cases seemed like the wrong thing to do.
3) I forsaw that change rippling out into timing issues (when do you get to switch, all that).
4) The rule worked both ways.
5) Reality and RPGs only intersect slightly at the best of times. 'Realism' is usually a very poor excuse, and sometimes a total ruse, for changing a rule.

In the end I think it was the right thing to do because the players jumped on it and used it themselves.  They only would bring it up for [mostly] good natured heckling. Thus the embelishment. :p

Y'know, I can totally see that 'dead page boy' working as abstractly as the hit point mechanic.

See, while the page boy, by dice, didn't actually do anything himself, and it was the superior foe taking advantage of the flanking bonus to 'do damage'... because damage is totally abstract anyway:

The superior opponent keeps the fighters attention and the page boy, spurred on to heroic (anti-heroic) action by the deaths of his comrades and the examples of the superior opponents leaps up and totally clocks the fighter across the head from behind, having been utterly dismissed as a threat by said fighter.


Thus the page boy temporarily took advantage of the superior opponents abilities by striking from ambush...



Its twisted.

I like it!

In Unknown Armies, if someone is attacked by an unknown assailant with a weapon, they're dead. No roll.

If you grapple an unsuspecting victim and put a knife to their throat, thay are helpless. As long as they remain helpless, you can choose to kill them. No roll.

The question then becomes, do they call your bluff?

Quote from: droogI only disagree with you that the issue is distrust of the GM. The issue is rethinking the role of the GM. But the whole Forgeys-hate-the-GM meme has firmly taken hold.

Probably because Forgies HATE the GM.  Luke Crane admitted as much.

Its a reaction to some bad experiences you all had when you were mascara-clad goths playing Vampire:The Masquerade, and the "Storyteller" made you all sit there for six hours listening to his "brilliantly" crafted story full of bad poetry and clove cigarettes, and your PCs weren't allowed to actually do anything because that would disrupt the metaplot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditProbably because Forgies HATE the GM.  Luke Crane admitted as much.

Its a reaction to some bad experiences you all had when you were mascara-clad goths playing Vampire:The Masquerade, and the "Storyteller" made you all sit there for six hours listening to his "brilliantly" crafted story full of bad poetry and clove cigarettes, and your PCs weren't allowed to actually do anything because that would disrupt the metaplot.

You're an idiot, but I'll forgive you. Here, let me spell it out for you. I've never played any WW games because they look stupid. I've never played with a GM such as you describe, because I know how to avoid situations I don't like. And I associate clove cigarettes with SE Asia, not goths.

Now, whatever Luke Crane says, you frame the question in the most retarded way possible. 'GM' is not a class nor an ethnicity. It is a job, a role in a game. One cannot thinkingly 'hate the GM'; after all, one may be the GM next week.

One can, however, question the model of GM handed down to us and rethink the role a GM plays in a game.

Quote from: RPGPunditProbably because Forgies...

...rumble-rumble...

...mutter-mutter...

...*cough*...

...something-something metaplot.

I'm sorry.  Did you say something? Because, honestly, it's like listening to someone talk seriously about "Trotsky-ites".

!i!

Quote from: droogOne can, however, question the model of GM handed down to us and rethink the role a GM plays in a game.

Exactly. I don't know why the Pundit is getting all hot & bothered. Gamers have been doing this for years. I reckon he's upset at how folks like Luke express themselves. The rhetoric I guess, disturbs him :raise:

Regards,
David R