Superman vs Sniper Rifle

[knave]

from Q-Z Elites: Mechanical Stuff

Analagies are usually wrong.

Why do people bother with them then? Maybe because they help show a certain point of view?

Superman being *asleep* would be the same as the warrior being asleep.

Superman being shot with a bullet from a sniper-rifle would be similar to you being smacked with satin hankercheif.

Why? Because they both snore?

Surely the point is that a certain circumstance makes an uninjured D&D warrior (or cleric) of 7th level vulnerable to a dagger can be likened to another situation in which superman is vulnerable to a sniper rifle?

If not, why not? Vulnerability and Invulnerability is the point.

[Bahamut810]

Well..the initial point was what exacly makes something a 'death tthreat' (for lack of better words).

What happened...

Cleric gets pissed that a wizard made a girl cry. Cleric picks him up for seme reason or another. Wizard tries to knife cleric in an un-armored face.

Cleric makes fighting words.

Wizard tries to kill her.

How many people you know of can take a knife into the brainpan and come out unscathed? I have read an artical or two,but chanses are you will die, or at least get brain damage. Yea, you may be a crackerjack with a sword. You may be able to take a couple of flesh wounds with little problems. A knife to the brain is death or brain damage though.

[knave]

I agree with you now and at the time. That is how it SHOULD work.

My friend's point was that for his suspension of disbelief to hold for something to be a credible death threat in a game world, the game world must bear out that said thing can kill you.

In other words to apply real world logic to a badly/differently modelled world situation is unrealistic.

So:

In an A-Team world you can shoot as much as you like and you won't kill anyone.

In a star wars world, elite imperial storm troopers can't hit the broad side of a planet from 20 paces, and despite their training they can't kill a green kid if he is strong in the force.

It is impossible to kill Elminster, but people keep trying.

If you lived in these worlds, these are things that experience would bear out. It is a world tone.

In the AD&D game we were playing, it really didn't matter that the cleric wasn't wearing armour, you couldn't kill her with one strike of a dagger. She would dodge, or knock your hand or do whatever it was that she would do to cost her 3HP. She would do that EVERY TIME until she ran out of HP.

Something had to change to make it more real.

So, the point of my questions have been simply, ok - we're in a world that isn't this world, so what happens if I do this, or that. This is particularly important when powers work on a superman like scale and turning on powers that don't work together produce an effect that isn't intended. I do this not so that I can screw with the system, if I wanted to do that I would try to do it in a game, but so that I understand things as the character understands things from what the character has experienced.

[Finbar]

Keeping in mind that I'm only commenting on what was said here:

1) Superman vs: Sniper: It's been shown in the comics that Superman's invulnerability applies even when he's asleep. In DD3.5 terms, his DR affects hits even when he's asleep.

2) Facing a cleric that's able to defend himself is VERY different from a sleeping cleric. Even the AD&D rules allowed that an attack against a defenseless foe could kil instantlyl regardless of current hit point total.

FR

[Obsidian Shade]

You can't play Superman with D&D. He will never lose Hitpoints except very worldshaking events. Never. He don't need Hitpoints because of that... ::rolleyes

[knave]

Mutants and Masterminds for superman.

But none of that is here nor there.

The question was:

Is it a valid comparison to compare superman being shot with a sniper rifle (to which he is completely invulnerable) to an unhurt 7th level cleric being attacked by a wizard with a dagger. The wizard knows that as long as the cleric is free to defend herself he cannot kill her with one strike of this weapon. (she has 60hp + and daggers do d4).

Is a single strike of the dagger any more a credible death threat than the sniper rifle being used on superman?

[Obsidian Shade]

Okay, i missed the point. But i would say: no, it's not. A cleriv is not invulnerable. If you look at it using only your brain and no rule a dagger can end the life of a human (or other vulnerable beeing). If you use rules you must first get superman in a compareable charactersheet. That's very tricky and i don't want to do it. *gg*

[ProfPotts]

But, the wizard (the character) doesn't know that, does he? It's a case of poor role-playing - the player's knowledge of how the system works being manifested by the character.

We presume, of course, that the wizard lives in a world where people can still die by being stabbed in the face with a dagger - if he doesn't, if in fact the cleric is 'Superman' & the dagger would just bounce off her skin, then it's all fine & dandy. But, presuming that Hit Points are being described throughout the game in the manner they were always meant to be, then the wizard does not know that the cleric won't be killed. At best, he could hope or guess that she wouldn't, based on his past observations of her in combat, but he doesn't know.

It's not the same as shooting Superman with a sniper rifle - 'cos in that situation the character knows it won't hurt the big blue guy. It's more akin to shooting Batman with a sniper rifle - he hasn't been killed by one yet, but for all the character knows this could be the one that gets him.

Plus - even in the A-Team people did, on occasion, get shot & even killed - to imply that weapons should have been considered harmless in the setting just because of the way the show portrayed the results of their use is a little daft - if that was the case, then why were people always being held (effectively) at gunpoint? We (the viewers) knew that everything would be alright in the end, but the characters in the show had no such knowledge.

Characters acting on player knowledge is just a basic example of piss-poor role-playing, IMHO.

[knave]

But, the wizard (the character) doesn't know that, does he? It's a case of poor role-playing - the player's knowledge of how the system works being manifested by the character.

Characters acting on player knowledge is just a basic example of piss-poor role-playing, IMHO.

In every other way the friend of mine in question was/is a good gamer, won/wins prizes at cons, pretty much every con etc. What I think it is is more anything else is that he is a science graduate (as am I for that matter) and in the end that means that whilst imagination is important you do end up thinking about things a certain way. So playing a character in a world who sees the same thing happen over and over, and saying well... absence of proof is not proof of absence, but I can see this pattern repeating... As you say at that point he cannot know, but can make a strong assumption that the same inital circumstances will lead to the same result... and when it doesn't you look surprised, tap the equipment in irritation, curse inaccurate lab assistants, whistle innocently and scarper before people ask you for results.

I think that everyone requires a certain amount of cause/effect realism to be present in any game system to allow them to successfully suspend their disbelief. A description of something may be brilliant, but sooner or later you need to back things up with a dose of (for wont of a better description) prevailing reality.

If you played in a game where falling over indoors caused you to fall up onto the roof, you'd be pretty unsure of what would happen if you jumped off the grand canyon. That is exteme. If that happened pretty much everyone would say 'this world is nothing like my own'. A few people might though. They'd be odd.

Another world/game system might exist where you could die from standing on a caltrop (0th level could have 3hp - standing on caltop for d3. A good Gm could descibe this as falling over and hitting your head on a coffee table... but it could be the most dextrous character in the world and it'd still happen )

Some more people might believe this world than the one above, because things might still work the same way, but with things being a little more deadly.

I say this much: If something is a little lacking and can easily be fixed with a little tinkering - then tinker. If adding a critical system of whatever nature causes people to die from dagger wounds who shouldn't otherwise and it helps that many more people feel that they're in a 'real' seeming world - do it - you can always fudge chacters into staying alive. I'd wager that most GMs who've ever made a house rule feel the same way.

Then we get to a game where there is a paranormal element that exists in the game world, but not in the real world. In these games characters know things that players don't know (rather than the reverse). They might know that Novas can't (as a rule) be hurt by their own powers, and might also know that powers tend to be continuous until extinguished in a certain manner and so forth. They'd get this knowledge from using their own powers and from reading and learning from others. The characters understand the prevailing reality better than the players do. They have a 'feel' for how things work.

In a world like that, a player might be wise to ask a few stupid questions - especially if that player has already fallen down due to several stupid blunders due to incorrect understanding of how those unusual elements to the game work.

[ProfPotts]

So what your saying is that, by applying the 'scientific method' a character (not player) should be allowed to figure out the rules of the gaming system of the game he's a part of? Sorry, but that's a load of twaddle - unless you happen to be playing a spoof game.

It'd be like James Bond not bothering to dive for cover & just standing there when he's shot at - because he knows he's got 'plot immunity'. It'd be a world where the detective arrests the least likely suspect in a murder, because he knows he's in an Agatha Christy novel.

That's what a role-play game is - a type of fiction. Fiction has certain rules it sticks to based on genre - but the characters involved don't, & never get to, know those rules - even though the author & readers obviously do. In a RPG these rules are represented by the game system - still doesn't mean the character can 'figure them out'.

George Peppard may have known that no-one was going to ever get hurt by a gun in the A-Team, but Hannibal Smith didn't.

Question: in that AD&D game of yours if someone held a knife to the cleric's throat & whispered, 'Move & you're dead' would she have kept still & played along 'cos she didn't want to die - or just laughed it off 'cos she knew she was immune to daggers?

Qustion 2: could the wizard in the same game apply his 'scientific method' to the rest of the world? I mean - the industrial revolution would be easy to start just by having your character 'notice' certain natural laws & apply them to mechanics. Or would this have crapped all over the game setting & atmosphere?

It's a simple case of player knowledge Vs character knowledge.

Of course, anyone can add or change rules to their heart's content - but that doesn't mean the situation you described with the wizard is somehow justified: from what you've told us (& I, of course, have never met the guy in question - so that's all I've got to go on) he was annoyed by in-game events & decided to act out-of-character. It happens all the time - it's not a good thing.

In a world like that, a player might be wise to ask a few stupid questions - especially if that player has already fallen down due to several stupid blunders due to incorrect understanding of how those unusual elements to the game work.

Hmmm... Would the player claim that the game world 'didn't make sense any more' - even after the ST had gone to the trouble of explaining those things in quite some detail? Or would that seem a little off... ::sly

[knave]

It'd be like James Bond not bothering to dive for cover & just standing there when he's shot at - because he knows he's got 'plot immunity'. It'd be a world where the detective arrests the least likely suspect in a murder, because he knows he's in an Agatha Christy novel.

Not quite what I was going for, but then granted my examples have been ridiculously strong. For which I should apologise (in the light of your once more brilliant argument (damn your eyes etc ::tongue))

A better example would be, 'would M be surpised if James dodged and didn't get hit'? No, she wouldn't - not because James is immune to bullets, but because James is skillfull and lucky and has dodged hundreds of bullets before.

In the same way a bookish mage might know that swinging a sharp edge at his much larger, stronger and more combat worthy opponent would likely be highly ineffective, but could get across the point that he was vexed in the extreme. He would also know that doing that to a child or another mage would be a credible death threat.

I can see a _good_ story coming out of what would happen if the the dagger had killed the cleric. One of those, 'Oh bugger' ::crazy ones that happen occasionally.

This is quite different to real life. In real life heroes die every day from sucking chest wounds. In real life, C might very well be surprised that even a top MI6 agent managed to dodge an enfilade of screaming lead.

I didn't mean to say that the character was applying the scientific method, but rather than the player playing the character has been trained to apply the scientific method and so finds it difficult to comprehend someone who wouldn't - particularly playing a mage (not that magic is scientific, but high int would be helpful). So while you are right in saying he is using player knowledge (or possibly player personality) which is technically 'wrong', I don't think it is completely unreasonable to occasionally allow a crutch or two to happen to a system to make it more helpful for those players. (incidentally, this is the reason I prefer condition monitors to HP)

Hmmm... Would the player claim that the game world 'didn't make sense any more' - even after the ST had gone to the trouble of explaining those things in quite some detail? Or would that seem a little off...

Prof, I was and am happy with your Q-Leap ruling. When I said, "It's a fair cop" I meant it. You might a fair compromise when you didn't have to.

But games with supernatural elements aren't quite like the real world. So, when I asked some follow-up questions my intention wasn't to offend or annoy (which I achieved - sorry ::confused ) but to avoid me doing more unfortunate things (like trying to bleed momentum off a mega-str throw by running along the wall - or any one of the snafu's I've managed to create through incorrect understanding of how these things work - where the character would and should know better (he's even been to classes on the subject after all). What may have come across as insulting was me asking you if you were sure you wanted things to be that way, 'have you considered this possibility' - which you probably took for me being argumentative or worse, rules lawyering... but what I meant was pretty much 'have you considered this possibility' - which, you being you, you obviously had.

And then this example thread which doubless made the matters worse... but that was me going off on a wild tangent anyway.

[Nullifier]

I don't really want to get involed in this debate, but I did want to mention something mildly tangetal to what the Prof said about fiction.

That's what a role-play game is - a type of fiction. Fiction has certain rules it sticks to based on genre - but the characters involved don't, & never get to, know those rules - even though the author & readers obviously do. In a RPG these rules are represented by the game system - still doesn't mean the character can 'figure them out'.

I've read fiction books where characters were to a certain extent aware of the rules. Weird, self-referential, and poetic books to be sure. Done properly I've found self-referential, postmodern material in roleplaying games can be effective, and fun. Now you may not want to play a roleplaying game like that, but I don't think your categorization of rpgs and fiction as not containing at all character knowledge of the 'rules' of the game/world they're in is correct. I'm glad you brought it up since this does seem, from a philosophical standpoint at least, to be the turning point of the discussion, and I was having trouble pinning it down. ::bigsmile

[ProfPotts]

Okay, fairy snuff & all that. ::biggrin

I still think the guy with the wizard was just being a prat 'cos he was annoyed. You don't try your best (I presume here he didn't take a voluntary to-hit penalty or damage penalty to represent that he 'didn't really want to' or anything, right?) to stab a friend in the face to 'get their attention' - ever. If he wanted the cleric to let go he'd have been much more likely, even in the extreme, to stab at - for example - her fingers or arm, than to try to sink a few inches of finely honed steel into her left eyeball. That's trying to kill someone - even in the rougher parts of Manchester... ::wink

This reminds me of that scene from the original Buffy movie which went something along the lines of:

"You threw a knife at my face!"

"And you caught it."

"You threw a knife at my face!"

It's just not the sort of thing a reasonable people do... Of course, wizards have 'strange ways' & all that Tolkien-esque guff... ::lookaround Maybe he was, er, 'cleansing your aura' or something... yes, that'll do... ::lookaround

... Now you may not want to play a roleplaying game like that, but I don't think your categorization of rpgs and fiction as not containing at all character knowledge of the 'rules' of the game/world they're in is correct...

Well, I did say that they could in a spoof - just like all that old Frankie Howard 'talk to the audience' stuff in Up Pompeii. But role-playing games, by their very nature, are genre fiction - & genre fiction doesn't tend to have (again, except in spoofs) the characters pointing out the rules of that genre. They do that sort of stuff in, for example, the 'Scream' movies - but then, that's comedy again.

But, for arguments sake, how about giving us a good example of where it would be totally appropriate to both the game world & the atmosphere for characters to exhibit purely player knowledge in a RPG?

[Alex Green]

In the same way a bookish mage might know that swinging a sharp edge at his much larger, stronger and more combat worthy opponent would likely be highly ineffective, but could get across the point that he was vexed in the extreme.  He would also know that doing that to a child or another mage would be a credible death threat.

The Matt Helm books do a much better job at this than Hollywood.

The way Matt put it was something like, "Would you buy a set of Golf Clubs, and then go challenge Tiger Woods and bet your life on the outcome?"

He's a pro, and he treats amateurs who try to kill him very, very seriously (and usually fatally). Not that anyone has succeeded in killing him yet, but they only have to get lucky *once*.

Take 1024 people. Have each of them knife fight to the death 10 times. There will be 1 guy left. But having survived 10 lethal knife fights, he might be confident about the 11th, but he shouldn't be blasé. He could just as easily have been one of the other 1023.

The Warrior should have beaten the Wizard half to death, or even killed him.

[ProfPotts]

It was a lady cleric dude - beating people half to death was probably against her religion (fully to death would be fine - but no half measures! - that's where the undead come from... ::lookaround ). ::tongue ::wink

[Alex Green]

But, for arguments sake, how about giving us a good example of where it would be totally appropriate to both the game world & the atmosphere for characters to exhibit purely player knowledge in a RPG?

Amber (the NPCs are so smart and experienced they get to define all their actions after the fact and retroactively).

Maybe Aberrant if you have some types of Precognition (no, power maxing is a bad thing. I don't know exactly why but just trust me and don't do it very often).

[ProfPotts]

That's characters using special powers - not characters using player knowledge - different thing.

[Nullifier]

Right, did I mention I didn't want in on the debate? I was just making a philsophical point, not arguing about it. From the standpoint of Philosophy I disagree with your catergorization. It's an abstract logical thing, not one requiring empirical verification. Try not to take this the wrong way, but I'm really not interested in getting into a long-winded philosophical debate on the subject. I've done enough of that kind of thing. Cheers and good luck with your categories. ::bigsmile ::wink

[knave]

The Warrior should have beaten the Wizard half to death, or even killed him.

Actually she considered leaving the wizard headfirst in a wine barrel with his goolies on display to be worse than death - given his prideful nature.

[ProfPotts]

... I was just making a philsophical point, not arguing about it...

No - seriously - no argument intended - I just don't understand the point you were making (I can't visualise it): so an example would be a good thing.

[Nullifier]

I could give you an example, but I really don't want to get into a discussion of a dissection of the example, which, I've noticed, is always what occurs. If you're really interested in understanding the philosophical point I'm making you should read up on postmodernism and self-reference in literature, and maybe pragmatism. ::bigsmile

[ProfPotts]

... If you're really interested in understanding the philosophical point I'm making you should read up on postmodernism and self-reference in literature, and maybe pragmatism.

I'd settle for understanding the words you're using - in reference to RPGs that is. If you can't stretch to an example, how about a definition? ::confused

[Nullifier]

Which words spefically do you need defined?

[Alex Green]

For Me:

1) postmodernism

2) self-reference

3) pragmatism

[Nullifier]

o.k., I'll do my best, but you're not going to be entirely satisfied, I'm sure. ::wink

1. Postmodernism is a poorly defined term, due to nature of the discourses it purports to represent, but in general it refers to a loosely defined group of discourses that display a badly defined, and much debated, set of characteriestics. This set of characteristics includes, but is not limited to, self-reference.

2. Self-reference can be most easily explicated through an example: Because of this sentence, this post has become self-referential. Because, you see, the post is now talking about the post talking about the post talking about the post, etc.. Basically it's what it sounds like, something refering to itself.

3. Pragmatism: being pragmatic, or acting on common sense. The way I used it, however, refered to a sub-section of philosophy known as Pragmatism. It deals with categories and such. The Prof's argument would go over well with the pragmatists, who generally don't believe in the mixing of contexts.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

How the hell did I miss this thread?

A little tale about a (rather short) game I was in about a bunch of DnD 1st level characters and their meeting with the local thieves... Basically we had to strike a bargain with the theives to help get them to do some of our dirty work for us, after loads of wheeling and dealing and not to mention the huge number of threats that were thrown around. We'd finaly made the deal but the groups other fighter (for once it wasn't me screwing up) decided to leave the usual "If you double cross us" message and pined a guy's (who was looking at him in an unfreindly manner the whole time) hand to the table with a dagger. Now this triggered the theives into attacking us even before anyone had realised that the fighter had caused enough damage to kill the theif, (gm explained it as shock), once they realised he was dead the still living character (my own) got his throat slit... game over...

Using pointy things to show you're unhappy about something is a bad idea, even if it takes 100+ hits eventually a pointy thing will kill, moral of the story don't threaten with something that 'can' kill if can't help but be misunderstood as a threat on someone's life.

[ProfPotts]

1. Postmodernism is a poorly defined term, due to nature of the discourses it purports to represent, but in general it refers to a loosely defined group of discourses that display a badly defined, and much debated, set of characteriestics. This set of characteristics includes, but is not limited to, self-reference.

2. Self-reference can be most easily explicated through an example: Because of this sentence, this post has become self-referential. Because, you see, the post is now talking about the post talking about the post talking about the post, etc.. Basically it's what it sounds like, something refering to itself.

3. Pragmatism: being pragmatic, or acting on common sense. The way I used it, however, refered to a sub-section of philosophy known as Pragmatism. It deals with categories and such. The Prof's argument would go over well with the pragmatists, who generally don't believe in the mixing of contexts.

Okay, cool - but how would they apply in a role-playing game context?

I can't really see, myself, how (for example) characters talking about 'Hit Points' instead of 'wounds' helps a game, or how PCs deciding to slaughter a village full of unarmed Kobold women & children 'because they're not worth experience points alive' is a good way to run things? ::confused

Nullifier - you mentioned that you've played non-spoof / non-comedy RPGs in which these things (like 'self-reference') were successfully used without making a mockery of the whole setting - how did that happen? What was the situation? I still can't picture any time where characters doing that sort of stuff would be a good thing. ::confused

[Alex Green]

That's characters using special powers - not characters using player knowledge - different thing.

When the characters know everything the player does and are smarter to boot, it's darn close.

In addition, I've seen a few games where you play "yourself". In abby that would be it's N-Day and you erupt.

[knave]

Basically we had to strike a bargain with the theives to help get them to do some of our dirty work for us, after loads of wheeling and dealing and not to mention the huge number of threats that were thrown around. We'd finaly made the deal but the groups other fighter (for once it wasn't me screwing up) decided to leave the usual "If you double cross us" message and pined a guy's (who was looking at him in an unfreindly manner the whole time) hand to the table with a dagger. Now this triggered the theives into attacking us even before anyone had realised that the fighter had caused enough damage to kill the theif, (gm explained it as shock), once they realised he was dead the still living character (my own) got his throat slit... game over...

Ok, now if I was GMing and the fighter didn't botch and the thief didn't specifically have some sort of weak heart flaw there is NO WAY I would let him die from having his hand pinned to a table. At worst I'd have him pass out from the shock. In no way shape or form should someone trying to hurt you do more damage than someone trying to kill you when (in both instances) they succeed in their attempts.

At the risk of getting into trouble - it doesn't make sense - in a supposedly 'normal' world. Doubtless if you took 50000 people and stuck daggers into their hands one after another, a few might die, but I hardly think it would be a usual occurence. Cetainly not a d4+Xstrength vs d6 kinda chance anyway.

Using pointy things to show you're unhappy about something is a bad idea, even if it takes 100+ hits eventually a pointy thing will kill, moral of the story don't threaten with something that 'can' kill if can't help but be misunderstood as a threat on someone's life.

Bear in mind that 100 punches could easily kill you. Then again, if you're tough enough threatening with fists could be taken that way too.

[ConcreteDragon]

Bear in mind that 100 punches could easily kill you. Then again, if you're tough enough threatening with fists could be taken that way too.

Like "My hands are regestered with the F.B.I. as lethal weapons" type of thing?

[madcat82]

Perhaps like this: A character explains something to another character (preferably something that the characters player should be aware of) using the players knowledge.

Example: We go back to ancient times, say 1000AD. Character A and character B is chatting. Character A have been a farmer his whole life (Player A have not) and therefor knows a fair bit about farming. Player/character B explaines the process of farming by using a parallel with, say a lock for Player/character B. Not it is imposible for Character A and B to know anything about locks (not invented).

Why this is a good use of out of player knowledge: it makes for a quick explanation, it does not require any of the players to go out of character and, the most important part, both PLAYERS enjoy it.

IMHO it does not matter if I sit down with a group of players who talk about hitpoints or wounds, as long as we are having fun. On the other hand, its much easier to enjoy a healthy discussion about how Gulbert the short and his band of brave warriors fought long and hard to slay the evil dragon of mount doom, than say a discussion about how many hitpoints that we where from dying in said mountain.

I hope this helps, but now when I reread my post I suspect that I might focus on the wrong thing...

Cheers

::biggrin

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Ok, now if I was GMing and the fighter didn't botch and the thief didn't specifically have some sort of weak heart flaw there is NO WAY I would let him die from having his hand pinned to a table.

Why not? We're playing by defined rules I may not a fan of said rules, but in the rules the 18 strength fighter used a d4 weapon and managed 7points of damage to a guy with 6 hit points. Is it really that much different when a party is taking on an ice giant and the killing strike lands on his hand, surely his death would also be describes as shock, or blood loss or both? I doubt he'd not take it seriously when that puny creature is attacking him with that 'butter knife' of a long sword, he'd do all he could to crush the threat because it is making an attempt on his life.

Back to the theives, regardless of that guy dying, we were attacked before the theif even hit the ground. One of them was stabbed and they weren't going to take that lying down, had one of our characters been stabbed first I would have attacked also because you don't wait to see if it was a simple threat, as in alot of games there's no time to ask questions as not all pissy attacks are going to be a warnings, most will be to try to take you down.

[Alex Green]

In no way shape or form should someone trying to hurt you do more damage than someone trying to kill you when (in both instances) they succeed in their attempts.

You do see this in real life.

Person A tries to kill Person B, B survives (and people have survived some remarkable things, including being shot in the head or having their throut cut).

At the other extreme, person A accidently kills person B in a bar fight or whatever (and people have died from some remarkable things, "internal injuries" is a good one).

In the given example, deadly force was being used. You have NO excuse if it works a bit better than you wished.

For an Abby example, the DMD has Mega-Strength 5 but doesn't normally wish to use it lethally. That has led to both him over using and under using it.

[ProfPotts]

The problem with the 'dagger in the hand' example is that it ignores the level of abstraction built into the combat system being used.

Good ol' AD&D didn't, generally, use a 'hit location' or 'called shot' system - you weren't meant to say "My fighter hits the Orc in the head with his sword" - you just described the fact you were attacking the Orc - if you happened to roll enough damage to kill the blighter, then the DM should describe a convincing 'death blow', if you roll only a small amount of damage, then you just nick the Orc's shoulder with your blade or something.

This isn't really any better or worse than a more precise system (Knave's 'critical hits' & the like) - it's just different. In some ways the abstraction is good - it prevents situations like the wizard stabbing the cleric in the head & doing hardly any damage - if he rolled naff damage, then he just caught her hand or another non-vital body part.

Of course, in the thief situation it was appropriate for the character to 'call' the shot - after all, he wasn't trying to kill the guy. That's a situation not covered by the normal rules of attacking in the game (which presume you're doing your damndest to slaughter your opponent) - using those same rules isn't really a good DM call. By targeting the guy's hand the character was, in effect, choosing to 'pull' his blow - he should have done minimal damage ('cos that wasn't his objective) but been allowed the specific descriptive result (the 'pin') he was going for. After all, a skilled warrior doesn't accidentally stab a man in the heart when he's aiming for that man's hand - which is basically what happened in the example.

IMHO - as always ::tongue ::wink .

[knave]

Ok... I wrote this at work, where they've cottoned on to me reading AEON - natch I still do it, but they way I evade their searches currently precludes me from actually posting (buggrit buggrit) - point is - I wrote this before Prof's post, so it's a bit more complete than it should be given that.

Why not? We're playing by defined rules I may not a fan of said rules,

   but in the rules the 18 strength fighter used a d4 weapon and managed

   7points of damage to a guy with 6 hit points. Is it really that much

   different when a party is taking on an ice giant and the killing

   strike lands on his hand, surely his death would also be describes as

   shock, or blood loss or both? I doubt he'd not take it seriously when

   that puny creature is attacking him with that 'butter knife' of a long

   sword, he'd do all he could to crush the threat because it is making

   an attempt on his life.

It is massively different. We, all of us, are also playing by rules, rules we've decided to call physics and other rules we've decided to call biology, medicine etc etc.

When I was 13 I fell off my skateboard. I tried to get up off the pavement and found that I couldn't. I looked down and saw that my left hand was at a 90 degree angle to my left arm - bent just below the wrist. I saw bone. That's when I realised I was in shock. After a few minutes of realising I was in

shock and the required amount of screaming for the hell of it, I walked to the nearby play school and got someone to call my mom. I've never been the healthiest person ever. In D&D terms I'd have a constitution of 8 or so... If someone pinned my hand to a table with a dagger I'm pretty sure I wouldn't

die. I'm pretty sure that 99% of relatively healthy people wouldn't die. They may pass out from the pain, but dying is a bit of an ask.

So it boils down to what you're trying to model with your system. If you're trying to model a world where people often die when big burly people stick their hands to a table with a knife - great. But if you're trying to model a more real world there is no way that is going to happen on average - or even in 1% of cases (given healthy subjects con 9+). That means that, if that was your intention, the system has failed and you have to use common sense to determine a result.

And if you are trying to model a world that is far more deadly than ours then you should expect people in the world to know that that is how the world works and to act accordingly - not as they would in this one. I find it hard to believe that there is some sort of fictional tone world where people die from nasty salad fork wounds... well maybe from tomato infections?

As for your ice giant. 1) Having a straw that broke the camel's back is vastly different to dying from losing a finger or whatever. What actually might have happened is that one of the previous wounds killed the thing and you bashing it on the hand just caused it to twist in a funny way and aggravate

the last. 2) Remember that D&D doesn't specify hit locations by default. GMing, I would be describing the giant as on its knees at 5hp - and you jamming your weapon into its eyes or whatever.

This is also quite different from Alex or Guy (for verily he also has this problem) not knowing how much to pull their punches. This is different because these gentlemen are hitting targets on the body and using too much force becomes lethal - as you would expect. They don't know how much punch to pull,

and logically they can't just punch someone in the foot - they want some sort of effect to occur - KO for example. That doesn't tend to happen by foot stomping in the real world.

I don't know about you guys, but when I'm GMing in D&D and someone rolls a successful hit it means he has succeeded in hitting his target. If he is going for a hand, perhaps he should have rolled a called shot, but if he did that and succeeded he would not be able to screw up like that.

What happened after is cool, but not really relevant to the discussion.

[Heritage]

Interesting thread! Think I'll ramble a bit. ::wink

Unfortunately in our D&D group I have a reputation for being a bloodthirsty DM, which technically goes back to when we used to play Ars Magica (ah, sweet memories!). It's not that I think bloodshed is cool, it's just that I am more willing to let players commit violent acts, provided they're willing to deal with the consequences.

In our Ars campaign, our mages had, through no fault of their own, become the rulers of a small region called Babunia (part of Serbian Macedonia). One of our mages, in direct violation of Order of Hermes law, had accepted the secular/mundane title of 'sebastos' from the Emperor in Byzantium, and he decided to role-play his corruption by power (he came from an Italian covenant that was once tainted by diabolism, so it fit nicely). One of the other players played his thuggish hatchetwoman, who was very scary - actually, many of our grogs (bodyguards) were former bandits, so we were a fairly scary covenant all around ::sly

One one occasion, while the mage/sebastos was in town hearing grievances and whatnot, one of the villagers, who came from a family of troublemakers, started to make all kinds of threatening statements; the sebastos had his thug lady apprehend the loudmouth and restrain him while brandishing her big knife. At this point, the villager loudly cursed the sebastos, in the classic sense of calling down dark forces to wish death upon him; the sebastos instantly said "Kill him", and the hatchetwoman slit his throat, killing him instantly.

Oh, what an uproar! As the Storyteller, I let the guy's throat be slit - the man was restrained, the thug had a big-ass knife right in her hand, and the villager had invoked dark powers against his lord, a very serious crime in Medieval Europe. I didn't require a die roll or anything, I just said he was dead, after making a sort of gurgling noise that gave my then-girlfreind nightmares for a few days (sorry, honey! ::blush).

Was I right to do this? Perhaps not, but between myself and Ron (the guy playing the sebastos), I think we were sort of exploring this dark world together, and maybe I let him go too far. But there were consequences - major unrest in the village, anger and mistrust among the mages, and we role-played all of it. We were playing troupe style (taking turns running the game), and I used my turns as Storyteller to explore the dark side of power, and I don't regret it for a minute. More innocent villagers would die due to the manipulations of the sebastos and his cabal of cutthroats (the former bandits were almost like his personal army at times), and it got really dark at times - at one point fifteen villagers died due to one of his more vile schemes. ::shocked I don't know if I'll ever run such a game again, but I was glad for the opportunity to do so, and using the combat rules like that was very much a part of it.

[knave]

Heritage - cool post - and, in my opinion, the correct way to go about things.

And I too like to give people lots of rope - especially in Ars where you're locked into politics from the very moment you begin.

IMO: A system is a way to model a world. If the world is supposed to be mostly like our world (possibly with a difference of having larger than life heroes like James Bond or 7th Level Clerics who look like they've been run over by dung carts a few times) then the system should model that as much as it can without sacrificing playability, and where it falls down in its task common sense should prevail.

If you stick slavishly to the rules then oft-times you end up modelling a world that is quite different, at which point you should expect people to act differently because they can see and feel and know how the world works.

My original example would have been much better stated by sticking to a similar world tone like this: 'If Conan's diminutive magician friend attacked Conan with a dagger - what would be the result? - would Conan take him seriously enough to kill him? - would the little magician know that his chances of killing CONAN were almost nil - would knowing that mean that regardless of how hard he was trying he wasn't actually trying to kill him since if he had wanted to, surely he would have used magic?'