kissthechaos331
Puny Human
Which crazy thing happening are you guys yelling about?
Posts: 17
|
Post by kissthechaos331 on May 15, 2011 2:15:04 GMT -5
All the guidebooks pretty much stick with the whole "knockout vs. die" thing without ever really giving any other options. This is all well and good for player characters, but as a GM using this system, I think there should be some other options. So, I came up with a house rule of my own that I'm a bit on the fence about implementing. So, I'm basically asking anyone who feels like commenting for their honest opinions.
PULLING PUNCHES
As anyone who uses this system knows, it can be really, REALLY easy to completely annihilate a normal human NPC if your player character is a super-buffed, super-powered hero. Under normal circumstances, the GM would just decide to knock them out. But shouldn't a hero be conscious of the fact that they're a hero, and they shouldn't be going around spending 14 stones to punch some hired grunt's face off?
So, instead of just choosing to knockout the NPC, put it into the hands of the player -- any time they deal damage equal to twice the NPC's health in one blow, that NPC is dead. Now the player is faced with what a real hero would face. They have to pull their punches so that they don't kill some hired grunt without any consequences.
Not only does this give the player the opportunity to learn to guesstimate how much health the NPC has (based on some general info they can gain from the GM with a few stones of effort), but they have a choice as to whether or not the NPC they're fighting should or should not be allowed to fight another day.
I feel like this resonates with a key aspect of what a hero is that the knockout rule otherwise leaves out. It also adds another level of depth when figuring out what kind of hero you want your character to be -- Are you like Batman who adheres to a strict "don't kill" rule? Are you Wolverine, who is a bit apathetic about what happens on the other end of his +6 claws? Or are you Superman, who is willing to kill but prefers a cleaner, more humane style of justice?
If you're a GM like me that likes responding to what your players do in big ways, this opens up an easy way to introduce some new villains into a longer campaign. Say your player character has a bit of a temper and accidentally kills some nameless street thug. But what if that thug had a sibling that just so happens to be a few rungs up the ladder on Kingpin's payroll? Not only will he be out for revenge in a big way, but now you have the police asking questions about what kind of hero you are after they find a murdered, dead broke, low-life criminal with nothing more than a family to feed and a few misdemeanors.
So what do you guys think? Be as honest as you want, I can take it if you don't like it. Any suggestions on improving the idea (i.e., how to do something similarly fun in a villain campaign) are more then welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Manah on May 16, 2011 10:51:54 GMT -5
I do am a supporter of the "heroes must pull their punches" thing, but I highly disagree with the idea that "pulling one's punches" means "putting less stones in the attack". Doesn't sound logical, I know, but... ...what I mean is, I'm usually happy with a player putting in a few stones from his action to hold said punch, instead of just lowering the amount of stones he'd use in the action or not using that shiny 2x damage modifier to C.C he bought recently. I call that "putting stones in control to not kill the guy". For example, Hero A fights Thug 1. Hero A is darn strong, but Thug 1 has an experimental gun that might kill Hero A. Hero A doesn't want Thug 1 to shoot him, for obvious reasons, so the best way to do that is to ensure he doesn't stand back up from the punch he's about to throw. Then again, Hero A is a nice guy and doesn't want to actually kill Thug 1. He just wants to stop the bad guy and return home safely for dinner with his wife. So, Hero A (who has a Str of 6 and Close Combat of 6) puts 12 stones into Close Combat, 10 to punch the lights out of Thug 1, and 2 in control to ensure he won't kill the guy, just knock him out real bad. End of scenario. All that to say, players usually don't know how to pull their punches. They expect you to understand they're doing it as soon as they write "My guy wouldn't kill anyone if he could help it", then they rush around punching people with 12 stones 2x damage. The best thing is telling them before the game that if they want to pull their punch, they must say so. Not damage their "I wouldn't kill" concept because they did not think too much about what 12 stones 2x damage could do to your average joe. Now, I know that people should know it, but life's never that simple. It is important to remind them of it, 'cause a RPG isn't real life. They'd probably pull their punches in real life. They'd probably not think about it in a RPG, too focused as they are on "victory". At any rate, I, as a GM at a tabletop game, would tell such a player: "You're REALLY sure you wanna do this? ....Cause, you know what 12 stones 2x damage would do to a normal guy?". I as a GM on this board, if only not to slow the game down too much, would simply go on allowing the enemy to be merely knocked down, but telling the player in OOC that next time, he'd better put some stones in to pull his punche, or esle his opponent will be pushing up daisies, wether his character likes to kill or not. So, yeah. I agree with your concern. But I prefer my solution. As for opening up ways of introducing villains, I've got plenty already. ^_^
|
|
kissthechaos331
Puny Human
Which crazy thing happening are you guys yelling about?
Posts: 17
|
Post by kissthechaos331 on May 16, 2011 11:29:06 GMT -5
I agree that it is just as easy to simply let the player know that his next attack might be a bit too overpowered, but a lot of the games I GM, the players are either not very experienced at the system, or are first timers. A lot of players have trouble adjusting to the "stones of effort" thing from a straight up prob./stats based D20 system. In short, not a lot of players I've played with quite fully get the concept that stones of effort can be put towards anything, and for anything you can think of.
The other reason I have for doing this is that because, again, a lot of my players have little experience, they use more stones than they should and end up being stuck with just their regen amount of stones for a while (I don't really use the "panels/pages/issues" format very often). So my pulling punches rule would mean the players are putting less stones into an attack, yes. But it also helps them not go overboard with using up all the stones in their reserve, and it frees up stones to do more creative things during combat (mostly because I generally have a "do cool shit" house rule as well, but I won't get into that). Not to mention that I very often make the bad guys do unexpected things (throwing random objects, grabbing bystanders hostage, run away, etc.), and I want to make sure my players will be able to respond to that with enough stones on the fly, especially if they're just expecting a "fight this guy till he doesn't move anymore" scenario.
What you say does make sense though. Putting extra stones of effort into not killing the guy seems logical. And the scenario you put forth makes perfect sense. The only thing I disagree with in that scenario is that I think that it should be a little harder to make sure you don't kill Thug 1 then just 2 stones of effort. Not only that, but I think there should be a difficulty or resistance to it to represent how skilled you need to be at pulling your punches if you're a super-strong hero, and how hard a punch Thug 1 can take.
Thanks for the feedback though! I appreciate it! So far, I'm leaning a little bit more towards not using this, but I might try it once to see how it works in practice.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on May 16, 2011 11:55:10 GMT -5
You're welcome. As for the "should be harder to make sure you don't kill Thug 1" part, I'd have to politely insist that it shouldn't be that much more. 'Especially' if you're using the rules as written for the most part, as far as Energy Regeneration and Stone counts are concerned.
Allow me to explain: "normal" characters in MURPG are built in the 35-60 stones range. In most cases, unless they're built by an experienced Power Gamer (lol), these characters usually have one or two attacks with little more than 10 stones of attack potential. While it is high when compared to your avergae Joe, it is far from the heavy hitters ala Hulk and Thor. My point is, unless the attack is somehow 2x damage and Armor Penetrating, 10 stones just won't kill everybody in a single blow most of the time. It will kill many people in a single blow, but far from everyone. Most of the time, I'd say that a guy who takes a 10 stones hit from, say, a knife, will probably fall and lose consciousness as they begin bleeding to death, but usually they will be found and brought to an emergency room in time to survive. Even more true for a punch to the face, even with 10 stones. It's just my viewpoint, though, so feel free to disagree... but assuming this is true, my point is, a regular attack, even if it's deadly, will usually not kill you instantly unless you're not lucky and it damages something you can't live long without (Ex: The knife pierced your lungs), or you were hit with devastating force (which in my book, is a bit more than 10 stones).
That's one thing. The other is, for having practiced martial arts myself and having a friend who frequently goes to a shooting gallery for fun, I believe I can pretend that pulling one's punch, or shooting at non-lethal parts in a body, isn't very difficult. It requires control, not effort. In fact, it is usually harder to aim at vital body parts than at, say, an arm or a leg.
Therefore, I highly recommend, if you use my suggestion, that you ask no more than 3 stones of control from your players for this purpose, no matter how many stones they use in an attack. And when I say no more than 3, I mean:
1) If they spend only 1 stone for control, they get only the basic advantage of "not killing the target instantly", for sure. Now, that doesn't mean the target won't end up being seriously wounded and/or dying from the attack, which means that medical assistance still has to be provided preferably shortly for the victim to live through this. Depending on how many stones get through the target's defense and what kind of attack it took, the effects of the attack may vary (GM's call), such as broken bones, severed hand, severe head trauma, etc. The more stones get through, the more dire the effect. But hey, the guy survived at least, heh? ....Obviously, a hero always using only 1 stone in control to defeat small thugs with 10 stones attack will quite possibly be branded as "particularly violent, but at least he never killed anyone... so far". Interestingly enough, I'd say that's Batman's usual stone for control allocation.
2) 2 stones for control is the basic "you hurt him bad, but his life isn't in danger and he will eventually recover without any big scar". Might want to get him some medical aid regardless when he wakes up, just in case, but otherwise, you can hand him over to the police and they won't be mad at you.
3) 3 stones is avoiding carefully any lasting harmful effect as much as possible, and maybe trying to knock a person out with "least lethal" kinds of attacks. You make sure to punch the guy where you know you just can't crush anything important or break a bone. You only cause minor burns and maybe even knock out the target due to too much heat with your Mastery of Fire instead of just blowing them up. You attack them with your telepathic Mind Blast, while making sure to only target "safe" areas of the brain or only shutting down your target's consciousness without causing any trauma. Any enemy defeated with this many stones in control, will probably be perfectly fine in a few hours or a day or two, even without medical assistance, depending on the "attack".
Just my thoughts, of course.
|
|
kissthechaos331
Puny Human
Which crazy thing happening are you guys yelling about?
Posts: 17
|
Post by kissthechaos331 on May 16, 2011 23:36:45 GMT -5
Hmm...I feel like we're on the same page, but I see now that I might've gone about it backwards...
Well, I guess that settles it in my mind. I think the next game I run, I'll try it out just to see how it feels, but I doubt I'll be implementing it into my games after that. Thanks again for taking the time to to respond!
|
|
|
Post by Manah on May 17, 2011 0:05:31 GMT -5
Nothing like trying it to see if you like it, and besides, every GM has a different opinion on how things should be handled. I'm glad to have been of whatever help I was, if any, lol.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 17, 2011 19:03:38 GMT -5
Attack already sucks vs. defense (defensive modifiers being vastly too cheap and too easy to stack). All of these rules are just more punishments against players that will make the system suck even harder.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on May 18, 2011 9:59:28 GMT -5
True as well.
That's why as a GM, I usually allow my villains to not die even in the face of impressive attacks, but it depends on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 18, 2011 17:35:14 GMT -5
I have no problem with a GM saying "uh, you just shot a sniper rifle at the guy delivering a 28 stone attack vs. his Reflexive Dodge of 1. So yes, he's dead."
I just don't understand the fact that, and it seems like most super hero RPGs I've ever played do this, heroes fighting to knock people out rather than kill is something you have to actively do (and often take a penalty to accomplish) rather than the assumed default position.
If the focus of an RPG is the fun (and it should be), then all of this stuff makes it less so, not more.
|
|
kissthechaos331
Puny Human
Which crazy thing happening are you guys yelling about?
Posts: 17
|
Post by kissthechaos331 on May 23, 2011 22:30:26 GMT -5
Well, since I posted this originally, I did try it out in a game. Honestly, I was surprised at how well it worked. The players all actually had fun with it too. Here's the biggest thing I noticed about it: the way I had envisioned it, it was supposed to work as kind of a challenge, but a more active/direct mechanic during play. What ended up happening was that it actually kind of forced the players to act more like their characters (not "forced" per se, but for lack of a better word...), instead of just doing a "my character would do this, my character would do that". There were a few times that, being aware of this rule I tried, players would say they were spending extra stones to "not kill the guy". This threw a cog into the mechanic, so I had to kind of fuse my rule and the one Gig spoke about earlier on this thread. I basically treated the attack in two separate ways. The extra stones he put in were basically knocking stones out of the resistance I put for not killing a thug (I did it how I said I would -- if the stones of the attack exceeded the baddie's health by double, they were killed). So let's say a thug has 3 health. Player A puts 4 stones into the attack, and says he wants to put in 3 more to "make sure I don't hit him hard enough to kill him" in case they need to bring him in for questioning/arrest him, etc. That's 7 stones total, exceeding his health by more than double. But because the player specified what the stones were for, I...well...put them towards what they were for. I add the 3 he wanted to the resistance it takes to kill the thug. So now, not only did he get some stones through, but he succeeded in not killing him. And just so it doesn't become impossible to keep track of/actually kill the guy, the resistance resets every page turn. That way the player, if they stick with it and remember to either save some stones or put extra effort towards it, will succeed in keeping the guy alive. And if he happens to lose track of it, accidents might happen (just like in real life). What got even more interesting was seeing my players consciously disregard pulling their punches when I had the main villain kill their favorite NPC (A 16 yr. old orphan named Daydream). The one player character that got closest with Daydream was the one that tried really hard not to kill thugs, and was the one that forced me to morph the rule a bit. And now he's the one deciding to not pull his punches because he wants vengeance on the mastermind that killed Daydream. It was a really intense play session when he got to enact his vengeance All in all, I think the rule actually did work fairly well. I had to mold it a bit, but I'm happy with it. Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 24, 2011 20:07:27 GMT -5
I already do this somewhat. When I see players going all out against NPCs I just kill the NPCs and let the players deal with the consequences. Sometimes that means nothing, usually whether it means something has been explained to them early. For example, when starting a game I say flat out how they're expected to behave. With that information they police themselves and each other.
I do agree that it should be the default assumption that they're trying to knock people out rather than kill them, and that's my default assumption, but a lot of attacks (projectile attacks especially) do not allow that level of control. Once the projectile leaves the attacker's care the effect of it has left the attacker's control as well.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 24, 2011 21:11:52 GMT -5
I do agree that it should be the default assumption that they're trying to knock people out rather than kill them, and that's my default assumption, but a lot of attacks (projectile attacks especially) do not allow that level of control. Once the projectile leaves the attacker's care the effect of it has left the attacker's control as well. Hogwash. "Shoot to maim" is a commonly taught tactic. It's a stupid one, but it's taught the world over. Not everybody just puts three shots into the center of their target's mass and calls it a day (just the smart people... and super heroes never do things the smart way)
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 25, 2011 14:51:13 GMT -5
I was thinking of a highly-specific example when I wrote that. In one game the super-strong giant character decided it was time for a fast-ball special, but he was the only one who made the decision. The character he threw had no ability to arrest or control his fall and wasn't particularly tough at all. He also threw the guy so far that I couldn't think of any character that could survive it. Finally, I couldn't think of any enemy that could survive the inevitable impact.
As the GM it was perfectly within my power to make everything OK, but since I thought it was a rash action I made it clear the player would cause two fatalities, one of them being his teammate. They asked for a rewind/reconsider, I granted it.
That's what I was thinking when I talked about the projectile leaving your control. Plus there are plenty of instances of a leg wound turning fatal. If the bits of the bullet clip the wrong thing it's over in minutes (You take longer to actually die, but you've lost more blood than you can survive losing in about two minutes).
All that may seem like too much realism for it to be fun, but I use realism to balance the high-stone potential of ranged combat in MURPG. Since it's the "real" weapon and people will always bring their "real" knowledge to the table about it, I find that applying it's real drawbacks keeps the 28 stones in check. If players don't want to get slapped with the gauntlet of reality, they can quit building "one target only" "can't split stones" "agility bonus" ranged combatants.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Jun 2, 2011 13:07:45 GMT -5
Well I totally agree with you there. I mentioned the example of a guy using a sniper rifle and putting tons of stones into the attack. In that instance, you're probably going to end up with a dead target, particularly if the player doesn't even say "I'm aiming for a leg" or something (and even then... a high powered rifle will take a limb clean off and cause the person to bleed out in a minute or two)
|
|
|
Post by marauder03 on Jul 13, 2012 8:10:01 GMT -5
After reading this entire thread, I absolutely love this concept. Particularly the stones spent towards control going to the targets resistance, thus still leaving room for "accidents"... yes... accidents, indeed.
|
|