Actions

[vegabond]

In my last game the party was exploring a cave complex. I told them it was wet, slimy and the ground uneven. Still I had a players charging across the battlefield. Needless to say they fell several times.

On their next action I said they had to spend their entire action getting up.

They weren't to happy about this, and looking back I was wondering if I was to harsh?

What would you allow your players to do in this situation?

Get up only?

Get up and move 1/2 their speed?

Get up and move full speed?

Get up move and attack?

[gideon_thorne]

Seems reasonable to me. Fools rush in and sometimes the inevitable consequence takes time to recover from. Especially when one is going ass over heels crashed like nine pins.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

It might sound a little d20ish, but in my games a fallen character can expend 50% of his movement to get up off the ground. That means that if an enemy is adjacent to a fallen character he can get up and attack. If the enemy is not adjacent, the character can spend 50% of his movement getting up and can move the remainder of his movement while up (but then, obviosuly can't attack).

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

It would, in my games, depend on the situation. Are they being attacked as they try to stand? If so, they might have to use their entire action to avoid an AC penalty. Is the ground extremely difficult terrain? If so, it might take an entire action to avoid potentially falling again. Did they drop their weapons when they fell? If so, they will have use "something" to retrieve said weapon, assuming it, also, didn't go slipping somewhere else.

I try to keep it simple, and "serlogical."

[Saarlander]

Hm...

Since having a character on the ground during combat is such a maaaaarvelous thing for drama, i would call for a SIEGE check (obviously Dexterity, but why not Strength or even something else, depending on player's arguments) to get up as a move action. A failure means he takes the full round to get back on his feet.

Harsh, maybe, but after a few times, terrain will matter to your players (and the choice of battlefield will add the little something extra towards ROLE-PLAYED tactics).

And it goes the same for their enemies, after all.

And now i think about it, if you want the spicy gritty bit, just add the HD of the engaged enemy to the "Get-Up" check if your character goes down in melee. Just try to imagine a second getting up while fully equiped and armored while some angry bastard tries to bash your HP seven hits to sunday. And HE gets the bonus for a prone adversary too !

I know this adds one more roll in some combat situations, but since i prefer one intense fight scene to several "quickies" in my games, that's how i go.
_________________
People, i'm a German living in France, so please be forgiving about my English...

[Buttmonkey]

I like the idea of a SIEGE check here, particularly when an attacking monster's HD is added in.

[vegabond]

I wouldn't call for a check just to stand up in this instance, standing up even from a slick cave floor isn't overly difficult. And they weren't in battle, they fell way before they reached the enemy.

I was more interested in what they could do on their turn in addition to standing up, if anything.

I like your idea Omote and I'm definately going to remember Serleran's suggestion about dropping things.

[MightyCthulhu]

I do what I have always done, a fallen player can

1) get to his knees as a 1/2 action

2) stand up as a full action

when you fall on you ass while running on wet and difficult terrain (in poor lighting conditions probably) you are going to HURT your self.

[adaen]

I have a rather different perspective on this. Although I have played (and enjoyed) playing in games in which part of the game revolved on how well the players listened to and understood the implications of the GM's descriptions, I prefer games that focuses more on the character's abilities rather than the players. I also believe in a high level of transparency and in trusting players to separate player/character knowledge.

To that end, the players would be told that there was a likelihood of falling if they charged into battle over the wet, uneven ground. In fact, I would tell them exactly what they needed to roll prior to deciding whether to proceed with the charge or not (and how long it would take for them to get up if they did fall).

This is very different from traditional approaches to rpgs in which the difficulty of many things are secret until an attempt is made. This approach assumes that the players ARE the characters and learn information only through that channel. My approach is more akin to the players watching a movie in which they control some of the action (i.e., their character, etc.). In movies, the audience often learns things that the characters do not know. In my approach, the players are the audience, but with more directorial power.

I'd be interested in thoughts on this. It is more about jointly creating/experiencing a great story than it is about skillful play.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Treebore]

I just have a move be used to stand from prone.

So they use their move to get up.

Then they can do any other action they normally can, except anything called "moving".

Now if circumstances are dire I would allow a SIEGE check to also do their move. The CL would be either based on environment, or opponent level if they can directly interfere with them getting up.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Saarlander]

adaen wrote:
To that end, the players would be told that there was a likelihood of falling if they charged into battle over the wet, uneven ground.

[...]

My approach is more akin to the players watching a movie in which they control some of the action (i.e., their character, etc.).

[...]

I'd be interested in thoughts on this. It is more about jointly creating/experiencing a great story than it is about skillful play.

I may not have sounded like it, but i generally go that way too.

Although i'm not always palying "Primetime Adventures"-style right out, the idea the Players AND the GM are broadly at the table to make something they would like to watch on a screen (and we mean BIG screen here) is something i always try to get through.

And it also worked pretty well so far.

I have players sometimes deciding to undertake actions which are not "full gaming tactics" but rather "That would definitely look cool, and that's just what you'd expect that character of mine do right now, slow motion and epic music optional !".

And of course i DO bend the rules to make succes possible (although uncertain), and i DO tell players if the odds will be against them when it comes to such sort of things.

You can find a very interesting article about this in Places to Go, People to Be, right here.

Concerning the specific case of falling around on wet and uneven ground, the sort of thing i would the most like to do would be to warn the players about the whole "Fall-Get up" first ingame, and then litteraly sub-title it whith an technical explanation.
(I did so last week in my modern Spycraft SIEGE game. Their combat instructor went through close combat basics, explaining them ingame style the dangers and whereabouts of melee and contact situations, and i then told the players what the rules where like after each RP sentence...)

I try to do so as often as i can. The players are about to meet a situation they didn't encounter before, someone more experienced (be it only with this specific problem) can sing them a song about what it comes down to (and i "sub" in terms of rules).

Hope my river posting didn't get you bored to death before i got to the point, but eh dude, you asked !
_________________
People, i'm a German living in France, so please be forgiving about my English...

[vegabond]

Thanks for all the replies, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to do now.

[adaen]

I did ask and am pleased by your response.

In my opinion, many people claim they're most into rpg's for the story, but don't actually play in a style that tends to consistently deliver great stories. They want to "get their cool on", but are using a ruleset (or play in a style) that does not support that as a core part of the game.

Actually, I think that many gamers have trouble identifying what they truly want from their games, not just those who "focus on story". I think these gamers are secretly disappointed by the games they play.

Anyway, thanks for the link. Good stuff in there.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Saarlander]

You're all welcome, adaen.
And i think i might get off topic here for a second, but this "unaware disapointment" issue was one that nearly got all my tables to a halt, not so long ago.

Style and story, drama and gritt, randomness and "theatrical logic", although mostly undefined, are very hard to mix to meet everyone's expectations, especially when they are not quite aware WHAT they really want. Heck, i'm actively studying narrative codes AND cognitive psychology, and i'm not even sure what I exactly want, most of the time !

When RPGs got more mood or setting specific game engines, in the last 10 years or so, i first thought it was a great achievment...

Then all the sudden everyone was counting ON the game engine to give the mood, and you could no more have some gritty moments in a pulp game, or get some emotional mind twisting social duels in an "action" setting... Again the players let the engine take over.

And that's where i find THE absolute kick in the SIEGE !
(Ha ha, see how i get back in topic again ! Man am i great !!)


The SIEGE only gets that specific about the essentials. The codified random you need for the basic "Am i going to die" and "Do i have a chance to make it"...

And every finesse is fully UP TO THE GAMERS !

Want a gritty battle under a thundering rainstorm along the cliffs ? Falling is easy, getting up is hard, over the edge is deadly...

Same game, but now dust is flying all around in an epic chase in the savannah, and what matters is the Hidalgo movie style speeding horses ? Easy, just check your riders skill, your horses stamina and good description ! No one will stupidly be thrown from his horse in a straight line here, every fall will be drama !

So ruling about actions, how they work and the time they take, in my mind, is much more about context and moment than about a generic, universal rule.

See Starship Troopers (the movie; not the finest example, but one i'm sure many have seen):

The first engagement with an Arachnide is a gritty one on one, and every grain of dust matters in a battle for life or death !

And then, later in the movie, the director angles thing completely differently, and mawing through dozens of them goes easy... problem is, they're thousands !

Rico didn't gain 10 levels between his first fight and that one... but tone and drama have changed, and so have the detail the CK uses the rules (aka counting every action, encumbrance, balance and so on in the first, and handling the description mostly through simple combat checks in the second, while the player's goals are not the same either...)

Oops, got carried away once again, that was a huge one !
To keep it simple:
YEAH !! SIEGE RULES !!!!!
_________________
People, i'm a German living in France, so please be forgiving about my English...

[nittanytbone14]

I would handle this by using a DEX save/SIEGE check for the initial chance to fall. Perhaps with a challenge class of "2" as the terrain is especially rugged.

I would then allow standing up as a half action. The player could then either move their speed, make a single melee/missile attack, or draw an item/stow an item. This is how my initiative system handles rising from prone.

I choose to make rising from prone relatively easy as I want players and monsters to be able to overbear relatively easily and frequently.

Calling for a SIEGE check to avoid slipping then another SIEGE check -- tied to the same attribute -- to get up again drastically lowers the odds of success for anyone who does not have DEX prime and seems like "double jeopardy" to me. For example, I would not require someone to roll a save vs. a fireball to halve the damage then a second save to see if they got smoke in their eyes and are blind.