|
|
|
Champion
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:13 PM
Posts: 264,
Visits: 454
|
|
Simple as, should monsters attack downed players, or just leave them and focus on other players?
Personally I think that monsters should not as if a player is down, then either the entire party is about to be smegged, or the player is a wizard or scout and the rest of the party are more of a threat, that and the fact that this is a game and its just not sporting really.
Feel free to discuss
____________________________________As the old robot saying goes "does not compute"
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:39 AM
Posts: 770,
Visits: 2,089
|
|
should players atrack downed monsters?
------PD: St. Legion the blessed, ' "If you're a loyal eidolon, where were you when we killed the first-born?" RW: Ketta Sheng "Girls are evil. They break your heart, and then your spear, and then they get killed" EOS: Hasib Suran: "Yes, older brother, it's your choice. I only advise you." TNN: Druid Coran: "Do not heckle me, witch!"
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:25 PM
Posts: 74,
Visits: 531
|
|
Should monsters attack downed players?
No, its just not sporting
That and it punishes those who take their hits, if you know that you are going to be jumped on if you down, then I guess it would be possible that a less honest person than I would consider mis counting their hits somewhat.
As for vice versa, depends on the player and more importantly the character.
----------------------------
www.burntisclean.co.uk
Swashbucklin' adventures where it's good to be bad
and
www.burntisclean.co.uk/itsjustthewind
The horror!
and www.mythlore.co.uk
The reunion!
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:13 AM
Posts: 242,
Visits: 7,721
|
|
| I think it depends on the situation. A monster currently having chunks taken out of him by the rest of the party probally not as why attack somthing nolonger a threat, however if it was a zombie instructed to kill X then maybe it dosnt feel pain, understand the threat of the others or have any choice. Likewise an inteligent enemy may know that player could get rescured/revived and so go for the kill. In H&H there is a guide that at low level you dont go out of your way to execute downed players and as players climb the ranks the leanancy dose decrease. In the end its down to the game and the situation and like with many things the players and monsters knowing what to expect. I have no issue with being executed by a monster in at low level, it even happened at one event when I was bound the the ground so i lay down and cast of the odd spell but lay limp when mosnters came by, as far as i was consered i was fair game, i couldnt escape when a monster twiged but i was a threat (however small it was)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eos: Sornasian: Gregory Patell Club Secretary Heroes and Heroines
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:14 AM
Posts: 534,
Visits: 3,581
|
|
Depends on the social contract of your LARP.
You get a kind of heroic LARP where you call your NPCs 'monsters' where they should not attack downed players because character death is meant to be something special and not happen at random like that. Low character turnover is valued because it means people can establish their characters better / invest in better kit.
You get a similar kind of LARP which is generally descended from the above type of LARP where you still call your NPCs 'monsters' but they are at liberty to cause random ignoble deaths (because you should have used better tactics / high character turnover helps keep the system fresh and not bogged down in old established characters).
Basically you want to pick one of these philosophies and indoctrinate your group in it. I think HeroQuest follows the first philosophy. CUTT has a kind of hybrid (random character death is okay if 'they really screwed up' or 'they were warned it was a dangerous linear from the start' or it's caused by PvP rather than pure PvM). DUTT appears to follow the second philosophy.
Maelstrom: Jessily the Wemic, previously Tourmaline of Weaver
CUTT: Ref 07/08, previously Kallestra Lorelai Aostare of the Sapphire Tower
EOS: Study the Venin
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 8:19 AM
Posts: 1,759,
Visits: 5,170
|
|
Sometimes yes, sometimes no -- depends on the monster brief. If you're playing an Evil Overlord and your brief is "send out your minions to get captives; any captives you get should be flayed alive", then it's entirely reasonable to murderise your victims. If you're playing one of 3 orc bandits getting attacked by a party of 10, then no, you probably shouldn't try to off the downed scout while the rest of the party are paggaing you -- but then, surely your brief should've been "leg it if attacked by an overwhelming force", anyway?
"Sporting" is a lot less important than "in character".
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:12 PM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,151
|
|
Images of character parties surfing through encounters on their stomachs flatworm stylee.
Presumably once you've briefed monsters not to kill people on the ground, you have to brief characters not to go down unless they actually are unconscious/terminally hurt. And you have to give up on autonomous player-like NPCs because everyone has to be clearly categorised so you know whether it's permissible to hack them up or not.
More relevantly, "sporting" is a matter of the traditions of the game and relevant expectations. If the players expect that monsters with aggressive intentions may well cut them to pieces if they fall in battle, then that's part of the game they are playing - something they can take into account when considering breaking away from the main party to scout around the back. If they subsequently found that the monsters had been holding back for OOC reasons - I think that would be equally 'unsporting'.
I don't think it matters what the rules are - problems only crop up when the rules aren't clearly advertised and communicated. If you don't want "quick deaths" in your game, why not have an 'execution rule' - a la Maelstrom - that says it takes 30 seconds to kill someone - or they can die by 'bleeding out'?
Basically, if the rules of the game are that you don't hack up people on the ground then don't do that. If there are no such rules and it's what your character is motivated to do, then you should do it - choosing not to do so for OOC reasons is just as bad as choosing to hack someone up for OOC reasons when there are rules saying not to. On the one hand, it's far harder to be sure of such an infraction - you might just be playing a squeamish character - at the same time it's even more offensive _because_ you could just have designed your character to be too squeamish to hack anyone up in any situation (making a point of choosing to act for OOC when with very little effort you could have made them IC reasons is so ... unnecessary!).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:12 PM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,151
|
|
One nice little ancient institution at DUTT was introductory "Basics" - the first adventure or two would always be charactered entirely/almost entirely by new players and the plot would consist of some hallowed old tropes and very simple but effective tricks (the who hired you to help her do a ritual to get rid of the Evil Beast is actually the summoner of the beast - who then instructs everyone that they have to chant really loudly while she does the ritual - so loud in fact, that they can't hear the words to the ritual) which would, all things being equal, tend to lead to total/near total party death.
When the young turks took over, this was thrown out as an unnecessary hang over from the Bad Days of script-play. Three years later the society filled with superannuated characters and a large number of players had never, ever lost a character and had no experience of handling it with grace. High difficulty basics were reinstituted - alongside other efforts - and in due course the majority of the playerbase got decent and early training in losing a character with grace and it subsequently hasn't - I understand - been much of an issue.
Marios
|
|
|
|
| | |