Acceptable Breaks from/Fiddling with Mechanics

[Umbran]

Which I think is Zhaleskra's poiny: if this is a proper gallows and the hangmen is competent, does the adventurer's neck break on the drop or does the adventurer 'hang around' awhile while the others have a chance to save him?

Well, then, you've answered the question - the issue isn't the hanging character, but the hangman. Have the Hangman make a Rope Use (or whatever his applicable skill) check. If he makes it, it is the equivalent of a coup de grace, if not, use the suffocating rules.

Unless the hangman's a vicious dude, and he willfully makes it so the character suffocates instead.

 

[Umbran]

Or, you've got one shot to send that arrow flying towards the rope (or executioners head), hoping to sever it before the lever is even thrown. (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, anyone?)

Excellent point. Anyone ever watch Mythbusters? They took a stab at this one, iirc.

In the real world, it is extremely difficult to sever a rope with a missile (a bullet or an arrow). The rope tends to flex out of the way when struck, rather than be severed. But, Westerns and Robin Hood movies, it happens all the time. So, this one becomes a genre question: how difficult is it in your game to attack a rope?

 

[Diamond Cross]

In the case of a hanging, I'd still allow the characters to shoot the rope and part it with one shot.

Mythbusters actually did this on one episode and it showed how difficult it actually was and they went so far as to get a highly rated marksman. He actually missed a few shots but it took him roughly six shots to actually part the rope. It's all on tape so the only way to argue against it would be like trying to argue why two plus two equals five.

That's the reality of the situation.

So I tend to go with the Rule Of Cool. Generally, if it's cool, allow it, but with modifiers.

Because that's why people play RPGs is because they want to do cool things like they see in the movies and on TV.

Otherwise, what's the point to playing them? You might as well just read a book.

 

[The Shaman]

So I tend to go with the Rule Of Cool. Generally, if it's cool, allow it, but with modifiers.

Because that's why people play RPGs is because they want to do cool things like they see in the movies and on TV.

What you find 'cool' in a movie may not be the same thing I find 'cool' in a movie, however, so that's not really much of a measure.

 

[Wik]

Of course, hangings often lead to death by strangulation, as opposed to a neck snap. There are a lot of factors that play into it... there's a reason it isn't used that much anymore.

As for the more important "rule of cool" - I'd generally say that if it's something that would require a mythbusters episode to prove wrong, it's probably something that should be able to happen in a game. PCs should be able to blow up cars by shooting the gasoline pooled underneath it. They should be able to sever ropes with bullets, a la The Man With No Name. And so on.

The alternative tends to lead towards PCs being less impressive than real life events. Because many of those great, legendary stories that actually happened in real life are things that should, by all accounts, be impossible. And PCs should be accomplishing those "nearly impossible" feats, even if their odds of success are slim... because the alternative is PCs that are, ultimately, capable of less than the players themselves.

 

[Mort]

What you find 'cool' in a movie may not be the same thing I find 'cool' in a movie, however, so that's not really much of a measure.

This is certainly true. But, IMO the shared gaming experience works better when the DM is aware of what the players find cool and can structure the scenarios accordingly.

Deadlands for example can swing from a horror game to a heroic game solely based on the number of fate chips the GM hands out (it will drastically affect the above mentioned about to be hanged PC). The group and the GM need to be on the same page as to which style should be used (and what is found cool by whom for fate chip garnering) or someone is going to have a much less fun play experience.

To answer the OP: to me it's often a "know it when I see it" approach with the consession that it must be kept consistant between campaigns (I will be much less lenient in a grim and gritty campaign than I would be in a swashbuckling/high fantasy etc. campaign).

 

[The Shaman]

And PCs should be accomplishing those "nearly impossible" feats, even if their odds of success are slim... because the alternative is PCs that are, ultimately, capable of less than the players themselves.

I don't think I'm understanding you correctly. It sounds like you're saying that adventurers should be able to do something that would be nearly impossible for a player in the real world to accomplish because the player in the real-world might succeed at it.

Are you arguing that the more improbable an event in the real-world, the more possible it should be in the game?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

"for this I'm going by what would really happen"

As a DM, if there is a rule to cover the event, I would generally feel more comfortable following that. When there is not a rule for an event, I often try to find another (similar) rule from which to model the event. If there is no rule that seems close to the event, then I make one up, using 'what would really happen' and 'what would be cool' as guidelines.

As a player, I'm not usually very happy when 'what would really happen' is used as a model for what goes on in the game world. The main reason for this is often that a. The DM's understanding of 'what would really happen' is different from mine or b. 'what would really happen' does not fit well with the level of cinematicism of events surrounding it or c. 'what would really happen' is code for 'keeping the players in line.'

 

[the-golem]

I think the general concensus is that PCs are "the best of the best" in a fantasy world, the kind of thing that comes along once in a century.

I recall an instance at one of my sessions in which one player wanted to toss a knife deftly behind him, striking the monster. Another PC went on this tyrade about how impossible that'd be. The first guy said (something to the effect of) "If i can throw this pencil behind my back, without looking, and strike this door" then my character should be able to do something at least as capable, if not more." So the player demonstrated that he could, and that by extension, the PC should be able to also.

What Wik is saying is that if it seems impossible "in the real world" doesn't necesarily mean it is. If I can practically do it myself, then my PC should be able to without an issue. Because otherwise, as he said, the PC ends up being less capable than the player, and who wants to play someone that is less than themselves.

 

[Rhun]

Except that hanging isn't intended to suffocate the condemned but rather to break the condemned's neck, at least if it's done by a proper executioner.

Not necessarily true. Before the mid-1800s or so, the "short drop" was most commonly used, which would cause strangulation. Standard drop and long drop hangings were used to break the condemn's necks, but came into common use later.

Since I assumed we are talking about a medieval time period, strangulation would be the accurate way to determine death to someone who is being hanged.