Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacking defenseless NPCs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7626252" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I don't think I argued that, but ok, now that you mention it, the rope bridge scenario may meet your criteria, but it in no way represents the same problem for D&D that "knife held to the throat" does. </p><p></p><p>As Umbran has helpfully pointed out, the thing that D&D cannot cover by its standard rules is a called shot and in particular a called shot to the throat since "the throat" has no meaning to the rules. Whereas, everything about the bridge is, as I've already pointed out, things covered by the rules. That makes the two things different, even if they aren't different under your checkmate rules.</p><p></p><p>It is not at all obvious that the rope bridge needs "checkmate" rules nor can I see how applying the "checkmate" rules solves a problem there, since the same outcome can be achieved without them. Regardless of whether your criteria can cover the rope bridge scenario, that is at the least a categorical difference between the two.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I mean, it's just not. </p><p></p><p>I suppose you could apply your "checkmate" rules to the bridge scene, but the point I'm trying to make is that to achieve the same outcome (everyone who falls without an answer to the fictional positioning of falling from a great height, dies) does not require special house rules, just a sufficiently deadly fall. D&D handles the rope bridge scenario just fine. There is one in X1 Isle of Dread, for example with a 2000' fall for like 5th level characters (surely lethal), and as D&D has acquired a more generic and universal skill system, the way to properly run the rope bridge scenario has become more and more standardized so that even the DCs and the sorts of fortune tests involved are specified explicitly by the rules.</p><p></p><p>Whereas, for the last at least 30 years everyone familiar with the game rules has encountered the "knife to the throat" scenario, been troubled by it, and often considered what sort of rules would need to be added to the game for the scene to play out intuitively. I remember talking to fellow players about this very same problem in like 1991, and there is still not to my knowledge a fully satisfying answer. </p><p></p><p>If you have some codified rules that you can apply to generate or arbitrate "checkmate" scenarios, I'm inclined to think that either they are entirely arbitrary or else that ignoring them will work better for the bridge case. That's because if the bridge ropes are easy to cut, then no elaborate contest to achieve "checkmate" is necessary to defeat enemies "automatically" on the bridge. Why in this case is "automatically" a needed thing? Declaring, "I cut the rope." is enough. In most games, "I hold an action to cut the rope." also works just fine with no special rules and no "checkmate" required. And certainly, if we did have such a contest on the bridge and want to make it interesting and high verisimilitude (something you seem to require in all this discussion), we'd have to take into account how far apart the rope cutter would be from whatever he's trying to "checkmate", what weapons and tools he had available to him, and what weapons and abilities his foes have, and all of that can be easily handled by D&D's normal process resolution. To handle all the factors that D&D's normal process resolution handles at least as gracefully as D&D's normal process resolution, if it "checkmate" was applied to the bridge scenario as well as the knife to the throat scenario, then your "checkmate" system would either have to be at least as complicated as the whole of D&D's normal process resolution, or else incorporate the whole of D&D's normal process resolution as a subsystem.</p><p></p><p>But, if it incorporates the whole of D&D's normal process resolution as a subsystem, and the subsystem itself can handle the bridge scenario, and then adding the checkmate system adds nothing to the bridge scenario.</p><p></p><p>So at this point, I can sum up my whole opinion of how this discussion has gone, by "Your bluffing. You have no cards in your hand." I call. Copy paste your "checkmate" house rules to the board for us to analyze.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7626252, member: 4937"] I don't think I argued that, but ok, now that you mention it, the rope bridge scenario may meet your criteria, but it in no way represents the same problem for D&D that "knife held to the throat" does. As Umbran has helpfully pointed out, the thing that D&D cannot cover by its standard rules is a called shot and in particular a called shot to the throat since "the throat" has no meaning to the rules. Whereas, everything about the bridge is, as I've already pointed out, things covered by the rules. That makes the two things different, even if they aren't different under your checkmate rules. It is not at all obvious that the rope bridge needs "checkmate" rules nor can I see how applying the "checkmate" rules solves a problem there, since the same outcome can be achieved without them. Regardless of whether your criteria can cover the rope bridge scenario, that is at the least a categorical difference between the two. Well, I mean, it's just not. I suppose you could apply your "checkmate" rules to the bridge scene, but the point I'm trying to make is that to achieve the same outcome (everyone who falls without an answer to the fictional positioning of falling from a great height, dies) does not require special house rules, just a sufficiently deadly fall. D&D handles the rope bridge scenario just fine. There is one in X1 Isle of Dread, for example with a 2000' fall for like 5th level characters (surely lethal), and as D&D has acquired a more generic and universal skill system, the way to properly run the rope bridge scenario has become more and more standardized so that even the DCs and the sorts of fortune tests involved are specified explicitly by the rules. Whereas, for the last at least 30 years everyone familiar with the game rules has encountered the "knife to the throat" scenario, been troubled by it, and often considered what sort of rules would need to be added to the game for the scene to play out intuitively. I remember talking to fellow players about this very same problem in like 1991, and there is still not to my knowledge a fully satisfying answer. If you have some codified rules that you can apply to generate or arbitrate "checkmate" scenarios, I'm inclined to think that either they are entirely arbitrary or else that ignoring them will work better for the bridge case. That's because if the bridge ropes are easy to cut, then no elaborate contest to achieve "checkmate" is necessary to defeat enemies "automatically" on the bridge. Why in this case is "automatically" a needed thing? Declaring, "I cut the rope." is enough. In most games, "I hold an action to cut the rope." also works just fine with no special rules and no "checkmate" required. And certainly, if we did have such a contest on the bridge and want to make it interesting and high verisimilitude (something you seem to require in all this discussion), we'd have to take into account how far apart the rope cutter would be from whatever he's trying to "checkmate", what weapons and tools he had available to him, and what weapons and abilities his foes have, and all of that can be easily handled by D&D's normal process resolution. To handle all the factors that D&D's normal process resolution handles at least as gracefully as D&D's normal process resolution, if it "checkmate" was applied to the bridge scenario as well as the knife to the throat scenario, then your "checkmate" system would either have to be at least as complicated as the whole of D&D's normal process resolution, or else incorporate the whole of D&D's normal process resolution as a subsystem. But, if it incorporates the whole of D&D's normal process resolution as a subsystem, and the subsystem itself can handle the bridge scenario, and then adding the checkmate system adds nothing to the bridge scenario. So at this point, I can sum up my whole opinion of how this discussion has gone, by "Your bluffing. You have no cards in your hand." I call. Copy paste your "checkmate" house rules to the board for us to analyze. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacking defenseless NPCs
Top