Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6291272" data-attributes="member: 27160">For the 100' drop case, I generally assume that the character feels that they could probably survive such a drop (by grabbing handholds, rolling down the slope or whatever). But they also know it will be unpleasant to experience it, as losing hit points always is. Whether the unpleasantness manifests as pain and bruising or just the angst of being outmanoeuvred and/or demoralised in a fight, it's not a situation that any sane person would voluntarily expose themselves to needlessly - hence the &quot;jumping out of a sixth storey window just because they can&quot; scenario doesn't generally happen. If the building was on fire and their way out was aflame, however, it could certainly be an option they would consider - just as Indy or Conan might do in a similar &quot;tight spot&quot;, relying on their athletic or acrobatic prowess (not to mention dumb luck!) to get away with it. If jumping seemed likely to be less unpleasant than running the gauntlet of flame, it might be an option they would even choose.Edit: On the topic of &quot;genre blindness&quot; and genre tropes in general. I do have sympathy for players who feel that, even with genre assumptions in play, they want to find some rationalisation acceptable to themselves concerning why their character takes the actions they take and believe the things they believe. &quot;It's in the genre&quot; is fine as a justification as to why the rules work a certain way, but the players may still need to find a model of what is actually happening that makes sense of their character for them. One advantage of separating such justifications/rationalisations from the rules mechanics is that individual players do not need to come up with the same justifications/rationalisations - they just need to ensure that their own rationalisation explains whatever the rules say happens.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6291272, member: 27160"] For the 100' drop case, I generally assume that the character feels that they could probably survive such a drop (by grabbing handholds, rolling down the slope or whatever). But they also know it will be unpleasant to experience it, as losing hit points always is. Whether the unpleasantness manifests as pain and bruising or just the angst of being outmanoeuvred and/or demoralised in a fight, it's not a situation that any sane person would voluntarily expose themselves to needlessly - hence the "jumping out of a sixth storey window just because they can" scenario doesn't generally happen. If the building was on fire and their way out was aflame, however, it could certainly be an option they would consider - just as Indy or Conan might do in a similar "tight spot", relying on their athletic or acrobatic prowess (not to mention dumb luck!) to get away with it. If jumping seemed likely to be less unpleasant than running the gauntlet of flame, it might be an option they would even choose. Edit: On the topic of "genre blindness" and genre tropes in general. I do have sympathy for players who feel that, even with genre assumptions in play, they want to find some rationalisation acceptable to themselves concerning why their character takes the actions they take and believe the things they believe. "It's in the genre" is fine as a justification as to why the rules work a certain way, but the players may still need to find a model of what is actually happening that makes sense of their character for them. One advantage of separating such justifications/rationalisations from the rules mechanics is that individual players do not need to come up with the same justifications/rationalisations - they just need to ensure that their own rationalisation explains whatever the rules say happens. [/QUOTE]

Verification