Stupidity or Genius?

[Altamont Ravenard]

Desperation?

Being struck stupid by fear? (really scared people don't always make smart choices, right?)

A scared person might kill himself to avoid being tormented by the demon. A scared person might fall down and cower. A scared person might flee. A scared person might try to play dead. A scared person might step back and hide behind its shield/weapon(s). I can't conceive (maybe only by my fault, and I'm usually an open-minded DM) a plausible reason for a character, faced with a dire foe and on the verge of death, to hit himself on the head with the hope of falling unconscious so that the demon facing me would instantly forget about disemboweling me and direct its attention to one of my comrades.

As a DM, assuming I would have thrown a Vrock against a 4th-level party, I would have let the player try the action, imposing some sort of penalty or will save for self-mutilation, or suggested that the character tried to play dead. If the player actually attacked himself, succeeding or not in knocking himself out, the Vrock would still have made an attack against the character (it's not a stupid creature [Int 14 in the 3.5 SRD]), but certainly not a coup de grâce.

Another action, as a DM, that could have made the Vrock change target would have been for the character to (truthfully or not, either way some sort of Diplomacy or Bluff check would have been in order) pledge his life to the Vrock and start attacking his (once) allies.

BTW, shouldn't justifications for a PC's action come after the fact? Prior to/as an act being performed, the only justification needed is the player stating "my guy does x". It's after the fact when the player, if not the group, may need to pay lip service to the character's internal motivations so as to preserve the illusion of a believable world.

How could motivation come after the act? How could the cause come after the effect? I don't want to argue from a hardcore simulationist position, but if I want my character to do X, I should have a reason for this action. If not, then why the heck did I attempt what I just did?

A player stating "my guy does X" is not motivation, nor justification for the character's action. It is the action.

AR

 

[jeffh]

Why not? It's certainly more memorable than just dropping to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

Because it's painfully dumb, not to mention completely unheroic.

People seem to be saying it should work because it's funny. I dispute that on three grounds:

• I don't think it's that funny
• I can't buy into a world that works that way
• You already got the humour value just from the player suggesting it; it seems gratuitious to make it have in-game consequences as well. Humour is its own reward.

 

[Nimloth]

Setting aside the probable inexperienced and railroady DM, the action was stupid, unrealistic, cheesy and metagaming. I too would have it attack your character for doing something like that. I noticed you didn't list full defense at attack defensively as possible actions. They would have offered some chance.

 

[Celtavian]

re

This is the most ridiculous action I have ever heard of as a DM. I wouldn't even let you know yourself out because I doubt a person can hit themselves hard enough to do real damage. Not only is the angle bad for maximum force, but your natural body response would resist doing damage to yourself.

This is an amusing idea in movies such as what happened in Fight Club. It fit with what that movie was doing.

But I would never let you take this ridiculously stupid action and have it work. I'd say you punch yourself, but it does nothing. You were prepared and your body didn't let you damage yourself. You pulled your punch at the last minute. Then the Vrock would finish the job on you and I'd call you names from the aross the table for being such a ridiculous fool.

But you know what, we'd probably get a good laugh from your action for years to come. Your action would become one of those amusing gaming stories where the fool of a player does something completely ridiculous.

Thanks for adding an amusing anecdote to gaming history. Though I hope this isn't a lie to pull a fast one on forum readers. It's somewhat difficult to imagine anyone being as ridiculous as you were.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Let me try and get some more people on my side with a decent analogy.

Imagine a guy walks into a bank, pulls out a gun and starts to rob the place. Soon, many police officers bust through the door, pull guns on him, and yell, “Drop the weapon!”

Assuming the criminal isn’t crazy and doesn’t want to get shot, what does he do? He drops the weapon. He realizes that the police are currently focused on shooting him because he poses a major threat to those around him. By dropping the weapon and getting on the ground he puts himself in a non-threatening, helpless situation.

I could have told the Vrock that I would serve him. But that would be cowardly and evil, even if I were lying. Or I could have feebly tried to play dead. If I were the Vrock, I wouldn’t trust any of it. If someone I was about to kill said “I will serve you” or simply tried to play dead, I wouldn’t take the risk of trusting them. I would just use one of my multiple attacks to finish him.

Has for the meta-gaming accusations. I may have used meta-gaming to run the numbers and possibilities, but the action itself was not actually meta-gaming. From the characters point of view, knocking himself out could keep the Vrock from attacking him. The same why the criminal knows that dropping the gun could keep the cops from shooting him.

As for the cowardly accusations, there is a fine line between bravery and insanity. Facing almost certain death to accomplish something good is brave. Getting killed just so you can take one more attack that wont even dent the monster is insanity.

 

[Turtlejay]

It rubs me the wrong way, but only for it's visual. An exhausted hero harried by a demon glances at his bow, realizes that it is useless, feels inevitable death approaching, and . . .punches himself in the head? Even using an arrow to stab yourself would be a better heroic visual. The *idea* of it is cool, playing dead, and not outside the realm of heroic fantasy. Even using a bluff check would be cool.

Anyhow, you died either way, so at least it was a useful last action.

Jay

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

And not that it matters, but my death wasent all bad. The party had gotten some really powerful magic items, that when sold and divided, gave each character about 50,000 gold peices. Ya, Monte Hall strikes again. When they said they would take about 25,000 of my share to get me a true resurection, I told them to shove it. Cheap guy that I am, I went for a reincarnate. I rolled lizardman. +5 nat ac, and I get to keep the free feat I had from being human. You see, there is a silver lining in every dark cloud.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I think people are reading to far into the punch to the head. Saying it would have made sense if I had cut myselft with my knife, or somthing like that. While I do agree with them, I dont think it really matters. The mechanics of the action and the end result were the same. I injured myself to go unconsious.

I dont really know how hard it is to punch yourself in the head, but I did only have 1hp. I dont imagine it would be that difficult.

 

[Runestar]

Can someone answer my earlier question as to why the vrock even bothered with a CDG, despite the full attack action being superior in just about every way?

 

[roguerouge]

Major advantage to knocking yourself out vs. "playing dead": if the Vrock decides to kill you next round, you won't feel it if you're knocked out.

I stand by my assessment of "pure cowardly genius."