Of course, as you mention upthread... it's a nobrainer house rule to add the lethal damage once you go unconscious. But it's still a great example on how "common sense" should at times step in to kick the "Rules" to the curb. In my mind, being stabbed in the brain by a crossbow bolt = killed, despite the fact that the damage done wouldn't technically kill a high hit point target.
The rules are certainly imperfect, and each DM needs to modify them to make them work at their table. I personally would never advocate allowing PCs to run around claiming "brain stabs" (and automatic instant-kills) instead of following the combat or coup de grace rules, however... and by extension, I'd be hesitant to allow NPCs to do it, either. Obviously you don't hesitate, and that's your prerogative here--you're the guy who calls the shots, the "DMs' DM" so to speak. I'll still keep buying Paizo adventures, despite the bit of extra work -- because they're still better than the competition, and because rules violations, while they do happen, are at least kept to a manageable level.
The rules are certainly imperfect, and each DM needs to modify them to make them work at their table. I personally would never advocate allowing PCs to run around claiming "brain stabs" (and automatic instant-kills) instead of following the combat or coup de grace rules, however... and by extension, I'd be hesitant to allow NPCs to do it, either. Obviously you don't hesitate, and that's your prerogative here--you're the guy who calls the shots, the "DMs' DM" so to speak. I'll still keep buying Paizo adventures, despite the bit of extra work -- because they're still better than the competition, and because rules violations, while they do happen, are at least kept to a manageable level.
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting these "outside the rules events" should be happening willy-nilly. I think comments like "Obviously you don't hesitate" are making hyperbolic versions of people's positions. There is a difference between never hesitating and doing something in rare situations where it would be meaningful.
In my mind, being stabbed in the brain by a crossbow bolt = killed, despite the fact that the damage done wouldn't technically kill a high hit point target.
That, right there, is my entire basis for my "coup de grace=instant death" house rule.
"I slit his throat."
"Ok, he gets a fort save."
"...huh?"
Yeah. No.
Creative Director
|
The rules are certainly imperfect, and each DM needs to modify them to make them work at their table. I personally would never advocate allowing PCs to run around claiming "brain stabs" (and automatic instant-kills) instead of following the combat or coup de grace rules, however... and by extension, I'd be hesitant to allow NPCs to do it, either. Obviously you don't hesitate, and that's your prerogative here--you're the guy who calls the shots, the "DMs' DM" so to speak. I'll still keep buying Paizo adventures, despite the bit of extra work -- because they're still better than the competition, and because rules violations, while they do happen, are at least kept to a manageable level.
That's the beauty of the whole GM element to a game, though. You know what your players will or won't accept, which is not a luxury a publisher has. You can take a pre-published product and alter/change it as needed to provide a customized experience for your players.
THAT'S the thing that RPGs have over MMORPGs, for those keeping score at home. :)
(And just for the record, I wouldn't let my PCs claim "brain stab" rights at all. But neither do I agonize over making sure that everything in the world completely adheres to the rules—at times, it's GOOD to abandon the rules and just tell stories. Those times are scenes that advance a storyline in which the PCs don't play a part.)\
Oh. One more thing. A cinematic scene like this makes for more entertaining reading for those of our customers who read but never run the adventures. There are a lot more of them than one might think.
Also, Queen Ileosa's bad-ass.
Also, I just ate teriyaki for lunch, and it was delicious.
That's the beauty of the whole GM element to a game, though. You know what your players will or won't accept, which is not a luxury a publisher has. You can take a pre-published product and alter/change it as needed to provide a customized experience for your players.
Of course, it helps that Paizo's products consistently give me a better starting point than anyone else's... well, except maybe mine :) But, seriously, I agree wholeheartedly. Any scene I couldn't find some way to describe "our way" would indicate a failure on the part of my own creativity, not on the writing of the adventure.
Also, I just ate teriyaki for lunch, and it was delicious.
You bum! First you eat people's dream pizza, now you get real-life teriyaki. Some guys have all the luck. (I had a horribly wretched taco salad, eaten while sitting at my desk reviewing GPS data, which might help explain any grumpiness that I might be evincing!)
Anyway, thanks again for thinking of all your customers, and for your reply.
I don't think anyone is proposing that this automatically means that the NPC is lying.
Maybe no one said "automatically lying", but I get the impression that a lot of the "dedicated to RAW" folks are listing lying near the top of their list of reactions. (There's a lot of posts to search through at this point.) Earlier, you said:
If the event looks impossible or unreasonable under the game rules, they will do one of two things:
(1) Figure that what really happened was something quite different, and spend a lot of time and energy chasing the red herring. In this case, for example, they would be likely to suspect that the event didn't happen at all, or that the commander was mind-controlled or a doppleganger.
(2) Figure that this was GM fiat and should be totally disregarded as evidence of anything mechanical.
I think that attitude is a bit too inflexible. Some folks maybe put too much emphasis on the idea that something without an obvious RAW explantion can't/shouldn't happen.
We're only proposing that there must be *some* explanation. The NPC is lying, he's mistaken, he was fooled by an illusion, there's a game-rule legal explanation that is not immediately obvious. Something, so that when the PCs investigate, they don't just tear a hole in the shared illusion that the gameworld is real.
Of course there should be an explanation. You listed "game-rule legal" last, but I would think that it should be the first thing the players think, if there's no obvious reason to expect the witnesses to lie. I guess to some extent, it depends on how much you trust the DM and the writers of the AP.
There have been a lot of explanations thrown out that cover a wide sprectrum from RAW to various house rules and DM fiat. But I think most of the stuff at the DM fiat and rules fudging end of things aren't so egregious that they would break a campaign.
One thing that I'm surprised hasn't come up as an explanation is the Critical Hit Deck. Hit locations are listed on the cards. I don't have mine with me, but I'm pretty sure that there are "save or die" type crits in there somewhere. There's certainly "save or be screwed" and "bleed out in x rounds" type cards. So that could explain the potential deadliness of a single crossbow bolt critical hit.
|
Creative Director
|
One thing that I'm surprised hasn't come up as an explanation is the Critical Hit Deck. Hit locations are listed on the cards. I don't have mine with me, but I'm pretty sure that there are "save or die" type crits in there somewhere. There's certainly "save or be screwed" and "bleed out in x rounds" type cards. So that could explain the potential deadliness of a single crossbow bolt critical hit.
Brilliant! That's the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION! Whew! :-)
Critical Hit Deck.
Brilliant! That's the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION! Whew! :-)
Sorry I didn't think of that earlier!
decks are available for purchase on this very website, and Pathfinder subscribers get a discount...Why wait?
|
Critical Hit Deck.
Brilliant! That's the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION! Whew! :-)Sorry I didn't think of that earlier!
decks are available for purchase on this very website, and Pathfinder subscribers get a discount...Why wait?
So beat the rush and buy your Critical Hit Deck today.
We now return you to your regular thread reading
I don't think anyone is proposing that this automatically means that the NPC is lying.Maybe no one said "automatically lying", but I get the impression that a lot of the "dedicated to RAW" folks are listing lying near the top of their list of reactions. (There's a lot of posts to search through at this point.)
That's my real-world prejudice; I read about investigation, forensics, and criminal trials for a hobby, and "the witness is lying or mistaken" is at the top of my list for inexplicable eye-witness accounts of events. Way, way at the top of the list. It's not always the explanation, but it's a reasonable way to bet.
My father was on the jury of an assault trial where he came to the conclusion that every single individual on the witness stand, except for the beat cop (who had no particular stake in the matter), was lying at some point or other. The events happened in a social stratum where, frankly, telling the truth to the authorities was not a good idea.
Obviously, your game-world may differ, and the circumstances will too. If the evidence for something weird happening is the PCs' own eyes, not a witnesses', that will make a difference; or if the witness' truthfulness can be verified; or if there were a lot of witnesses, or they were particularly reliable people.
But sure, "that didn't happen the way he said it did" is almost always an easily available explanation for a reported event. I'd be leery of using it too often as a GM, though, because it's potentially so frustrating for the players.
Mary
|
One thing that I'm surprised hasn't come up as an explanation is the Critical Hit Deck. Hit locations are listed on the cards. I don't have mine with me, but I'm pretty sure that there are "save or die" type crits in there somewhere. There's certainly "save or be screwed" and "bleed out in x rounds" type cards. So that could explain the potential deadliness of a single crossbow bolt critical hit.Brilliant! That's the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION! Whew! :-)
But-But-but...
I came out with that one AGES ago!
That's my real-world prejudice; I read about investigation, forensics, and criminal trials for a hobby, and "the witness is lying or mistaken" is at the top of my list for inexplicable eye-witness accounts of events. Way, way at the top of the list. It's not always the explanation, but it's a reasonable way to bet.My father was on the jury of an assault trial where he came to the conclusion that every single individual on the witness stand, except for the beat cop (who had no particular stake in the matter), was lying at some point or other. The events happened in a social stratum where, frankly, telling the truth to the authorities was not a good idea.
Obviously, your game-world may differ, and the circumstances will too. If the evidence for something weird happening is the PCs' own eyes, not a witnesses', that will make a difference; or if the witness' truthfulness can be verified; or if there were a lot of witnesses, or they were particularly reliable people.
But sure, "that didn't happen the way he said it did" is almost always an easily available explanation for a reported event. I'd be leery of using it too often as a GM, though, because it's potentially so frustrating for the players.
Mary
You should check out the movie Rashomon by Akira Kurosawa. In it, the same event is described in 4 contradicting ways by the participants/witnesses, all with the same general level of plausibility.
If there are differing accounts, it doesn't mean that there witnesses lying or being mistaken. They may just be filtering what they see through their own experiences and frames of mind. Social sciences call this the "Rashomon effect".
In contrast, my group is very much pleased this scene. In my campaign the PCs were the spectators in the assassination attempt (I don’t liked the idea that a NPC tell them what happened as a rumor). And the players were shocked. All have come to appreciate Endrin, which has been a mentor to the characters and an idol to follow, and would not hurt them more if they had been dismissed for Ileosa. However, they did not expect the assassination attempt, and the whole scene has not only surprised, but they enjoy it a lot.
Paizo staff: My players have asked me to congratulate you for the scene, and that I tell that you have done a great job. And that I do. It is a pity that there are people who have not enjoyed with this kind of scenes. We would like to that in future APs there were more.
With the assassination attempt you got to shake my whole party. Good job!
Sorry for my poor English :(