Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

[Tonio]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Hm. I've never played with someone who had difficulty understanding the difference between Stun' date=' being Stunned, and being Knocked Out. Not even brand new players. I have, however, played with new players who have been confused by other people using Con Stunned, as it implied to them that there is another kind of Stunning that isn't Con related. I'll admit the first time I ever heard it used (here on these boards, or at least a previous incarnation of them) it confused me. As I recall my question at the time was "Is that a house rule, and how is it different than being Stunned?" In my admittedly limited experience with the term it seems to have caused more confusion than it ever cleared up, putting it into the category of a "fix" looking for a problem...[/quote']

 

It's not a question of understanding the difference (it's quite clear), but rather of getting confused. For example, I'm sure you completely understand the difference between the words "pit" and "pet", but in some accents they sound the same, and given insufficient context you might be confused. STUN vs Stunned vs KO'd is not quite the same situation, but similar in that while the three terms are clearly defined and easy to understand, the associations between them can cause confusion (you get KO'd from taking more STUN damage than your current STUN score... why isn't that called "Stunned", when all it deals with is STUN? "Stunned", instead, happens when you take more STUN damage than you have CON... it deals with CON and STUN, so calling it "CON Stunned", while redudant, clarifies).

[archermoo]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

It's not a question of understanding the difference (it's quite clear)' date=' but rather of getting confused. For example, I'm sure you completely understand the difference between the words "pit" and "pet", but in some accents they sound the same, and given insufficient context you might be confused. STUN vs Stunned vs KO'd is not quite the same situation, but similar in that while the three terms are clearly defined and easy to understand, the associations between them can cause confusion (you get KO'd from taking more STUN damage than your current STUN score... why isn't that called "Stunned", when all it deals with is STUN? "Stunned", instead, happens when you take more STUN damage than you have CON... it deals with CON and STUN, so calling it "CON Stunned", while redudant, clarifies).[/quote']

 

I understand the reasoning, I've just never played with anyone (from newbys to experienced players) that had the confusion you mention. Whereas I HAVE played with people who were confused by someone else using the term Con Stunned. So to me it doesn't seem to clarify anything, rather it seems to confuse things. So I tend to point out that it isn't a real game term whenever I see it used. Particularly in places where new players are likely to hear it, like here or at conventions.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Also, I've always wondered where the heck the term "CON-Stunned" came from, anyway. The gaming group I started with used it, and I've heard it countless times from players from hither and yon. But it doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) appear in any edition of the rules. How did it get so widespread?

[Netzilla]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

I understand the reasoning' date=' I've just never played with anyone (from newbys to experienced players) that had the confusion you mention. Whereas I HAVE played with people who were confused by someone else using the term Con Stunned. So to me it doesn't seem to clarify anything, rather it seems to confuse things. So I tend to point out that it isn't a real game term whenever I see it used. Particularly in places where new players are likely to hear it, like here or at conventions.[/quote']

 

Actually, I have run into a couple of new players who were confused by the fact that Stunned was not purely a function of STUN, but KOed was. I've also seen demo games in which a new player's character was dropped to 0 Stun and referred to their character as "stunned" rather than "KOed". On the other hand, I've never run into anyone who expressed confusion at the use of the tern "CON Stunned". [we still need a shrug icon]

 

It probably depends on what you were "raised" on. If your group regularly used the term CON Stunned when you first learned the game, then it was never confusing. If you learned the term Stunned first, then you might find it confusing.

 

I have also heard people use the term "Dazed" in place of either "Stunned" or "CON Stunned", as was mentioned by someone upthread. Personally, I think "Dazed" would be a good choice if there were to be an official change as it doesn't imply a state that is solely dependent on your Stun score and it's a more natural term than "CON Stunned".

 

Of course, I occasionally refer to Stun scores of 0 to -10 as "a standing 8-count" as a tongue-in-cheek reminder that the character isn't truly out (or necessarily knocked down).

[Netzilla]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Also' date=' I've always wondered where the heck the term "CON-Stunned" came from, anyway. The gaming group I started with used it, and I've heard it countless times from players from hither and yon. But it doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) appear in any edition of the rules. How did it get so widespread? [/quote']

 

No idea. I first heard it in college and it stuck with me (in spite of having learned the Hero System with 3rd edition in high school). Perhaps it's a regional thing (or at least started as such)?

[archermoo]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Also' date=' I've always wondered where the heck the term "CON-Stunned" came from, anyway. The gaming group I started with used it, and I've heard it countless times from players from hither and yon. But it doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) appear in any edition of the rules. How did it get so widespread? [/quote']

 

I'd love to know that too. But then again as I said I never saw it until I got on the Hero boards.

[archermoo]

Re: Is Critical Success/Failure on dice mechanics a core rule

 

Actually' date=' I have run into a couple of new players who were confused by the fact that Stunned was not purely a function of STUN, but KOed was. I've also seen demo games in which a new player's character was dropped to 0 Stun and referred to their character as "stunned" rather than "KOed". On the other hand, I've never run into anyone who expressed confusion at the use of the tern "CON Stunned". [we still need a shrug icon']

 

It probably depends on what you were "raised" on. If your group regularly used the term CON Stunned when you first learned the game, then it was never confusing. If you learned the term Stunned first, then you might find it confusing.

 

I have also heard people use the term "Dazed" in place of either "Stunned" or "CON Stunned", as was mentioned by someone upthread. Personally, I think "Dazed" would be a good choice if there were to be an official change as it doesn't imply a state that is solely dependent on your Stun score and it's a more natural term than "CON Stunned".

 

Of course, I occasionally refer to Stun scores of 0 to -10 as "a standing 8-count" as a tongue-in-cheek reminder that the character isn't truly out (or necessarily knocked down).

 

I generally just refer to 0 to -10 as semi-conscious.

 

And the only times I can think of that I've heard someone refer to their character as "Stunned" when they drop to 0 or lower Stun have been people who are new and had played with more experienced players that used Con Stunned without really explaining it.