Wormhole's House Rules #1: An Alternative To The STUN Only Default Limitation

[Wormhole]

Welcome to the first in a series on house rules for Hero System 5th. This week:

 

Optional Default Limitation: Only Does BODY after 0 STUN Reached (-0)

 

Supporting Justification: In more "realistic" settings (well, as realistic as you can get playing a RPG anyway) such as Dark Champions and "normals" campiagns, the default STUN Only limitation on EBs, NNDs, etc. may not seem entirely appropriate for the effect being simulated. For example, in the real world a taser is not really "non-lethal" but rather "less lethal" as it is possible to kill someone with it if you get carried away and continue zapping them after you've knocked them out or if used against a very weak (i.e. very low STUN score) individual. Thus it would be logical in such situations that the attack would start doing BODY against the target after the 0 STUN threashold is reached.

 

Comments?

 

DISCLAIMER (cue the chorus of mumbling rules lawyers ): The above may or may not be appropriate for your campaign as it will slightly increase the lethality of certain weapons and/or powers. As always, YMMV. Do not use while operating heavy machinary. Dry clean only.

[Hugh Neilson]

The construct makes sense to me. I find players who simply continue using NND type attacks because they want the target to stay down and "it can't do BOD anyway" to be pushing their luck.

 

Maybe prolonged exposure to knockout gas causes long-term respiratory problems. [i've used that one.] When the players don't abuse it, it's not really a problem, but "I'll just zap him one more time to make sure" really isn't very heroic, is it?

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Maybe prolonged exposure to knockout gas causes long-term respiratory problems. [i've used that one.] When the players don't abuse it, it's not really a problem, but "I'll just zap him one more time to make sure" really isn't very heroic, is it?

 

I find the players tend not to do that if GMs tend to let villians stay down when they are down. If opponents surrender when they are obviously defeated, then players won't bother knocking them unconcious. If the only way to capture a villian in a campaign is to knock them to -50 stun so they will stay unconcious, you can bet the players will do exactly that.

 

That said I like it Wormhole. Tough guys still aren't going to take any real body damage from a 'stun only' attack. But if you hit grandma with a taser repetatively, she is going to die.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman

I find the players tend not to do that if GMs tend to let villians stay down when they are down. If opponents surrender when they are obviously defeated, then players won't bother knocking them unconcious. If the only way to capture a villian in a campaign is to knock them to -50 stun so they will stay unconcious, you can bet the players will do exactly that.

 

How often do your players say "well, I'm at -3 STUN - just count me as out for the fight". Depending on the villain, recovering from -3 STUN may be the time for a hasty retreat, rather than "one last heroic blast thak knocks him out due to negative END", but he has that REC stat for a reason.

 

Your point is well taken, however. If the Heroes regularly blast an opponent one more time to make sure he'll stay down, maybe the villains should take that same opportunity more often. And they likely won't be as scrupulous about ensuring using non-body attacks, or ensuring your defenses are still active.

[Blue Jogger]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

When the players don't abuse it, it's not really a problem, but "I'll just zap him one more time to make sure" really isn't very heroic, is it?

 

But it's very human. After having villians come back terminator-style, you would probably be very tempted to zap them again with a non-lethal but otherwise effective attack.

 

And that's why I like Wormhole's rule. It prevents the players from Stunning someone into GM only.

 

(Just for contrast)

“And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it.â€

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

How often do your players say "well, I'm at -3 STUN - just count me as out for the fight". Depending on the villain, recovering from -3 STUN may be the time for a hasty retreat, rather than "one last heroic blast thak knocks him out due to negative END", but he has that REC stat for a reason.

 

Well I think we are on the same page Hugh. But I want to point out I'm not talking about -3 stun. At -3 stun the character is still semi-concious. For one thing they are still aware of their surroundings. And there really shouldn't be a penalty for players for getting in a final blow against such an opponent. Or at least no more so than against a Con-stuned character. I'm really only refering to -10 or less.

 

But all I'm saying is that if the villians act reasonably so will the heroes. Let me give an example. In a game I played a few months back I and another Hero snuck into a Viper hostage situation. The two of us attacked from suprise and took out over half the agents in the first segment (sweeps and multiple move-bys). I then gave a presence attack stating "Drop your guns. Don't make us hurt you." We then held our phases so we could interpose ourselves between the remaining agents and the hostages if necessary. But it wasn't. The agents saw no hope and did the smart thing and surrendered. The remaining agents did the same when they came to. Instead of trying to attack us they realized they were beaten and surrendered. I have seen campaigns where the only way to bring in an agent was to knock them to GMs descretion. And the villians were just as bad.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

How often do your players say "well, I'm at -3 STUN - just count me as out for the fight". Depending on the villain, recovering from -3 STUN may be the time for a hasty retreat, rather than "one last heroic blast thak knocks him out due to negative END", but he has that REC stat for a reason.

 

Your point is well taken, however. If the Heroes regularly blast an opponent one more time to make sure he'll stay down, maybe the villains should take that same opportunity more often. And they likely won't be as scrupulous about ensuring using non-body attacks, or ensuring your defenses are still active.

Must be the elitist in me but I do expect the "heroic,idealistic, selfless, superheroes" to be more likely to tough it out and get back in to the fight after being KOd, never giving thought to surrender than the "selfish, evil, obviously flawed supervillains". There will be exeptions on either side, but as our campaign is four color, unless the villains are homicidal/suicidal maniacs, they would usually rather stay down or run away than be crippled.

[GamePhil]

That's basically what I've done in the past, although it was more that characters can take Body if they're knocked *too* unconscious, so I start the Body at -30 Stun rather than 0. I've never actually made it an official house rule, though.

 

I do think that many games have a place for an attack that can never do more than knock you out, though, especially if it has magic, superpowers, or sufficiently advanced technology.

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Bartman

I have seen campaigns where the only way to bring in an agent was to knock them to GMs descretion. And the villians were just as bad.

I played in a solo campaign once. My character was a Super-Mage, and not as optimized as he could of been because I thought it was solo so I would have a little more room for error...

 

Fight I: 6 agents robbing a bank, though only 5 were in it. The 6th was a sniper who nailed my character as soon as he arrived on the scene. Recovering from the first shot, I proceeded to wack the sniper with 12 dice. He goes down. I then take down the rest of the agents. But they keep recovering from KO before I can finish them all off. Eventually my only recourse was to start wacking them again once they were down. By the way, the sniper hit me again when I walked out of the bank.

 

Fight II: 2 supervillians robbing Smithsonian. Same deal. I put one villian down hard, then started focusing on the other. By the time the second is down, the first is up and fighting again. As a player, there is only one answer to this...hit them again after they are down.

 

Hitting the badguy again after he is down isn't very heoic. But if they GM makes them keep standing back up, what are you supposed to do? Needless to say, this game didn't continue very long.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Mentor

Must be the elitist in me but I do expect the "heroic,idealistic, selfless, superheroes" to be more likely to tough it out and get back in to the fight after being KOd, never giving thought to surrender than the "selfish, evil, obviously flawed supervillains". There will be exeptions on either side, but as our campaign is four color, unless the villains are homicidal/suicidal maniacs, they would usually rather stay down or run away than be crippled.

 

I would expect the "selfish, evil, obviously flawed supervillains" to be far more willing to hit a guy when he's down, which is where the discussion started. Your world-conquering schemes have been foiled 7 times by the Caped Avenger, but this time you were better prepared and, after a hard-fought battle, you knocked him out.

 

Do you, the "selfish, evil, obviously flawed supervillain", leave him where he lies and go bask in your glory, or finish him off so he won't be a problem in the future? Common sense says kill him off. But genre says "the villains don't behave like that". So you walk away, or you wait for him to recover and gloat, or you put him in a fiendish deathtrap he can escape if he has his wits about him.

 

Assume the villain recovers in PS 12 from being at -11 Stun. Let's say he's a mercenary - no special reason for fighting to the death. he's going to take a look around him. Let's say there's a couple down on each side, and the fight still looks fairly even. He'll probably rejoin the fight - there's still a fair chance of achieving whatever the objective was.

 

If there's one last ally left and the heroes are all over him, the first inkling Our Heroes will have that this guy woke up will be when they count the prisoners - he'll be long gone.

 

But how often does he zap one of the fallen heroes to "make sure he'll stay down"? Well, IMO, about as often as the PC's zap their fallen opponents. Essentially, the PC's are establishing what the "genre convention" is - let the villains play along.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by sbarron

Hitting the badguy again after he is down isn't very heoic. But if they GM makes them keep standing back up, what are you supposed to do? Needless to say, this game didn't continue very long.

 

It's a role playing game. Not every character will take the most tactically sound approach, nor should they. I'm as much a fan of the role playing side of the campaign. If my character is an idealistic hero, hitting a man when he's down is not an option. If my character loses because he's played within his limitations, well I guess he loses.

 

I'd likely have ditched the campaign you described as well, as opposition that only knows one tactic (fight til you're dead) gets boring in a pretty short period.

 

Looked at from the other side, if the five agents managed to knock the hero out, do they take a few more shots "just to make sure", or do they go back to robbing the bank while our hero takes recoveries? I can tell you which one is smarter tactically, but I can also tell you what the superhero genre favours.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by GamePhil

That's basically what I've done in the past, although it was more that characters can take Body if they're knocked *too* unconscious, so I start the Body at -30 Stun rather than 0. I've never actually made it an official house rule, though.

 

I do think that many games have a place for an attack that can never do more than knock you out, though, especially if it has magic, superpowers, or sufficiently advanced technology.

 

I like the -30 approach - a KO with spillover shouldn't equate to body damage from a non-lethal attack. And it need not be BOD damage.

 

Maybe it's a Sleep spell which logically doesn't do BOD (unless you hit your head on the way down, I guess). But maybe if you keep "sleeping" the target long enough, he develops a sleep disorder - narcolepsy, maybe. That knockout gas causes a respiratory ailment, perhaps a long-term END or REC drain. And if the special effect fits, maybe you have an attack that literally can never do anything permanent.

[Farkling]

The attack that doesn't do "permanent" combat damage is the xd6 STUN Drain, Recovers 5pts/minute, Coninuous, Uncontrollable - OAF Suppressor Shackles, No effect on characters with less than -20 STUN, requires external power source. Linked xd6, DEF x, Entangle - Hands/Feet Only, Does not Form Barriers.

 

There are bigger ones for those characters with large inherent power defense:: Linked, xd6 Suppress versus Power Defense. (or just 2-4d6 extra depending on GM preference)

 

Doesn't Genocide or Stronghold or SAT or somebody have these?

 

Actually, Genocide might have ::

6d6 Major Transform, Mutant to Human, Gradual Effect, SFX -Genetic Retrovirus.

 

[Farkling]

I forgot Suppress is cumulative now....you can substitute that for the Drain dice, can one keep the -20 limitation in taht case? Opinions?