How to avoid killing your player characters as GM

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It wouldn't be the first time Kromm changed a rule between straight Gurps and DFRPG. I find the text in Campaigns clear enough. when it wanted to say "any" facing it did.

It also seems to be pretty clear when you can only change facing by one hex side, such as on a Retreat (which is probably the best opener to disengaging - Retreat and change Facing by one hex side, then change it by another hex side in the process of moving into the side-front hex furthest from the foe, and run away from there - no loss of movement points to turning, so unless the foe is faster than you, they won't be able to catch up; and it kinda makes a degree of sense to take advantage of the momentary opening when someone tries to attack you to take off running). The only thing that isn't 100%, no question, clear seems to be Step, where it simply says you can change facing "freely" rather than spelling out that it only allows for a one hex-side change or allows for changing to any desired facing. I personally interpret it as the latter, but I could potentially see cause for the former (treating the explicit call-out to only getting to change facing by one hex-side on a Retreat as a reminder of how the facing change normally works on a Step, rather than an exception to how facing change normally works on a Step).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

"You may change facing freely before or after you move." pretty clearly lets you turn as many times as you want. If you could only turn once that wouldn't be 'freely'.

If you could change facing multiple times it wouldn't "before _or_ after". It'd be "before _and_ after".

[sjmdw45]

Suppose hypothetically I declare a Wait: "after I retreat, Attack whoever just attacked me, then step away and turn to face directly away." Which of these scenarios can happen?

1.) My opponent and I start 1 yard away from each other with broadswords (reach 1 yard). He attacks me with a Rapid Strike. I retreat to two yards away but still get to attack him because of the Retreat. I then move back to 3 yards. He cannot attack me when I'm three yards away but he can step forward and finish his Rapid Strike against me from two yards away, because one yard of that came from Retreat. He must use his step or lose his second attack. His second attack counts as a runaround attack because he didn't start his turn to my rear.

2.) As #1 but I cannot attack him from 2 yards. I lose my attack.

3.) As #1 but he cannot finish his Rapid Strike against me even if he steps forward. He loses his second attack because I'm out of reach.

4.) As #1 but his second attack from two yards away counts as a rear attack (no defense) and not a runaround.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Mearls' involvement with D&D post-dates D&D3's publication, and even v3.5 doesn't have him in the credits.

Right, my bad. I distinctly remember him from the 3.5 era because of his "so-so" supplements (and "orc and pie"), and then he was the Lead Designer on 4e (where his motto was "back to the dungeon!").

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Which of these scenarios can happen?

I agree with 1, it feels weird, but that' s just the way "simultaneous" turns sometimes play out.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I'll risk proving myself a fool by suggesting the real first step is "If you get near 1/3 Max HP range, you need to call it quits and get out of there." Meaning, before your Move is halved from injury. However, I also have to acknowledge this could be a meaningless distinction. Injury can accumulate so quickly, that you go from full HP to under 1/3 HP in a single hit.

It depends a lot on what sort of game you're in. If it's mainly firearms, you may well be taken out of the fight by a single hit. It can sometime be possible to optimise for survival at fairly low cost with a bit of Hard to Kill and an extra hit point or two.

In the occult WWII campaign, the highest-damage attack I seemed likely to be in receipt of was 7d+1 from German rifles and LMGs. That's 25.5 average damage, with a death check on reaching -1*HP. Having 12 HP, which I'd started with, was clearly a bad idea, since I'd expect to make a death check on a single hit. Having 13 HP was much better: over a 50% chance of avoiding a death check. Getting hit several times would be deadly, of course.

In over 150 sessions of that campaign, the only character who got killed in action died of his own Impulsiveness. He'd been hit once, survived a death check, and was in decent cover. However, he could not resist putting his head up to try another shot, caught another bullet and died.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I noticed this bit, though, and it too seemed like good, general advice. I'll risk proving myself a fool by suggesting the real first step is "If you get near 1/3 Max HP range, you need to call it quits and get out of there."

Honestly, the first rule is "if the fight looks both dangerous and avoidable, avoid it". Definitions of avoidable can be pretty broad, though -- if you're likely to conflict with the other party but not necessarily right now, you want to evaluate whether delaying the conflict is more useful to you or them. Obviously, the other side wants to do the same thing.

In terms of personal hit points, you probably don't want to take point when seriously injured, but whether you want to retreat is largely dependent on how the battle as a whole is going, because it's generally better to have an organized retreat than fleeing piecemeal. This can mean retreating when entirely uninjured, or continuing to fight when seriously wounded.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If you could change facing multiple times it wouldn't "before _or_ after". It'd be "before _and_ after".

You were having a conversation about number of hex-sides, why do you assume the topic suddenly changed?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You were having a conversation about number of hex-sides, why do you assume the topic suddenly changed?

Sorry, don't understand what you mean.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Sorry, don't understand what you mean.

The argument was about the fact that the rules let you turn any number of hex-sides with a step, not only the one you argued for. And then you suddenly started reading it as being about whether you could turn both before and after the movement instead, which is both an implausible change of topic and almost meaningless.

[Fred Brackin]

[QUOTE=Ulzgoroth;2498081 then you suddenly started reading it as being about whether you could turn both before and after the movement instead, [/QUOTE]

You have misread me. I was countering Anthony's choice to read "freely" as not only language with a technical meaning but the technical meaning that supported his interpretation. I offered different language that could be read as supporting my position as an example of possible overinterpretation..

As a general rule I do not believe that every word in a passage should be squeezed like a wine grape to get any possible rules information out of it. If the rules want to make something clear they will say so directly rather than leave it tot he reader to discover any and every possible hidden implication.

So there are two places where the rules make "_any_facing" clear and explicit. In cases were they do not do so I read "facing change" to be one hexside by default.