Forest Chase Scene

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

A quick addendum on Night Vision. Night Vision of the type being described here is extremely sensitive to light. While none of the characters is likely to have modern "lucifers", striking flint and tinder, especially without warning, is likely to draw the eye. This brief exposure to light is enough to cancel all bonuses from Night Vision foe at least 10 minutes. In essence, "the purple is gone" and it will be a long tome regenerating.

Speaking of purple, that is a goof night camouflage colour.

GURPS Powers: Enhanced Senses handles this effect by having it take time to adjust to a lower lighting level to only suffer the default penalties; I believe the penalties are doubled when your eyes haven't adapted, and indeed exposure to brighter light can ruin it, requiring readaptation. I forget how this interacts with the Night Vision Advantage (or if the book even explores this); my inclination would be that a character with Night Vision 2 (for example) only needs to undergo adaptation for light levels below -2. Assuming I'm remembering correctly and it is indeed a doubling, this means when someone with Night Vision 2 is in an area with -5 Darkness, they're at 2*(2-5) = -6 rather than -10, and once they adapt they are at -3. Sudden light exposure will ruin the adaptation, leaving them back at -6.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

A chase on a HORSE, short of on a broad manicured highroad through the forest ... look, if you're bound and determined to kill yourself, just cut your throat and let the poor horse be. People succeed at it on screen solely because the scriptwriters pen it that way.

Horses have quite a bit better night vision than humans, though they adapt slower to light level changes. Night-time trail rides at walking speeds on fairly open trails are quite safe, and horses do run away from night predators without automatically killing themselves. Of course they don't live in forests either.

Still a horse can probably manage a higher safe speed on a forest trail than a human without a light source. So notionally you [could] win a chase, it just wouldn't be an [excitingly fast] chase, zipping along at Move 1 or 2.

[ericthered]

So the predominant forest type does matter a lot, I'd say. A stand of trees just left alone in Alabama is quite different than alpine woods in Utah (The two I know the best), and neither of them is a medieval managed forest (which is what the chase is occurring in).

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Still a horse can probably manage a higher safe speed on a forest trail than a human without a light source. So notionally you [could] win a chase, it just wouldn't be an [excitingly fast] chase, zipping along at Move 1 or 2.

Not really, no. A horse is significantly more vulnerable to the footing hazards -- ground-dweller hole, exposed roots, four inch jagged stump -- than the walking human is, and is no more immune to a forearm-thick branch which meets you as you zigged around that tree rather than zagged.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by ericthered

So the predominant forest type does matter a lot, I'd say.

Yes. Just as important is the underlying terrain. A forest on a rocky slope will have a whole different set of hazards from a forest in a swampy bottomland.

Originally Posted by ericthered

neither of them is a medieval managed forest (which is what the chase is occurring in).

What managed forest means is that you'll have far less deadwood on the ground, especially close to the forest edge, since it's regularly gathered for firewood. Depending on local forest law, that might also mean that low branches have been removed as well along with any fallen trees.

There will also be considerably less "understory" material in the form of shade-loving plants, saplings, etc. due to the predations of free-range pigs and managed deer/elk herds.

Peripherally related, early European explorers described North American forests (managed by the natives for deer using controlled burns, etc.) as being primarily old-growth trees with so little undergrowth, such distance between the trees and such high branches that a man could ride a horse at a gallop through some of them.

The effect might be like trying to hide in a wooded park rather than a forest left to grow naturally.

Season of the year, weather and ambient lighting from moonlight will also make a difference. People trying to hide in a snowy woods filled with deciduous trees on a bright moonlit night will have a considerably harder time of it than someone trying to hide in the same woods during a summer nighttime thunderstorm.

Edit: Upthread, you said that the chase takes place in high summer (July/August) in a climate reminiscent of Mid-Continental Europe or North America (Southern Cardiel). That means very ripe wheat. If you're very lucky, it's freshly cut stubble which will help to hide tracks (but can be hard on the feet if you're not wearing good shoes). If you're not so lucky, it will be waist- to chest-high relatively dry "amber waves of grain." (Older wheat varieties grew taller since there was a need for wheat straw as a secondary product. Modern varieties are shorter since there's less demand for straw and shorter stalks mean better yields and less problem with ripe wheat stalks falling over.) That means a fairly obvious trail for a human-sized creature.

Once the characters get to the woods, there will be one or two layers of tree canopy. As others have mentioned, it will be incredibly dark, even on a clear moonlit night. Increase Darkness Penalties by -2 or -3 over any Darkness Penalties due to ambient light down to a maximum of -8 or -9. Any pursuers will be incredibly obvious if they are carrying lights.

As for skills, THE most valuable skill for hiding in a woods at night, possibly even moreso than Stealth and Camouflage, is Area Knowledge. Trails and landmarks will be familiar by sight and sound. AK will give you a good idea of where good hiding places might be and where you might be able to find terrain that will confuse tracking dogs. In such conditions, a blind person with good AK might be better at finding their way through the woods than a sighted person not used to using non-visual landmarks.

[ericthered]

I've got one question that I'm still considering: Is having a -10 to hide at medium range reasonable? This is 20 to 100 yards away, which feels pretty darn far for someone on foot to me, especially if people aren't sprinting it (and multiple chase rounds of sprinting feels wrong). I can some penalty being justified but -10 is really big.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Yes. Just as important is the underlying terrain. A forest on a rocky slope will have a whole different set of hazards from a forest in a swampy bottomland.

That's also a great point. We tend to turn our worst land into forests, but I can't imagine that medieval people didn't do that too.

What managed forest means is that you'll have far less deadwood on the ground, especially close to the forest edge, since it's regularly gathered for firewood. Depending on local forest law, that might also mean that low branches have been removed as well along with any fallen trees.

There will also be considerably less "understory" material in the form of shade-loving plants, saplings, etc. due to the predations of free-range pigs and managed deer/elk herds.

Peripherally related, early European explorers described North American forests (managed by the natives for deer using controlled burns, etc.) as being primarily old-growth trees with so little undergrowth, such distance between the trees and such high branches that a man could ride a horse at a gallop through some of them.


The effect might be like trying to hide in a wooded park rather than a forest left to grow naturally.

Thanks.

Edit: Upthread, you said that the chase takes place in high summer (July/August) in a climate reminiscent of Mid-Continental Europe or North America (Southern Cardiel). That means very ripe wheat. If you're very lucky, it's freshly cut stubble which will help to hide tracks (but can be hard on the feet if you're not wearing good shoes). If you're not so lucky, it will be waist- to chest-high relatively dry "amber waves of grain." (Older wheat varieties grew taller since there was a need for wheat straw as a secondary product. Modern varieties are shorter since there's less demand for straw and shorter stalks mean better yields and less problem with ripe wheat stalks falling over.) That means a fairly obvious trail for a human-sized creature.

Thanks.

Once the characters get to the woods, there will be one or two layers of tree canopy. As others have mentioned, it will be incredibly dark, even on a clear moonlit night. Increase Darkness Penalties by -2 or -3 over any Darkness Penalties due to ambient light down to a maximum of -8 or -9. Any pursuers will be incredibly obvious if they are carrying lights.

I dropped it to -7 when they entered the woods.

As for skills, THE most valuable skill for hiding in a woods at night, possibly even moreso than Stealth and Camouflage, is Area Knowledge. Trails and landmarks will be familiar by sight and sound. AK will give you a good idea of where good hiding places might be and where you might be able to find terrain that will confuse tracking dogs. In such conditions, a blind person with good AK might be better at finding their way through the woods than a sighted person not used to using non-visual landmarks.

Neither side has any chance of all at having area knowledge. Thanks for the input.

[the_matrix_walker]

I just discovered this thread! My PC is the pursued, and I have not read the chase rules, so I I'm trying to figure all this out.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'm running a chase scene in a forest at night in low tech, using the action chase rules. I have a couple of tweaks/unsettled issues I could use advice on:

• Survival (Forest) is good as a complementary roll in the forest right? Urban survival works in the city, so for a forest chase we should be good.
• The hide penalties feel like they're made city chases, not chases in dense woods. What can I do about this? or do the penalties make sense to you in a forest
• Its also night. I've ruled that lighting penalties apply to the people trying to find but not to the hiders. Does that sound fair? should the hider's only get half penalties?
• I feel like night vision should help the chase in general but I'm unsure how to account for it. A simple bonus if you have it to all chase rolls is pretty darn strong.
• Is the hiking skill at all relevant?
• The chase involves horses in the forest. I've ruled they use their move, not their top speed for the move bonus because of the thick foliage and twists and turns. Does that feel right?
• Before the forest they crossed a wheat field, and there +2 for double the speed of the quarry felt wrong. Any suggestions? is there a on the ground explanation? should I give the chasers a bonus for favorable terrain?

Thanks for looking this over with me! and yes, this is a PbP game so some of this stuff is still unresolved.

• Survival seems legit
• Chase penalties seem weird, but, again, I don't know all the source stuff but they do seem off from the values presented.
• Lighting penalties should just affect everyone normally. those values are different if you have night vision, and lighting penalties only apply to vision based rolls in the dark.
• Hiking does not seem relevant.
• Full move in the forest in the dark is suicidal behavior for horse and rider IMO.
• Double speed bonus, I can't comment on. it points back directly to the assumptions of the basic chase rules (which I suspect are for car chases... that -10 seems to be for doing a reverse slide of the car to parallel park rather than hiding in the dark with a 50 yard lead on foot)

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've got one question that I'm still considering: Is having a -10 to hide at medium range reasonable? This is 20 to 100 yards away, which feels pretty darn far for someone on foot to me, especially if people aren't sprinting it (and multiple chase rounds of sprinting feels wrong). I can some penalty being justified but -10 is really big.

If you're 30 yards away at -7 to spot them with for distance and -7 lighting penalties and add to that obstructions... haven't you lost them?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Neither side has any chance of all at having area knowledge. Thanks for the input.

So basically, no chance of not getting lost? Honestly, I would expect the pursuers, unless they have tracking dogs, to just stop and wait for daylight and hope their target falls off a cliff, which is a decent chance.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anthony

So basically, no chance of not getting lost? Honestly, I would expect the pursuers, unless they have tracking dogs, to just stop and wait for daylight and hope their target falls off a cliff, which is a decent chance.

The people running away have a really good chance of loosing each other, especially if they hide. Though... one of them has a dog. might come in handy.


You seem to assume this forest has cliffs in it. I've yet to be convinced of that. And it seems this forest is probably going to have a fair number of paths, given its location.

[ericthered]

I'm really surprised we don't have more chase-rules aficionados here. This is like the #2 rule people bring up from action.

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

If you're 30 yards away at -7 to spot them with for distance and -7 lighting penalties and add to that obstructions... haven't you lost them?

There's the traditional +10 for plain sight, and then there is the fact that they have you more in less in view. I suspect but haven't proven the action rules were also written on the assumption that you are either driving a large and noisy internal combustion engine, or running through crowded areas where passerby watch you and can give you away.