Forum

Also, another thing here is all this talk about how this would increase the value of mobility or lowering the values of killer or anything else like that.

Sure... it would... but only if you're the one playing the murderer that plans on cold-bloodedly murder everyone else in the party... and how many players plan to do that?

Especially in cinematic scenarios, where the GM (or designer) picks the skills, not the players.

Even in campaign play, it wouldn't make sense to say that those skills/talents have lowered or increased value because of this. Not unless you have an incredibly hostile and murderous player group. And if that's the case, the campaign wouldn't last very long anyway since everyone would die in the first adventure, most likely.

I mean, these feel like straw man arguments to me.

"If you let this happen, mobility will be very valuable"... yes... to murderers... and that's probably completely fine. Because only a player intent on murdering others would see an increase in the value of mobility because this was allowed.

"If you let this happen, killer won't be as valuable"... really? Will the allowance of PvP murder suddenly abolish all other combat?

I mean, I could go on, but they all sound like straw man arguments, and I hope you'll stop bringing them up. They're hardly valid unless you're going to play a highly PvP focused campaign where there are almost no other enemies than other players.

the whole argument of it increasing the value of mobility or devaluing killer is kindve silly since the GM is supposed to make the characters for cinematic scenarios anyway because how agendas work and for the specific reason that players cant min/max if the GM makes the characters. so just dont give your serial killer agility 5 or mobility 3 if youre worried about it. As for the killer talent I still think its one of the weaker talents anyway... since it doesnt even work on xenomorphs which is a way bigger problem with the talent than any PVP related issue.

and if youre running a campaign the rulebook even says PvP has no place in a campaign. because your campaigns not gonna last too long if your players are killing eachother.

Where does all this "PvP" talk come from, in the first place? I see it cropping up in several discussions on these forums...

How is PvP even a thing in TTRPG's? And even less, how can it be a thing big enough to want to adjust rules mechanics for?

Way back when I came into the RPG hobby -- around '80, long before the "storytelling" aspect of it had got a life of its own -- it was already by definition a cooperative endeavour.
I can see how PvP might -- might, mind you -- have a place in some MMORPG's, but in a game like Alien ... or any other one discussed on these forums, for that matter? Not really, no.

So, why are we even discussing it? Or am I just too old-school to understand the obvious attraction?

Where does all this "PvP" talk come from, in the first place? I see it cropping up in several discussions on these forums...

it comes from the cinematic scenarios like chariot of the gods they all have pvp in them

the idea is they wanted to recreate alien by having one of the crew members be a company stooge and betray the party.

I dont think it really works personally. all it does is ensure the party gets torn apart and the game never lasts more than one session.

I think one shot rpgs are a total waste of time. youre missing out on one of the most rewarding aspects of roleplaying: character development.

I'm not sure why you're attacking my post with questions asked in good faith as being 'strawman' arguments or that my position that you should be careful about unbalancing the game with your proposed changes as being silly.

--

The list I wrote are talents that are in the Core rulebook that have bearing on damage, defense, critical injuries, mobility and scouting -- all aspects of a sneak attack and affected by your proposed house rule. I therefore asked how you would deal with them, figuring that since you're arguing your position you'd have considered the effects this would have on your game.

--

I don't do PvP generally, but from what I gather in cinematic play in Alien there can be players with an agenda that can result in such a situation, preferably it should come in to play in the last act?

But 'sneak attack' is not inherently only for PvP. The rule exists in all YZ-games I have read except for Tales from the Loop (which is a different type of game), and works in the same way everywhere. You use sneak attack to sneak up on someone unaware of you and you get a free attack if succeeded. They are not considered defenseless, just unaware. This is just a normal attack, but made freely before initiative is drawn or rolled (depending on the game).

Your position, from what I understand is that -- as a general rule -- successfully sneaking up on someone to attempt a sneak attack is an automatic coup de grace and you go straight to roll for empathy (if that?). I'm wondering - are there any example of games where the rule works like this and it 'holds together'?

--

Funnily enough, I would probably allow it if it were against an unnamed, unimportant NPC, "just a small obstacle" in the way of something more important due to "only roll the dice when it matters". Then I probably would allow a sneak + empathy check and have the player describe how they finish. But resolving a characters hidden agenda, putting PC lives at stake -- that all matters and it could turn to an awesome scene depending on the players decisions, their talents and their dice rolls! As a GM I'd definitely stay out of it.

Regarding PvP (by which I don't like in RPG), the books also say that when it is revealed that one character is "the Burke", you should play out the revelation scene and then that character becomes an NPC. This means that a scenario will not contained that many PvP scenes, up to one I would say and agenda of "the Burke" will not always be shotgun in the face.

As mentioned before, if is against a PC, then either take the Sneak Attack as is and have take the narrative when you know the outcome of that or assume that it is a coup de grace in the first place. If Sneak Attack and the crit. results in a knee shot or something, then the PC (now NPC actually) will do a coup de grace to finish him of. Regardless, it will be the results of some dice rolls, so at least everybody got a chance (well ...). If it is against an NPC, then just rule, bye, bye NPC.

Your position, from what I understand is that -- as a general rule -- successfully sneaking up on someone to attempt a sneak attack is an automatic coup de grace and you go straight to roll for empathy (if that?). I'm wondering - are there any example of games where the rule works like this and it 'holds together'?

i dont believe in empathy rolls to kill other players.

that should be the players decision not a decision made for them by the dice

i want to see my players roleplay their choices. not roll the dice to see what choices they make.

besides rolling for empathy to coup de grace makes no sense anyway. because someone whos a killer wouldnt hesitate to coup de grace someone else and someone who isnt a killer would never coup de grace someone else anyway. there is no grey area youre either a capable of cold blooded murder or youre not. the problem with leaving morality upto a dice roll is that it basically turns you into an ever sicker psychopath like two face or anton chigurh that flips a coin (or in this case dice) to decide whether someone should get murdered or not.

also you shouldnt need to waste a talent just to be a psychopath. being a psycho is not a talent.


So no empathy roll. The only two rolls I would require are a stealth roll vs an opposed observation roll. And if the stealth roll succeeds I would then require them to make their ranged combat roll with a penalty for aiming at a specific location instead of aiming at their center of mass. Because hitting someone in the head is still going to be harder than just hitting them center of mass.

The closer they want get to the target the less the penalty for aiming at a specific location would be. And the stealth checks would get harder the closer they try to sneak to the target. In some instances it might even make sense to have them make multiple stealth checks.

So you're saying you're fine with skirting the rules against NPC's, but when it comes to PvP you become a complete rules lawyer?

Yes, without hesitation. Also, maybe intentional or unintentional, but please grow up and stop with the obvious insults. Rules lawyer? 'seriously', show some civility.

I get it, we're never going to agree on this, but to the OP, I'd advice against following your advice due to how many times I've seen this kind of strictness devolve into absurdity and split groups up.

Yep, said that in a previous post, we aren't going to agree and my points are for the OP. I have seen pvp devolve so quickly because someone feels cheated because when it mattered to them, the rules weren't followed. Follow the rules and no one can have an objection, it's fair. This links back to above where yes, I have stated several times now, I would handle things differently with an NPC rather than a PC, because with a PC you need the person who has just lost their character not to feel cheated. I hope that the OP understands that.

but I firmly believe that they'd agree with me on the "do it the narrative way" instead of rolling for crit when you put a shotgun to the back of the head of someone who doesn't even know you're doing it.

Putting words in the designers mouths in order to make your point.... yeesh. I'm not touching this.

Sure... it would... but only if you're the one playing the murderer that plans on cold-bloodedly murder everyone else in the party... and how many players plan to do that?

Not sure why you added 'in the party'. If your running stealth the way you have described the victim does not need to be a PC, it could be an NPC. Also really doesn't have to be murderers, could actually be people who aren't murderers. You are allowing people to pick the crits, so by just aiming at none lethal parts of the body they have ways of inflicting crits that are lethal or non-lethal, quite handy actually. Though I'd like to elaborate on this a little more in a second.

I mean, these feel like straw man arguments to me.

Interesting when people bring up the strawman defence because pretty much always it is not a strawman argument. Though interestingly above when you tried to refute my argument by saying it would only benefit murderers when it clearly has other value is a strawman argument. Given this argument stemmed from allowing stealth checks to effectively usurp normal combat, discussing the impact that has on the value of the skill 'is relevant' to the discussion.

the whole argument of it increasing the value of mobility or devaluing killer is kindve silly since the GM is supposed to make the characters for cinematic scenarios anyway because how agendas work and for the specific reason that players cant min/max if the GM makes the characters.

I had to actually go back to the OP's post and look at what he put. I can however confirm he never said he was only talking about cinematic scenarios. So this part of the discussion would be relevant to those of us who have ongoing campaigns.

I'm not sure why you're attacking my post with questions asked in good faith as being 'strawman' arguments or that my position that you should be careful about unbalancing the game with your proposed changes as being silly.

Try and not take it personally, some people can't deal with people not agreeing with them and so rather than discuss like adults devolve into making attacks. I thought your questions were very pertinent. I would hazard a guess people might be getting so emotional over the topic because it would affect how they have generally done things already and feel that it infringes on something they stand to gain/lose.

Try and not take it personally, some people can't deal with people not agreeing with them

Thats not true at all. People are welcome to disagree with me. I only have a problem with it when people disagree with me for no other reason than disagreeing with me lol.

We all seem to agree the rules dont adequately cover every situation that comes up in the game. We just dont seem to agree on how to handle it... whether you stick to the existing rules even if they dont make sense at all or if you come up with your own rules that actually make sense but arnt necessarily as "fair". I personally dont think fairness really matters as long as you have other characters that the player who's character dies can play. Your players should understand from the getgo that characters will die frequently in the cinematic scenarios and it often wont be "fair". Its not fair when a Xenomorph ambushes you, draws low initiative, then headbites you before you can even take a turn. Likewise PVP combat should be equally unforgiving and brutal. I see little difference between a xenomorph sneaking up on you or another player sneaking up on you, either way you failed your stealth check, and you have to deal with the consequences. Regardless of whether its an npc vs another player or a player vs another player it should make no appreciable difference in determining a character's fate.

We all seem to agree the rules dont adequately cover every situation that comes up in the game. We just dont seem to agree on how to handle it... whether you stick to the existing rules even if they dont make sense at all or if you come up with your own rules that actually make sense but arnt necessarily as "fair".

Love your one sided assessment there. Again, several of us have outlined how adhering to the rules in this instance does make sense. How we seem to differ is that you and those who agree with you are ok for a player to make a statement of intent, then adjust the rules to match that statement of intent. My counter to that is that myself and my player work on 'statement of intent' roll dice to see if that statement comes true, then 'adjust as needed'. So in this instance, the statement of intent was 'shoot him in the head, instantly killing him' but the rolls didn't go that way, so the narration becomes 'John turns around at the last minute to see the barrel aimed at the back of his head and quickly tries to dodge to the side. A loud bang fills the cockpit and is soon replaced by the screams of John as he lays on the floor, the misguided shot having blown out one of his kneecaps'.

So lets try and rephrase that statement to accurately represent the arguments that are made here rather than an extremely one sided and disrespectful summary.

"We all seem to agree the rules dont adequately cover every situation that comes up in the game. We just dont seem to agree on how to handle it... whether you stick to the existing rules and adapt the narrative to meet the outcome or if you come up with your own rules that dont affect the narrative but arnt necessarily as "fair".