Forum

I have, maybe, a dumb question but in our last session players set a out a doubt regarding androids and critical injuries...

The situation was this: PCs were surrounded by armed working joes so they began to shoot and inflict critical injuries. Problem came with the 5 result from the table: "the android was totally immobilized" (in my words, they are not literal).

I thought that being immobilized supposes that you can move your arms, so you can shoot even staying motionless... But my players set out a new interpretation, obviously looking after their PCs, that being immobilized implies not moving a single little finger, so you cannot push a trigger. And, after thinking about it, maybe they are right (?)... I don't know.

What do you think?

I have, maybe, a dumb question but in our last session players set a out a doubt regarding androids and critical injuries...

The situation was this: PCs were surrounded by armed working joes so they began to shoot and inflict critical injuries. Problem came with the 5 result from the table: "the android was totally immobilized" (in my words, they are not literal).

I thought that being immobilized supposes that you can move your arms, so you can shoot even staying motionless... But my players set out a new interpretation, obviously looking after their PCs, that being immobilized implies not moving a single little finger, so you cannot push a trigger. And, after thinking about it, maybe they are right (?)... I don't know.

What do you think?

...

Hi Decanox, I don't have the rules in front of me right now to do a search. Result 5 for critical injuries for androids (that's what you got) = the android is (or was) totally immobilized... when I read your sentence, the first thing that comes to mind is that the android's charging battery has been damaged... the android is out of order (for the moment), the charging battery will need to be changed or repaired. That's how I would have interpreted it at my gaming table.

Arthur.

Thanks for your answer!

So players could be right! Fortunately I assumed their interpretation and the working joes didn't fire... But the doubt remained there since, in game terms, what is immobilized? An android can't move? An android is completely still so they can't shoot?

Yeah, it can be read both ways. In English, "immobile" usually means "no movement," which would include limbs and so on. But in (many) games, "immobile" usually means "can't leave their current space." So games often use other terms for fully unable to move: "paralyzed," "helpless," and so on.

In ALIEN, I dunno the intent. I think, as MU/TH/UR, I'd decide whether to make artificial persons tougher to take out or not quite as tough to take out. I might even take advantage of the ambiguity to make that decision on a fight-by-fight (or even android-by-android!) basis.

In closing I'll point out that Bishop, toward the end of Aliens certain could not leave his space (under his own power), but his (remaining) limbs were certainly functional!

So, no, it's not at all a stupid question, but I encourage you to never be afraid to resolve things in whatever way is fun for you and your players. It's a game, not a collection of statutes.

GM Narration trumps rules. You not you narrated "totally immobile", and that means no movement at all.

Now, I read the table thusly: #5 is supposed to break the bot completely. It can talk, move its eyes; if face down, maybe crawl a cm or two a minute (dragging along y its chin). It's conscious, but helpless. it's got no action economy.
#6 is total shutdown.

GM Narration trumps rules. You not you narrated "totally immobile", and that means no movement at all.

Now, I read the table thusly: #5 is supposed to break the bot completely. It can talk, move its eyes; if face down, maybe crawl a cm or two a minute (dragging along y its chin). It's conscious, but helpless. it's got no action economy.
#6 is total shutdown.

...

Thanks for the clarification, Aramis. Ultimately, it's a bit like Bishop managing to grab Newt before she falls into the airlock of the USS Sulaco. He's conscious and can move a little to grab Newt (since he no longer has legs).

Arthur.

Thanks for your answers!

Jeff, yes, maybe It wasn't a stupid question since the interpretation could change the situation a lot. With 3-4 androids that could fire their rifles if they could move their arms (and things were going to be really bad for the PCs) or do nothing if not. Finally, we did It well, and they remain paralyzed.

I have, maybe, a dumb question but in our last session players set a out a doubt regarding androids and critical injuries...

The situation was this: PCs were surrounded by armed working joes so they began to shoot and inflict critical injuries. Problem came with the 5 result from the table: "the android was totally immobilized" (in my words, they are not literal).

I thought that being immobilized supposes that you can move your arms, so you can shoot even staying motionless... But my players set out a new interpretation, obviously looking after their PCs, that being immobilized implies not moving a single little finger, so you cannot push a trigger. And, after thinking about it, maybe they are right (?)... I don't know.

What do you think?

Not a dumb question at all — this is exactly the kind of rules interpretation that comes up in TTRPGs, and it often depends on whether you want the table to feel mechanical or narratively dramatic.

The description “totally immobilized” can be read in a couple of ways:

Mechanical interpretation: The android can’t move from its spot, but its limbs still function enough to perform tasks like shooting. This keeps combat flowing and doesn’t overly punish the players.

Narrative interpretation: The android is completely frozen — nothing moves at all, including fingers. This is more dramatic and punishing, which seems to be how your players interpreted it.

Neither interpretation is “wrong”; it’s about what kind of tone you want for critical injuries. If the goal of the table is to introduce risk and tension, the narrative interpretation makes sense. If you want combat to stay tactical and balanced, the mechanical interpretation might be better.

One way to compromise: maybe the android can aim or attempt actions, but suffers a penalty to anything requiring fine motor control, like shooting accurately. That way, the injury has impact without making the character completely useless.

In short: your players’ reading is reasonable — it’s all about what fits the story and your table’s style.

That is, Isla.

I would have preferred that the table was more clear about game effects, but since the only mention is "completely immobilized" the GM is the one who has to decide. And that's all.

In my case, I think I did right, after my players told their interpretation (the mainly accepted here), I didn't ignore them... And It was a good thing! Since it could finish in a TPK!

That is, Isla.

I would have preferred that the table was more clear about game effects, but since the only mention is "completely immobilized" the GM is the one who has to decide. And that's all.

In my case, I think I did right, after my players told their interpretation (the mainly accepted here), I didn't ignore them... And It was a good thing! Since it could finish in a TPK!

TPK's suck unless they're absolutely thematic.
But they're more often thematic in Alien than in other games.