Another dwarf lost his head...

[Trifletraxor]

We played a session in Pavis 3rd Age Glorantha today, and fumbling my greatsword attack I chopped the head of an uroxi dwarf - a party member - a split second after he dealt a lethal blow to the monster we were fighting... This is actually the second time a character of mine decapitate a dwarven party member. Quite hillarious, but it ended the session.

SGL.

[KjetilKverndokken]

...? What!

Why was the fumbled led to kill off a players character?! What does that give the story and the game session?

[seneschal]

I thought that sort of thing only happened in Rolemaster. :eek:

[kaddawang]

Good thing you play BRP.

I hear CoC's Mi-Go have some nifty tech lying around:thumb:

[SDLeary]

I thought that sort of thing only happened in Rolemaster. :eek:

No... its actually an artifact of RuneQuest.

Buddy of mine was running a game and a party of Orcs came down... their chief fumbled, and knocked off his helmet... second roll, fumbled and decapitated himself. Much hilarity ensued for the rest of the evening.

We also had similar things happen in Sandy's Pamatella campaign.

SDLeary

[Thalaba]

In 3rd Ed. Runequest, there is a 6% chance on a fumble that you will hit the nearest friend with your melee weapon. The chance of you actually hitting them in the head and killing them is considerable smaller - I would estimate it to be about %0.02 after rolling a fumble (so about 1 in 2500). We've been playing RQ3 weekly for the last year and a half and only once has anyone (NPC, Villain, or PC) struck their nearest friend. It was in the leg and armour absorbed most of the blow.

To do it twice and both times to an annoying dwarf, well... have you gone out and bought a lottery ticket yet? This might be your week!

[Mechashef]

So will this fumble defence stand up in court, or will the other members of the parties spill their guts (actually they probably would have if they had been standing where the dwarf was) and give evidence that the dwarf was chasing after his girlfriend?

The rumour on the street is that his girlfriend has a a dwarf fetish (and she's not even a Shaman) and this isn't the first dwarf that has been taken down by this supposed friend during the heat of battle.

I think the jury will see that two similar accidents surely puts the matter of intent beyond a reasonable doubt!

[SDLeary]

So will this fumble defence stand up in court, or will the other members of the parties spill their guts (actually they probably would have if they had been standing where the dwarf was) and give evidence that the dwarf was chasing after his girlfriend?

The rumour on the street is that his girlfriend has a a dwarf fetish (and she's not even a Shaman) and this isn't the first dwarf that has been taken down by this supposed friend during the heat of battle.

I think the jury will see that two similar accidents surely puts the matter of intent beyond a reasonable doubt!

AH! I would like to suggest that this "friend" is in fact an Ogre with a taste for dwarf! Have teh party make sure all the bits are still there at the end! ;-)

SDLeary

[KjetilKverndokken]

That the rulesett has that sort of fumble is a bit "dysfunctional".

If a player characters death does not bring anything in - its usually wasted.

[dragonewt]

That the rulesett has that sort of fumble is a bit "dysfunctional".

If a player characters death does not bring anything in - its usually wasted.

This depends on the style of game people are running (and want from it), and whether its focus is story teller or simulationist (or somewhere in between).

Anyway, I am sure the aldryami were somehow involved; it sounds like the sword was firmly planted.

FPS Doug would be proud.

Edited October 19, 2009 by dragonewt

[NickMiddleton]

That the rulesett has that sort of fumble is a bit "dysfunctional".

If a player characters death does not bring anything in - its usually wasted.

Depends on the style of play your group prefers.

IME, once players realise just how brutal and random close quarters melee can be in RQ/BRP (the "Hit Ally" possibility is in the BRP fumble tables as well), they generally stop playing it like D&D or some un-involving CRPG have their characters begin to act far more believably towards combat (i.e. avoid it where possible, and if you can't, stack the circumstances as heavily as possible in your favour).

However, BRP doesn't insist that EVERY fumbled attack roll requires a roll on the fumble table, only a quarter of such fumbles involve damaging others and only a small fraction of those involve critically striking an ally. For very heroic games one can ignore those entries on the table, or the table itself if you prefer As ever with BRP, it's easy enough to adapt to ones specific requirements.

Cheers,

Nick

[soltakss]

I saw it once with a Humakti who took his own head off in combat and once with a troll who fumbled badly, got a "roll twice" and got "Hit nearest friend in the head doing max damage" and "hit nearest friend doing critical damage", rolled for his friends and killed two of them in the same swing. Back swing - kill a friend, forward swing kill another friend. They were runelords so came back angry.

[deleriad]

I had my very first example of someone rolling 00 on the fumble table just two weeks ago. I use the MRQ tables (modified to fit d100 than d20) so they're not as harsh as the RQ3 ones.

It was for a major NPC and I always let players roll NPC fumbles. The poor blighter almost exploded from the fumble.

I must admit that I do think that a fumble table needs to be an optional module. I run middle school games (i.e. not old school random, frequent death but not completely narrative-driven, you don't do unless agreed beforehand either) so a fumble table sort of works for me in that it gives dice a way to intrude very significantly into a game.

Something that is very notable about MRQ is that semi-competent PCs never fumble. My players are fumble averse and will spend a Hero Point to re-roll a fumble. For that last 6 months or so the only fumbles have come from NPCs.

[RosenMcStern]

Given my tendency to put in powerful opponents, my players used to say that including a "Hit nearest Fiend" entry would be more realistic.

Such fumbles add to the fun of the game because when you are close to someone wielding a 1,50m sharpended length of steel, accidental decapitation is an option. So you should stay away from him, or accept the risk. If all that can happen in a combat is that you win or lose it because it is dramatically appropriate, then some of the fun is taken away. Furthermore, the fumble tables often suggest exilarating results that even the most creative GM would not think of, if it was not suggested in the rules.

I must admit that I do think that a fumble table needs to be an optional module.

It is. The rules state "Make up your own fumble if the result is not satisfactory." The tables are there for the lazy ones, or to provide some randomness.

Something that is very notable about MRQ is that semi-competent PCs never fumble.

Since when? 00 is still a fumble in MRQ.

My players are fumble averse and will spend a Hero Point to re-roll a fumble. For that last 6 months or so the only fumbles have come from NPCs.

A good point in favour of Hero Points. They avoid unappropriate fumbles.

[dragonewt]

... and killed two of them in the same swing.

That reminds me of the (not as lethal) knife throwing scene in the movie "Kung Fu Hustle".

(Warning: Contains some violence and bad language)

Edited October 19, 2009 by dragonewt

[SDLeary]

That reminds me of the (not as lethal) knife throwing scene in the movie "Kung Fu Hustle".

(Warning: Contains some violence and bad language)

ROFLMAO!

Thank you! I had sooo forgotten about that scene! Perfect thing to see in the morning!

SDLeary

[Trifletraxor]

...? What!

Why was the fumbled led to kill off a players character?! What does that give the story and the game session?

Lots of fun & some healthy fear of combat. Mortality is high and random in our campaigns. Only the careful and lucky live to retirement. Makes it feel much more real.

I thought that sort of thing only happened in Rolemaster. :eek:

We use RQ3's fumble tables. It's a big loss that they weren't included in the BRP book, as fumbles truly rock!

To do it twice and both times to an annoying dwarf, well... have you gone out and bought a lottery ticket yet? This might be your week!

I'll do that!

So will this fumble defence stand up in court, or will the other members of the parties spill their guts (actually they probably would have if they had been standing where the dwarf was) and give evidence that the dwarf was chasing after his girlfriend?

It was in the Big Rubble. Lots of people never comes back from the rubble. I'm more worried that his dwarven brother (also a member of the party) won't accept my "It's not my fault! He's so little! I didn't even see him standing there!" - excuse.

That the rulesett has that sort of fumble is a bit "dysfunctional".

If a player characters death does not bring anything in - its usually wasted.

Our group fully embrace the simulatist tradition. Without the possibility of death, the game looses its excitement, and if characters only die when the GM thinks it will bring anything in - then the players will also be pissed at the GM whenever it happens.

SGL.

[KjetilKverndokken]

and if characters only die when the GM thinks it will bring anything in

SGL.

Thats not how that method work - It is an open discussion between player and gamemaster.

example:

Hordes of orcs pour through the gateway, one of the pc's gets a serious blow that will by old fashion rule-sets kill him. The player knows that even if he is only knocked out, the orcs might torture him and get information out of him.

He can take this dangerous route and maybe survive, or he may declare that he will try to hold them off so the others can escape and his death have a meaning.

[Trifletraxor]

Thats not how that method work - It is an open discussion between player and gamemaster.

Okay, you go with the storytelling approach. Me and my group just likes the grim & gritty style better. Each to his own I guess!

SGL.

[Rurik]

...? What!

Why was the fumbled led to kill off a players character?! What does that give the story and the game session?

Why it removes the head from a Dwarf - that is a positive story development if I've ever heard of one!

(Triff can you 'accidently' take care of a few elves for me too?)

[RosenMcStern]

Thats not how that method work - It is an open discussion between player and gamemaster.

"Open discussion between player and referee"

If this was applied to soccer, it could have a heavy impact on the game. Although it could benefit the referee's reputation, which the public does not usually have in high esteem - at least judging from what they yell during matches.

But this will never happen: everybody knows that soccer players are simulationists.

[threedeesix]

My group and I prefer a much more gritty and deadly approach to combat as well. If a player gets killed in a non-specular fashion, thats an open dialog between him and his fate points. As a GM I stay impartial and let the dice fall where they may. I don't even make attack rolls behind GM screens anymore. There right out in the open where all can see them. This tends to remove any suggestion of favoritism and reinforces the idea that combat is deadly.

I have never killed a player character in 30 years of gaming, but my dice have.

Rod

"Gamemasters don't kill people, dice kill people"

Edited October 20, 2009 by threedeesix

[seneschal]

Take those dice out at once and shoot them! :mad: