"Carnage" Rule

Just a side-note. The Judge of the group I play with, for whatever reason, loves civilian casualties in a superhero fight. He's actually fashioned tables to estimate the number of killed and injured depending on the power of the attack. One of his rules involves hero-types attacking normal people.

If the power rank of an attacker exceeds the total health of the target, the player must roll on the most lethal table available (edged weapons with bare hands, for example). Thus, if Spider Man hits a normal person (health of 24) as hard as he can, he has a good chance of just killing him outright (probably not far-fetched, given his relative strength level. Mike Tyson could probably kill someone, and his strength is not even a tenth of Spider Man's.

What do you think?

I think the point is not to kill civilians in the game, but eh, whatever floats your friend's boat.

Well, you know these are accidental casualties, you know, friendly frags, not deliberate targeting.

I mean, if Thor throws the Hulk through a building (like a ten-area Slam, say), and the Hulk actually hits hard enough to smash through every wall, desk, chair, furniture, whatever, through every steel, stone and brick structure in his way, how would that not kill someone? The odds against killing anyone is astronomical. The idea that the big hitters in the MU (or the Superman v. Doomsday hitters, for that matter) can get into a fight within a major urban center and NOT kill anyone is laughable.

If a character at that power level were fighting in a city, he'd be like two brawlers in a bar swarming with cute little white mice all over the floor. Every time someone got knocked down, or sometimes even stepped, he squash those cute little guys in tens, if not hundreds.

Since we, as hero-characters, DON'T want to cause casualties, we have to plan very, very carefully. Most of the first moves in a fight between big hitters involve getting the fight OUT of a city or really anywhere with people, into a desert somewhere.

Sorry, but this seems like dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling.

If a hero is gonna attack a norm, then why do you need to use special tables? if the attack is greater than the targets combined health and endurence scores the target is going to die. period. Why is a special table needed for that. unless you get off on rolling dice, it seems unnecessary.

As far as collateral damage due to power effects. That i feel is a Judge's call. I have botch rules for my game [basically if you roll 01-09] and in that case, i may have stray blasts or whatever equal a civilian loss of life. Botches are nasty, but i don't need some formulaic table to tell me how many people get killed. I make those decisions as a judge based on my own creativity. I think it'd be dumb if you consult a chart, and 3 times in a row you get ::rolls:: "you hit a gasmain and a city block erupts in flames. ::rolls:: Oh, you hit another gas main, more property destruction. ::rolls:: Sweet Mary, gas main again...


It's just silly.

Man, that gas main example is funny, I was laughing just thinking about it.

No, I take your point, but I wasn't clear, I guess in explaining the rule.

First, norms do not always die at one shot if attacked by a hero, and they probably should. Why? If a guy who can pick up an auto and throw it hits a normal person as hard as they can, they probably would. (We can put aside the concept that strength and hitting power are not the same in real-world terms, since they are in game terms).

And it's not an extra dice roll. It's the same die roll, but with a different effects table. Blunt combat rolls on the edged table, which is slightly more deadly than the normal blunt table.

As for collateral damage, note that not every Judge operates the same way. Some judges do a lot more intuitive determination, others like putting together very creative and very funny charts to roll from, as does our present judge (his "day job," incidentally, is a stand-up comedian, as well as being an online gambling "pit boss."). These charts are hilarious, and very creative. Sometimes he just chooses an effect, sometimes he rolls. It makes us players, particularly powerhouses, very aware of the inadvertent effects of power stunts on bystanders, which makes the games more fun for us.

I hate rolling dice, myself, (I even play domino Monopoly with my family so we don't have to roll dice), but I've never found a "diceless" group as fun as my current one.

Just passing it on, not trying to impose it on anyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2008 10:37AM by civet5285.

Well heroes don't generally cut loose on normals or even on superhumans considerably weaker than they are (Spider-man seems to have an unstated power stunt off of his danger sense to be able to pull his punches so he doesn't kill someone) since they aren't in it to kill and they know that it kills to use their full might. A relatively recent example comes from DC with Superboy-Prime during the last crisis. Unused to combat and in the heat of the moment he killed Pantha with one backhanded blow as he knocked her head off of her shoulders (or reduced it to paste, either way kill shot) because he hadn't the practice to moderate his blows.

Much of it in the end depends on the hero and their experience or practice in gauging their blows and watching out for collateral damage. That being said the GM shouldn't be saddling PC heroes with piles of corpses or millions of dollars in damages or crippled survivors however realistic that might be. It's just not part of being a hero or reflecting most heroic comic activities. I don't think most players like the idea of their character being a killer even by accident or double digit negative popularity because of it.

I know I wouldn't enjoy a campaign where the GM told me that in spite of my efforts to be a hero I had a trail of corpses in my wake or permanently crippled people. Some might have a strange desire to undergo such trials and confuse it with providing depth for their campaign or characters but that's just not what I see when being a hero.

"A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it."

-- Peter David

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Nightmask Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Paragon Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Complete list of my characters various forum URLs, over 30 to enjoy!

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Godiva Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Seraphim Character Sheet

[www.furaffinity.net] Art by Marvel Comic's artist Rusty Haller!

[www.furaffinity.net] Artist/writer/Creator of The Extinctioners Independent super-hero comic!

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Sappho Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Cornucopia Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Nightmares of Futures Past Ongoing Story

[www.classicmarvel.com] - There is no such thing as too powerful Forum Thread

I hear you.

I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I know I consider it part and parcel of the "great responsibility" sort of thing, that one part of that is to prevent casualties, if possible.

I've played in groups which play like the old Stan Lee comics, very simplistic. I've also played in groups that played like a more somber, "adult" graphic novel, like Dark Knight or Watchmen. I liked them both, although the group I play with nowadays is a little more like the latter. It's an older and more mature group. I guess it all depends on what level of sophistication you like. Not everyone liked the Dark Knight graphic novel, or the Watchmen series, so it stands to reason that not everyone will like to play a game that seems to be set in one. I do, but that's me.

I'm not sure that sophistication is the right word for it as it implies that someone's simplistic or limited in not liking that kind of game. Sophistication doesn't require a death toll or massive property damage just like an adult game doesn't require profanity to be adult. There ends up a measure of confusion on the definitions and what's required for certain kinds of games that gets in the way as people disagree without ever comparing notes as to see if everyone's definitions are the same before arguing.

"A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it."

-- Peter David

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Nightmask Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Paragon Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Complete list of my characters various forum URLs, over 30 to enjoy!

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Godiva Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Seraphim Character Sheet

[www.furaffinity.net] Art by Marvel Comic's artist Rusty Haller!

[www.furaffinity.net] Artist/writer/Creator of The Extinctioners Independent super-hero comic!

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Sappho Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Cornucopia Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Nightmares of Futures Past Ongoing Story

[www.classicmarvel.com] - There is no such thing as too powerful Forum Thread

Hm.

Well, I'm neither arguing or disagreeing.

It could be that you would not like to play in the group I play in. It might also be that it might be mutual (I won't speak for the rest of the group).

I guess it comes down to playing with the group you like, under what rules you all can agree on.

I'd be the last player (or judge, when I've done that) to force people to either use or not use certain rules, house or otherwise.

I don't spend any time at all telling anyone else what rules they should or shouldn't use.

When we discuss things in the group play setting, usually a "I don't care for that rule" suffices, with some discussion as to whether any mutual compromise can be reached by players. Past that, there's no point, because who can win an argument without a third-party arbiter, anyway? Both parties come away with the righteous certainty that each is correct, so why argue? Better to reach a compromise, if possible, or to part ways amicably, if not.