Nick is correct in this situation - my example is of a minor soldier who FAs. Making the assumption that only Major Villains(tm) will be a threat is a good way to slip up.
> There's no indication that this "dead" soldier is a main villain --
> rather, he's the "one that got away" when the player heroes were killing
> off or "policing up" their downed foes.
Usually it *isn't* the main villain (who may well be aghast at the action taken by his underling - a sub-trope of the "Surrendering Prisoner" scenario). And just to make sure we're all on the same page, "policing up" is used to indicate removal of weapons, making sure of the condition of bodies/prisoners (that is, "see if they are dead, wounded or merely stunned", not "make them dead"), clearing dead bodies out of the way of useful space, getting prisoners medical aid/cigarrettes/chocolate bars then take them to a place where they can be watched, etc.
>
> 2) I don't like the idea of players being induced to use a coup de grace
> "to be certain" of eliminating their Narrator's main villains. It seems
> counterintuitive and counterproductive.
And I don't advocate it, and I don't think I *did* advocate it. A combination of sloppy writing and sloppy reading may have been at fault.
> > It is a positive virtue that the winning side is lax in their security
> > precautions - that is what allows the PC's to take their final actions
> > when in other games they would already be dead!
>
> The virtue I was alluding to is that the winning PC side doesn't need to
> prat around specifying the tedious "security precautions" they are
> taking. I agree that in other posts Roderick has made it clear he
> doesn't think this needs to be spelled out every time. My fear is that
> by encouraging it to be spelled out *once*, we are still sliding too far
> towards simulationist paranoia. But then, I'm an old fart.
No, *you* are a young fart. *I'm* only a middle aged fart. I'll let the likes of Greg and Ken Rolston decide what kind of farts they are :-).
A gaming group makes many assumptions about styles of play. I assume that you (Nick) have played with your group long enough that you all know "the basics" of your group's methods and so have a higher expectation of "what a hero shouldn't worry about". Post-battle security, Scouting (whether in the wild or with a 10' pole in a dungeon), Which heroes share rooms at the inn, who handles Watch duty, Standard signals, etc.
Other groups may not be so lucky, or may want to be more "S-Word", or play a particular style of game. It only takes one unexpected FA for a player or group to realize that post-battle security (by this I mean anytime a villain is "down") is an important thing, and figure out a way to deal with it. Players will likely pass on their knowledge to the next group(s) they goes to, and so on.
I think its perfectly "fair" for a narrator to "take advantage" of a slipup in security if *either* the heroes *or the players* are not experienced - that is how they get experienced! Dropping a grenade into a room full of Warrior 17's may be a bit much (into a group of Warrior 17w2's is a different matter - they *should* know better, and a narrator might point it out before doing something like that if the *players* weren't experienced), but a minor villain getting away to warn the garrison would be perfectly "fair".
> > I don't think it is any kind of good for the players to "fear being
> > narrated against"
>
> Exactly. See the "war movie" example above -- how would you interpret a
> Narrator saying: "If only the player heroes had taken the elementary
> precaution of bayoneting every 'corpse', their Best Friend would still
> be alive today"?
"If only the heroes had taken the elementary precaution of searching the prisoners and removing weapons, their Best Friend would still be alive today".
RR
Powered by hypermail