How do you handle fatigue and exhaustion, both physical and mental, in MV?
Fatigue
(26 posts) (5 voices)-
What caused it? The effects should be outlined in the same place as the rest of that cause's results. The listing for M13@1 Cause Pain/Discomfort is a good example of this. There are no rules for handling pain and discomfort in the general sense. If it matters, it was probably caused, and if it was caused, there was skill involved. Skills must be defined before they can be learned, so there's no problem.
If, on the other hand, the referee just feels it's time for fatigue/exhaustion to kick in, because that's his judgment of the situation and he thinks it will help his game, that's his business. He's free to run that sort of ad-hoc ruling however he likes. It'll probably involve stamina checks somehow, but I'm not that referee and it's not a game I'm running right now.
Sat Aug 15 2009 4:08 am # -
Scott's right in the main.
Generally, you can keep going for as long as an ordinary person could keep going under the circumstances, and if you've got a 2@ stamina you can keep going twice that long. Once you've gone that long, the referee is supposed to start making stamina (or in some cases will power) checks. A successful simple check means that you can continue for an additional reasonable time to the next check. At some point the referee will shift from simple checks to difficult checks. Even if your stamina is 3@10, you will eventually fail a check, and then you are too exhausted to continue. Each check should be accompanied by a description that the character is tired but able to push on a bit longer.
The rule is rarely "enforced" because most players recognize that their characters can go only so long without rest, and they either get rest or develop skills to overcome the need. As long as you're not trying to pull marathon sessions unskilled, I'm probably not going to start calling you on fatigue.
--M. J. Young
Sun Aug 16 2009 7:44 pm # -
Brock
Member"He's free to run that sort of ad-hoc ruling however he likes. It'll probably involve stamina checks somehow, but I'm not that referee and it's not a game I'm running right now. "
This kind of thing is what I meant when I say the ref has more control than D and D. These kinds of things are extensively defined and if you try to do it another way, some troublesome player always wants to argue and say "but the RULES say!" At least no one in MY groups ever do that.
Know what I mean? In this one, the player doesn't even need to read the rules, just learn the basics as you play. It's refreshing.
Mon Aug 24 2009 10:56 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberKnow what I mean? In this one, the player doesn't even need to read the rules, just learn the basics as you play. It's refreshing.
Yeah, but you also have to trust that the referee is actually following the rules. I could see where some people would have an objection to that.
Tue Aug 25 2009 12:01 am # -
Brock - I think less is hard-and-fast in D&D than it might seem from looking at the books, but I understand what you're getting at. I might phrase it as the referee having more responsibility, rather than more control; more things fall to him to do behind the scenes, and less of the mechanics are handled by the players. It's one of the things that makes the game challenging to run.
Maybe my players are too well trained. I've never had a serious argument over the rules that the player didn't cede to me within a minute or so. "Not in my game" usually works, although I try to be lenient about rewinding the action a little if players had been basing decisions on an untrue understanding of the rules. (That's at least half my fault for failing to communicate properly, after all.)
John - That problem of trust exists in every game, even those in which the players have to learn to rulebooks by heart. Unless the referee is sharing all his notes and maps and die rolls and so forth with the players as the game progresses, an untrusting player will have room to be suspicious if he's so inclined - and even if the referee does share all that stuff, players could still question whether he's being fair and impartial with things like scenario design and choice of encounters.
Generally, trust is either a problem or it's not, and it has more to do with the people involved than it does the system they're running.
Tue Aug 25 2009 1:22 am # -
I'm going to reference the Theory 101 articles at Places to Go, People to Be, because they're relevant again and will save me a lot of typing.
In particular, Brock should take a look at the first in the series, System and the Shared Imagined Space. Critical in this is the explanation of what "Rules" are within the context of the social environment that is the game play.
To give a quick summary, game play is about social contract and social interaction. We all agree to imagine the same things happening, and we have unwritten rules that apportion to each of us permission to make statements within specified limits which are accepted by everyone else in the game as true within that shared imagined space. Everything that is not statements we make to which we agree is secondary to the system; these things are authorities that are used by the players to support their statements.
Thus when John botches, it is ultimately true because I said it was true, and everyone accepted what I said. I supported my statement by the declaration that the die roll was 97; I supported that by the statement that his chance of success was 45%; I supported that by adding numbers from various sources, some of which were known to everyone and some only to me. But all those numbers and that die roll are secondary to what is really happening: they are the authority I cite to support my statement, but it is my statement that has credibility within the game world.
Thus in all role playing games it is ultimately about the trust between the participants.
Please read the article; it should make that a lot clearer.
--M. J. Young
Tue Aug 25 2009 2:56 am # -
JohnA1nut
Memberan untrusting player will have room to be suspicious if he's so inclined - and even if the referee does share all that stuff, players could still question whether he's being fair and impartial with things like scenario design and choice of encounters.
Well, with my limited experience, the only example that I have to go on is Adam. I don't know him from, well, from Adam. I went into it with no reason to trust him. As it progressed, he did everything he could think of to make me NOT trust him.
Point is, sometimes, players have legitimate reason to not trust the referee.
Fri Aug 28 2009 2:24 pm # -
That's an interesting insight into your character: you went into it with no reason not to trust him, and with reason to trust him that you ignored. The reason you had to trust him was that other people here on this forum did trust him, and could vouch for him from years of game play and from personal interaction. I apparently trust Adam; that is sufficient basis for you to have a reason to do so as well. You choose to distrust people you do not know, even if they are trusted and approved by people whom you do know.I went into it with no reason to trust him.
Interesting.
--M. J. Young
Fri Aug 28 2009 10:23 pm # -
I don't believe I have ever done that.
--M. J. Young
Sat Aug 29 2009 3:49 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHonestly, I don't believe that for a second. I'd like to think that MJ isn't lying outright, but I would say it's likely that he forgot doing such a thing. It's not really a memorable thing to have happen. So you never once crossed the street because you saw a shady character ahead? I have a very hard time believing that. The first thing they teach you in assault prevention class is "Your safety first, their feelings second." So you hurt someone's feelings. As long as you're safe, what's the problem?
Sat Aug 29 2009 7:21 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberOh yeah, and regarding the sixth sense, and just knowing that someone is safe, I'm certain there were quite a few people who thought the same thing about Ted Bundy and Albert Fish. Ted Bundy had 2@5 charisma, and Albert Fish looked like your grandfather. Between them, they murdered over 100 people.
Sat Aug 29 2009 7:52 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberThird post, 16 hours after last.
Just to be clear, I'm not calling you a liar MJ. Just expressing doubt that you've never done something like that. Perhaps you forgot, or do it unconsciously. My point is though that it is a very common practice in the city where muggings and violent crime are high. You told me that you live an hour away from one of the most dangerous cities in America. You probably do that without thinking about it. Trust is a hard thing to give out. That's all I was saying.
(Doing Therapy)
Sun Aug 30 2009 12:37 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberRead about Ted Bundy and Albert Fish. If you saw the latter, you'd think he was somebody's grandfather, and not a sexual pervert who was into eating children. He was the model for Hannibal Lechter. However, Albert Fish makes Dr. Lechter look like a pussycat.
(Doing Therapy)
Sun Aug 30 2009 4:36 am # -
I have never lived in a "city".
I do live about an hour from Philadelphia, but I live five minutes from corn fields, and have for more than a quarter of a century. We had corn or soy or something similar on two sides in the place we lived the longest.
I never worked in Philadelphia. I have visited it a few times on a touristy-thing--particularly the Franklin Institute, but also the art museum and some of the historic sites. I'm usually only there in the day.
When I lived an hour from New York I only visited it a couple times, other than to drive through it to get to the island beyond. I remember being there thrice at night--once for a play and once for a concert, both times in a group bus as a teen, and once playing in a band downtown somewhere, and we walked up Broadway as a group.
I did work in Wilmington Delaware for most of a year. I don't think that's as big as Columbus, but I was only once in Columbus, and never alone apart from the bus station.
Oh--I was alone in a Philadelphia bus station twice en route to and from Columbus, and had to walk a block from one terminal to the other.
Downtown Wilmington is a pretty pleasant place; most of the people I saw when I was on the street were also from local offices doing much what I was doing--going into or coming out of work, or grabbing lunch somewhere.
I guess we don't have a lot of muggers hanging out on the streets where I live.
--M. J. Young
Tue Sep 1 2009 1:55 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberLet's see...
1. Partially grew up in the trailer park that the cops in a hardscabble Michigan small town went to when stuff got stolen.
2. House got robbed and vandalized when we left for a week vacation...by neighbours.
3. Had glasses broken when mugged.
4. Shot at in attempted robbery by two gangbangers.
5. Got gun pointed at self and friends when we were harrassing some other car of idiot punks.
6. Got sent home by the cops for being an idiot. I just shake my head in remembrance. I could so easily have been a newspaper headline. "Dumb guy gets shot by cops."
7. Most of my neighbours are quite well armed, quite devout, and at least some of them have a tendency to get irritated at friends and shoot them.
8. I served on the grand jury once. I do not want to meet the 'one woman crime wave' even in a lighted room at the police station with a cop present. I-yi-yi, she was dangerous.There is at least one more...
Tue Sep 1 2009 2:15 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI've had a couple of attempted muggings. Once, it was 4 guys, two in front, two behind. They said they had a gun. I put my hands up and started screaming "SHOOT ME!!! SHOOT ME!!!!" when it was over, one of them screamed "This guy's a PSYCHO" and they all scattered in terror.
Sometimes being crazy has its advantages.....
Tue Sep 1 2009 2:21 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo Posts
Ya know Brock, what you were saying about being able to tell what someone is all about by looking at them, I have some experience with that. On the first orientation at a new school I went to, I saw a guy in the crowd. I said to myself "We're going to be good friends." A month later, when school started, he was one of my few friends in the class. We had several common interests and a very similar background. So yes, I know what you mean.
The other thing that I wanted to say about it is did you ever watch that show Dinosaurs? The walking, talking dinosaur family? The baby, a cute little pink bundle of joy. Hearing him speak, you'd swear it was either a woman or a small child doing the voice. It was actually a 6 foot 4, 350 pound black man. Point is, things aren't always what they seem.
Tue Sep 1 2009 4:27 am # -
I have been in Camden a few times, but usually in the day for official court functions or dropping or fetching someone at a bus. The few times I have been there at night have been to visit hospitals, and they have their own adjacent parking. Usually it's driving to the general area and parking very close to my destination. I'd love to say that I've been to the aquarium, but I haven't; I did drop off and pick up kids at a concert at the Tweeter Center. I can find my way through Camden, but generally "through" is the only interest I've had in it.
And it's not bad everywhere.
Oh, and I believe that St. Louis took the crown from Camden, maybe last year or the year before, so it's not the worst anymore.
--M. J. Young
Thu Sep 3 2009 1:15 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know MJ, all this talk about how bad New Jersey is has made me wonder how in the world did that punk Daniel Larusso manage to survive there for 16 years? Man, if there's anybody anywhere that deserves to get beaten up more than he did, I have yet to see them.
Thu Sep 3 2009 8:21 pm #
Reply
You must log in to post.