Non-lethal combat.

[The Artist Formerly]

In the thread about no one playing super hero games any more, one topics that came up was about lethal combat and a lack of non-lethal options.

We tangled with this a bit, so I got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot). If you use guns, load them with tranquilizer rounds. Ask the GM for help on these things, you might be able to get away with a mystic sword that doesn't kill people. I once had a magic sword that was an energy blade, with E-throwing stars in place of energy blasts, and it did full damage to robots but only non-lethal to people. Why? Because I'm playing a hero, not killer.

Third, don't worry about the bad guys breaking out of jail. From a meta-gaming standpoint, your XP farming and building your rivalry. Guys you've beaten who come back for more are coming after you, making you the star of the adventure. And that's what we want. Plus when they come back, their threat level should have bumped up, getting you more XP. If they hire more hench goons, that's even more xp. Their plan might have more moving parts, requiring more skill checks from you, more xp.

Some GMs might be hung up on the rules for lethal combat and that 'pull punch' rule. We've had that problem too, but by taking the first aid skill (or it's superior versions) as an argument for how and why you know where not to punch.

Energy blasts and heat vision type effects might be a bit tricky, but again, work with your GM, s/he'll likely be cool with it. In comics we see energy blasts that should by all rights cut people into cubed chunks instead just knock them down. For that matter, in X-men legends Wolverine would often chop dudes up with claw attacks, then on victory, comment "You're lucky you're still breathing." And that's the what we're trying to replicate, no a real world event.

[eliakon]

In the thread about no one playing super hero games any more, one topics that came up was about lethal combat and a lack of non-lethal options.

We tangled with this a bit, so I got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot). If you use guns, load them with tranquilizer rounds. Ask the GM for help on these things, you might be able to get away with a mystic sword that doesn't kill people. I once had a magic sword that was an energy blade, with E-throwing stars in place of energy blasts, and it did full damage to robots but only non-lethal to people. Why? Because I'm playing a hero, not killer.

Third, don't worry about the bad guys breaking out of jail. From a meta-gaming standpoint, your XP farming and building your rivalry. Guys you've beaten who come back for more are coming after you, making you the star of the adventure. And that's what we want. Plus when they come back, their threat level should have bumped up, getting you more XP. If they hire more hench goons, that's even more xp. Their plan might have more moving parts, requiring more skill checks from you, more xp.

Some GMs might be hung up on the rules for lethal combat and that 'pull punch' rule. We've had that problem too, but by taking the first aid skill (or it's superior versions) as an argument for how and why you know where not to punch.

Energy blasts and heat vision type effects might be a bit tricky, but again, work with your GM, s/he'll likely be cool with it. In comics we see energy blasts that should by all rights cut people into cubed chunks instead just knock them down. For that matter, in X-men legends Wolverine would often chop dudes up with claw attacks, then on victory, comment "You're lucky you're still breathing." And that's the what we're trying to replicate, no a real world event.

Yeah I would say that changing the rules to fit the desired style is always an option yes. And it works if the GM is willing to have the rules change of course.

[The Artist Formerly]

In the thread about no one playing super hero games any more, one topics that came up was about lethal combat and a lack of non-lethal options.

We tangled with this a bit, so I got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot). If you use guns, load them with tranquilizer rounds. Ask the GM for help on these things, you might be able to get away with a mystic sword that doesn't kill people. I once had a magic sword that was an energy blade, with E-throwing stars in place of energy blasts, and it did full damage to robots but only non-lethal to people. Why? Because I'm playing a hero, not killer.

Third, don't worry about the bad guys breaking out of jail. From a meta-gaming standpoint, your XP farming and building your rivalry. Guys you've beaten who come back for more are coming after you, making you the star of the adventure. And that's what we want. Plus when they come back, their threat level should have bumped up, getting you more XP. If they hire more hench goons, that's even more xp. Their plan might have more moving parts, requiring more skill checks from you, more xp.

Some GMs might be hung up on the rules for lethal combat and that 'pull punch' rule. We've had that problem too, but by taking the first aid skill (or it's superior versions) as an argument for how and why you know where not to punch.

Energy blasts and heat vision type effects might be a bit tricky, but again, work with your GM, s/he'll likely be cool with it. In comics we see energy blasts that should by all rights cut people into cubed chunks instead just knock them down. For that matter, in X-men legends Wolverine would often chop dudes up with claw attacks, then on victory, comment "You're lucky you're still breathing." And that's the what we're trying to replicate, no a real world event.

Yeah I would say that changing the rules to fit the desired style is always an option yes. And it works if the GM is willing to have the rules change of course.

Absolutely. If you're playing a Dead Pool style character, then you're hacking your way through every thug with gusto, racking up kills faster then free coffee punches on your star bucks card. So one needs to talk with the GM about the tone of the game.

[eliakon]

In the thread about no one playing super hero games any more, one topics that came up was about lethal combat and a lack of non-lethal options.

We tangled with this a bit, so I got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot). If you use guns, load them with tranquilizer rounds. Ask the GM for help on these things, you might be able to get away with a mystic sword that doesn't kill people. I once had a magic sword that was an energy blade, with E-throwing stars in place of energy blasts, and it did full damage to robots but only non-lethal to people. Why? Because I'm playing a hero, not killer.

Third, don't worry about the bad guys breaking out of jail. From a meta-gaming standpoint, your XP farming and building your rivalry. Guys you've beaten who come back for more are coming after you, making you the star of the adventure. And that's what we want. Plus when they come back, their threat level should have bumped up, getting you more XP. If they hire more hench goons, that's even more xp. Their plan might have more moving parts, requiring more skill checks from you, more xp.

Some GMs might be hung up on the rules for lethal combat and that 'pull punch' rule. We've had that problem too, but by taking the first aid skill (or it's superior versions) as an argument for how and why you know where not to punch.

Energy blasts and heat vision type effects might be a bit tricky, but again, work with your GM, s/he'll likely be cool with it. In comics we see energy blasts that should by all rights cut people into cubed chunks instead just knock them down. For that matter, in X-men legends Wolverine would often chop dudes up with claw attacks, then on victory, comment "You're lucky you're still breathing." And that's the what we're trying to replicate, no a real world event.

Yeah I would say that changing the rules to fit the desired style is always an option yes. And it works if the GM is willing to have the rules change of course.

Absolutely. If you're playing a Dead Pool style character, then you're hacking your way through every thug with gusto, racking up kills faster then free coffee punches on your star bucks card. So one needs to talk with the GM about the tone of the game.

Errrr I don't see how the two relate. There is no logical connection between the statement you can change the rules of the game from those written and adopt these house rules and you can play a mass murderer killing everything in sight.
The two are not connected.
I am agreeing that these house rules are an interesting way to offer a less lethal game. And if the GM wants that as the main tone of his game, and wants to use these house rules then that's cool. I was just pointing out that they ARE house rules, that they require changing the rules, and that they require the GM to want to have a specific tone for the game, with everyone in the game following a specific sort of role. Again that's fine... If that is the intent of that game.

[The Artist Formerly]

In the thread about no one playing super hero games any more, one topics that came up was about lethal combat and a lack of non-lethal options.

We tangled with this a bit, so I got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot). If you use guns, load them with tranquilizer rounds. Ask the GM for help on these things, you might be able to get away with a mystic sword that doesn't kill people. I once had a magic sword that was an energy blade, with E-throwing stars in place of energy blasts, and it did full damage to robots but only non-lethal to people. Why? Because I'm playing a hero, not killer.

Third, don't worry about the bad guys breaking out of jail. From a meta-gaming standpoint, your XP farming and building your rivalry. Guys you've beaten who come back for more are coming after you, making you the star of the adventure. And that's what we want. Plus when they come back, their threat level should have bumped up, getting you more XP. If they hire more hench goons, that's even more xp. Their plan might have more moving parts, requiring more skill checks from you, more xp.

Some GMs might be hung up on the rules for lethal combat and that 'pull punch' rule. We've had that problem too, but by taking the first aid skill (or it's superior versions) as an argument for how and why you know where not to punch.

Energy blasts and heat vision type effects might be a bit tricky, but again, work with your GM, s/he'll likely be cool with it. In comics we see energy blasts that should by all rights cut people into cubed chunks instead just knock them down. For that matter, in X-men legends Wolverine would often chop dudes up with claw attacks, then on victory, comment "You're lucky you're still breathing." And that's the what we're trying to replicate, no a real world event.

Yeah I would say that changing the rules to fit the desired style is always an option yes. And it works if the GM is willing to have the rules change of course.

Absolutely. If you're playing a Dead Pool style character, then you're hacking your way through every thug with gusto, racking up kills faster then free coffee punches on your star bucks card. So one needs to talk with the GM about the tone of the game.

Errrr I don't see how the two relate. There is no logical connection between the statement you can change the rules of the game from those written and adopt these house rules and you can play a mass murderer killing everything in sight.
The two are not connected.
I am agreeing that these house rules are an interesting way to offer a less lethal game. And if the GM wants that as the main tone of his game, and wants to use these house rules then that's cool. I was just pointing out that they ARE house rules, that they require changing the rules, and that they require the GM to want to have a specific tone for the game, with everyone in the game following a specific sort of role. Again that's fine... If that is the intent of that game.

The connecting agent would be the GM setting the tone of the game. It's not really house ruling, so much as taking a liberal interpretation of the game rules.

Then I was agreeing with your agreeing with me.

[guardiandashi]

that makes a lot of sense, for a "hero game" to basically make some relatively minor changes to the nature of combat to encourage Not trying to kill.

one example I could see is basically add another HP pool to chars that works kind of like this:
normal sdc damage, bumps bruises etc. as it gets depleted, when you get through all (most) of the sdc the person should be starting to have to make will and or consciousness checks to continue fighting.
what would normally be HP is nw the "non lethal HP" this hp pool is where you are getting seriously hurt, possibly breaking bones and similar damage levels, not normally lethal (yet) but every hit will for most people result in excruciating pain, broken (or bruised) bones etc. you ARE getting seriously hurt, possible permanent impairment could potentially occur.

lethal damage this is when you are actively trying to injure/kill the person. deep cuts and wounds, broken bones and similar is definitely occurring anyone still fighting here is risking almost certain impairment/injuries or death.

[wyrmraker]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

[The Artist Formerly]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

Let us know how it goes. If he's got questions, have him PM me. I'm a heroes GM, and I can pipeline in two other heroes GMs, we either have solved these problems already or point him in the right direction.

[eliakon]

that makes a lot of sense, for a "hero game" to basically make some relatively minor changes to the nature of combat to encourage Not trying to kill.

one example I could see is basically add another HP pool to chars that works kind of like this:
normal sdc damage, bumps bruises etc. as it gets depleted, when you get through all (most) of the sdc the person should be starting to have to make will and or consciousness checks to continue fighting.
what would normally be HP is nw the "non lethal HP" this hp pool is where you are getting seriously hurt, possibly breaking bones and similar damage levels, not normally lethal (yet) but every hit will for most people result in excruciating pain, broken (or bruised) bones etc. you ARE getting seriously hurt, possible permanent impairment could potentially occur.

lethal damage this is when you are actively trying to injure/kill the person. deep cuts and wounds, broken bones and similar is definitely occurring anyone still fighting here is risking almost certain impairment/injuries or death.

Sooooo.....SDC? (The original description of SDC is that it is just 'flesh wounds' and that HP are the actual life threatening wounds. In fact it was just this 'stun/flesh wound' factor that had SDC added to living things in the first place.).....

[wyrmraker]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

Let us know how it goes. If he's got questions, have him PM me. I'm a heroes GM, and I can pipeline in two other heroes GMs, we either have solved these problems already or point him in the right direction.

I talked with him about it, and he said that he would consider it.

Unfortunately, his internet access is limited. Nor does he have an account here (his only internet access is on his phone). But he appreciated the offer.

[The Artist Formerly]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

Let us know how it goes. If he's got questions, have him PM me. I'm a heroes GM, and I can pipeline in two other heroes GMs, we either have solved these problems already or point him in the right direction.

I talked with him about it, and he said that he would consider it.

Unfortunately, his internet access is limited. Nor does he have an account here (his only internet access is on his phone). But he appreciated the offer.

No prob.

Heheh tell him to think of how much effort it would save him if your characters are just beating guys up and sending them to jail, only to get out again so you can beat them up again.

[wyrmraker]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

Let us know how it goes. If he's got questions, have him PM me. I'm a heroes GM, and I can pipeline in two other heroes GMs, we either have solved these problems already or point him in the right direction.

I talked with him about it, and he said that he would consider it.

Unfortunately, his internet access is limited. Nor does he have an account here (his only internet access is on his phone). But he appreciated the offer.

No prob.

Heheh tell him to think of how much effort it would save him if your characters are just beating guys up and sending them to jail, only to get out again so you can beat them up again.

I don't see him getting anywhere thinking about it, as it rubs against his in-game philosophy of "The only good enemy is a dead enemy." He didn't read the usual Superhero comics growing up; he read all the old war comics.

[guardiandashi]

that makes a lot of sense, for a "hero game" to basically make some relatively minor changes to the nature of combat to encourage Not trying to kill.

one example I could see is basically add another HP pool to chars that works kind of like this:
normal sdc damage, bumps bruises etc. as it gets depleted, when you get through all (most) of the sdc the person should be starting to have to make will and or consciousness checks to continue fighting.
what would normally be HP is nw the "non lethal HP" this hp pool is where you are getting seriously hurt, possibly breaking bones and similar damage levels, not normally lethal (yet) but every hit will for most people result in excruciating pain, broken (or bruised) bones etc. you ARE getting seriously hurt, possible permanent impairment could potentially occur.

lethal damage this is when you are actively trying to injure/kill the person. deep cuts and wounds, broken bones and similar is definitely occurring anyone still fighting here is risking almost certain impairment/injuries or death.

Sooooo.....SDC? (The original description of SDC is that it is just 'flesh wounds' and that HP are the actual life threatening wounds. In fact it was just this 'stun/flesh wound' factor that had SDC added to living things in the first place.).....

yes and no. it is the same concept, but also pulls from some other games I have played where they had additional /alternative damage pools/effects that made combat less lethal.

examples offhand:
2nd edition MechWarrior rpg (battletech) had 1 hit point pool, but when doing melee and stun damage you used / on the condition monitor to represent not lethal damage, but you still had to make consciousness checks at certain points regardless of how the damage was acquired. Lethal damage was represented by X in the box, when non lethal/stun damage overflowed it started getting marked as lethal damage.

In D&D 3, and 3.5 chars can exceed their hp by their con score before being really dead. similar idea.

Star wars has a similar mechanic in fatigue vs lethal damage (when used)

basically the point is standard melee damage, less than lethal weapons and similar do damage that is NOT intended to be immediately fatal, the problem with palladium is it is easy to not put into effect "condition modifiers" that make it all to easy to beat someone to death fairly easily. I was just suggesting adding some additional "detail/staging" in the damage taking tracking to make it a little harder to outright kill people when you aren't intending to.

as was mentioned in most of the "hero" genre books/comics etc I have read/watched, the heroes usually don't kill the mooks or villains unless they are dark heroes like the punisher or hit girl from the Kick ass movie. she seriously generates body counts also ...

[The Artist Formerly]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

Let us know how it goes. If he's got questions, have him PM me. I'm a heroes GM, and I can pipeline in two other heroes GMs, we either have solved these problems already or point him in the right direction.

I talked with him about it, and he said that he would consider it.

Unfortunately, his internet access is limited. Nor does he have an account here (his only internet access is on his phone). But he appreciated the offer.

No prob.

Heheh tell him to think of how much effort it would save him if your characters are just beating guys up and sending them to jail, only to get out again so you can beat them up again.

I don't see him getting anywhere thinking about it, as it rubs against his in-game philosophy of "The only good enemy is a dead enemy." He didn't read the usual Superhero comics growing up; he read all the old war comics.

Arkham Asylum? The bat is the perfect example of this kind of play in action.

[wyrmraker]

I could completely get behind this option. I will meet with my GM later today and mention it. He has issues comprehending the Superhero genre, even though Heroes Unlimited is his favorite Palladium product.

Let us know how it goes. If he's got questions, have him PM me. I'm a heroes GM, and I can pipeline in two other heroes GMs, we either have solved these problems already or point him in the right direction.

I talked with him about it, and he said that he would consider it.

Unfortunately, his internet access is limited. Nor does he have an account here (his only internet access is on his phone). But he appreciated the offer.[/quote]

No prob.

Heheh tell him to think of how much effort it would save him if your characters are just beating guys up and sending them to jail, only to get out again so you can beat them up again. [/quote]
I don't see him getting anywhere thinking about it, as it rubs against his in-game philosophy of "The only good enemy is a dead enemy." He didn't read the usual Superhero comics growing up; he read all the old war comics.[/quote]

Arkham Asylum? The bat is the perfect example of this kind of play in action.[/quote]
Sgt Rock, Wierd War, Howling Commandoes, those comics. He has issues identifying with regular superhero stuff.

And yet Heroes Unlimited is his favorite.

[Tor]

got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

People can't just automatically do that. If you want knockout ability you gotta select boxing or get it at higher levels from HtH. Until you make the required roll for a knockout you can try to pull every punch to minimize damage. As for breaking bones, gotta learn some joint locks from N&SS. Otherwise, your GM has to use those rules where reducing a guy to 10% HP can break bones but not necessarily put them into a coma.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot).

Guy could still bleed to death, not sure we even have rules for doing cool stuff like hitting vital orders.

If you don't want to kill a guy, why not just have char buy a bunch of baseballs and throw them instead?

[Razorwing]

In nearly all the Heroic games I've played, non-lethal combat was considered the norm. Only in a few where it was decided that a more gritty and dark setting would be aimed for was combat decided to be lethal unless the player made attempts otherwise.

However, we didn't really change how we fought... we still used energy blasts and bullets/blades like you see in many comic books. For bullets and blades... it was assumed we were never aiming for vital organs... and since we were mostly doing SDC damage, most of the cuts and bruises were seen as small flesh wounds and grazings. Mostly we had most of the regular crooks either giving up or being knocked out once their SDC was gone... while many supervillains would attempt to flee by this point. We really didn't pay attention to the bleeding out rules because it wasn't needed. Nor did we really worry about declaring knockouts or the intention to pull punches... as it was assumed we were doing so (we could do just the damage needed to knock out or to prevent HP damage)... and we didn't need a specific skill to do these things.

Why? Because we weren't trying to play by RAW, but rather modified the rules to allow us to play the way we felt was right for the setting. We wanted to play Heroic characters like Captain America and Superman who never killed (or at least rarely did so)... and any rule that told us otherwise was just ignored or modified. Does that mean we were playing "wrong"? Perhaps... but we had fun, so who cares?

[NMI]

got some advice from Wayne B (on this very board), and we went from there.

First, declarations. Tell the GM you don't want to do lethal damage. With you hands and feet, your basically using the same combat rules you see Batman or Spider-man using. Regular punches, but barring something over the top, you knock them cold. Some broken bones and a concussion, but nothing that won't heal after a couple of weeks in the prison hospital unit. Critical hits do such intense pain damage that the victim can only lay on the ground and howl in pain with their shattered wrist or dislocated knee.

People can't just automatically do that. If you want knockout ability you gotta select boxing or get it at higher levels from HtH. Until you make the required roll for a knockout you can try to pull every punch to minimize damage. As for breaking bones, gotta learn some joint locks from N&SS. Otherwise, your GM has to use those rules where reducing a guy to 10% HP can break bones but not necessarily put them into a coma.

True, by the book, you would need a "knock-out" skill, such as what one would get from Boxing or from a higher level of H2H training, but I have always been of the mindset that a person could / should get dazed from repeated hits, or even from a single, major hit.

A House rule I had in mind to use if I ever got a group going again is if they take more than their P.E. attribute in a single attack, the victim has to make a save vs. Pain [14+] or be dazed/stun [-4 combat rolls]

As for learning Locks from N&SS - not everyone has that book so any rules for locks, purposely breaking a bone/limb should be based on HU rules or winged.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot).

Guy could still bleed to death, not sure we even have rules for doing cool stuff like hitting vital orders.

If you don't want to kill a guy, why not just have char buy a bunch of baseballs and throw them instead?

There is a minor super ability in PU1 or PU3 that adds damage for shorts to vital points. Also, I believe Compendium of Modern Weapons has info on shots to major organs. And, though people "might" not have the book, in the Splicers RPG, there is the skill "Vital Strike". I will need to get my copy in order to provide specific information.

[Glistam]

The optional rules in the Hit Point section of Heroes Unlimited Second Edition present some tables to roll on whenever a character takes a percentage of H.P. damage. These rolls are accumulative and as the severity progresses things like broken bones, punctured lungs and even brain damage appear on them. But those tables are rolled on only for Hit Point damage, not S.D.C. damage.

[The Artist Formerly]

In nearly all the Heroic games I've played, non-lethal combat was considered the norm. Only in a few where it was decided that a more gritty and dark setting would be aimed for was combat decided to be lethal unless the player made attempts otherwise.

However, we didn't really change how we fought... we still used energy blasts and bullets/blades like you see in many comic books. For bullets and blades... it was assumed we were never aiming for vital organs... and since we were mostly doing SDC damage, most of the cuts and bruises were seen as small flesh wounds and grazings. Mostly we had most of the regular crooks either giving up or being knocked out once their SDC was gone... while many supervillains would attempt to flee by this point. We really didn't pay attention to the bleeding out rules because it wasn't needed. Nor did we really worry about declaring knockouts or the intention to pull punches... as it was assumed we were doing so (we could do just the damage needed to knock out or to prevent HP damage)... and we didn't need a specific skill to do these things.

Why? Because we weren't trying to play by RAW, but rather modified the rules to allow us to play the way we felt was right for the setting. We wanted to play Heroic characters like Captain America and Superman who never killed (or at least rarely did so)... and any rule that told us otherwise was just ignored or modified. Does that mean we were playing "wrong"? Perhaps... but we had fun, so who cares?

Exactly. The declaration concept is added to note the difference in attack format, so we could show the differences between fighting some street crims moving drugs, and a "this ends NOW!" event.

Saves from having to add more rules and dice to the game to cover different events. Kevin wrote these rules for killing Orcs back in the days of D&D first edition. It doesn't reflect super hero play style.

[Damian Magecraft]

I have always used the following:
when a character is reduced to zero sdc they must make a Will Power save (15) (ME bonuses vs PSI apply) to remain conscious. A failed save results in a KO.
And similar to TAFs rule it is assumed that all damage is NON-lethal unless stated otherwise.

I am liking NMIs rule about taking damage equal to or greater than PE in a single blow as well... I may have to incorporate something similar.

[Zenvis]

Nice NMI. I like the rule.

[Tor]

Perhaps some penalties to the will save as HP is reduced? Like perhaps -1 to save per 10% HP you lose?

[Damian Magecraft]

Perhaps some penalties to the will save as HP is reduced? Like perhaps -1 to save per 10% HP you lose?

for a grittier style sure.
I just go with one save since my games are about those over the top super brawls we read in the comics.

[Jefffar]

I've been toying with expanded shock/knockout rules. For every so much SDC lost in a single hit, a save is made vs pain or take penalties. For every so much HP lost in a single hit, a save is made or get knocked out.

Once baddies can no longer f. ight back or get away, they surrender (unless hero has a rep for capping prisoners of course).

Of course there is a variation on the old MSH approach, entire party loses their XP for the encounter if they kill someone

[The Artist Formerly]

I've been toying with expanded shock/knockout rules. For every so much SDC lost in a single hit, a save is made vs pain or take penalties. For every so much HP lost in a single hit, a save is made or get knocked out.

Once baddies can no longer f. ight back or get away, they surrender (unless hero has a rep for capping prisoners of course).

Of course there is a variation on the old MSH approach, entire party loses their XP for the encounter if they kill someone

Eh... you're still adding more dice rolls and introducing a chance to fail that dice roll and wreck up a character play style. All just for rules for rules sake. If your players are trying to beat the baddies, and not stomp the baddies into the dirt, or graves, really, just let them do it. Just letting them do it as a form of standard combat, especially when jumping into a punch up, doesn't cost the GM anything and has no damaging effects on the story. Plus the rules are putting the GM in the position of punishing the players for trying to be heroic in the modern sense.

[eliakon]

I've been toying with expanded shock/knockout rules. For every so much SDC lost in a single hit, a save is made vs pain or take penalties. For every so much HP lost in a single hit, a save is made or get knocked out.

Once baddies can no longer f. ight back or get away, they surrender (unless hero has a rep for capping prisoners of course).

Of course there is a variation on the old MSH approach, entire party loses their XP for the encounter if they kill someone

Eh... you're still adding more dice rolls and introducing a chance to fail that dice roll and wreck up a character play style. All just for rules for rules sake. If your players are trying to beat the baddies, and not stomp the baddies into the dirt, or graves, really, just let them do it. Just letting them do it as a form of standard combat, especially when jumping into a punch up, doesn't cost the GM anything and has no damaging effects on the story. Plus the rules are putting the GM in the position of punishing the players for trying to be heroic in the modern sense.

It may or may not 'cost the GM anything' and may or may not have damaging effects on the story. It would depend on the game master and their story on whether or not its costing them anything or damaging their story. Some GMs may not want to have the four color convention that being hit with laser beams, or arrows, or fireballs, or lightning bolts, or busses just 'stuns' people. If that's the feel your going for then that's all gravy...but if you want a bit more 'realisim' to your universe, or one where it actually takes a choice to be 'heroic' then a 'all combat is non-lethal' change may cost a lot and take away from the story.

[Jefffar]

Sometimes a game works a lot better if subduing is reasonably easy to do and there is a clear line between lethal and non-lethal combat. Those rules ideas are just an example of how you can structure the game to reinforce that rather than have to give players an understanding of when their opponents are out of HP, SDC, etc.

It also serves to speed up fights overall, as a lot of mooks can be brought down in one punch instead of taking four rounds to the chest and being run through with a sword.

[The Artist Formerly]

I've been toying with expanded shock/knockout rules. For every so much SDC lost in a single hit, a save is made vs pain or take penalties. For every so much HP lost in a single hit, a save is made or get knocked out.

Once baddies can no longer f. ight back or get away, they surrender (unless hero has a rep for capping prisoners of course).

Of course there is a variation on the old MSH approach, entire party loses their XP for the encounter if they kill someone

Eh... you're still adding more dice rolls and introducing a chance to fail that dice roll and wreck up a character play style. All just for rules for rules sake. If your players are trying to beat the baddies, and not stomp the baddies into the dirt, or graves, really, just let them do it. Just letting them do it as a form of standard combat, especially when jumping into a punch up, doesn't cost the GM anything and has no damaging effects on the story. Plus the rules are putting the GM in the position of punishing the players for trying to be heroic in the modern sense.

It may or may not 'cost the GM anything' and may or may not have damaging effects on the story. It would depend on the game master and their story on whether or not its costing them anything or damaging their story. Some GMs may not want to have the four color convention that being hit with laser beams, or arrows, or fireballs, or lightning bolts, or busses just 'stuns' people. If that's the feel your going for then that's all gravy...but if you want a bit more 'realisim' to your universe, or one where it actually takes a choice to be 'heroic' then a 'all combat is non-lethal' change may cost a lot and take away from the story.

You realize that we're playing a fantasy game based on playing comic book characters, there is no realism here. What we're talking about is intent and plausibility. Kevin S talks about it in Villains Unlimited. And Walt Disney had a whole animated short on the plausible-impossible. Which is why the declaration concept makes it easy.

Let me break it down for you like this. Batman pounds guys into the dirt. Never once killed anyone. But were he a game character, he'd be forced to make a check for every single mook he face pounded into the dirt, and brute force dice mechanics means that he's have failed and killed someone.

On top of that, this game already has a ton of dice checks, adding one more check per attack just further bogs it down. Like I said in earlier posts, one can rule weapons and events lethal, and simply point out to the player character that such an attack is on that level. No fuss no muss.

[The Artist Formerly]

Sometimes a game works a lot better if subduing is reasonably easy to do and there is a clear line between lethal and non-lethal combat. Those rules ideas are just an example of how you can structure the game to reinforce that rather than have to give players an understanding of when their opponents are out of HP, SDC, etc.

It also serves to speed up fights overall, as a lot of mooks can be brought down in one punch instead of taking four rounds to the chest and being run through with a sword.

Agreed. But dice checking to determine a lethal attack pulled down to non-lethal levels is just begging for a missed check. Sooner or later someone is going to fail a check and kill attacker #3. Let the player decide when s/he is playing if they want their attacks to be lethal or not, and define for them what is and what isn't. That way they can focus on having awesome fight scenes and not worrying about how not to kill someone or just get bored with having a dull mechanic to manage and deciding that it's just more expedient change to an aberrant alignment and kill whenever they want to.

Having a dice check to determine a moral position is like a video game having a sanity meter.

[Daniel Stoker]

I find myself (and it just feels so wrong ) agreeing with Taffy here and while I still like the idea of stunts etc to give someone the ability to improve their power so they can do non-lethal damage or capture someone, this is probably one of the easier ways to handle it.


Daniel Stoker

[eliakon]

I've been toying with expanded shock/knockout rules. For every so much SDC lost in a single hit, a save is made vs pain or take penalties. For every so much HP lost in a single hit, a save is made or get knocked out.

Once baddies can no longer f. ight back or get away, they surrender (unless hero has a rep for capping prisoners of course).

Of course there is a variation on the old MSH approach, entire party loses their XP for the encounter if they kill someone

Eh... you're still adding more dice rolls and introducing a chance to fail that dice roll and wreck up a character play style. All just for rules for rules sake. If your players are trying to beat the baddies, and not stomp the baddies into the dirt, or graves, really, just let them do it. Just letting them do it as a form of standard combat, especially when jumping into a punch up, doesn't cost the GM anything and has no damaging effects on the story. Plus the rules are putting the GM in the position of punishing the players for trying to be heroic in the modern sense.

It may or may not 'cost the GM anything' and may or may not have damaging effects on the story. It would depend on the game master and their story on whether or not its costing them anything or damaging their story. Some GMs may not want to have the four color convention that being hit with laser beams, or arrows, or fireballs, or lightning bolts, or busses just 'stuns' people. If that's the feel your going for then that's all gravy...but if you want a bit more 'realisim' to your universe, or one where it actually takes a choice to be 'heroic' then a 'all combat is non-lethal' change may cost a lot and take away from the story.

You realize that we're playing a fantasy game based on playing comic book characters, there is no realism here. What we're talking about is intent and plausibility. Kevin S talks about it in Villains Unlimited. And Walt Disney had a whole animated short on the plausible-impossible. Which is why the declaration concept makes it easy.

*sigh* just because YOU don't want to have any realism in your game, doesn't mean that there isn't realism in the game. I will not argue that declaration makes it easy, but that does not mean that its the 'right' way to do it, just an easy one.
As for 'realism' unless your running a TOON game where there are no laws of physics then yes, there is realism. Your just controlling how MUCH there is. Do you have gravity? That's realistic. Do guns work? Realism again. People work for money? Real.....
Realism is not making a real world simulator. Realism is how close to the real world you stay. Its not a binary yes/no condition but a host of sliding scales.

Let me break it down for you like this. Batman pounds guys into the dirt. Never once killed anyone. But were he a game character, he'd be forced to make a check for every single mook he face pounded into the dirt, and brute force dice mechanics means that he's have failed and killed someone.

Not really. In fact I would argue that its the other way around. That he didn't kill anyone BECAUSE he was
1) highly skilled
2) always trying to make sure that he didn't kill anyone
3) never using lethal weapons
4) fighting mooks who were willing to give up when their SDC went down.

On top of that, this game already has a ton of dice checks, adding one more check per attack just further bogs it down. Like I said in earlier posts, one can rule weapons and events lethal, and simply point out to the player character that such an attack is on that level. No fuss no muss.

Again this is just your personal views of what is a 'good mechanic' which has little bearing on how the game actually should work.
No really, let me explain that a bit further.
Yes one can use the rules you suggest, I am not saying they cant, what I am saying is that the rules you suggest are not in fact 'superior' rules, or 'the right' rules, or 'the most thematic' rules. That is a personal opinion of the person who wants to use them (or not use them). They are simply different rules, rules that change many of the assumptions that the game was set up with. If you want to have those changes, and all that those changes entail, then by all means use the rules. But if someone doesn't want all those changes, then they shouldn't use the rules. Especially since the rules are only just one way of emulating the effect you seem to desire. Some games will benefit from having every fight be a super brawl, and to those games I say more power to them. Some games would be irrevocably ruined by such and to them I again say more power to you.

[The Artist Formerly]

*sigh* just because YOU don't want to have any realism in your game, doesn't mean that there isn't realism in the game. I will not argue that declaration makes it easy, but that does not mean that its the 'right' way to do it, just an easy one.
As for 'realism' unless your running a TOON game where there are no laws of physics then yes, there is realism. Your just controlling how MUCH there is. Do you have gravity? That's realistic. Do guns work? Realism again. People work for money? Real.....
Realism is not making a real world simulator. Realism is how close to the real world you stay. Its not a binary yes/no condition but a host of sliding scales.

Not really. In fact I would argue that its the other way around. That he didn't kill anyone BECAUSE he was
1) highly skilled
2) always trying to make sure that he didn't kill anyone
3) never using lethal weapons
4) fighting mooks who were willing to give up when their SDC went down.

Again this is just your personal views of what is a 'good mechanic' which has little bearing on how the game actually should work.
No really, let me explain that a bit further.
Yes one can use the rules you suggest, I am not saying they cant, what I am saying is that the rules you suggest are not in fact 'superior' rules, or 'the right' rules, or 'the most thematic' rules. That is a personal opinion of the person who wants to use them (or not use them). They are simply different rules, rules that change many of the assumptions that the game was set up with. If you want to have those changes, and all that those changes entail, then by all means use the rules. But if someone doesn't want all those changes, then they shouldn't use the rules. Especially since the rules are only just one way of emulating the effect you seem to desire. Some games will benefit from having every fight be a super brawl, and to those games I say more power to them. Some games would be irrevocably ruined by such and to them I again say more power to you.

Reality makes a crappy special effects artist!- Adam Savage.

Real is different from plausible. We are looking for a agreeable set of rules for playing let's pretend. A very specific version of let's pretend, based around character concepts from comic books and related properties. That's our basic frame work. We use words and math concepts to define our pretend world. That's cool, it's a good system.

Here's the reality of it, humans are fragile creatures, we are crippled or die from simple things all the time. Like allergic reactions, or getting beaten by someone else. But our fictional characters, who use sleep poisons and ass kickings to render targets unconscious all the time. It is implausible that they could do this for decades without someone dying on accident. But it never happens because that damages the story they author is trying to tell. The same in the game world.

You do realize that all four of the points you listed are exactly the attributes I listed back in my first post, you get that right? Basically if Bruce was a PC in my game, he just made the declaration. But for the sake of argument, let's go the long way around.

Of course Batman is highly skilled, he's been running around the ruins of Gotham in his themed underpants for almost a hundred years. That takes chops.We like Batman because of this one thing he doesn't do. It's what has allowed him to be interesting to generations of people. BUT in a game setting, if there is a dice function mechanic, sooner or later, he will fail it. When he does, someone dies, thus destroying a core character element and forcing another infinite crisis to retcon it. Say he had a 1% chance, on a D100. Grab your dice, and start rolling. Sooner or later, it will happen. And that's the damage to the story and the player character, we've reduced a character's conceptual choice, to a dice mechanic, something the heroes in our comic books don't contend with.

From a meta-game stand point, by reducing or removing the dice mechanics of something that is immaterial, a pull punch/non-lethal attack check, you streamline combat. Every game system has it's weak points, and for Palladium, it's the number of dice checks bogging down combat.

The declaration guidelines I posted way back at the top make this easy. If you want to rack up a body count to rival dead-pool or Wolverine when he's all angsty, don't make the declaration or just strait up tell the GM. If you want to play Spider-man style game where you never kill, then make the declaration that you don't want to kill and watch out for which weapons you use. If you need a mix, like say in a Capitan America comic where you usually don't but sometimes you do, then make the declaration and when the player feels like he needs to kill someone, he declares a lethal attack and says something dramatic.

[Nightmask]

Let me break it down for you like this. Batman pounds guys into the dirt. Never once killed anyone. But were he a game character, he'd be forced to make a check for every single mook he face pounded into the dirt, and brute force dice mechanics means that he's have failed and killed someone.

Not really. In fact I would argue that its the other way around. That he didn't kill anyone BECAUSE he was
1) highly skilled
2) always trying to make sure that he didn't kill anyone
3) never using lethal weapons
4) fighting mooks who were willing to give up when their SDC went down.

Fists are lethal weapons, one simple punch to the face at the wrong angle and someone dies from having shards of his skull driven into his brain. Highly skilled also doesn't mean infallible, and game mechanics in particular ensure a far higher failure rate than we see in the comics, and managing a lethal blow can happen any time including when someone's at full HP and SDC simply by messing up with a critical failure (or success, depending on your perspective).

Captain America is another example, if you were tossing a shield around to hit people like he does you'd have a LOT of bodies around. Just look at some of his mook battles, you've got his heavy shield actually ricocheting to hit people in the back of the neck which realistically would snap their neck and kill them yet clearly doesn't. A character trying that kind of move in Heroes Unlimited would almost certainly be killing people were a 'you're the hero that doesn't happen unless you intend it to happen' rule doesn't exist.

[eliakon]

*sigh* just because YOU don't want to have any realism in your game, doesn't mean that there isn't realism in the game. I will not argue that declaration makes it easy, but that does not mean that its the 'right' way to do it, just an easy one.
As for 'realism' unless your running a TOON game where there are no laws of physics then yes, there is realism. Your just controlling how MUCH there is. Do you have gravity? That's realistic. Do guns work? Realism again. People work for money? Real.....
Realism is not making a real world simulator. Realism is how close to the real world you stay. Its not a binary yes/no condition but a host of sliding scales.

Not really. In fact I would argue that its the other way around. That he didn't kill anyone BECAUSE he was
1) highly skilled
2) always trying to make sure that he didn't kill anyone
3) never using lethal weapons
4) fighting mooks who were willing to give up when their SDC went down.

Again this is just your personal views of what is a 'good mechanic' which has little bearing on how the game actually should work.
No really, let me explain that a bit further.
Yes one can use the rules you suggest, I am not saying they cant, what I am saying is that the rules you suggest are not in fact 'superior' rules, or 'the right' rules, or 'the most thematic' rules. That is a personal opinion of the person who wants to use them (or not use them). They are simply different rules, rules that change many of the assumptions that the game was set up with. If you want to have those changes, and all that those changes entail, then by all means use the rules. But if someone doesn't want all those changes, then they shouldn't use the rules. Especially since the rules are only just one way of emulating the effect you seem to desire. Some games will benefit from having every fight be a super brawl, and to those games I say more power to them. Some games would be irrevocably ruined by such and to them I again say more power to you.

Reality makes a crappy special effects artist!- Adam Savage.

Real is different from plausible. We are looking for a agreeable set of rules for playing let's pretend. A very specific version of let's pretend, based around character concepts from comic books and related properties. That's our basic frame work. We use words and math concepts to define our pretend world. That's cool, it's a good system.

Here's the reality of it, humans are fragile creatures, we are crippled or die from simple things all the time. Like allergic reactions, or getting beaten by someone else. But our fictional characters, who use sleep poisons and ass kickings to render targets unconscious all the time. It is implausible that they could do this for decades without someone dying on accident. But it never happens because that damages the story they author is trying to tell. The same in the game world.

You do realize that all four of the points you listed are exactly the attributes I listed back in my first post, you get that right? Basically if Bruce was a PC in my game, he just made the declaration. But for the sake of argument, let's go the long way around.

Of course Batman is highly skilled, he's been running around the ruins of Gotham in his themed underpants for almost a hundred years. That takes chops.We like Batman because of this one thing he doesn't do. It's what has allowed him to be interesting to generations of people. BUT in a game setting, if there is a dice function mechanic, sooner or later, he will fail it. When he does, someone dies, thus destroying a core character element and forcing another infinite crisis to retcon it. Say he had a 1% chance, on a D100. Grab your dice, and start rolling. Sooner or later, it will happen. And that's the damage to the story and the player character, we've reduced a character's conceptual choice, to a dice mechanic, something the heroes in our comic books don't contend with.

From a meta-game stand point, by reducing or removing the dice mechanics of something that is immaterial, a pull punch/non-lethal attack check, you streamline combat. Every game system has it's weak points, and for Palladium, it's the number of dice checks bogging down combat.

The declaration guidelines I posted way back at the top make this easy. If you want to rack up a body count to rival dead-pool or Wolverine when he's all angsty, don't make the declaration or just strait up tell the GM. If you want to play Spider-man style game where you never kill, then make the declaration that you don't want to kill and watch out for which weapons you use. If you need a mix, like say in a Capitan America comic where you usually don't but sometimes you do, then make the declaration and when the player feels like he needs to kill someone, he declares a lethal attack and says something dramatic.

Your making a false argument based on false premises here.
First off, just because you don't agree that all fights should be 'stun unless called deadly' does not mean your into making 'body counts to rival dead pool' Its facitious, intelictually dishonest, and frankly insulting to make the claim. Since the claim insinuates that unless we do things YOUR way then we are really just trying to slake some sick blood lust. I understand that you have a specific vision of how you feel a comic book based game should be, but that doesn't mean that your personal view is the One True Way. That said It doesn't MATTER that your way is 'easy' that's totally irellivent to a question of if your way is 'useful'

Now on to the actual (false) mechanical statements.
Your first false claim is that some how making people actually fight will mean that your just taking away their right to play because the mechanics of chance will inevitably kill someone.
First BULL
Second Welcome to gaming
Okay, bull. There is NOTHING in the rules (NOTHING) that says that you have to bring someone to zero HP to win a fight. (I will however gladly accept any proof to the contrary you can care to submit). If you can show me btw the issues where batman leaves his coma patients (which is 0 hp in palladium) then we can talk. Because otherwise your saying that just because X then unrelated Y occurs. This is totally false. To kill a person he would have to 1) reduce all their SDC 2) then reduce all their HP 3) have them fail their coma save. Your average thug is pretty likely to surrender at 1. Its the GMs job to play people realistically after all.

Now onto the second. Yah its a game, that same element of chance means that *gasp* your Batman could actually FAIL. OH NOES now we have just robbed him of his 'right' to play how he wants to be....all because of some silly chance factor. Again, your making a false comparison, that some how we should just accept that single author narrative story telling should some how have the same resolution system as joint gaming. That's false. Palladium is not a storytelling game system, if you want to have a storytelling game, then you are probably using the wrong system for your game. THIS game has random chance (dice) they affect all sorts of things like, saves, if you hit, if THEY hit, if you spot something.....its not all about 'I succeed because I'm good' but "I should succeed because I'm Good"

Now for the record here is why I think your way is bad.
Its easy. Yep I said it. Its easy, no strike that its TOO easy. Don't feel like actually taking any risks? Well then just go out there and fight. No risk what so ever, no hard choices. Suddenly its not Batman and his non killing that are impressive because EVERYONE can do THAT. I think that if you want to 'take em all alive' (which is a laudable goal) then it should actually take some effort on the part of the hero. Not simply a blithe handwaved grant of immunity from all risk. Go out there and learn martial arts, get a reputation enough to make people surrender, get some non-lethal weapons....(oh wait...Be Batman....)

[The Artist Formerly]

Your making a false argument based on false premises here.
First off, just because you don't agree that all fights should be 'stun unless called deadly' does not mean your into making 'body counts to rival dead pool' Its facitious, intelictually dishonest, and frankly insulting to make the claim. Since the claim insinuates that unless we do things YOUR way then we are really just trying to slake some sick blood lust. I understand that you have a specific vision of how you feel a comic book based game should be, but that doesn't mean that your personal view is the One True Way. That said It doesn't MATTER that your way is 'easy' that's totally irellivent to a question of if your way is 'useful'

Now on to the actual (false) mechanical statements.
Your first false claim is that some how making people actually fight will mean that your just taking away their right to play because the mechanics of chance will inevitably kill someone.
First BULL
Second Welcome to gaming
Okay, bull. There is NOTHING in the rules (NOTHING) that says that you have to bring someone to zero HP to win a fight. (I will however gladly accept any proof to the contrary you can care to submit). If you can show me btw the issues where batman leaves his coma patients (which is 0 hp in palladium) then we can talk. Because otherwise your saying that just because X then unrelated Y occurs. This is totally false. To kill a person he would have to 1) reduce all their SDC 2) then reduce all their HP 3) have them fail their coma save. Your average thug is pretty likely to surrender at 1. Its the GMs job to play people realistically after all.

Now onto the second. Yah its a game, that same element of chance means that *gasp* your Batman could actually FAIL. OH NOES now we have just robbed him of his 'right' to play how he wants to be....all because of some silly chance factor. Again, your making a false comparison, that some how we should just accept that single author narrative story telling should some how have the same resolution system as joint gaming. That's false. Palladium is not a storytelling game system, if you want to have a storytelling game, then you are probably using the wrong system for your game. THIS game has random chance (dice) they affect all sorts of things like, saves, if you hit, if THEY hit, if you spot something.....its not all about 'I succeed because I'm good' but "I should succeed because I'm Good"

Now for the record here is why I think your way is bad.
Its easy. Yep I said it. Its easy, no strike that its TOO easy. Don't feel like actually taking any risks? Well then just go out there and fight. No risk what so ever, no hard choices. Suddenly its not Batman and his non killing that are impressive because EVERYONE can do THAT. I think that if you want to 'take em all alive' (which is a laudable goal) then it should actually take some effort on the part of the hero. Not simply a blithe handwaved grant of immunity from all risk. Go out there and learn martial arts, get a reputation enough to make people surrender, get some non-lethal weapons....(oh wait...Be Batman....)

Gosh, you seem upset. Relax my brother. We're just kicking the can around here, it seems like nothing I'm going to say is going to change your mind and the thrust of my posts is to provide suggestions and solutions to GMs who are having problems with a specific issue.

It seems like you misunderstood me, deadpool is a different style of gaming. Some people have an interest in that kind of play. I'm highlighting the difference.

Now then, brute force dice mechanics means that someone will eventually fail a check. That's just how it is. Of course there is always a chance to fail, but tying a character cornerstone to a random dice roll drains roleplay from the game and it's a rule for a rule's sake.

Second, yeah I'm in it for the story, not the rolling dice bit. Game play and story arc should go hand in hand. The game rules should serve the story, and the story should conform to the game rules. The underlying problem is that Heroes Unlimited is Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying game under the hood and still reflect a fair bit of that fight to the death concepts we see in sword and sorcery games. But there is an easy fix. And funny enough, it's not just Batman, but Spider-man, Captain America most of the time, Daredevil most of the time (and I think they either ret-conned out his kills or they were set ups I didn't catch), the Flash when he isn't a evil clone thing... whatever. That represents the type of gaming this thread is trying to help sort out.

And in your final paragraph, you suggest doing exactly the same stuff I suggested back in my first post. Let me drop some knowledge on you.

Second, if you use weapons, look for weapons that are functional as non-lethal. For example, my Grey Fox character has a vast array of throwing knives. But by design, the blade section isn't long enough to find vital organs without an intentional throw (that is to say, I have to declare the kill shot). If you use guns, load them with tranquilizer rounds. Ask the GM for help on these things, you might be able to get away with a mystic sword that doesn't kill people. I once had a magic sword that was an energy blade, with E-throwing stars in place of energy blasts, and it did full damage to robots but only non-lethal to people. Why? Because I'm playing a hero, not killer.

-Snip-

Some GMs might be hung up on the rules for lethal combat and that 'pull punch' rule. We've had that problem too, but by taking the first aid skill (or it's superior versions) as an argument for how and why you know where not to punch.

See, so you're agreeing with me. Problem solved, now let be as friends again.

[guardiandashi]

I get that there are differences of opinion.
what I was suggesting as one possibility (and it can be done a number of ways) is to make it a little harder to kill for games where that is the intended goal.
I mean one way would be to have "mooks" aka non hero/villain chars have to make a will, morale or similar check at various points to keep fighting.
as a simple example: 100%-75% sdc no check required 75% to 50% say a 5-7 on D20 or higher succeeds (~25% fail rate) with if its a morale check modifiers may apply based on situation things like gang of 10+ vs 1 opponent gets a bonus for certain numbers if "leaders" are around if the joker is standing in the back cheering his hench men on they will be a lot less likely to surrender right away. if you are the last one standing after the "hero" has beaten up 20 guys that should IMO be a morale penalty to keep fighting, unless the "hero" looks like they are about to pass out as well..

at 50% to 25% sdc remaining make it a 10-12+ to keep fighting
at 25% to zero sdc remaining make it a 15-17+ to keep going
as soon as they start taking HP damage most mooks would likely immediately surrender ~20+ check

note I am not saying you HAVE to do it this way just tossing out ideas.

part of the problem with palladium as it stands is there don't seem to be good "defaults" to make combat NOT be a deathmatch battle to the death. even when for some (many heroes unlimited) campaigns especially that might be desireable

[glitterboy2098]

honestly, one big thing would be to use some logic as the GM.. getting shot hurts, getting stabbed/cut/pummelled by a melee weapon hurts. so why don't the rules require a save vs pain when you take SDC or HP damage? failing one of those would slow an opponent down a bit.. possibly even incapacitate them if your hitting HP.

would it mess up the players? yes. but a good GM can adjust for that. and it would allow you to add non-lethal aspects to what is otherwise lethal combat by the rules.

[Jefffar]

There are the pain rules in the Compendium of Modern Weapons - they tend to stop fights fast as nobody can do anything to each other after a couple of good hits.

[glitterboy2098]

kinda my point. in the official rules, there aren't such things. probably because palladium seems to like 'cinematic' fights where the heroes can take lethal wounds and still run around kicking rear.

but using pain rules (from CoMW or otherwise) not only makes combat less lethal because enemies are incapacitated easier.. but it would push the characters to avoid taking hits more, so you'd get more use of cover, armor, dodging, etc.

[Nightmask]

kinda my point. in the official rules, there aren't such things. probably because palladium seems to like 'cinematic' fights where the heroes can take lethal wounds and still run around kicking rear.

but using pain rules (from CoMW or otherwise) not only makes combat less lethal because enemies are incapacitated easier.. but it would push the characters to avoid taking hits more, so you'd get more use of cover, armor, dodging, etc.

I'm all for that, never been a fan of players just going 'pain? what's that?' and being able to keep going like a robot that unless you blow the character's leg off or headshot them or similar completely ignores injuries and acts without any regard to said risk of injury.

[The Artist Formerly]

@ Glitterboy and Guardian, the simple solution to that would be just to reduce badguy HP/SDC and use the reduction to count as a buffer rather then tool around with a mechanic. I did that for years back in the old revised HU days. I'd knock ten points off their Hit/SDC totals.

To use the mechanics suggested, then you the GM have even more numbers to track. Fight stats, hit points, SDC, weapons, ammo loads, attacks and positioning. If someone was knocked down or the order of combat was changed by an attack event (knock down or whatever) you have to track that. Add to that other moving parts (say a gunfight from a car window) or a shipping container full of hostages being moved from the dock side to position it could fall into the water...

Simplify it for yourselves. GMing a Palladium game is tough, there are a lot of details to keep a hold on. Heroes is the worst of them all because you have so many different power sources with so many different special rules and you're doing all of this for mooks.