Hi all, the following arises from an email discussion I was having regarding whether or not injuries should carry penalties in games. Basically, because of differing assumptions about the relevance of rules to a situation, I had an in-game result I was unhappy with and which was contrary to what I wanted from the game I was running.

Basically, in my CoC game, a character was stabbed in the stomach with such force that he was thrown bodily backwards. The context is that he and a friend have gone to a deserted spot to meet with a potential contact, have seen something potentially unearthly and have then been ambushed by a burly assailant with a knife. The assailant is tremendously strong (although not inhumanly so) and damn near disembowels the character with a rapid thrust from his knife.

Historically in our group, players have always RPed their injuries in these situations. This player hasn't really played CoC with us before and has a different approach to gaming to some degree. His view was, and I pretty much quote, "I still have 5 hit points left, so I'm not on any penalties am I? I pick up the walking stick and attack him."

For me, this was a real problem. It was ludicrous as an outcome, his character had no combat experience or ability. He had been hurled backwards, brutally stabbed, was severely injured and was acting like he was in a Bruce Willis movie. I could of course have made a
ruling preventing him but not having raised the topic in advance this would have seemed like using GM fiat to control player actions I think. Since he was playing by the rules as written it would just be me saying, no you can't do that because I don't like it.

So, I let him do it. But, it killed the credibility of the game for me to an extent. Now, of course, the real problem was that I hadn't thought to discuss the fact that I expected people to assume penalties and RP them in situations like that even where the rules don't provide for them. But it was also, IMO, a rules problem. Applying the rules as written led to a
bizarre result.

I should stress, I don't think the player behaved badly. He acted in accordance with the rules of the game, which I had not modified. No discussion had taken place about how that kind of situation should be resolved, the mistake was mine.

Two questions. Firstly, it occurred to me that this might well be an example of GNS at work. His assumption, G in my view, was that the rules of the game set out how the situation could be resolved and that in following those he was behaving appropriately. My assumption, S I think, was that he should do what was realistic in the circumstances regardless of whether a specific rule addressed the point or not. Am I missing something? Is this an example of a GNS disjunct in action?

Second question, we can't hope to discuss every element of the social contract in advance. Things will always come up which you hadn't thought of. So, how would you have dealt with the situation? Or am I right in thinking that by the time it occurred it was already to late to fix without breaking the game?

Thanks,

Max

Hey Max,

I've seen that exact problem a bunch before. Yep, this was definitely a GNS issue, IMO, and one that you have probably described exactly.

While you cannot discuss every point in the social contract, you can easily discuss GNS. And since that is the cause of so much of the potential problems that occur, it should almost certainly be discussed (even if you leave the jargon out). Especially with new players who's preferred style is unknown.

If it gets to the point where the problem occurs, the damage is done and probably cannot be erased. Future problems can be prevented by discussion. Ask the player if they would drift to Sim to accomodate the other players and yourself. If the player refuses, then you face the tough choice.

The other option in this case would be to have played with a more Simulationist rules set. CoC, while Sim in many ways, still has some Gamist holdovers, like Hit Points. Interstingly, I only play Cthulhu with GURPS, these days (using some specialized Will and Sanity rules). Precisely because it is more coherently Simulationist than CoC (less incoherent, to use the phraseology). Try shrugging off a knife blow to the vitals in GURPS. If you eally want "realistic' add the optional rules for combat paralysis and "buck fever".

Mike

To answer your first question, this sounds like a lack of Social Contract. You entered the game with two different ideas on how things should play. It's also an issue of System not supporting your goals during play. In raw System terms, the PC was entirely appropriate, since the System doesn't prevent this.

It boils down to: Your System is promoting your play desires. You could fix this on a case-by-case basis. Next session, introduce rules that provide penalties for injuries. Or you could address the matter in a sweeping manner with an explicit Social Contract: Make sure everyone's on the same page, concoct some way to arbitrate disputes, and allow for refining of the System (CoC the System promotes CoC, not realism).

Second question: Yeah, it sounds like there's two different goals. But it doesn't sound Gamist or Sim, it sounds like a System problem. With a Sim goal, you're still operating within the rules. Your player may simply use the rules to simulate how he thinks the CoC universe works. Remember that Gamist design/play is competition. If you play to simulate your idea of the CoC world, and he's placing competition (i.e., PC survival as "winning") above that, you've got differences.

If you're both trying to emulate a sort of ideal CoC universe, then you simply need to hammer out how the universe should work.

To sum it up: Discussions before & after play are good, and since you're not immediately blaming your player (don't blame yourself either!), you're off to a good start. CoC's System doesn't support everyone's idea of how the game should be played, and I'd suggest you either invent a new System or allow (with agreement among your gaming group) changes to the CoC System to further your group's playing goals.

I include as part of my social contract with my players that wounded or traumatized characters act like wounded or traumatized characters as part of the narrative, regardless of the system we are running.

In your specific case, I would have simply said, "No. You're character is in considerable pain." It helps, especially with games like CoC, to add a lot of detail into your own, GM narrative. Help the players appreciate their character's dilema by describing the sensations of being stabbed, what they see, hear, feel, experience, etc. Its a lot harder to argue with:

"Suddenly there's a looming shape before you. Then without warning, you experienced a terrible blinding pain your stomach. You are lifted up by the force of the impact and sent crashing into the wall. Your head cracks against the wood paneling and the world goes red as you crumple upon the carpeting. Your gut is still searing with pain and you can feel the blood soaking through your shirt to pool against you upon the rug."

than to argue with

"Suddenly this big guy stands in front of you and stabs you in the gut. You go flying into the wall ten feet back. Take 5 points of damage."

Laurel wrote: Help the players appreciate their character's dilema by describing the sensations of being stabbed, what they see, hear, feel, experience, etc. Its a lot harder to argue with:

"Suddenly there's a looming shape before you. Then without warning, you experienced a terrible blinding pain your stomach. You are lifted up by the force of the impact and sent crashing into the wall. Your head cracks against the wood paneling and the world goes red as you crumple upon the carpeting. Your gut is still searing with pain and you can feel the blood soaking through your shirt to pool against you upon the rug."

than to argue with

"Suddenly this big guy stands in front of you and stabs you in the gut. You go flying into the wall ten feet back. Take 5 points of damage."