Unarmed Combat and Convoluted Rules: A Non-Fantasy Perspective

Tabletop role-playing games (RPGs) offer a rich tapestry of rules and mechanics to create immersive narratives. In a recent discussion, a non-fantasy tabletop setting prompted discussions about unarmed combat and the unusual scenario of a character convulsing after being knocked out. This article explores the nuances of such situations, examining the rules and their implications.

Unarmed Combat in a Non-Fantasy Setting

In a non-fantasy RPG setting, characters engage in unarmed combat without the use of weapons, relying solely on their physical skills and strength. This setting requires a more grounded and realistic approach to combat, making the handling of such unusual scenarios a point of contention.

Convolutions and the Merciless Mercy

A common question in non-fantasy settings is what to do when a character is knocked out and convulsing. In the described scenario, the convulsing character is completely at the mercy of the opponent. If the victorious combatant decides to beat the unconscious character to death, there is no need for further rolls; the character is dead.

Some dungeon masters (DMs) allow any melee attack on an unconscious individual to be automatically successful with max damage, citing realism. While this may appear logical, such an approach deviates from the standard rules of 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. The objective is to make the game more realistic, but such an interpretation can be seen as disingenuous.

Debating the Rules

The debate surrounding such scenarios is intense, with many arguing against such automatic successes. The following are some perspectives:

Allowing Automatic Hits with Max Damage

This approach is often taken by DMs who wish to create a more realistic and dynamic combat experience. The reasoning is that an unconscious character is defenseless, and the victor has the upper hand. However, this can be perceived as a lack of transparency in the rules, as the standard 5th Edition rules do not support this specific scenario.

A common justification is that it can make the game more exciting by allowing the victor to deliver a decisive blow. However, this can also lead to situations where the outcome is predetermined, reducing the element of surprise and skill.

Disapproving of Automatic Hits

Not all DMs agree with automatic hits or max damage. They argue that such a rule is disingenuous and undermines the integrity of the game. A character who has lost a fight should not have the chance to win, even through convulsions. This perspective emphasizes the importance of transparency and fairness in the rules.

One critic stated: "It's disingenuous. This is an attempt to find some way for a character who lost a fight to actually win it and you're attempting to disguise it as some more accurate modeling of reality. No decent GM would even entertain this notion and if anyone suggested this in one of my games I’d seriously consider telling them to find another table."

Alternatives and Small Chances

Many RPG enthusiasts suggest a more nuanced approach. Instead of automatic hits with max damage, a roll could be allowed. This could introduce a small chance for the convulsing character to dodge or avoid further attacks. A critical miss could result in a normal miss, while any other roll could lead to a coup de grace. This approach maintains the realistic and dynamic nature of the game while ensuring that the outcome is not predetermined.

The idea is to provide a minimal chance for the unconscious character to survive or avoid further harm, making the decision more challenging and engaging for both the DM and the players.

Conclusion

The handling of convulsions and unconscious characters in non-fantasy settings of tabletop RPGs can be complex and controversial. While some DMs opt for automatic hits with max damage, others argue for more transparent and realistic rules. A balanced approach, such as allowing rolls with small chances, can enhance the game's realism and dynamism. Ultimately, the decision rests with the DM, who should consider the preferences and playstyle of the group.