Just how deadly is ..

[Lenwen]

Just how deadly is your Rifts game world ?

Everyone knows how deadly the Coalition "can be" if played right, but what about the other aspects of your Rifts world, how deadly do you play Rifts ?

[FluffyHK]

I tend to make it a sliding scale depending on the power level of the characters. I'm pretty liberal on OCC's and RCC's allowed, but the players know that the more power they have, the deadlier their foes will be, and the less forgiving combat will be.

[Alrik Vas]

Well, we've lost two characters within a month of sessios from each other, and my PC's aren't complete idiots, so I'd say it's pretty deadly.

They also got caught in the middle of a Mechanoid-Demon gang fight. Now they want to go to fight some Blood Druids...i mean, go to Europe. Lets see...giant kill you stuff everywhere. They take SDC damage pretty often THROUGH their armor because they get knocked around. A guy lost a leg to a gargoyle pretty fast...

A lucky hit kills you in my games, pretty much. Though it's generally just as lethal for the badguys.

[Natasha]

Not too deadly, but it can be. Usually it is just brutal; combat is slow and boring so I try to avoid it. Besides I prefer to give a different challenge. The challenges are teamwork and problem solving, denying the characters the sweet relief of death. The PCs’ opposition always has comparable power so a throw down just grinds them down; the only way to prevail over any challenge including combat is to be very well prepared for the challenge. It was successful in the last Rifts game I ran and they overcame great challenges to achieved great things. If they idle, they lose. Players become invested in the characters so unless they go out of their way to get them killed I’m not going out of my way to kill them.

[Lenwen]

Random magic 101 spell states the following.

Damage 1d6x10 +5 per level of the caster.

Does this mean, to you guys that the Caster levels up 1 level his spell damage is now 1d6x10 +10 or .. 2d6x10 +10 .. or any other way to possibly take it ?

My wife told me (she is a teacher) that the ( --> , <-- ) Comma is the be all end all that tells you everything you need to know about that spells listed damage. Being there is no comma between the 10 and the 5, that then means the entire line of text listed damage is upped rather then just the +5.

So she said, the listed damage per level increase would be as follows..

Level 1 Caster casts 1d6x10 , +5 per level then translates into (upon gaining a level) 1d6x10, +10. Because the Comma seperates the 10 / 5 only the 5 there for follows with the additional text.

Level 1 caster casts 1d6x10 +5 per level then translates into (upon gaining a level) 2d6x10 +10 because no comma is there to separate the text of the 10 and 5, there for the entire line gets upped when the caster ups his level.

Do you guys agree or disagree? And why please support your opinions.

[Natasha]

I tend to think the comma should be there even when it is not there. I think so because Palladium editing is not known for its attention to detail.

[Lenwen]

I tend to think the comma should be there even when it is not there. I think so because Palladium editing is not known for its attention to detail.

Ok understandable, but the fact remains, their lack of attention to detail, does not change that the entire text of damage is now increased overall , rather then just the +5 correct ?

Or do you simply say that the entire English language changes, due to lack of attention to detail on palladium's part ?

[Natasha]

I tend to think the comma should be there even when it is not there. I think so because Palladium editing is not known for its attention to detail.

Ok understandable, but the fact remains, their lack of attention to detail, does not change that the entire text of damage is now increased overall , rather then just the +5 correct ?

Or do you simply say that the entire English language changes, due to lack of attention to detail on palladium's part ?

Of course the language does not change. Just keeping the interpretation of the rules consistent.

[Eashamahel]

Pretty much anytime in Palladium you see '/level', you can assume it's the smallest number they are referring to. '1D6x10+5MD per additional level of experience', I can almost guarantee you that means that the '+5' goes up per level (+10 second level, +15 third level, ect), not the entire multiplier.

[Thinyser]

Depends. I like my players to survive (usually) but have enough "real danger" to feel that they're not getting a free ride.

If I want to kill one or more I use vampires. Swoop in as bats or mist, attack, turn to mist and flee for a min or two, recover then repeat. Keep this up until they are dead or are out of ammo and armor and on the cusp of giving up then "the horizon starts to brighten in the east, looks like you are saved by the bell".

[Alrik Vas]

Well, there are some things that are just incredibly deadly, though.

Like a caster with Superior Invis waiting in ambush to cast CoA, then his buddies in power armor pop and out paste the crap out of the targets. If they're land-based and/or can't teleport, they're making new characters.

[flatline]

Just how deadly is your Rifts game world ?

Everyone knows how deadly the Coalition "can be" if played right, but what about the other aspects of your Rifts world, how deadly do you play Rifts ?

Our games were always extremely deadly, but that's what we wanted. We were a bunch of power gamers who carefully planned and orchestrated things like kidnapping a death's head transport and everyone inside. Obviously, if things didn't go according to plan, it could get very bad very quickly.

I don't think we ever had a total party kill occur, but each player always had at least one backup character made up for each session. Our worst session was 2, maybe 3 PCs killed out of a party of 5 or 6.

--flatline

[Lenwen]

I tend to think the comma should be there even when it is not there. I think so because Palladium editing is not known for its attention to detail.

Ok understandable, but the fact remains, their lack of attention to detail, does not change that the entire text of damage is now increased overall , rather then just the +5 correct ?

Or do you simply say that the entire English language changes, due to lack of attention to detail on palladium's part ?

Of course the language does not change. Just keeping the interpretation of the rules consistent.

Ok, After going threw the entire spell description of the Book of Magic, threw all the invocations and other magic's that have Scaler Damage type of spells per level of exp, I have seen 18 Spells, that have scaler ability.

And I for one, do not think Palladium has in fact "Editing" problems via the spells damage listing. As I've seen the spell Meteor 1d6x10 , +2 per level of Exp actually shows the palladium staff in greater light then you mentioned earlier when it comes to damage. We again see the very specific editing skills in the spell Fire Fists 1d6 +1 additional MD per level of exp and again in the spell
Ley Line Tendril Bolts 2d6 - lvl 1. +1d6 per every two additional levels of Exp. (i.e. 2d6- lvl 1, 3d6- lvl 3, 4d6- lvl 5 5d6- lvl 7.)

I think the 1d6x10 +5 per level of exp, is correctly scaled up at 1d6x10+5, 2d6x10+10, 3d6x10+15 an so on an so on. As that is exactly how it is written. I neither take away nor add anything, but read the description as it is flat . Zero interpretation needed.

As you an other's can guess my Rifts magic system is VERY very deadly. True its not able to out range much tech, but the fact that they have spells listed as scaling as they should (as my opinion reads them, and canon material shows, it should) they are indeed VERY very powerful when needed.

[Killer Cyborg]

Depends on the players.
Traditionally very, very deadly. But I've been soft-balling it in more recent years.

[MaxxSterling]

Not really deadly at all. Never do S.D.C. ever. Everyone usually has hundreds of M.D.C. and have weapons that do between 1d6x10 and 3d6x10 continuously, but it all evens out in the long run. However, no punches are pulled and at any given moment they could die, but 99% of the time they know what can be handled and what can't and make it out alive.

[The Beast]

I tend to think the comma should be there even when it is not there. I think so because Palladium editing is not known for its attention to detail.

Ok understandable, but the fact remains, their lack of attention to detail, does not change that the entire text of damage is now increased overall , rather then just the +5 correct ?

Or do you simply say that the entire English language changes, due to lack of attention to detail on palladium's part ?

Of course the language does not change. Just keeping the interpretation of the rules consistent.

Ok, After going threw the entire spell description of the Book of Magic, threw all the invocations and other magic's that have Scaler Damage type of spells per level of exp, I have seen 18 Spells, that have scaler ability.

And I for one, do not think Palladium has in fact "Editing" problems via the spells damage listing. As I've seen the spell Meteor 1d6x10 , +2 per level of Exp actually shows the palladium staff in greater light then you mentioned earlier when it comes to damage. We again see the very specific editing skills in the spell Fire Fists 1d6 +1 additional MD per level of exp and again in the spell
Ley Line Tendril Bolts 2d6 - lvl 1. +1d6 per every two additional levels of Exp. (i.e. 2d6- lvl 1, 3d6- lvl 3, 4d6- lvl 5 5d6- lvl 7.)

I think the 1d6x10 +5 per level of exp, is correctly scaled up at 1d6x10+5, 2d6x10+10, 3d6x10+15 an so on an so on. As that is exactly how it is written. I neither take away nor add anything, but read the description as it is flat . Zero interpretation needed.

As you an other's can guess my Rifts magic system is VERY very deadly. True its not able to out range much tech, but the fact that they have spells listed as scaling as they should (as my opinion reads them, and canon material shows, it should) they are indeed VERY very powerful when needed.

First, book and page number of the spell you're looking at please. I'd like to review it more.

Second, it's still possible that the spell in question suffered an editing error the first time it was printed, and any subsequent printings were just cut-&-paste jobs. There's plenty of examples of this in PB's books.

Third, despite that, I'm currently agreeing with you. Though I find that the way the damage is scaling is odd, punctuation matters.

[Lenwen]

First, book and page number of the spell you're looking at please. I'd like to review it more.

Absolutely.
Ley Line Tendril Bolts 2d6 - lvl 1. +1d6 per every two additional levels of Exp. (i.e. 2d6- lvl 1, 3d6- lvl 3, 4d6- lvl 5 5d6- lvl 7.) BoM, pg 121.

Fire Fists 1d6 +1 additional MD per level of exp BoM, pg 162

Meteor 1d6x10 , +2 per level of Exp BoM, pg 135

I'm currently agreeing with you. Though I find that the way the damage is scaling is odd, punctuation matters.

When its a text based game system .. Punctuation is everything.

[Kagashi]

Personally, Id say the second level damage would be 1d6x10+10, but thats just me. That way damage levels are closer to what tech can do, which are more or less static. a 3rd level mage dealing 3d6x10+15 is just ridiculous. Of course, Glitter Boys do that 1000 times before reloading. A typical mage will only be able to do this like 10 times max before his PPE runs out, and taking 2 actions to cast.

However, it doesnt really matter if you play with the assumed comma, or the sans-comma rule...as long as both the NPCs and PCs are playing with the same rule. So when the players are obliterated by a seemingly unarmed man in a tavern...roll up a new character.

[Thinyser]

Random magic 101 spell states the following.

Damage 1d6x10 +5 per level of the caster.

Does this mean, to you guys that the Caster levels up 1 level his spell damage is now 1d6x10 +10 or .. 2d6x10 +10 .. or any other way to possibly take it ?

My wife told me (she is a teacher) that the ( --> , <-- ) Comma is the be all end all that tells you everything you need to know about that spells listed damage. Being there is no comma between the 10 and the 5, that then means the entire line of text listed damage is upped rather then just the +5.

So she said, the listed damage per level increase would be as follows..

Level 1 Caster casts 1d6x10 , +5 per level then translates into (upon gaining a level) 1d6x10, +10. Because the Comma seperates the 10 / 5 only the 5 there for follows with the additional text.

Level 1 caster casts 1d6x10 +5 per level then translates into (upon gaining a level) 2d6x10 +10 because no comma is there to separate the text of the 10 and 5, there for the entire line gets upped when the caster ups his level.

Do you guys agree or disagree? And why please support your opinions.

Your wife is correct that is how its written (though it wouldn't be 2d6x10+10 until 2nd level unless you start characters at 0 and make them earn level one but thats another debate)

However I agree with Natasha that I question whether this was a typo that was never corrected and would have to see the specific spell to say how I would rule as a GM. IF its a really high level spell and costs a lot of PPE then it might be meant to be that way however most spells do not double in damage every level or even every other level. Do they have some minor increase with level increases? Sure lots do, but not to the extend of going from 1d6x10+5 at level one to 5d6x10+25 at level 5. That almost assuredly should be treated like a mistake on PB editor's part and treated as "1d6x10, +5/level" instead.

just my two cents though

[Alrik Vas]

+5 damage per level is how it works in palladium. This system is, unfortunately, one that you cannot rely upon to get things like English correct all the time.

[Natasha]

I tend to think the comma should be there even when it is not there. I think so because Palladium editing is not known for its attention to detail.

Ok understandable, but the fact remains, their lack of attention to detail, does not change that the entire text of damage is now increased overall , rather then just the +5 correct ?

Or do you simply say that the entire English language changes, due to lack of attention to detail on palladium's part ?

Of course the language does not change. Just keeping the interpretation of the rules consistent.

Ok, After going threw the entire spell description of the Book of Magic, threw all the invocations and other magic's that have Scaler Damage type of spells per level of exp, I have seen 18 Spells, that have scaler ability.

And I for one, do not think Palladium has in fact "Editing" problems via the spells damage listing. As I've seen the spell Meteor 1d6x10 , +2 per level of Exp actually shows the palladium staff in greater light then you mentioned earlier when it comes to damage. We again see the very specific editing skills in the spell Fire Fists 1d6 +1 additional MD per level of exp and again in the spell
Ley Line Tendril Bolts 2d6 - lvl 1. +1d6 per every two additional levels of Exp. (i.e. 2d6- lvl 1, 3d6- lvl 3, 4d6- lvl 5 5d6- lvl 7.)

I think the 1d6x10 +5 per level of exp, is correctly scaled up at 1d6x10+5, 2d6x10+10, 3d6x10+15 an so on an so on. As that is exactly how it is written. I neither take away nor add anything, but read the description as it is flat . Zero interpretation needed.

As you an other's can guess my Rifts magic system is VERY very deadly. True its not able to out range much tech, but the fact that they have spells listed as scaling as they should (as my opinion reads them, and canon material shows, it should) they are indeed VERY very powerful when needed.

A Fireball in Nightbane game does “5D6 plus 1D6 per level of experience”. In other words, it does 6D6 per level of experience, so a second level mage is doing 12D6 damage and a third level mage is doing 18D6 and so forth. And it will hit you unless you roll a natural 18, 19, or 20.

[Dog_O_War]

I pull no punches. It's up to my players to decide if they're gonna survive or not. Does that make for a deadly game? Potentially.

[Eashamahel]

My games are situationally deadly, in that I will create events that threaten PCs lives, but won't relentlessly pursue the kill, usually introducing some intervening event to prevent what would otherwise be inevitable.

For example, in one of my last ongoing campaigns, the PCs, which were a Juicer (with Juicer Plate, a Vibro Knife and an SDC Shotgun), a Cyber-Knight (with CS heavy armour and no weapons) and a Techno-Wizard (no armour, TW laser Rifle) were ambushed by a Splugorth Slaver. Clearly in this instance it would take little difficulty for the Slaver to just bomb them out of existence with damage, easy kills, but instead the NPC Slaver attempted to capture the least dangerous (instead of hitting the Techno-Wizard with, say, Call Lightning, it went for a magic net, wind rush, and Befuddle) and fight the others with appropriate attacks, which meant attacks that matched the threat.

Later in the same battle, after refusing to back down, our Cyber Knight was hit with a Call Lightning that COULD have killed him, and indeed everyone thought it had, until he remembered his Cyber Armour (and was lucky enough for it to matter). That easily could have gone the other way, but averages said he survived. Now, the Slaver COULD have just done it again and killed him for sure... but that was when NPC intervention came in, someone else chose that minute to attack the barge, and the PC's were saved.


To put it into perhaps the best perspective, in RIFTS, there is no reason NOT to throw kicks (1D8) all the time, as they do more damage than punches (1D6) or elbows (1D4), and there is not downside to them. Every attack SHOULD be a kick, and if it was, the world would be much more deadly, but in my games it rarely is, since even though the mechanics of the game don't support it, the storytelling aspect causes me (and others, though sometimes it takes the PCs a while to get into the flow of it all) to use other attacks. Maybe an NPC and character end up in a clinch, pushing and pulling each other, with the NPC throwing elbows, punches, and the occasional kick as a dramatic attack, drawing out the combat (even though, again, there is no mechanical reason it should go that way), as opposed to the NPC just using kicks (which is how, from a pure-mechanics perspective they should act) to do the most damage in the fewest attacks.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

To put it into perhaps the best perspective, in RIFTS, there is no reason NOT to throw kicks (1D8) all the time, as they do more damage than punches (1D6) or elbows (1D4), and there is not downside to them. Every attack SHOULD be a kick, and if it was, the world would be much more deadly, but in my games it rarely is, since even though the mechanics of the game don't support it, the storytelling aspect causes me (and others, though sometimes it takes the PCs a while to get into the flow of it all) to use other attacks. Maybe an NPC and character end up in a clinch, pushing and pulling each other, with the NPC throwing elbows, punches, and the occasional kick as a dramatic attack, drawing out the combat (even though, again, there is no mechanical reason it should go that way), as opposed to the NPC just using kicks (which is how, from a pure-mechanics perspective they should act) to do the most damage in the fewest attacks.

This is the same reason that i dont have CS grunts spraying pulse bursts from the CP-40s all over the countryside - because it just doesn't make sense that they would do so, even though there is no game-mechanical reason not to. They are professional soldiers - they practice fire discipline and (despite, game-mechanically, the "closer" distance not mattering until you close to under 50ft) dont toggle to pulses until they are closer and less likely to miss.

Its not about just pasting the PCs, otherwise NPCs would always fire pulses and bursts, and always target the guys in the lightest armor with the heaviest weapons. But that isn't fun, in most cases.

[Eashamahel]

A good example of that is in the use of mini-missiles, and even NON-mini missiles.

Enemies in robots/power armour are unlikely to respond to immediate threat with a burst of ten mini-missiles, even though there is no mechanical reason why they shouldn't. They have the missiles, the PCs are a threat to their lives, missiles cost less than buying a resurrection, ect, but if the PCs are 'infantry' level threats, the enemies use their 'anti-infantry' weapons on them (at least at first), even if said anti-'infantry' weapons are actually woefully poor at that task (3D6MD), and the anti-armour weapons would be a better choice (1D4x10 or higher). Mechanically it's wrong, but that has more to do with the mechanics being screwy than the game not being run correctly (in my opinion).

I read a note in a RIFTS book recently (though i forget which one) about a giant robot and an un-armed PC, and how the robot could easily just blast the PC into nothing, but since the single character is such a small threat, perhaps the robot chooses to just try and stomp on them, and that works... as long as their is the suspension of disbelief and people are willing to play to the theme, and not to the system. In reality, that 20ft+ robot probably does 7MD/stomp, meaning that it would have to stomp on a random PC in medium armour nearly a dozen times to kill them... which is clearly ridiculous, but as long as the Players have their character's REACT as if it is the threat it is supposed to be, it works.

If Players have their characters use 'infantry' weapons against infantry, even though the actual damage/armour means they are better off using heavy weapons or bursts of mini-missiles to kill random individuals in medium armour, the game works a lot better. When people look too deep, that's when the 'why does my giant robot only do the damage of your rifle's short burst?' and 'anything doing below 6D6MD is terrible' comes in, and those observations aren't wrong, from the mechanical perspective. RIFTS benefits, again, from significant suspension of disbelief. Even if you KNOW your character is in no danger when he is being shot at by that anti-infantry weapon, if your react as if they are, it all works better.

[Alrik Vas]

Another case in point for this, i had my group of 5 characters fight a single Predator Power Armor. None of them had anti-armor weapons. They were basically taking aimed shots, trying to disable it's weapons and engines.

During the course of the fight, the armor left their range, reassessed his threats, then let loose with his plasma missiles, nearly killing two PC's. (they dodged for half damage, one guy lost his horse though). Unfortunately for him, when he looped around into the air, the last character, who was separated from the rest at the time, picked him out and managed a shot that finished off one of his engines, so he had to retreat.

[flatline]

Something overlooked is that a robot pilot doesn't know the future. He has to worry about surviving not just the current encounter, but also any encounter that might come after that. If he uses up all his missiles while fighting a handful of infantry, then if he's later engaged by another robot or aircraft, he'll have to fight them without the missiles. So, unless the robot pilot knows that he'll have a chance to top off his consumables, he will feel motivated to use weapons against the infantry that aren't constrained by ammo. Of course, if he starts to lose, his concern for preserving ammo for the next fight will be overridden by his need to survive the current fight.

Or maybe the robot pilot has to pay for any ammo consumed (or is otherwise penalized for unnecessary consumption).

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

These are also important factors, especially for PC's. Though many NPC's are part of organizations that supply (assuming the work is profitable) their men, so it isn't always a large issue. That doesn't mean it can't factor in, though.

[Eashamahel]

It can factor in, and it should, but it won't always.

If you consider economics, it's likely that using your most powerful weapons FIRST to end the encounter as quickly as possible is the MOST economic solution. Whereas the robot may be able to fire its 3D6 laser forever with no additional cost, by prolonging the fight, it is increasing it's chances to take damage, and that damage repair likely costs more than if it just had of, say, STARTED with a half dozen mini-missiles or whatever other attack was guaranteed to end the encounter. At hundreds to THOUSANDS of credits per point of MDC to be repaired, alpha-strike is best, economy wise.

This is all actually one of the reasons I've likely never put my players against a GB. Of course you can ambush him, get him when he's out of armour, beat him with magic, ect, but you can only 'fight' a GB so many times without actually fighting it before it gets kind of silly, and when the actual fight comes in, the GB doesn't HAVE any 'story' weapons to use, just one effective gun.

[Crow Splat]

My games can get really deadly really quick. My players are sometimes confronted by something they should run from (I usually drop some not so subtle hints when this is the case) and I encourage them to do more in combat than just shoot until it's dead every time. Basically I make it clear that if your vagabond gets in a shortcut with the superSAMAS then I will have no problem killing you.

I do cut them breaks on random stuff occasionally though. Like if you get caught by a critical hit volley of 4 mini-missiles that will kill you on my first action of combat, I may say that that hit destroys your weapon and shreds your armor and maybe gives you some kind of negative, but you are still alive.

[Alrik Vas]

Daaaawww, you're just a big softie.

[Mack]

+5 damage per level is how it works in palladium. This system is, unfortunately, one that you cannot rely upon to get things like English correct all the time.

Agreed.

[random_username]

spells listed damage

When getting into an issue of how much damage a spell might do (whether a typo or whatever) its often good to have a basic list of reference spells. Then any technical aspects of a particular spell can be regarded via an appropriate base context.

INVOCATIONS/REGULAR SPELLS (WITH POSSIBLE ELEMENTAL VERSIONS): Rifts Ultimate Edition and Book Of Magic.

Lightblade (7th, RUE; also 4th Air BoM for less PPE) Can be one of the most effective ongoing damage spells available to caster though its limited to melee combat.

Sorcerous Fury (8th, BoM) Tends to make a great baseline for the most efficient and effective overall damaging spells (damage is per single attack once cast) including range, PP bonus to strike, and WP Targeting bonus to strike.

Desiccate the Supernatural (9th, RUE) Quick basic damage on par with Boom Gun with a limitation to the types of affected creatures.

Annihilate (14th, BoM) Ideal reference for inherently maximum raw damage from an invocation/basic/standard caster spell (see Earthquake for higher non-standard) as well as reduced PPE costs for specialist caster types.


ELEMENTAL SPELLS: Book Of Magic (or original Conversion Book One but NOT Revised).

Tornado (8th, Air, BoM) Ongoing AOE immobilization and some damage = target practice with minor penalties to strike. Note the restrictions on inflicting MD. Can be viable for salvage efforts and called shots.

Earthquake (7th, Earth, BoM) Ongoing huge AOE damage along a long line (especially since spell level is generally minimum level to cast). Ideal with Superior Invisibility/Equivalent vs long lines of troops like the Glitterboy Legion firing lines. Roll one above average to wipe out GB line.

River of Lava (7th, Earth or Fire, BoM) Ongoing AOE most effective against purely ground units with no swimming or climbing abilities (or hovering/flying).

Whirlpool (5th, Water, BoM) Interesting ongoing AOE limited to Water and Underwater usage cast for 1 action.


OTHER SPECIALTY MAGIC TYPES: Book Of Magic = reprinted from World Book 14: New West, 18:Mystic Russia, etc.

Bonfire of Expulsion (7th, Living Fire, W18:Mystic Russia & BoM) Along with most living fire magic make excellent references for the extremes to which saving throws versus magic can reach due to the inherent nature of the magic or spell (beyond simply having no saving throw like Call Lightning:6th, RUE).

Cloud Magic - Type (BoM, W14:New West) Another type of magic that is good to note for inherently imposing saving throw penalties.


SPELLS OF LEGEND: Book Of Magic.

Viscous Circle (Spell of Legend, BoM) Mainly vs body armor/power armor/vehicle ground units however since most casters will be at least 15th and quite possibly as high as 30th (Ancient Dragons, etc) its important to note the damage if the save fails. Note possible typo on damage on damage line vs description. Since this is a Spell of Legend it is far more likely to be the per level version.

Blood and Thunder (Spell of Legend, BoM) Essentially Sorcerous Fury cast upon multiple willing recipient casters enabling low level or minimal PPE/casting ability caster types to function at the full power of this spell.


Many other spells could be considered but these tend to be a few solid references.

[Noon]

Somewhat like discussion of play in source book 1 I use the capacity to escape method.

The players usually have about two, sometimes three chances to retreat.

And players have lost characters because they did not back off at that point.

I'm not sure how you rate that in deadlyness.