TNE: Skills?

[RandomCasualty]

1204612746[/unixtime]]You do need Chase Rules. nWoD has Chase Rules which are bad, D&D has no chase rules and that's even worse.

But getting away should be something as exciting and filled with peril as standing and fighting. Otherwise you just get into a situation where nobody ever runs from combat, like in D&D where you can't get away from 90% of the monsters anyhow.

How would you write good chase rules? I mean, it seems almost like if the monsters are faster than you, that you basically can't outrun them. You're just not going to be able to outrun a wolf on foot while wearing full plate, and I don't know how you'd change that (or if you'd even want to).

[Crissa]

I don't have to outrun the wolf.

I only have to outrun you.

-Crissa

[Manxome]

1204661434[/unixtime]]Why? It's a chase scene mini-game, not the climax of a race movie. I think that variety in chase scenes comes from the participants and the environment. I mean, if you're being chased by a man on a Dire Bat, he's not going to be impressed at all by how big a gap you can jump over; but if you go into the sewer, the guy has to get off his bat to follow you; and if there are no sewers, you might have to release the stock of a bird-seller to distract the bat; and if there's no bird-seller, well, you'll have to think of something else. I don't think the mini-game needs any more depth than that.

And this mini-game is going to have specialized rules for how bird-sellers interact with dire bats? And the DM is expected to decide whether there's a bird seller on this particular street, and that seemingly-arbitrary decision is going to dramatically swing the odds of the chase? What you described doesn't sound like a mini-game, it sounds like magical tea-party and DM fiat.

A much more plausible-sounding scenario would be if you make a wisdom gambit to find "something" that can distract/upset "a mount," and if you succeed, the DM narrates it as releasing a bird-seller's stock to distract the dire bat. That's a level of abstraction where you could actually write general rules, and expect people to learn and use them, and establish some kind of balance.

But either you're doing "a generic [stat] gambit"--in which case every chase is going to be pretty much the same, apart from the narration--or you're using your special "distract enemy mount" gambit that only works against mounted pursuers, targets your pursuer's ride skill, and gives him the choice of either soaking the distance loss and making a save to avoid the "recalcitrant mount" status or abandoning his mount to continue the chase...which is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about.

But that gambit still isn't dependent on the dire bat and the bird-seller, specifically, because that's way more special cases than a sane rules set can handle; you'd use the same ability (maybe with a different modifier) to scare off horses by setting something on fire or confuse a shark by releasing a screen of bubbles, if those were circumstantially appropriate.

And I would probably separately quantify the prey's lead and the pursuer's knowledge of the prey's location (so you can tactically differentiate cover/tracking from distance, and the guy on the dire bat can choose to try to follow you above-ground when you duck into the sewers, risking losing you to avoid the mount/distance loss). Being farther away generally makes you harder to track, and concealing your position makes you harder to follow.

1204661434[/unixtime]]And what do these obstacles effectively do besides lengthen or shorten the lead?

Incentivise or disincentivise various actions the pursuer can take.

For example, maybe the pursuer always has the option of running straight after the target or trying to find a shortcut to cut him off (more risky, and possibly sacrifices some knowledge of the target's location/route). If the prey tips over a fruit stand as he runs by, that makes running after him harder, which will ultimately result in a distance increase if the pursuer continues straight after him--but the pursuer has the option to ignore this penalty if he decides to try the shortcut strategy.

This way, the mini-game involves trade-offs, evaluating the circumstances, guessing your opponents' stats and decisions, and other such tactical considerations instead of just rolling your highest stat three times.

[Jacob_Orlove]

Can the chase rules also include a system for Tracking people that actually works (especially one where both parties are on the move, but hours or days apart)? I've never seen that kind of scene not handwaved.

[Maxus]

1204662521[/unixtime]]

1204612746[/unixtime]]You do need Chase Rules. nWoD has Chase Rules which are bad, D&D has no chase rules and that's even worse.

But getting away should be something as exciting and filled with peril as standing and fighting. Otherwise you just get into a situation where nobody ever runs from combat, like in D&D where you can't get away from 90% of the monsters anyhow.

How would you write good chase rules? I mean, it seems almost like if the monsters are faster than you, that you basically can't outrun them. You're just not going to be able to outrun a wolf on foot while wearing full plate, and I don't know how you'd change that (or if you'd even want to).

Well, let's see. If you're doing a chase, you want it to be exciting. So you're most likely going to need obstacles and ways to interact with your environment, depending on if you're the one running from something or not.

You could probably do a dice-rolling look-up table for each of the general environments (wilderness, indoors, city streets) that can be modified. A good chase involves:

1) A setting.
2) Ways to get ahead and ways to catch up
3) Obstacles
4) Ways to avoid them.

So you could have it be a dice-rolling minigame where the rolls define the environment and just say that the chase lasts for X-number of rounds, and have players roll successful saves to, say, jump over the spilled melons without losing speed, attempt to lose their persuers in the crowd, and roll a 1 to be foiled by the Ancient and Loyal Brotherhood of Two Men Carrying a Big Glass Sheet Across A Street.

[JonSetanta]

One could go faster than their foe.. or hide.

D&D has rules for Hide. They don't work well, but they are there.

Chase rules should develop from similar use of opposed checks or DCs, entirely from pre-existing source.
Question is, which ability scores, skills, or numeric modifiers should apply?

[Maxus]

1204663860[/unixtime]]One could go faster than their foe.. or hide.

D&D has rules for Hide. They don't work well, but they are there.

Chase rules should develop from similar use of opposed checks or DCs, entirely from pre-existing source.
Question is, which ability scores, skills, or numeric modifiers should apply?

I guess you could have Dexterity modify your running speed (+5 feet per point of bonus?) or your maneuverability (ability to change direction quickly and without losing speed) and have Con be involved in how long you can keep it going.

Both Dexterity and Strength would be useful in going through a crowd. The dexterous person dodges around people and keeps going, the big strong guy just runs people over.

Hm.

That seems to suggest that there's multiple ways to approach each action. You could spot an upcoming feature, and Int or Wis could tell you if you could use it.

And you'd probably need to keep a running tally of how much ground you've lost or gained, until you're close enough you can attempt to apprehend the person.

Assuming you're the one chasing somebody, of course.

[angelfromanotherpin]

And this mini-game is going to have specialized rules for how bird-sellers interact with dire bats? And the DM is expected to decide whether there's a bird seller on this particular street, and that seemingly-arbitrary decision is going to dramatically swing the odds of the chase? What you described doesn't sound like a mini-game, it sounds like magical tea-party and DM fiat.

My examples involved specific flavor, but the maneuvers themselves would be standardized.

A much more plausible-sounding scenario would be if you make a wisdom gambit to find "something" that can distract/upset "a mount," and if you succeed, the DM narrates it as releasing a bird-seller's stock to distract the dire bat. That's a level of abstraction where you could actually write general rules, and expect people to learn and use them, and establish some kind of balance.

Yes, exactly. This is what I meant, except that some situations (enemy can fly) prevent you from trying certain gambits (jump over gap), and others (low-resource areas) prevent you from trying other gambits (distract mount).

1204661434[/unixtime]]And what do these obstacles effectively do besides lengthen or shorten the lead?

Incentivise or disincentivise various actions the pursuer can take.

For example, maybe the pursuer always has the option of running straight after the target or trying to find a shortcut to cut him off (more risky, and possibly sacrifices some knowledge of the target's location/route). If the prey tips over a fruit stand as he runs by, that makes running after him harder, which will ultimately result in a distance increase if the pursuer continues straight after him--but the pursuer has the option to ignore this penalty if he decides to try the shortcut strategy.

I look at it from another direction. The 'improvised barrier' gambit targets a defense - like any other attack. If it's successful, the pursuer has lost ground, which he can try to make up with his next gambit.

Now, you could create a large matrix of bonuses and penalties based on appropriate counter-strategies, but that strikes me as leaving the realm of the mini-game. Honestly, a good counter should be worth the same sort of +2 circumstance bonus people get for minor tactical advantages in combat, and leave it at that.

This way, the mini-game involves trade-offs, evaluating the circumstances, guessing your opponents' stats and decisions, and other such tactical considerations instead of just rolling your highest stat three times.

Okay, I'll try again. The reason you don't roll your highest stat three times is that sometimes you can't. If you can, then do it, and it's the other guy's problem to get clever about.

[CatharzGodfoot]

How is 'Chase going to be invoked? i can imagine that there are times when you want to smoothly transition from chasing to fighting to chasing again.

So it can't be a "mini-game" any more than combat is a "mini-game". I can see something as simple as more variability in the distance covered with an 'all-out run' (standard+move), and spend your simple/minor/swift action on the gambit.

So you can use gambits in combat when they apply, and you can chase one round and fight the next.

So you can use the most basic gambit, sprint, which gives a small boost to your distance while lowering your saves. You can make a region of difficult terrain, but that slows you a bit.

[Manxome]

1204664661[/unixtime]]Okay, I'll try again. The reason you don't roll your highest stat three times is that sometimes you can't. If you can, then do it, and it's the other guy's problem to get clever about.

But why can't you? You seem to be trying to handwave that detail away, but that's probably the single largest tactical element to the whole chase scene.

Is it because the DM decided there isn't a bird-seller on this street? That's seems way too specific and arbitrary.

Is it maybe because your opponent used the "find another route" gambit last round, rendering himself immune to gambits with the [obstacle] tag and vulnerable to gambits with the [misdirection] tag?

I don't think we're that far off in how we envision the chase scene playing out, just in how it's abstracted.

[angelfromanotherpin]

But why can't you? You seem to be trying to handwave that detail away, but that's probably the single largest tactical element to the whole chase scene.

Because sometimes the person chasing you is riding a Dire Bat. I just went over this.

If your highest stat is Strength, and the Strength options are 'jump over a gap' and 'improvise an obstacle,' then it's a waste of time to try either of them, because the bat doesn't care about either of them.

Is it because the DM decided there isn't a bird-seller on this street? That's seems way too specific and arbitrary.

In a fight, some environments have cover and some don't. If they don't, you can't take cover. Is that too arbitrary?

My thought is that if the set-up for the chase establishes a resource-rich environment, you can try to find birds (or pork chops, or whatever) and use them, and if it establishes a resource-poor environment, you can't even try; but if you can try, then you make the roll, and if the roll succeeded, there were birds (or pork chops) and if the roll failed, then maybe there weren't birds, or maybe you couldn't get at them or maybe you could but the mount ignored them, but however it happened, you failed and don't get to increase your lead.

Is it maybe because your opponent used the "find another route" gambit last round, rendering himself immune to gambits with the [obstacle] tag and vulnerable to gambits with the [misdirection] tag?

I don't think we're that far off in how we envision the chase scene playing out, just in how it's abstracted.

I agree, and since that's just a matter of taste, I don't think it can be solved with debate.

[Manxome]

1204672529[/unixtime]]

I don't think we're that far off in how we envision the chase scene playing out, just in how it's abstracted.

I agree, and since that's just a matter of taste,

[angelfromanotherpin]

What? I want more abstraction, you want less. That's a matter of taste. Neither of us has the final word on what's going to be included in any case. I'd like to hear some other people weigh in on the matter.

[Manxome]

I said how it's abstracted, not how much it's abstracted.

Even the "how much" is tremendously important--how many games have had the fun sucked out of them because "[some task] is basically a crapshoot" or "there are too many fiddly rules"? I won't argue that different people tolerate different amounts of complexity, but that doesn't mean the designers don't need to worry about making it consistent across the game (so that someone likes the game as a whole) and not doing outright stupid things (going way off in one direction or the other, adding complexity without depth, simplifying to the point of triviality).

And your examples actually give me the impression that you want less abstraction, not more, than I do. You seem to want less complexity, but you're the one that keeps describing the chase by saying things like "he's riding a dire bat" instead of "he's got flight capability," and never providing any clear correspondence between your narration and any actual mechanics. I believe you also suggested that variation should come from all the specific details of the scene and the participants rather than any actual tactical depth in the basic rules.

I suspect we'd disagree rather less if you were making any clear mechanical suggestions. I actually have very little idea at this point what you actually think you want, except that you're apparently convinced it's totally unlike whatever I suggest.

[angelfromanotherpin]

1204686237[/unixtime]]I said how it's abstracted, not how much it's abstracted.

Oops, my bad.

And your examples actually give me the impression that you want less abstraction, not more, than I do. You seem to want less complexity, but you're the one that keeps describing the chase by saying things like "he's riding a dire bat" instead of "he's got flight capability," and never providing any clear correspondence between your narration and any actual mechanics.

Well, being on a Dire Bat is a fairly interesting state. It involves flight capability, but it also involves being mounted and having to deal with the mount. It also means you can dismount and give up everything associated with it. I used it as an example because whatever we come up with has to be able to handle it.

I believe you also suggested that variation should come from all the specific details of the scene and the participants rather than any actual tactical depth in the basic rules.

Yes, I'd like the actual mechanics to be very simple (and closely tied to the basic attack procedure) and have participants be constrained in their options by the circumstances. So if the Strength-based gambits aren't available against opponents who fly, Strength-focused characters have difficulty escaping flying pursuers.

I suspect we'd disagree rather less if you were making any clear mechanical suggestions. I actually have very little idea at this point what you actually think you want, except that you're apparently convinced it's totally unlike whatever I suggest.

Not totally unlike, I think. Let me sketch out what I'm envisioning in a little closer detail. Tomorrow, after sleep.

[Draco_Argentum]

1204641984[/unixtime]]But here's a list of heroic champions, try to spot one of them who can't walk into an alehouse and come out with someone's thong in half an hour (assuming for the moment that he wanted to)

Fair call, the answer was entirely dependent on the source material chosen.

[Koumei]

1204691953[/unixtime]]Let me sketch out what I'm envisioning in a little closer detail.

then...

try to spot one of them who can't walk into an alehouse and come out with someone's thong in half an hour

Now let me sketch out what I'm envisioning in a little closer detail

[angelfromanotherpin]

Example Chase Scene 1

The Setting: A mythic Baghdad look-alike. So it's a crowded city with back alleys, close-set buildings, a sewer system, a city guard, and street stalls selling everything from plums to catgirls.

The Set-up: The PCs have just defeated the doomulent Vizier's kick murder squad in the bazaar. One of the hitmen who'd been hanging back taking potshots saw the writing on the wall and booked it off the battlemat a few rounds ago. The PCs are uninterested in his reporting back, so they give chase.

The Pursuers: The PCs include a Knight (Str/Con focused) on horseback, a Rogue (Dex/Cha focused) on foot, and a Sage (Int/Wis focused) with a slow Flight effect up. All of them are kind of beat up from the fight.

(I'm not sure what advantage being faster should give. A bonus to gambit rolls? gambit defenses? both? or to the effects of succeeding? or something else? For the moment, I'm going to say it's both gambit rolls and defenses.)

The Quarry: An Assassin (Dex/Int focused) on foot. Is uninjured, but slightly lower level than the PCs, which tends to even out. Has a lead of (we'll say) 3 against each of his pursuers. He needs to increase this to (we'll say) 5 to get away.

Round 1:
• Initiative is set as Assassin, Rogue, Sage, Knight.
• Assassin wants to use his best stat (Dex), and checking the Dex gambits list, chooses Obstacle Course (Dex vs Dex) and starts weaving in and out through bystanders, carts, and even a window or two. The Knight's Dex is poor, but the bonus from his mount lets him keep up. The Rogue's Dex is good, enough to keep up. The Sage's Dex is poor, and while Flight gives her a bonus against the obstacles, its slow speed gives a penalty. The Sage falls to 4 behind.
• The Rogue tries a 'Cry Coward' gambit (Cha vs Wis), but it suffers a penalty for being a gambit that would reduce the quarry's lead against all his pursuers (the Rogue was trying to keep the Sage in the chase), and another penalty because it's hard to convince someone of their cowardice when your pursuit outnumbers them 3-to-1. Gambit fails.
• The Sage would normally try Outsmart (Int vs Int), but knows that Assassins have high Int defenses, so instead he tries Patience (Wis vs Wis), keeping pace and waiting for the Quarry to slip up. Assassin has a poor Wis, so gambit succeeds and Sage closes back to 3.
• The Knight goes with Bull Through (Str vs Dex), which like Obstacle Course, requires an obstacle-rich environment. So while the Assassin has to go around things, the knight just shoves them aside or crahes through them. The Knight gets a bonus for being faster, and can use his horse's Strength. Gambit succeeds, and the Knight closes the lead to 2 behind.

Now that's very basic and certainly doesn't cover everything, but it's the central idea.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Then you just need to figure out why being on a horse helps you follow someone through windows.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well, some windows are big enough to accomodate a horse and some aren't; but a man riding a horse can often go around a building fast enough to not lose a person who's going through the same building, and I'd prefer to keep those details abstract.

Now, sometimes you flee through places a steed just can't follow, like crawling through a narrow drain or climbing up a ladder. If that's the case, the pursuer will have to get off the steed to continue pursuit. But that's a situation where people who aren't great at whatever Gambits cover drain-crawling or ladder-climbing might try them anyway, possibly even losing some Lead, because it removes a significant advantage from the pursuer.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204741682[/unixtime]]Well, some windows are big enough to accomodate a horse and some aren't; but a man riding a horse can often go around a building fast enough to not lose a person who's going through the same building, and I'd prefer to keep those details abstract.

Don't keep it too abstract.

"The pickpocket jumps through the window of a clothing store"
"I ride around to the other side of the building really fast"
"Ok."
"What, don't I catch him?"
"Well, rather than using the pursuit gambit rules, which would let you easily beat his avoision check, he decided to actually just jump into a building and then stay there for a bit. He's probably gotten away by now."

[angelfromanotherpin]

Don't keep it too abstract.

"The pickpocket jumps through the window of a clothing store"
"I ride around to the other side of the building really fast"
"Ok."
"What, don't I catch him?"
"Well, rather than using the pursuit gambit rules, which would let you easily beat his avoision check, he decided to actually just jump into a building and then stay there for a bit. He's probably gotten away by now."

Um, in my experience, that's what abstraction solves. There is no blow-by-blow 'jump through window?' 'is it big enough for a horse?' 'ha ha fooled you, he went to ground.' There's only a set of maneuvers and a set procedure for determining whether or not they worked. So the pickpocket can try Obstacle Course, or he can try Go to Ground, or Double Back, or whatever the gambits wind up being; but there's only room for one character to fool another character, not for the DM to fool the player, which is kind of a loaded game anyway.

The biggest hole I see in my proposed system is that it might be too easy to wind up in a stalemate, where the quarry uses their best move every turn and gains lead, and the pursuit uses their best move and reduces lead, and that plays out for a long time until improbable rolls ever-so-eventually bring it to a close in a manner as satisfying as a coin flip.

Some thoughts on solving that:
1) Even more abstract: Instead of there being a lead, there are Chase Points, which function like hit points. Successful quarry gambits reduce pursuer Chase Points, and vice versa. If the quarry runs out of Chase Points, they're caught; if the pursuers run out, the quarry's gotten away.
2) Increasing difficulty: In general, chases favor the pursuer. So every round, the difficulties tweak a little in the pursuers' favor and the quarry had better work fast.
3) Something else? I dunno.

Another thought: It would be nice if we could unify the 'scaling up' for 'going epic' in combat with the chase mechanics, to handle long overland chases and such.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204751329[/unixtime]]

Don't keep it too abstract.

"The pickpocket jumps through the window of a clothing store"
"I ride around to the other side of the building really fast"
"Ok."
"What, don't I catch him?"
"Well, rather than using the pursuit gambit rules, which would let you easily beat his avoision check, he decided to actually just jump into a building and then stay there for a bit. He's probably gotten away by now."

Um, in my experience, that's what abstraction solves. There is no blow-by-blow 'jump through window?' 'is it big enough for a horse?' 'ha ha fooled you, he went to ground.' There's only a set of maneuvers and a set procedure for determining whether or not they worked. So the pickpocket can try Obstacle Course, or he can try Go to Ground, or Double Back, or whatever the gambits wind up being; but there's only room for one character to fool another character, not for the DM to fool the player, which is kind of a loaded game anyway.

If, when a guy on horse back is after you, you always jump though a window big enough for a horse and rider, while when someone of foot is after you you often jump through smaller windows...I see a suspension of disbelief problem.

At that point you might as well roll 1d6, if you don't get a 1 roll using your highest attribute, else your second highest. You opponent does the same. You DM then makes up whatever bullshit explanation he feels like.

That's not necessarily a bad system, but it doesn't fit the level of specificity in D&D.


Also:

• How much of a lead do you need to 'get away'? There should be a point at which chasing pursuit is no longer possible; otherwise running is pointless. AfaP suggested 5, with 3 starting and 0 to catch.
  
• What happens when you choose to perform a non-chase action? The simplest way to do this is 'you loose the chase'.
  
• Back to the first point, how long should chases take?
  
• How random do we want them to be?
  

If we're keeping it abstract, I like the idea of a 'lead' number, which is representative of a (chaser, chased) pair. Say that a lead always starts at 1. When the lead reaches 0 the quarry is caught. When it reaches 2 the quarry gets away. If we have two equally matched characters making opposed checks, there's a 25% chance each round that one of them wins, which keeps things from taking too long.

So how close do you have to be to someone to start a chase? How close are yo to them when they're caught? This is important, because as soon as they're caught you're in normal combat again. Some random distance within "short" range seems like an OK compromise for the latter, and "short" range seems OK for the former.

If the chased choose to 'stick together', they can aid each other. If they choose to 'split up', you have to choose which to follow.

[angelfromanotherpin]

If, when a guy on horse back is after you, you always jump though a window big enough for a horse and rider, while when someone of foot is after you you often jump through smaller windows...I see a suspension of disbelief problem.

There is no 'jump through window' action. There is only Obstacle Course or whatever, and it works or it doesn't based on the roll, and the details really don't matter for exactly the same reason that the system doesn't care if a Melee Attack is an overhead swing, or a fencing lunge, or a series of swift opportunistic cuts. D&D doesn't care if your armor is weak at the armpit, and I don't care how big the windows are.

That's not necessarily a bad system, but it doesn't fit the level of specificity in D&D.

Is this the level of specificity where you have goddamn hit points? Or the one where every human on earth runs at the exact same speed?

How much of a lead do you need to 'get away'? There should be a point at which chasing pursuit is no longer possible; otherwise running is pointless. AfaP suggested 5, with 3 starting and 0 to catch.

Those numbers were picked arbitrarily. The point is there needs to be enough space for someone who got a head start to be harder to catch than someone who didn't.

What happens when you choose to perform a non-chase action? The simplest way to do this is 'you loose the chase'.

Well, I think shooting at someone is an appropriate action to take during a chase. It probably takes up your gambit and so doesn't help you reduce their lead, but it shouldn't immediately kick you out. You should also be able to do the Spider-man thing where you give up the chance to manipulate the lead to catch falling masonry or something similar without actually giving up the chase.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204755343[/unixtime]]

If, when a guy on horse back is after you, you always jump though a window big enough for a horse and rider, while when someone of foot is after you you often jump through smaller windows...I see a suspension of disbelief problem.

There is no 'jump through window' action. There is only Obstacle Course or whatever, and it works or it doesn't based on the roll, and the details really don't matter for exactly the same reason that the system doesn't care if a Melee Attack is an overhead swing, or a fencing lunge, or a series of swift opportunistic cuts. D&D doesn't care if your armor is weak at the armpit, and I don't care how big the windows are.

If you can't describe a consistent set of outcomes for the action then it's dumb, regardless of the level of abstraction.

1204755343[/unixtime]]

That's not necessarily a bad system, but it doesn't fit the level of specificity in D&D.

Is this the level of specificity where you have goddamn hit points? Or the one where every human on earth runs at the exact same speed?

It's the level of specificity where you have to know where you are in relation to other to do combat. It's the level of specificity where, if there's a 5' wide tunnel marked on the battle map you can run into it even if you're being chased by a dragon.

this is a game where people draw out little maps and maybe place little toys on them to show their positions.

How much of a lead do you need to 'get away'? There should be a point at which chasing pursuit is no longer possible; otherwise running is pointless. AfaP suggested 5, with 3 starting and 0 to catch.

Those numbers were picked arbitrarily. The point is there needs to be enough space for someone who got a head start to be harder to catch than someone who didn't.

That's a good point. How much distance do we want to call a 'head start'?

What happens when you choose to perform a non-chase action? The simplest way to do this is 'you loose the chase'.

Well, I think shooting at someone is an appropriate action to take during a chase. It probably takes up your gambit and so doesn't help you reduce their lead, but it shouldn't immediately kick you out. You should also be able to do the Spider-man thing where you give up the chance to manipulate the lead to catch falling masonry or something similar without actually giving up the chase.

It was my intention that shooting a gun at a person means that you stopped chasing them. You still get to shoot at them (Hope you hit!).
If you're using a more fine grained set of chase positions (as in your example), failing to continue chasing for a round could just add 1 to your quarry's lead.

If you can (1) be chasing and use your standard action for a gambit or (2) just all out run and use your move and standard, you're probably going to get farther doing the second.

Using ranged attacks in chases has other issues too: how do you determine range or LoS for an attack?