# "He's beyond my healing ability..."



## Quickleaf (Jul 6, 2011)

Ive come across this situation several times across multiple editions and variants of D&D: The PCs come across a dying NPC give their final words, an important element for telling the story being the NPC's death, and the party healer says "I cast heal on the guy. Now let's get all the details from him."

If the DM says the NPC is too close to death to heal, the healer PC feels crimped because nowhere in the rules does it say "you can't heal NPCs" or "a creature at death's door cannot be healed."

If the DM lets the healer revive the NPC, the DM will need to quickly adapt and either reveal more than intended so soon or come up with a way to convincingly string the PCs on further with this NPC's information. Thing is, once you do this that basically precludes any future scenario where the PCs can be present at the time of an NPC's death (well, maybe expect old age) - they'll just let the healer do their thing.

How do you handle this kind of situation in your games?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 6, 2011)

I never do it. Unfortunately, this is an example of where the D&D hit point system (and the ubiquitous and dominant healing magic that comes with it) are just anti-dramatic. I wish I could have characters dying but still conscious for a variety of purposes.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 6, 2011)

I houserule that when you would 'die,' you might instead stick around in an unhealable state, long enough to mutter some last words.

So in 3e, you're at -10 or less, you might still be alive, but healing magic can't help.

In 4e, you're at negative bloodied? Well, no healing surges or clerical magic for you, but you've got time to say, "Rosebud."


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 6, 2011)

BLACKLEAF, NO!!!  The party finds a dead body -- they can always speak with dead.

Actually, if I've set up a situation that poorly, I deserve what I get when the NPC gets healed.  If I want a minimal amount of information revealed, the PCs either find just a note, or they find the guy that found the dying NPC before he died, and thus get the message second-hand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2011)

If the party wants to burn healing powers on an NPC, I let 'em.  If he was that close to death, he may not be all that helpful, though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 6, 2011)

I've used mechanics for it off and on, but it has only been worth it when the mechanics for healing already supported that.  For example, we had a house ruled version of Fantasy Hero where there was only so much healing an indvidual could absorb at a given time, no matter what the healer was doing.  (It was a bit like D&D 4E healing surges in some ways.)  So if you found a guy that was out of healing, he was out, and that was that.

In 4E, you could do the same thing, but I'm sure someone in the group would have a power or item that let someone else provide the surge.  Whether they'd be willing to use this for an NPC or not is another question.

I once wrote a time-sensitive AD&D 1E adventure that played on this trope by having many "almost dying" NPCs, each with a bit of useful information.  After awhile, using those spells or potions didn't look so hot. 

But mainly, what I've done is handwave some variant of the "will to live" thing.  Much like some games resurrection rules, if you've lost the will to live, the magic won't work.  The players seem to accept that well enough, and it also handily explains why even in a town of charitable, frequent healing, people are always dying.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jul 6, 2011)

Yeah, it's clumsy and often doesn't work without gimping character abilities.  You might make it work with lower-level PCs by having the NPC be poisoned and in the last throes of taking a lethal bout of Con damage.  That way he can gasp his last and then die.  He has taken no hp damage, so he can't be healed, and low-level characters are unlikely to have a _neutralise poison_ handy.  Either way, though, it's a bit ham-fisted.  It's a cliche in TV and movies, never mind gaming with all its get out of jail free cards .


----------



## Dog Moon (Jul 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If the party wants to burn healing powers on an NPC, I let 'em.  If he was that close to death, he may not be all that helpful, though.




Yeah, but if he's at -8 and he suddenly drops to -9 during his speech and someone comes forward and cures him even for 10 points to bring him up to one, he's basically completely healthy, albeit at such a low hit point even a Kobold can knock him back unconscious.  There is no penalty besides the Kobold for wandering around or talking at 1hp.

I've thought about doing as the OP suggests, but then I always come back to that same problem.  If he's living long enough to pass on that information, he's living long enough to be cured.  And if he dies, well, speak with dead!  Or, worst case scenario, depending on the level, cough up 5k and he's back to life!


----------



## Nagol (Jul 6, 2011)

I typically use other messages from beyond the grave -- a fixated ghost, a _Magic Mouth_, a sentence scrawled in the dust, a familiar who is rapidly devolving, a dead corpse that the group decides to cast _Speak with Dead_, etc.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 6, 2011)

I could be remembering wrong, but I thought only PCs have the exception that let them go to negative HP, while NPCs (including monsters) are dead at 0 ?  In which case their final words can be taken as a free action when getting they hit 0, presuming they aren't trying to state the u.s. constitution or something equally lengthy as their final parting words...


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> Ive come across this situation several times across multiple editions and variants of D&D: The PCs come across a dying NPC give their final words, an important element for telling the story being the NPC's death, and the party healer says "I cast heal on the guy. Now let's get all the details from him."
> 
> If the DM says the NPC is too close to death to heal, the healer PC feels crimped because nowhere in the rules does it say "you can't heal NPCs" or "a creature at death's door cannot be healed."
> 
> ...




He's already "dead" in D&D terms. The DM just gave him a "last speech" ability.

Honestly, if you're gonna get all technical about NPC monologues (whether in mid-combat or at the point of death) you're not gonna achieve much in the fantasy milieu, and especially not in the D&D ruleset.  It's not designed for simulation of reality, but for heroic dramatics.  One has to adopt a certain supsension of disbelief at the door, otherwise we'll be criticising the physics behind Superman's flight.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 6, 2011)

Morrus said:


> He's already "dead" in D&D terms. The DM just gave him a "last speech" ability.




Is that a feat or class ability?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2011)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Is that a feat or class ability?




Neither.  It's a DM.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> How do you handle this kind of situation in your games?




I wouldn't play with that cliche, anymore then I'd try and put in an impassible crevice to block characters with flight.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 6, 2011)

[MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION] and [MENTION=27051]Mark Hope[/MENTION]
Poor DMing and ham-fisted? That seems a little extreme, but sure it could come across that way if used inelegantly; part of being DM is having a lyrical and propitious sense of timing. Or the right tool for the right job.

Take the death of King Robert in A Game of Thrones. He summons Ned, the King's Hand, to issue his dying will in private. "Write this down Ned: I King Robert of House Baratheon, blah blah blah, fill in the rest, declare Joffrey-"

"Wait Robert, the party cleric has got this covered." Cure Moderate Wounds.

There is a gravitas and deep impact this situation has on the plot, making the tearing up of this will be Cersei all the more terrible for the reader/viewer. I know that D&D is a different beast than AGoT, but I strive for a game that feels like it could come from the pages of a fantasy novel (albeit one off the rails).

Having every dying NPC moment be solvable with a Heal check or healing spell seems to make scenes like this one impossible.

Obviously there's DM fiat, which I am fine using though I try not to hit my players over the head with it. Body shots are fair game though.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 6, 2011)

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]
You just totally shattered my illusions about Superman. 

I guess this comes down to different expectations of the game? I had a player, who we otherwise have a blast gaming together, feel like I was railroading them/gimping his bard because I introduced a situation with an NPC on their deathbed who was "beyond healing...even an inspired étude with lyre accompaniment." To me this was simply a dramatic scene to propel the PCs into responsibility over a keep, illustrate one NPC's sacrifice, and create a sense of real threat from an invading force. This wasn't something I did chronically, it was a one time thing in the campaign; and the bard had many occasions before then to use his healing powers (this is 4e btw).

So is this just a narrative/gamist vs simulation issue?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> So is this just a narrative/gamist vs simulation issue?




Basically, yeah.  It's a stylistic choice.  Works for some, not for others.  I, personally, am fine with it.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> So is this just a narrative/gamist vs simulation issue?




I've always had more issues with it personally, and more cat calls from the players, because the dying moment happens when the PCs arrive.  Not being able to heal is related to reality, even if not necessarily a perfect fit for a D&D system.  But happening to die right as the heroes arrive to hear the speech?  Easily dodgy, unless you play it just right.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 6, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Not being able to heal is related to reality, even if not necessarily a perfect fit for a D&D system.




I don't know many paramedics who are willing to give up on someone who was conscious and speaking coherently a few seconds ago, either.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 6, 2011)

Here's an easy fix.

Cleric: save your strength Lord! I'll save thee!
Cleric player: I cast cure light wounds on Lord Should-Have-Died.
Dm: You heal Lord Should-Have-died, and he stabilizes. However, he seems really tickled.
Cleric: What's wrong? 
Lord Should-Have-Died: You bastard! I was in Vahalla!  Thor called in the Valkaries and ordered a wet t-shirt contest and I was the judge!  You robbed me of eternal peace and happiness you fiend!  For that I'll kill you!
Dm: Lord-Should-Have-Died pulls out his sword and swings at the cleric... and misses.
Rogue Player: I back stab. Hmm... looks like its a crit hit for max damage!
DM:  Lord SHD falls to the ground dead,with a smile on his face.
Rouge Player: How much xp did I get?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 6, 2011)

What about using those alternate rules where when [-]a monster[/-] someone dies they explode for 20d6 damage? 

"My last words: let the kingdom know--"
"Did he say 'last words'? That's it; I'm outta here."
"Yeah. We're running."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 6, 2011)

Heh, I haven't used this shtick since the seventies.

I did lampoon the heck out of it once though.

The victim would say his last words, and fall silent with a rattle....
Then he would take a deep breath and say some more, choke and go limp....
As soon as their backs were turned he would start talking again, this time fading as his voice grew quieter and quieter... then he started snoring.  

I am all in favor of the PCs saving the poor fellow in situations like this, he was likely poisoned, Con at 1 or 2 from the damage, so it is going to be a long slow haul to recovery, but when he recovers he _will_ remember them.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> I guess this comes down to different expectations of the game? I had a player, who we otherwise have a blast gaming together, feel like I was railroading them/gimping his bard because I introduced a situation with an NPC on their deathbed who was "beyond healing...even an inspired étude with lyre accompaniment."




I would never, ever do this in any form of D&D or Pathfinder.  It just doesn't fit the rules.  It annoys me in Final Fantasy, too -- why is the NPC dead?  Why can't we just use a Phoenix Down on him?

Now, Exalted -- there if you're dead, you're dead.  Then this would be a good story element there.  There are many classic storylines that just don't work in D&D and this is top of the list.

Of course, if you and your players enjoy it, it's all good.  You just have to be able to ignore the fact that the system is mocking you as you do it.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 6, 2011)

Morrus said:


> He's already "dead" in D&D terms. The DM just gave him a "last speech" ability.
> 
> Honestly, if you're gonna get all technical about NPC monologues (whether in mid-combat or at the point of death) you're not gonna achieve much in the fantasy milieu, and especially not in the D&D ruleset.  It's not designed for simulation of reality, but for heroic dramatics.  One has to adopt a certain supsension of disbelief at the door, otherwise we'll be criticising the physics behind Superman's flight.




This.

If it's an NPC that needs to die...then he dies. If the PCs are able to revive him, then spend the spells, and bring him back in as an important NPC. But, as Morrus points out, if it disrupts the suspension of disbielf to have him being a living/talking NPC, then...don't do it. He dies.

The cleric can do everything he can....How many desperate scenes in an ER or hospital room have we watched over the years? The Cleric can do his BEST work...and the NPC can still die...after the dying breath being something that helps the party.

Just my dos coppers.
--SD


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 6, 2011)

steeldragons said:


> The cleric can do everything he can....How many desperate scenes in an ER or hospital room have we watched over the years? The Cleric can do his BEST work...and the NPC can still die...after the dying breath being something that helps the party.




But my cleric isn't a doctor; he has the magical power to stop people from dying, no die roll needed. But because the plot demands it, suddenly my PC's powers stop working. It's like saving against block text; all of a sudden, control over what your character does is taken away from you because of DM fiat.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But my cleric isn't a doctor; he has the magical power to stop people from dying, no die roll needed. But because the plot demands it, suddenly my PC's powers stop working. It's like saving against block text; all of a sudden, control over what your character does is taken away from you because of DM fiat.




Where does it say in the rules that a cleric has the magical power to stop people from dying?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But my cleric isn't a doctor; he has the magical power to stop people from dying, no die roll needed. But because the plot demands it, suddenly my PC's powers stop working. It's like saving against block text; all of a sudden, control over what your character does is taken away from you because of DM fiat.




BUT your Cleric's magical powers are based on the will of a deity.  It is not innate, and can be revolved by the will of the deities and the whims of fate since he is but a lowly mortal playing with forces that he doesn't understand without the intercession of the holy.  His powers can fail.  He knows this, since he may have seen the powers of other clerics fail them if theirdeity or the NPC's deity deems him/her worthy enough to enter the afterlife unabated or if they decided that the NPC doesn't deserve to be healed or remain in the realms of the living for one of countless reasons.

Like it or not, when you try to use magic and powers as a justification of why you can do X, you need to remember that their are larger forces outside of your character's control who can put an end to their desires.... That is unless they want to wage war against the deities and Ascend to Godhood.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 6, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> BUT your Cleric's magical powers are based on the will of a deity.  His powers can fail him if your cleric's deity or the NPC's deity deems him/her worthy enough to enter the afterlife or if they decided that the NPC doesn't deserve to be healed or remain in the realms of the living for one of countless reasons.




I won't dismiss it a priori. But it depends on a meddling view of the gods that just doesn't show up much in D&D, and it doesn't make sense in a lot of cases. Why is my god Mishakal stopping me from healing this peasant boy who is also her worshipper? What if it's a wand or potion?

If the only time this comes up is in these cutscenes, it's just an excuse. I don't want excuses; I want a world that plays by fair rules that I can influence.



> Like it or not, when you try to use magic and powers as a justification of why you can do X, you need to remember that their are larger forces outside of your character's control who can put an end to their desires....




If the game is about those larger forces playing, then it's no fun. I want to play, not watch the DM play.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 6, 2011)

I've been playing around with the idea of requiring different levels of the cure spell depending upon how bad you're hurt.  Maybe something like-

positive hp to 0hp - cure light wounds works
-1 to -5 hp - needs at least cure moderate to heal
< -5hp - needs at least cure serious to heal

If you don't have access to the required healing spell, you'll need a doctor and bed rest to get back up to 0.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 6, 2011)

mhensley said:


> I've been playing around with the idea of requiring different levels of the cure spell depending upon how bad you're hurt.  Maybe something like-
> 
> positive hp to 0hp - cure light wounds works
> -1 to -5 hp - needs at least cure moderate to heal
> ...



Just don't be surprised when the dead PCs are rolled out on gurneys....

If the NPC _gotta_ die then kill him off while he writes a cryptic note... ever seen d'Artagnan's Daughter?  

Let the PCs find his corpse, or, in the best film noir tradition, have some palooka shoot him one last time from concealment. 'It was Car' *Blam!*

The Auld Grump, there's a million stories in this Naked City... so why do I keep hearing this one?


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If the party wants to burn healing powers on an NPC, I let 'em.  If he was that close to death, he may not be all that helpful, though.




I would tend to go with that approach - let the chips fall where they may.  If a PC can be healed, so can an NPC or a monster.  I think in 4E, you can automatically change the killing blow from lethal to non-lethal damage if you want as well.

If the DM doesn't want information to be revealed, then he should give the NPC some sort of way to avoid interrogation (i.e., if you attempt to Speak with Dead against followers of this evil deity, the ritual components cost twice as much... or, if 3.5E the corpse gets a +4 to its save against the spell).  Otherwise, I would be hesitant to block the PC request.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 6, 2011)

I tend not to write plot lines that assume either the death or life of an NPC.  If your plot is derailed by an NPC staying alive, or by an NPC dying, you've not built enough robustness into the plot.

That said, I for one believe that NPC's are just PC's with an 'n' in front of them.  I have never liked the idea that there is one group of rules for PC's and one group of rules for NPC's, because sooner rather than later that will become the excuse for screwing with the players.  In normal circumstances, it would be a very low level party indeed that couldn't keep a dying NPC from dying.  It might happen, but they have so many options that if they get there in time, it's probably not too late.

That said, I have traumatic damage rules in my game and there are certain conditions that can be imposed on you if you fail a traumatic damage saving throw which a low level party would find very hard to deal with.  It's concievable that I could run a dying scene with an NPC at low level and under the rules they'd have little chance to stop it.   I'd have to fudge some rolls to pull it off though, and I generally don't like to do that, but it is at least possible.   

To me it seems rather self-indulgent as a DM to set this up.  What are you trying to prove?  Do you think the players are going to applaud your scene, and give you a pat on the back for running a standard narrative trope without even the creativity to make it work under the rules?  It's the DM acting as novelist and principal writer, and not letting the players take their fair share of the authorship of the game.   If you want to be a novelist rather than a game master, you should be a novelist.  Don't pretend that you are running a game.

If you NPC's are crafted well enough that the players actually care whether they die, then you are on a good path.  There is no need I can see to break suspension of disbelief to force you game to act like a cliche.  If you want ideas on how to kill off an NPC in a way that makes the PC's feel a bit helpless and unable to help, I can brainstorm up a few - you probably could as well.  Don't not think before hand and then act as if stamping and shouting, "By golly, I created this railroad and now you have to ride on it!" is going to be all that impressive to your players.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2011)

If we're going to rule out cliched and overused plot devices we may not have a game left to play. 

My solution:

DM: "And in his dying breath..."
Cleric: "Cure Light Wounds."
DM: "He's fine now and tells you everything. You win, see you next week!"

My players play along and know that the game is about dramatic stories, not trying to beat the game. 

My real solution is that of Ranger Wicket and Morrus. Dying and Dead characters (both player and non-player) have certain game rule states, but if desired by plot, can still monologue.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 6, 2011)

I tell the healer PC to get over himself.  It's a game.  And it's drama.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 6, 2011)

I like the idea of dramatic last words, it happens all the time in adventure fiction. The thing is, D&D, even 4e, is imo not an attempt to simulate adventure fiction. You'd be on safer ground doing it in a game such as James Bond 007, Justice Ltd, Adventure!, Spirit of the Century, Feng Shui or Prince Valiant.

As you say it can be a problem if the player feels you are making his PC look useless. This relates to how important being the healer is to the player's character concept. It's harder to know this kind of thing in D&D, without asking the player, but if, in a points based game, a player had spent all of his points on healing powers, he'd be communicating that he very strongly wants to be the healer guy. It's his schtick.

So if I had a PC that was the 'healer guy' and nothing else, I would avoid including such a scene, even if I was running a genre game.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 6, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If we're going to rule out cliched and overused plot devices we may not have a game left to play.
> 
> My solution:
> 
> ...




To which I would reply: "Probably not!"




> My players play along and know that the game is about dramatic stories, not trying to beat the game.
> 
> My real solution is that of Ranger Wicket and Morrus. Dying and Dead characters (both player and non-player) have certain game rule states, but if desired by plot, can still monologue.




My solution is to stay within the conceits and tropes a particular game emulates well.  If I want to use dying last words or other tropes of dramatic fiction, I'll use a system that supports those well as opposed to D&D.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 6, 2011)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I tend not to write plot lines that assume either the death or life of an NPC. If your plot is derailed by an NPC staying alive, or by an NPC dying, you've not built enough robustness into the plot.



 I disagree with the whole idea of "derailing" cause that implies a railroad which is not the end of the spectrum I lean toward. It's not about the DM forcing their plot on on the players - its about creating drama, gravitas, driving home a harsh blow as a sign of an enemy's brutality, or the heroic sacrifice of an NPC, or as a consequence of a PC choice, or failure at a quest.

The specific situation was one in which the PCs made a call to go on another mission knowing that the keep was about to be attacked; they hoped the forced there could hold out long enough. So part of the reason I wanted to have the NPC die in their arms was to  rub some salt in their guilt (to show the consequence of their choice), get them really ready to kick some hobgoblin ass, and rescue the NPC's captured family, plus the other reasons I mentioned upthread.

I guess there are 2 perspectives to this question...

* Don't have NPCs beyond healing cause it doesn't work in D&D, it's sloppy adventure design, it makes healer PCs feel useless, and it's cliched.

* It's fine because ultimately it's the DM's call and the players should be forgiving of situations that don't strictly follow the rules in favor of "drama".

I was hoping to find some middleground where I could still have NPCs die in the PCs' arms when appropriate, while not pissing off healer players and providing some kind of rules justification. But maybe that's just not possible.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I tell the healer PC to get over himself.  It's a game.  And it's drama.




This attitude I don't understand.

Why shouldn't the players just tell the DM to "get over himself".   It _is_ a game. 

Saying that "it's drama" is so meaningless as to be a non-statement.  If the players heal the dying NPC, that's also drama.  Saving the life of a dying NPC at the last moment is also a dramatic trope.  Why does the DM get to sole authority to decide which trope will be used and when?  Who is really the one "full of themselves" at this point?  Is it really the PC who says, "I cast cure light wounds?" or the DM who says, "No, you can't do that because it would derail my story?"   Who is really acting like a jerk here, the guy who says, "I cast cure moderate wounds to save the NPC's life", or the guy who says, "Well, if you do that you can all just go home, because I refuse to play any more."

Let's not speak ambigiously and say, "This works if it is desired by the plot." as if the plot was some animate object in possession of its own will in the matter.  What we are really saying is, "This works if it is desired by me."   So I don't think its the player who needs to be getting over themselves.

Let's not put too fine a point on it.  Suppose the NPC is a -11.  Technically he's dead, and the DM wishes him to remain in this cognizant state - though dead - for an indeterminate amount of time so he can _monologue_ and engender or build pathos.   

DM: "I'm dying Horatio.  You were always good to me."
Player (as Horatio): "Oh Juliet, never be parted from me."  
Player to DM: I try to use my Heal skill to stablize Juliet.
DM: No its beyond your skill. 
DM: "I feel the blackness encrouching on me.  Hold me Horatio."
Player: Ok, I cast 'Cure Serious Wounds' and reach down to hold Juliet.
DM: No, its beyond your power to heal this wound.  Her body is too far gone; she's basically dead already, only her love for you and her desire not to be parted from you are holding her in this world.
Player:  Wow.  Ok, in that case I cast 'Raise Dead' using my Rod of Ressurection.
DM: What?? You can't do that.  She's not dead.
Player: Well, if she's not dead, why can't I heal her?  What is she, dead or alive.
DM: Ok, she's mechanically 'dead', but her spirit doesn't want to return to the mortal world.
Player: But didn't you just say that the only reason she was conscious was that she wanted to be with me?
DM: Ok, fine, you win.  Juliet is alive and you can live happily ever after.  Just go home.  I don't want to play anymore.

I ask my fellow DMs as a DM; just how far are you going to take this whole "I have to get my way" thing?   At what point will you concede that the PC can derail your plans, and if you won't concede it here then when?   At what point does frustrating the players attempt to play take the focus off the drama in the story and just create table drama?


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 6, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> I like the idea of dramatic last words, it happens all the time in adventure fiction. The thing is, D&D, even 4e, is imo not an attempt to simulate adventure fiction. You'd be on safer ground doing it in a game such as James Bond 007, Justice Ltd, Adventure!, Spirit of the Century, Feng Shui or Prince Valiant.



I hear you, and I'd put Savage Worlds on that list. Thing is were pretty committed to 4e, unless the group decides to switch over to Pathfinder (which is an outside possibility). IOW we're polygamously married to D&D, and even if I'm cool with a divorce several other players are not; if I want to stay with the group then it's D&D or the highway. 



> So if I had a PC that was the 'healer guy' and nothing else, I would avoid including such a scene, even if I was running a genre game.



My player is a bard who is the cunning but goodhearted scoundrel archetype with jack of trades and healer as secondary; more of his power are boosters with significant enemy control.

But even if he were an all-out healer, how would that be different? I mean what would you say to the objecting player?

Btw, thanks for the comments everyone, it's much appreciated.


----------



## jimmifett (Jul 6, 2011)

Just because magic closes wounds and knits skin back together doesn't mean it didn't hurt like a bitch. In fact, i'd be willing to say that now that the pain has stopped, the NPC can finally relax and falls unconcious, exhausted from the ordeal. If they were bleeding out, the wound was closed, but they are still low on blood and need time to create more blood. A non-adventurer doesn't just hop back on their feet and start singing Hello my baby, Hello my darling.

Fine, you cast heal light wounds, the worst of it is over and the NPC falls unconcious. Come back in the morning after he has recuperated. Oh, you rested too that evening? An assassin finished the job since you didn't bother to stand gaurd.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> I was hoping to find some middleground where I could still have NPCs die in the PCs' arms when appropriate, while not pissing off healer players and providing some kind of rules justification. But maybe that's just not possible.




If you want a different game, change the rules of the game.

In my game, under certain circumstances - massive damage, struck by a killing blow when helpless, critical hits that drop you below 0, or falls that drop you below 0 - you must make a traumatic damage save.   If you fail that save, you are subject not to immediate death - as in the standard conventional version of the game - but to some extremely harsh conditions.

For example, you might have a massive chest injury resulting in hemoraging.  Under this condition, the DC of healing checks to help you increases, and cure minor or cure light wounds do not stabilize you.  They aren't enough to stop you from bleeding out, because your wound isn't minor.   Also in my game, multiple heals in a short time period do not stack.  A second cure light wounds does you no good.  So even the PC was healed, the players are fighting a losing battle to keep the NPC alive using these methods.

It would be quite easy to have even harsher conditions which might thwart even fairly powerful magic.

This gains me certain specific things compared to stock D&D (and it probably also involves giving up certain things, everything is a tradeoff).

One of those is that there are fewer immediate death situations.  So, there are fewer cases where a player dies without prolonged drama and a chance to be saed.   But also, there are cases where I can have the PC's attempts to save the life of a NPC be dramatic.   And of course, there are cases where the PC's attempts to save the life of an PC or NPC are dramatic whether I intended it or not. 

It's also worth noting that anyone who is dying is not automatically unconscious, but can make saving throws to remain conscious.

Now, the game is fair again.  I'm not imposing my will on the players.  I've given up some control of the game, but the game state that I desire is possible within the game world and I've attained it essentially without fudging, fiat, or dramatically increasing the possibility of PC death.

DM's don't have to be hidebound to a rule set just because some professional created it.   But once committed to a rule set, they should adhere to it.  



> I disagree with the whole idea of "derailing" cause that implies a railroad which is not the end of the spectrum I lean toward. It's not about the DM forcing their plot on on the players - its about creating drama, gravitas, driving home a harsh blow as a sign of an enemy's brutality, or the heroic sacrifice of an NPC, or as a consequence of a PC choice, or failure at a quest.




I say this with full respect, but I can't help but see a lot of cognitive dissonance in those claims.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 6, 2011)

I hate it when this happens in published modules, but don't mind it so much when a trusted DM uses it.

What's tricky is when this happens to a crucial NPC whose death drives the plot -- and the PCs just cast _resurrect._ Bastards. When I make this goof, it's a sign of sloppy DMing on my part. I should know better.

That said, I once got a 4 month plotline out of this happening when the PCs resurrected their slain king. The subconscious knowledge that he'd gone to Hell for past sins started driving him into insanity, and his brother - oh so briefly king! - refused to give up the throne. Made for some tough choices and fun roleplaying.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 6, 2011)

I rarely use dying last words, unless it's a final sneer from one of the bad guys like, 
DM: "Your sword slices deep into the chest of the evil warrior, as blood spurts out of his chest, with his dying breath, he sneers, 'you think you've won?' and you see an insane leer form on his mouth for a split second, just before his lifeless body falls to the floor..."

From there, if the PCs want to heal him up & question him, that is fine with me, but they could have a potentially dangerous foe as a captive after that.  And, healing him up only to question him and then kill him again is not exactly an honorable or good act...


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 6, 2011)

Piratecat said:


> That said, I once got a 4 month plotline out of this happening when the PCs resurrected their slain king. The subconscious knowledge that he'd gone to Hell for past sins started driving him into insanity, and his brother - oh so briefly king! - refused to give up the throne. Made for some tough choices and fun roleplaying.




Fun.

It's usually worth working out ahead of time the legal consequences of widespread magic.

In most of my nations, it's illegal to ressurect the King precisely because it creates succession crisises.  No reputable priest would do it.  In some cases, this extends down to any member of the nobility with an inheritable title, so becoming a Baronette might actually have some downside.

It's also generally illegal to ressurrect anyone that is executed (though generally, execution methods are specifically designed to make this difficult)

In Harlond, one of my main nations, if you are killed and resurrected you are legally considered to be a different person.  If you possessions and titles are transfered to your heirs (or lacking heirs, the state!), you can't claim them back nor are you considered to have title to them.   In fact, the only things considered to be yours is the stuff that was buried with you.  So make sure you are buried with a purse.  The reason for this law?  Harlond is a basically a plutocracy, and so if the son or daughter inherits the family business, the people of Harlond object to the idea that you are obligated to give it back if your parents turn up a few weeks after being buried. 

In the Prestian Confederacy, the ruling families are all alchemists who have discovered the secret of Potions of Longevity and so the partriarchs of the three main families live for centuries.   In most parts of the world though, living an unnaturally long period is socially frowned on - with pitchforks and torches if necessary - because it tends to tie wealth and power to the old and oppress the younger generations.   Young men for example typically don't appreciate competing for the affections of a young lady, with a guy who is not only their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, but doesn't even have the decency to be old and feeble.  

Even if magic is not ubiquitous, it's going to change things.  If your culture has a history, then just about anything the PC's do will have happened before and society will have had to deal with it in some fashion.   Sometime in the past, some idiots decided it would be a good idea to resurrect the king who had died untimely, and then he went crazy, and there was a civil war between the followers of the King and the followers of his heir who had been briefly king and the survivors of that madness decided that whatever other laws they were going to pass, they were going to write down in great big letters in the binding laws of customs of the kingdom something like - "Thou Shalt Not Restore the King Who Has Died to Life, and if Thou Doest, then Thou are't a Witch and a Traitor and thy Body Shall Be Beheaded and Burned.  As for the former King, He Shall NOT regain his crown through this Device but being confined in honor He Shall Remain in the Abbey of St. Crorlucia in Humble Service with the Brothers There for the Remainder of His Days"


----------



## Corathon (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> Ive come across this situation several times across multiple editions and variants of D&D: The PCs come across a dying NPC give their final words, an important element for telling the story being the NPC's death, and the party healer says "I cast heal on the guy. Now let's get all the details from him."
> 
> If the DM says the NPC is too close to death to heal, the healer PC feels crimped because nowhere in the rules does it say "you can't heal NPCs" or "a creature at death's door cannot be healed."
> 
> ...




In 1E, a character might be at, e.g. negative 5 hit points and be beyond the ability of _cure light wounds_ to save (a _death's door_ spell or better would be needed). Such a character would be unconscious by the rules, but one could imagine him gasping out a few words by sheer effort of will. Low level PCs would not be able to heal him.

In higher level games, just invent an effect that kills the NPC slowly by some other means than draining hit points. E.g. the NPC is slowly being consumed by some curse that is turning him into an undead. He gives the group the clues that you want - then finishes the transformation to undead monster and attacks them! A magical disease in its last stages might create a situation like that imagined in the OP - or a parasite eating the NPC from the inside.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> But happening to die right as the heroes arrive to hear the speech?  Easily dodgy, unless you play it just right.




I think the term that fits best might be, "cliché".


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 6, 2011)

This is simple. If your PCs come across a dying man in the wilderness who has last words, and they cast a healing spell on him, then his last words are cut short: because positive energy is injurious to undead. His spirit was lingering in his corpse, and the healing magic sent him on his merry way.

This even sounds like a good idea for a monster, now that I think of it. An evil priest comes by and listens to such a person's last words, but binds their spirit more securely to their body. Instant non-vampire, non-ghoul undead creature with a purpose! You could even make an adventure, a novel or a movie... "The Last Words of Jeronimus Smyke" or something like that...


----------



## CAFRedblade (Jul 6, 2011)

I've always liked the idea that all healing derives from the bodies natural reserves to make one whole.  Magical healing only speeds up the process an incredible amount.  If the NPC's body is beyond this limit, the healing might even kill him outright.   

But it all depends on campaign setting and DM style.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 6, 2011)

I abide by the sentiments written by Gary Gygax in the 1E DMG Preface: "As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination.  Others will think of things I didn't and devise thing beyond my capability."

EVERY game designer who has worked on D&D since then SHOULD have embraced these words as if they were their own.  The current subject at hand is all the more proof you need of that.

The dying clues or testimony of a doomed NPC is certainly cliche, but cliches and stereotypes get used for a reason.  They are convenient.  They work.  However, being a cliche means it IS over-used and so a good DM should be cautious about going that route in the first place.  Rather than just go the easy route look for more interesting ways to get your information to the PC's with the limitations you want, especially since D&D has more than one means within its rules to render that tack moot.  It's not just a matter of healing a dying NPC, you can speak with the dead and bring the dead back to life.  If the healing fails then even if players are willing to accept THAT failure the more desirable the information the NPC seems to have the more likely it is the players will try to end-run around your roadblock.

This is a not-unreasonable expectation on the part of players for whom the DM has not previously told them that he can and will take such liberties with "the rules".  This doesn't mean the DM is a jerk for disallowing such player actions either - the DM has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to create what he thinks is a good story (even with cliches) without the players inisisting that he must conform to the rules.  If the situation were stood on its head and it were a PC wanting to make a dying statement, it is probably likely that the vast majority of DM's out there would disallow it: "Your PC is below 0 hit points, you're unconscious, OF COURSE you can't make a deathbed speech."  Neither side is entirely wrong or right in their point of view.

Gary, however, had it correct.  Just because nobody has yet built into D&D rules the ability for NPC's to make deathbed confessions, or limited clues, or dramatic and impassioned pleas for redemption, or whatever, doesn't mean that YOU CAN'T or shouldn't.  OF COURSE you should if you really feel that you need it.

Personally, having bumped up against this issue before I avoid it.  A D&D world, by dint of simple logic, is not one where a statement like, "The Holy Grail lies in the Castle aaaaaauuuggggghhhh..." is generally going to fly.  If an NPC has information then the NPC will either die with that information or be able to pass it on.  If I really felt I wanted to engineer such a situation then I'd probably use some manner of poison, a curse, or ongoing damage that has some specific requirement for ending it other than the usual heals.  Still, better that the NPC should have motivations NOT to pass on information, or else to limit what he tells the PC's, and so not have to kill him off mid-sentence to create drama.  Obviously that's because he can be healed just as a PC could.  Even if not, the PC's could speak with his corpse, so if I wish to continue to keep certain information away from the PC's then I still have to have an NPC who in life would have been unwilling to just spill the beans forcing them to at least ask questions that can't be dodged.  And of course raise dead/resurrection is even harder to scratch if the PC's are willing and able to go that far, at which point you're getting deities involved in disallowing select NPC's from being raised.

When I want PC's to have only clues or partial information then I present it to them in ways in which they will only obtain what I WANT them to obtain WHEN I want them to have it without playing silly buggers with how death/dying otherwise works.

One change I have added to my games regards raising the dead.  Only those who are WILLING to return from the afterlife will do so.  This means that although PLAYER characters will return every time unless/until the player wants to try something new, NON-player characters will only rarely - if ever - willingly return from the afterlife.  So in my campaigns it wouldn't matter if everyone in the world got a free resurrection upon their death, only the NPC's I WANT to remain alive WILL remain alive.  Those who DO return from the dead are treated rather differently.  Some may see them as nearly cousins to the undead and shun them; others view them with reverence as if they may have some great purpose yet to achieve on the mortal plane; some may view them with sadness since they obviously have no paradise to go to which they would prefer over the harshness of mortality; most will simply not know _what_ to think of them believing that they are probably a dangerous combination of all three.

So, while _I_ don't have a need to have unhealable NPC's so that they might drop foreshortened clues before their demise, if YOU do then you should do two things: first, formalize the procedure, and second, tell your players that it can and will happen when you want it to so they have no reason to complain about it when it does.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2011)

Nagol said:


> To which I would reply: "Probably not!"




To which all of my players over the past 28 years would reply: "Great! Can we get on with the game now?" It'd be win-win.



Nagol said:


> My solution is to stay within the conceits and tropes a particular game emulates well.  If I want to use dying last words or other tropes of dramatic fiction, I'll use a system that supports those well as opposed to D&D.




So, you enjoy letting the rules dictate the story? To each their own style, of course.



Piratecat said:


> I hate it when this happens in published modules, but don't mind it so much when a trusted DM uses it.




That's the real crux of my point. I don't and wouldn't use this trope often. But when I do my players trust me enough to play along.



Piratecat said:


> What's tricky is when this happens to a crucial NPC whose death drives the plot -- and the PCs just cast _resurrect._ Bastards. When I make this goof, it's a sign of sloppy DMing on my part. I should know better.




Even within the rues I don't find this to be a problem. This sort of magic requires a willing target. And the only person who gets to decide whether an NPC is willing is the DM.



Piratecat said:


> That said, I once got a 4 month plotline out of this happening when the PCs resurrected their slain king. The subconscious knowledge that he'd gone to Hell for past sins started driving him into insanity, and his brother - oh so briefly king! - refused to give up the throne. Made for some tough choices and fun roleplaying.




Very imaginative plot elements. I strive to think like this when thrown a curve-ball by the players.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2011)

man in the funny hat said:


> [t]he dm has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to create what he thinks is a good story (even with cliches) without the players inisisting that he must conform to the rules.




qft


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, you enjoy letting the rules dictate the story?




Sometimes.  I had an entire set of encounters go to heck in a handbasket on me last night because one NPC "went bust" on three out of five rolls.  The rules quite clearly dictated to me what was going to happen in this situation - my guys rolled poorly, so the PCs won.

The deathbed delivery is very in-genre for my Deadlands game, but the party has a quite potent healer who could, in many instances, save someone from the brink of death.  The player would not mind, however, if I sometimes ruled she automatically failed.  I asked, prior to campaign start, if the players minded if I drive a GM Fiat now and again.  

And that, in the end, seems to be the real issue here - do your players need to have things go exactly by the book at all times, or not?   Find out before you start, and run your game accordingly.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 6, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> To which all of my players over the past 28 years would reply: "Great! Can we get on with the game now?" It'd be win-win.




Hey you (the DM) already picked up your ball to go home.  I'm just suggsting there's no need to reconvene.  My players from the past 30+ years would probably agree. [/puts away "rod of camparison"]





> So, you enjoy letting the rules dictate the story? To each their own style, of course.




I'm a big advocate for using the tool suited to the job at hand.  Just like I don't hammer screws into a wall, I pick a RPG system that supports the genre I wish to explore.  Then I design situations that the system supports well -- why fight the game if the game was chosen purposefully?  It is likely that if I'm fighting the game system, I am fighting the tropes and expectations of the genre (or the game was a poor choice as it doesn't cover the chosen genre well but that's what house ruling is for).


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 6, 2011)

Clearly what is needed is to kick seven kinds of holy hell out of the PCs before they find the dying NPC, so that nobody has so much as a curative cantrip left on their persons. An NPC who hangs on to his last shred of life around well-rested PCs has only himself to blame.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 6, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> This attitude I don't understand.
> 
> Why shouldn't the players just tell the DM to "get over himself".   It _is_ a game.
> 
> Saying that "it's drama" is so meaningless as to be a non-statement.  If the players heal the dying NPC, that's also drama.  Saving the life of a dying NPC at the last moment is also a dramatic trope.  Why does the DM get to sole authority to decide which trope will be used and when?  Who is really the one "full of themselves" at this point?  Is it really the PC who says, "I cast cure light wounds?" or the DM who says, "No, you can't do that because it would derail my story?"   Who is really acting like a jerk here, the guy who says, "I cast cure moderate wounds to save the NPC's life", or the guy who says, "Well, if you do that you can all just go home, because I refuse to play any more."




As DM... most of the time I allow PCs to do whatever they want.  If an NPC is dying and they roll Heal checks or use Healing Words to save him, then that's cool.  I go along with what they want 99 times out of 100, as that is what drives the drama of the game.

If, however, one player bitches because that 1 remaining time I use DM fiat to say that the NPCs wounds are beyond healing, or I set a Heal checks DC so high as to be almost impossible... then that's what I tell him to get over himself.  Go along with the story and stop trying to "win" (which is what I'd consider someone who argued with me over this one point this one time.)  The rules exist because the _game_ requires it.  The _story_, however, does not.


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I'm a big advocate for using the tool suited to the job at hand.  Just like I don't hammer screws into a wall, I pick a RPG system that supports the genre I wish to explore.  Then I design situations that the system supports well -- why fight the game if the game was chosen purposefully?  It is likely that if I'm fighting the game system, I am fighting the tropes and expectations of the genre (or the game was a poor choice as it doesn't cover the chosen genre well but that's what house ruling is for).





while 75% of the users here might be willing play something other than D&D because of better rules.  75% of all the D&D players don't want to play another ruleset.  And they still want what they want out of D&D.

And yes, my stats are made up. but the point is still true.


Perhaps the real point of the "last words" situation is that it is a cliche that isn't supposed to be used all the time, and isn't supposed to work all the time.  At low level, you get to use it a couple to its planned effect.  at higher level, when the situation arises again, the PCs get to revel in the fact that they are not powerless to save this man.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Go along with the story and stop trying to "win" (which is what I'd consider someone who argued with me over this one point this one time.)




It's not about winning. It's about getting to use my powers. If I wanted to go along with the story, I'd go rent a movie or read a book. I want to write the story. If I can't do anything, fine, but if I can, I don't want to be stopped because of the story.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 6, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> In Harlond, one of my main nations, if you are killed and resurrected you are legally considered to be a different person.  If you possessions and titles are transfered to your heirs (or lacking heirs, the state!), you can't claim them back nor are you considered to have title to them.   In fact, the only things considered to be yours is the stuff that was buried with you.  So make sure you are buried with a purse.



Yoink! Consider this stolen. What a great, flavorful idea.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2011)

Janx said:


> at higher level, when the situation arises again, the PCs get to revel in the fact that they are not powerless to save this man.




Well, at not very higher level, the GM doesn't have to use the trick of keeping the guy alive "just long enough".  The guy can just die, and the PCs can use Speak With Dead if they want information from him.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 6, 2011)

Janx said:


> while 75% of the users here might be willing play something other than D&D because of better rules.  75% of all the D&D players don't want to play another ruleset.  And they still want what they want out of D&D.
> 
> And yes, my stats are made up. but the point is still true.
> 
> ...




I've heard about that reluctance before.  I admit I may be incredibly liucky in regard to introducing new game systems and finding players who are happy playing regardless of the systems on offer.  We started playing other game systems almost immediately after finding D&D (Holmes edition) before the big 3 AD&D books were published.  We haven't stopped picking up new games as new systems that seem to match our genre preferences show up.  

When I'm designing a scenario, I'll include things that may lead to a cliche as supported by the ruleset in play.  That ruleset serves as a common understanding and expectation between the players and DM and I don't deviate from it impetuously. So there may be a NPC in dire straits that tries to issue a warning to the PCs as the ruleset allows (i.e. in 3.5 poison or disease work well -- grevious wounds do not since D&D expects a buffer of unconsciousness between active character and dead).

When I'm adjudicsting the game I won't enforce the cliche if the players reasonably work around it using tools in their repertoire.  If the NPC is in dire straits and the PCs won't/can't immediately use healing magic on the NPC they'll be last words.  If they do manage to help him, the scenario doesn't fall apart -- the focus shifts away from investigation towards resolution.  The players feel empowered as their agency drives the change in the situaiton closer to the situations they desire to experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Hey you (the DM) already picked up your ball to go home.




But we play at my house! 



Nagol said:


> I'm just suggsting there's no need to reconvene.  My players from the past 30+ years would probably agree. [/puts away "rod of camparison"]




As such, my "to each their own"  and "win-win"comments. 



Nagol said:


> I'm a big advocate for using the tool suited to the job at hand.




I've never thought of any RPG as a rigid tool. More a set of guidelines to mold into the game my players and I want to run.



Nagol said:


> Just like I don't hammer screws into a wall,




Stepping away from the anology to real life, I've probably hammered a screw into a wall at some point. Not a tool guy, literally or figuritively, I guess.



Nagol said:


> I pick a RPG system that supports the genre I wish to explore.  Then I design situations that the system supports well -- why fight the game if the game was chosen purposefully?  It is likely that if I'm fighting the game system, I am fighting the tropes and expectations of the genre (or the game was a poor choice as it doesn't cover the chosen genre well but that's what house ruling is for).




I don't think D&D has any tropes. Going back to the 1E DMG you even had suggestions for Wild West (Boot Hill conversions) and Sci-Fi (Gamma World conversions). And I don't like picking systems that only support one genre unless I really like the overall system. I like D&D and make adjucations that help it fit the tropes I'm mashing together to create a fun game.


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> It's not about winning. It's about getting to use my powers. If I wanted to go along with the story, I'd go rent a movie or read a book. I want to write the story. If I can't do anything, fine, but if I can, I don't want to be stopped because of the story.




Apparently, the GM also wants to write the story.

I reckon, y'all are gonna have to take turns or learn to cooperate.

Ideally,  a GM is using story telling elements to smooth out what happens into a cool story.  That shouldn't be intrusive or obstructive.

Players got to realize though, you may want to play a successful bank robber, but when you make mistakes and get caught, that ain't the kind of story you get to tell.

And ultimately, the when it comes to the guy lying next to the tree, the GM could have just made the bastard dead.  Is it so wrong that instead he made him wait to die until you showed up?  Is that really a group destroying problem?


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 6, 2011)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I say this with full respect, but I can't help but see a lot of cognitive dissonance in those claims.



It's interesting to get your criticism because I can tell you're coming from a very cohesive approach to your games. I love your cultural approaches to resurrection, and it's something I've used in a warrior culture worshipping ancestors where the number of relatives dead in battle was a source of prestige. But that's probably a discussion for entirely different thread. 

Back to the topic.... by your definition, a DM who has a preconceived story/plot idea, or uses DM fiat because they haven't written a specific ruling it into the house rules up front, is doing so to the detriment of the game and player choice? Is that right?

In my particular example, the PCs learned about an invading force headed toward a northern keep with limited defenses run by an NPC they'd shared drinks at the tavern with before. This happened right when they had a window of opportunity to enter a portal to a mystic isle that only appeared on the new moon to consult an oracle. They decided the oracle was more important and took the risk that the NPC could stave off the invasion long enough for the PCs to get there. (a polticial situation was tying up aid from any knights or militias)

So when they arrived to find the keep overrun, the players didn't feel screwed over, they felt they had made the right choice but there was a steep consequence. They fought their way through the small occupying force and came upon the staked bodies and heads of the NPC's court and soldiers. The NPC was mortally wounded and left to bleed out but had dragged himself to this warning beacon to light it.

The PCs followed the blood trail and found him. Now I could have had him already dead, and that worked fine. IMO having him alive to recount what happened, request the PCs save his captured family, and die with a gruff joke on his lips had a certain emotional impact (maybe drama is the wrong word?) that saving his life or finding him dead would t have IMO.

AFAIK this particular option is impossible in D&D (without house rules); either he's dead or he's saved - provided there's a healer with spells/powers left - there's no in between. Whereas I find value in that in between.

It's not a make or break it thing with my group, we all enjoy D&D, the player and I are great friends and this was more of a speed bump than anything. It did make me stop and reflect though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (OTOH, I am never invested in "how things should go" either.  If an NPC I thought would probably die instead lives and gives the PCs more information.....great!  The players have simply chosen to take the game in a different direction.
> 
> There isn't any "story", for me, until after the fact.)




so would you ever set up this situation?  PCs come back to area, to find NPC they know dying, about ready to give his last words?

Note, I'm not talking about what happens next.  Merely that you've set up a dramatic moment because it hopefully makes sense to what has gone on before.

Would you have this planned out in your notes (ex. when the party comes back, Bob is dying or if the party comes back too late, Bob is laying there dying)?

what it takes to help prevent PC interference is the same kind of thinking a GM has to deal with to counter Flying over the big problem, or Speak With Dead on the murder victim.  Important, but requiring a certain carefull balance between reasonable and appropriate versus blocking for the sake of getting your way.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> It's interesting to get your criticism because I can tell you're coming from a very cohesive approach to your games. I love your cultural approaches to resurrection, and it's something I've used in a warrior culture worshipping ancestors where the number of relatives dead in battle was a source of prestige. But that's probably a discussion for entirely different thread.




Could be a cool one.



> Back to the topic.... by your definition, a DM who has a preconceived story/plot idea, or uses DM fiat...is doing so to the detriment of the game




No, I'm not evaluating the rightness or wrongess of the approach.  However, by any reasonable definition, a DM who has a preconceived story/plot or idea which is not mutable by player action and who uses DM fiat to ensure that the story/plot is not mutable is railroading.   And not only railroading in a small way, but railroading like a conductor.   

This may or may not be a good thing, and I'm not entirely opposed to lay rails occasionally, but if you see your self on the open sandbox-ish end of the spectrum, then how you see yourself seems to me to be highly at odds with how you are defining yourself.   Moreover, while I don't think that anyone is a bad DM for laying rails, one of the worst crimes you can commit as a DM is laying _obvious_ rails.   

(As for how I define railroading, go here.   Feel free to disagree with my definition.)



> ...and player choice? Is that right?




Well, pretty obviously and by definition you are limiting player choice by a fiat ruling that something, which normally works under the rules, doesn't work here.   Whether that is good or bad, I'm not judging, but it is railroading.



> So when they arrived to find the keep overrun, the players didn't feel screwed over, they felt they had made the right choice but there was a steep consequence.




So far so good.  Even if there was rails here, you've successfully hid them.



> They fought their way through the small occupying force and came upon the staked bodies and heads of the NPC's court and soldiers. The NPC was mortally wounded and left to bleed out but had dragged himself to this warning beacon to light it.
> 
> The PCs followed the blood trail and found him. Now I could have had him already dead, and that worked fine. IMO having him alive to recount what happened, request the PCs save his captured family, and die with a gruff joke on his lips had a certain emotional impact (maybe drama is the wrong word?) that saving his life or finding him dead would t have IMO.




Yeah, but now you are wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  You want him to be dead, but you also want him to around to provide an RP oppurtunity.  And you could probably get away with both in some games, except in D&D that PC's aren't ordinary mortals - they have superpowers.  If they find a situation, they usually have the power to alter it.  

With some creativity, you probably could have managed both without saying, "No."  You could have set it up so that the baddies left him to be found with some sort of problem that the PC's would have a hard time figuring out/dealing with before he died.  You could have had him dead, but in some defiant/courageous way he'd managed to leave a message for the PC's.

Or you could do what I do, which is look at the silence of the rules in certain area and go: "There is no obvious way under the rules for their to be a one legged pirate, or for someone's arm to get cut off by his father.  We must do something about that, because if we don't, it will be a hinderance not only to my story telling, but to the sort of interesting happenstance that leads to stories I could not have foreseen."



> AFAIK this particular option is impossible in D&D (without house rules); either he's dead or he's saved - provided there's a healer with spells/powers left - there's no in between. Whereas I find value in that in between.




I'm not questioning the value.  I'm questioning first, the method, and second the claim that you are on the sandboxy end of the spectrum.    I mean, I'm fairly middle of the road I think on this question, and you see clearly more 'adventure path/pro-railroading' than I am.  To me you seem to have pretty clear rails, they just branch a bit.   When Lex Luther puts Superman in a delimma, you want him to actually be in a delimma, and not go, "Wait a minute, I'm Superman.  This isn't really a problem for me."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> Back to the topic.... by your definition, a DM who has a preconceived story/plot idea, or uses DM fiat because they haven't written a specific ruling it into the house rules up front, is doing so to the detriment of the game and player choice? Is that right?
> 
> In my particular example, the PCs learned about an invading force headed toward a northern keep with limited defenses run by an NPC they'd shared drinks at the tavern with before. This happened right when they had a window of opportunity to enter a portal to a mystic isle that only appeared on the new moon to consult an oracle. *{DM fiat}* They decided the oracle was more important and took the risk that the NPC could stave off the invasion long enough for the PCs to get there. (a polticial situation was tying up aid from any knights or militias)
> 
> ...




The weird thing to me is that most things a DM does off-screen are DM fiat and no one normally complains. But then you use it for an on-screen death scene and people are up in arms.



Raven Crowking said:


> But, OTOH, not every injury need be expressed in hit point damage, nor healed by spells that recover hit point damage.




Exactly! But if my players would like me to introduce a system of mortal wounds so they can be just like the NPCs in my game I guess I can add that. No? You don't want crits that shatter your leg or leave your guts on the floor that no simple cure spell can restore? You'd rather be like Bruce Willis in Die Hard? That's what I thought. (NO - I'm not tryng to say that no one would enjoy a game where lasting grievous injuries occur!) Hit points are abstract and I see nothing wrong with injuries that are beyond the hit point restorative powers of player characters.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 6, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'd point out that, if you are going to allow NPC children to break their arms falling out of trees...




Not only am I fine with it, but I'm fine with PC's breaking their arms falling out of trees.

Damage from a fall in my game is 1d20/10' divided by 1d6.   Average damage is slightly under 3.5, but maximum damage is 20 per 10' of fall.  

Damage from a fall that reduces you to 0 hit points or less is traumatic.   That provokes a DC 15 Fortitude save.

If failed, one possible result is a broken arm:



> Crippled Arm: The character’s arm has been smashed or amputated (in the case of slashing damage).  The character gains the ‘one arm’ disadvantage until the limb is restored, and the character takes 1d6 permanent strength damage.  If the limb is amputated, this strength damage cannot be restored without the application of a regeneration spell.  If there is a question as to which arm has been crippled, 60% of the time it is the character’s primary arm.
> The character takes no additional damage, but is bleeding until stabilized.




I don't do this primarily to be realistic.  But I do enjoy the theoretical possibility.

And there is the additional niceness that conditions like the one described above are generally replacements for the condition 'Death', so its a win/win.  The players get to play characters 'John McClane' characters that are more capable and durable, and I get 'dramatic' situations - either engineered off stage or incidently occuring on stage.



> Exception-based design is your friend.  Use it.




I played with exception based design for more than 10 years, and eventually we had an ugly separation.  I couldn't take it anymore.

I think that exception based design is often used to mean a lot of things.

If by 'exception based design' you mean that you can customize monsters or DC's or materials or magic items or anything else about the setting however you want, then yeah, I'm pretty much for that.

But I don't consider those 'rules' per se.  

On the other hand, 'exception based design' where you mean, "At a given time, I have no idea how the rules will interact with the game environment outside of a narrowly defined framework" is a terrible head ache for both players and DM's.   Cleaning up exception based design of the spells will present me a headache likely for years to come, to say nothing of the many arguments its produced in 1e.   The last thing I want as a DM is to be unable to give a clear answer about what happens when a player offers a proposition.   Being forced to resort to DM fiat is more trouble than knowing the rules.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jul 6, 2011)

Theoretically I loath that sort of thing as total railroading. Practically I've gone along with it the few times it has come up. I've even done it once myself, and played the healing Cleric at least once. But, as I've said numerous times before, I've been very lucky in playing with really cool groups who are willing to 'go along with the gag' because we trusted one another. 

The conversation would usually go something like this:

GM: "The badly wounded guy gasps out..."
Cleric Player: "Cure Light Wounds!"
GM: "He gasps out 'whatever' and dies, your healing has no effect."
Cleric Player: "Why not?"
GM" "Because I'm using the old 'guy gasps out cryptic clue with his dying breath' bit." 
Cleric Player (rolling eyes): "Oh, ok. But can I have my Cure Light back?"
GM: Uh, sure. Now what do you do?"


----------



## AeroDm (Jul 6, 2011)

I think if a rule stands in the way of the narrative, it is a bad rule. As has been pointed out, these rules can easily be ignored. However, as has also been pointed out, ignoring the rules often ticks players off. Whether or not they are right to be ticked off, they are still ticked off and that hurts the game.

Such rules ought to be investigated to see if they add as much as they detract. Many, I'm sure, add plenty and should be left in. Others are not as important and narrative should win out. I think things like living and dying are important enough that narrative should win out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2011)

Removed


----------



## anest1s (Jul 7, 2011)

The problem isn't if you will just say ''The cure didn't work"
or if you will say "The cure didn't work, because he was undead/was poisoned/was taking CON damage/didn't want to live"
In both cases the PC will feel cheated.

Once upon a time, my DM had every NPC we questioned to bit his tongue off. I don't know if the punishment they would suffer for talking would be that much worse than death, but I can tell we didn't believe that it was the case.

That being said, if you want to pull this of while being fair at the same time, either have the NPC die of old age, or make the reason that he gives the PCs the clue, the fact that he dies.

NPC:"Its my last moments...*gasp* but I will tell you..."
PC:"CURE CRITICAL WOUNDS"
NPC: "Thank you. I cant thank you enough. Like I was saying, I wanted to tell you that you remind me of my son."
DM:


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I played with exception based design for more than 10 years, and eventually we had an ugly separation.  I couldn't take it anymore.
> 
> I think that exception based design is often used to mean a lot of things.
> 
> ...




is it accurate that you have created a fair number of house rules for your game.  Like the example feat.

Is this not a case of exception based design?  Making lots of rules changes to better cover the exceptions you saw with the RAW?

Granted lots of the stuff I've seen celebrim post looks pretty well thought out.

We just don't care enough in my group to go fine tune the rules like that.  so instead, when an odd situation comes up, we make an exception and make a ruling.

it works for us.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2011)

jimmifett said:


> Just because magic closes wounds and knits skin back together doesn't mean it didn't hurt like a bitch. In fact, i'd be willing to say that now that the pain has stopped, the NPC can finally relax and falls unconcious, exhausted from the ordeal. If they were bleeding out, the wound was closed, but they are still low on blood and need time to create more blood. A non-adventurer doesn't just hop back on their feet and start singing Hello my baby, Hello my darling.
> 
> Fine, you cast heal light wounds, the worst of it is over and the NPC falls unconcious. Come back in the morning after he has recuperated. Oh, you rested too that evening? An assassin finished the job since you didn't bother to stand gaurd.




This sort of thing causes DM's to be pelted with dice IME.  And generally leads to player revolts.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> No, I'm not evaluating the rightness or wrongess of the approach.  However, by any reasonable definition, a DM who has a preconceived story/plot or idea which is not mutable by player action and who uses DM fiat to ensure that the story/plot is not mutable is railroading.   And not only railroading in a small way, but railroading like a conductor.




Yes, but let's refocus for a second - in this thread we are talking about having one spell not work once, for one story element, right?  And you want to use the same word for that one-time variant ruling as is used for entire enforced linear plotlines?

I invoke Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

If it were one thing in a series, that established a pattern of behavior that significantly restricted how the party could continue, I'd agree with you.  But not for an isolated act.  The matter of degree leads to important qualitative differences.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but let's refocus for a second - in this thread we are talking about having one spell not work once, for one story element, right?  And you want to use the same word for that one-time variant ruling as is used for entire enforced linear plotlines?
> 
> I invoke Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> If it were one thing in a series, that established a pattern of behavior that significantly restricted how the party could continue, I'd agree with you.  But not for an isolated act.  The matter of degree leads to important qualitative differences.




The problem is, once you've done it once, it calls into question every ruling from then on.  If you're willing to change the rules here to suit your specific outcome, then what other rules are subject to change?  Is it truly a one time thing?  How can the player be sure?

I'm not saying that this is the end of a game or something extreme like that, but, once a DM starts doing something like this, it's very damaging to the trust the players can put in the rules in the future.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 7, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but let's refocus for a second - in this thread we are talking about having one spell not work once, for one story element, right?  And you want to use the same word for that one-time variant ruling as is used for entire enforced linear plotlines?




*puts on "I'm with Celebrim" T-shirt*

An entirely enforce linear plotline is one definition of a railroad, and a relatively literal one.

But I'd widely regard as a railroad any DM action that by fiat causes the world to function in an inconsistent manner such that it removes the illusion of player choice.  Having a single spell fail, that would otherwise work perfectly and as intended, in a minor instance so the DM can deny a player action to set up his pet dramatic scene?  Yep, railroad.

Not all railroads are necessarily bad, particularly if short.  I think it depends on how much you trust your DM.  But as a DM I feel it is a slippery slope -- used too often, you can start to take away player choice in other areas.  IMO a DM should only restrict player choice in a manner consistent with the game world (e.g, you can't go east without a boat or a fly spell, because there's an ocean there; you can kill the townspeople if you want but beware the town guard; raise dead may fail because the spell recipient must want to return, etc).  I feel the best DMs -- or at least the ones I want to play under -- set up conditions such that events allow for player choice consistent with the game world.  So they might heal the dying messenger or speak with dead or cast a augury when you least expect it -- it's part of the game world and the DM should roll with the punches.  My preferred DM response would be "Yes, you can do that, and then this happens ..."

Remember, my definition of railroad includes a key qualifier: "removes the _illusion_ of player choice."  Preserve the illusion and you're not railroading by my definition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 7, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I invoke Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.




In response to your invocation, I cast Celebrim's Already Got a Lengthy Post on that Subject.  If the word doesn't mean what I think it means, feel free to define it better.



> If it were one thing in a series, that established a pattern of behavior that significantly restricted how the party could continue, I'd agree with you.




Note that I'm not judging the act of railroading as good or bad.



> But not for an isolated act.  The _matter of degree_ leads to important _qualitative_ differences.



 - emphasis mine

Secure in my abjurations, I now turn your retort back on you; that word you are using, I don't think it means what you think it means.  A matter of degree leads to _quantitative_ differences.  Whether what's good in small doses is poison in large doses is a matter of opinion, but personally I think that its less a matter of dosage that the purposes to which it is employed.  Those DM's which employ it very broadly seldom do so skillfully and to good purpose, and are usually instead being driven by their ego - a qualitative difference.


----------



## jimmifett (Jul 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This sort of thing causes DM's to be pelted with dice IME.  And generally leads to player revolts.




If the players make the decision not to guard someone they want to keep alive until it is rested enough to talk, how is that the DM's fault? Gaurds can be bribed to look the other way, the BBEG could have been scrying the fight and dispatched an assassin to cut loose ends.

It's also an opportunity! The assassin leaves behind some sort of evidence/calling card/muddy foot print with dirt that only comes from a couple locations as a clue. Now, the party may not have a direct answer, but there is still a trail to follow. It may make the kill, but alert guards during it's escape, starting a chase scene with the adventurers.

I mean, Ras Al Gul is going to have an assassin to kill the person you want protected, and an assassin to kill that one, and probably another to kill that one. Thats where Batman the Inquisitve (or Abraxis Wren) comes into play to follow all the clues and piece things together.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2011)

Removed


----------



## anest1s (Jul 7, 2011)

If there are clues he should be guarded, ok...if ''someone probably killed him just the next hour'' then wtf, how the assassin knew he would still be alive. I wouldn't throw any dice to the DM, but I would give him a look like that-->


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 7, 2011)

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]
I read your post on railroading and it's clear you use a broader different definition than me. By your definition the "he's beyond my healing" setup I used was absolutely railroading, I believe on points 1, 2, and 8 in particular.

What I'm much more interested in is the "method" you mentioned.

For example, if the PCs were communicating with the dying NPC by magic mirror (and didnt have instant mass teleport), that would be ok? And it would be ok because it sidesteps the possibility of healing?

Or would the magic mirror still be problematic because it's pre-defining what the players "should" feel and takes away meaningful choice?


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> Apparently, the GM also wants to write the story.




He gets absolute power to set up the situation for PCs, but once the PCs come into he has to work with them.



> Players got to realize though, you may want to play a successful bank robber, but when you make mistakes and get caught, that ain't the kind of story you get to tell.




I said above it's not about winning. I'm fine if I make mistakes and get caught; I'm not fine if we have a dagger to the throat of the bank manager and the DM tells us we can't kill him because he still has a role in the plot.



> And ultimately, the when it comes to the guy lying next to the tree, the GM could have just made the bastard dead.  Is it so wrong that instead he made him wait to die until you showed up?  Is that really a group destroying problem?




It's not a group destroying problem. It would, however, annoy the heck out of me. 

It's like an invisible wall around the playing area in a video game; it's an arbitrary restriction that makes no sense except to remind you of the unreality of the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 7, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> For example, if the PCs were communicating with the dying NPC by magic mirror (and didnt have instant mass teleport), that would be ok? And it would be ok because it sidesteps the possibility of healing?
> 
> Or would the magic mirror still be problematic because it's pre-defining what the players "should" feel and takes away meaningful choice?




These sorts of questions indicate to me that you are still primarily seeing my interaction with you in terms of me calling railroading badwrongfun, and that's not really my point at all.  It's not an issue of what is problimatic or what is ok.  It's an issue of what is skillful, doesn't destroy suspension of disbelief, doesn't tend to cause player drama and what is done with the best of motives - where here I would define best of motives as 'you want to empower the players' or 'you are putting the players desires ahead of your own'.  

I'm not really that vested in the whole 'if you aren't running a sandbox you have badwrongfun' or 'if you are running a sandbox you have badwrongfun', and I think I indicate that you can engage in railroading without having a campaign or adventure which can be best summarized as a railroad.  Of course, I'm not wholly convinced that a railroad couldn't be fun.  However, I am wholly convinced that there have a lot of bad DM's who've used railroads.  I'm also convinced that there are far more railroaders out there than believe it of themselves.  My pet peeve is DM's who think that they are running a sandbox when they don't prep their games.  Drives me nuts.  Nothing is more likely to drive me from the table than the guy who thinks he's a great extemporaneous sandbox DM.

As for your specific question, I think that a 'magic mirror' would be one example of a more creative solution to the problem than a fiat 'No'.  

A 'magic mirror' like solution is used in Star Trek II - Wrath of Kahn, to allow Spock to have a death scene in which Kirk cannot interfere.  In this case the barrier is lethal radiation rather than distance, and the means of communication is an intercom and a transparent barrier, but its serving the same purpose.  The secret to getting away with this is plan well ahead by doing a Checkov's Gun trick, so that when the magic mirror finally gets used as a plot device it will seem natural rather than artificial.  If you spring these artificial barriers to player action up at the last minute, then they'll be seen for what they are.  If you hide your rails, it will all look natural and the players will give you the benefit of the doubt.  

I mean really, when it comes down to it, the house rules are just a version of this.  From one angle, they are just me telescoping a plot point so that when it happens, it won't come as a suspension of disbelief shattering suprise.  Of course, by making them random I'm also allowing the plot to develop in ways I didn't anticipate and can't control.

There are other ways to do it.  You can introduce a villain who is particularly sadistic and leaves people behind to die in particularly slow and cruel ways.  You can have the players encounter his handy work a couple of times with victims who are already dead, and with strangers.  Then you can pull the trick with an NPC that they've developed a relationship with, and now you've got a doubly powerful effect - you've created pathos over the death of an NPC and you've enhanced the stature of your reoccuring villain and made it personal.

But the point is that thinking about these things ahead of time in some fashion is almost always better than just breaking the rules and saying, "No.  You can't do that."   Maybe you can get away with it sometimes, but that's a bad drug to get adicted to.  

Railroading is neither good nor bad for me.  It's all how you do it.  Vyvyan Basterd is completely right about one thing - DM's must use fiat force all the time and so can't avoid railroading to some degree.  He fails however to see where the qualitative differnces lie (and I'm going to have to answer him at some point, but not just at the moment).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, once you've done it once, it calls into question every ruling from then on.  If you're willing to change the rules here to suit your specific outcome, then what other rules are subject to change?  Is it truly a one time thing?  How can the player be sure?




I believe I already answered this, back in post #52:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> The player would not mind, however, if I sometimes ruled she automatically failed. I asked, prior to campaign start, if the players minded if I drive a GM Fiat now and again.




So, that's how you know - you discuss it beforehand.



> I'm not saying that this is the end of a game or something extreme like that, but, once a DM starts doing something like this, it's very damaging to the trust the players can put in the rules in the future.




To each their own, I suppose.  For myself, I have more trust that a living GM can show me a good time than a set of static, inflexible, non-sentient rules.  The GM can know me, The Rules cannot.

If you break the rules too many times, things go to heck in a handbasket, I agree.  But that doesn't mean we should scowl and make "harumphharumph" noises at every suggestion that sometimes a GM might have a better idea than The Rules.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> These sorts of questions indicate to me that you are still primarily seeing my interaction with you in terms of me calling railroading badwrongfun, and that's not really my point at all.



The only kind of badwrongfun involves prairiedogs and firecrackers. 



> It's not an issue of what is problimatic or what is ok.  It's an issue of what is skillful, doesn't destroy suspension of disbelief, doesn't tend to cause player drama and what is done with the best of motives - where here I would define best of motives as 'you want to empower the players' or 'you are putting the players desires ahead of your own'.



Well....if it sloppily executed, destroys suspension of disbelief, and causes static between players and DM - which seems to be what youre saying - then "problematic" and "ok" strike me as appropriate shorthand.



> The secret to getting away with this is plan well ahead by doing a Checkov's Gun trick, so that when the magic mirror finally gets used as a plot device it will seem natural rather than artificial.  If you spring these artificial barriers to player action up at the last minute, then they'll be seen for what they are.



Thing is my players had a real choice about going to the keep or through the portal (or whatever zany idea they came up with). It was clear that there were costs/benefits to both choices. Here's where me and my player had our disagreement: With this explicit foreshadowing I didn't perceive "he's beyond healing" as an artificial barrier, whereas he did. OTOH the magic mirror situation seems more contrived to me - a complex bending over backwards that has the same result. To my player I think something like this would have been more palatable.



> There are other ways to do it.  You can introduce a villain who is particularly sadistic and leaves people behind to die in particularly slow and cruel ways.  You can have the players encounter his handy work a couple of times with victims who are already dead, and with strangers.  Then you can pull the trick with an NPC that they've developed a relationship with, and now you've got a doubly powerful effect - you've created pathos over the death of an NPC and you've enhanced the stature of your reoccuring villain and made it personal.



This was exactly my setup. The difference is the NPC didn't die offscreen. I guess that's the crux of my question. Both scenarios (PCs present & PCs through the looking glass) could be seen as disempowering, but the magic mirror is more acceptable to some players because there is a built in assumption in D&D that if it's hurt you can heal it.



> But the point is that thinking about these things ahead of time in some fashion is almost always better than just breaking the rules and saying, "No.  You can't do that."   Maybe you can get away with it sometimes, but that's a bad drug to get adicted to.



I get it. Since my group includes a fair number of newer players, they tend to get overwhelmed by house rules (their words not mine). At the same time switching games outside of what they're familiar with (3e or 4e) isn't something they look forward to.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 7, 2011)

We have a house rule in our game called last breath. basically it allows a chance to say something short right before you die. 

It is understood that its purpose is to allow an NPC or PC to give a clue or to allow a dying PC one last hurrah.

Also if the person starts talking and then the healer says I heal him isn't it possible that the spell did not have time to heal the guy before he took his last breath.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> We have a house rule in our game called last breath. basically it allows a chance to say something short right before you die.
> 
> It is understood that its purpose is to allow an NPC or PC to give a clue or to allow a dying PC one last hurrah.
> 
> Also if the person starts talking and then the healer says I heal him isn't it possible that the spell did not have time to heal the guy before he took his last breath.




Neat.  Effective.  Good.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Jul 7, 2011)

I think the famous last-words situation depends very much on the context. I'd be less likely to use it for "dying messager stumbles into town with an arrow in his back", and more likely to use it for "henchman dies during combat". In the latter case, the PCs already had the chance to save him, but failed. Now he's dead. But rather than go out suddenly, we have a cheesy movie moment where he sputters his last words to his friends. And cheesy movie moments are what my games are made of.

So I'm fine with saying "he's beyond healing". I also rule in my own games that the raise dead ritual is almost a myth. Certain clerics have these dusty scrolls hidden away in their temples, but they don't really expect them to work. Kings have the ritual cast over them almost as a tradition, but it rarely does anything. The heroes, however, have great destinies - and word of their resurrection spreads quickly. It won't work on their henchman though (and no, I won't charge them for trying).


----------



## MrBeens (Jul 7, 2011)

This is how the DM in my regular 4e game runs it and it works perfectly well.

For all those saying "use a different system, one that supports this style of game" - D&D supports this style of game if the DM and players are on the same wavelength.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 7, 2011)

MrBeens said:


> This is how the DM in my regular 4e game runs it and it works perfectly well.
> 
> For all those saying "use a different system, one that supports this style of game" - D&D supports this style of game if the DM and players are on the same wavelength.




That's not the game supporting it -- it is an example of a group adopting it despite the rules.  Perfectly cool if the group is OK with it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 7, 2011)

Nagol said:


> That's not the game supporting it -- it is an example of a group adopting it despite the rules.  Perfectly cool if the group is OK with it.




The rules do not cover every single aspect of virtual life in the game world. Sometimes a DM (sometimes called a Judge) has to use his judgement to cover things that the rules do not. This is the "old school" feeling that I miss the most, the aspect of D&D that modern versions have lost. The DM does not have to "play fair" IMO, his job is to provide an intersting adventure. We do agree though that everyone needs to be on the same page, otherwise the players might not find what the DM is presenting interesting.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 7, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The rules do not cover every single aspect of virtual life in the game world. Sometimes a DM (sometimes called a Judge) has to use his judgement to cover things that the rules do not. This is the "old school" feeling that I miss the most, the aspect of D&D that modern versions have lost. The DM does not have to "play fair" IMO, his job is to provide an intersting adventure. We do agree though that everyone needs to be on the same page, otherwise the players might not find what the DM is presenting interesting.




I agree with all that.  It's just there are game systems that better support that trope and it should be recognised that while a game group can have any social contract that overwrites the ruleset that doesn't mean the ruleset is supporting that game play -- the social contract is.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> ...Celebrim's Already Got a Lengthy Post on that Subject.  If the word doesn't mean what I think it means, feel free to define it better.




I'm not a fan of defining personal lingo, I'm afraid.  If you need a lengthy post to set up a personal definition, and folks have to read it in order to know what you're talking about, when to the rest of the world the exact same word means something rather different, I think that's bit of a communication failure on your part.  

"Please see my previous writings to understand what I'm talking about," is okay for formal talks by authorities - which this isn't.



> Secure in my abjurations, I now turn your retort back on you; that word you are using, I don't think it means what you think it means.  A matter of degree leads to _quantitative_ differences.




I this case, it means what I think it means.  If I take a small amount of heat from water, I get a cup of cold water.  If I take a lot, I get solid ice.  A matter of degree (kind of literally) leads to difference in outright physical qualities, not just quantitative difference in temperature.

And neither are about good or bad, just about different.  Quantitative differences are those that can be measured.  Qualitative differences are those humans "feel" as different.  You can have both at the same time - it is often difficult to produce a qualitative difference *without* a quantitative one.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 7, 2011)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> But I'd widely regard as a railroad any DM action that by fiat causes the world to function in an inconsistent manner such that it removes the illusion of player choice. Having a single spell fail, that would otherwise work perfectly and as intended, in a minor instance so the DM can deny a player action to set up his pet dramatic scene? Yep, railroad.
> 
> Not all railroads are necessarily bad, particularly if short. I think it depends on how much you trust your DM. But as a DM I feel it is a slippery slope -- used too often, you can start to take away player choice in other areas...




There is another potential drawback from that same slope. If your players are invested in understanding how the world works, and then you change it, and they trust you--they will likely assume that there is some mysterious reason for the world working differently this time, and want to investigate.

One of the few times I ever came close to "players rebel" was when I set up a situation that obviously made no sense, but that I had a perfectly good reason for, and made it really difficult to determine that reason. It was meant to take a long time to unravel. It was meant to be a major campaign mystery, taking many sessions and clues to understand. I knew they'd want to know, because I didn't normally pull that kind of fiat on major things. 

They got so frustrated they decided I had screwed up. We had to stop the game for a few minutes, and I had to flat out assert that there was an answer, and they could find it. Normally, we don't like to do that, because sometimes I'll misdirect them down the garden path, too. 

Of course, this doesn't matter if your players aren't motivated by those kinds of things. Just a note that "trust" affects multiple playstyle issues, and isn't just about players having control. It has a real effect on what you can effectively do at time.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 7, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I agree with all that.  It's just there are game systems that better support that trope and it should be recognised that while a game group can have any social contract that overwrites the ruleset that doesn't mean the ruleset is supporting that game play -- the social contract is.




Then again, IME, Game X may support trope X very well, but may not support tropes A through W well at all. Or it may support a particular trope, but otherwise be a game system the group finds unenjoyable. I'd rather work trope X into a game I like than try to find a system that supports it and meets all my other criteria for a good game.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 7, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I'm not a fan of defining personal lingo, I'm afraid.  If you need a lengthy post to set up a personal definition, and folks have to read it in order to know what you're talking about, when to the rest of the world the exact same word means something rather different, I think that's bit of a communication failure on your part.




I'm not offering a personal definition.  I'm offering up a hopefully definitive Aristotilean definition of the sometimes loosely defined and used slang term 'railroading'.  If you feel that I have failed to define it properly, then by all means critique my definition.   I believe I am using the term in the proper way based on the lexicographic information I've observed at EnWorld and elsewhere.  I have used an Aristotilean definition rather than a nice short Socratic one, because I've not yet hit on a nice short Socratic one that isn't misunderstood.

The 'rest of the world' for all I know consists of you, because I have no special knowledge of how you use the term or whether your usage is in wide agreement with the core ideas I've observed the term being employed to reference.  

I believe that I have been understood when I used the term on this thread.  The one poster I have been in a direct dialogue with offers up that I'm using the term more broadly than he's used to using it, but he doesn't seem to quibble with my general idea.  I submit that I'm using the term more narrowly than I've seen some use it, and with good reason.

I submit that the main reason for the disagreement is that many posters in addition to using the term as I've defined use the term 'railroading' very loosely and in an overlapping way to pejoratively mean, 'sorts of DMing I don't like', much as the term 'power gaming' is also used as a slur of player behavior.  In consider this use of the term as a blanket insult to be a hinderance to understanding, and while my definition incorporates the notion of 'railroading' as an activity where by the DM disempowers the players and recognizes the pejorative intent of the term, it is a definition which avoids subjective analysis of actual railroading.  

In other words, some posters would not call Shrodinger's Map a railroad if they felt it was fun, and other's would call it a railroad if they didn't.  But a subjective definition is in fact a personal definition.  In previous discussions this has led to utter chaos, and different posters have tried to define virtually anything and everything as railroading, for example offering up the claim that any linear adventure is a railroad.  This sort of definition is in fact a personal definition and is nearly useless.  (As can be seen from the definition, a linear adventure is only a railroad if you can't get off, and specifically if the DM is employing certain tricks and techniques of DM force that prevent you from getting off.)  You or someone else may in fact feel that any linear adventure is a railroad, but that is merely an attempt to use a pejorative to state something is badwrongfun because they don't like linearity.  If 'railroad' merely means 'linear but you know in a bad way', then its a pointless term.



> "Please see my previous writings to understand what I'm talking about," is okay for formal talks by authorities - which this isn't.




This may not be formal, but I'd like to think that when it comes to gaming topics, we are the authorities.



> I this case, it means what I think it means.  If I take a small amount of heat from water, I get a cup of cold water.  If I take a lot, I get solid ice.  A matter of degree (kind of literally) leads to difference in outright physical qualities, not just quantitative difference in temperature.




Which is precisely where you analogy breaks down because unlike the state change that occurs in water, there is no objective point where we could say 'this isn't railroading' and 'this isn't' based on the quanitity of something observed.   Games don't actually under go some physical and measurable state change based on exceeding some absolute and objective point in a scale of 'railroading' where a little isn't and a lot is.

Moreover, you are still getting it wrong.  Ice and water are qualitative differences that relate to quantitative differences, but they aren't intrinsic aspects of the quantitative measurement of temperature.   The quanitity and the quality still measure and describe different things.   For example, there are quantitative differences between red light and blue light.  But being 'red' or being 'blue' is not a quantitative difference, but a qualitative difference based not on the wavelength of light but how the human brain processes and perceives light.  'Blueness' and 'redness' exist independently of their quanitative measurements.  This or that frequency of light is a quantitative difference, but blueness is a quality distinct and independent from the measurement.  



> Quantitative differences are those that can be measured.  Qualitative differences are those humans "feel" as different.  You can have both at the same time - it is often difficult to produce a qualitative difference *without* a quantitative one.




Be as that may a matter of degree is not a qualitative difference.  Ice is not ice because it is cold (see a vacuum for instance), but because matter undergoes a state change (consuming or releasing energy independent of that necessary to cool or heat the matter).   Yes, there are quantitative differences in this case between the two qualities, but qualities they remain nonetheless.   

Matter of degree is not measurable in the case of 'railroading'.  What would you have me measure?  Either it is qualitative or it is wholly subjective.  If it is wholly subjective, what is the point?  Hense, you are probably the one using a personal definition and not me.   I reject that the term means only no more than what Umbran believes to be railroading.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, once you've done it once, it calls into question every ruling from then on.  If you're willing to change the rules here to suit your specific outcome, then what other rules are subject to change?  Is it truly a one time thing?  How can the player be sure?
> 
> I'm not saying that this is the end of a game or something extreme like that, but, once a DM starts doing something like this, it's very damaging to the trust the players can put in the rules in the future.




This is the "slippery slope to eroding our personal freedoms and contaminating our precious bodily fluids" argument that Umbran seems to be asking folks to chill out.

It's just a bloody death scene.

If I want to try to setup a Last Words scene, I can.  I shouldn't have to plot and plan how to cock-block everything the PCs could do to foil it.

Obviously, when the PC does the unthinkable and tries to heal the NPC, I have a conundrum.  Let it wor, or not.  And then I have to guage if not letting it work will cause me any further questions from the player or not.  Some players wil go "oh, ok, must be hurt to bad, or some other problem"  Others will dig and have to know WHY.

But the WHY is NOT something they have a direct right to know.  I don't go figuring out where the orc got his weapons from that he used in the last encounter.  I don't figure out where he learned his skills.  If he has a special ability, I don't go figuring that out.

If there's a special environmental effect occuring in the area, I do not go backtrack exactly how within the rules of the game that an NPC could have caused it to happen (which might have required desiging new spells and items).  It just does.

Asking WHY is the player trying to make you gamespeak your way to justify the exact reason the situation is as such.  And sometimes, that information just isn't relevant or even appropriate for the player to know.


If the DM said the "healing had no effect, and he dies", what then?  The DM can allow or block Speak with Dead or a Raise/Res spell.  But can the PC really backtrack what technical reason the heal spell didn't work (like poison).  Is Detect Poison going to work on a dead body?  Is a PC really going to waste more resources on the dead guy, now that they got his last words?

Personally, when the PC says "I try to heal him", I'll probably be surprised (well now that this thread exists, maybe not).   If I can't see a heal coming, I reckon I'm not going to see why having this guy NOT die would be such a problem.  Here's some more info to help on your quest.  Oh, you want him to come with, he's still to hurt...  You heal him up to full, uh, OK, he wants to join you on your vengeance quest.  Now the party has another sword, but at the cost of the resources they spent to bring him back and a split of the XP.

So, in a way, I don't see the problem, as it all takes care of itself.  The game got easier for the party, but they paid for that ease in spent resources and XP if they go to the full logical conclusion.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> <snip>
> 
> It's just a bloody death scene.
> 
> ...




To the DM, it’s just a bloody death scene.  For the players it is a situation where their expectations for in-game effect do not match with observed effect.  As far as the players are concerned this could be a CLUE.  Is all healing affected?  Perhaps the area is tied to the Negative Material Plane and healing is strongly suppressed .  Perhaps the “dying man” isn’t really a dying man?  Is he a form of undead/illiusion/possession of his dead body by some other THING?  Perhaps the PCs aren’t actually in the environment they think they are – is it a dream or alternate reality?  

When the player questions why he is trying to make sense and remove the inconsistency between expectation and observed effect and work out the expected consequence for the environmental inconsistency.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, once you've done it once, it calls into question every ruling from then on. If you're willing to change the rules here to suit your specific outcome, then what other rules are subject to change? Is it truly a one time thing? How can the player be sure?



It shouldn't need to be said, but the rules don't cover everything.  The rules have FAR more significance as limitations for the players than they do as limitations for the DM.  DM's are indeed allowed to invent stuff that the players and PC's do not have access to nor are ever allowed to use.  Players have a reasonable expectation that rules can and will be enforced as regards THEIR characters, they do not have the same reasonable expectation that NPC's will at all times and in all ways will be similarly limited.  Furthermore, DM's should not expect that _players_ must never be allowed to divert from the rules.

The trust between DM and players is that the DM will not screw them over just because he can; when he goes outside the written rules (or allows the players to) that he has proper motivations for doing so, not that he _never_ will do so.

Still, it's clear that if a DM wants NPC's to be giving deathbed clues and speeches without the players inflicting cures, etc. upon him then he should be instituting rules or at least formal exceptions and making players aware of them BEFORE they come up.  Either that or you'd best be willing to roll with the punches as the players throw them without prompting them to mutiny with seemingly arbitary, thoughtless fiats.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 7, 2011)

There's always the _other_ solution....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs]YouTube - ‪Monty Python-Bring out your dead!‬‏[/ame]


The Auld Grump


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2011)

Nagol said:


> To the DM, it’s just a bloody death scene.  For the players it is a situation where their expectations for in-game effect do not match with observed effect.  As far as the players are concerned this could be a CLUE.  Is all healing affected?  Perhaps the area is tied to the Negative Material Plane and healing is strongly suppressed .  Perhaps the “dying man” isn’t really a dying man?  Is he a form of undead/illiusion/possession of his dead body by some other THING?  Perhaps the PCs aren’t actually in the environment they think they are – is it a dream or alternate reality?
> 
> When the player questions why he is trying to make sense and remove the inconsistency between expectation and observed effect and work out the expected consequence for the environmental inconsistency.




I see a fork in the road on this point.  On the one hand, yes, when there's something "different" about the situation, players SHOULD be asking questions, as that was the reason the GM put the anamoly there.

On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  the NPC is dying and healing didn't work, because his role in this scene was to convey the message and die to make it more emotionally moving.  the dungeon corridor ends because that's what the random generator did and I made up a reason that the dwarves ran out of funding.  it does NOT hide anything, you do NOT need to spend 6 months tunneling into it.

I don't think any ruleset can truly protect you from these moments.  Where something was setup by the GM, and it rouses player suspicion where really, nothing interesting is to be found, and the GM can get stuck in an argument over it.

If one GM's game is so well thought out and and every contingency is handled and no inconsistencies ever happen, kudos to them.  The rest of us humans don't strive to that level of perfection and simply have to muddle through these situations when they occur.

An honorable player should have the grace to allow the GM to save face and get the game going again.  An honorable GM should admin that the anomoly came up, and that nothing nefarious lies behind it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 7, 2011)

Nagol said:


> When the player questions why he is trying to make sense and remove the inconsistency between expectation and observed effect and work out the expected consequence for the environmental inconsistency.




This is where our styles split. IMCs, the rules _never_ constitute the environment or reality in the game world. They are guidelines to adjudicate the actions of figures of destiny, the heroes of the story, the focal point of the campaign. They do not dictate in-game reality where a normal person can reach a point where no manner of healing will save them. I don't impose this sort of anti-climatic reality on the heroes of the game, but I hope anyone playing in my game will recognize that their characters _are_ different from the normal folk of the world and that what works on them won't necessarily work for a commoner of non-heroic status.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Ranes (Jul 7, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> There's always the _other_ solution....




I'll see your plague victim and raise you [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfowXTXOfU"]the last words of Joseph of Arimathea[/ame].


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm going to have to disagree with the use of DM fiat as being a good thing.

1) My style is that the rules exist for a reason, and by God, we are going to use them.  So if I wanted to set up that cliche, I'd probably use vile damage on the guy (can't be healed in a nonconsecrated area), or you know, not do it.  D&D doesn't really model anything well except for D&D, and you can make the argument that it should model "fantasy novels" or whatever - good luck modeling Mistborn (magic system too weird), Song of Ice and Fire (too low magic, not enough bling), Harry Potter (spells different), or even LoTR (low magic, not enough magic crap for warriors).

2) It's pretty heavily implied that arcane magic is the science of the land, and wizards are the local scientists.  Also, magic works.  It's stated in the FRCS that random peasants know that if uncle Rufus breaks his leg, the clerics in the temple down the street can heal him.  So if the magic that normally works doesn't work, there'd better be a damn good reason, not "um...it's dramatic?"  And yes, the rules ARE intended to be in-game reality (at least in 3.X, anyway) - why do the commoners have class levels, skills, and feats?

3) "Because it's dramatic," at a certain point, begins to actively work against suspension of disbelief.  Anyone remember the last seasons of Heroes where the protagonists acted like idiots because, you know, needless drama?  There are pages upon pages at Tvtropes asking why the hell people forget their powers in 'dramatic moments'.  Heck, this even has it's own trope page.  

4) Fluff arguments don't work.  There, I said it.  You can't really make a good argument from anything in fluff without sounding like a "Darth Vader vs. Spiderman" argument.  Sure, your character is the High Priest of the God of Healing, personally empowered by Healing McNicePants, but the dagger which stabbed the guy over there is a cursed Dagger of Hater von Kittykiller, created by the Dark God Groinkicker out of the souls of 10,000 cute kittens.  Who wins?  _That's why we have rules._  Because I could honestly dispute any fluff assertion with another one, and there's no way to tell who's right.  I could argue my modern-day collegiate wizard would be able to, fluff-wise, destroy an ancient artifact with dispel magic due to modern-day progress in the magical field, similar to how modern weaponry would easily destroy ancient fortifications.  You could argue the dagger's protected by the dark gods.  I could argue my wizard draws power from the Great Old Ones, who even the gods fear, so it's not like that power can't overcome the power of the dark gods.  We could keep arguing for hours in this vein, but ultimately there is no way to prove one side right because it devolves down to the "nuh-uh! Uh-huh!" style of six year old arguing.  This is why you have rules in an RPG, to resolve these kinds of issues.  You throw these rules out the window, you get back into the six year old arguments.  

5) "The PCs are special because the rules apply only to them"  is complete, utter bull.  This leads to the 4e style crap of the NPCs being able to do all the cool stuff while the PCs have to follow the rules.  It turns out the reason you can't heal the guy is because the DM made up some curse placed by a wizard?  Well. I'm a wizard, can I learn it?  No, it's not on the PCs power list.  But I'm a human wizard, why can't I learn it?

"Because shut up" is not an answer.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> I see a fork in the road on this point.  On the one hand, yes, when there's something "different" about the situation, players SHOULD be asking questions, as that was the reason the GM put the anamoly there.
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  the NPC is dying and healing didn't work, because his role in this scene was to convey the message and die to make it more emotionally moving.  the dungeon corridor ends because that's what the random generator did and I made up a reason that the dwarves ran out of funding.  it does NOT hide anything, you do NOT need to spend 6 months tunneling into it.
> 
> ...




Yep I agree with all that.  It's this section of your previous post that set me off...



> But the WHY is NOT something they have a direct right to know. I don't go figuring out where the orc got his weapons from that he used in the last encounter. I don't figure out where he learned his skills. If he has a special ability, I don't go figuring that out.
> 
> If there's a special environmental effect occuring in the area, I do not go backtrack exactly how within the rules of the game that an NPC could have caused it to happen (which might have required desiging new spells and items). It just does.
> 
> Asking WHY is the player trying to make you gamespeak your way to justify the exact reason the situation is as such. And sometimes, that information just isn't relevant or even appropriate for the player to know.




If its a bloody death scene and not a environmental concern/clue/something-subtle-to-be-detected and the players show signs of investigation or confusion... tell them.  The players cannot separate out subtley in the game world from heavy-handed trope use without guidance.

Most of the time the players don't care about the in-game justification (especially once it is explained as cosmetic) for an effect -- they're trying to suss out implications and consequences.    The 'why' they want answered is "Why did this happen and is it going to affect me further?" as opposed to "Why did this happen and what in-game mechanism caused it to occur?".  Telling them there are no implications other than the NPC was able to pass on information they otherwise would not have had is enough for them.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Jul 7, 2011)

Different gaming styles - therefore no right answer. Each group to their own.

For some, D&D is a series of puzzles and tests: a set of challenges to overcome through clever use of powers and cunning. I'm down with that. But for others - and this goes _all _the way back too - it's more about narrative, and thus the social contract* you have with your DM is much more important; i.e. in certain situations you know to roll with it, because you trust that it's all going to lead to some good story stuff in the end.

Personally, I think if the DM says "this is beyond your healing abilities", they're clearly putting themselves in the story-telling camp. But at the same time, they're also saying "this isn't a test situation", surely? 

* See Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Joy and Sorrow)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2011)

WarlockLord said:


> 4) Fluff arguments don't work.  There, I said it.  You can't really make a good argument from anything in fluff without sounding like a "Darth Vader vs. Spiderman" argument.  Sure, your character is the High Priest of the God of Healing, personally empowered by Healing McNicePants, but the dagger which stabbed the guy over there is a cursed Dagger of Hater von Kittykiller, created by the Dark God Groinkicker out of the souls of 10,000 cute kittens.  Who wins?  _That's why we have rules._  Because I could honestly dispute any fluff assertion with another one, and there's no way to tell who's right.  I could argue my modern-day collegiate wizard would be able to, fluff-wise, destroy an ancient artifact with dispel magic due to modern-day progress in the magical field, similar to how modern weaponry would easily destroy ancient fortifications.  You could argue the dagger's protected by the dark gods.  I could argue my wizard draws power from the Great Old Ones, who even the gods fear, so it's not like that power can't overcome the power of the dark gods.  We could keep arguing for hours in this vein, but ultimately there is no way to prove one side right because it devolves down to the "nuh-uh! Uh-huh!" style of six year old arguing.  This is why you have rules in an RPG, to resolve these kinds of issues.  You throw these rules out the window, you get back into the six year old arguments.



But where do the rules come from? How do we decide that Heimdall has a Perception value of +100, while Macavity, the world's greatest thief, has a Stealth of +60? Fluff. The values come entirely from the fluff. If I've already decided that Heimdall is much better than Macavity, on account of him being a god, I don't actually need rules. At least not rpg-style rules. In fact I do have a different kind of rule, there are 'world rules' inherent in the fluff. That said, it's not a bad idea to have precise rpg-style rules written down, to help keep me honest as a GM, amongst other reasons.

The D&D rules actually handle a lot of these types of conflicts rather badly because they are full of binaries. Stuff just works, except when it's up against a defence or immunity, in which case it is stopped cold. For example a creature immune to fire isn't hurt by a fireball cast by the god of fire. Protection From Evil, a 1st level spell, protects completely against charm. So it would thwart a charm cast by Venus.

Rules sets that give everything a value, such as HERO, are better at that kind of thing. Protection From Evil could provide a mental defence of, say, 10pts, which wouldn't be enough to stop Venus's 30d6 mind control.

I encountered this problem in my last campaign of Mutants & Masterminds. I wanted to introduce an artefact called the Anti-Grail, the evil opposite of the Holy Grail. Just as the Holy Grail has incredible healing power, so the wounds caused by the Anti-Grail are almost impossible to heal. Unfortunately the way M&M handles this is with Incurable, which costs 1pt and Persistent Healing, which also costs 1pt, and allows the healer to heal Incurable wounds. By RAW, Persistent Healing cannot be beaten and, ofc, a PC in my game had it. I introduced levels of Persistent and Incurable to counter this, so I could give the Anti-Grail Incurable 50 or somesuch.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jul 7, 2011)

WarlockLord said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with the use of DM fiat as being a good thing.
> 
> <stuff>
> 
> "Because shut up" is not an answer.




I used to be pretty firmly in this camp, but I've moderated my position somewhat.

With respect to agency within the game I see the rules as having two important functions, and two important properties.

Function 1) The rules manage character and NPC agency within the game.
Function 2) The rules manage player expectations about character and NPC agency within the game.

I think these functions are fundamental.  That is, any set of rules for any game necessarily performs these functions (substitute for character/NPC as appropriate to the game).

Property 1) The rules are a simple model of a complex system and are not expected to be complete.
Property 2) The rules are a simple model of a complex system and are not expected to be unerringly accurate or precise.

I think these properties are contingent, because they are not necessarily true of every game.  For most RPGs and most groups (where there is an interaction with some imagined world) I think they hold.  For many other games, such as board-games, interactions beyond what the rules specify do not exist and these properties do not hold.

As long as property 1 and/or property 2 hold we can conclude that DM fiat has a place, and in fact that it will be necessary whenever something not anticipated by the rules occurs.  An exception to the rules by DM fiat generally fulfills the purpose of function 1 (tells us what happens) admirably, but fulfills function 2 to a lesser degree, and possibly not at all.

If both properties are acknowledged to hold, then slavish adherence to the rules is just as likely to bring about nonsensical results as poor judgment in DM fiat.

Note that houserules are part of the rules, and fulfill function 2 just fine.  The elegant "Last Breath" houserule earlier in the thread and an impromptu use of the exact same ability when not already part of the rules are identical with respect to managing agency, but distinct in managing player expectations of agency.

Finally, everyone plays with some sort of Bayesian analysis in their head.  That is, if an exception to some rule comes up repeatedly, people will tend to treat it as a part of the rules and adjust their expectations accordingly.  No one expects the first Spanish Inquisition, but someone might suspect the 10th.  DM trust is a large factor here.  After a while this is almost as good as a houserule, but there can be a lot of consternation on the way there.

I think part of being a better DM, especially an improvisational one, is learning to apply rules exceptions not just when they apply better to the situation in the world, but when they apply better to the player's reasonable expectations of what they can accomplish.  This is highly group dependent.  If the game's mechanics makes these expectations more clear I think the game can run more smoothly, but it does impose greater restrictions on the types of people who will want to run that game.  Pick your poison.

To the specific matter at hand, I think the "Last Breath" rule is a great one, and I'd use it in any rule-light or narrative heavy game.  In a more crunchy game I'd specifically introduce rules that adds shades between "Fully operational" and "Dead" and/or that prevent healing from being automatic.  If the situation came up on-the-fly, I'd probably let the rules work like the players expect or suggest the "Last Breath" houserule and let the player's decide if they're OK with that.  That's DM fiat, but with an olive branch.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 8, 2011)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> But I'd widely regard as a railroad any DM action that by fiat causes the world to function in an inconsistent manner such that it removes the illusion of player choice.  Having a single spell fail, that would otherwise work perfectly and as intended, in a minor instance so the DM can deny a player action to set up his pet dramatic scene?  Yep, railroad.



Well, certainly "pet dramatic scene" is one take.

 Another would be "artfully gauging what a DM knows about their longtime gaming group and weaving the PCs' past choices into a compelling and emotionally moving story."

Having chatted with my player about my specific setup, he expressed how his PC felt guilty over this NPC's death (he was the one who questioned whether going thru portal instead of to keep was a good idea). He felt that the party should have a chance to undo the fallout of the keep invasion because "they couldn't be in two places at once." Interestingly, he said if the NPC was already dead he wouldn't have been so moved by the NPC's heroism.

IOW he was saying that there was more drama in the setup which I had...and that's precisely what made him really want to save this guy.



Elf Witch said:


> We have a house rule in our game called last breath. basically it allows a chance to say something short right before you die.
> 
> It is understood that its purpose is to allow an NPC or PC to give a clue or to allow a dying PC one last hurrah.
> 
> Also if the person starts talking and then the healer says I heal him isn't it possible that the spell did not have time to heal the guy before he took his last breath.



Yeah, that's probably what I'll end up doing. Sure it's DM fiat, but it's upfront and mean to be used sparingly.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 8, 2011)

Ainamacar said:


> I used to be pretty firmly in this camp, but I've moderated my position somewhat.
> 
> With respect to agency within the game I see the rules as having two important functions, and two important properties.
> 
> ...




The problem is, the rules _]cover_ this situation.  This isn't building a bamboo hanglider, this is using a spell in the manner it is intended.  I wouldn't be having so much of a problem with this, but the fact is it strains both verisimilitude and having the rules if this one guy can randomly be incurable this one time. I know it adds "drama," but honestly, to me it feels more like "This NPC WILL die because **** you."  Do we stop other spells from working such as flight?

 ("No, you can't fly above the bottomless pit with overland flight!  Because it's more dramatic that way! Why did the spell fail? Because shut up.")

Incidentally, I am vaguely reminded of the 3.5 DMG's advice to not have plots that revolve around a certain event happening, such as their example with the priceless heirloom being stolen and pissing off players who had a solution to guarding it.  I believe that applies here.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 8, 2011)

I've only read the first page - I hope this post still makes sense in light of the rest of the thread!



Quickleaf said:


> So is this just a narrative/gamist vs simulation issue?





Crazy Jerome said:


> I've always had more issues with it personally, and more cat calls from the players, because the dying moment happens when the PCs arrive.  Not being able to heal is related to reality, even if not necessarily a perfect fit for a D&D system.  But happening to die right as the heroes arrive to hear the speech?



There is the cliche issue that Crazy Jerome raises, but my game can handle a few cliches.

As to the mechanical issue, I think Quickleaf is right. If you treat the D&D combat/hit-point system not as a model of the gameworld, but as a conflict resolution mechanic, than it doesn't follow automatically that healing that works for PCs in combat will work for an NPC in a "dying words" scene.

A parallel is this - I've had NPCs in my game who have been blinded or maimed in combat, and who can't be healed by a healing word spell. It didn't both me that the action resolution mechanics do not themselves permit these sorts of injuries to be inflicted.

I _did_ tell my players that Remove Affliction would work on these NPCs, and presumably a similar sort of ability should work for the dying NPC, subject to the "will to live" qualification that Crazy Jerome mentioned.

As to the railroading question which seems to be in play here - unlike on the social skill thread, I think I'm on a different side from Hussar on this one. Scene framing can be poor or well done, and the players may or may not be engaged. But it's not railroading. Railroading becomes relevant once the players are engaged with the scene via their PCs.

What I see here, then, is not an attempt by the GM to railroad - after all, the GM could just not introduce the dying NPC into the game - but a clash between a common scene-setting trope and a literal/simulationist application of D&D's action resolution mechanics.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 8, 2011)

Cyberzombie said:


> I would never, ever do this in any form of D&D or Pathfinder.  It just doesn't fit the rules.  It annoys me in Final Fantasy, too -- why is the NPC dead?  Why can't we just use a Phoenix Down on him?




Rule 153: "Mommy, why didn't they just use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?"
Don't expect battle mechanics to carry over into the "real world."


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> There is the cliche issue that Crazy Jerome raises, but my game can handle a few cliches.




I don't mind cliches, at least as long as they aren't used too often. The players in our longstanding group are less forgiving. The result is that when I use such a cliche, I'm conscious that is an invitation for them to laugh and poke me a bit (which I don't mind). You should see them when they catch an unconcious use. 

This does discourage me from using cliches for dramatic emphasis. If I want drama, I have to work harder for it. And it isn't as if the "social layer" with everyone being a smart alec happens very much, but it could break out unexpectedly at any time. 

But back to the original question, and probably not clear from what I typed before, my main way to handle any such issue is to atttempt to be clear about exactly what is happening. I do the same thing with railroads (though I also agree that the unsaveable NPC is not a railroad--it is color). I'm not opposed to a railroad. But when I use one, I tell the players explicitly--"I'm about to put you on rails right here." They are much happer switching into fun with characterization and limited choices from the usual wide open options, and back again, when the switch is clear.

There is a sense in which "talking about it before hand" makes the dying NPC into a sign that the usual rules are suspended. The cliche rearing its head is a "cue" that you are switching modes. I just like my cues unambiguous, whatever it takes to get there.  Once they become ingrained, they can be more subtle.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> Ive come across this situation several times across multiple editions and variants of D&D: The PCs come across a dying NPC give their final words, an important element for telling the story being the NPC's death, and the party healer says "I cast heal on the guy. Now let's get all the details from him."




Here's a thought.

How long does it take to stabilize and heal someone?  How much information does he have to give the PCs?

By being persnickety about throwing the spell (does it use more than the Priest's holy symbol?  Is there a component needed?  Where is that component?), the GM might be able to allow the NPC to die before the PCs can do anything to help the poor sod.

It could be two or three rounds before help arrives, and maybe the NPC dies in one round?  That gives him a full six seconds to stutter his last words, and we're talking 18 seconds for a healer to get prepped to cast a spell.

And, if the PCs are using the Heal skill instead, the GM might be able to squeeze more time out of them as they pull medical items out of a backpack and such.

Just a thought.  You can give the players the illusion of what they are trying might actually work.

I cast heal on the guy!

That's fine, but you'd better hurry.  You're over there by the horses and the pond.  This guy is over by the rock.  That's a good 150 feet.

I'll run.

OK.  Max movement.  While you're running over, the guy is spitting up blood, and through clenched teeth, he says, "Blah, blah, blah, blah."  OK, the priest arrives.

What do you need to cast the spell?

My holy symbol, and I've got to touch him.

OK, you drop to one knee, put a hand on his forehead.  You can feel that he's convulsing.  He's dying right now!

I beging my spell!

Yes, you do.  And, he's dead, just as you finish speaking the words.





Again....just a thought, with a little drama thrown in.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jul 8, 2011)

WarlockLord said:


> The problem is, the rules _cover_ this situation.  This isn't building a bamboo hanglider, this is using a spell in the manner it is intended.  I wouldn't be having so much of a problem with this, but the fact is it strains both verisimilitude and having the rules if this one guy can randomly be incurable this one time. I know it adds "drama," but honestly, to me it feels more like "This NPC WILL die because **** you."  Do we stop other spells from working such as flight?
> 
> ("No, you can't fly above the bottomless pit with overland flight!  Because it's more dramatic that way! Why did the spell fail? Because shut up.")




Can people say something with their dying last breath in a world?  Can they be mortally wounded but linger?  Can they lose an arm permanently?  If the rules say yes, then clearly the answer is yes.  To the degree the rules don't address all these little variations, or do so in a clumsy way, then DM fiat is permissible.  As I understand it, you suggest that because there are clear death and dying rules in the game and clear interactions with magical healing, that those rules should be strictly applied in all cases.  I think that those rules don't adequately handle a good many ways people can die, and in fact promote player expectations at odds with our natural expectations of how the world works: that some wounds are too grievous to heal and even magic has its limits.  In such cases the best thing is to improve the rules (much preferred!), or make a fair-minded exception.

And that seems to be the crux of the issue: as far as I can tell you don't believe in the fair-minded exception.  In fact, that the only possible answer is along the lines of "because shut up" or "more drama!"  Those aren't even close to the only responses possible, and for the latter reason I can even appreciate it as a legitimate playstyle issue.  Besides, DMs that follow the rules wherever they lead can cause player angst over violated expectations just as easily as poor DM fiat.  Think of every classic rules exploit or peculiarity: housecats vs. commoners, cleave and the bag o' rats, any infinite damage combo.  These are the extreme cases, but if you object that your viewpoint doesn't apply to these cases, is it not precisely because the rules cover these situations but are utterly inadequate?  When the rules make you expect something that make no sense in the world, or even too little sense, I know which I would jettison.

And still, I would never use the "dying breath" ability as to add drama without also requiring that it makes better sense within the setting than the rules.  If it is an agreed upon houserule, all the better.

For your flight in over the bottomless pit example, I can think of many wonderful reasons why flight might not work.  They are the reasons that whoever constructed or guards said pit would not want such things to work!  Magic that attempts to dispel spells midway through.  A wizard that is scrying and interferes directly.  Intense winds.  Twisted space, so that you can't help but go in circles.  I suppose the DM could use these as an excuse to screw the player, but it isn't necessarily so.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 8, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> He gets absolute power to set up the situation for PCs, but once the PCs come into he has to work with them.





prosfilaes said:


> But my cleric isn't a doctor; he has the magical power to stop people from dying, no die roll needed. But because the plot demands it, suddenly my PC's powers stop working.



I like this pair of statements. The GM frames the situations; the players, primarily via their PCs, resolve them. If the dying NPC is going to work, it has to be an element of scene-framing, not scene-resolution.



Janx said:


> Ideally,  a GM is using story telling elements to smooth out what happens into a cool story.  That shouldn't be intrusive or obstructive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And ultimately, the when it comes to the guy lying next to the tree, the GM could have just made the bastard dead.  Is it so wrong that instead he made him wait to die until you showed up?



This seems right, but doesn't on its own answer the question - does D&D have rules that permit the GM to frame this sort of scene?



Quickleaf said:


> AFAIK this particular option is impossible in D&D (without house rules); either he's dead or he's saved - provided there's a healer with spells/powers left - there's no in between. Whereas I find value in that in between.





Celebrim said:


> If you want a different game, change the rules of the game.





Nagol said:


> That's not the game supporting it -- it is an example of a group adopting it despite the rules.



Here's one school of thought - that D&D _doesn't_ have such rules, and that any injury is healable via a cure spell.



Raven Crowking said:


> I'd point out that, if you are going to allow NPC children to break their arms falling out of trees, you are perfectly fine with allowing any other type of injury you desire.....some of which might not be healed by a _cure light wounds_.



Here's another school of thought - that D&D's combat injury and healing rules aren't a total model of the gameworld.

I subscribe to this latter school, at least as far as 4e is concerned (I don't have a view about earlier editions, as far as this particular point is concerned). I've certainly framed scenes where NPCs had injuries that Healing Word couldn't heal - ie the wounds weren't (or weren't merely) hit point loss - and the players didn't quibble. I think that they recognised (at least implicitly) that hit point loss and restoration is part of the conflict resolution mechanics for combat, and also part of the strategic element of gameplay for the players, but _not_ a total model of the gameworld. I mentioned that Remove Affliction would do the job for these NPCs - that being the catch-all healing ritual in 4e.

A further feature of 4e that pushes this way is that it has 1 hp minions, and indeed NPCs who have no hit point status at all. Clearly a 1 hp minion can, as RC points out, fall out of a tree and break her/his arm. This makes it clear, right in the mechanics of the game, that hit points aren't the be-all and end-all of injury and healing in 4e.

But they _are_ a good chunk of injury and healing within the confines of the conflict resolution rules - so once a combat starts, and the players are (for instance) trying to protect and save an NPC, then I think a GM would do better to assign the NPC some defences and hit points (I tend to default to minion status unless there's a good reason not to), so that the players can then bring their PC's abilities to bear on the situation.



Raven Crowking said:


> Why not simply use Con damage, and say that the character is losing X Con over Y time?  In that case, a _restoration_ should help, but most healing will not.



This would work in 3E. 4e doesn't have this option, so it becomes a bit more handwavey as I described above.

In Rolemaster it is very easy to do this sort of thing, because every sort of injury has its own healing spell associated. The flipside is that once the PCs have access to a good range of healing spells, there is no way of framing the un-healable dying NPC.

The same thing would be true in 4e if, for example, the PCs had some sort of cure-all potion, or an ability that negates the dying condition (these tend to appear as utility powers around 16th level).



Hussar said:


> The problem is, once you've done it once, it calls into question every ruling from then on.



That's why I think it's crucial to do this as part of scene framing, and not by arbitrarily suspending the action resolution mechanics. That is, the GM has to already set the situation up so healing is not possible.



Raven Crowking said:


> For me, if the NPC is dying and healing didn't work, I want the players to know why this was the case, at least in a general sense.  And one way to do this is to be upfront that, while hit points are used to model damage, it is possible to have injuries that hit points don't model.  It can then be clear to the PCs before healing is attempted that it (probably) won't work.



Fully agreed with this, which is how I've run this sort of thing in my game.



Celebrim said:


> This attitude I don't understand.
> 
> Why shouldn't the players just tell the DM to "get over himself".   It _is_ a game.
> 
> ...





Doug McCrae said:


> I like the idea of dramatic last words, it happens all the time in adventure fiction.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree with both these posts, and I think they speak to a slightly different issue from the rules question. A GM who is going to use any sort of self-conscious scene framing has to be confident that s/he is setting up scenes that will grab the players, so that the players engage the fiction and drive the game forward.

This is why the unhealable injury, in my view, has to be set up prior to the action resolution mechanics coming into play. Once the players are actually resolving the scene, they should be able to rely on the action resolution mechanics, and in my view the GM has no authority to suspend those mechanics.

But as Doug points out, even setting up the unhealable injury as part of scene framing rather than scene resolution is a good way to kill the game, rather than propel it forward, for many players of a healer (not all, of course - you need to know your players). 



Man in the Funny Hat said:


> If the situation were stood on its head and it were a PC wanting to make a dying statement, it is probably likely that the vast majority of DM's out there would disallow it: "Your PC is below 0 hit points, you're unconscious, OF COURSE you can't make a deathbed speech." .



Is this true? I can't remember if it's ever come up, but I'd be pretty happy to allow a dying speech by a PC.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2011)

Ainamacar said:


> I think that those rules don't adequately handle a good many ways people can die, and in fact promote player expectations at odds with our natural expectations of how the world works: that some wounds are too grievous to heal and even magic has its limits.



Can one speak of natural expectations where magic is concerned? After all, magic can potentially do anything, or nothing.

The case for the rules as the laws of physics of the gameworld (an idea with which I don't agree btw) is, I think, strongest when it comes to the rules for magic. Because magic doesn't exist in our world, it's uncheckable. With the rules for wounds, dying, normal healing etc we can look at the way these work in our own world and say, "These rules don't make sense. They are not a correct simulation." With magic we can't say that the rules don't properly simulate, unless they are explicitly simulating particular works of fiction, which D&D doesn't do, imo. So our conception of what a cure light wounds spell, or other healing magic, does, comes only from the rules.

It's interesting that the dying words example involves a conflict between magic, where our ideas about how things work come from the rules, and real world, or rather adventure fiction, dying, where our ideas do not come from the rules but from fiction.

That said, I'm not sure if the rules alone inform our ideas about magic. Fiction plays a part too, concepts of power hierarchies such as that a god's or an artefact's magic would be stronger than a wizard's, the way skills are learnt in the real world and so forth.

We might also form principles from reading some of the rules, with which other rules seem to conflict. For example we might think that a spell is too powerful for its level.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jul 8, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> Can one speak of natural expectations where magic is concerned? After all, magic can potentially do anything, or nothing.
> 
> The case for the rules as the laws of physics of the gameworld (an idea with which I don't agree btw) is, I think, strongest when it comes to the rules for magic. Because magic doesn't exist in our world, it's uncheckable. With the rules for wounds, dying, normal healing etc we can look at the way these work in our own world and say, "These rules don't make sense. They are not a correct simulation." With magic we can't say that the rules don't properly simulate, unless they are explicitly simulating particular works of fiction, which D&D doesn't do, imo. So our conception of what a cure light wounds spell, or other healing magic, does, comes only from the rules.
> 
> ...




You're correct, of course, that magic as physics and the "natural expectations" regarding magic will not be uniform.  Let me be clear: I think in the game we can accept that the potential of magic is essentially limitless and that "a wizard did it" is perfectly coherent.  That, however, does not cover all natural expectations.  These include that the magic potential of any given caster is limited in various ways (level/training, internal magical potential, agreements with patrons, etc.) such that the potential of "magic" is arbitrarily large if not actually infinite, but the potential of a given caster at a given moment in time is finite and subject to boundaries.  These boundaries are understood in the fiction of the setting, enforced by the mechanics of the rules, and usually present in the fiction we are inspired by.  In short, there are no "actual infinities", at least not for PCs, but these natural expectations in no way require us to think of magic as the physics of a setting.

Now the precise nature of these limits is unimportant, all that matters is that they exist.  Because if I can imagine a wound I can heal with one spell but cannot with another, I can always suppose there exist wounds more powerful than what I can heal.  I'm not speaking solely of hit points.  For example, in a setting where the inhabitants have limbs, it is a natural expectation that these could be removed, magically or otherwise.  If the rules do not handle the details of this situation, yet we believe that at some point limb removal will result in death, I can imagine spells that could heal some sorts of limb removal but not others.

Applied to the idea of death, it stands to reason that a possible state in the setting is the mortal wound, in the same way the limb loss is possible.  Some types of magic will suffice to heal it, and perhaps eventually there is magic which could suffice to heal any mortal wound imaginable.  However, unless all magical healing has this potential, it is quite consistent to say that there exist situations where someone will die, has not died yet, and there is nothing one can do about it.  I don't think this relies on an idea of simulation, it merely relies on the fact that magic is limitless in the abstract while our characters are not, at least at any given moment.  The specifics will rely on the rules at hand, but if the rules are considered incomplete and/or inaccurate for some situations within the game world, there is always room for these natural expectations to guide the DM's decisions.

Your points about the interaction of the rules with fiction, and their conflict are well taken.  In another thread Firelance suggested that the most important thing for fluff-crunch relations is that they match well, regardless of whether or not one of these is considered more fundamental than the other.  I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I think the same holds true here.  If my thoughts about the natural expectations about magic aren't total crap, I think they offer an important constraint for iterating the rules/setting relationship.

Cheers.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 8, 2011)

Me, I like making Saved/Died a branch in the flow.

In my first Steampunk scenario the PCs were asked by a contact to meet them the next morning. If they did so they found that he had been assassinated, and would have to look for other clues.

If the decided to meet him early they could get most of the information from him, and if they decided instead to keep an eye on his flat, or stay after speaking to him, they could actually stop the assassination and get information beyond what their contact knew.

The party that did that last thought that they had done something that I hadn't planned on, but it was actually the branch that I had hoped that they would follow.

I always plan for what happens if the dying last words are not the last. And try to reward it. The only thing that magic has a hard time stopping is old age - last words of an old man dying because his time has come, not some mortal wound.

Or, create a reason - a magical poison that prevents magical healing for X time - and shoot one of the PCs with it too, letting them know what they are up against.

Dread diseases, resistant to magic. (In my homebrew Black Plague is highly resistant to magical cures, Smallpox less so. The Common Cold is completely immune....  )

The Auld Grump, even the High Arch Cleric of Ulm can get the sniffles....


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 8, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Dread diseases, resistant to magic. (In my homebrew Black Plague is highly resistant to magical cures, Smallpox less so. The Common Cold is completely immune....  )
> 
> The Auld Grump, even the High Arch Cleric of Ulm can get the sniffles....




I've already made my seven plagues (loosely black death, cholera, influenza, etc.) resistant to magical cures, but I'd never thought to do it with the common cold.  That's brilliant!  Immediately stolen.


----------



## Rassilon (Jul 8, 2011)

*Colour me heretical*

I do this - or something like this - _ALL THE TIME_!

In the last few sessions I'm pretty sure I've done the dying last words; I've definitely done dramatic monologue that couldn't be interrupted; I've emailed a "cinematic cutscene" of the baddies having a meeting that was for the players to build their anticipation, not for the PCs to react to using any sort of mechanics test or check; and after directing everyone to make a spot check I've said "you spot a big arrow pointing to the secret door that you haven't checked for because you pacified this room last session and forgot that you meant to search it this session." Oh I almost forgot! I've also made 'choo choo' noises when my guys strayed too far from the plot.  

As with almost everything that generates a long thread (aside from RAW arguments ; ) I find that basically this boils down to 'different strokes for different folks'. And it's very interesting _why_ these are the particular strokes for folks... 

There’s an example upthread where because the healing has failed, the PCs need to ask ‘why’ it failed given they – and the players – know it should work. This to me highlights two obvious levers to adjust regarding predictability / reliability / gamistry, and drama / emotion / narrative.

The first is the extent to which the game world relies on the mechanics the players use to [run their characters and interact with the world] to construct and justify itself;
The second is the extent to which the DM tells the [players] when they are participating as [players] or as [characters].

So you can have a game that attempts to explain – or at least admit there is an explanation to be derived – for basically everything in the world based on the mechanics in the books, and not in conflict with things that would seem to be specified mechanically. You can go the other way and maintain that mechanics are just for the PCs, and have little to do with the world qua the world; and there is of course a range in between, where most of us play. 

On the other lever, how much is the DM involving the players in shared stewardship of the game outside the actual gaming? For example: the DM who does what I did above and tells everyone that there’s a secret door that was missed and where it was - he has chosen to involve his _players_ very much in the stewardship of the game outside the gaming. The DM who either never reveals the secret door, or makes sure the characters/players find out about it ensuring the players never realise that they missed it and the DM “cheated” on their behalf  - has chosen to involve his players less. *Everything this DM tells, he tells to the characters, not the players*.

To be very clear: all of this, any combination, or intensity, or variation, is just fabulous as long as it works for the group.

The first lever tells players to what extent they should look for differences from expected mechanical outcomes as clues; the second the extent to which the DM can easily tell the players that ‘this is an exception’.

So: if a DM runs a world where the (broad) physics are specified by the game mechanics, and only tells the characters things, not the players, that DM can never do the dying last words purely for dramatic convenience, or homage, or any 'out of game' reason. Because the physics for the world have been set, and cure light wounds causes the process of dying to cease. That _would _ be confusing his players if he did that. Maybe they _would_ wonder about some of the other calls. That DM must always have an in game explanation, mechanically justifiable too, for why the cure light wounds didn’t work. And to be worthy of screen time it probably should be part of the story. And it should be possible for the characters to find out why, though they might never actually do so.

I’ve run and played in games where the levers have been set at various ends of the spectrum, especially the character vs. player perception of the world one. The current game is probably the most self aware. At times it seems the characters almost seem to be unconsciously aware that they are characters in d&d. Almost. 

We (my gaming group) have chosen the ‘order of the stick’ approach deliberately. It is actually really fun. It is light hearted too, which is important when everyone is tired and real life is a bit rough. And most of all, it cuts out – at the cost of some story lines and experiences – a lot of “realistic” dead time. My little team basically doesn’t have time to game. We are lucky to have 12 sessions a year. Everyone has made it very clear that right at the moment we don’t have time to have an immersive, simulationist experience if that means we spend a whole session following up the wrong leads, not advancing the story, not killing things, and taking their stuff. And it's fun!

In the future, when the situation is different, we’ll adjust the levers again, and play differently. That will be great too.

- Rassilon

(ps: sorry about the long post)
(pps: not so sorry that I didn’t still post it)


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Ainamacar said:


> Can people say something with their dying last breath in a world? Can they be mortally wounded but linger? Can they lose an arm permanently? If the rules say yes, then clearly the answer is yes.




That's the issue.  Unrealistically, the rules don't say "yes".

In 3.5, a character is just as healthy and spry with 1 HP as he is at max HP.  He's disabled with limited action at 0 HP, but he's not dying.  And, when he reaches -1 HP, he's unconscious and dying, so he can't say anything.





> To the degree the rules don't address all these little variations, or do so in a clumsy way, then DM fiat is permissible.




I agree.  Instead of -1 or less HP indicating totally unconscious and unresponsive, what if it meant "incapacitated"?  A person could be incapacitated, conscious or semi-conscious, communicative, and dying all a the same time.

I just re-watched one of my favorite movies the other day, Forrest Gump.  Remember the scene where Bubba is dying in Viet Nam?  He's laying there with a palm leaf held tight over his blown open innards, saying his last words to Gump straight up to the point where his stare becomes glassy.





I think the 3.5 player feels somewhat cheated when this happens, though.  They know that, by the rules, they should be able to save the dying person very quickly.

I don't want to turn this into an edition war, but it does seem to me that the 1E rule set encouraged DM fiat much more often than the 3.5 rule set, thus 1E players had a better time of accepting the scene the DM played out in front of them as opposed to a 3.5 game where players think, "He's just doing that to advance the story.  I guess I'll roll with it even though I know I can save the NPC."


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 8, 2011)

Ainamacar said:


> Can people say something with their dying last breath in a world?




Not in the real world, short of sudden cranial damage. You have four minutes from the heart stopping to total brain failure; that's time to start CPR. Modern medicine can save someone at that point.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 8, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Not in the real world, short of sudden cranial damage. You have four minutes from the heart stopping to total brain failure; that's time to start CPR. Modern medicine can save someone at that point.




I think all of these types of arguments break down to different perceptions of the real world. I could not stand playing with this one guy because he was in the SCSA and would constantly complain about how the rules did not model the armor and weapons that he had experience with accurately. I'm not calling you a liar or any such nonsense, but your perceptions of what injuries can be recovered from differ with mine. I can just as easily recount stories of bikers walking around and seeming fine after and accident and suddenly dropping dead. Am I a doctor? Do I have a first-hand understanding of modern medicine? Hell no, and I don't care when it comes to a fictional world where the primary goal is to entertain my players. I will concede that if it was not entertaining to at least the majority of my group I would not use a certain trope.

The real world is brutal and mostly dull, IMO. That's why I play a game that reminds me of "movie world" where improbable things happen. To me it gets a bit silly when we start comparing modern medicine to fictional magic healing.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 8, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The real world is brutal and mostly dull, IMO. That's why I play a game that reminds me of "movie world" where improbable things happen. To me it gets a bit silly when we start comparing modern medicine to fictional magic healing.




I agree up to a point. I certainly want my games more cinematic than real medieval combat would be (with or without magic). But I do think some reasoning from the real world can be adapted to house rules for dramatic purposes. You simply need to be clear where you want the boundaries.

For example, in real world medicine, dealing with battlefield (and similar injuries), time is precious. Time to someone stauching the wound. Time to getting pain killer. Time before shock sets in. Time to get to the aid station. Time to get to the hospital. Time into surgery. There is a direct correlation between these and suvival rates.

So to get some of that drama, you might have two kinds of healing. There is practically instant magical healing. It is also of two subordinate kinds--cheap, but very weak--not working on someone below 0 hit points, say, and then also the very expensive kind (in material, magic, and time to make or acquire), but capable of doing anything. Like a Heal spell scroll for a 9th level 1E party. Then outside of all that, there is really slow healing, that anyone with the right power and funds can get. Temples have this stuff, if you don't mind waiting hours, days, weeks. Clerics get some of it right away. Cheap wands provide it. Mundane healing skill supplements it (very well).

Now just set the availibility and power of the healing in those two categories to match the feel you want to achieve.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Not in the real world, short of sudden cranial damage. You have four minutes from the heart stopping to total brain failure...




That just means their dying breath can come as much as four minuted before the brain is really and truly done.  Doesn't mean they cannot speak with that last breath.



> ...that's time to start CPR. Modern medicine can save someone at that point.




Sometimes, but often not.  Think on it: if modern medicine could usually bring someone back, then people would rarely die - instead, everybody eventually reaches a state where modern medicine can't save them.

On TV, virtually everyone who goes into a hospital has the paddles applied to their chest, someone yells "Clear!", there's a thunking noise and the heart starts beating again, and the person is fine.  But that's not medical reality.  Even if we are only talking about combat trauma - massive shock and blood loss can leave your body in a state such that the heart won't restart, and you're done.

In other medical situations, the body gets loaded with poisons as various organs cease doing their jobs properly.  In these cases, you can have less than four minutes, because those poisons impact the brain as well.  In other cases, you can have the cessation of higher brain function, while the heart keeps going.

Which is to say that "death" is not a clear cut thing in the real world.  You may personally pick a point and call it death, but biology often refuses to be cut and dry.  It is usually more raggedly ripped and wet, really.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I don't want to turn this into an edition war, but it does seem to me that the 1E rule set encouraged DM fiat much more often than the 3.5 rule set, thus 1E players had a better time of accepting the scene the DM played out in front of them as opposed to a 3.5 game where players think, "He's just doing that to advance the story.  I guess I'll roll with it even though I know I can save the NPC."




You'd think that, but in my experience - not so much.  Let's keep in mind that for the most part, KotDT is based off peoples experiences with 1e.  

What I remember of 1e was a lot of metagame negotiation and argument whenever the DM ruled on something.  When the DM ruled in a way that the player didn't expect, it triggered a debate over whether the DM's ruling took into account all the factors the player believed relevant, or all the rules, or realism.  The less DM fiat you have, the more the DM can point to the text and say, "This is the rule I'm using, and this is how I interpret it", the fewer arguments you have.   This is especially true because having formal rules tends to make everyone's expectations about how a proposition is going to be resolved synch up.  Arguments occur because the player thinks he knows or really wants some proposition to be resolved in a specific way and the DM disagrees.  If the player knows ahead of time, "Rule #347 says this.", then the argument probably won't happen.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> The less DM fiat you have, the more the DM can point to the text and say, "This is the rule I'm using, and this is how I interpret it", the fewer arguments you have.




In my experience, it depends on the group.  My last group, a few years ago, was fantastic.  I could DM fiat all day, and they would accept anything I said.  

They weren't push-overs, mind you.  They would state when they thought I was wrong or thought they had a better idea.  And, I would consider their input and sometimes agree, sometimes not.

Man, I didn't know how well I had it.

Today, I've got this one player in particular that has made me stray away from house rules and simply use RAW just so it will shut him up.  He argues about the rules, too, but it's easier to defend them by "going by the book".

So, I've been on both sides of the DM fiat issue.

I prefer DM fiat.  I think the game is better--especially if you have a creative DM that strives to make the game exceptional for everybody.

But, with argumentative players, I think what you say is true.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 8, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> In my experience, it depends on the group.  My last group, a few years ago, was fantastic.  I could DM fiat all day, and they would accept anything I said.




I love using DM fiat for scene framing.  I find that using DM fiat for scene resolution gives me a headache, even when I don't have argumentative players.  



> Man, I didn't know how well I had it.




Good players are the bomb.  



> Today, I've got this one player in particular that has made me stray away from house rules and simply use RAW just so it will shut him up.  He argues about the rules, too, but it's easier to defend them by "going by the book".




I am the book.   I make the law.   Then, I try to be subject to it as well.   Although, it's not unusual for me in a session to say something like, "Hmmm... I don't like how that works in play.  Expect changes sometime in the future."  Sometimes I do it when a PC's life has been made to suck by a bad rule.  Sometimes I do it when an encounter has been made too trivial by a bad rule.  Sometimes I do it because it turns out that the wording is to constraining or too ambigious in actual use cases.  

But, since I tend to usually find problems in the RAW in every system I've ever played, a rules lawyer who wants to stick to RAW would be very unhappy in any game I ran.   



> I prefer DM fiat.  I think the game is better--especially if you have a creative DM that strives to make the game exceptional for everybody.




Depends on what you mean by DM fiat.  I have a feeling that we have in our heads different notions about what is encompassed within that term.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> Depends on what you mean by DM fiat.




What I mean by that is what you said above.  I am the book.  I am the law.  I attempt to be fair to the players and fair to the game, but what I say, goes.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 8, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> The case for the rules as the laws of physics of the gameworld (an idea with which I don't agree btw) is, I think, strongest when it comes to the rules for magic. Because magic doesn't exist in our world, it's uncheckable.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



When we look at the AD&D rules for healing magic, one thing we notice is that Cure Light Wounds is first level, and Regeneration is seventh level. That straight away tells us that there are some injuries - like losing a limb - that Cure Light Wounds cannot heal.



Ainamacar said:


> Can people say something with their dying last breath in a world?  Can they be mortally wounded but linger?  Can they lose an arm permanently?  If the rules say yes, then clearly the answer is yes.





Water Bob said:


> That's the issue.  Unrealistically, the rules don't say "yes".
> 
> In 3.5, a character is just as healthy and spry with 1 HP as he is at max HP.  He's disabled with limited action at 0 HP, but he's not dying.  And, when he reaches -1 HP, he's unconscious and dying, so he can't say anything.



I think this is particularly a 3E thing (I'm not sure about 2nd ed AD&D).

In 1st ed AD&D, a dying character _cannot_ be fully healed just by any old cure spell. Magical healing will stabilise him/her, but then a Heal spell, or a Death's Door spell from UA, will be required, or else a week of bed rest. (In his White Dwarf article How to Lost Hit Points and Survive, which is as far as I know the first published version of a hp/wound point system, Roger Musson specified a % chance for a mortal wound if Con was lost, and also specified Cure Serious Wounds as the spell needed to heal a mortal wound - this was before Death's Door had been published.)

As someone noted upthread (RC, maybe?) the GM also has the option to inflict additional penalties, like scarring or lost liimbs, if negative hit points reach -6.

And the existence of the Regeneration spell clearly signals that not all injuries can be healed using a Cure spell. 

I think this all makes it clear that, in AD&D, the dying person who can't be easily healed is possible according to the rules, _although_ there is no obvious way under the action resolution rules to inflict such a state.

I said upthread that, in 4e, I would allow a cure-all potion or ability to work on the dying NPC (assuming that no more powerful curse is at work). In AD&D I would allow Death's Door or Heal to work (assuming that no more powerful curse is at work). But the rules themselves make clear that it is not arbitrary nerfing of the PCs' abilities to say that there is a mortal wound that a Cure spell can't heal.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think this is particularly a 3E thing (I'm not sure about 2nd ed AD&D).




Which part?  The regaining 1 hp thing?





> I think this all makes it clear that, in AD&D, the dying person who can't be easily healed is possible according to the rules, _although_ there is no obvious way under the action resolution rules to inflict such a state.




Good old, AD&D.  Love that game.

I have a question about 1E AD&D:  Under the "Zero Hit Points" header of the 1E DMG, pg. 82, there is talk of characters providing aid in the means of delivering respiration, binding wounds, administering spirits (including healing potions), and the like.

Just how does a character go about delivering this aid if no magical healing is at hand?  Is this governed strictly by DM fiat?  Is there no roll involved?  Do the players just say that their character is doing the aiding and it's considered done if the characters have the right supplies available?

Back in my AD&D 1E days, I don't remember doing any healing but magical healing, so I'm curious how you old AD&D DMs handled this.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 9, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Which part?  The regaining 1 hp thing?



I was thinking the bit about the rules not allowing for a lingering mortal wound.



Water Bob said:


> Just how does a character go about delivering this aid if no magical healing is at hand?  Is this governed strictly by DM fiat?  Is there no roll involved?  Do the players just say that their character is doing the aiding and it's considered done if the characters have the right supplies available?



That's how we did it - spend a round, and cross one lot of bandages off your equipment list.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I was thinking the bit about the rules not allowing for a lingering mortal wound.




Yeah, I think it's the designers trying to minimize the PC downtime.  In 3.5, the only way you can be down for a bit (and not die) is to stablize yourself (a 10% throw each round) and naturally heal from there without any help.

When you get to 1 HP, it's jumpin' jacks time.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 9, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I have a question about 1E AD&D: Under the "Zero Hit Points" header of the 1E DMG, pg. 82, there is talk of characters providing aid in the means of delivering respiration, binding wounds, administering spirits (including healing potions), and the like.
> 
> Just how does a character go about delivering this aid if no magical healing is at hand? Is this governed strictly by DM fiat? Is there no roll involved? Do the players just say that their character is doing the aiding and it's considered done if the characters have the right supplies available?



Not so much fiat really.  Generally we provided PC's with bandages or a "first aid kit" of some fashion at fairly negligable cost for binding wounds.  Just one of those things EVERYONE bought - like a waterskin and a coin pouch.  Characters at or below 0 are losing hit points every round.  You declare that you are "binding wounds" and the hit point loss ceases.  No hit points are regained but the character is, at that point, safely alive even though they may spend quite some time yet in negative hit points.  It never came up but if someone had ever said, "I don't have bandages so I give him Strong Drink (tm) instead," or, "I tear off a piece of my cloak," I doubt there would have been any issue.  No fiat involved - just normal application of BTB rules.

Of course as a matter of house rules our PC's could be as low as -9 or -10 depending on specific campaign and still be saved without any ill effects, and beyond that you were a worm feast.  But I think that was highly common.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 9, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Not in the real world, short of sudden cranial damage. You have four minutes from the heart stopping to total brain failure; that's time to start CPR. Modern medicine can save someone at that point.




It is not total brain failure, at four minutes is the point that the brain starts taking damage. You have about ten minutes to do CPR sometimes they go up to 20 minutes but after a point you are looking at some serious life changing damage to the brain.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 9, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> BUT your Cleric's magical powers are based on the will of a deity.  It is not innate, and can be revolved by the will of the deities and the whims of fate since he is but a lowly mortal playing with forces that he doesn't understand without the intercession of the holy.  His powers can fail.  He knows this, since he may have seen the powers of other clerics fail them if theirdeity or the NPC's deity deems him/her worthy enough to enter the afterlife unabated or if they decided that the NPC doesn't deserve to be healed or remain in the realms of the living for one of countless reasons.
> 
> Like it or not, when you try to use magic and powers as a justification of why you can do X, you need to remember that their are larger forces outside of your character's control who can put an end to their desires.... That is unless they want to wage war against the deities and Ascend to Godhood.




That depends entirely on the flavor of the setting, and between different editions of D&D these assumptions were even written into the rules.

In AD&D 1e and 2e, 1st and 2nd level Cleric spells came from internal faith and training and would work even if the patron deity was dead, 3rd and 4th level spells were granted by various intermediaries (what we now would call Outsiders), and 5th level and up were granted directly by deities.  Of official settings, I think only Dragonlance challenged this, with Clerics losing all spells once the Gods of Krynn left.  Even then, once the spells were granted at rememorization, the were the Clerics to do with as they chose, the deity couldn't just veto each casting, but they could cut the Cleric off from more spells when they would otherwise rememorize.

In 3.x, Clerics could be clerics of a philosophy or ideology, and thus could be unaccountable to a specific deity.  

Yes, it's whatever the DM wants, but the assumptions written into the background material have left lots of loopholes and contradictions to the the idea that a deity can just instantly refuse to have a Cleric's spells work if they don't like what they are doing.


----------



## Haltherrion (Jul 9, 2011)

I never do that (single exception below) because I hate it. It feels like a clumsy plot device. The rules are the rules. If a PC could be healed in such circumstances, than the NPC should be heal-able. If I want to convey information and drama, I will find another way that does not crowbar the rules.

Furthermore, in most FRPGs, it isn't like the healer is the uber character in the group. They are usually bottom of the stack in terms of neat things to do. To take healing away for the service a plot when there are other ways you can accomplish the same goal is just cruel.

As a side note, Dragon Age CRPG, which I generally love, makes use of that trope and it is just plain annoying. IIRC they do it in both DA:Origins and in DA:2.

My one exception: the players once found a trail of vile goo seeping out from under a slab. It was the blood, rotting and worm-ridden from an NPC that was wearing a ring of regen, crushed under a slab of stone. The ring had him in a state where he was conscious but in pain and crushed flat. The players could communicate with him telepathically but could not heal him; he had been like that too long. But that was a very special case ...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2011)

In another recent thread, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that if the DM starts changing the way mechanics work, I, as the player, should take that as meaning that something is going on.  That I should start actively investigating exactly why this is happening.  It's a _challenge_

Now, I'm being told that when the DM changes the rules to facilitate something he wants to happen, I should just accept it and move on, after all, it's just a one time thing and it's all in service of a good story.

Isn't the player kinda screwed either way?  How do you tell the difference?  If I guess wrong, then I'm a bad player for not biting the obvious plot hook dangling in front of me, or, I'm a bad player for poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of plausibility surrounding the DM's pet story.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In another recent thread, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that if the DM starts changing the way mechanics work, I, as the player, should take that as meaning that something is going on.  That I should start actively investigating exactly why this is happening.  It's a _challenge_
> 
> Now, I'm being told that when the DM changes the rules to facilitate something he wants to happen, I should just accept it and move on, after all, it's just a one time thing and it's all in service of a good story.
> 
> Isn't the player kinda screwed either way?  How do you tell the difference?  If I guess wrong, then I'm a bad player for not biting the obvious plot hook dangling in front of me, or, I'm a bad player for poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of plausibility surrounding the DM's pet story.




Probably the easiest way to tell is to look towards the head of the table and note who is running.  These are pretty much mutually exclusive styles for exactly the reason you note.  If in doubt (i.e. the first time playing under a particular DM and you didn't have a discussion on style/expectations ahead of time), ask.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In another recent thread, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that if the DM starts changing the way mechanics work, I, as the player, should take that as meaning that something is going on.  That I should start actively investigating exactly why this is happening.  It's a _challenge_
> 
> Now, I'm being told that when the DM changes the rules to facilitate something he wants to happen, I should just accept it and move on, after all, it's just a one time thing and it's all in service of a good story.



Like I said upthread, to do the dying NPC thing in D&D without causing the sorts of problems you're talking about, the GM has to impose a state that _is outside the scope of the action resolution rules_ (or, at least, the action resolution rules to which the PCs have access).

Which means it has to be done as part of scene framing, because scene resolution takes place according to the action resolution rules (unless the GM cheats, which I'm personally not a big fan of).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Nagol (Jul 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, as noted, if the damage is _*not hit point*_ damage (say, it is ongoing Con damage caused by a creature's special ability), that is a clue as to the nature of the creature to be faced.
> 
> Of course, as I said earlier, if the GM is upfront that injuries other than hit point injuries can occur, then the GM is *not* breaking the rules (or changing the mechanics!) when injuries other than hit point injuries occur!




I almost completely agree.  I see a difficulty for the player sorting out if an NPC is dying from 'an injury other than hit points that exists because the DM wants it to' or a more subtle effect like ongoing Con damage that offers the chance of PC response (like casting _Bear's Endurance_ followed by _Restoration_).  The player gets little enough information that adding another set of ambiguities can bury situational/environmental clues deep enough that the players are better off ignoring them than trying to tease them out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Umbran (Jul 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Isn't the player kinda screwed either way?  How do you tell the difference?  If I guess wrong, then I'm a bad player for not biting the obvious plot hook dangling in front of me, or, I'm a bad player for poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of plausibility surrounding the DM's pet story.




The player is screwed if somehow the group has (intentionally or not) gotten into a mode where they don't communicate about such things.  In my own game, players are free to ask me if something is intended to be a plot point or not.  Life and gaming sessions are too short to have folks chasing down unintended red herrings for long.  



Raven Crowking said:


> Surely, a caster will know what is beyond her healing magic....




If they have appropriate healing skills and knowledge along with the spells, they can probably tell what is beyond the magic, if they stop to examine the victim.  But not necessarily at a glance, and not if they don't have the skills*.

That even goes well for the scene - while the PC does triage to tell if healing magic will work, the NPC speaks the last words and expires.



*Of course, a character who doesn't have the skill to know if the magic would work, also doesn't have the skill to pursue the question of why the spell didn't work, or even the skill to know that the failure is strange.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2011)

Removed


----------



## CuRoi (Jul 10, 2011)

Well, I haven't made it through all the posts but I agree with several apporaches and disagree with a recurring idea that keeps cropping up.

The part I disagree with is people suggesting a "new rule" to deal with dying PCs / NPCs. The ediiton wasn't mentioned in the OP but I'll go with 3e since I'm most familiar with it. To which I say:

You have enough rules already.

I kind of agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't try this, but only in so much as - you should not try this as a DM IF YOU AREN'T PREPARED to answer the barrage of things your players might try. Just telling the players to "deal with it" might work once, but gets old if you are doing it on a regular basis. Your world becomes arbitrary and players feel less inclined to actually share in it.

I don't think a plot device (no matter how cliched) should be abandonded because it just doesn't fit the rules. It can fit the rules, and you as DM have all the tools to make it happen.

In cases of an assassination, posion/disease has been mentioned which will be pretty effective unless a player has the right spell handy. Further, if this is a high level assasination, your high paid assassin should know of any number of ways to get rid of someone permanently so Cure Light Wounds doesn't work.

You also always have the option, as DM, to make something new that fits within the rules without fundamentally altering them or completely tossing them out the window. A virulent disease/poison combination that putrifies the body as the victim dies leaving nothing to "heal". A poison composed of Ghoul Spit that kills someone and begins the transformation to "undead" making Raise and Speak with Dead less useful (but in agonized tones he can relay his final words...right before he tries to eat their brains). Maybe the victim was a wizard? Maybe a contingency Magic Mouth pops up to give his dying words, heh. Who knows. 

Anyway, with magic involved there are plenty of ways to creatively apply the rules to create the plot device you want -without- mucking with the rules.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I rather mean that the character, facing the actual damage, is not dealing with the "hit point" abstraction.




Yes, that I can agree with.  The abstraction shouldn't prevent the characters from knowing.  The character's lack of skills might, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, as noted, if the damage is _*not hit point*_ damage (say, it is ongoing Con damage caused by a creature's special ability), that is a clue as to the nature of the creature to be faced.



I liked your falling-from-a-tree example more, just because it very clearly shows that - for bog-standard D&D - injuries _must_ exist that fall outside the rules.

(That's not a reason for _you_ to think it's a better example - you probably don't have my interest in showing how it is not all that radical to look at the rules as something other than a physics engine for the gameworld.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2011)

Removed


----------



## pemerton (Jul 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Another clear example is the poison needle trap.  Clearly you are injured; you must roll a save.  Clearly, that injury is below the threshhold of a single hit point.



Nice example - can't XP you yet, though.

Also, another example that feeds this troll! Because it provides a degree of precedent for some 4e class abilities, which permit delivering poison (or a comparable "rider" effect) even on a "miss".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2011)

Removed


----------



## pemerton (Jul 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I4e would have been better (IMHO) for some different terminology.



I think the layout and formatting also had a big effect on the game's reception.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jul 12, 2011)

Thread Hop

When the PCs came across a dying Half-Orc who was part of an adventuring group that died in some ruins, the Cleric healed him. I was originally going to do the whole "Dying Words" thing, but instead I had him thank and give the PCs advice and then leave to the nearest town.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm not sure that "effect on a miss" is the same.....That becomes, effectively, "never miss".




Maybe it would help if I translate that to pre-4E language: "Save for 1/2."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jul 12, 2011)

Late here, but to original question.
I always hated in old D&D or ADD modules when there was some dying npc, and healing didn't work, and last words or something. More so as dm as player. Because those damn modules never told reason, why you can't heal person, they just say it's "Plot thing". Never mind that, there still should have a reason instead of blindfolded railroad.


There never was anyone in groups I regularly was playing, where people liked that. 


It's fine if there is reason. Some nasty magical poison stopping healing/resurection, easily followed by interesting story who has access to something like this, and is death maybe just first of many to follow. Ok, remembering one adventure here.


I always think cause for for unhealable injuries should have something related to story rather than some "rules-allow".
Besides that healer should be able to find out why he failed. Not always the actual reason, depending on skill of a healer and intrest, but something apperant.
Reason could be medical one. You could well simulate some internal bleeding in the brain, by sudden massive damage shock that happens when injured person tries to move.  LIke with con effecting poison with it's secondary damage. Well in D&D 3x anyhow.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Which isn't a miss.
> 
> Again, this is a language barrier, where different wording might affect the perception of the mechanic.




Ah, but you called it a "never miss", which is exactly what we had pre-4E. It's a partial miss. It represents that the person making the save deflected a good portion of your attack. The only difference now is that you have to make the roll to hit, instead of them making the roll to avoid. I really cannot see the difference you are trying to make. To me, it is the same as saying the perception is different depending on whether AC goes up or down.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is nothing wrong with a never-miss -- especially if it is a blanket effect or in some way magical. Even if it is a mundane ability, I can accept it to some degree. For instance, in the ERB Tarzan novels, Tarzan never misses with a ranged attack. Never.



I have long thought of D&D magic in terms of "never-miss".  With few exceptions you cast a spell and you don't have to roll a to-hit, or a casting ability check, or the like.  The spell WILL take effect - _unless_ the victim succeeds in his allowed last-chance of a saving throw, which often will only reduce the effect rather than negate it entirely.



> However, in those earlier examples of never-miss effects, they never called a partial hit a "miss". Doing so is a mistake, IMHO. Degree of success? Yep. Sure thing! Calling a partial success a failure? I'm not so good with that.
> 
> That may be simply an asthetic thing, but it does affect my enjoyment.



Because words MEAN things.  It may sometimes SEEM like it shouldn't matter what words you use to name or describe something but it does.  Designers need to use the words that evoke the moods and perceptions they want and eliminate misunderstandings about their intents.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Jul 12, 2011)

This has been an interesting discussion.  Seriously, there are a lot of good ideas to be gleaned.  Here are my (not so serious) findings:

Option A:  Never find yourself in a situation were you adjucate against the rules for the benefit of the story. (And/or only use situations your game was designed for.)

Option B:  Plan ahead and create a rule for every possible trope you might want to use in the future of your campaign. (And/or only play games designed for your situations.)

Option C: Use the cliche, rules be damned! 

Option D: Use the Rules, story be damned!

Option E:  Do what you feel your group will find most fun!  (Note: feelings do not always follow rules.)


"Rules vs. railroading" almost always comes down to group preference.

Happy Gaming!


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 12, 2011)

Zelda Themelin said:


> Late here, but to original question.
> I always hated in old D&D or ADD modules when there was some dying npc, and healing didn't work, and last words or something. More so as dm as player. Because those damn modules never told reason, why you can't heal person, they just say it's "Plot thing". Never mind that, there still should have a reason instead of blindfolded railroad.
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you. An explanation should be provided.

However, this explanation can be provided by the player. It is not only up to the DM to explain everything. This is cooperative storytelling, right? Right. 

One player at my table asked me why a skill that seemed like it should work, didn't.

- Why, he asked, why oh why doens't it work? It seems so logicial that it would!
- You tell me, I answered.
(Silence. Smile creeps on the player's face as an explanation comes to mind...)

If your idea of healing is that it can close a wound that has blood gushing out of it, and then give back lost blood to the injured, that's fine. It will explain many healing circumstances. But hit points can represent a lot of things, not just actual blood pouring out of a wound; and consequently healing can represent a lot of things, not just closing wounds.

So, you - the cleric - _you _provide me with an explanation when I tell you that your healing power does not cure the dying NPC. Work with me. Pick up my story proposition and add a layer to it that will satisfy your requirement for a logical explanation. Not just anything, find something that fits, something cool. Sure, I can probably come up with an explanation as a DM. But if you wanna have a whole lot of fun, pick up the DM's proposition, then watch him throw the ball back at you, adding another layer to your own, and so on. When you've tried surfing that way, you won't want to go back 

p.s.: I didn't read throught he whole thread, only page 1 and the last page, so I assume that what hit points represent has been touched upon from the few posts that seem to imply that topic. Hopefully this is not too repetitive.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 12, 2011)

Skyscraper said:


> I agree with you. An explanation should be provided.
> 
> However, this explanation can be provided by the player. It is not only up to the DM to explain everything. This is cooperative storytelling, right? Right.
> 
> ...




So what happens when he says "It really did work -- it just took a moment to catch."?


----------



## Krensky (Jul 13, 2011)

Nagol said:


> So what happens when he says "It really did work -- it just took a moment to catch."?




You suggest that maybe he's not playing at the right table.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 13, 2011)

Skyscraper said:


> However, this explanation can be provided by the player. It is not only up to the DM to explain everything. This is cooperative storytelling, right? Right.




I've done cooperative storytelling, and it's quite a bit different then D&D, lacking the rules structure and particularly in this case the asymmetric power structure.

My instinct would be to say that this a construct; obviously the man (if notable) is not really dead, but that a simulacrum has replaced him and his foes have put the dying words in its mouth to mislead us. I've responded with a "yes, and" in the spirit of cooperative storytelling; are you going to follow up in the same spirit by accepting that?

If the DM or player does something in D&D, it's up to them to have an explanation.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 13, 2011)

Krensky said:


> You suggest that maybe he's not playing at the right table.




So deliberately surrendering narrative control to the player is good only until the player asserts that control towards an end they already evidenced a desire for and then you kick them out?  Nice.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 13, 2011)

Nagol said:


> So deliberately surrendering narrative control to the player is good only until the player asserts that control towards an end they already evidenced a desire for and then you kick them out?  Nice.




Only if you wish to interpert what I said in the most negative fashion possible.

That level of shared narrative is something that require buy in from both sides. A GM should not just spring it on the players. It also has it's own conventions on use. One of those is the "yes, and..." principle [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] mentioned.

It's bad form to say: "Yes, and what I said still happened." Most people I've played with using this style would also consider prosfilaes' example a bit bad form too, since it basically 180s the situation without giving the rest of the table the chance to have any influence, but they would still roll with it.

You're "Yes and my spell did work, it just took a moment" would bring the game to a halt because you're denying what another player (the GM is still a player in this context) said.

If a player isn't comfortable with this style, whether it's the Player not rolling with failure or the GM using the asymmetry of power at the table to force the story in the direction he wants, then they likely are playing at the wrong table.

Personally, it's not my favorite table style and I'd never use it for D&D or similar traditionalist games, but I can roll with it when that's what my friends want to play.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 13, 2011)

Nagol said:


> So what happens when he says "It really did work -- it just took a moment to catch."?




"In that long moment the damage to his brain was as such that he is now an unimaginative vegetable with positive hit points."


----------



## Nagol (Jul 13, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Only if you wish to interpert what I said in the most negative fashion possible.
> 
> That level of shared narrative is something that require buy in from both sides. A GM should not just spring it on the players. It also has it's own conventions on use. One of those is the "yes, and..." principle [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] mentioned.
> 
> ...





Player 1 <describes scene>
Player 2: "I try X."
Player 1: "It doesn't work.  Tell me why."


I've played shared narrative games and I'm having trouble thinking of one where the above sequence has happened.  I've seen some games where the narrative is formed by players using meta-game resources like cards then describing the in-game effect (so a player may play a Complication or Block on another player's attempt), but the blocking player usually has to come up with the rationale.  Dismissing a player's attempt and then forcing that player to come up with the rationale for why he's been stymied is begging for the player to try to assert control to reach the goal he originally had.  If not through direct negation then through reach-arounds of the original scene.

"The healing doesn't work because on closer examination the 'wounds' are simply cosmetic and he isn't in any danger just in shock and scared."

"The healing doesn't work because the wounds aren't real -- they are part of a costume for a stage act.  He is simply out of breath."

"The healing doesn't work because he is actually my patron deity testing my charity towards a dying man."

"The healing doesn't work because he regenerates before the spell is applied."


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 13, 2011)

Cooperative storytelling is not necessarily saying yes to anything anyone else says. It's trying to build a story together. To those who say that D&D isn't about that, well we do it frequently at our tables for D&D, and it works fine, so I don't think that it's D&D per se that prevents it. If you feel it's not for you and you prefer another style, then by all means play according to your preference of course.

In the example of the dying man:

We have to assume that hit points may represent something else than actual wounds. _This dying man's hit point_ loss represents actual wounds, mind you. Otherwise he wouldn't be dying. But hit points, generally, can be anything among or a mixture of wounds, stamina, endurance, morale, psychological strength, etc...

With this basic assumption, when the level 3 PC cleric heals his fellow PCs, he's not necessarily putting back together a dismembered ally. He may be acting to give back some strenght, infuse with energy, AND/OR close actual wounds. But if someone were to have a lung perforated by a long sword stroke, perhaps our level 3 cleric would be unable to heal him altogether.

"But what if a fellow PC has his lung pierced?" you ask. "The cleric should be able to heal him, since any non-dead fellow PC can be healed. Anyone who is not at -10 or minus his bloodied value, can be healed. Period".

Okay, first of all, relax with the math  The game is not about math, it's about having fun playing a RPG. Math doesn't rule the game, you do.

With this said, how could you, as a player, explain what's going on? Perhaps none of the wounds suffered up to now by PCs were pierced lungs? Work with the DM a bit here, that's what cooperative storytelling is all about. Find an explanation.

There are essentially two ways to react to any given statement by a DM:

(1) this makes no sense because... (insert explanation here)
(2) this makes sense because... (insert explanation here)

Cooperative storytelling is about trying to fit #2 intot he game as much as you can.

It doesn't mean you HAVE to accept EVERYTHING everyone tells you. It's even fun to throw an oddball at the players (or the players, at the DM) to see how the other person will react, through the character he's playing. But generally, the idea is to try to avoid pushing someone into a corner he can't get out of. If you do the latter, you reach an RP dead end, and that's what you want to avoid.

The example of the dying man here is arguably cliche, I'm not fond of this kind of story element myself. I guess my point is: if the DM really, really wants the man to die AND the man to be uncurable AND the man to still provide informaiton with his last breath, it should be easy enough for the cleric player to get it at some point and roll with it.

Now I hear those who say "well, why doesn't the DM pick up on the cleric player's proposed story element to cure the man and allow it?" My answer is: I pretty much agree. I don't like predetermined story elements such as "this NPC will die and provide info with his dying breath", I'm more inclined to steer away from that kind of thing and see how the action pans out before deciding on anything.

BUT: assuming you, as DM, want to impose that story element because you feel that the game will benefit from it, then the player needs to know when to accept that what he does won't work, and play along with the new information provided by the DM. No need to pout or be frustrated, there are many instances where the player's actions don't work out, e.g. trying to jump a gap, identify magic runes, convince a NPC, find an item hidden in a room, and the player doesn't succeed. The player needs to accept that healing, like any of the above, can be a failure sometimes.

So in cooperative storytelling, as with any other human interaction, there is some measure of intuition to be used, of trying to sense what the other player (or in-game character) is trying to do, and picking up on that. There is no die roll for that, and success will not always be achieved either; it's just a direction you can take as a player (DM included), taking into account that the DM directs many plot elements and will have final say on what works and what doesn't. If you're looking for a 1v1 match with both players on equal footing, chess or other board games are better suited for you


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 14, 2011)

Skyscraper said:


> Cooperative storytelling is not necessarily saying yes to anything anyone else says.




But you're the only one getting to say no. That's not very cooperative.



> "But what if a fellow PC has his lung pierced?" you ask. "The cleric should be able to heal him, since any non-dead fellow PC can be healed. Anyone who is not at -10 or minus his bloodied value, can be healed. Period".
> 
> Okay, first of all, relax with the math  The game is not about math, it's about having fun playing a RPG. Math doesn't rule the game, you do.
> 
> With this said, how could you, as a player, explain what's going on? Perhaps none of the wounds suffered up to now by PCs were pierced lungs? Work with the DM a bit here, that's what cooperative storytelling is all about. Find an explanation.




And that type of explanation makes the game less fun for me. It takes a clean abstraction and makes it less clean. There should be consequences in world if certain injuries can't be healed. Realistically, every anti-adventurer thing in the world is going to try to pierce lungs if that can't be healed magically. 



> If you're looking for a 1v1 match with both players on equal footing




I'm not. That's a strawman. I want a world I understand, that doesn't arbitrarily change, where random "explanations" don't come out of nowhere, to shoehorn in some cliche.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2011)

Isn't "Well, you tell me why your X didn't work" essentially a DM cop-out?

I mean, the only reason he's turning this over to the players in the first place is because he's playing silly buggers with expectations.  Now, not only is he changing the expectations of the game, but now he wants me to explain to him why?

I get the idea of co-operative story telling.  I really do.  I love it.  But, shouldn't that co-operation have occurred sometime BEFORE the DM started introducing elements into the game that run contrary to expectation?

Personally, I just wouldn't do it.  The players expect the world to work in a particular way.  When you start introducing elements that run contrary to that expectation, for the sole purpose of introducing a specific scene, it's not going to work very well.  At best the players recognize it for what it is - essentially a cut-scene where the players cannot affect the outcome and at worst, it takes immersion out and beats it with a large stick and makes trusting the DM in the future problematic.

I'm not seeing a big win here in either direction.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But you're the only one getting to say no. That's not very cooperative.




That's because the basis of the present example (propose by another poster) is that the DM wishes to impose one particular outcome to the encounter, i.e. that the NPC is dying and can't be healed. Like I said above, I would prefer not to do this kind of preset encoutner myself.

On a typical game session though, DM and player should both end up picking up each other's propositions. But eventually, the DM has to decide on certain things that go against  the player's will. The player wants everything he tries to work, but the  DM gives out challenges that includes some of the player's propositions  not working. The player has to be aware of that and work for the best of the story even when his propositions are refused.



> And that type of explanation makes the game less fun for me. It takes a clean abstraction and makes it less clean. There should be consequences in world if certain injuries can't be healed. Realistically, every anti-adventurer thing in the world is going to try to pierce lungs if that can't be healed magically.




Every single combatant wishes to pierce lung or heart, or behead his opponent, when he deals a sword stroke. However, in D&D there are no called shots. You have to explain, as a player (or perhaps you leave that to the DM also) why your sword stroke was not leathal to the enemy.

This is precisely the same, to me, as explaining why one sword stroke was lethal, but allowed the NPC to survive long enough to still talk to the PC.



> I'm not. That's a strawman. I want a world I understand, that doesn't arbitrarily change, where random "explanations" don't come out of nowhere, to shoehorn in some cliche.




If rigidity of the rules is what you're looking for, the situation doesn't prevent it: the NPC fell below 0 hit points (or -10, or whatever value your game uses as a death threshold), however the DM still allows that NPC to talk one last time. The rules remain unchanged for game purposes. So if it is a mechanical rule answer you want when you ask your DM why you can't heal the NPC, the DM can answer: because he's beyond the death threshold. I don't see how that is so far fetched.

I feel that one problem with the present situation is that we're arguing about a cliche no one wants in his game at the outset. All I'm saying is: it's usually very possible to help the DM along when he makes a proposition, and likewise the DM should be attentive to the player when the latter makes a proposition; and sometimes they'll be conflicting and one of them will have to yield. In the present example of the cliche, the player yielded; but if the basic proposition had been different and the DM was the one yielding to the player's proposition, would it be different?


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Isn't "Well, you tell me why your X didn't work" essentially a DM cop-out?
> 
> I mean, the only reason he's turning this over to the players in the first place is because he's playing silly buggers with expectations.  Now, not only is he changing the expectations of the game, but now he wants me to explain to him why?




The game has no expectations. You do. Your expectations here are twofold:

1) if anyone falls beyond the death threshold, he won't talk
2) if someone talks, he's not beyond the death threshold and can be healed

The only thing the DM does here is allow a dying NPC to speak.



> I get the idea of co-operative story telling.  I really do.  I love it.  But, shouldn't that co-operation have occurred sometime BEFORE the DM started introducing elements into the game that run contrary to expectation?




Yes, yes, like I said in my previous posts, I agree that the cliche used for the purposes of this example is not a winner and that predetermined outcomes are not a winning proposition either. Not my style.



> Personally, I just wouldn't do it.  The players expect the world to work in a particular way.  When you start introducing elements that run contrary to that expectation, for the sole purpose of introducing a specific scene, it's not going to work very well.




The world or the game? I think here the problem is that the players expect _the game _- not the world - to work in a certain way. That expectation is as per points (1) and (2) above.

In the game world, however, you can certainly imagine someone dying and pronouncing last words without being able to be prevented from dying.

The problem here lies in reconciling the "world" expectations with the game rules expectations. For  me that bridge is pretty easy to draw, but it seems that it's a big thing for some of you.



> At best the players recognize it for what it is - essentially a cut-scene where the players cannot affect the outcome and at worst, it takes immersion out and beats it with a large stick and makes trusting the DM in the future problematic.
> 
> I'm not seeing a big win here in either direction.




Yes, a cut-scene that railroads the game in a particular direction. I entirely agree. I'm simply working with the example provided by one poster to illustrate the question of cooperative storytelling. Some people like that kind of game, as it happens. Many, if not most, commercial adventures rely on specific predetermined events occuring, and many people buy and play commercial adventure as is. I don't. That's just a question of preference. I don't see a very big difference myself in the events described in the present scenario of the dying NPC than I see in commercial adventures that expect specific outcomes to carry players from A to B to C to D to the final fight agains the BBEG. So assuming your are a player who likes railroad adventures, which many do, then obviously you do not mind being led from one event to the next; I assume such a player would not mind to have a cut-scene such as this one occur either. No? That's what linear adventures are all about, predetermined events that the player's actions do not affect (although there is illusion that they do).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> There should be consequences in world if certain injuries can't be healed. Realistically, every anti-adventurer thing in the world is going to try to pierce lungs if that can't be healed magically.



Every injury that a PC adventurer ever suffers in D&D, as a result of garden variety hand-to-hand combat, is one that can be healed, completely, by bedrest.

In the real world, some injuries suffered in hand-to-hand combat - like pierced lungs or other organ damage, disembowelling, maimed or severed limbs, blinding, etc - cannot be healed by bedrest.

Therefore, one of two things follow: PCs in the D&D gameworld have regenerative biological capacities very different from their realworld counterparts; or, PCs in the D&D gameworld never suffer these sorts of injuries in the course of hand-to-hand combat.

Given that the rest of the game appears to presuppose that the first of these options is _not_ the case, I guess that the second option must be the case.

The dying messenger scenario, then, relies simply on the GM positing a scene in which an NPC has suffered one of these injuries that the PCs never do. I can see that this might well be jarring at the game table, if the players haven't performed the above inferences. But I don't think that it is cheating. (It would be cheating if the GM did this sort of thing _in the course of resolving, rather than framing a scene_ - which would require suspending the action resolution mechanics.)

If a table hasn't thought about it, they might also have to think about what is achievable via spells like Cure Serious or Critical Wound, Heal, Regeneration etc. Do the names of those spells really mean what they say? However any given table resolves this, the upshot is likely to be that the dying messenger setup will work the way the GM wants only against a low- to mid-level party. (And this stands to reason - PCs that can raise the dead, and travel at will between worlds, are also going to be able to heal a dying messenger unless there is some curse or other magical affliction at work.)



Skyscraper said:


> Yes, a cut-scene that railroads the game in a particular direction. I entirely agree. I'm simply working with the example provided by one poster to illustrate the question of cooperative storytelling. Some people like that kind of game, as it happens. Many, if not most, commercial adventures rely on specific predetermined events occuring, and many people buy and play commercial adventure as is. I don't.



I share your dislike for adventure-path style scenarios. But I don't agree that the dying messenger "cut-scene" is a railroad - because it's not per se a cut-scene. It's the starting point for a scene that the players can still resolve via their PCs. Suppose, for example, that the players remebmer that one of the PCs has a teleport scroll in her backpack, and the PCs then use this to teleport the dying messenger to the rooms of a high-level healer - only if the GM doesn't allow this to have an impact on the resolution of the scene can we tell the we have a railroad going on.

What I personally find interesting about this thread is not the railroad debate - which, as I've just explained, I think turns on a misunderstanding of the difference between scene-framing and scene-resolution - but what it shows about D&D players' understanding of hit points. In particular, it seems many players believe both that (i) hit point damage sometimes represents injuries like disemboweling or a pierced lung, and (ii) hit point damage can always be recovered via simple bedrest. These strike me as obviously inconsistent propositions. That both are apparently believed by many D&D players is all the more striking to me in the context of the debate going on in another current thread about whether 4e is special in having introduced widespread "dissociated" mechanics into D&D!


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 14, 2011)

skyscraper said:
			
		

> That's because the basis of the present example (propose by another poster) is that the DM wishes to impose one particular outcome to the encounter, i.e. that the NPC is dying and can't be healed. Like I said above, I would prefer not to do this kind of preset encoutner myself.



As the OP, I think I should clarify what my specific scenario was. Obviously this is colored by my perspective...

In a past session the players were faced with a choice between two options (there could have been more but they aren't an especially probing/wildly creative group).

1. Go through a new moon portal into a fey realm to consult an oracle. The portal is only active one day per month at the height of new moon. If the PCs choose this way they gain insight into the BBEG's hidden agent, but without their help the keep falls. The extent of destruction depends on how long they are trapped in the fey realm ("one day here is a month in your world").

2. Travel north to a mountain keep besieged by goblins to help a gruff and tumble lord secure the mountain pass. If the PCs choose this path they would secure a critical stronghold against the BBEG's forces in the north, but they would not gain access to the oracle until it was too late. Additionally, the BBEG holds the oracle hostage to get info about future from her; depending on how many magical braziers the PCs find and light inside the keep, the BBEG gains more/less info (the braziers alert eladrin soldiers).

The PCs choose #1 and went into the fey realm, and were trapped there for several days (real world time) before realizing the trick. This meant the keep was completely overrun and most of the people fled, the lord's family was kidnapped, the lord was dead/dying  and all his knights were dead, the magical braziers were wrecked, the keep looted, the main horde moved on and left behind a small occupying force. The main horde hadn't yet reached the next settlement where refugees had been pushed however.

They arrive and take in the aftermath, defeat the small force of hobgoblins and search for survivors. They come upon the dying lord. As they start talking with him, the bard player (the group's only healer - this is 4e btw) wants to heal this guy with his majestic word, but of course the NPC has just lost to a horde of goblins and has no surges left. He doesn't have any surgeless healing powers outside of combat so he calls upon the Heal skill to stabilize an adjacent dying character (DC 15). It was here where I said: "He's beyond normal healing; that he's alive at all speaks volumes to his sheer grit." Bard player smirked and made some really good pun about not wanting to interrupt a dramatic monologue with good healing; before the lord died the bard player asked me again if he could administer a healing potion or *anything*. I said "A potion wouldn't work cause of the surges. Basically this guy failed his 3rd death save while talking with you. Yeah I know I didn't roll."

Everyone else was fine with it, and it wasn't an issue for the bard player out of that session. For some reason they trust me  But it was the first time in a long while that an issue came up about how I handled something as a DM.

My "mistake" (if you want to call it such) was having them be present at the lord's hour of death. It was about gravitas, not information. Others have commented that this setup would have been better served by having the NPC lord already dead. This would avoid the whole issue I raised in this thread. Maybe that's what I should have done. However, I was and remain certain that the setup I chose had more emotional impact.

That's why the "pet scene" in my case. It was illustrating consequences of a choice the players had in a previous adventure, and in so doing revealing the heroism of a NPC the group had mixed reactions toward. Say what you will about it being cliche, but swearing a quest at the side of a dying sympathetic/tragic NPC is poignant. That's one quest they'll definitely remember!


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 14, 2011)

Pemerton, I agree with your view which I believe is generally aligned with mine.

To clarify the cut-scene point: there are of course ways to avoid the cut-scene being a railroad; I was assuming here the scenario where the cut-scene is predetermined from the start according to the railroad approach, to show that even that can be attained in an interesting manner if the players help the DM to tell the story, instead of fighting him for the right to heal the dying NPC. Again, as long as you're OK with the predetermined outcome approach, of course.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 14, 2011)

@ Quickleaf: good stuff there. The entire cliche thing is besides the point in this dicussion, really. The scene you describe does seem cliche, but your narration makes it look cool nonetheless.

I find it too bad that such a great RP moment would raise eyebrows from your players with regards to their incapacity at healing the NPC from a purely mechanical standpoint. This is a moment where they should dive into the scene IMHO.

And by the way: are they aware that NPCs don't necessarily have healing surges in 4E?

Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that you arbitrarily ruling that the Lord has been attacked and badly injured by the enemy is fine (you're not rolling each and every battle between NPCs that occurs in your game world, are you?) but you not rolling for his death saving throws is frowned upon? Why is that? Once the PCs enter a room, the rules for NPCs should change? But as soon as they go out for a breather, he can die without questions being asked?

This topic is related to the entire player vs DM approach that I fnd really weird. Some players claim that the DM is "fair" or "unfair" during a battle, apparently forgetting that he's the one that decides on the encounter design at the outset. DMs arbitrarily design and decide a whole lot of things that will influence the game in a tremenoudous manner, but when he decides that a dying NPC can't be healed or that he's failed his saving throws: oh no, that's totally unacceptable! Heh. That's somewhat beyond me.

I think this comes from the fact that the game provides the illusion that DM and players can interact in an "objective" environment defined in part by the combat rules. But really, that's an illusion. The DM decides on too much stuff for it to mean much. It means something, but I'm not looking to base my game on an alleged objective environment. I'm looking to cooperate with the players to reach a point where we can create something together.

And of course, I try to be fair within the confines of the battle rules - that's not the point I'm tryint to make here. The "objective" battle environment is fun to interact with, as long as it doesn't rule over the storytelling.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2011)

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], I hadn't realised it was a 4e game. To my mind, that makes what you did all the more legitimate within the rules. Like I posted upthread, I've done exactly the same sort of thing - had the PCs rescue NPCs who are maimed, blinded etc from combat with hobgoblins, and who are therefore beyond the help of a healing word or similar spell (again, how can we tell that? because those spells only heal hit points, which recover after a night's rest, and therefore can't on their own represent anything all that debilitating).

As I said in my post just above yours, the only mechanics-related issue I can see here is one of jarring with the players' expectations if the nature of hit point loss and hit-point based healing hasn't been thought through - that is, if they haven't noticed that the action resolution mechanics used to handle combat don't encompass the full possible range of combat-related injuries that are possible in the fiction.

The GMing style issue seems to me to be this: as you describe the scene, you wanted the dying lord to be colour (and Crazy Jerome already diagnosed it this way quite a bit upthread), and you liked the colour of that better than you did him already being dead. The question for your players was - is this colour, or is this a challenge we can engage with? You've exerted some GM force to establish beyond doub that it's just colour. And you haven't been coy about it (ie you stated that you didn't roll the death save). There was no illusionism here, just upfront force.

Whether this is objectionable railroading, or just reasonably hard scene framing, is not something anyone else posting here can work out in the abstract. It's all about whether your players are into that sort of hard scene framing, or not.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2011)

Skyscraper said:


> Pemerton, I agree with your view which I believe is generally aligned with mine.



Yep. From your reply to Quickleaf just above, I'm probably a bit more of a stickler than you for keeping to the action resolution mechanics _once the players are enaging a scene and trying to shape/resolve it_. But like Quickleaf, I'm happy to do some fairly hard scene framing from time to time, confident that my players will see the dramatic point, and will let me know if they think I'm stepping on _their_ narrative toes (in which case, of course I'll pull back).


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Every injury that a PC adventurer ever suffers in D&D, as a result of garden variety hand-to-hand combat, is one that can be healed, completely, by bedrest.
> 
> In the real world, some injuries suffered in hand-to-hand combat - like pierced lungs or other organ damage, disembowelling, maimed or severed limbs, blinding, etc - cannot be healed by bedrest.
> 
> ...




Where does the rest of the game presuppose that the first of the options is not the case? Certainly I find the first option to be more in tune with fiction; Conan bounces back from crucifixion with just bedrest. The second theory is hard to believe when they're recovering from damage from crossbow bolts, acid splashes, and spiked pits.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Where does the rest of the game presuppose that the first of the options is not the case?



Because it tells me that human beings are human beings, not strange aliens in human casigns.



prosfilaes said:


> Certainly I find the first option to be more in tune with fiction; Conan bounces back from crucifixion with just bedrest.



But it seems fairly clear that he has no broken bones (given he pulls out his own nails!). He has suffered exhaustion, and starvation, and thirst.

I don't find this very plausible, obviously, but the injuries are, at least in kind, the sort that bedrest _can_ heal. Conan never gets a limb chopped off, or a major organ pierced, only to regenerate it via bedrest.



prosfilaes said:


> The second theory is hard to believe when they're recovering from damage from crossbow bolts, acid splashes, and spiked pits.



The bolts and spikes must only pass through flesh and never organ or bone. And the wound then remain uninfected. As for the acid splashes, maybe the burns weren't very severe!

I'm not saying I have a good working theory of pre-4e hit points here - I don't. I think the game sometimes presupposes that they're all meat but then, in a bid to address the obvious absurdiy of a human having more meat than a dragon or an elepehant, tells us that they're really something else.

4e gets away with more in relation to hit points, I think, because it more obviously embraces fortune-in-the-middle mechanics to resolve death and dying - thereby allowing the narrative of hit point lost to be told in a way that fits the subsequent upshot of that loss - and because it embraces the consequences of hit points not being all meat (eg Inspiring Word, using social skills to inflict hit point damage, etc).

But anyway, for me the bottom line is that _no _injury from which a person recovers without surgery, whether that recovery happens overnight or over a week or a month, can be serious damage to a limb or vital organ.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 14, 2011)

Skyscraper said:


> Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that you arbitrarily ruling that the Lord has been attacked and badly injured by the enemy is fine (you're not rolling each and every battle between NPCs that occurs in your game world, are you?) but you not rolling for his death saving throws is frowned upon? Why is that? Once the PCs enter a room, the rules for NPCs should change?




No, the level of the simulation changes. When the players are interacting with something, the simulation is more fine-grained, more accurate, then after they leave.

My characters have a back-story that involves them fighting; is it bizarre that I didn't have to roll for those fights, but I do for those in play?



> DMs arbitrarily design and decide a whole lot of things that will influence the game in a tremenoudous manner, but when he decides that a dying NPC can't be healed or that he's failed his saving throws: oh no, that's totally unacceptable! Heh. That's somewhat beyond me.




It's beyond you that someone can be given great freedom to do what needs to be done and yet still have limitations?



> I'm looking to cooperate with the players to reach a point where we can create something together.




I'm not. I find it somewhat weird that you would pick D&D to do such a thing; it's a massive system with large simulationist elements that rewards and doesn't reward the wrong behaviors. There are a number of systems that reward creation of story, not killing of monsters.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 14, 2011)

Skyscraper said:


> @ Quickleaf: good stuff there. The entire cliche thing is besides the point in this dicussion, really. The scene you describe does seem cliche, but your narration makes it look cool nonetheless.



So "good use of cliche?" Heh, I'll take it. 



> I find it too bad that such a great RP moment would raise eyebrows from your players with regards to their incapacity at healing the NPC from a purely mechanical standpoint. This is a moment where they should dive into the scene IMHO.



To their credit they really did. The only exception was the other very experienced ex-DM player of the bard. And despite him being annoyed and us having a 5 minute headbutt, he rolled with it well and even created a suitable sardonic epitaph for the NPC.



> And by the way: are they aware that NPCs don't necessarily have healing surges in 4E?



Really? I thought the DMG made it clear that NPCs have 1 healing surge per tier. But that makes sense to me.



> Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that you arbitrarily ruling that the Lord has been attacked and badly injured by the enemy is fine (you're not rolling each and every battle between NPCs that occurs in your game world, are you?) but you not rolling for his death saving throws is frowned upon? Why is that? Once the PCs enter a room, the rules for NPCs should change? But as soon as they go out for a breather, he can die without questions being asked?



Heh. That's my perspective too. But it's clear many players feel the opposite: that if the PCs are present then the rules should apply consistently and without exception (er...unless the rules themselves are the exception). I wonder if this became more prominent during 3e when PCs and NPCs/monsters had the same mechanics? That would explain some of the disconnect I had with the bard player...



pemerton said:


> [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], I hadn't realised it was a 4e game. To my mind, that makes what you did all the more legitimate within the rules.



Really? How so?



> Like I posted upthread, I've done exactly the same sort of thing - had the PCs rescue NPCs who are maimed, blinded etc from combat with hobgoblins, and who are therefore beyond the help of a healing word or similar spell (again, how can we tell that? because those spells only heal hit points, which recover after a night's rest, and therefore can't on their own represent anything all that debilitating).



You too with the hobgoblins inflicting incurable wounds, huh? Must be something they feed their babies. 



> As I said in my post just above yours, the only mechanics-related issue I can see here is one of jarring with the players' expectations if the nature of hit point loss and hit-point based healing hasn't been thought through - that is, if they haven't noticed that the action resolution mechanics used to handle combat don't encompass the full possible range of combat-related injuries that are possible in the fiction.



I know this debate has been around since D&D, but when I played 1e and 2e it was clear that attacks were only in part physical damage (can't remember if it was just a play style thing or if it was explicitly written in books). I don't know if that was the case so much in 3e since my experience was limited. In 4e it's clearly called out that hit points are an expression of more than just physical wounds.



> The GMing style issue seems to me to be this: as you describe the scene, you wanted the dying lord to be colour (and Crazy Jerome already diagnosed it this way quite a bit upthread), and you liked the colour of that better than you did him already being dead. The question for your players was - is this colour, or is this a challenge we can engage with? You've exerted some GM force to establish beyond doub that it's just colour. And you haven't been coy about it (ie you stated that you didn't roll the death save). There was no illusionism here, just upfront force.



Yeah [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] did a good job of explaining how "color or challenge?" can be problematic.

I've been interested in the advice about creative ways to interface with the rules and have an NPC be un-healable (e.g. the magic poison). To me that seems more illusionismary  Is this magic poison a critical plot point? Or is it the DM's device so we just can't heal him...unless we figure a way around it? However, it appears there's plenty of folks who consider that a better way of handling this scenario than "Remember when you decided to go through that portal instead of to the keep? Yes I'm framing a scene here."



> Whether this is objectionable railroading, or just reasonably hard scene framing, is not something anyone else posting here can work out in the abstract. It's all about whether your players are into that sort of hard scene framing, or not.



Every time I've introduced a truly open-ended situation with a plurality of options, they've drifted off, debated endlessly about what to do, caved in to the strongest voice, or began making knowledge skill checks with piercing looks my way....  What can I say? Hard scene framing works well with this group, and I've become comfortable (too comfortable maybe) being up front about it.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Because it tells me that human beings are human beings, not strange aliens in human casigns.




They can turn into animals (druid, 4th level) and are immune to disease (monk, 5th level). Why should a little regeneration turn them into strange aliens?



> But it seems fairly clear that he has no broken bones (given he pulls out his own nails!). He has suffered exhaustion, and starvation, and thirst.




I think you're assuming what you're trying to prove; even in real life, people can get far in extreme situations with broken bones, and Conan the Barbarian would have no problem with a few broken bones.


----------



## Pentius (Jul 14, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> I know this debate has been around since D&D, but when I played 1e and 2e it was clear that attacks were only in part physical damage (can't remember if it was just a play style thing or if it was explicitly written in books). I don't know if that was the case so much in 3e since my experience was limited. In 4e it's clearly called out that hit points are an expression of more than just physical wounds.




I know it's spelled out that way in the AD&D 1e books.  I can't speak to 2e.  For 3.5, a cursory search turned up that HP are supposed to be not entirely physical damage in that game, too.  The books seem to be fairly consistent on it, in all the editions I can check for.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> They can turn into animals (druid, 4th level) and are immune to disease (monk, 5th level). Why should a little regeneration turn them into strange aliens?



It wouldn't per se. But those are SU, or at least EX, abilities. Healing by way of bedrest isn't traditionally put into that category in D&D. After all, it normally appears under the heading "natural healing".

Now if someone wanted to run a mid-to-high level D&D game in this sort of fashion - where all PCs and NPCs above a certain level _do_ have supernatural or extraordinary regenerative capacities - I could see how that could be made to work, although it wouldn't be a game I particularly want to play. (Crucial to the crucifixion scene in Conan, for example, is that Conan _is_ just a natural human, who is able to do what he does without having supernatural abilities.)



prosfilaes said:


> I think you're assuming what you're trying to prove; even in real life, people can get far in extreme situations with broken bones, and Conan the Barbarian would have no problem with a few broken bones.



I think the adrenaline idea can work, to an extent, to reconcile me to the absence of a death spiral from the traditional D&D hit point mechanics. But it doesn't help me understand how, days later, the PC can jump out of bed and be all hale and hearty when (i) any adrenaline surge must have ended by now, and (ii) any broken limbs would not yet have had time to heal.

This is why I take the view that hit point loss, at least until one gets into the negatives (which are handled differently in AD&D if not in 3E), is only light wounds. (Another, more tongue-in-cheek, reason is that _all_ hit point loss can be healed by Cure Light Wounds - that is, no injuries are suffered that a mere healing of light wounds couldn't relieve, if applied sufficiently many times.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> Really? How so?



I think 4e makes what you did more legitimate within the rules, because 4e is much more upfront that the action resolution mechanics _aren't_ a total model of the gameworld's causal processes, but rather a device for resolving the particular conflicts in which the players, via their PCs, are invested.

Not only does this make it clearer (in my view) that there can be a wound that can't be healed simply by restoring hit points (it's just that no PC ever suffers such wounds when they fight, for narrative/plot-protection type reasons). I think it also makes it easier for the GM to engage in more obvious scene-framing - whereas in a mechanics-as-physics model, there is more pressure to extrapolate each new scene from the previous one by an applicaiton (actual, or hypothetical) of the mechanics, which makes introducing options for which the mechanics don't allow more tricky.

One reason why I prefer GMing 4e to RM despite my near-20-year love affair with the latter is precisely this issue to do with scene transition. RM can so easily bog down because there is no way for the GM to "switch off" the action resolution mechanics without creating the risk of deprotagonising the players - because the consequences of the mechanics are all-pervading and total, rather than confined to PC-focused conflicts in the manner of 4e's mechanics.



Quickleaf said:


> it's clear many players feel the opposite: that if the PCs are present then the rules should apply consistently and without exception



On this issue, I tend towards the stricter view - namely, that once the PCs are engaging a scene then the action resolution mechanics should apply, because this is what the players have signed up for. That would mean, for example, that even an NPC would take only hit point damage from attacks.

Of course, once a NPC is at 0 hp all bets are off, because there are no death saves or negative hp by default for NPCs. So, in practice, there would still be scope in 4e for a NPC to suffer an injury, in the course of a combat in which the PCs were involved, that dealt unhealable damage - but only if a monster dropped that NPC to zero hit points. But, because I also permit  page 42 manoeuvres to minionise NPCs in certain circumstances, assuming they didn't start that way, then this may not be too hard - eg if a monster crashes a brick wall down on an ordinary person, then on a hit vs Reflex I'd be happy to call that ordinary person dead (this minionisation thing is another aspect of a flexible and narratively constrained action resolution mechanics, that contrasts with a mechanics-as-physics approach).



Quickleaf said:


> I've been interested in the advice about creative ways to interface with the rules and have an NPC be un-healable (e.g. the magic poison).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it appears there's plenty of folks who consider that a better way of handling this scenario than "Remember when you decided to go through that portal instead of to the keep? Yes I'm framing a scene here."



To me, the preference for that sort of approach seems to follow from a mechanics-as-physics orientation, which then makes it hard (without "cheating") to introduce a wound that can't be inflicted on a PC via the action resolution mechanics.

When playing Rolemaster, I would share this orientation, but the problem wouldn't come up, because Rolemaster doesn't use hit points in the D&D sense for damage - concussion hits are only one (and typically the least important) element of damage, and different sorts of injuries (categorised both by severity and by type) require their own dedicated healing magic. So it is trivial in RM for a GM to introduce a dying NPC that the PC's are incapable of healing, at least until the PCs are 15th or higher level and start to get access to the best healing spells.

I haven't played much 3E, in part because (i) it seems to support the mechanics-as-physics approach, but (ii) it uses a hit point mechanic that I think can't be reconciled with that approach (for the reasons I've given upthread) and therefore (iii) tends towards incoherence in its approach to damage. Given that fighting and damage are such big parts of mainstream fantasy RPGing, this tendency towards incoherence is a deal-breaker for me.



prosfilaes said:


> I find it somewhat weird that you would pick D&D to do such a thing; it's a massive system with large simulationist elements that rewards and doesn't reward the wrong behaviors. There are a number of systems that reward creation of story, not killing of monsters.



I think this description isn't really true of 4e - or not completely (yes, it is a massive system). I don't think 4e rewards killing monsters. It rewards creation of story (ie overcoming challenges, completing quests, and the so-called "roleplaying XP rewards" from DMG2). It's just that the sort of challenges 4e supports both the design and the resolution of include combat challenges, such that if you don't include quite a few of them in your game then you're probably not getting the best gaming-per-word from your rulebooks.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But you're the only one getting to say no. That's not very cooperative.




One side framed the scene, the other is being asked to explain. You can't always react to a scene-framing by flipping the setup on its head. Otherwise you're not playing cooperatively, you're just being contrary. And who said the DM in question is the only one getting to "say no?" There ar plenty of other times a player may want to frame a scene or "do something cool" outside of the RAW and tosses the ball to the DM to react. Being cooperative would allow for players to have their chance to do what the DM is asking for in the death scene.



prosfilaes said:


> I want a world I understand, that doesn't arbitrarily change, where random "explanations" don't come out of nowhere, to shoehorn in some cliche.




You don't want the real world, fair enough.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> You don't want the real world, fair enough.




In your world, completely arbitrary events occur without explanation?  That's the "real" world?  I dunno about you, but, there's a couple years or so of scientific method that would like to have a word with you.  

I guess my problem come in because the PC's are involved.  If the PC's weren't involved, then anything goes and I don't really care.  But, the only way the players can interact with the game world is through the mechanics of the game.  

If you start changing those mechanics simply to service a specific scene then it calls into question how much the players can rely on their sole method for interacting with the game world.

Granted, most of the time, it's not going to matter that much.  Most groups simply move on and no harm, no foul.

But, I'm really not seeing what's being gained here.  The DM is forcing through a specific scene that resolves in a specific manner.  It's a cut-scene with a bit more improv from the player's side.  The players cannot actually change the outcome of the scene since the DM declares that the guy is too hurt to be healed and he just dies.

Lobbing the explanation back at the players isn't going to resolve anything, other than make it really glaringly obvious that the DM just wanted to have a cut scene.

If you don't want the players to change the scene, DON'T INVOLVE THE PLAYERS.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think 4e makes what you did more legitimate within the rules, because 4e is much more upfront that the action resolution mechanics _aren't_ a total model of the gameworld's causal processes, but rather a device for resolving the particular conflicts in which the players, via their PCs, are invested.
> 
> Not only does this make it clearer (in my view) that there can be a wound that can't be healed simply by restoring hit points (it's just that no PC ever suffers such wounds when they fight, for narrative/plot-protection type reasons).




So an PC's interaction with an NPC isn't a "particular conflict in which the player, via their PCs, are invested"?  

This I think strains credibility, and as a player, I would like to think that I could become invested via my PC in an NPC.  One of the foremost jobs of the GM is creating memorable NPCs that you can invest emotion in, much as you could with the characters of a good novel.   Indeed, the whole point of the orginal scenario seems to have been to encourage the players to invest in the interaction with the NPC.  Which is why I find the fiat scene resolution to be so counterproductive.  'Cut scenes' in which you can't effect the outcome even though my character concievably has the ability to do so are jarring even in cRPGs where I have reduced expectations of player freedom.

It's one thing to have an argument about scene framing and say, "Well, for the purposes of scene framing, a DM doesn't have to play out the scene.  He can simply construct the scene by fiat - the destroyed fort for example - without doing the game mechanics resolution - he doesn't have to run the battle or establish the army size from precise calculations of the regions demographics.   A DM doesn't have to exactly prove that the band of Hill Giants can find enough food in the arid badlands to survive.   A DM only has to make these events and decisions plausible, so that the players don't have suspension of disbelief harmed by finding 8 hill giants living behind a sealed door in a 30'x30' room deep in a dungeon down a 5' wide corridor with no apparant means of egress or physical support.

But for the purposes of scene resolution, then I think that players have a reasonable expectation that everything that they interact with will obey some sort of knowable rule, even if only 'common sense'.  If a character can't be healed by normal magical means, then it ought to be obvious why and make sense within the context of the game.   For example, if I was really compelled to make it clear that the poor schmuck couldn't be healed I probably would have run the scene as follows:

"In the center of the courtyard, you find a ring of crosses, about which have been piled the mutilated bodies of many of the forts defenders.  Here, the few survivors were apparantly tortured to death for the amusement of the victors.  The bodies on the crosses are horribly mangled, with severed limbs and broken legs.  A murder of crows picking over the dead.  Agitated by your arrival, some flit cawing to the eaves of the burned out buildings and stare at you curiously.   Just at this moment, you here an agonized moan from one of the bodies on the crosses.  One of the figures is apparantly still alive... Although his eyes are missing, you are able to recognize the Captain.  It seems impossible that he is still alive.  His torso has been split open, and its clear that several major organs have been removed.  A glowing green rod has been thrust through his chest, but as you approach he seems to hear you and cries, "Who is there.  Help me!  Kill me!".   

In my game, the above scene would probably provoke at least two Horror checks from the party.  I would think that also the above scene gives enough clues that the Captain is not in a state where 'Cure Light Wounds' is going to be of much help.

One that was established, then if the PC's had the resources to heal the NPC, fine.   Granted, the problem with the above scene is that it requires that the NPC's have significant necromantic resources to have actually set that scene up.  It's not something an ordinary war band of goblins is going to be capable of.   And granted, you are going to have to be careful about the mechanics of something that is apparantly preventing death regardless of the state of the character, but as a matter of achieving the immediately desired result I find the above scene framing far better than, "No, you can't just cast Cure Moderate Wounds because I say so, and if you don't like it then just go home."



> I think it also makes it easier for the GM to engage in more obvious scene-framing - whereas in a mechanics-as-physics model, there is more pressure to extrapolate each new scene from the previous one by an applicaiton (actual, or hypothetical) of the mechanics, which makes introducing options for which the mechanics don't allow more tricky.




Once the PC's are interacting with the environment, you've gone beyond scene framing.  



> RM can so easily bog down because there is no way for the GM to "switch off" the action resolution mechanics without creating the risk of deprotagonising the players - because the consequences of the mechanics are all-pervading and total, rather than confined to PC-focused conflicts in the manner of 4e's mechanics.




You've not convinced me that you've avoided deprotagonizing the players.  You'll have to demonstrate that trying to heal an NPC wasn't a conflict focused on the PC's, and that if it wasn't a conflict focused on the PC's that you've still managed to protagonize the players in the scene.



> To me, the preference for that sort of approach seems to follow from a mechanics-as-physics orientation, which then makes it hard (without "cheating") to introduce a wound that can't be inflicted on a PC via the action resolution mechanics.




DMs are effectively all powerful.  If you are ever feeling uncomfortably constrained as a DM, you aren't really understanding the wealth of options available to you.   That isn't to say that you shouldn't constrain and limit your own authority, but I don't think there is ever a time when a DM shouldn't feel as if he has enough authority.  You can always create something.  For example, magic items, like the one implied in the above scene framing, are a very easy way in D&D to introduce whatever rules exceptions you desire.

Actually crafting the house rules you need is another way.



> I haven't played much 3E, in part because (i) it seems to support the mechanics-as-physics approach, but (ii) it uses a hit point mechanic that I think can't be reconciled with that approach (for the reasons I've given upthread) and therefore (iii) tends towards incoherence in its approach to damage. Given that fighting and damage are such big parts of mainstream fantasy RPGing, this tendency towards incoherence is a deal-breaker for me.




Odd, but I find 4e far more incoherent.  Which just goes to show that the DM is more important than the system.  I'm willing to believe that your 3e game would be incoherent.   I equally believe that I'm unable to DM 4e in a coherent fashion.   I think I can manage with 3e though.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Where does the rest of the game presuppose that the first of the options is not the case? Certainly I find the first option to be more in tune with fiction; Conan bounces back from crucifixion with just bedrest. The second theory is hard to believe when they're recovering from damage from crossbow bolts, acid splashes, and spiked pits.




I think if you wish to suppose that the PCs can regenerate through bedrest in your game, it's fine. I however doubt that the majority of players think this way.

Personally, I feel the game suggests humans are ordinary human beings that gain powers that are specifically described or implied in the class, race and feat descriptions. If humans were otherwise different than ordinary human beings, I believe the game would say so.

But again, nothing prevents you from supposing that humans can regenerate from any injury whatsoever through simple bedrest, if you feel that your game is better for it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In your world, completely arbitrary events occur without explanation?  That's the "real" world?  I dunno about you, but, there's a couple years or so of scientific method that would like to have a word with you.




Yes, in our world they do. E.g. People get laid off without any control over the outcome and without any real explanation from their superiors. That's the real world. There is more to life than scientific method. 

Even limiting oneself to scientific method, there have been things proven true by men of science that later are proven wrong. Our current perceptions of what is scientifically "right" may seem utterly ridiculous to scientists centuries from now.

More pertinent to the discussion than acts and perception of Man. One person falls off a short ladder and dies instantly, while another falls from an airplane, his chute doesn't open, he bounces once and lives. In D&D, since the ladder is short, i.e. less than 10' tall, the person takes no damage. While the second guy takes 20d10 (or 20d6). Assuming a normal man (zero-level commoner or 1st-level minion), the first never dies in D&D, the second always dies. Only DM fiat will allow for the hopefully rare outlier to occur.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> No, the level of the simulation changes. When the players are interacting with something, the simulation is more fine-grained, more accurate, then after they leave.
> 
> My characters have a back-story that involves them fighting; is it bizarre that I didn't have to roll for those fights, but I do for those in play?




I'm not saying that rolling for things that occur in-play is bizarre; I'm saying that arbitray decisions rule the game world and also permeate the in-play game sessions (such as encounter design), but it is bizarre that they should be frowned upon concerning something as trivial (relatively to the other arbitrary decisions) like the Lord automatically failing his saving throws.



> It's beyond you that someone can be given great freedom to do what needs to be done and yet still have limitations?



No. For me, it's like sex in the fifties: everyone accepts and knows that everyone does it, but no one talks about it amongst themselves. Here, the DM is allowed to make arbitrary decisions concerning a bunch of stuff that will completely shape the PCs' experiences, but he's not allowed to do any such thing when the PCs are in the room? Only when they're in the next room?



> I'm not. I find it somewhat weird that you would pick D&D to do such a thing; it's a massive system with large simulationist elements that rewards and doesn't reward the wrong behaviors. There are a number of systems that reward creation of story, not killing of monsters.



Well, however much D&D is closer to a board game than other RPGs, it remains an RPG. And RP is one aspect of D&D that I like and appreciate. (And I do play other game systems also.) And RPGs benefit from cooperative storytelling IMO.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 14, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> More pertinent to the discussion than acts and perception of Man. One person falls off a short ladder and dies instantly, while another falls from an airplane, his chute doesn't open, he bounces once and lives. In D&D, since the ladder is short, i.e. less than 10' tall, the person takes no damage. While the second guy takes 20d10 (or 20d6). Assuming a normal man (zero-level commoner or 1st-level minion), the first never dies in D&D, the second always dies.




This is true.  However, it is worth noting that it is something which has caused significant amounts of complaint and distress on the part of DMs for the last 30 years.   Practically every early edition of Dragon either had an article addressing percieved problems with the rules for falling, or else a letter to the editor discussing an article about the percieved problems with the rules for falling.  An enormous number of suggestions were submitted and argued over.  I and others written at length about the issue of why people care more about 'fell 20 feet' or 'emmersed in acid' than they do about 'struck by a sword'.

I bring this up because I want to point out that there is probably no hypocricy on the part of the people in this discussion.  You seem to be suggesting through this statement that the other side is being very selective in what it complains about, but in fact you don't really have alot of evidence that I or anyone else is being arbitrary about the unrealisms that they choose to accept or not accept.   And this is particularly true in the case of falling, where I bet - based on how often its come up in past discussions of EnWorld - that there are a lot of house rules in play.



> Only DM fiat will allow for the hopefully rare outlier to occur.




Or house rules.  My house rules are built around the very notion you bring up - that a fall off the top of a ladder ought to be potentially lethal, but there ought to be some chance of surviving a fall out of an airplane.  

The way I achieve this is basically a pretty old rule idea where the damage from a fall is 1d20 per 10' you fall divided by the result of 1d6.   So for example, a 30' fall doesn't have a damage range of 3-18, but rather a potential damage range of 0-60.  Average damage is very close to average damage from 1d6/10', but the range is very different and there is a long tail that often means instant death.   Hense, players might jump off a 60' cliff to escape death (and likely heroicly survive), but they probably won't take such a risk for any lesser reason.  Thereby, I retain the mixture of realism and fantasy that I'm aiming for.

As I said from the beginning, if the rules don't allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, then change the rules.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 14, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I bring this up because I want to point out that there is probably no hypocricy on the part of the people in this discussion.  You seem to be suggesting through this statement that the other side is being very selective in what it complains about, but in fact you don't really have alot of evidence that I or anyone else is being arbitrary about the unrealisms that they choose to accept or not accept.   And this is particularly true in the case of falling, where I bet - based on how often its come up in past discussions of EnWorld - that there are a lot of house rules in play.




I'm not really suggesting hypocricy on selective rules. I'm not suggesting that because anyone who accepts one form should accept all. I'm more on the side of pointing out that there are issues that people accept freely. But when one particular ruling they dislike is used, the DM using it is now a bad DM. I don't think anyone here is a bad DM based on their strict adherence to the healing rules, but "the other side" has some that do think those who use Dying Breath scenes are "Bad DMs."



Celebrim said:


> Or house rules.




a.k.a. Codified DM Fiat. 



Celebrim said:


> My house rules are built around the very notion you bring up - that a fall off the top of a ladder ought to be potentially lethal, but there ought to be some chance of surviving a fall out of an airplane.
> 
> The way I achieve this is basically a pretty old rule idea where the damage from a fall is 1d20 per 10' you fall divided by the result of 1d6.   So for example, a 30' fall doesn't have a damage range of 3-18, but rather a potential damage range of 0-60.  Average damage is very close to average damage from 1d6/10', but the range is very different and there is a long tail that often means instant death.   Hense, players might jump off a 60' cliff to escape death (and likely heroicly survive), but they probably won't take such a risk for any lesser reason.  Thereby, I retain the mixture of realism and fantasy that I'm aiming for.




I'm glad you're able to find something that works for you. But, specifically in this example, I don't want the heroes to die because they slipped off a ladder. That's something that happens to the Average Joe in my game world, not the characters. My players understand that the resolution system built around them emulates the survivability of Captain Kirk, while the minor players in the world are Red Shirts.



Celebrim said:


> As I said from the beginning, if the rules don't allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, then change the rules.




This whole discussion boils down to taste. Some players are fine with off-the-cuff rulings. Others prefer the non-RAW elements to be presented beforehand as house rules. While other expect the world to act by the strict letter of RAW. While others sit somewhere in-between.

As DM you should go with your gut and go with a style you like. If you see that the majority of your players don't like a certain trope - don't do it again. If some don't like it - use it sparingly. Some people are acting like they have the "Right Answer." If it seemed like I was saying I do I apologize for conveying my message with the wrong tone.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 14, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> a.k.a. Codified DM Fiat.




Yes.  However, all DM fiat is effectively house rules whether codified or not.  Mine has the advantage of being codified, which means my rules have the advantage of being knowable, reviewable, somewhat more unbiased in application, and generally less forcing than uncodified rules.  Rather than being, "The DM gets his way.", they are "The DM gets to decide the percentage chance that he gets his way."



> I'm not really suggesting hypocricy on selective rules. I'm not suggesting that because anyone who accepts one form should accept all. I'm more on the side of pointing out that there are issues that people accept freely. But when one particular ruling they dislike is used, the DM using it is now a bad DM. I don't think anyone here is a bad DM based on their strict adherence to the healing rules, but "the other side" has some that do think those who use Dying Breath scenes are "Bad DMs."




And they are therefore hypocrites?  Quibble over the term how you like, I think I understood your position well.   When I said you were trying to point out hypocricy, it was short hand for what you just stated.



> But, specifically in this example, I don't want the heroes to die because they slipped off a ladder.




Well, I don't want the heroes to die because they slipped off the ladder either.  Frankly, I don't want the heroes to die whether its because of ladder slippage or dragon pwnage.  However, if I simply made the rule be, "You can't die", this would consequences that I wanted even less.



> That's something that happens to the Average Joe in my game world, not the characters. My players understand that the resolution system built around them emulates the survivability of Captain Kirk, while the minor players in the world are Red Shirts.




Well, in practice, as does mine.   The chance that a PC would die from slipping off a ladder is tiny, so tiny that PC's could probably slip off ladders hundreds of times without killing themselves.  In fact, it might be some time before any of them did it and injured themselves.   But the chance of death is non-zero so long as the act of slipping off a ladder does at least 1 point of damage since the PC that so slips could already be injured.   Likewise, there is a chance that the PC's will die from a rat bite or pnuemonia or drowning in shallow water or a lucky shot from a kobold archer.   The chances of that happening are in fact quite low, because the PC's are very resource laded and the players very resourceful.   But it's not a non-zero chance.

If I have a rule that says, "The PC cannot die except in a heroic manner", I might well be better off in a system that doesn't track hit points.



> This whole discussion boils down to taste. Some players are fine with off-the-cuff rulings.




As a player rather than a DM, I'm fine with off the cuff rulings.  No rule set is or can be complete.  However, I expect that when I'm in a similar situation the previous ruling will now constitute a body of what you might call 'common law' which I can weigh my decision on the basis of.   If the situation for example previously required me to roll a 15 or better on the d20, then I'll expect that of similar situations (as well as ideally easier rolls for less challenging situations and harder rolls for more challenging ones).   If something is possible, it stays possible unless acted on by an in game force.   If something is not possible, it stays impossible unless acted on by an in game force.

Likewise, as a DM, whenever possible I prefer to have rules, because the act of applying an existing rule is less stressful (and speedier) than deciding how I should handle a proposition fairly in an off the cuff manner.

Now, other people may have differing opinions.  They may expect far less consistancy and fairness from their DM if they are recieving some other quality that they value higher, or they may feel that making up rules is far harder than making up rulings.  

Be as that may, I think that on the whole the sort of 'lazy by fiat' scene framing and scene resolution suggested by some while not 100% wrong is not 100% right either, and that there are better ways to do things.   It doesn't make you a bad DM to apply fiat scene resolution, but its something you ought to really think hard about before you do it, including thinking hard about whether you can get to what you want without breaking the rules and the player's expectations of fairness.


----------



## Janx (Jul 14, 2011)

I think celebrim has some pretty well thought out house rule mods to get the "real world" effects he wants.  I'd probably like to get a copy so I can consider some of them for my game.

For every other GM though, some things just aren't that well thought out.  Nor should we expect perfect consideration about every game element.

It is entirely concievable that a GM could put a NPC into "last words" mode, and not even think of what might happen in a PC tries to heal him.

I find it gimpy to have to consider ever angle on every game element, and adding blocks like "he was almost killed with special unhealable poison" just to get the emotional effect of the scene that these are indeed his dying words.

I'm not comfortable making up some excuse of "why it doesn't work" when the player does the unthinkable and tries to heal him.

I don't want to spoil the mood of the scene by declaring as part of it that "this is a scripted encounter and he's meant to die".  That's about as disrupting actually as arguing with the PC whether the heal should work.

I stand by my right to put a tear jerker moment in the game if I think it'll make the story about the game better.
 There's a reason shirts that say "Because I'm the GM" have existed since the darn of RPGs.

A GM has the right to do whatever the heck he wants through any edition of the game, so long as he has an audience to GM for.  Given that he does most the work, he has more rights and therefore more power than the players.

So why does the healing fail?  Because the Gods have decided it was his time.  Much like anything else happening in the game world.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 14, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm not comfortable making up some excuse of "why it doesn't work" when the player does the unthinkable and tries to heal him.




Unthinkable? In the real world, paramedics don't just stand by and watch someone die; they get in and do their best to save the person's life. What's unthinkable to me is that someone given the power of the gods to heal people should stand by a dying ally and not try to save their life.


----------



## Janx (Jul 14, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Unthinkable? In the real world, paramedics don't just stand by and watch someone die; they get in and do their best to save the person's life. What's unthinkable to me is that someone given the power of the gods to heal people should stand by a dying ally and not try to save their life.




I was being tongue in cheek about that dude.  Unthinkable as in "how could the GM have not forseen that the party healer would try to heal the guy"

That's layer 1 to this whole topic.  The premise that GMs have infallibly thought all the stuff out.  I do not assume the GM thought of everything and may be scrambling to adjust as players do what he did not expect.

It is also just as likely that the guy is sitting there bleeding out, and the party healer just sits there, not thinking to jump in.  Because the PLAYER is NOT a MEDIC.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 14, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> Rather than being, "The DM gets his way.", they are "The DM gets to decide the percentage chance that he gets his way."




Do you consider the "percentage chance" a prerequisite to a good houserule? Or is the houserule stated by a few of us here, "people can eke out a few words when they are RAW dead," somehow damaged because it lacks a variable?



Celebrim said:


> And they are therefore hypocrites?  Quibble over the term how you like, I think I understood your position well.   When I said you were trying to point out hypocricy, it was short hand for what you just stated.




Sorry for the quibble. I wasn't trying to argue the hypocrisy, just the angle I was approaching it.



Celebrim said:


> Likewise, as a DM, whenever possible I prefer to have rules, because the act of applying an existing rule is less stressful (and speedier) than deciding how I should handle a proposition fairly in an off the cuff manner.




Agreed. And when I do house rule I usually choose simple non-game-rules affecting things like the ability to gasp out something while dying. Not a spell. Not a final attack. Just conversation.



Janx said:


> It is entirely concievable that a GM could put a NPC into "last words" mode, and not even think of what might happen in a PC tries to heal him.




Some of us gave a simple ruling with a basis that has no far-reaching rules implications and were still inferred to be bad DMs.


----------



## baradtgnome (Jul 15, 2011)

I can see both sides.  My bias is, if I put the players in the action (scene, whatever you want to call it) as much as possible they are able to interact, use their skills and abilities, to alter the environment.  I find it breaks the verisimilitude if we switch their ability to influence their environment on and off at random times.

So for example, regardless of what edition you play, there is a line where characters are no longer able to act because they are hurt. Whether hit points are zero or a negative number, the characters die or fall unconscious. If a DM rules strictly the players can take no further actions once that happens (take speaking for example) how is it not confusing to the players if NPCs can do what they cannot? Sure, there might be a special circumstance which allows it, but shouldn't that supernatural occurrence be at least hinted at somehow to the players, even if they don't fully understand it?   

I like the players to use their brains to solve problems and puzzles. If the world is inconsistent on purpose some of the time - why would they try to make sense of it?

Having said that, I really understand the emotional impact of the scene played out in the OPs example.  I personally would have created some explanation in the scene for why they could not have cured him.  Yes, maybe that is cliche on top of cliche but I prefer that to asking players out of character to sit and watch.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 15, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> As I said from the beginning, if the rules don't allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, then change the rules.



This, a hundred times over.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 15, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Unthinkable? In the real world, paramedics don't just stand by and watch someone die; they get in and do their best to save the person's life. What's unthinkable to me is that someone given the power of the gods to heal people should stand by a dying ally and not try to save their life.



And what if it's the deities standing by and refusing to grant the cleric the spell effects?  I mean, after all, it's the DM who wants this character dead.  He just doesn't want him to die until he's given his cryptic clue or whatever.  Rules as written don't generally allow for that possibility except in the rare cases of things like ongoing ability damage or magic-proof poisons or the like.  What the DM seems to want is the "paramedics" hitting the poor slob with the paddles and pumping him with adrenaline to the heart as well as IV's, but everyone STILL watching the victims face twisted in agony, then opening his eyes and with his final breath... "Rosebud..."  Hit points and healing rules just don't allow that.  It requires house rules, or ignoring the rules or circumventing the rules with outrageous circumstances just to pull off this cliche scene.

Given what the DM wants (cryptic dying clue) and what the players expect (their magic to work as it always does) the rules are getting in the way.  If the DM really wants/needs this event to happen then either the rules run the DM, the DM rules by fiat, or the DM makes new rules FOR HIS GAME into what he wants and needs them to be.  Any of those three options is viable.  None are inherently "incorrect" (though for my money the preferred option is the last of the three).  The only remaining thing to talk about is the DM communicating with the players; both sides of the DM screen understanding and accepting of the DM's choice of those three options so that it won't be a game-disrupting issue when it actually arises.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Do you consider the "percentage chance" a prerequisite to a good houserule?




I consider probabilities the basis of all gaming.  There exists a fortune mechanic for determining what the outcome of a proposition is a special and important case of the fundamental law of RPing: "Thou Shalt Not Be Good at Everything." 



> "people can eke out a few words when they are RAW dead," somehow damaged because it lacks a variable?




It's damaged because first it is noncontextual.  It's a Shrodinger Law.  We can't know if it applies until after we know the game state, and by the time we know the game state it may be too late to apply the law.  You fall into the flooding pit trap and drown.  Does the law apply underwater?  You are beheaded by a vorpal blade; does the law apply?  What about if you are swallowed by a purple worm and digested?

It's damaged secondly because applying the law generally suspends disbelief in the game world.  The above cases were apply the law results in ridiculousness are a case in point, but they are generally true of many deaths which we cannot gaurantee will be long and dragging except by applying alot of force to the game.  I have a tendency to believe in trusting the dice.  If the results aren't what you want, its not the fault of the dice.  Either you have the wrong system for what you want, or you've become too committed to a single outcome to let the game breathe and you are acting like a petty tyrant and control freak.  If there is only a single outcome that must happen, then stop pretending this is a multiplayer game and write the novel.  I think DMs get themselves into big big trouble by asking themselves what they want to happen and fanticizing about how it is going to happen instead of focusing on what is and what the NPC's given the scene framing are going to do.  Alot of the best scenes will be the ones you didn't plan for, and in my experience fantasizing too much about getting a particular scene just leads to frustration and disappointment, not only for the DM, but for his players who feel like they are 'doing it wrong'.

And in fact, a lot of people in this thread have suggested that the  players are seriously 'doing it wrong' by trying to heal the injured person.  A lot of people have suggested that those players need to be lectured, set straight, and possibly punished for attempting to 'ruin' the DM's scene.  I see that as a potentially problimatic approach to the game.  Sometimes it will work, and some players may be ok with taking hints from the DM that things are supposed to work out a certain way and that they shouldn't interfere with the DM's plans, but I wouldn't recommend that as a best practice.

It's damaged thirdly precisely because a 'rule' like that is focusing on what someone outside of the game 'wants' to happen instead of what the characters inside the game actually do.  Rules are there for arbitrating out of game propositions and creating in game outcomes.  Meta rules tend to work only if the game is to have a very limited scope.  As can be seen from my first example, the rule might be fine, if and only if we want to say that are game is very much not about certain things.  Saying that your game is about something very narrow - like heroes always get dying monologues - is in fact excluding everything else your game could be about.  I generally don't want to narrow my game so much unless its a one shot with characters with a meaning and purpose that is only going to last for 4 hours or so.



> Agreed. And when I do house rule I usually choose simple non-game-rules affecting things like the ability to gasp out something while dying. Not a spell. Not a final attack. Just conversation.




No purple worms?  No beheadings?  No dissolved in a pool of acid?  No drowning in the briny depths?  No screaming out your last soundless breaths in a vacuum trap?  No reduced to quivering mindless jelly by a chaos curse? Just dying conversations.  Ok, I got it.   

I don't believe that there are 'bad DMs' and 'good DMs'.  I don't believe that something like skillful DMing is binary or even a linear axis.  There are lots and lots of aspects to skillful DMing, and one of them is adjusting your game to your particular players.  For example, in my current campaign a lot my players are new and are really enjoying the levelling up process, so I tend to not to 'punish' them too much for dying.  Sooner or later many of them will stop seeing leveling up as the primary reward of gaming, and some of them will want to only get a high level character 'honestly'.  For that group, maybe we'll have harsher rules about starting over if you die because ultimately it would be more satisfying to that group; for this group, it would just be frustrating.  That's just one example.  

I do believe however that everyone can improve their game.  And when I start hearing how players are 'bad players' for not likeing a DM cut scene with heavy handed and generous use of DM force, then I'm thinking that those are DM's that could use some advice on how to improve that one area of the their game.  I'm not thinking however that they are bad DMs.  They might very well be very good DMs; the original poster seems fairly sound and interesting.  I just think in this one area he might find his group even happier with his direction if he's less heavy handed.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The players cannot actually change the outcome of the scene since the DM declares that the guy is too hurt to be healed and he just dies.



Quickleaf hasn't said this. Majestic Word didn't work - but whether a power that allows death to be delayed or reversed, or even a more powerful heal-all power or potion, would work, wasn't explored (presumably the PCs didn't have access to such magic).

In my posts talking about how I might run this sort of situation, and have run a somewhat similar situation, I've made it clear that a range of magic might work, including the Remove Affliction ritual.



baradtgnome said:


> if I put the players in the action (scene, whatever you want to call it) as much as possible they are able to interact, use their skills and abilities, to alter the environment.  I find it breaks the verisimilitude if we switch their ability to influence their environment on and off at random times.



In what way did Quickleaf switch off the abilities of the players in his game to influence the fiction via their PCs?



Celebrim said:


> So an PC's interaction with an NPC isn't a "particular conflict in which the player, via their PCs, are invested"?



There's a lengthy discussion upthread, involving me, Quickleaf, Crazy Jerome and maybe others, about hard scene framing, colour vs conflict, etc. I've expressed my views there. TL;DR - it depends on the group, the context etc. Unless you were at Quickleaf's table, I don't think you can know what was going on there in terms of the reasonableness of the GM force he used.



Celebrim said:


> If a character can't be healed by normal magical means, then it ought to be obvious why and make sense within the context of the game





Celebrim said:


> As I said from the beginning, if the rules don't allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, then change the rules.



This is exactly why I've said that 4e makes Quickleaf's scenario easy to run. Because the rules of 4e manifestly permit injuries that mere hit point healing cannot deal with - it's just that there is no way for ordinary attacks by monsters or PCs to inflict those injuries via the typical action resolution mechanics. Hence the need to inflict the injury in question via scene framing rather than scene resolution. But once the scene has been framed, no action resolution mechanics need to be suspended to make the injury unhealable by PCs who have access only to hit point healing.

In Quickleaf's case, furthermore, the PCs only had access to surge-dependent hit point healing, and the NPC had no surges remaining.

So Quickleaf's scenario (and my scenario, in which the PCs came across injuries - including maiming and blinding - that hit point healing magic couldn't heal) doesn't require changing any rules. It just requires stipulating, indpendependently of the action resolution rules, that the injuries in question were inflicted in battle. Hence the significance of the scene-framing/scene-resolution distinction.



Janx said:


> I find it gimpy to have to consider ever angle on every game element, and adding blocks like "he was almost killed with special unhealable poison" just to get the emotional effect of the scene that these are indeed his dying words.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I stand by my right to put a tear jerker moment in the game if I think it'll make the story about the game better.





Celebrim said:


> For example, magic items, like the one implied in the above scene framing, are a very easy way in D&D introduce whatever rules exceptions you desire.
> 
> Actually crafting the house rules you need is another way.



I agree with Janx that introducing magic or poisons should not be necessary to create the desired scene. Happily for me, I run a game - 4e - in which they are not necessary, because the scene can be framed and then adjudicated without needing house rules (other than pretty standard adjudication, like thinking about what sorts of injuries Remove Affliction might heal).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 15, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> It's damaged because first it is noncontextual.  It's a Shrodinger Law.  We can't know if it applies until after we know the game state, and by the time we know the game state it may be too late to apply the law.  You fall into the flooding pit trap and drown.  Does the law
> apply underwater?  You are beheaded by a vorpal blade; does the law apply?  What about if you are swallowed by a purple worm and digested?




Call me a grognard, but I prefer to use common sense when presented with specific cases.

"Does the law apply underwater?" First, I'm not sure why you insist twisting the context from a rule to a LAW, but I'd ask you: Can a character speak underwater? RAW has no answer. Geuss by your measure you should be pre-prepared a house rule governing speaking underwater. My common sense approach says you can at best let out a very muted gurgle.

"You are beheaded by a vorpal blade; does the law apply?" Can a normal human being speak when their head has been severed? And what version of vorpal sword are you using? Current versions don't actually sever anything. Past version tell you they sever the victim's head, but this actually is in support of the "attacks that kill but cause no hit point loss." And nowhere in the RAW of those past versions does it say losing your head results in death. The game assumes you would use common sense to link the loss of one's head with death.

"What about if you are swallowed by a purple worm and digested?" I'd still allow the final words, but it's unlikely anyone of importance would hear them from the stomach of the worm.



Celebrim said:


> It's damaged secondly because applying the law generally suspends disbelief in the game world.  The above cases were apply the law results in ridiculousness are a case in point, but they are generally true of many deaths which we cannot gaurantee will be long and dragging except by applying alot of force to the game.  I have a tendency to believe in trusting the dice.  If the results aren't what you want, its not the fault of the dice.  Either you have the wrong system for what you want, or you've become too committed to a single outcome to let the game breathe and you are acting like a petty tyrant and control freak.  If there is only a single outcome that must happen, then stop pretending this is a multiplayer game and write the novel.  I think DMs get themselves into big big trouble by asking themselves what they want to happen and fanticizing about how it is going to happen instead of focusing on what is and what the NPC's given the scene framing are going to do.  Alot of the best scenes will be the ones you didn't plan for, and in my experience fantasizing too much about getting a particular scene just leads to frustration and disappointment, not only for the DM, but for his players who feel like they are 'doing it wrong'.




Yes, applying a house rule blindly when it doesn't fit the circumstances will result in something that doesn't fit. I'm not writing a houserule for a computer game, I'm writing one for myself.



Celebrim said:


> And in fact, a lot of people in this thread have suggested that the  players are seriously 'doing it wrong' by trying to heal the injured person.  A lot of people have suggested that those players need to be lectured, set straight, and possibly punished for attempting to 'ruin' the DM's scene.  I see that as a potentially problimatic approach to the game.  Sometimes it will work, and some players may be ok with taking hints from the DM that things are supposed to work out a certain way and that they shouldn't interfere with the DM's plans, but I wouldn't recommend that as a best practice.




That's why I prefer the, he's already [game condition]dead[/game condition], but tells you one last thing. And letting players know that this is possible in my game world. They know by RAW that their healing magic won't work unless it works on dead people. They even know that bringing a person back from the dead requires willingness of the spirit and may not work. But if they are prepared with a Speak with Dead, different story.



Celebrim said:


> It's damaged thirdly precisely because a 'rule' like that is focusing on what someone outside of the game 'wants' to happen instead of what the characters inside the game actually do.  Rules are there for arbitrating out of game propositions and creating in game outcomes.  Meta rules tend to work only if the game is to have a very limited scope.  As can be seen from my first example, the rule might be fine, if and only if we want to say that are game is very much not about certain things.  Saying that your game is about something very narrow - like heroes always get dying monologues - is in fact excluding everything else your game could be about.  I generally don't want to narrow my game so much unless its a one shot with characters with a meaning and purpose that is only going to last for 4 hours or so.




So, you apply the rules to everything you determine as DM? Nothing happens "off-screen" without a roll? The characters in the set up enter the screen when the 'last words' NPC is already dead in my setup. You've never framed a scene where the characters come in to find dead townsfolk killed by orcs? Why didn't you give the characters a chance to stop those orcs? My suspension of disbelief is harmed when people act like things can only happen in the game world when the characters are involved.




Celebrim said:


> No purple worms?  No beheadings?  No dissolved in a pool of acid?  No drowning in the briny depths?  No screaming out your last soundless breaths in a vacuum trap?  No reduced to quivering mindless jelly by a chaos curse? Just dying conversations.  Ok, I got it.




Yep, just dying conversations. Twice in two decades justifies trying to ridicule me for suggesting I use a trope you dislike.



Celebrim said:


> I do believe however that everyone can improve their game.  And when I start hearing how players are 'bad players' for not likeing a DM cut scene with heavy handed and generous use of DM force, then I'm thinking that those are DM's that could use some advice on how to improve that one area of the their game.  I'm not thinking however that they are bad DMs.  They might very well be very good DMs; the original poster seems fairly sound and interesting.  I just think in this one area he might find his group even happier with his direction if he's less heavy handed.




Agreed. I don't think any non-jokin comment I've made would be heavy-handed, nor do my players feel that I am that way.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 15, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> And what if it's the deities standing by and refusing to grant the cleric the spell effects?




Then you've just used a hammer to swat a fly, and left my cleric wondering why suddenly did his god decide to intervene. In any case, that's beside the point; the point was that the DM should expect the cleric to try and heal the man. 



> I mean, after all, it's the DM who wants this character dead.  He just doesn't want him to die until he's given his cryptic clue or whatever.  Rules as written don't generally allow for that possibility




Of course they do. "Oh great sirs, if you had just been here five minutes ago! The lord gasped out 'cryptic clue' and died from his wounds."



> except in the rare cases of things like ongoing ability damage or magic-proof poisons or the like.




Or, you know, poison of any lethal type if you know the cleric won't have an anti-poison spell on them. 

The DM has lots of options without house ruling stuff; it's the insistence on a very specific scenario that's the problem.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> That's why I prefer the, he's already [game condition]dead[/game condition], but tells you one last thing.




Then the PCs _just happen_ to walk into the scene in the one round that the victim is slipping into death, or do people linger around in the [game condition]dead[/game condition] for an extended time just waiting for the PCs to show up, so they can utter their dying words?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 15, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Then the PCs _just happen_ to walk into the scene in the one round that the victim is slipping into death, or do people linger around in the [game condition]dead[/game condition] for an extended time just waiting for the PCs to show up, so they can utter their dying words?



Well, does a falling tree make a sound if no one is nearby?


----------



## baradtgnome (Jul 15, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In what way did Quickleaf switch off the abilities of the players in his game to influence the fiction via their PCs?




Sorry if my comment was not clear.  It simply refers to the fact the players have healing ability and they are not allowed to have it work without explanation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 15, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Then the PCs _just happen_ to walk into the scene in the one round that the victim is slipping into death, or do people linger around in the [game condition]dead[/game condition] for an extended time just waiting for the PCs to show up, so they can utter their dying words?




I've already admitted way upthread that this is a cliche. That's why the trope has come up maybe twice in 28 years for me.

Besides, alot of things happen around the heroes where the timing seems a little sketchy. It is as if Fate draws such improbable events to figures of great potential destiny.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Besides, alot of things happen around the heroes where the timing seems a little sketchy. It is as if Fate draws such improbable events to figures of great potential destiny.



Can't XP you again yet, so just QFT. It's reassuring that someone else has noticed!


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Call me a grognard, but I prefer to use common sense when presented with specific cases.




Good.  I've already mentioned that back in the July 14 9:43 post.

"But for the purposes of scene resolution, then I think that players have a reasonable expectation that everything that they interact with will obey some sort of knowable rule, even if only 'common sense'." - Me

So your real rule is: "Characters can get a death speech when it makes sense."  But that is not only more of a guideline than a rule, I can easily claim that it applies to my game as well.  Sure, where it _makes sense_, characters can get a death speech.  



> Yes, applying a house rule blindly when it doesn't fit the circumstances will result in something that doesn't fit. I'm not writing a houserule for a computer game, I'm writing one for myself.




Justice is meant to be blind.  A good rule requires as little interpretation as possible.  Otherwise, it's just sort of a guideline.  I respect the DM's authority to break the rules occasionally, but if there is a better alternative course available I would advise taking it.



> That's why I prefer the, he's already [game condition]dead[/game condition], but tells you one last thing.




For a guy who sites the importance of common sense with such stridence, you seem to be very willing to suspend it when it suits you.   My intuitive understanding of 'dead' is that it would work alot like being dead.   Does common sense tell you the dead should be talking?



> So, you apply the rules to everything you determine as DM? Nothing happens "off-screen" without a roll?




I believe I've already addressed this as well, when I wrote:

"It's one thing to have an argument about scene framing and say, "Well, for the purposes of scene framing, a DM doesn't have to play out the scene. He can simply construct the scene by fiat - the destroyed fort for example - without doing the game mechanics resolution - he doesn't have to run the battle or establish the army size from precise calculations of the regions demographics. A DM doesn't have to exactly prove that the band of Hill Giants can find enough food in the arid badlands to survive. A DM only has to make these events and decisions plausible, so that the players don't have suspension of disbelief harmed by finding 8 hill giants living behind a sealed door in a 30'x30' room deep in a dungeon down a 5' wide corridor with no apparant means of egress or physical support." - Me

So where you are going with this tangent I haven't a clue, but its certainly not based on anything I've been saying.   It certainly doesn't seem to follow from anything you quoted.

We aren't talking about off scene events or scene framing, but scene resolution.  This is happening 'on stage'.



> You've never framed a scene where the characters come in to find dead townsfolk killed by orcs?




Sure I have.  I've even framed a scene where they find some injured survivors, or even injured and dying survivors.  I've just never told my players, "You can't heal this guy just because."

However, oppurtunities for death speeches have been rare.  Both PC's and important NPC's tend to die in epic fashions that don't leave a lot of room for lengthy soliloquy, or they die in lonely ways where it wouldn't matter what they said.   Or they just have better things to do while they are dying than to give lengthy monologues, like you know, try to prevent their deaths.

My current game integrates the way I played GURPS, so that if you fall to 0 hit points or less you make a fortitude save to remain conscious.  If you succeed, you are staggered and bleeding but conscious.   This gives some time for saying something before you die.  I have no general problem with that.  The problem I have is the cut scene like nature of finding a survivor who dies regardless of what you do.  I don't even like cut scenes like that in video games, much less in a PnP game where the DM can apply common sense.



> Yep, just dying conversations. Twice in two decades justifies trying to ridicule me for suggesting I use a trope you dislike.




I have no intention of ridiculing you.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 15, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> So your real rule is: "Characters can get a death speech when it makes sense."  But that is not only more of a guideline than a rule, I can easily claim that it applies to my game as well.  Sure, where it _makes sense_, characters can get a death speech.




Since I have counted every rulle in D&D in all of its incarnations as a guidline, I agree 100%.



Celebrim said:


> Justice is meant to be blind.  A good rule requires as little interpretation as possible.  Otherwise, it's just sort of a guideline.  I respect the DM's authority to break the rules occasionally, but if there is a better alternative course available I would advise taking it.




My opinion is that a good rule allows wiggle room to apply common sense in particular situations.



Celebrim said:


> For a guy who sites the importance of common sense with such stridence, you seem to be very willing to suspend it when it suits you.   My intuitive understanding of 'dead' is that it would work alot like being dead.   Does common sense tell you the dead should be talking?




Someone who is dead should not be talking, normally. Someone who is [game definition]dead[/game definition] is adjudicated according to the rules. The problem with all forms of D&D is that they are limited to 3 functional states (or less): fully functional, unconscious, or dead. I do not tie game conditions directly to the literal real world meaning. That's why I've adjusted my style to define what [game definition]dead[/game definition] means in may games. But I do try to hew close to the rules. A [game definition]dead[/game definition] character may be able to spurt out "Rosebud!" but will under no circumstances be allowed, normally, to cast one final spell, etc.



Celebrim said:


> So where you are going with this tangent I haven't a clue, but its certainly not based on anything I've been saying.   It certainly doesn't seem to follow from anything you quoted.
> 
> We aren't talking about off scene events or scene framing, but scene resolution.  This is happening 'on stage'.




Well, it's not completely on stage. The PCs are coming in at the tail end of events that have occurred before their involvement.



Celebrim said:


> Sure I have.  I've even framed a scene where they find some injured survivors, or even injured and dying survivors.  I've just never told my players, "You can't heal this guy just because."




Neither have I. I've explained that he's already [game definition]dead[/game definition], but gasps out a few dying words.



Celebrim said:


> My current game integrates the way I played GURPS, so that if you fall to 0 hit points or less you make a fortitude save to remain conscious.  If you succeed, you are staggered and bleeding but conscious.   This gives some time for saying something before you die.  I have no general problem with that.  The problem I have is the cut scene like nature of finding a survivor who dies regardless of what you do.  I don't even like cut scenes like that in video games, much less in a PnP game where the DM can apply common sense.




Maybe it's just an sense of what Cure Light Wounds/Healing Word can accomplish, but it fits my common sense to come across a townsfolk with his guts hanging out onto the floor, dying but still barely speaking. I don't picture CLW/HW doing anything to fix this guy and since the two times I have used this trope was with low-level characters, it fits. I don't know if it's realistic and I don't care. It is cinematic and a style that I enjoy and my players at least tolerate if not enjoy.



Celebrim said:


> I have no intention of ridiculing you.




Then I apologize for accusing you of such.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The problem with all forms of D&D is that they are limited to 3 functional states (or less): fully functional, unconscious, or dead.




This is only partially true, and its not always a drawback.  D&D tends to avoid combat death spirals where if you start to lose, then things just go worse for you.  It also means less condition tracking.  However, I agree that it can be a problem.

However, the problem has been addressed somewhat by the rules.  Technically, RAW 3.0 has a condition track.  It looks like this:

Healthy -> Staggered -> Dying and Unconscious -> Dead

Additionally, D&D 3.0 can inflict all sorts of conditions on a character with their own removal conditions.   For example: ability damage, negative energy levels, cursed, stunned, dazzled, confused, poisoned, diseased, dazed, nauseated, etc. etc.  It's also pretty good in every edition about allowing to to ad hoc invent a condition with its own removal conditions.  Want a 'one legged' or 'one eyed' condition?  Just make one; these conditions might not be the normal results of combat but the game rules certainly imply the possibility of them occuring because they contain spells for removing such conditions.  You don't want magical healing to work on a target?  Bestow Curse or something similar works just fine for achieving that effect - you don't need to evoke an illogical divine intervention.  You can always invent a higher level version of the spell as well.  That's pretty much encouraged by every edition of the game as well (if you count 4e rituals as spells).  By cleverly combining statuses, you can probably thwart a low level parties ability to heal a character indefinately, while simultanesouly having the character's condition detriorate at whatever speed you like.  

My only problem with the RAW 3.X condition track is that its not aggressive enough in its implementation.  I liked the idea of 'staggered' as a good medium ground between healthy and dying; it captures the ideal of 'I'm hurting' without imposing penalties that make self-defence impossible.  I didn't like how rare it was and how marginal it was.  My current game works something like the following.  Without going into why, a typical 1st level human fighter PC has about 20 hit points.  His condition track looks something like the following:

3 to 19 h.p = Lightly wounded but otherwise healthy (at least for a hero)
1 to 2 h.p. = Staggered.  This threshold scales with h.p.  If you had 100 hit points, then at 10 or less you'd be staggered.
0 h.p. = Staggered plus must make DC 15 save to remain conscious.  Success means you remain conscious unless injured again (which provokes another save)
-1 to -9 h.p. = Staggered plus must make DC 15 save to remain conscious.  Also, bleeding until stabilized, taking 1 additional damage per round (which provokes another saving throw).
-10 h.p. = Dead

Now, it takes about 30 points of damage to kill a 1st level PC fighter.  He's probably not going to die slipping off of a ladder.  But equally interestingly, he only takes about 18 points of damage before he falls down the wound track.  That is to say, when reduced to 40% of his starting life, he starts to act wounded (in this case slowly staggering about).  I've had several scenes this game where the PC was 'bleeding out' (as my players call it) and circumstances required that they remain conscious for several rounds in order to survive, and many situations where characters were hoping to self-stablize or characters were scrambling to apply a tourniquet to a wound.  I've also had situations where multiple characters were staggering out of the 'dungeon' with negative hit points.  And I've had several bad guys bleeding out, who hurl a few dying invectives at the party.   

No need for fiat or for forcing a predetermined outcome.  Interesting things have just happened 'naturally' and in some cases far more interesting things than I would have invented on my own.



> I do not tie game conditions directly to the literal real world meaning.




I don't tie my game conditions strictly to realism.  A realistic wound track leads to less gamable situations.  But I do try to make them have some versimlitude.  



> Maybe it's just an sense of what Cure Light Wounds/Healing Word can accomplish, but it fits my common sense to come across a townsfolk with his guts hanging out onto the floor, dying but still barely speaking. I don't picture CLW/HW doing anything to fix this guy.




I don't necessarily either.  I have an actual inflictable condition 'Gaping Chest Wound' that prevents healing with either a Cure Light or Cure Minor, but technically, you could be conscious and dying for days after getting one if you were really lucky with your stablization checks and consciousness saving throws.  (Or you could have the 'Hard to Kill' trait, which would mean you'd need a lot less luck.)

Nor for that matter does the RAW require that the guys wounds be healable by a CLW.  CLW does not heal a missing arm, or in this case a missing liver/intestine/kidney.  That requires Regenerate, which the PC's probably don't have ready.  So impose a 'Shredded Intestines' or 'Missing Liver' condition on the target ('until this condition is removed the character hemorages and cannot be stablized'), make it suitably hard to deal with ('DC 30 heal check or DC 20 heal check + cure critical wounds or Regenerate'), and now we no longer have a big disagreement either between me, or you, or the RAW.   The RAW does not explicitly provide for missing intestines, but its doesn't explicitly forbid them either; what is not forbidden is permitted.

It's not necessarily with the scene set up that I have a problem.  It's with the cut scene like nature of the scene and the heavy reliance on defensive DM fiat suggested by some posters (not necessarily you, I'd have have to back and read who said what) to ensure that the scene played out in the intended manner no matter what the PC's did.  I have a problem with 'the rules are suspended until the DM achieves the result he wants'.  When I suspend the rules, it's not to achieve a result I 'want', but because the strict reading of the rule isn't fair to the character in this situation.  If I had foreseen the need to suspend the rules because of some edge case, I probably would have patched the rules ahead of time.

Likewise, I think the attitude exhibited by some that PC's expending considerable resources to thwart the DM's plan that the NPC die is the PC's playing badly and acting like jerks is not a very productive attitude for a DM to have.  I'm sure some groups are happy with it, but in general its not very artful DMing IMO.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 16, 2011)

If you actually *describe* the mortal injuries - guts splattered across the grass, impaled by a spear, limbs removed, arterial blood spurting - players are much less likely to query why a cure light wounds etc won't save the NPC.  This is particularly true of 4e where 'healing' is no more powerful than a warlord's shouted encouragement.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jul 16, 2011)

Wow this thread is moving at a furious pace! I'm trying to keep up with the comments but I may have missed some, apologies. But I've been reconsidering my position a bit with my particular example in regards to "drama", "gravitas", "emotional poignancy", etc. 

Maybe they could have saved the life of the lord, what would that mean? Would he blame himself? Would be blame the king? The PCs even? Would he become a liability when the PCs make a sneak attack against goblins? Could the goblins' smart-ish leader leverage his captive family to turn against PCs? What if his family died, would he go out in a blaze if vengeance, turn to the dark side, become a permanent NPC companion? There's really a lot of room for cool dramatic situations there - obviously different in tone than what I had in mind, but still equally valuable.



Celebrim said:


> Indeed, the whole point of the orginal scenario seems to have been to encourage the players to invest in the interaction with the NPC.  Which is why I find the fiat scene resolution to be so counterproductive.  'Cut scenes' in which you can't effect the outcome even though my character concievably has the ability to do so are jarring even in cRPGs where I have reduced expectations of player freedom.



I see, so the player might think " Why should I bother caring about NPCs when our DM is willing to kill them arbitrarily, putting us behind an artificial piece of glass where we are powerless to make a meaningful choice to change the outcome."

I thought there was a lot of choice involved in what happened to the lord NPC, it just was resolved in previous adventures. Maybe that was part of the problem? As a DM I already made a decision about the impact of a past adventure then put the PCs in a situation where they confronted that fallout and the bar player felt he should be able to reverse it because of the way in which I set up the scene (with the lord dying, not dead). IOW the finality of the outcome of the past adventure was in dispute.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If a character can't be healed by normal magical means, then it ought to be obvious why and make sense within the context of the game.   For example, if I was really compelled to make it clear that the poor schmuck couldn't be healed I probably would have run the scene as follows:
> 
> <snipped gruesome violence>



Yeah that's a great scene you've set up there. My group sticks to PG-13, the couple has a 3 year old, several of the ladies are squeamish, and we host guest players now and then. 

My concern with the setup with the glowing green rod (magic poison, or what have you) is that it establishes this as a challenge. Which may be exactly why it appeals to you. The players are going to bethinking how to beat the glowing green rod with teleport, readied Heal checks and Strength checks, rings of regeneration, etc.

My resistance to setting this up as a challenge was that with this particular group (not universally) challenge-thinking brings out the zany flippant ideas which just kill any emotional impact. It's not that they dislike or are immune to drama, but once they're in challenge-thinking mode their attitude changes.

Of course, me wanting this scene to be an emotionally charges one could be the problem. You could argue that this sort of thing should emerge naturally from play. Usually I'd agree. With my particular group, however, that just isn't the case - it really does take DM scene framing to draw that out of them. They enjoy it when it happens (aka I orchestrate it), but it's not their default MO.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> as a matter of achieving the immediately desired result I find the above scene framing far better than, "No, you can't just cast Cure Moderate Wounds because I say so, and if you don't like it then just go home."



Heh, considering that we usually play at the bard player's house, that would be pretty funny if I said that. At the very least they'd cut me off on the next round. 

Thinking about this in hindsight it would be easy to set up this situation in the rules (not that I had this worked out in advance):

NPC lord was hit be special coup de grace which negates natural 20 on death saves, and prevents Heal skill from stabilizing dying character. This is akin to a combination of the 4e peryton's "feast" (kill dying adjacent character) and ongoing damage. Then I give the NPC an ability to stay conscious albeit helpless at negative HP up to half their healing surge value. Not overpowered as it's weaker than a barbarian ability to fight into negative HP. This way it's possible he has been rolling death saves for several minutes and just getting really lucky (or maybe he has an item or feat which grants him bonus to death saves).

Anyhow, upshot of that 4e goobldigook is this could conceivably be handled by the rules without needing much special explanation besides "The NPC lord is tough as nails, but the hobgoblin warchief is a badass SoB."



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Once the PC's are interacting with the environment, you've gone beyond scene framing.



Makes sense overall.

I tend to notice a bit of bleeding as the PCs begin exploration, so it's not necessarily true that there's an off-on switch where you jump from scene framing to playing the game immediately. That's certainly possible, but I've noticed exploration mode in particular it takes a bit for the PCs to warm up to interacting. 

I'd be curious to hear you chime in on this [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]? You seem to have a stronger grasp of scene framing than me.



> DMs are effectively all powerful.



There is a force more powerful than the DM: children, especially creeping up at dramatic moments to ruin the tension of a scene wanting to play the yellow "dwaggin" or (personal favorite) choosing as climactic battle music with the dracolich the alphabet song. :sigh:

But seriously, youve really made me pause and think how I could do a similar setup better in the future, and how I can empower the players more even if they're not taking the initiative. Thanks [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], consistently well though out advice.


----------



## CuRoi (Jul 16, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> My resistance to setting this up as a challenge was that with this particular group (not universally) challenge-thinking brings out the zany flippant ideas which just kill any emotional impact. It's not that they dislike or are immune to drama, but once they're in challenge-thinking mode their attitude changes.




It's good to recognize that about your group, though from your explanation you had at least one person who was trying or wanted to interact or make it a "challenge". I'm too much of a softy and I'll entertain anything anyone wants to put on the table. But I can see how if your group sort of drifts too far afield during such "Challenges" that you might feel you need to reign it in to keep the game moving.

My group is pretty hard nosed on challenges (I don't run 4e so don't interpret this as the 4e definition of "Challenge" BTW!). It's one major component of how we play the game together. They love to seek them out and hate to admit defeat. They've opted for a TPK when presented with the possibility of capture by superior forces, they've changed the course of my entire campaign through resourcefulness and great ideas that I wish I would have had first. They're stubborn, and honestly I love 'em for it. We've integrated that into how we play.

If there is some sort of puzzle / secret door on a wall and the PCs are being hunted down by a horde of ghouls, if all the players gather around and start tossing skills at the puzzle asking for answers, I'm not the least bit upset if the Druid steps up, melts the stone wall like butter and says "By the gods we don't have time for this you fools, MOVE!"  So, my challenge was eradicated by a prepared player, big deal. That makes a great scene yet and something the players will probably talk about for years as opposed "do you remember that time we all rolled random skills standing by a wall so we could get past some annoying puzzle?"



> Of course, me wanting this scene to be an emotionally charges one could be the problem. You could argue that this sort of thing should emerge naturally from play. Usually I'd agree. With my particular group, however, that just isn't the case - it really does take DM scene framing to draw that out of them. They enjoy it when it happens (aka I orchestrate it), but it's not their default MO.




When you guys start all this regimented talk of "scene framing" and "resolution" and such, honestly, I get completely lost. Gaming for me isn't an academic exercise but a creative pursuit. I'm very positive I maybe frame scenes and all that jazz, but frankly, I couldn't tell you when that specifically happens in any given session. 

I start with a vague idea of how the story is going to go in my head and just as often some one will say "Hey, we'll do X". "X" will be something I had not considered, is an incredibly cool idea, and takes the entire story in a direction which I want to explore as much as they do. So I just run with it.

At any rate I long ago gave up trying to "control scenes" because the stuff my players do is often cooler than what I had in mind. I usually just introduce my players to situations and see what they do with it, all the while trying to stay one step ahead of them so the story keeps flowing (and doing it by rules we're both trying to adhere to). 

I've got a player that loves to play self sacrificing do gooders. Letting a dying man utter his final words and pass into the great beyond would be a no-go for him and would have been a pretty darn funny "scene". He'd be all over the NPC, "Shhh, save your breath my friend, we'll get you out of here." And then someone would propose some completely off the wall plan to stabilize the guy and it would be just so darn good there's no way I could just say "oh, no, he's dead Jim."

At any rate, I'm not saying anything you or anyone else had proposed is "wrong", just saying how from my experience it wouldn't work with my group. Sometimes I do think it would be cool if I could tell MY story during a DnD session without my meddlesome players interrupting, heh.

If I feel I really need a dying man's words to be passed on without the players being able to rush to his aid it will probably be a programmed illusion, a note, a magic mouth, a magic item, a construct or familiar, voice from beyond the grave, ghost, an actual non-vague answer from speak with dead (very rare for me), etc. etc. Or, the guy will really be, by any rule I can think of, unsaveable, cause I know the players are going to try - it's part of the way they enjoy our game. Frankly, for me its part of the fun to see if they can puzzle out a way to save him or not using the same rules I used. And when they do trump my "brilliant" (sometimes) idea, it's usually even just as exciting to me.

If I want emotional investment, it's all in the lead up to the death. They get to know the NPC, his strengths, his faults, where he works, his family. They probably have relied on him in the past in their adventures and when that NPC is found dead, beyond death, close to death, it's got enough emotional charge to require a reflex save. But, if they do manage to find some way to save him, well, I can't complain. It means I did my job and they're invested in him enough to try to puzzle out a means of bringing him back.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 16, 2011)

In this thread, I've seen people try to make the situation in the OP reasonable--a reasonable match of the rules and reality. And, I've seen people completely dismiss the idea of "the last dying words" of an NPC as a cliched railroad tactic that should be avoided.

But, set aside the rules for a moment, folks.

And...ask yourself. What about drama? What makes for a good story? What grips the players, pulls them in, makes them want to come back?

I've never heard a player say, "Man! My GM sure mixed reality and the game rules well on that encounter." But, I've heard them say (and I strive each game session for them to say it again), "Crap, that was creepy!" Or, "Good lord, did you see what the bad guy did! Man, that was fun!" Or, even, "Wow, what an interesting premise. It's really got me thinking about...".



In my current game, I've got a situation I'm setting up. I know what I want to happen (or....more likely, what I want to set-up, as you can never tell what the players will do and throw a monkey wrench in my plans), and I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to make it work "within" the rules. (One of my threads, explaining the scenario, is here: Giving Nish 

Part of this is because I'm learning the 3.5 ruleset and am not as familiar with it as a gamer that used the ruleset for a decade. The other reason for spending time on this is that, in a perfect world, I like the rules and the story to match.

But, sometimes, the d20 rules do not make the goal easy.



Case-in-point: In the situation I describe via the link above, I expect the PCs, who are out near their village gathering firewood, to hear some of initial attack echoing off the mountainous walls and come running.

I expect they'll charge up the side of a steep slope to make the trail, then run as fast as they can to where the battle is taking place. Of course, the scenario is about some warrior attacking a cart with an old woman and some children aboard--so it was so much a fight, but more of a slaughter.

As the PC's run up the trail, from around the bend in the forest comes one of the little kids, staggering, about to collapse. He's little Jozan. 5 years old. Head bleeding and sever blunt trauma to the right side of his head. There's an indentation in his skull, and his right eye is closed.

The kid falls to his knees just steps from the PCs.

They'll check him out, I'm sure. His one eye will stare, glossy. He's conscious, but completely out of it. He might be dying for all they know.





Now, see. This is a pretty dramatic moment. And, big, dramatic, moments are what the game is all about. In my game, the players, through their alter egos, are quite attached to these NPCs--this old lady and her wayward children. When they see this little boy in this state, it's going to piss them off. They're going to be affect by this, and they're going to want to get whomever did this to little Jozan.

That's what I'm going for. That's drama. When my players feel what their characters feel....well, that's golden for a GM.

It's the makings of a gripping, memorable session.




But now, in planning all this out, how do I make all this happen within the rules (the d20 3.5 rules)?

I think the closest to the rules I can get on this scene is to have little Jozan in the 0 hp, Disabled state. That accounts for the slow movement.

But, by the rules, he should be able to talk--and, I've got him on the verge of unconscious ness. By the rules, he shouldn't collapse until he's at -1 HP.

I could go a little bit futher and say that Jozan is suffering from blood loss damage, but that's not really in the rules, is it. Nope. A GM doesn't normally add a wound effect to a NPC unless a monster or some weapon has a special attack or damage form.



So...do I give up my neat little set-up just because the rules don't exactly fit?

Naw, I don't think so. Story is more important than rules.

Or, do I stretch the rules a bit and throw in some GM fiat?

Yeah, that's it. Maybe Jozan is in the negative hit points, but I gave him a (non standard, of course) Fort Save that allowed him to stagger away from the battlefield as if he were Disabled for a couple of rounds.

Still not strictly "within the rules", but it's close.





I will note that, back in my 1E AD&D days, this situation is a no brainer. Stick with the drama and what the GM says.

Now, in my new 3.5 d20 days, I find that the rules intrude more than support the game as they used to do--mainly because the game attempts to model almost everything, leaving not a lot of room (in some people's eyes) for GM fiat in the way of "very cool description".



So, what do you do? Stick with cool, gripping drama? Or be a slave to the rules?

I'm going with drama.







EDIT:  And, what about little Jozan's survival?  I haven't decided yet (and I may leave it up to a die throw during the game).  But, should it be an automatic that Jozan survives?

It might be more dramatic to have the kid go into a coma for a while as the PCs sweat it out, hoping for his recovery.  Maybe he makes it out, but maybe he dies, too.

Or, maybe Jozan survives but he loses the right eye?

None of these things are specifically covered by the rules but each might make for a better, more gripping story.


----------



## CuRoi (Jul 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> If you actually *describe* the mortal injuries - guts splattered across the grass, impaled by a spear, limbs removed, arterial blood spurting - players are much less likely to query why a cure light wounds etc won't save the NPC. This is particularly true of 4e where 'healing' is no more powerful than a warlord's shouted encouragement.




Several people have made this distinction and I don't quite get it. Admittedly, I could be walking into some sort of edition war fishing trip, but could someone tell me why they feel there is a substantive difference in the way 4e / 3e /2e HPs are repesented? (Not only S'mon has expressed this view but other posters.)

From what I can tell, the damage from powers in 4e is pretty explicitly spelled out as "deep bleeding gashes", "drawing blood", "cracking skulls", "your enemy suffers bleeding wounds", etc. etc. which are in turn "healed" by clerical healing, surges, warlords shouting encouragement, etc. etc. 

Previous editions, what a weapon swing "did" to make someone lose HPs was pretty much completely in the hands of the DM (with the exception of say Vorpal Swords and the like). This vague "damage" was in turn healed by rest or clerical spells.

If anything the older editions give more leeway for DM interpretation whereas the newer seems to imply encouraging words can close "deep bleeding gashes". Of course it could also be said "and this is different from soothing clerical prayers closing deep bleeding gashes how?"

At any rate, I don't see the distinction (and don't worry, I'm a wily fish, I'm just nibbling, not ocmpletely on the bait if that's what this is


----------



## CuRoi (Jul 16, 2011)

> But, by the rules, he should be able to talk--and, I've got him on the verge of unconscious ness. By the rules, he shouldn't collapse until he's at -1 HP.




Little bugger is probably tired to boot. Fatigued, collapses in Exauhstion (-6 Strength and Dex) as he comes into view. (Doubt he has much more than 6 Strength so the collapes makes perfect sense)

And no, it doesn't have to always follow the rules. I do it cause I've been playing for years, my players have as well and if I sat down and gave vague explanations for all of my story elements they'd probably hold me to task, or remind of ways they can interact with my story using the shared ruleset we have agreed to.

At any rate, if you are sitting across from veteran players hoping they give some slack while you are learning the rules and don't rules lawyer you about story decisions. If you are sitting around with a new group, they won't know the difference and you will all be building on your rules knolwedge as you go.

If your group hates rules, just use the ones you like : )

There's a million ways to do it really, sounds like an exciting err..."scene" or whatever they're calling it around here. Best measure is that everyone is having fun really.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 16, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> Several people have made this distinction and I don't quite get it. Admittedly, I could be walking into some sort of edition war fishing trip, but could someone tell me why they feel there is a substantive difference in the way 4e / 3e /2e HPs are repesented? (Not only S'mon has expressed this view but other posters.)
> 
> From what I can tell, the damage from powers in 4e is pretty explicitly spelled out as "deep bleeding gashes", "drawing blood", "cracking skulls", "your enemy suffers bleeding wounds", etc. etc. which are in turn "healed" by clerical healing, surges, warlords shouting encouragement, etc. etc.
> 
> ...




Well, my impression is that PCs* inflict* "deep bleeding gashes", "crack skulls" et al, but PCs *suffer *what turn out to be only relatively minor, unspecified injuries - unless the PC actually dies, of course.  

I think 4e hit points are presented as an order of magnitude more trivial than in 3e.  Some examples:

Bards' song inflicts psychic damage - actual hit point damage.

There is no separate subdual damage in 4e - *all* damage in 4e is effectively subdual damage, except the final killing blow, if any.  

You can recover all damage after 5 minutes, if you have healing surges - less serious than prior edition subdual damage, typically 1 hp/hour! 

Healing in 1e-3e restores a fixed hp total dependent on the power of the spell.  Hit points appear 'absolute', of fixed importance.  Healing in 4e restores a fixed portion of the target's max hp - indicating that the importance of a hp is relative.


----------



## CuRoi (Jul 17, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Well, my impression is that PCs* inflict* "deep bleeding gashes", "crack skulls" et al, but PCs *suffer *what turn out to be only relatively minor, unspecified injuries - unless the PC actually dies, of course.
> 
> I think 4e hit points are presented as an order of magnitude more trivial than in 3e. Some examples:
> 
> ...




Excellent explanation, thanks! I always feel like I'm walking on eggshells when discussing differences between the editions so I appreciate the level response.

I'm fascinated by that initial aspect of 4e you touch on - that solid distinction between what PCs do and what NPCs / Monsters can do. It's like they live in their own worlds per se. It's a useful trick to not only distinguish PCs from everyone else and firmly establish them as the protagonists of the story but also can be used to keep them from getting to fiddly with a DM's plans. i.e. "Your powers need not necessarily apply to this situation" (Still, another reason why it isn't so much my group's cup of tea, cause my players thoroughly enjoy fiddling with my plans, and I in turn expect them to do so, heh). 

I know others pointed this same thing out in previous posts but I'm not a regular 4e player so the "schooling" helps.   At any rate, it also explains some of the "shouting over each other" in a few of the side arguments. People were arguing from totally different perspectives without really getting what the other was talking about.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 17, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> I'm fascinated by that initial aspect of 4e you touch on - that solid distinction between what PCs do and what NPCs / Monsters can do. It's like they live in their own worlds per se.




Pretty much, I think.  A partial exception is the DMG2 Companion NPC, they are intended to function similarly to PCs in several respects, including hit points & healing surges.


----------



## Kannon (Jul 17, 2011)

That is a pretty neat summary of the distinction, I like it. And it works, story-wise. You can shrug off getting thrown into a wall hard enough to crack it because you're a hero, you're special. This poor sucker didn't have a chance. (I've found it also makes the players a bit more aware of the world around them, and less likely to throw down in the middle of a crowded market, which is fun.)

In my campaign, I tend towards treating Elites as player-equivalent. So they can make use of surge powers, have and gain action points, get the benefit of player-specific houserules and rules interpretation, and so on. Other monsters/NPCs don't even _have_ healing surges. So unless you have a handy source of surgeless healing you'd like to burn, they're out of luck.  (Solos have healing surges, and AP, but I don't track them because by the math of being equivalent to a party of 5, they'd have a LOT. But that comes up far less often. Outside of corner cases, what's the fun of a boss monster being an ally?)

I have had a paladin use Lay on Hands to heal a dying common NPC, before. Which messed with my plans a little bit, but it was an awesome bit of roleplaying, so totally worth it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> From what I can tell, the damage from powers in 4e is pretty explicitly spelled out as "deep bleeding gashes", "drawing blood", "cracking skulls", "your enemy suffers bleeding wounds", etc. etc. which are in turn "healed" by clerical healing, surges, warlords shouting encouragement, etc. etc.





S'mon said:


> Well, my impression is that PCs* inflict* "deep bleeding gashes", "crack skulls" et al, but PCs *suffer *what turn out to be only relatively minor, unspecified injuries - unless the PC actually dies, of course.



Just adding to what S'mon said - which I think is 100% correct - PCs can also inflict hit point damage on their enemies by underming their morale using Bluff, Intimidate etc (as per the module in the MV boxed set - is it Cairn of the Winter King?). And monsters, equally, can inflict psychic damage by being scary (eg the Wight power horrific visage).

And an implication of the rules, which I've not seen spelled out yet, is that use of Diplomacy should be able to restore hit points (a few encouraging words from a friend).



Celebrim said:


> My only problem with the RAW 3.X condition track is that its not aggressive enough in its implementation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Rolemaster and Runequest play in this sort of fashion. Without revision, I don't think D&D does (although 1st ed AD&D, with its "death's door" rules and comparitively reduced damage ranges meaning that those rules are more likely to come into play, can sometimes come close).



Celebrim said:


> I have a problem with 'the rules are suspended until the DM achieves the result he wants'.



Fair enough, but who is doing that? In 4e, a wound that cannot be healed simply by the restoration of hit points doesn't require bending the rules. (I'm not sure it does in earlier editions either, but this is a 4e game, and in 4e the issue is more clear cut.) It just requires the GM stipulating a certain state of affairs that could not have been arrived at by application of the action resolution mechanics.



Celebrim said:


> If I had foreseen the need to suspend the rules because of some edge case, I probably would have patched the rules ahead of time.



Fair enough, but the only rules patching required here is to decide what sort of magic (if any) _can_ heal the injury in question. Which is not even going to be relevant for a low(-ish) level party in 4e. (I've noted that in my own game, Remove Afflication would do the job, as would any of the paragon-tier powers that allow bringing someone back from death or dying.)



Celebrim said:


> Likewise, I think the attitude exhibited by some that PC's expending considerable resources to thwart the DM's plan that the NPC die is the PC's playing badly and acting like jerks is not a very productive attitude for a DM to have.



Agreed also. But I'm not sure who you actually have in your sights here.



Quickleaf said:


> I tend to notice a bit of bleeding as the PCs begin exploration, so it's not necessarily true that there's an off-on switch where you jump from scene framing to playing the game immediately. That's certainly possible, but I've noticed exploration mode in particular it takes a bit for the PCs to warm up to interacting.
> 
> I'd be curious to hear you chime in on this [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]? You seem to have a stronger grasp of scene framing than me.



I agree that the boundaries can be blurry - particularly if you're playing with a fairly laid back group in a relaxed environment. I mean, as you (as GM) are speaking your description of the situation, the players can always interject and kibbitz - but how (if at all) this is to be translated into movements within the action resolution mechanics can be a pretty flexible and fluid thing. (For example, if there is something that would be obviously relevant to the PCs' actions, and you just haven't got to it yet, it would be pretty hardcore play to say that a player was bound by an action declaration made eagerly and in ignorance of the as-yet-undescribed-but-highly-relevant-feature.)

Generally, if I'm describing a situation, and mentioning how the PCs are located in it (eg "As you walk up to the city gate, you notice that . . .), and the players make it clear that they want their PCs to act, I will put the players on hold, describe the rest of the scene so that they have full information, and then let them act. That is, if I'm trying to frame something fairly hard, and my players make it clear that they don't want it so hard, I'll pull back.

My reason for sometimes framing hard is to keep the game moving. My reason for pulling back if the players want to act is to let them play the game. But if the sorts of actions they want to perform are precisely those that I was hoping to avoid via harder framing (eg they want to do a lot of searching in an environment where I know there is nothing to be found) I will tend to resolve the action fairly quickly and decisively (eg if there is nothing to be found, I will let them know without playing through a whole lot of Perception checks).

In the case of the dying NPC, I would generally expect the PCs to rush to his/her side, attempt to heal, and so on, but having determined in advance that simple hit point restoration is not going to be enough for the injury in question, I would be ready to indicate that to the players in pretty clear terms. (And as S'mon noted above, would describe the injuries in a way that makes this seem unsurprising to the players.)

As an aside, I was talking about this situation with one of my players before yesterdays game. (I find this particular player a distinctive sounding board, because he has a lot of board game experience, but has only played RPGs in the Rolemaster and 4e games that I GM.) He had two responses, which echoed what a lot of posts here have said: first, that the rules are meant to facilitate rather than constrain, and so if a scene is conceivable in principle then the game should be able to accomodate it; second, that the GM could easily contrive a situation in which healing magic doesn't work (his particular suggestion was a stain of shadow on the soul that is draining away the NPCs life force).

When I suggested that not all injuries are healable by hit point damage he agreed - a severed limb was the example he mentioned - but I find it interesting that his first move was within the fiction - he though of a magical explanation - rather than at the metalevel of thinking about the function and limits of the action resolution mechanics.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 18, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> My only problem with the RAW 3.X condition track is that its not aggressive enough in its implementation. No need for fiat or for forcing a predetermined outcome.  Interesting things have just happened 'naturally' and in some cases far more interesting things than I would have invented on my own.




Your houserules improve upon the limitations of the system. I did not include staggered in my three general game states because by RAW it is such a ridiculous sliver of health.

I've always liked the flexibility of D&D to use rule-based mechanics and DM fiat to get the feel you're going for. I would enjoy your methodology as a player, just as my players enjoyed the framed scene of a dying man's words. [I mentioned this thread to them on Friday and got a fully positive response when I thought it would be more of a 'tolerated' response from one or two of them.]



Celebrim said:


> I don't necessarily either.  I have an actual inflictable condition 'Gaping Chest Wound' that prevents healing with either a Cure Light or Cure Minor, but technically, you could be conscious and dying for days after getting one if you were really lucky with your stablization checks and consciousness saving throws.  (Or you could have the 'Hard to Kill' trait, which would mean you'd need a lot less luck.)




I was just thinking that if I were to use this trope again I might create such a condition. I don't think I'd tie it to saving throws though. Extreme luck or near-guaranteed success at achieving an unrealisticly long (to me) evisceration would make the tone a bit silly, IMO. But I could see the state as -1 hit point per round. Healing would restore hit points, but not remove the condition. Depending on the edition and situation would the players want to expend resources on an inevitably dead man? Would the healer want to extend the man's suffering just to keep him around a little longer? 



Celebrim said:


> The RAW does not explicitly provide for missing intestines, but its doesn't explicitly forbid them either; what is not forbidden is permitted.




I have no problem with anyone's adhereance to RAW or uses of the existing rules for house rules. You have some great ideas there. But too many are dismissing that some DMs would rather cut to the chase and not add such complexity to their game. A rare case of someone at [negative whatever it takes to die in your edition of choice] gasping out a "Rosebud" works for some us as DMs and the players that enjoy their games.



Celebrim said:


> It's not necessarily with the scene set up that I have a problem.  It's with the cut scene like nature of the scene and the heavy reliance on defensive DM fiat suggested by some posters (not necessarily you, I'd have have to back and read who said what) to ensure that the scene played out in the intended manner no matter what the PC's did.  I have a problem with 'the rules are suspended until the DM achieves the result he wants'.




DMs create worlds where they've wiped out whole civilizations without player input. They've built massive organizations without players having the chance to stop them in their formative years. Wars have been fought. Gods may have been killed. But one guy gasps a dying breath and it destroys all credibility the DM has. The same could be achieved by finding a dead man slumped over a desk with a half written note, but if he's a death's door and using his dying breath to convey the message you're a "Bad DM." 



Celebrim said:


> Likewise, I think the attitude exhibited by some that PC's expending considerable resources to thwart the DM's plan that the NPC die is the PC's playing badly and acting like jerks is not a very productive attitude for a DM to have.  I'm sure some groups are happy with it, but in general its not very artful DMing IMO.




I wouldn't have an issue with PCs expending resources and trying to solve the issue. But, I'm very upfront about the way things work in my games, as you are with your codified house rules. My "dead but speaking last words" house rule is not codified. You won't find it written down anywhere. But my players can tell you exactly what my outlook is regarding hit points and injuries. The only time I would think a player to be a jerk is if he sits at my table and acts like a jerk because he doesn't agree with my outlook. Just as I'm sure you would feel the same if someone acted that way towards your houserules. But the key would be them acting like a jerk over it. I've found the vast majority of players to be accepting and respectful when playing in each DM's game. My players sometimes run and have their own outlooks and houserules. I always accept their rulings with respect, maybe after a bit of discussion if I am unclear on the rule or disagree. But even in disagreement I'd never act like a jerk.

I did have one player join our group that did not share the group's outlook on PvP situations. We play a heroic team game and I tried to dissaude him from causing a breach in the table ettiquette. We couldn't resolve that issue without him acting like a jerk, upset that he wasn't 'allowed' to attempt to kill the whole party. No one was sad when he was asked to leave.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> DMs create worlds where they've wiped out whole civilizations without player input. They've built massive organizations without players having the chance to stop them in their formative years. Wars have been fought. Gods may have been killed. But one guy gasps a dying breath and it destroys all credibility the DM has.




Turns out that players show up to play, not to listen to the DM tell stories. Funny that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> DMs create worlds where they've wiped out whole civilizations without player input. They've built massive organizations without players having the chance to stop them in their formative years. Wars have been fought. Gods may have been killed. But one guy gasps a dying breath and it destroys all credibility the DM has. The same could be achieved by finding a dead man slumped over a desk with a half written note, but if he's a death's door and using his dying breath to convey the message you're a "Bad DM."




You've repeated this a couple of times VB, and I'd point something out.  No one is saying you're a "Bad DM" for doing this.  Although, to be fair, the praise for doing something like this has been pretty faint.  

What has been said, is that doing this is a bad idea.  The reasons why this is a bad idea have been elucidated numerous times in the thread, so I'll not repeat them here.  Not that the idea is 100% bad, mind you, if it was, then this thread would be a LOT shorter.

But, this idea is, in my mind at least, in the same category as doing labryinths in D&D.  They seem like such a fantastic idea on paper, but, at the table, they do nothing but cause headaches and frustration and never, ever work out as cool as they seem they should.

Obviously, YMMV.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 19, 2011)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Actually, if I've set up a situation that poorly, I deserve what I get when the NPC gets healed.






Hussar said:


> No one is saying you're a "Bad DM" for doing this.




Not a "Bad DM" in a general sense, but in the particular situation.



Hussar said:


> What has been said, is that doing this is a bad idea.  The reasons why this is a bad idea have been elucidated numerous times in the thread, so I'll not repeat them here.  Not that the idea is 100% bad, mind you, if it was, then this thread would be a LOT shorter.




The reason I think this thread has gone so long is because we are past the original topic. I surely wouldn't continue discussing a trope that I find cliched and have limited my own use of over the years. What the argument really seems to boil down to is that as DM one should be trusted to bend the rules to fit their game. While another camp seems to think that this kind of behavior shatters the entire system (or at least puts a minor bug in their bonnet). I'm certainly thankful for the tightening of the rules over the years to cover frequent situations, but I don't like the thought that any DM would be considered 'poor' or 'ham-fisted' when they make corner cases in an attempt to make a better experience for their players.



prosfilaes said:


> Turns out that players show up to play, not to listen to the DM tell stories. Funny that.




A couple of the many joys of being a DM is world building and story crafting. Without those two elements there is no game for the players to play. So give your DM a break if he tries an old cliche when crafting the setup to a story. If you don't like it I've already agreed the DM shouldn't do it again. But if you play along with the DM, instead of trying to find all the plot holes and cliches and bash him for it, you may have more fun. Then again, maybe some people here are the tye that annoy freinds and family to the point that they don't want to watch movies and TV with them because all they want to do is scoff at the plot while loudly pointing it out to all involved.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2011)

There is the flip side to that VB that if you cannot take any criticism, then perhaps creative endeavors are not for you.  If the DM is chucking out hackneyed plot points and, when his hackneyed plot point gets upset by a relatively simple and rather obvious player choice, instead of giving up his hackneyed plot point, he sticks to his guns and starts playing silly buggers with the rules, perhaps, just perhaps, instead he or she should try listening to the players.  It might make this DM a better DM in the future.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> If the DM is chucking out hackneyed plot points and, when his hackneyed plot point gets upset by a relatively simple and rather obvious player choice, instead of giving up his hackneyed plot point, he sticks to his guns and starts playing silly buggers with the rules, perhaps, just perhaps, instead he or she should try listening to the players.  It might make this DM a better DM in the future.




You're assuming that his player is arguing the ruling he made though.  There's just as much of a chance that when VB said "with his dying words, at this point, beyond all healing, he said X"... that his player went along with it.

If the player accepted it, then there's no problem, and his DMing skills are just fine.

Just because some people think they should put up a stink that the DM is creating this one ruling in order to use a "hackneyed plot point" in order to get around a "rather obvious player choice"... doesn't mean that is true for every player, and thus its use cannot be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Janx (Jul 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, this idea is, in my mind at least, in the same category as doing labryinths in D&D.  They seem like such a fantastic idea on paper, but, at the table, they do nothing but cause headaches and frustration and never, ever work out as cool as they seem they should.
> 
> Obviously, YMMV.




I think there's an order of magnitude difference.

A badly run dungeon maze adds hours of tedium and boredom.  At least that's what i find is wrong with labryinths.

A last words scene takes 5 minutes, unless an argument breaks out about whether the cleric can heal him.

IF a GM were to set the scene with an NPC that is going to die and spout some last words, and he doesn't want to get into a lot of "why can't I heal him", it'd probably be a good idea to describe him as "being too far gone for even healing magic to save" or some such.  It at least sets up the state that in this game, some wounds are beyond simple HP recovery rules.  I would do so, to spare the player wasting spells on it (adding to their frustration).

And it doesn't get into the details or require planning out complex or special injuries.

Despite that, a GM who has FORGOTTEN that the PCs could try to save the NPC, should learn to roll with things when the players try the unthinkable.  The lesson may be this:
when the players do something you did not anticipate and it would dramtically change what you thought would happen, your pennance is to let them succeed and benefit from their clever idea.

Because even if they accept the "can't heal him because he's too far gone", then 5 minutes after, they will try to Speak with Dead on him.  10 minutes later, they'll try to Ressurect him.  You can't block all of those, as that's just too much.  To be fair, one of those should work (if not 2 of them).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm certainly thankful for the tightening of the rules over the years to cover frequent situations, but I don't like the thought that any DM would be considered 'poor' or 'ham-fisted' when they make corner cases in an attempt to make a better experience for their players.




I think we tend to forget that the proof is in the pudding.

There is a great tendency around here to critique GM calls based on the bad results that might, or could, happen.  And, nearly invariably, the argument is that the unfortunate results are nigh certain to happen, and those things that are bad are downright ruinous things that will destroy your game.  Even if we don't say that explicitly, we beat the dead horse so vigorously, that this is the implication - if it weren't ruinous, why pursue the issue with such vehemence?

What matters in the end are not theoretical potentialities, but what actually happens for your people.  Most _faux pas_ are recoverable, with a little discussion.  Anecdotally, I've seen surprisingly few stories here about games that have completely disintegrated based upon one less-than-favorite GM action.  If it doesn't concern a PC's death, your players will generally get over individual instances quickly.  

You have to be wary of habits that clash with player desires, but GMs should be free to experiment a little bit, without fear that their table will burst into flames should they make one individual call the players aren't thrilled with.


----------



## baradtgnome (Jul 20, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> ...ask yourself. What about drama?
> 
> .... As the PC's run up the trail, from around the bend in the forest comes one of the little kids, staggering, about to collapse. He's little Jozan. 5 years old. Head bleeding and sever blunt trauma to the right side of his head. There's an indentation in his skull, and his right eye is closed.
> 
> ...




Since I want consistency, and drama like this from time to time even if it is cliche, we instead decided to HR the death and dying rules to accomodate some action below zero HP.  This rule works for characters, NPCs, monsters, etc.  Yes, it does add a bit of house keeping (an additional save) but I am willing to bear that burden to get the drama, and character interaction I want.  So - I can have cliche dying moments, and still allow the characters to interact if they choose.  It usually ends up being a difficult choice between taking another action or saving the dying PC/NPC/Monster - who will perish in a matter or rounds.

I don't say it is right or wrong - just how I choose to merge sticking to rules & drama.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You're assuming that his player is arguing the ruling he made though.  There's just as much of a chance that when VB said "with his dying words, at this point, beyond all healing, he said X"... that his player went along with it.
> 
> If the player accepted it, then there's no problem, and his DMing skills are just fine.
> 
> Just because some people think they should put up a stink that the DM is creating this one ruling in order to use a "hackneyed plot point" in order to get around a "rather obvious player choice"... doesn't mean that is true for every player, and thus its use cannot be dismissed out of hand.




OTOH, there's a lot of advice in this thread that says the player should just put up and shut up because the DM said so.  That the players are bad players for stepping up and pointing out that this is a hackneyed idea and the DM is basically forcing it down the players throats by changing the rules, not because the rules are specifically bad, but because the DM wants to force a specific scene.

Why should players put up with bad ideas?



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> You have to be wary of habits that clash with player desires, but GMs should be free to experiment a little bit, without fear that their table will burst into flames should they make one individual call the players aren't thrilled with.




Oh, sure.  I totally agree with this.  A DM should experiment.

But a DM should not be afraid to say, "Oops, that was a failed experiment" either.  Just because the DM tried it doesn't make it a good idea.  If the players roll with it, fine, no problem.  But, if the player(s) don't roll with it, accept that your idea maybe wasn't such a great one instead of pointing to the players and wagging your finger at them.

Yes, the players should give the DM the benefit of the doubt.  Of course they should.  But, by the same token, the DM should be ready to accept that their idea failed.  And in this situation where you are changing the rules of the game simply to enforce a specific ending (ie, the guy dies) and your players aren't happy with that, then, in all likelihood, this was a fail.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 21, 2011)

If you need an NPC to pass along some info or just create a mood then go away just use a corpse with a diary. 

The poor guy is already dead, all the party can do is read the last few blood stained pages of his journal which passes along the crucial information mixxed with messages of regret over never seeing his wife or children again and growing dispair and fear as the handwriting gets lighter yet more shakey and the npc writes of how he doesnt want to die.

Another thought if the NPC just has to be alive. Imagine a 2nd level NPC Warrior pinned to a stone wall by as hill giants spear. He is bleeding badly and moments from death. The cleric can try to heal him but its pointless with the spear still going through his chest pinning him to the stone wall. Removing the wicked barbed spear is going to do enough damage to instantly kill the guy. The best the party can do is comfor the poor warrior, give him some hard liquor to drink and be there while he dies.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, there's a lot of advice in this thread that says the player should just put up and shut up because the DM said so.  That the players are bad players for stepping up and pointing out that this is a hackneyed idea and the DM is basically forcing it down the players throats by changing the rules, not because the rules are specifically bad, but because the DM wants to force a specific scene.




Well, I can say in my case with regards to my original post (and I would imagine is true for probably most of the others who responded the same way)... I said I'd tell my player to "get over himself" because I know my players and they know me.  They know my playstyle and have enjoyed doing it long enough that if for whatever reason something I did set them off, I could good-naturedly tell them to go F themselves.  And they'd not take offense to it and probably realize that everything I was doing was in service to them and the group's story, and to not get their panties in a bunch if I fudged things here and there.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd imagine this is probably where many of them are also coming from... a DM and a group having enough of a rapport that you can just skip the walking on eggshells bit about worrying whether you were going to offend each other's delicate sensibilities... and instead going straight to the rolling the eyes at each other for being doofuses and then "working it out!"


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, I can say in my case with regards to my original post (and I would imagine is true for probably most of the others who responded the same way)... I said I'd tell my player to "get over himself" because I know my players and they know me.  They know my playstyle and have enjoyed doing it long enough that if for whatever reason something I did set them off, I could good-naturedly tell them to go F themselves.  And they'd not take offense to it and probably realize that everything I was doing was in service to them and the group's story, and to not get their panties in a bunch if I fudged things here and there.
> 
> Obviously I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd imagine this is probably where many of them are also coming from... a DM and a group having enough of a rapport that you can just skip the walking on eggshells bit about worrying whether you were going to offend each other's delicate sensibilities... and instead going straight to the rolling the eyes at each other for being doofuses and then "working it out!"




I guess I simply respect my players more than that.  

I have no problems admitting when my idea was maybe not as good as it looked on paper.  If the players actually are bothered enough by something to actually make an issue of it, I have good enough players to know that they aren't just blowing wind and should get over themselves.

I guess that's my basic problem here.  Why is the player being told to shut up and get over himself but the DM gets a free pass?

I'd much rather have players who offer honest criticisms that will lead me to being a better DM than play with a table full of browbeaten yes men who simply accept everything that drips from my mouth simply because I'm sitting in the big daddy chair.

But hey, whatever works.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I guess that's my basic problem here.  Why is the player being told to shut up and get over himself but the DM gets a free pass?




Depends on how each is representing their case. If a player were to offer constructive criticism, I would take that into account and probably not use a trope they didn't like again. If they 'get their panties in a bunch' I would tell them to get over themselves and then still probably not use the trope again. It depends entirely on how they act and I would expect the same from them if I got my DM panties in a bunch. Adult conversation gets you alot farther than threats that using the dying words trope will make the player leave with his shattered suspension of disbelief. Same goes for the moping DM who threatens to take his ball and go home if things don't go his way. [And before anyone jumps on my earlier post, that was a _joke_ as evidenced by my real outlook following the joke.]


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'd much rather have players who offer honest criticisms that will lead me to being a better DM than play with a table full of browbeaten yes men who simply accept everything that drips from my mouth simply because I'm sitting in the big daddy chair.




Just how serious are your players?  You make it sound like whenever something is discussed between you guys, it's some kind of intervention.  "Hussar... there's a very serious issue here we need to discuss.  The other boys and I were talking, and we feel it's important for you to realize that when you are doing is not at all beneficial for the psychological well-being of the group..."  

Yeah, I'm exaggerating here a bit obviously... but you're coming off as if your table just doesn't bust on each other.  Now, heck, maybe you guys don't... maybe when you get together and game it's serious business... but if that's the case I would suspect that you would definitely be in the minority in that regard.  I certainly know that's true at my table... and it has _nothing_ to with "how much I respect my players" as you say.  I bust their balls when they act like childish divas... they bust my balls when I act like a hurt puppy with a god complex.  That's what friends do.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 21, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I bust their balls when they act like childish divas... they bust my balls when I act like a hurt puppy with a god complex.  That's what friends do.




"You must spread XP, blah blah..."

If I was actually _nice_ to my friends they might think something was seriously wrong.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jul 21, 2011)

If I were to use a scene like this in HARP: the NPC may not actually be beyond your healing ability. You may, in fact, have the right spell to fix it. The real question is do you have 1. enough PP and 2. enough time to scale the healing spell to, oh I don't know: stop death in xx rounds, perform organ repair, perform bone repair, and whatever else our dying messenger might need to not die? Enough time is ultimately more important than enough PP, but without both, you're gonna be watching NPC "Almost Dead Guy" die.


----------

