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

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.

Removed

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:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

*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.

Removed

Umbran said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

- 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.