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

[NewJeffCT]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Doug McCrae]

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]

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!"

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.