Character Death

[InzeladunMaster]

Or you can have a GM whom you trust to understand...

Well, when thinking up a new rule idea, one really cannot make the caveat that the game must be run by a great GM.

For me this is more of a theoretical exercise than a practical one. I'd like rules that promotes and creates great GMs, not one that requires a great GM already in order to work right.

I can come up with all kinds of examples from my games, your games, and other people's games all day that show that new rules are not necessary if the GM is skilled (or at least competent or experienced), but that is not conducive to thinking outside the box just to see if things can be done differently. I started this just as a mental exercise. What if things can be done differently? Why not explore that possibility just for fun?

I agree with John about fate points and whatnot - which can be used for other things than 'resurrections.' Since so much of the game is random (and not skill) anyway, it makes the game a little less random from the point of view of the player - who may or may not have a GM he trusts. I am speaking of generic players and generic GMs, not anyone in specific.

I am a little surprised that you are defending the "same old-same old" so diligently. I am just trying to see if the game must be the same-old same-old. Of course the game works as is, especially with experienced GMs at the helm. Anyway, I am just wanting to explore around and see what can be thought up that might be different yet workable. Just for fun - it is not a claim that the game or the GM or the players are broken, unskilled or anything else.

 

[Grimhelm]

I am not defending the same-old-same-old. I believe that good GMs are not created, they are born. I don't believe there is much in the way of rules that is going to make a GM better. And, quite frankly, it all hinges upon the GM. To have an optimum playing experience, in the sense of role playing and roll playing, you need to have a GM with skill. No amount of rules is going to elevate the game from board game status to role playing genius.

It is just my opinion, of course, but it sounds to me like you are focusing on the wrong things. The more rules you implement to guide the game, the more you take out the spontanaeity. And in my opinion, the game is all about improvisation. This is just my personal take on it, of course. But, just as in music, the more notes you have, the more you are stifled. Using a sparse set of notes as a base framework to let your players improvise over is much less stifling and much more alive, I think.

To put it simply, you will not find me too often in favor of adding rules to an already cumbersome game. And as for fate points, I know they can be used for other things, but I really think to maintain verisimilitude, the outcome of certain dice must be hidden and discreetly represented by the GM. Fate points, in my opinion, immediately erases "fate". I think a player needs to feel that fate has a presence, else danger will not be so dangerous. And, of course I am speaking in generalizations here, but I believe in this as a general rule.

Perhaps I am just spoiled!

 

[InzeladunMaster]

It is just my opinion, of course, but it sounds to me like you are focusing on the wrong things. The more rules you implement to guide the game, the more you take out the spontanaeity. And in my opinion, the game is all about improvisation.

My thinking here isn't to ADD rules, but to REPLACE rules - hopefully with fewer rules with more room for improvisation.

I was just thinking that hit points are awfully concrete - perhaps something more narrative and more fluid can replace the concept. Maybe not, but why not entertain the idea for a bit?

Why not take away the existing presumptions (hit points, classes, et. al.) and see if something just as stable but more fluid and less constricting can replace the existing presumptions. Maybe the existing presumptions exist for a reason, maybe they are just traditional. I am just exploring the idea of making up a totally new game for Inzeladun, since DnD 3E simply is not suitable.

I just want to examine all the traditional elements to see if they are worth keeping. Hit points is the concept I decided to examine first. Maybe hit points are so simple they should be retained - maybe something better can be created, though. I feel that if I just retain the idea of hit points "just because" then I am not really examining it.

Should character death, damage and so forth be so mathematical? Is there a simpler, more free-form way to deal with those issues? That is the heart of what I am getting at, I guess. You have given some great reasons why hit points should be retained. John has given me a few ideas though on why maybe there are other options available; I like the idea of giving the players more narrative power.

 

[Grimhelm]

I see. I misunderstood a little, there.

Well... this is an undertaking! Still, strangely, I was thinking along the same lines, that is, to create an entirely different rule system for Inzeladun.

Sheeyit. I just erased my thoughts because there is too much to take into account... hmmm...

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I was thinking combat (physical, mental, or diplomatic) could be more motivation of one character vs. motivation of another character, each modified by their skill in each of the three combat styles, modified possibly by other factors as well.

And if the combat is to the death, then the loser dies - if it is not, then the character is defeated. The winner gets what he wants, the loser does not. Or maybe there is a way for win/win scenerios as well. I don't know. I am not convinced the "who can whittle whom down first" attitude of hit points is the way to go - especially if we lose classes and hit dice advancement.

If we do go the hit point route, then why not hit points for diplomatic contests? Why can't diplomacy, haggling and so forth be a back and forth action like combat, seeing who can whittle whom down first?

 

[thormagni]

My personal feeling is that allowing for fate points is a total letdown. It's like being given a takeback in chess. I play a game that is fairly even, then make a dumb move. My opponent gives me a takeback and I go on to win. Whoopee. In this instance I would only feel like I had been handed the game. This is just how I would feel if I was suddenly "dead"--- but no!--- I use a fate point! Bah. This sort of win has nothing to do with skill or how I ultimately played. It's like being given an extra life without saying "resurrection".

Whereas, having your game end because of a crappy role of the dice is NOT a letdown. You have played a perfect game, overcome all the obstacles and reached the climax of the game. Then the bad guy rolls a crit, you fail a saving throw and the game is done. All your investment and time spent playing the character is now over. yay. THAT will really put a spring in your step. (Which is exactly the situation that happened last Conan game. But I used a fate point, the final blow never hit and we went on to overcome.)

And let's be honest, a role-playing game is never fair. The players have to fight and crawl their way through an army of bad guys, monsters, traps and other obstacles, to reach a fresh big, bad guy. Someone who is at full strength. Still has all his powers and special abilities. And frequently the big, bad guy is much more powerful than the players. Plus, bad guys come from a never-dry well known as NPCs. As a player, you have been playing a single character since the campaign began. Months, or years of playing. And the GM has been playing that bad guy since you walked into the room.

As a player, you are playing a character that has received or not received equipment that might help save the day, you are playing a random set of stats and scores, you are playing a character made through trial and error (Oh, I WISH I would have taken THAT feat instead of THIS feat.) Meanwhile, the bad guy is made all at once, with the scores assigned to the GM, with the equipment chosen by the GM and the perfect suite of feats and abilities to compliment him and oppose the players. Show me the NPC who took a feat at first level that he now wishes he hadn't taken.

The entire standard RPG experience is in the hands of the GM. I don't see any problem with giving the player the ability to say "My character does not die here. Not like this." Especially if that power is severely restricted and limited and the awarding of those fate points are entirely at the discretion of the GM anyway.

Seriously, this is a lot more like playing chess and having someone whip out the old "queen can move any direction rule" to beat you, than it is like a gimmee.

 

[thormagni]

As I have mentioned before, the D20 versions of White Wolf's Adventure and Aberrant games use a mechanism called "dramatic editing," in which the players actually have the ability to rewrite a scene more to their liking.

As the Adventure book points out "Dramatic editing is a function of your self motivation, not your character's. No character is ever aware that dramatic editing has just occurred... Dramatic editing is NOT a reality-altering power that exists within the Trinity Universe that characters wield, whether consciously or unconsciously. It is an out-of-game way to explain and facilitate the incredible surprises and amazing coincidences common to the pulp genre that occur within a game setting."

The dramatic editing effects range from the minor to the completely impossible, depending on how many of their inspiration points the player wishes to spend. For one inspiration point, you can make minor change that don't ensure automatic success. For three inspiration points you can completely alter your chances of success by dramatically changing the scene. You gain power points by acting in character, rolling natural 20s, acting heroically or making the game just plain fun for others.

The GM has veto power over these, obviously. But they are encouraged to go along, after all, isn't the goal to have fun?

You can even take an improved dramatic editing feat that allows you to specialize in particular areas. Perhaps my character is really good at social settings or relaly good at planning crimes.

 

[Grimhelm]

Well, I don't suppose arguing over such things is ultimately useful, but I will maintain that I am comfortable in a game as long as the GM has the same motivations as me, and that is to see the characters succeed heroically. This has limits, as it should, but I still don't really need to see rules enacted in order to make this swing more to my side or something. If I needed this sort of rule it would indicate that the GM and I are in an adversarial relationship outside of what the rules ultimately allow for, and in such a case, no amount of ruling is really going to help me. If the GM wants me dead, I will be dead.

You used a recent Conan game to illustrate your point, but the scene you described could easily have been remedied by a GM who wanted to see you succeed more than he wanted to see you fail. He simply could have pulled the punch and never let you know it. It is all preference, I guess. I prefer to hope that the GM is playing the game in order to tell a wonderfully heroic story with me. If he is not, then I go and game somewhere else, I don't appeal to a need for rules that will assist me to thwart the GM's savagery. Let's face it, if the GM had wanted your Conan Character truly dead, another blow would have done it and no amount of fate points would have helped you. In your situation, surely the GM knew you had fate points and so did not pull the punch, but the end result is the same and the rule is therefore completely redundant. You survived because the GM allowed it. No more and no less.

The real challenge of the game for the GM is to make the bad guys seem very difficult and threatening while also allowing you to overcome the bad guys without ever giving the appearance that the win was just handed to you! But fate points or no fate points, on some level the GM is handing you a win. They're both just different means to the same ends. I just prefer one set of means to another. That's all.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

I was just thinking that hit points are awfully concrete - perhaps something more narrative and more fluid can replace the concept. Maybe not, but why not entertain the idea for a bit?

I know you wish to replace hitpoints with something else, unless I'm missreading (proabably am).

Anyway, I'll bring up a game system we have not played in. Rolemaster.

Why do I bring this up? Well, in D20: Hitpoints are the amount of damage one can take till they die. But, no matter how many hitpoints one takes, one just ignores what happens and goes with it.

Say you have 13 hitpoints left, out of 86. Does one feel weakend? No. They just know that one more hit and they are dead, so they attempt one last devastating blow to perhaps kill their enemy.

While in Rolemaster having that much damage taken, you are very weakened. You will take negatives to all your attacks due to blood loss, broken limbs, and bruises. Getting hit is harmful, not something you can shrug away and ignore.

So perhaps a penalty to how much damage you have taken. This of course goes against the enemy/monster. This penalty goes to: To hit, To Damage, Skill Checks, saves...etc.

In Rulemaster/Chartmaster, Rolemaster. It is: Take total hitpoints divide by 4.

So, a character has 86 hit points, divide this number by 4 = 21.5 round up = 22.

After 22 dmg, one gets a -10 to all attacks, etc (d20 rules, probably -1), 44 dmg -2, 66 dmg -3. So, taking damage can be bad. Makes it a bit more realistic, in some sense.

Just a thought.

 

[Grimhelm]

I liked Rolemaster when I played it. I also liked GURPS. In the end, I suppose they all have their strengths and weaknesses. You know what I am in the mood for? All out miniature battles. I bought hundreds of miniatures years ago just for this purpose, and have never gotten to use them. Who would be up for some full scale war?