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

[Doug McCrae]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

This attitude I don't understand.

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

<nip>

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.

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

<snip>

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.

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).

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.