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

[Doug McCrae]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.