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

[Celebrim]

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."

You'd think that, but in my experience - not so much. Let's keep in mind that for the most part, KotDT is based off peoples experiences with 1e.

What I remember of 1e was a lot of metagame negotiation and argument whenever the DM ruled on something. When the DM ruled in a way that the player didn't expect, it triggered a debate over whether the DM's ruling took into account all the factors the player believed relevant, or all the rules, or realism. The less DM fiat you have, the more the DM can point to the text and say, "This is the rule I'm using, and this is how I interpret it", the fewer arguments you have. This is especially true because having formal rules tends to make everyone's expectations about how a proposition is going to be resolved synch up. Arguments occur because the player thinks he knows or really wants some proposition to be resolved in a specific way and the DM disagrees. If the player knows ahead of time, "Rule #347 says this.", then the argument probably won't happen.

 

[Water Bob]

The less DM fiat you have, the more the DM can point to the text and say, "This is the rule I'm using, and this is how I interpret it", the fewer arguments you have.

In my experience, it depends on the group. My last group, a few years ago, was fantastic. I could DM fiat all day, and they would accept anything I said.

They weren't push-overs, mind you. They would state when they thought I was wrong or thought they had a better idea. And, I would consider their input and sometimes agree, sometimes not.

Man, I didn't know how well I had it.

Today, I've got this one player in particular that has made me stray away from house rules and simply use RAW just so it will shut him up. He argues about the rules, too, but it's easier to defend them by "going by the book".

So, I've been on both sides of the DM fiat issue.

I prefer DM fiat. I think the game is better--especially if you have a creative DM that strives to make the game exceptional for everybody.

But, with argumentative players, I think what you say is true.

 

[Celebrim]

In my experience, it depends on the group. My last group, a few years ago, was fantastic. I could DM fiat all day, and they would accept anything I said.

I love using DM fiat for scene framing. I find that using DM fiat for scene resolution gives me a headache, even when I don't have argumentative players.

Man, I didn't know how well I had it.

Good players are the bomb.

Today, I've got this one player in particular that has made me stray away from house rules and simply use RAW just so it will shut him up. He argues about the rules, too, but it's easier to defend them by "going by the book".

I am the book. I make the law. Then, I try to be subject to it as well. Although, it's not unusual for me in a session to say something like, "Hmmm... I don't like how that works in play. Expect changes sometime in the future." Sometimes I do it when a PC's life has been made to suck by a bad rule. Sometimes I do it when an encounter has been made too trivial by a bad rule. Sometimes I do it because it turns out that the wording is to constraining or too ambigious in actual use cases.

But, since I tend to usually find problems in the RAW in every system I've ever played, a rules lawyer who wants to stick to RAW would be very unhappy in any game I ran.

I prefer DM fiat. I think the game is better--especially if you have a creative DM that strives to make the game exceptional for everybody.

Depends on what you mean by DM fiat. I have a feeling that we have in our heads different notions about what is encompassed within that term.

 

[Water Bob]

Depends on what you mean by DM fiat.

What I mean by that is what you said above. I am the book. I am the law. I attempt to be fair to the players and fair to the game, but what I say, goes.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

So our conception of what a cure light wounds spell, or other healing magic, does, comes only from the rules.

<snip>

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.

When we look at the AD&D rules for healing magic, one thing we notice is that Cure Light Wounds is first level, and Regeneration is seventh level. That straight away tells us that there are some injuries - like losing a limb - that Cure Light Wounds cannot heal.

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.

I think this is particularly a 3E thing (I'm not sure about 2nd ed AD&D).

In 1st ed AD&D, a dying character cannot be fully healed just by any old cure spell. Magical healing will stabilise him/her, but then a Heal spell, or a Death's Door spell from UA, will be required, or else a week of bed rest. (In his White Dwarf article How to Lost Hit Points and Survive, which is as far as I know the first published version of a hp/wound point system, Roger Musson specified a % chance for a mortal wound if Con was lost, and also specified Cure Serious Wounds as the spell needed to heal a mortal wound - this was before Death's Door had been published.)

As someone noted upthread (RC, maybe?) the GM also has the option to inflict additional penalties, like scarring or lost liimbs, if negative hit points reach -6.

And the existence of the Regeneration spell clearly signals that not all injuries can be healed using a Cure spell.

I think this all makes it clear that, in AD&D, the dying person who can't be easily healed is possible according to the rules, although there is no obvious way under the action resolution rules to inflict such a state.

I said upthread that, in 4e, I would allow a cure-all potion or ability to work on the dying NPC (assuming that no more powerful curse is at work). In AD&D I would allow Death's Door or Heal to work (assuming that no more powerful curse is at work). But the rules themselves make clear that it is not arbitrary nerfing of the PCs' abilities to say that there is a mortal wound that a Cure spell can't heal.

 

[Water Bob]

I think this is particularly a 3E thing (I'm not sure about 2nd ed AD&D).

Which part? The regaining 1 hp thing?

I think this all makes it clear that, in AD&D, the dying person who can't be easily healed is possible according to the rules, although there is no obvious way under the action resolution rules to inflict such a state.

Good old, AD&D. Love that game.

I have a question about 1E AD&D: Under the "Zero Hit Points" header of the 1E DMG, pg. 82, there is talk of characters providing aid in the means of delivering respiration, binding wounds, administering spirits (including healing potions), and the like.

Just how does a character go about delivering this aid if no magical healing is at hand? Is this governed strictly by DM fiat? Is there no roll involved? Do the players just say that their character is doing the aiding and it's considered done if the characters have the right supplies available?

Back in my AD&D 1E days, I don't remember doing any healing but magical healing, so I'm curious how you old AD&D DMs handled this.

 

[pemerton]

Which part? The regaining 1 hp thing?

I was thinking the bit about the rules not allowing for a lingering mortal wound.

Just how does a character go about delivering this aid if no magical healing is at hand? Is this governed strictly by DM fiat? Is there no roll involved? Do the players just say that their character is doing the aiding and it's considered done if the characters have the right supplies available?

That's how we did it - spend a round, and cross one lot of bandages off your equipment list.

 

[Water Bob]

I was thinking the bit about the rules not allowing for a lingering mortal wound.

Yeah, I think it's the designers trying to minimize the PC downtime. In 3.5, the only way you can be down for a bit (and not die) is to stablize yourself (a 10% throw each round) and naturally heal from there without any help.

When you get to 1 HP, it's jumpin' jacks time.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I have a question about 1E AD&D: Under the "Zero Hit Points" header of the 1E DMG, pg. 82, there is talk of characters providing aid in the means of delivering respiration, binding wounds, administering spirits (including healing potions), and the like.

Just how does a character go about delivering this aid if no magical healing is at hand? Is this governed strictly by DM fiat? Is there no roll involved? Do the players just say that their character is doing the aiding and it's considered done if the characters have the right supplies available?

Not so much fiat really. Generally we provided PC's with bandages or a "first aid kit" of some fashion at fairly negligable cost for binding wounds. Just one of those things EVERYONE bought - like a waterskin and a coin pouch. Characters at or below 0 are losing hit points every round. You declare that you are "binding wounds" and the hit point loss ceases. No hit points are regained but the character is, at that point, safely alive even though they may spend quite some time yet in negative hit points. It never came up but if someone had ever said, "I don't have bandages so I give him Strong Drink (tm) instead," or, "I tear off a piece of my cloak," I doubt there would have been any issue. No fiat involved - just normal application of BTB rules.

Of course as a matter of house rules our PC's could be as low as -9 or -10 depending on specific campaign and still be saved without any ill effects, and beyond that you were a worm feast. But I think that was highly common.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

It is not total brain failure, at four minutes is the point that the brain starts taking damage. You have about ten minutes to do CPR sometimes they go up to 20 minutes but after a point you are looking at some serious life changing damage to the brain.