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

[baradtgnome]

...ask yourself. What about drama?

.... As the PC's run up the trail, from around the bend in the forest comes one of the little kids, staggering, about to collapse. He's little Jozan. 5 years old. Head bleeding and sever blunt trauma to the right side of his head. There's an indentation in his skull, and his right eye is closed.

The kid falls to his knees just steps from the PCs....

.... But now, in planning all this out, how do I make all this happen within the rules (the d20 3.5 rules)?

Since I want consistency, and drama like this from time to time even if it is cliche, we instead decided to HR the death and dying rules to accomodate some action below zero HP. This rule works for characters, NPCs, monsters, etc. Yes, it does add a bit of house keeping (an additional save) but I am willing to bear that burden to get the drama, and character interaction I want. So - I can have cliche dying moments, and still allow the characters to interact if they choose. It usually ends up being a difficult choice between taking another action or saving the dying PC/NPC/Monster - who will perish in a matter or rounds.

I don't say it is right or wrong - just how I choose to merge sticking to rules & drama.

 

[Hussar]

You're assuming that his player is arguing the ruling he made though. There's just as much of a chance that when VB said "with his dying words, at this point, beyond all healing, he said X"... that his player went along with it.

If the player accepted it, then there's no problem, and his DMing skills are just fine.

Just because some people think they should put up a stink that the DM is creating this one ruling in order to use a "hackneyed plot point" in order to get around a "rather obvious player choice"... doesn't mean that is true for every player, and thus its use cannot be dismissed out of hand.

OTOH, there's a lot of advice in this thread that says the player should just put up and shut up because the DM said so. That the players are bad players for stepping up and pointing out that this is a hackneyed idea and the DM is basically forcing it down the players throats by changing the rules, not because the rules are specifically bad, but because the DM wants to force a specific scene.

Why should players put up with bad ideas?

You have to be wary of habits that clash with player desires, but GMs should be free to experiment a little bit, without fear that their table will burst into flames should they make one individual call the players aren't thrilled with.

Oh, sure. I totally agree with this. A DM should experiment.

But a DM should not be afraid to say, "Oops, that was a failed experiment" either. Just because the DM tried it doesn't make it a good idea. If the players roll with it, fine, no problem. But, if the player(s) don't roll with it, accept that your idea maybe wasn't such a great one instead of pointing to the players and wagging your finger at them.

Yes, the players should give the DM the benefit of the doubt. Of course they should. But, by the same token, the DM should be ready to accept that their idea failed. And in this situation where you are changing the rules of the game simply to enforce a specific ending (ie, the guy dies) and your players aren't happy with that, then, in all likelihood, this was a fail.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

If you need an NPC to pass along some info or just create a mood then go away just use a corpse with a diary.

The poor guy is already dead, all the party can do is read the last few blood stained pages of his journal which passes along the crucial information mixxed with messages of regret over never seeing his wife or children again and growing dispair and fear as the handwriting gets lighter yet more shakey and the npc writes of how he doesnt want to die.

Another thought if the NPC just has to be alive. Imagine a 2nd level NPC Warrior pinned to a stone wall by as hill giants spear. He is bleeding badly and moments from death. The cleric can try to heal him but its pointless with the spear still going through his chest pinning him to the stone wall. Removing the wicked barbed spear is going to do enough damage to instantly kill the guy. The best the party can do is comfor the poor warrior, give him some hard liquor to drink and be there while he dies.

 

[DEFCON 1]

OTOH, there's a lot of advice in this thread that says the player should just put up and shut up because the DM said so. That the players are bad players for stepping up and pointing out that this is a hackneyed idea and the DM is basically forcing it down the players throats by changing the rules, not because the rules are specifically bad, but because the DM wants to force a specific scene.

Well, I can say in my case with regards to my original post (and I would imagine is true for probably most of the others who responded the same way)... I said I'd tell my player to "get over himself" because I know my players and they know me. They know my playstyle and have enjoyed doing it long enough that if for whatever reason something I did set them off, I could good-naturedly tell them to go F themselves. And they'd not take offense to it and probably realize that everything I was doing was in service to them and the group's story, and to not get their panties in a bunch if I fudged things here and there.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd imagine this is probably where many of them are also coming from... a DM and a group having enough of a rapport that you can just skip the walking on eggshells bit about worrying whether you were going to offend each other's delicate sensibilities... and instead going straight to the rolling the eyes at each other for being doofuses and then "working it out!"

 

[Hussar]

Well, I can say in my case with regards to my original post (and I would imagine is true for probably most of the others who responded the same way)... I said I'd tell my player to "get over himself" because I know my players and they know me. They know my playstyle and have enjoyed doing it long enough that if for whatever reason something I did set them off, I could good-naturedly tell them to go F themselves. And they'd not take offense to it and probably realize that everything I was doing was in service to them and the group's story, and to not get their panties in a bunch if I fudged things here and there.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd imagine this is probably where many of them are also coming from... a DM and a group having enough of a rapport that you can just skip the walking on eggshells bit about worrying whether you were going to offend each other's delicate sensibilities... and instead going straight to the rolling the eyes at each other for being doofuses and then "working it out!"

I guess I simply respect my players more than that.

I have no problems admitting when my idea was maybe not as good as it looked on paper. If the players actually are bothered enough by something to actually make an issue of it, I have good enough players to know that they aren't just blowing wind and should get over themselves.

I guess that's my basic problem here. Why is the player being told to shut up and get over himself but the DM gets a free pass?

I'd much rather have players who offer honest criticisms that will lead me to being a better DM than play with a table full of browbeaten yes men who simply accept everything that drips from my mouth simply because I'm sitting in the big daddy chair.

But hey, whatever works.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I guess that's my basic problem here. Why is the player being told to shut up and get over himself but the DM gets a free pass?

Depends on how each is representing their case. If a player were to offer constructive criticism, I would take that into account and probably not use a trope they didn't like again. If they 'get their panties in a bunch' I would tell them to get over themselves and then still probably not use the trope again. It depends entirely on how they act and I would expect the same from them if I got my DM panties in a bunch. Adult conversation gets you alot farther than threats that using the dying words trope will make the player leave with his shattered suspension of disbelief. Same goes for the moping DM who threatens to take his ball and go home if things don't go his way. [And before anyone jumps on my earlier post, that was a joke as evidenced by my real outlook following the joke.]

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd much rather have players who offer honest criticisms that will lead me to being a better DM than play with a table full of browbeaten yes men who simply accept everything that drips from my mouth simply because I'm sitting in the big daddy chair.

Just how serious are your players? You make it sound like whenever something is discussed between you guys, it's some kind of intervention. "Hussar... there's a very serious issue here we need to discuss. The other boys and I were talking, and we feel it's important for you to realize that when you are doing is not at all beneficial for the psychological well-being of the group..."

Yeah, I'm exaggerating here a bit obviously... but you're coming off as if your table just doesn't bust on each other. Now, heck, maybe you guys don't... maybe when you get together and game it's serious business... but if that's the case I would suspect that you would definitely be in the minority in that regard. I certainly know that's true at my table... and it has nothing to with "how much I respect my players" as you say. I bust their balls when they act like childish divas... they bust my balls when I act like a hurt puppy with a god complex. That's what friends do.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I bust their balls when they act like childish divas... they bust my balls when I act like a hurt puppy with a god complex. That's what friends do.

"You must spread XP, blah blah..."

If I was actually nice to my friends they might think something was seriously wrong.

 

[Zhaleskra]

If I were to use a scene like this in HARP: the NPC may not actually be beyond your healing ability. You may, in fact, have the right spell to fix it. The real question is do you have 1. enough PP and 2. enough time to scale the healing spell to, oh I don't know: stop death in xx rounds, perform organ repair, perform bone repair, and whatever else our dying messenger might need to not die? Enough time is ultimately more important than enough PP, but without both, you're gonna be watching NPC "Almost Dead Guy" die.