Narrating Hit Points - no actual "damage"

[The Crimson Binome]

However, my experience with slower healing through 3e, and especially the slower healing from BECMI and AD&D 2e, is that it makes the PCs too cautious. Lower HPs = higher risk of death, higher risk of death = doing even more to avoid combat, doing even more to avoid combat often seems to result in the PCs taking a week or so to rest up before continuing the adventure (which can really be difficult when the adventure involves a ticking clock, or other repercussions from enemies).

My experience with slower healing in 2E and 3E is that players are just the right amount of cautious, as compared to 5E where they absolutely don't care about getting hit ever because they will definitely be fine by tomorrow.

Some of the best games I ever played in, back in 2E, involved managing resources against time constraints and pushing on while injured because there was no real alternative. There's nothing like it when the Thief takes point position to protect the wounded Fighter, because there's no time to rest.

 

[MechaPilot]

My experience with slower healing in 2E and 3E is that players are just the right amount of cautious, as compared to 5E where they absolutely don't care about getting hit ever because they will definitely be fine by tomorrow.

Some of the best games I ever played in, back in 2E, involved managing resources against time constraints and pushing on while injured because there was no real alternative. There's nothing like it when the Thief takes point position to protect the wounded Fighter, because there's no time to rest.

Some of the best games I've been involved in have definitely involved tension, but rarely does resource-management result in good dramatic tension. Resource management tends to be more of a "we can continue"/"we're doing nothing for a while" switch.

 

[Hriston]

So you don't really detail the blow that knocks the PC unconscious anymore than the ORC swings his axe and hits you dealing 12 points of damage and knocking you unconscious?

Yeah, I generally don't go in for flowery descriptions of combat resolution outcomes. Most often, I announce the monster's damage, and it's the player that tells everyone the PC is down since s/he's the one tracking the PC's hit points. After the monster's turn, I might recap while transitioning into the next player's turn, saying something like, "Okay, Ivellios has been knocked out by the orc's attack and is lying prone on the floor. Dain, what do you do?"

And while monsters can be described as being killed when they drop to 0 hit points, PCs are protected by the death saving throws, so it's understood by the table that when a PC is unconscious s/he is entering a liminal space where life and death hang in the balance.

Then each failed death save is narrated with increasing details indicating the injury is more and more severe?

Not really. I save any description of the outcome until a character is done making death saving throws, because that's what determines whether the character received a mortal wound or not. After each save is made, however, I recap to the table how many successes and how many failures have accrued. The result of each save is known by everyone at the table as it happens, and it's assumed that their PCs are aware of the likely condition of the one that's down.

I can maybe see that. One minor issue though. If you have a helmet on and are hit in the head I can see the Axe possibly knocking you unconscious. How do you propose a shortsword knocks someone unconscious? I would think it most commonly would be with a stab or cut. If that's true and said short sword stabs or cuts you well enough to knock you unconscious how is that kind of wound something that will heal overnight? Or is there some better way to narrate a short sword knocking you unconscious?

I think "knocked unconscious" is an unfortunate choice of words as it implies being hit on the head or something. I prefer to use the book's phrase "falling unconscious" if I ever have to describe a PC dropping to 0 hit points. When a PC is overcome by an opponent wielding a shortsword, or any other form of attack for that matter, I would describe the PC as falling unconscious. And I really don't get into the physical reason the PC is dropping into unconsciousness. S/he may have simply fainted for all I know at that point.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I generally don't go in for flowery descriptions of combat resolution outcomes. Most often, I announce the monster's damage, and it's the player that tells everyone the PC is down since s/he's the one tracking the PC's hit points. After the monster's turn, I might recap while transitioning into the next player's turn, saying something like, "Okay, Ivellios has been knocked out by the orc's attack and is lying prone on the floor. Dain, what do you do?"

And while monsters can be described as being killed when they drop to 0 hit points, PCs are protected by the death saving throws, so it's understood by the table that when a PC is unconscious s/he is entering a liminal space where life and death hang in the balance.



Not really. I save any description of the outcome until a character is done making death saving throws, because that's what determines whether the character received a mortal wound or not. After each save is made, however, I recap to the table how many successes and how many failures have accrued. The result of each save is known by everyone at the table as it happens, and it's assumed that their PCs are aware of the likely condition of the one that's down.



I think "knocked unconscious" is an unfortunate choice of words as it implies being hit on the head or something. I prefer to use the book's phrase "falling unconscious" if I ever have to describe a PC dropping to 0 hit points. When a PC is overcome by an opponent wielding a shortsword, or any other form of attack for that matter, I would describe the PC as falling unconscious. And I really don't get into the physical reason the PC is dropping into unconsciousness. S/he may have simply fainted for all I know at that point.

I see. So you basically always avoid describing the in game cause of the PC's unconsciousness and instead lean entirely on out of game mechanical descriptions. Interesting approach. It's definitely not one of the typical approaches to D&D combat narration. Some may rely more on mechanical descriptions than others but it's rare to see anyone actively avoid ever saying what caused the PC to fall unconscious in game.

 

[Hriston]

I see. So you basically always avoid describing the in game cause of the PC's unconsciousness and instead lean entirely on out of game mechanical descriptions.

I wouldn't say "entirely". I mean, falling unconscious is what the PC is doing in-game, but it also has the weight of the mechanical condition, yes.

Interesting approach. It's definitely not one of the typical approaches to D&D combat narration.

I tend to dislike it when I hear DMs in podcasts and whatnot adding a lot of descriptive narration to combat, especially when they describe a PC's actions for them after the outcome has been determined. That really bothers me. I feel they should limit themselves to describing the result of the action, rather than the action itself. I also don't like it when they add in details that have yet to be determined mechanically. I think establishing a serious injury before three failed death saving throws is an example of that.

Some may rely more on mechanical descriptions than others but it's rare to see anyone actively avoid ever saying what caused the PC to fall unconscious in game.

I'm careful not to establish an outcome before it has been resolved mechanically, and I'm aware that while a PC is unstable at 0 hit points the outcome is still uncertain. If a PC is hit by massive damage, however, I'm more than happy to elaborate on how the PC met its end. Likewise, after three failed death saves, a cause of death will be apparent.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't say "entirely". I mean, falling unconscious is what the PC is doing in-game, but it also has the weight of the mechanical condition, yes.



I tend to dislike it when I hear DMs in podcasts and whatnot adding a lot of descriptive narration to combat, especially when they describe a PC's actions for them after the outcome has been determined. That really bothers me. I feel they should limit themselves to describing the result of the action, rather than the action itself. I also don't like it when they add in details that have yet to be determined mechanically. I think establishing a serious injury before three failed death saving throws is an example of that.



I'm careful not to establish an outcome before it has been resolved mechanically, and I'm aware that while a PC is unstable at 0 hit points the outcome is still uncertain. If a PC is hit by massive damage, however, I'm more than happy to elaborate on how the PC met its end. Likewise, after three failed death saves, a cause of death will be apparent.

Okay, so what your doing may "work". But IMO: There's an issue with the game when it forces you to jump through a bunch of hoops and be that careful about stepping on the mechanics toes AND most importantly makes you wait 3-7 rounds of combat before you can even attempt to narrate what happened to the PC that got hit 3-7 rounds ago.

Can we at least agree you shouldn't have to do that?

 

[Hriston]

Okay, so what your doing may "work". But IMO: There's an issue with the game when it forces you to jump through a bunch of hoops and be that careful about stepping on the mechanics toes AND most importantly makes you wait 3-7 rounds of combat before you can even attempt to narrate what happened to the PC that got hit 3-7 rounds ago.

Can we at least agree you shouldn't have to do that?

I'm not even going to agree with you that I am doing that. I have no issue with "waiting" to narrate something that hasn't been established yet.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not even going to agree with you that I am doing that. I have no issue with "waiting" to narrate something that hasn't been established yet.

Saying you have "No issue" doesn't mean that is what you prefer. Would you not rather it be established on the turn the attack occurs so you can go ahead and narrate it?

 

[Hriston]

Saying you have "No issue" doesn't mean that is what you prefer.

What I mean by having no issue is that I don't have any of the problems you are identifying with my playstyle. I'm not being forced to jump through any hoops, I'm not worrying about trampling on the mechanics, and I'm certainly not waiting around to describe injuries. Implying that I am doing all these things as if I'm incapable of playing the way I prefer comes off as highly manipulative on your part. Let me assure you, the way I've described how I run my games is how I want to run my games.

By the way, there will be three successes or three failures within 3-5 rounds, not 3-7. I don't know why you keep exaggerating the number of rounds in which this will take place. First you said 3-6, now it's 3-7. This also seems manipulative on your part.

Would you not rather it be established on the turn the attack occurs so you can go ahead and narrate it?

What, that the PC is dead? Why don't you ask the people you play with if they'd rather that their PCs die outright at 0 hit points so their death can be narrated immediately? Or if they'd like to roll all their death saving throws at once upon dropping to 0 hit points and their companions have no time to save them, so the result of their opponents attack can be established immediately? I'm sure that would go over really well.

Personally, I like the death saving throw mechanic and think it works fine as it is. If you have a problem with it, why don't you just say so and stop trying to suggest that I have a problem when I clearly don't?

 

[FrogReaver]

What I mean by having no issue is that I don't have any of the problems you are identifying with my playstyle. I'm not being forced to jump through any hoops, I'm not worrying about trampling on the mechanics, and I'm certainly not waiting around to describe injuries. Implying that I am doing all these things as if I'm incapable of playing the way I prefer comes off as highly manipulative on your part. Let me assure you, the way I've described how I run my games is how I want to run my games.

By the way, there will be three successes or three failures within 3-5 rounds, not 3-7. I don't know why you keep exaggerating the number of rounds in which this will take place. First you said 3-6, now it's 3-7. This also seems manipulative on your part.



What, that the PC is dead? Why don't you ask the people you play with if they'd rather that their PCs die outright at 0 hit points so their death can be narrated immediately? Or if they'd like to roll all their death saving throws at once upon dropping to 0 hit points and their companions have no time to save them, so the result of their opponents attack can be established immediately? I'm sure that would go over really well.

Personally, I like the death saving throw mechanic and think it works fine as it is. If you have a problem with it, why don't you just say so and stop trying to suggest that I have a problem when I clearly don't?

1. Please do not call or suggest I am attempting to be manipulative again.

You are right that it takes 5 rounds of death saving throws not 6 to determine if you live or die. I was using 6 there incorrectly because you will get to 3 of one or the other by the 5th death saving through. The original intent of adding +1 to the count was because if you had your turn right before the attack that knocked you unconscious then from that attack to your first death saving through would essentially be a round. Thus 5 potential death saves required to be made +1 for that round. So it would be 3-6 not 3-5. Were you trying to be manipulative by claiming it's 3-5 when it's actually 3-6 or was it an honest mistake?