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

[Krensky]

So deliberately surrendering narrative control to the player is good only until the player asserts that control towards an end they already evidenced a desire for and then you kick them out? Nice.

Only if you wish to interpert what I said in the most negative fashion possible.

That level of shared narrative is something that require buy in from both sides. A GM should not just spring it on the players. It also has it's own conventions on use. One of those is the "yes, and..." principle [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] mentioned.

It's bad form to say: "Yes, and what I said still happened." Most people I've played with using this style would also consider prosfilaes' example a bit bad form too, since it basically 180s the situation without giving the rest of the table the chance to have any influence, but they would still roll with it.

You're "Yes and my spell did work, it just took a moment" would bring the game to a halt because you're denying what another player (the GM is still a player in this context) said.

If a player isn't comfortable with this style, whether it's the Player not rolling with failure or the GM using the asymmetry of power at the table to force the story in the direction he wants, then they likely are playing at the wrong table.

Personally, it's not my favorite table style and I'd never use it for D&D or similar traditionalist games, but I can roll with it when that's what my friends want to play.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So what happens when he says "It really did work -- it just took a moment to catch."?

"In that long moment the damage to his brain was as such that he is now an unimaginative vegetable with positive hit points."

 

[Nagol]

Only if you wish to interpert what I said in the most negative fashion possible.

That level of shared narrative is something that require buy in from both sides. A GM should not just spring it on the players. It also has it's own conventions on use. One of those is the "yes, and..." principle [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] mentioned.

It's bad form to say: "Yes, and what I said still happened." Most people I've played with using this style would also consider prosfilaes' example a bit bad form too, since it basically 180s the situation without giving the rest of the table the chance to have any influence, but they would still roll with it.

You're "Yes and my spell did work, it just took a moment" would bring the game to a halt because you're denying what another player (the GM is still a player in this context) said.

If a player isn't comfortable with this style, whether it's the Player not rolling with failure or the GM using the asymmetry of power at the table to force the story in the direction he wants, then they likely are playing at the wrong table.

Personally, it's not my favorite table style and I'd never use it for D&D or similar traditionalist games, but I can roll with it when that's what my friends want to play.

Player 1 <describes scene>
Player 2: "I try X."
Player 1: "It doesn't work. Tell me why."


I've played shared narrative games and I'm having trouble thinking of one where the above sequence has happened. I've seen some games where the narrative is formed by players using meta-game resources like cards then describing the in-game effect (so a player may play a Complication or Block on another player's attempt), but the blocking player usually has to come up with the rationale. Dismissing a player's attempt and then forcing that player to come up with the rationale for why he's been stymied is begging for the player to try to assert control to reach the goal he originally had. If not through direct negation then through reach-arounds of the original scene.

"The healing doesn't work because on closer examination the 'wounds' are simply cosmetic and he isn't in any danger just in shock and scared."

"The healing doesn't work because the wounds aren't real -- they are part of a costume for a stage act. He is simply out of breath."

"The healing doesn't work because he is actually my patron deity testing my charity towards a dying man."

"The healing doesn't work because he regenerates before the spell is applied."

 

[Skyscraper]

Cooperative storytelling is not necessarily saying yes to anything anyone else says. It's trying to build a story together. To those who say that D&D isn't about that, well we do it frequently at our tables for D&D, and it works fine, so I don't think that it's D&D per se that prevents it. If you feel it's not for you and you prefer another style, then by all means play according to your preference of course.

In the example of the dying man:

We have to assume that hit points may represent something else than actual wounds. This dying man's hit point loss represents actual wounds, mind you. Otherwise he wouldn't be dying. But hit points, generally, can be anything among or a mixture of wounds, stamina, endurance, morale, psychological strength, etc...

With this basic assumption, when the level 3 PC cleric heals his fellow PCs, he's not necessarily putting back together a dismembered ally. He may be acting to give back some strenght, infuse with energy, AND/OR close actual wounds. But if someone were to have a lung perforated by a long sword stroke, perhaps our level 3 cleric would be unable to heal him altogether.

"But what if a fellow PC has his lung pierced?" you ask. "The cleric should be able to heal him, since any non-dead fellow PC can be healed. Anyone who is not at -10 or minus his bloodied value, can be healed. Period".

Okay, first of all, relax with the math The game is not about math, it's about having fun playing a RPG. Math doesn't rule the game, you do.

With this said, how could you, as a player, explain what's going on? Perhaps none of the wounds suffered up to now by PCs were pierced lungs? Work with the DM a bit here, that's what cooperative storytelling is all about. Find an explanation.

There are essentially two ways to react to any given statement by a DM:

(1) this makes no sense because... (insert explanation here)
(2) this makes sense because... (insert explanation here)

Cooperative storytelling is about trying to fit #2 intot he game as much as you can.

It doesn't mean you HAVE to accept EVERYTHING everyone tells you. It's even fun to throw an oddball at the players (or the players, at the DM) to see how the other person will react, through the character he's playing. But generally, the idea is to try to avoid pushing someone into a corner he can't get out of. If you do the latter, you reach an RP dead end, and that's what you want to avoid.

The example of the dying man here is arguably cliche, I'm not fond of this kind of story element myself. I guess my point is: if the DM really, really wants the man to die AND the man to be uncurable AND the man to still provide informaiton with his last breath, it should be easy enough for the cleric player to get it at some point and roll with it.

Now I hear those who say "well, why doesn't the DM pick up on the cleric player's proposed story element to cure the man and allow it?" My answer is: I pretty much agree. I don't like predetermined story elements such as "this NPC will die and provide info with his dying breath", I'm more inclined to steer away from that kind of thing and see how the action pans out before deciding on anything.

BUT: assuming you, as DM, want to impose that story element because you feel that the game will benefit from it, then the player needs to know when to accept that what he does won't work, and play along with the new information provided by the DM. No need to pout or be frustrated, there are many instances where the player's actions don't work out, e.g. trying to jump a gap, identify magic runes, convince a NPC, find an item hidden in a room, and the player doesn't succeed. The player needs to accept that healing, like any of the above, can be a failure sometimes.

So in cooperative storytelling, as with any other human interaction, there is some measure of intuition to be used, of trying to sense what the other player (or in-game character) is trying to do, and picking up on that. There is no die roll for that, and success will not always be achieved either; it's just a direction you can take as a player (DM included), taking into account that the DM directs many plot elements and will have final say on what works and what doesn't. If you're looking for a 1v1 match with both players on equal footing, chess or other board games are better suited for you

 

[prosfilaes]

Cooperative storytelling is not necessarily saying yes to anything anyone else says.

But you're the only one getting to say no. That's not very cooperative.

"But what if a fellow PC has his lung pierced?" you ask. "The cleric should be able to heal him, since any non-dead fellow PC can be healed. Anyone who is not at -10 or minus his bloodied value, can be healed. Period".

Okay, first of all, relax with the math The game is not about math, it's about having fun playing a RPG. Math doesn't rule the game, you do.

With this said, how could you, as a player, explain what's going on? Perhaps none of the wounds suffered up to now by PCs were pierced lungs? Work with the DM a bit here, that's what cooperative storytelling is all about. Find an explanation.

And that type of explanation makes the game less fun for me. It takes a clean abstraction and makes it less clean. There should be consequences in world if certain injuries can't be healed. Realistically, every anti-adventurer thing in the world is going to try to pierce lungs if that can't be healed magically.

If you're looking for a 1v1 match with both players on equal footing

I'm not. That's a strawman. I want a world I understand, that doesn't arbitrarily change, where random "explanations" don't come out of nowhere, to shoehorn in some cliche.

 

[Hussar]

Isn't "Well, you tell me why your X didn't work" essentially a DM cop-out?

I mean, the only reason he's turning this over to the players in the first place is because he's playing silly buggers with expectations. Now, not only is he changing the expectations of the game, but now he wants me to explain to him why?

I get the idea of co-operative story telling. I really do. I love it. But, shouldn't that co-operation have occurred sometime BEFORE the DM started introducing elements into the game that run contrary to expectation?

Personally, I just wouldn't do it. The players expect the world to work in a particular way. When you start introducing elements that run contrary to that expectation, for the sole purpose of introducing a specific scene, it's not going to work very well. At best the players recognize it for what it is - essentially a cut-scene where the players cannot affect the outcome and at worst, it takes immersion out and beats it with a large stick and makes trusting the DM in the future problematic.

I'm not seeing a big win here in either direction.

 

[Skyscraper]

But you're the only one getting to say no. That's not very cooperative.

That's because the basis of the present example (propose by another poster) is that the DM wishes to impose one particular outcome to the encounter, i.e. that the NPC is dying and can't be healed. Like I said above, I would prefer not to do this kind of preset encoutner myself.

On a typical game session though, DM and player should both end up picking up each other's propositions. But eventually, the DM has to decide on certain things that go against the player's will. The player wants everything he tries to work, but the DM gives out challenges that includes some of the player's propositions not working. The player has to be aware of that and work for the best of the story even when his propositions are refused.

And that type of explanation makes the game less fun for me. It takes a clean abstraction and makes it less clean. There should be consequences in world if certain injuries can't be healed. Realistically, every anti-adventurer thing in the world is going to try to pierce lungs if that can't be healed magically.

Every single combatant wishes to pierce lung or heart, or behead his opponent, when he deals a sword stroke. However, in D&D there are no called shots. You have to explain, as a player (or perhaps you leave that to the DM also) why your sword stroke was not leathal to the enemy.

This is precisely the same, to me, as explaining why one sword stroke was lethal, but allowed the NPC to survive long enough to still talk to the PC.

I'm not. That's a strawman. I want a world I understand, that doesn't arbitrarily change, where random "explanations" don't come out of nowhere, to shoehorn in some cliche.

If rigidity of the rules is what you're looking for, the situation doesn't prevent it: the NPC fell below 0 hit points (or -10, or whatever value your game uses as a death threshold), however the DM still allows that NPC to talk one last time. The rules remain unchanged for game purposes. So if it is a mechanical rule answer you want when you ask your DM why you can't heal the NPC, the DM can answer: because he's beyond the death threshold. I don't see how that is so far fetched.

I feel that one problem with the present situation is that we're arguing about a cliche no one wants in his game at the outset. All I'm saying is: it's usually very possible to help the DM along when he makes a proposition, and likewise the DM should be attentive to the player when the latter makes a proposition; and sometimes they'll be conflicting and one of them will have to yield. In the present example of the cliche, the player yielded; but if the basic proposition had been different and the DM was the one yielding to the player's proposition, would it be different?

 

[Skyscraper]

Isn't "Well, you tell me why your X didn't work" essentially a DM cop-out?

I mean, the only reason he's turning this over to the players in the first place is because he's playing silly buggers with expectations. Now, not only is he changing the expectations of the game, but now he wants me to explain to him why?

The game has no expectations. You do. Your expectations here are twofold:

1) if anyone falls beyond the death threshold, he won't talk
2) if someone talks, he's not beyond the death threshold and can be healed

The only thing the DM does here is allow a dying NPC to speak.

I get the idea of co-operative story telling. I really do. I love it. But, shouldn't that co-operation have occurred sometime BEFORE the DM started introducing elements into the game that run contrary to expectation?

Yes, yes, like I said in my previous posts, I agree that the cliche used for the purposes of this example is not a winner and that predetermined outcomes are not a winning proposition either. Not my style.

Personally, I just wouldn't do it. The players expect the world to work in a particular way. When you start introducing elements that run contrary to that expectation, for the sole purpose of introducing a specific scene, it's not going to work very well.

The world or the game? I think here the problem is that the players expect the game - not the world - to work in a certain way. That expectation is as per points (1) and (2) above.

In the game world, however, you can certainly imagine someone dying and pronouncing last words without being able to be prevented from dying.

The problem here lies in reconciling the "world" expectations with the game rules expectations. For me that bridge is pretty easy to draw, but it seems that it's a big thing for some of you.

At best the players recognize it for what it is - essentially a cut-scene where the players cannot affect the outcome and at worst, it takes immersion out and beats it with a large stick and makes trusting the DM in the future problematic.

I'm not seeing a big win here in either direction.

Yes, a cut-scene that railroads the game in a particular direction. I entirely agree. I'm simply working with the example provided by one poster to illustrate the question of cooperative storytelling. Some people like that kind of game, as it happens. Many, if not most, commercial adventures rely on specific predetermined events occuring, and many people buy and play commercial adventure as is. I don't. That's just a question of preference. I don't see a very big difference myself in the events described in the present scenario of the dying NPC than I see in commercial adventures that expect specific outcomes to carry players from A to B to C to D to the final fight agains the BBEG. So assuming your are a player who likes railroad adventures, which many do, then obviously you do not mind being led from one event to the next; I assume such a player would not mind to have a cut-scene such as this one occur either. No? That's what linear adventures are all about, predetermined events that the player's actions do not affect (although there is illusion that they do).

 

[pemerton]

There should be consequences in world if certain injuries can't be healed. Realistically, every anti-adventurer thing in the world is going to try to pierce lungs if that can't be healed magically.

Every injury that a PC adventurer ever suffers in D&D, as a result of garden variety hand-to-hand combat, is one that can be healed, completely, by bedrest.

In the real world, some injuries suffered in hand-to-hand combat - like pierced lungs or other organ damage, disembowelling, maimed or severed limbs, blinding, etc - cannot be healed by bedrest.

Therefore, one of two things follow: PCs in the D&D gameworld have regenerative biological capacities very different from their realworld counterparts; or, PCs in the D&D gameworld never suffer these sorts of injuries in the course of hand-to-hand combat.

Given that the rest of the game appears to presuppose that the first of these options is not the case, I guess that the second option must be the case.

The dying messenger scenario, then, relies simply on the GM positing a scene in which an NPC has suffered one of these injuries that the PCs never do. I can see that this might well be jarring at the game table, if the players haven't performed the above inferences. But I don't think that it is cheating. (It would be cheating if the GM did this sort of thing in the course of resolving, rather than framing a scene - which would require suspending the action resolution mechanics.)

If a table hasn't thought about it, they might also have to think about what is achievable via spells like Cure Serious or Critical Wound, Heal, Regeneration etc. Do the names of those spells really mean what they say? However any given table resolves this, the upshot is likely to be that the dying messenger setup will work the way the GM wants only against a low- to mid-level party. (And this stands to reason - PCs that can raise the dead, and travel at will between worlds, are also going to be able to heal a dying messenger unless there is some curse or other magical affliction at work.)

Yes, a cut-scene that railroads the game in a particular direction. I entirely agree. I'm simply working with the example provided by one poster to illustrate the question of cooperative storytelling. Some people like that kind of game, as it happens. Many, if not most, commercial adventures rely on specific predetermined events occuring, and many people buy and play commercial adventure as is. I don't.

I share your dislike for adventure-path style scenarios. But I don't agree that the dying messenger "cut-scene" is a railroad - because it's not per se a cut-scene. It's the starting point for a scene that the players can still resolve via their PCs. Suppose, for example, that the players remebmer that one of the PCs has a teleport scroll in her backpack, and the PCs then use this to teleport the dying messenger to the rooms of a high-level healer - only if the GM doesn't allow this to have an impact on the resolution of the scene can we tell the we have a railroad going on.

What I personally find interesting about this thread is not the railroad debate - which, as I've just explained, I think turns on a misunderstanding of the difference between scene-framing and scene-resolution - but what it shows about D&D players' understanding of hit points. In particular, it seems many players believe both that (i) hit point damage sometimes represents injuries like disemboweling or a pierced lung, and (ii) hit point damage can always be recovered via simple bedrest. These strike me as obviously inconsistent propositions. That both are apparently believed by many D&D players is all the more striking to me in the context of the debate going on in another current thread about whether 4e is special in having introduced widespread "dissociated" mechanics into D&D!

 

[Quickleaf]

That's because the basis of the present example (propose by another poster) is that the DM wishes to impose one particular outcome to the encounter, i.e. that the NPC is dying and can't be healed. Like I said above, I would prefer not to do this kind of preset encoutner myself.

As the OP, I think I should clarify what my specific scenario was. Obviously this is colored by my perspective...

In a past session the players were faced with a choice between two options (there could have been more but they aren't an especially probing/wildly creative group).

1. Go through a new moon portal into a fey realm to consult an oracle. The portal is only active one day per month at the height of new moon. If the PCs choose this way they gain insight into the BBEG's hidden agent, but without their help the keep falls. The extent of destruction depends on how long they are trapped in the fey realm ("one day here is a month in your world").

2. Travel north to a mountain keep besieged by goblins to help a gruff and tumble lord secure the mountain pass. If the PCs choose this path they would secure a critical stronghold against the BBEG's forces in the north, but they would not gain access to the oracle until it was too late. Additionally, the BBEG holds the oracle hostage to get info about future from her; depending on how many magical braziers the PCs find and light inside the keep, the BBEG gains more/less info (the braziers alert eladrin soldiers).

The PCs choose #1 and went into the fey realm, and were trapped there for several days (real world time) before realizing the trick. This meant the keep was completely overrun and most of the people fled, the lord's family was kidnapped, the lord was dead/dying and all his knights were dead, the magical braziers were wrecked, the keep looted, the main horde moved on and left behind a small occupying force. The main horde hadn't yet reached the next settlement where refugees had been pushed however.

They arrive and take in the aftermath, defeat the small force of hobgoblins and search for survivors. They come upon the dying lord. As they start talking with him, the bard player (the group's only healer - this is 4e btw) wants to heal this guy with his majestic word, but of course the NPC has just lost to a horde of goblins and has no surges left. He doesn't have any surgeless healing powers outside of combat so he calls upon the Heal skill to stabilize an adjacent dying character (DC 15). It was here where I said: "He's beyond normal healing; that he's alive at all speaks volumes to his sheer grit." Bard player smirked and made some really good pun about not wanting to interrupt a dramatic monologue with good healing; before the lord died the bard player asked me again if he could administer a healing potion or *anything*. I said "A potion wouldn't work cause of the surges. Basically this guy failed his 3rd death save while talking with you. Yeah I know I didn't roll."

Everyone else was fine with it, and it wasn't an issue for the bard player out of that session. For some reason they trust me But it was the first time in a long while that an issue came up about how I handled something as a DM.

My "mistake" (if you want to call it such) was having them be present at the lord's hour of death. It was about gravitas, not information. Others have commented that this setup would have been better served by having the NPC lord already dead. This would avoid the whole issue I raised in this thread. Maybe that's what I should have done. However, I was and remain certain that the setup I chose had more emotional impact.

That's why the "pet scene" in my case. It was illustrating consequences of a choice the players had in a previous adventure, and in so doing revealing the heroism of a NPC the group had mixed reactions toward. Say what you will about it being cliche, but swearing a quest at the side of a dying sympathetic/tragic NPC is poignant. That's one quest they'll definitely remember!