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

[pemerton]

They can turn into animals (druid, 4th level) and are immune to disease (monk, 5th level). Why should a little regeneration turn them into strange aliens?

It wouldn't per se. But those are SU, or at least EX, abilities. Healing by way of bedrest isn't traditionally put into that category in D&D. After all, it normally appears under the heading "natural healing".

Now if someone wanted to run a mid-to-high level D&D game in this sort of fashion - where all PCs and NPCs above a certain level do have supernatural or extraordinary regenerative capacities - I could see how that could be made to work, although it wouldn't be a game I particularly want to play. (Crucial to the crucifixion scene in Conan, for example, is that Conan is just a natural human, who is able to do what he does without having supernatural abilities.)

I think you're assuming what you're trying to prove; even in real life, people can get far in extreme situations with broken bones, and Conan the Barbarian would have no problem with a few broken bones.

I think the adrenaline idea can work, to an extent, to reconcile me to the absence of a death spiral from the traditional D&D hit point mechanics. But it doesn't help me understand how, days later, the PC can jump out of bed and be all hale and hearty when (i) any adrenaline surge must have ended by now, and (ii) any broken limbs would not yet have had time to heal.

This is why I take the view that hit point loss, at least until one gets into the negatives (which are handled differently in AD&D if not in 3E), is only light wounds. (Another, more tongue-in-cheek, reason is that all hit point loss can be healed by Cure Light Wounds - that is, no injuries are suffered that a mere healing of light wounds couldn't relieve, if applied sufficiently many times.)

 

[pemerton]

Really? How so?

I think 4e makes what you did more legitimate within the rules, because 4e is much more upfront that the action resolution mechanics aren't a total model of the gameworld's causal processes, but rather a device for resolving the particular conflicts in which the players, via their PCs, are invested.

Not only does this make it clearer (in my view) that there can be a wound that can't be healed simply by restoring hit points (it's just that no PC ever suffers such wounds when they fight, for narrative/plot-protection type reasons). I think it also makes it easier for the GM to engage in more obvious scene-framing - whereas in a mechanics-as-physics model, there is more pressure to extrapolate each new scene from the previous one by an applicaiton (actual, or hypothetical) of the mechanics, which makes introducing options for which the mechanics don't allow more tricky.

One reason why I prefer GMing 4e to RM despite my near-20-year love affair with the latter is precisely this issue to do with scene transition. RM can so easily bog down because there is no way for the GM to "switch off" the action resolution mechanics without creating the risk of deprotagonising the players - because the consequences of the mechanics are all-pervading and total, rather than confined to PC-focused conflicts in the manner of 4e's mechanics.

it's clear many players feel the opposite: that if the PCs are present then the rules should apply consistently and without exception

On this issue, I tend towards the stricter view - namely, that once the PCs are engaging a scene then the action resolution mechanics should apply, because this is what the players have signed up for. That would mean, for example, that even an NPC would take only hit point damage from attacks.

Of course, once a NPC is at 0 hp all bets are off, because there are no death saves or negative hp by default for NPCs. So, in practice, there would still be scope in 4e for a NPC to suffer an injury, in the course of a combat in which the PCs were involved, that dealt unhealable damage - but only if a monster dropped that NPC to zero hit points. But, because I also permit page 42 manoeuvres to minionise NPCs in certain circumstances, assuming they didn't start that way, then this may not be too hard - eg if a monster crashes a brick wall down on an ordinary person, then on a hit vs Reflex I'd be happy to call that ordinary person dead (this minionisation thing is another aspect of a flexible and narratively constrained action resolution mechanics, that contrasts with a mechanics-as-physics approach).

I've been interested in the advice about creative ways to interface with the rules and have an NPC be un-healable (e.g. the magic poison).

<snip>

it appears there's plenty of folks who consider that a better way of handling this scenario than "Remember when you decided to go through that portal instead of to the keep? Yes I'm framing a scene here."

To me, the preference for that sort of approach seems to follow from a mechanics-as-physics orientation, which then makes it hard (without "cheating") to introduce a wound that can't be inflicted on a PC via the action resolution mechanics.

When playing Rolemaster, I would share this orientation, but the problem wouldn't come up, because Rolemaster doesn't use hit points in the D&D sense for damage - concussion hits are only one (and typically the least important) element of damage, and different sorts of injuries (categorised both by severity and by type) require their own dedicated healing magic. So it is trivial in RM for a GM to introduce a dying NPC that the PC's are incapable of healing, at least until the PCs are 15th or higher level and start to get access to the best healing spells.

I haven't played much 3E, in part because (i) it seems to support the mechanics-as-physics approach, but (ii) it uses a hit point mechanic that I think can't be reconciled with that approach (for the reasons I've given upthread) and therefore (iii) tends towards incoherence in its approach to damage. Given that fighting and damage are such big parts of mainstream fantasy RPGing, this tendency towards incoherence is a deal-breaker for me.

I find it somewhat weird that you would pick D&D to do such a thing; it's a massive system with large simulationist elements that rewards and doesn't reward the wrong behaviors. There are a number of systems that reward creation of story, not killing of monsters.

I think this description isn't really true of 4e - or not completely (yes, it is a massive system). I don't think 4e rewards killing monsters. It rewards creation of story (ie overcoming challenges, completing quests, and the so-called "roleplaying XP rewards" from DMG2). It's just that the sort of challenges 4e supports both the design and the resolution of include combat challenges, such that if you don't include quite a few of them in your game then you're probably not getting the best gaming-per-word from your rulebooks.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

One side framed the scene, the other is being asked to explain. You can't always react to a scene-framing by flipping the setup on its head. Otherwise you're not playing cooperatively, you're just being contrary. And who said the DM in question is the only one getting to "say no?" There ar plenty of other times a player may want to frame a scene or "do something cool" outside of the RAW and tosses the ball to the DM to react. Being cooperative would allow for players to have their chance to do what the DM is asking for in the death scene.

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.

You don't want the real world, fair enough.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


You don't want the real world, fair enough.

In your world, completely arbitrary events occur without explanation? That's the "real" world? I dunno about you, but, there's a couple years or so of scientific method that would like to have a word with you.

I guess my problem come in because the PC's are involved. If the PC's weren't involved, then anything goes and I don't really care. But, the only way the players can interact with the game world is through the mechanics of the game.

If you start changing those mechanics simply to service a specific scene then it calls into question how much the players can rely on their sole method for interacting with the game world.

Granted, most of the time, it's not going to matter that much. Most groups simply move on and no harm, no foul.

But, I'm really not seeing what's being gained here. The DM is forcing through a specific scene that resolves in a specific manner. It's a cut-scene with a bit more improv from the player's side. The players cannot actually change the outcome of the scene since the DM declares that the guy is too hurt to be healed and he just dies.

Lobbing the explanation back at the players isn't going to resolve anything, other than make it really glaringly obvious that the DM just wanted to have a cut scene.

If you don't want the players to change the scene, DON'T INVOLVE THE PLAYERS.

 

[Celebrim]

I think 4e makes what you did more legitimate within the rules, because 4e is much more upfront that the action resolution mechanics aren't a total model of the gameworld's causal processes, but rather a device for resolving the particular conflicts in which the players, via their PCs, are invested.

Not only does this make it clearer (in my view) that there can be a wound that can't be healed simply by restoring hit points (it's just that no PC ever suffers such wounds when they fight, for narrative/plot-protection type reasons).

So an PC's interaction with an NPC isn't a "particular conflict in which the player, via their PCs, are invested"?

This I think strains credibility, and as a player, I would like to think that I could become invested via my PC in an NPC. One of the foremost jobs of the GM is creating memorable NPCs that you can invest emotion in, much as you could with the characters of a good novel. Indeed, the whole point of the orginal scenario seems to have been to encourage the players to invest in the interaction with the NPC. Which is why I find the fiat scene resolution to be so counterproductive. 'Cut scenes' in which you can't effect the outcome even though my character concievably has the ability to do so are jarring even in cRPGs where I have reduced expectations of player freedom.

It's one thing to have an argument about scene framing and say, "Well, for the purposes of scene framing, a DM doesn't have to play out the scene. He can simply construct the scene by fiat - the destroyed fort for example - without doing the game mechanics resolution - he doesn't have to run the battle or establish the army size from precise calculations of the regions demographics. A DM doesn't have to exactly prove that the band of Hill Giants can find enough food in the arid badlands to survive. A DM only has to make these events and decisions plausible, so that the players don't have suspension of disbelief harmed by finding 8 hill giants living behind a sealed door in a 30'x30' room deep in a dungeon down a 5' wide corridor with no apparant means of egress or physical support.

But for the purposes of scene resolution, then I think that players have a reasonable expectation that everything that they interact with will obey some sort of knowable rule, even if only 'common sense'. If a character can't be healed by normal magical means, then it ought to be obvious why and make sense within the context of the game. For example, if I was really compelled to make it clear that the poor schmuck couldn't be healed I probably would have run the scene as follows:

"In the center of the courtyard, you find a ring of crosses, about which have been piled the mutilated bodies of many of the forts defenders. Here, the few survivors were apparantly tortured to death for the amusement of the victors. The bodies on the crosses are horribly mangled, with severed limbs and broken legs. A murder of crows picking over the dead. Agitated by your arrival, some flit cawing to the eaves of the burned out buildings and stare at you curiously. Just at this moment, you here an agonized moan from one of the bodies on the crosses. One of the figures is apparantly still alive... Although his eyes are missing, you are able to recognize the Captain. It seems impossible that he is still alive. His torso has been split open, and its clear that several major organs have been removed. A glowing green rod has been thrust through his chest, but as you approach he seems to hear you and cries, "Who is there. Help me! Kill me!".

In my game, the above scene would probably provoke at least two Horror checks from the party. I would think that also the above scene gives enough clues that the Captain is not in a state where 'Cure Light Wounds' is going to be of much help.

One that was established, then if the PC's had the resources to heal the NPC, fine. Granted, the problem with the above scene is that it requires that the NPC's have significant necromantic resources to have actually set that scene up. It's not something an ordinary war band of goblins is going to be capable of. And granted, you are going to have to be careful about the mechanics of something that is apparantly preventing death regardless of the state of the character, but as a matter of achieving the immediately desired result I find the above scene framing far better than, "No, you can't just cast Cure Moderate Wounds because I say so, and if you don't like it then just go home."

I think it also makes it easier for the GM to engage in more obvious scene-framing - whereas in a mechanics-as-physics model, there is more pressure to extrapolate each new scene from the previous one by an applicaiton (actual, or hypothetical) of the mechanics, which makes introducing options for which the mechanics don't allow more tricky.

Once the PC's are interacting with the environment, you've gone beyond scene framing.

RM can so easily bog down because there is no way for the GM to "switch off" the action resolution mechanics without creating the risk of deprotagonising the players - because the consequences of the mechanics are all-pervading and total, rather than confined to PC-focused conflicts in the manner of 4e's mechanics.

You've not convinced me that you've avoided deprotagonizing the players. You'll have to demonstrate that trying to heal an NPC wasn't a conflict focused on the PC's, and that if it wasn't a conflict focused on the PC's that you've still managed to protagonize the players in the scene.

To me, the preference for that sort of approach seems to follow from a mechanics-as-physics orientation, which then makes it hard (without "cheating") to introduce a wound that can't be inflicted on a PC via the action resolution mechanics.

DMs are effectively all powerful. If you are ever feeling uncomfortably constrained as a DM, you aren't really understanding the wealth of options available to you. That isn't to say that you shouldn't constrain and limit your own authority, but I don't think there is ever a time when a DM shouldn't feel as if he has enough authority. You can always create something. For example, magic items, like the one implied in the above scene framing, are a very easy way in D&D to introduce whatever rules exceptions you desire.

Actually crafting the house rules you need is another way.

I haven't played much 3E, in part because (i) it seems to support the mechanics-as-physics approach, but (ii) it uses a hit point mechanic that I think can't be reconciled with that approach (for the reasons I've given upthread) and therefore (iii) tends towards incoherence in its approach to damage. Given that fighting and damage are such big parts of mainstream fantasy RPGing, this tendency towards incoherence is a deal-breaker for me.

Odd, but I find 4e far more incoherent. Which just goes to show that the DM is more important than the system. I'm willing to believe that your 3e game would be incoherent. I equally believe that I'm unable to DM 4e in a coherent fashion. I think I can manage with 3e though.

 

[Skyscraper]

Where does the rest of the game presuppose that the first of the options is not the case? Certainly I find the first option to be more in tune with fiction; Conan bounces back from crucifixion with just bedrest. The second theory is hard to believe when they're recovering from damage from crossbow bolts, acid splashes, and spiked pits.

I think if you wish to suppose that the PCs can regenerate through bedrest in your game, it's fine. I however doubt that the majority of players think this way.

Personally, I feel the game suggests humans are ordinary human beings that gain powers that are specifically described or implied in the class, race and feat descriptions. If humans were otherwise different than ordinary human beings, I believe the game would say so.

But again, nothing prevents you from supposing that humans can regenerate from any injury whatsoever through simple bedrest, if you feel that your game is better for it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In your world, completely arbitrary events occur without explanation? That's the "real" world? I dunno about you, but, there's a couple years or so of scientific method that would like to have a word with you.

Yes, in our world they do. E.g. People get laid off without any control over the outcome and without any real explanation from their superiors. That's the real world. There is more to life than scientific method.

Even limiting oneself to scientific method, there have been things proven true by men of science that later are proven wrong. Our current perceptions of what is scientifically "right" may seem utterly ridiculous to scientists centuries from now.

More pertinent to the discussion than acts and perception of Man. One person falls off a short ladder and dies instantly, while another falls from an airplane, his chute doesn't open, he bounces once and lives. In D&D, since the ladder is short, i.e. less than 10' tall, the person takes no damage. While the second guy takes 20d10 (or 20d6). Assuming a normal man (zero-level commoner or 1st-level minion), the first never dies in D&D, the second always dies. Only DM fiat will allow for the hopefully rare outlier to occur.

 

[Skyscraper]

No, the level of the simulation changes. When the players are interacting with something, the simulation is more fine-grained, more accurate, then after they leave.

My characters have a back-story that involves them fighting; is it bizarre that I didn't have to roll for those fights, but I do for those in play?

I'm not saying that rolling for things that occur in-play is bizarre; I'm saying that arbitray decisions rule the game world and also permeate the in-play game sessions (such as encounter design), but it is bizarre that they should be frowned upon concerning something as trivial (relatively to the other arbitrary decisions) like the Lord automatically failing his saving throws.

It's beyond you that someone can be given great freedom to do what needs to be done and yet still have limitations?

No. For me, it's like sex in the fifties: everyone accepts and knows that everyone does it, but no one talks about it amongst themselves. Here, the DM is allowed to make arbitrary decisions concerning a bunch of stuff that will completely shape the PCs' experiences, but he's not allowed to do any such thing when the PCs are in the room? Only when they're in the next room?

I'm not. I find it somewhat weird that you would pick D&D to do such a thing; it's a massive system with large simulationist elements that rewards and doesn't reward the wrong behaviors. There are a number of systems that reward creation of story, not killing of monsters.

Well, however much D&D is closer to a board game than other RPGs, it remains an RPG. And RP is one aspect of D&D that I like and appreciate. (And I do play other game systems also.) And RPGs benefit from cooperative storytelling IMO.

 

[Celebrim]

More pertinent to the discussion than acts and perception of Man. One person falls off a short ladder and dies instantly, while another falls from an airplane, his chute doesn't open, he bounces once and lives. In D&D, since the ladder is short, i.e. less than 10' tall, the person takes no damage. While the second guy takes 20d10 (or 20d6). Assuming a normal man (zero-level commoner or 1st-level minion), the first never dies in D&D, the second always dies.

This is true. However, it is worth noting that it is something which has caused significant amounts of complaint and distress on the part of DMs for the last 30 years. Practically every early edition of Dragon either had an article addressing percieved problems with the rules for falling, or else a letter to the editor discussing an article about the percieved problems with the rules for falling. An enormous number of suggestions were submitted and argued over. I and others written at length about the issue of why people care more about 'fell 20 feet' or 'emmersed in acid' than they do about 'struck by a sword'.

I bring this up because I want to point out that there is probably no hypocricy on the part of the people in this discussion. You seem to be suggesting through this statement that the other side is being very selective in what it complains about, but in fact you don't really have alot of evidence that I or anyone else is being arbitrary about the unrealisms that they choose to accept or not accept. And this is particularly true in the case of falling, where I bet - based on how often its come up in past discussions of EnWorld - that there are a lot of house rules in play.

Only DM fiat will allow for the hopefully rare outlier to occur.

Or house rules. My house rules are built around the very notion you bring up - that a fall off the top of a ladder ought to be potentially lethal, but there ought to be some chance of surviving a fall out of an airplane.

The way I achieve this is basically a pretty old rule idea where the damage from a fall is 1d20 per 10' you fall divided by the result of 1d6. So for example, a 30' fall doesn't have a damage range of 3-18, but rather a potential damage range of 0-60. Average damage is very close to average damage from 1d6/10', but the range is very different and there is a long tail that often means instant death. Hense, players might jump off a 60' cliff to escape death (and likely heroicly survive), but they probably won't take such a risk for any lesser reason. Thereby, I retain the mixture of realism and fantasy that I'm aiming for.

As I said from the beginning, if the rules don't allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, then change the rules.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I bring this up because I want to point out that there is probably no hypocricy on the part of the people in this discussion. You seem to be suggesting through this statement that the other side is being very selective in what it complains about, but in fact you don't really have alot of evidence that I or anyone else is being arbitrary about the unrealisms that they choose to accept or not accept. And this is particularly true in the case of falling, where I bet - based on how often its come up in past discussions of EnWorld - that there are a lot of house rules in play.

I'm not really suggesting hypocricy on selective rules. I'm not suggesting that because anyone who accepts one form should accept all. I'm more on the side of pointing out that there are issues that people accept freely. But when one particular ruling they dislike is used, the DM using it is now a bad DM. I don't think anyone here is a bad DM based on their strict adherence to the healing rules, but "the other side" has some that do think those who use Dying Breath scenes are "Bad DMs."

Or house rules.

a.k.a. Codified DM Fiat.

My house rules are built around the very notion you bring up - that a fall off the top of a ladder ought to be potentially lethal, but there ought to be some chance of surviving a fall out of an airplane.

The way I achieve this is basically a pretty old rule idea where the damage from a fall is 1d20 per 10' you fall divided by the result of 1d6. So for example, a 30' fall doesn't have a damage range of 3-18, but rather a potential damage range of 0-60. Average damage is very close to average damage from 1d6/10', but the range is very different and there is a long tail that often means instant death. Hense, players might jump off a 60' cliff to escape death (and likely heroicly survive), but they probably won't take such a risk for any lesser reason. Thereby, I retain the mixture of realism and fantasy that I'm aiming for.

I'm glad you're able to find something that works for you. But, specifically in this example, I don't want the heroes to die because they slipped off a ladder. That's something that happens to the Average Joe in my game world, not the characters. My players understand that the resolution system built around them emulates the survivability of Captain Kirk, while the minor players in the world are Red Shirts.

As I said from the beginning, if the rules don't allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, then change the rules.

This whole discussion boils down to taste. Some players are fine with off-the-cuff rulings. Others prefer the non-RAW elements to be presented beforehand as house rules. While other expect the world to act by the strict letter of RAW. While others sit somewhere in-between.

As DM you should go with your gut and go with a style you like. If you see that the majority of your players don't like a certain trope - don't do it again. If some don't like it - use it sparingly. Some people are acting like they have the "Right Answer." If it seemed like I was saying I do I apologize for conveying my message with the wrong tone.