Does the Death Curve Beat the Death Spiral?

[GMMichael]

Reading the Hit Points Are a Great Mechanic thread, I'm struck by one of the simplest implications of the mechanism: you either have hit points, or you don't. You're alive or dead. Some games don't buy into this dichotomy, introducing stages of injury, and that's when the "death spiral" arguments kick up: if a character gets weaker as she runs out of hit points, the only outcome is spiraling into death. I've suggested that this is not the case, that there is a "death tree" that presents many branches of outcomes, only one of which is character death. But trees are complex, and they need nutrients/ideas to help them grow. Is there a spiral alternative that's simple, but doesn't force a character down the spiral? Can an injured character below full HP continue fighting, and win!?

Enter the Death Curve. If you will, picture it as the descending half of a bell curve. It's a useful visual reference for anyone who's looked at the possible outcomes of three or more dice (or who's been to Philadelphia too many times). There are two important aspects of the death curve:

1) It begins by tapering off gently, like the death whirlpool, but unlike the death spinning top.
2) It flattens out at the bottom, postponing zero hit points as long as possible.

In a death curve system, injury comes on gradually, so an injured character has worse odds of winning instead of no odds. If, as unlikely as it is, you went into a fight with 50% odds of winning, the first party to be injured might still have 40-45% odds of winning if the first clash didn't go well. At the bottom of the death curve, every possible bad thing can happen except death. Death is last, the end of the curve. It's what happens when you've run out of options. It's the Gondor warrior who's been clubbed, breathed-on, and finally sat-on by the witch-king, but his heart still beats after the ring wraith walks off to destroy other fools.

Is the death curve a better alternative to the death spiral?
Does it address the problems with incremental injury?
Should a character be allowed to survive with multiple injuries, on death's door?
What games already have death curves, though they're often called death spirals?

 

[The Soloist]

It depends on the degree of simulation vs heroism you prefer in your game of choice. Death curve is often found in games with armor damage reduction and hit locations, which feel more realistic. The players act accordingly, avoiding fights, playing dirty tricks or only picking fights they think they can win.

I like both systems.

 

[TiQuinn]

Reading the Hit Points Are a Great Mechanic thread, I'm struck by one of the simplest implications of the mechanism: you either have hit points, or you don't. You're alive or dead. Some games don't buy into this dichotomy, introducing stages of injury, and that's when the "death spiral" arguments kick up: if a character gets weaker as she runs out of hit points, the only outcome is spiraling into death. I've suggested that this is not the case, that there is a "death tree" that presents many branches of outcomes, only one of which is character death. But trees are complex, and they need nutrients/ideas to help them grow. Is there a spiral alternative that's simple, but doesn't force a character down the spiral? Can an injured character below full HP continue fighting, and win!?

Enter the Death Curve. If you will, picture it as the descending half of a bell curve. It's a useful visual reference for anyone who's looked at the possible outcomes of three or more dice (or who's been to Philadelphia too many times). There are two important aspects of the death curve:

1) It begins by tapering off gently, like the death whirlpool, but unlike the death spinning top.
2) It flattens out at the bottom, postponing zero hit points as long as possible.

In a death curve system, injury comes on gradually, so an injured character has worse odds of winning instead of no odds. If, as unlikely as it is, you went into a fight with 50% odds of winning, the first party to be injured might still have 40-45% odds of winning if the first clash didn't go well. At the bottom of the death curve, every possible bad thing can happen except death. Death is last, the end of the curve. It's what happens when you've run out of options. It's the Gondor warrior who's been clubbed, breathed-on, and finally sat-on by the witch-king, but his heart still beats after the ring wraith walks off to destroy other fools.

Is the death curve a better alternative to the death spiral?
Does it address the problems with incremental injury?
Should a character be allowed to survive with multiple injuries, on death's door?
What games already have death curves, though they're often called death spirals?

What’s the actual mechanic?

A death spiral example is like losing points in an ability score like Strength, which causes you to fail more rolls (not hit, not do enough damage), which causes you to lose more ability score points until you die.

What is an example of this death curve?

 

[Xervous]

The given definition feels rather vague and doesn’t really cover the incentives, decision flow, and norms of the system.

Accumulating temporary penalties encourage players to avoid risky scenes when they are not at full strength. Trivial combat is likely to remain trivial unless the penalties are rather large or there’s enough swinginess in the dice for players to be wary of sudden death when already injured. The degree to which a system allows the players to easily retreat affects how they will pick/avoid fights. This implementation is generally a pacing mechanic.

More permanent penalties, especially those that are primarily felt beyond the scope of the immediate scene, instead ask the players how much they value the outcome of the scene relative to how much they value the continued intact existence of their character. The given example with the Gondor warrior features a character that’s probably retiring from the narrative after that scene, but the character remains relevant through the scene. In other words, players get to risk/spend the character in part or in whole to influence scenes beyond what the world suggests is the expected outcome.

Both of these examples guide player decision making and establish patterns of play. It’s best to look at this from a problem statement rather than hoisting up a specific solution to an open ended question. Quite simply “how do you want the players to interact with injury and what systems can you put in place to encourage that behavior?”

A given system is best judged by its fitness for satisfying a stated design goal. Death spiral satisfies verisimilitude and pacing, “vote with character’s life” enables narrative patterns that are desirable for producing scenes like the aforementioned Gondor warrior.

 

[AnotherGuy]

We have such a system in place where the players decide how their characters are injured...you're still unconscious at 0 hit points but you have alternatives to your character just losing hit points every time they take damage. And as a GM I don't hold my punches.

 

[Mannahnin]

Some games don't buy into this dichotomy, introducing stages of injury, and that's when the "death spiral" arguments kick up: if a character gets weaker as she runs out of hit points, the only outcome is spiraling into death. I've suggested that this is not the case, that there is a "death tree" that presents many branches of outcomes, only one of which is character death. But trees are complex, and they need nutrients/ideas to help them grow. Is there a spiral alternative that's simple, but doesn't force a character down the spiral? Can an injured character below full HP continue fighting, and win!?

Enter the Death Curve. If you will, picture it as the descending half of a bell curve. It's a useful visual reference for anyone who's looked at the possible outcomes of three or more dice (or who's been to Philadelphia too many times). There are two important aspects of the death curve:

1) It begins by tapering off gently, like the death whirlpool, but unlike the death spinning top.
2) It flattens out at the bottom, postponing zero hit points as long as possible.

I think it's important to recognize that "death spiral" mechanics usually don't GUARANTEE death. It's just that, as you've observed, if you start at 50% (for example) and any injury reduces your odds, that TENDS to result in a spiraling effect, where once you start losing the odds of death/defeat increase and each injury compounds the damage from the last one.

So to some extent a distinction between mechanics which cause a death "spiral" or a death "curve" is inherently ambiguous and nebulous. But I like the way you've articulated your design goals in aiming at a mechanic which consciously aims to make the penalties less arduous and thus stack the odds less against the injured, as a way to find a middle ground between no-penalty HP systems and systems with onerous injury penalties.

 

[Umbran]

So to some extent a distinction between mechanics which cause a death "spiral" or a death "curve" is inherently ambiguous and nebulous.

This. You'd need to be pretty specific to show how what you want is a "curve" and not a "spiral".

 

[LordEntrails]

Well, do NPCs follow the same curve? Cause that could be really tedious.
But yes, I like the idea of a death curve, seems very cinematic and similar to what we see in movies and books.

 

[GMMichael]

What’s the actual mechanic?

A death spiral example is like losing points in an ability score like Strength, which causes you to fail more rolls (not hit, not do enough damage), which causes you to lose more ability score points until you die.

What is an example of this death curve?

Here's an example. In a death spiral, you take Strength damage, which reduces your odds of hitting and reduces damage. One enemy attack (strength damage) has significant effects on your combat ability, which will compound as long as the fight continues. If it were a death curve instead, the first hit might just reduce Strength, without affecting hits or damage. Then things would get worse gradually, like the next hit would reduce Strength and hit odds. The middle of the curve would look pretty bad (the steepest downward slope), but things wouldn't get more hopeless from there, because there'd be a limit to how much combat ability you could lose.

Numenera had something like a death curve. Taking Might damage just means you might (haha) run out of points for Effort. Until you do, and then you enter the steep part of the curve: the Impaired condition. After that, there's the flat part at the bottom of the curve: Debilitated. Here, you're not taking greater and greater combat penalties - you're just getting sat on by the Witch King, until he decides to devour your soul or go see if that Shield Brother is actually a Shield Maiden.

 

[GMMichael]

Well, do NPCs follow the same curve? Cause that could be really tedious.

That's up to the GM. And the game designer. As GM, my NPCs generally choose to flee/submit before they get to the steep part of the curve.