Does the Death Curve Beat the Death Spiral?

[Fanaelialae]

IMO, it sounds like a death curve is functionally just a death spiral that's graded. It's still a death spiral though.

Personally, I don't much care for death spirals. They disincentivize players from engaging with the combat system, the closer the character is to death (HP already does this, but death spirals add a significant additional incentive to avoid dangerous situations if you're at or near the threshold to begin spiraling). I would much rather see a system that changes how players engage with combat as their characters approach death, rather than acting entirely as a disincentive. I'll refer to this as a Death Balance mechanic (despite it sounding like a butter substitute that gives you high cholesterol).

A simplistic death spiral mechanic might be that you suffer -10 movement and disadvantage on all rolls, once you hit 50% HP. This makes it more likely that such a character will die, since the movement penalty makes it more difficult to withdraw, and disadvantage makes it more difficult to win.

A death balance mechanic could be implemented in numerous ways.

For example, say that you want to encourage players to run away when low on health. A simplistic approach, based on the sample death spiral above, would be upon reaching 50% HP the character gains +10 movement, but has disadvantage on all rolls except those related to escaping combat. (Explain it as adrenaline, or however you prefer.)

Alternately, you could come up with multiple such mechanics, and let the player choose the one they feel applies best to their character. For example, the fighter might decide that his character goes on the defensive, suffering disadvantage on attacks, but enemies also suffer disadvantage to attack him. Whereas the barbarian chooses to deal double damage, but suffers double damage in return.

 

[GMMichael]

IMO, it sounds like a death curve is functionally just a death spiral that's graded. It's still a death spiral though.

Sure. It's like a death spiral with a soft landing. And emphasis on a gradual beginning.

Personally, I don't much care for death spirals. They disincentivize players from engaging with the combat system, the closer the character is to death (HP already does this, but death spirals add a significant additional incentive to avoid dangerous situations if you're at or near the threshold to begin spiraling).

That's sort of an historical thing, though. If you get your butt kicked, it's time to flee or submit. Unless you're a pro wrestler, in which case you just breathe heavily until all your energy comes back.

I would much rather see a system that changes how players engage with combat as their characters approach death, rather than acting entirely as a disincentive. I'll refer to this as a Death Balance mechanic (despite it sounding like a butter substitute that gives you high cholesterol).

I would much rather the dang cleric cast some healing on me instead of trying to be a front-line hero. But yeah, Death Balance could be fun. Even if it increases one's risk of ghast encounters.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Similar experiences. I've only met a few games where the curve was not a steady spiral...
CP 2013 comes to mind, but CORPS is better at it.
CORPS' penalties are super severe, but they don't inherently cripple and they don't cumulate much.
The damage from a given wound isn't from a pool of hit points; it's a penalty to the location. A second hit, does not directly cumulate. The highest hit in the location is the base, and 1 point per additional wound. Each heals separately, so they last a while. But the various locations don't have full effect. An arm impairment is halved for torso tasks, a torso impairment for any limb or the head... Biggest one on the task to stay alive...
I prefer the open honesty of the spiral, as the stairstep of CORPS just feels like punishment.
straight HP is less fun for me.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. It's like a death spiral with a soft landing. And emphasis on a gradual beginning.

So, I foresee a gameplay issue in this.

The difference between a "spiral" and a "curve" is really in how tight the curve is - so how stiff the penalties are.

And therin lies the problem, which lies in human perception - if the curve is too steep, it is a death spiral. If it is not steep enough, it isn't really perceptible, and is discounted by the player.

The concept here relies on there actually being a middle ground, in which the player cares about the penalties enough to impact play, but it not being a death spiral. It also requires that the character actually lingers in this shallow-curve region long enough to matter on decisions.

I don't know if that middle ground actually exists.

 

[dbm]

EABA v2 has an interesting take on this. When you get to a certain level of injury you do take a penalty to skills. But that penalty also applies to the damage you take. The concept is that, once you are a certain level of beaten up, then more scratches aren’t going to make a difference. This sort of achieves the effect you are describing, @GMMichael as it becomes somewhat harder to wear characters down further as they get injured and it is hard to ‘nickel and dime’ people to death.

EABA v2 is a very interesting simulationist and genre-flexible system, but I’ve never managed to get it to the table as it needs even more prep from a GM than GURPS does since it doesn’t have as many supporting materials to draw from.

 

[aramis erak]

EABA v2 has an interesting take on this. When you get to a certain level of injury you do take a penalty to skills. But that penalty also applies to the damage you take. The concept is that, once you are a certain level of beaten up, then more scratches aren’t going to make a difference. This sort of achieves the effect you are describing, @GMMichael as it becomes somewhat harder to wear characters down further as they get injured and it is hard to ‘nickel and dime’ people to death.

EABA v1 also has that.
Note: I was a playtester on v1 and v2. I dropped out of the v2 playtest due to the variable time combat rounds; I haven't checked my copy of v2 release.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

What I want to see are combat systems that make it easy for the whole party to retreat and that provide a clear signal when it's time to do so.

The usual PC ethos includes "no one gets left behind," which is a fine thing except for the way the usual combat rules combine with it to produce a "Victory or death! Every combat is a Last Stand." setup.

Even with scummy NPCs and monsters willing to leave their dead and wounded behind, GMs often need a reminder to have survivors retreat. To expect PCs to leave their dead and wounded behind produces a game that's more grimdark than I care to either run or play in. With the usual combat systems out there, this turns nearly all combat encounters into Last Stands, either for the NPCs/monsters or for the player characters.

 

[Cergorach]

Something like Shadowrun had a death spiral mechanic, where you get more penalties as you get damaged (physically and mentally).

Something like D&D (5e 2024) might have hit points, but there are so many other factors that influence those hit points. Besides being to heal hit points (during combat), often such abilities have limited uses, as do the ability to do damage, either by ability or spell. So hit points is part of the economy, but the abilities, spells, items, etc. are also part of the whole resource economy that is D&D. When players lack the resources (all abilities and spells have been exhausted), the damage output goes down drastically, leaving opponents alive longer, giving them the ability to do more damage and kill the PCs. Then we have the system where there's a large discrepancy between getting hit and not getting hit, not getting hit means no loss of hit points. When a group of players take the right combination of feats/abilities they can avoid getting hit quite a bit, killing opponents far above what D&D normally finds 'acceptable'. So with this resource economy D&D has, it's not as simple as just hit points alive or death, there obviously comes a point when resources are exhausted and this suddenly become a LOT more tricky.

 

[dbm]

What I want to see are combat systems that make it easy for the whole party to retreat and that provide a clear signal when it's time to do so.

Maybe not so much on the ’clear signal’ aspect but Fate has the concept of a concession which would fit the ’retreat’ aspect nicely. When a player concedes, they are taken out of the scene but somewhat on their own terms - they get input into what that form takes (they also get Fate points as a consolation, too). So you could that mechanism to flee a fight with GM agreement, leaving the enemies in a ‘winning’ position. Adopting a table rule about using concession to flee combat should be fairly easy to agree ahead of time.

 

[Rabulias]

The difference between a "spiral" and a "curve" is really in how tight the curve is - so how stiff the penalties are.

And therin lies the problem, which lies in human perception - if the curve is too steep, it is a death spiral. If it is not steep enough, it isn't really perceptible, and is discounted by the player.

The concept here relies on there actually being a middle ground, in which the player cares about the penalties enough to impact play, but it not being a death spiral. It also requires that the character actually lingers in this shallow-curve region long enough to matter on decisions.

I don't know if that middle ground actually exists.

Your remarks bring to mind the difficult task of getting something to orbit a planet. Too steep of an approach and you burn up or slam into the planet. Too shallow of an approach and you bounce off the atmosphere and head off who know where. The successful angle exists but is very difficult to achieve.