First rule I don't like

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

"Ok, we need information!"

"...Oops."

You kidding? You gain a TON of stuff from capturing someone. Information, a hostage, potential leeway later on...there's a long list here. Quite frankly, if you don't see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why would you want to do it in the first place?

This is a wee bit monstrous on the second point and on the first point there are at least as many disadvantages to keeping a captive.

 

[theNater]

Quite frankly, if you don't see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why would you want to do it in the first place?

If you do see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why are you so emphatic about making it harder on yourself?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If you do see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why are you so emphatic about making it harder on yourself?

BECAUSE it's important?

 

[GnomeWorks]

If you do see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why are you so emphatic about making it harder on yourself?

Stop rolling dice. You always hit and deal max damage.

 

[Heselbine]

Lots of argument over something which is common sense.

If it's fun to be able to choose whether something is dead or unconscious, let the players choose.

If it's more fun because it adds better to the story to have the baddie die after gurgling half of his dying speech, do that.

If it's more fun to have all the baddies die, have all the baddies die no matter what the players do.

 

[SableWyvern]

If you do see the mechanical benefits of subduing someone, why are you so emphatic about making it harder on yourself?

So ... nothing of benefit to the PCs should be difficult to achieve ... sounds like a fun game.

 

[SableWyvern]

Lots of argument over something which is common sense.

If it's fun to be able to choose whether something is dead or unconscious, let the players choose.

If it's more fun because it adds better to the story to have the baddie die after gurgling half of his dying speech, do that.

If it's more fun to have all the baddies die, have all the baddies die no matter what the players do.

For my players, fun outcomes are generally those least influenced by obvious GM or player fiat. Unfortunately, all your options are based entirely upon those

 

[Heselbine]

Thanks for criticising my game. My players seem to have a fun time, so I'll value their opinion over yours.

 

[Sashi]

Subdual damage is out because it was just one more unnecessary subsystem of the rules that was capable of becoming unbalanced (Merciful Vicious Greatswords, anyone?)

Remember that in 3.5 you could shove a sword through their kidneys until they were at 5 HP, then punch them twice and they'd be unconscious and sleeping like a babe.

I like the houserule where you declare that you're trying to send them unconscious with your blow, and if it doesn't drop them you deal -5 damage, though.

 

[SableWyvern]

Thanks for criticising my game. My players seem to have a fun time, so I'll value their opinion over yours.

Umm ... how do you read "For my players" and turn that into "In Heselbine's game"?

You claimed that your resolution to the issue was the common sense one. I pointed out that my players see things differently. One of us was referring specifically to his own game, while the other seemed to speaking for all games in general. And guess what? My comment wasn't the general one.