First rule I don't like

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not especially fond of this rule myself, to be honest.

I understand why they did it. It's mechanically sound. After all, PCs don't die when they reach 0. The fact that most monsters and NPCs do is an abstraction. So there's no reason why PCs shouldn't be able to "save" a fallen foe before they "bleed out."

My objection to the rule isn't mechanical. It's pure feel. It feels wrong to be able, as someone else said, "subdue with a crossbow." Even though I know intellectually that's not what they're doing--as I said, they're putting the foe down and then keeping him alive--it still grates on a purely gut level for me.

I doubt I'll house-rule it, simply because I can justify it, and I don't want to add any extra complexity back in just yet. But I can understand the people who aren't on board with this one.

 

[Heselbine]

OK, whatever, I'm not going to get embroiled in an argument.

 

[Sashi]

My objection to the rule isn't mechanical. It's pure feel. It feels wrong to be able, as someone else said, "subdue with a crossbow." Even though I know intellectually that's not what they're doing--as I said, they're putting the foe down and then keeping him alive--it still grates on a purely gut level for me.

D&D seems to be stealing a lot from Feng Shui. One of the rules in Feng Shui is that all of your characters are such supreme badasses that they only kill when they want to. Even with a shotgun to the face.

That's the way I'll be explaining it for D&D, as well.

 

[theNater]

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

Sweet! I'm in!

Now I don't have to worry about losing fights because I rolled a string of ones, and my hero can pick which of his enemies he kills and which he spares, rather than having the dice do it for him!

 

[GnomeWorks]

Sweet! I'm in!

Now I don't have to worry about losing fights because I rolled a string of ones, and my hero can pick which of his enemies he kills and which he spares, rather than having the dice do it for him!

And after about five minutes of that, apathy comes in, takes your seat, and starts building towers out of your dice.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And after about five minutes of that, apathy comes in, takes your seat, and starts building towers out of your dice.

Yep, that's why you need a balance between randomness and predictability. Too much randomness and it sucks...too much predictability and it sucks.

I think this is one of those places where randomness added very little to the game and where the new rule eliminates a bunch of hassle without removing much, if any benefit.

 

[Ecaiki]

It could also be taken as "the super hero rule", and by that I mean how often does Superman, Batman, or any of them actually outright kill someone? This way you only knock them out, I mean as far as the game is concerned they are no longer a threat right? So it doesn't matter if they are dead or unconscious just as long as they aren't attacking you anymore.

It's always been a pet hate of mine that I had to take a million special feats to not kill someone, because apparently my character lacks any self control.

This also opens up the possibility for characters that don't like to take lives to actually use every power they have without feeling like a mass murderer or having to RP hand wave it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And after about five minutes of that, apathy comes in, takes your seat, and starts building towers out of your dice.

Ah, so that's why we don't do it! Now I get it!

My problem with your previous post was that you're were posting an extreme that no body claimed to want. Nobody claimed that anyone not liking the rule would want to have hit & armor locations, trauma rollsrules and a wound infection subsystem.
Hyperbole is used way too often.

Personally, I like the rule for melee weapons, and I will probably demand of players to decide early on whether they want to kill or subdue. (Maybe the moment they have a foe "bloodied").

 

[hong]

How do you subdue someone with a crossbow bolt?

I hope the rule isn't as stupid as it sounds in the OP's paraphrase. Or else it's getting nixed.

In my last game, I operationalised 0 hp as "defeated". The person doing the defeating could translate that into in-game outcomes however they liked, the options including killed, knocked out, disarmed or surrendered. The default outcome was killed, but anything was possible as long as you could find a plausible description, and it was clear that the defeated person was no longer a threat and unlikely to become a threat in the near future. (This is D&D you know, even death is a minor inconvenience.) As DM I also reserved the right to "take over the director's seat", and rule that a particular outcome happened; but that was pretty rare. It's just DM's prerogative.

One fight I remember well was against a crime boss and her gang of bodyguards -- think O-Ren and the Crazy 88. The party didn't want to kill her, but send a message to her higher-ups. The attack that dropped her to 0 hp was in fact done by a rogue with a crossbow; I ruled that the shot blew out her kneecap, leaving her a screaming heap on the ground.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In my last game, I operationalised 0 hp as "defeated". The person doing the defeating could translate that into in-game outcomes however they liked, the options including killed, knocked out, disarmed or surrendered.

Reminds me of "Player's Call" in Torg. I don't think it was an option for weapon attacks, but it was definitely one for other type of attacks (taunt, intimidate, test of wills, maneuver, trick).