Handling Permanent Injuries

[doctorbadwolf]

This, like many topics of this nature, seems like the kind of thing that should be addressed before the first session. It's not like most games have actual mechanics for dismemberment, so it's something the GM should have in mind as a possibility before they even get started, and that shouldn't be a possibility that they should keep to themselves.

I think this kind of sets an unreasonable standard for session 0. It will not ever cover every thing that could possibly happen in the game and how the table wants to handle it. And it shouldn't.

This is a topic where clear communication during the course of the game is key, not where we shouldn't expect groups to think ofevery thing that could happen and know (sometimes years) ahead of time how they're going to feel about it and thus how they want it handled if it ever comes up.

 

[Lanefan]

"We are off to fight the dragon, for we've heard a rumor that its vast hoard contains that rarest of treasures: a platinum health insurance plan!"
.

"Er...boss? Isn't that kinda doing it backwards? I mean, shouldn't we sign up for the platinum health plan before we fight the dragon?"

 

[Lanefan]

This, like many topics of this nature, seems like the kind of thing that should be addressed before the first session. It's not like most games have actual mechanics for dismemberment,

Most games do, however, have mechanics for combat; and it just seems obvious to me that if your PC gets into combat Bad Things can potentially happen to it including injury*, dismemberment, death, etc. etc.

So obvious, in fact, that it shouldn't even be worth a mention.

I think it's more worthy of note if the game has combat mechanics that don't include possible bad outcomes. For example, if the system is set up such that characters simply cannot die (or whatever), that's worth mentioning up front.

* - even if abstracted e.g. by a hit-point system.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Most games do, however, have mechanics for combat; and it just seems obvious to me that if your PC gets into combat Bad Things can potentially happen to it including injury*, dismemberment, death, etc. etc.

So obvious, in fact, that it shouldn't even be worth a mention.

I think it's more worthy of note if the game has combat mechanics that don't include possible bad outcomes. For example, if the system is set up such that characters simply cannot die (or whatever), that's worth mentioning up front.

* - even if abstracted e.g. by a hit-point system.

Given the number of players I've encountered both in person and online who have the "everything will be fine in the end" mentality, the level of grittiness that dismemberment and disfigurement imply does indeed strike me as something that's worth mentioning. Some people are too attached to their image of their character to being willing to cede control of that image to the GM or random chance. If you know your group and what they are up for, great. If you don't... maybe worth finding out.

Also, the whole "abstracted" aside seems kind of like it's off topic, really. The whole thread is about permanent injury, and anything abstracted can be defined by the player however they choose (up to and including "hit points aren't meat points"), which is kind of the opposite of what we're talking about. If the system doesn't explicitly call for specific, permanent injury, then I'd say it can safely be placed outside of the scope of this topic.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I think this kind of sets an unreasonable standard for session 0. It will not ever cover every thing that could possibly happen in the game and how the table wants to handle it. And it shouldn't.

I think that the topic of how gritty your want to run your game is well within the purview of session 0. Especially if we're talking the very first session 0 with an unfamiliar group.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think that the topic of how gritty your want to run your game is well within the purview of session 0. Especially if we're talking the very first session 0 with an unfamiliar group.

Plus, it is good to have an understanding of your players, all it takes is one disgruntled player to undermine a game and ruin it for everyone else because they did not know that by gritty you meant disfigurement and dismemberment or knowing there are in-game options to counter them. Players form attachments to those character sheets.

Too many players know only the "happy meal" games, where it does not happen.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that the topic of how gritty your want to run your game is well within the purview of session 0. Especially if we're talking the very first session 0 with an unfamiliar group.

That isn’t the same thing as whether permanent injury is possible. Star Wars is far from gritty.

And the point, again, is that not every single thing will be covered in a session 0. Better to also encourage clear and honest communication and a willingness to change course during the campaign,

 

[RuinousPowers]

I don't see much point in adding disfigurement and dismemberment to a game, then adding magical fixes. It cheapens the effect of the injury and just makes it a "combat tax".

If I were to use such a system, I would use it in a system where combat is somewhat infrequent and the injuries would have some more lasting impact. Adding in magical replacement hands just seems like adding a new "magic item slot". Just like players shouldn't be looking to "power up" through vampirism or lycanthropy, I don't want them thinking losing their hands is simply part of character advancement.