"He's beyond my healing ability..."

[Kannon]

That is a pretty neat summary of the distinction, I like it. And it works, story-wise. You can shrug off getting thrown into a wall hard enough to crack it because you're a hero, you're special. This poor sucker didn't have a chance. (I've found it also makes the players a bit more aware of the world around them, and less likely to throw down in the middle of a crowded market, which is fun.)

In my campaign, I tend towards treating Elites as player-equivalent. So they can make use of surge powers, have and gain action points, get the benefit of player-specific houserules and rules interpretation, and so on. Other monsters/NPCs don't even _have_ healing surges. So unless you have a handy source of surgeless healing you'd like to burn, they're out of luck. (Solos have healing surges, and AP, but I don't track them because by the math of being equivalent to a party of 5, they'd have a LOT. But that comes up far less often. Outside of corner cases, what's the fun of a boss monster being an ally?)

I have had a paladin use Lay on Hands to heal a dying common NPC, before. Which messed with my plans a little bit, but it was an awesome bit of roleplaying, so totally worth it.

 

[pemerton]

From what I can tell, the damage from powers in 4e is pretty explicitly spelled out as "deep bleeding gashes", "drawing blood", "cracking skulls", "your enemy suffers bleeding wounds", etc. etc. which are in turn "healed" by clerical healing, surges, warlords shouting encouragement, etc. etc.

Well, my impression is that PCs inflict "deep bleeding gashes", "crack skulls" et al, but PCs suffer what turn out to be only relatively minor, unspecified injuries - unless the PC actually dies, of course.

Just adding to what S'mon said - which I think is 100% correct - PCs can also inflict hit point damage on their enemies by underming their morale using Bluff, Intimidate etc (as per the module in the MV boxed set - is it Cairn of the Winter King?). And monsters, equally, can inflict psychic damage by being scary (eg the Wight power horrific visage).

And an implication of the rules, which I've not seen spelled out yet, is that use of Diplomacy should be able to restore hit points (a few encouraging words from a friend).

My only problem with the RAW 3.X condition track is that its not aggressive enough in its implementation.

<snip>

I've had several scenes this game where the PC was 'bleeding out' (as my players call it) and circumstances required that they remain conscious for several rounds in order to survive, and many situations where characters were hoping to self-stablize or characters were scrambling to apply a tourniquet to a wound. I've also had situations where multiple characters were staggering out of the 'dungeon' with negative hit points. And I've had several bad guys bleeding out, who hurl a few dying invectives at the party.

No need for fiat or for forcing a predetermined outcome. Interesting things have just happened 'naturally' and in some cases far more interesting things than I would have invented on my own.

Rolemaster and Runequest play in this sort of fashion. Without revision, I don't think D&D does (although 1st ed AD&D, with its "death's door" rules and comparitively reduced damage ranges meaning that those rules are more likely to come into play, can sometimes come close).

I have a problem with 'the rules are suspended until the DM achieves the result he wants'.

Fair enough, but who is doing that? In 4e, a wound that cannot be healed simply by the restoration of hit points doesn't require bending the rules. (I'm not sure it does in earlier editions either, but this is a 4e game, and in 4e the issue is more clear cut.) It just requires the GM stipulating a certain state of affairs that could not have been arrived at by application of the action resolution mechanics.

If I had foreseen the need to suspend the rules because of some edge case, I probably would have patched the rules ahead of time.

Fair enough, but the only rules patching required here is to decide what sort of magic (if any) can heal the injury in question. Which is not even going to be relevant for a low(-ish) level party in 4e. (I've noted that in my own game, Remove Afflication would do the job, as would any of the paragon-tier powers that allow bringing someone back from death or dying.)

Likewise, I think the attitude exhibited by some that PC's expending considerable resources to thwart the DM's plan that the NPC die is the PC's playing badly and acting like jerks is not a very productive attitude for a DM to have.

Agreed also. But I'm not sure who you actually have in your sights here.

I tend to notice a bit of bleeding as the PCs begin exploration, so it's not necessarily true that there's an off-on switch where you jump from scene framing to playing the game immediately. That's certainly possible, but I've noticed exploration mode in particular it takes a bit for the PCs to warm up to interacting.

I'd be curious to hear you chime in on this [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]? You seem to have a stronger grasp of scene framing than me.

I agree that the boundaries can be blurry - particularly if you're playing with a fairly laid back group in a relaxed environment. I mean, as you (as GM) are speaking your description of the situation, the players can always interject and kibbitz - but how (if at all) this is to be translated into movements within the action resolution mechanics can be a pretty flexible and fluid thing. (For example, if there is something that would be obviously relevant to the PCs' actions, and you just haven't got to it yet, it would be pretty hardcore play to say that a player was bound by an action declaration made eagerly and in ignorance of the as-yet-undescribed-but-highly-relevant-feature.)

Generally, if I'm describing a situation, and mentioning how the PCs are located in it (eg "As you walk up to the city gate, you notice that . . .), and the players make it clear that they want their PCs to act, I will put the players on hold, describe the rest of the scene so that they have full information, and then let them act. That is, if I'm trying to frame something fairly hard, and my players make it clear that they don't want it so hard, I'll pull back.

My reason for sometimes framing hard is to keep the game moving. My reason for pulling back if the players want to act is to let them play the game. But if the sorts of actions they want to perform are precisely those that I was hoping to avoid via harder framing (eg they want to do a lot of searching in an environment where I know there is nothing to be found) I will tend to resolve the action fairly quickly and decisively (eg if there is nothing to be found, I will let them know without playing through a whole lot of Perception checks).

In the case of the dying NPC, I would generally expect the PCs to rush to his/her side, attempt to heal, and so on, but having determined in advance that simple hit point restoration is not going to be enough for the injury in question, I would be ready to indicate that to the players in pretty clear terms. (And as S'mon noted above, would describe the injuries in a way that makes this seem unsurprising to the players.)

As an aside, I was talking about this situation with one of my players before yesterdays game. (I find this particular player a distinctive sounding board, because he has a lot of board game experience, but has only played RPGs in the Rolemaster and 4e games that I GM.) He had two responses, which echoed what a lot of posts here have said: first, that the rules are meant to facilitate rather than constrain, and so if a scene is conceivable in principle then the game should be able to accomodate it; second, that the GM could easily contrive a situation in which healing magic doesn't work (his particular suggestion was a stain of shadow on the soul that is draining away the NPCs life force).

When I suggested that not all injuries are healable by hit point damage he agreed - a severed limb was the example he mentioned - but I find it interesting that his first move was within the fiction - he though of a magical explanation - rather than at the metalevel of thinking about the function and limits of the action resolution mechanics.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My only problem with the RAW 3.X condition track is that its not aggressive enough in its implementation. No need for fiat or for forcing a predetermined outcome. Interesting things have just happened 'naturally' and in some cases far more interesting things than I would have invented on my own.

Your houserules improve upon the limitations of the system. I did not include staggered in my three general game states because by RAW it is such a ridiculous sliver of health.

I've always liked the flexibility of D&D to use rule-based mechanics and DM fiat to get the feel you're going for. I would enjoy your methodology as a player, just as my players enjoyed the framed scene of a dying man's words. [I mentioned this thread to them on Friday and got a fully positive response when I thought it would be more of a 'tolerated' response from one or two of them.]

I don't necessarily either. I have an actual inflictable condition 'Gaping Chest Wound' that prevents healing with either a Cure Light or Cure Minor, but technically, you could be conscious and dying for days after getting one if you were really lucky with your stablization checks and consciousness saving throws. (Or you could have the 'Hard to Kill' trait, which would mean you'd need a lot less luck.)

I was just thinking that if I were to use this trope again I might create such a condition. I don't think I'd tie it to saving throws though. Extreme luck or near-guaranteed success at achieving an unrealisticly long (to me) evisceration would make the tone a bit silly, IMO. But I could see the state as -1 hit point per round. Healing would restore hit points, but not remove the condition. Depending on the edition and situation would the players want to expend resources on an inevitably dead man? Would the healer want to extend the man's suffering just to keep him around a little longer?

The RAW does not explicitly provide for missing intestines, but its doesn't explicitly forbid them either; what is not forbidden is permitted.

I have no problem with anyone's adhereance to RAW or uses of the existing rules for house rules. You have some great ideas there. But too many are dismissing that some DMs would rather cut to the chase and not add such complexity to their game. A rare case of someone at [negative whatever it takes to die in your edition of choice] gasping out a "Rosebud" works for some us as DMs and the players that enjoy their games.

It's not necessarily with the scene set up that I have a problem. It's with the cut scene like nature of the scene and the heavy reliance on defensive DM fiat suggested by some posters (not necessarily you, I'd have have to back and read who said what) to ensure that the scene played out in the intended manner no matter what the PC's did. I have a problem with 'the rules are suspended until the DM achieves the result he wants'.

DMs create worlds where they've wiped out whole civilizations without player input. They've built massive organizations without players having the chance to stop them in their formative years. Wars have been fought. Gods may have been killed. But one guy gasps a dying breath and it destroys all credibility the DM has. The same could be achieved by finding a dead man slumped over a desk with a half written note, but if he's a death's door and using his dying breath to convey the message you're a "Bad DM."

Likewise, I think the attitude exhibited by some that PC's expending considerable resources to thwart the DM's plan that the NPC die is the PC's playing badly and acting like jerks is not a very productive attitude for a DM to have. I'm sure some groups are happy with it, but in general its not very artful DMing IMO.

I wouldn't have an issue with PCs expending resources and trying to solve the issue. But, I'm very upfront about the way things work in my games, as you are with your codified house rules. My "dead but speaking last words" house rule is not codified. You won't find it written down anywhere. But my players can tell you exactly what my outlook is regarding hit points and injuries. The only time I would think a player to be a jerk is if he sits at my table and acts like a jerk because he doesn't agree with my outlook. Just as I'm sure you would feel the same if someone acted that way towards your houserules. But the key would be them acting like a jerk over it. I've found the vast majority of players to be accepting and respectful when playing in each DM's game. My players sometimes run and have their own outlooks and houserules. I always accept their rulings with respect, maybe after a bit of discussion if I am unclear on the rule or disagree. But even in disagreement I'd never act like a jerk.

I did have one player join our group that did not share the group's outlook on PvP situations. We play a heroic team game and I tried to dissaude him from causing a breach in the table ettiquette. We couldn't resolve that issue without him acting like a jerk, upset that he wasn't 'allowed' to attempt to kill the whole party. No one was sad when he was asked to leave.

 

[prosfilaes]

DMs create worlds where they've wiped out whole civilizations without player input. They've built massive organizations without players having the chance to stop them in their formative years. Wars have been fought. Gods may have been killed. But one guy gasps a dying breath and it destroys all credibility the DM has.

Turns out that players show up to play, not to listen to the DM tell stories. Funny that.

 

[Hussar]

DMs create worlds where they've wiped out whole civilizations without player input. They've built massive organizations without players having the chance to stop them in their formative years. Wars have been fought. Gods may have been killed. But one guy gasps a dying breath and it destroys all credibility the DM has. The same could be achieved by finding a dead man slumped over a desk with a half written note, but if he's a death's door and using his dying breath to convey the message you're a "Bad DM."

You've repeated this a couple of times VB, and I'd point something out. No one is saying you're a "Bad DM" for doing this. Although, to be fair, the praise for doing something like this has been pretty faint.

What has been said, is that doing this is a bad idea. The reasons why this is a bad idea have been elucidated numerous times in the thread, so I'll not repeat them here. Not that the idea is 100% bad, mind you, if it was, then this thread would be a LOT shorter.

But, this idea is, in my mind at least, in the same category as doing labryinths in D&D. They seem like such a fantastic idea on paper, but, at the table, they do nothing but cause headaches and frustration and never, ever work out as cool as they seem they should.

Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Actually, if I've set up a situation that poorly, I deserve what I get when the NPC gets healed.

No one is saying you're a "Bad DM" for doing this.

Not a "Bad DM" in a general sense, but in the particular situation.

What has been said, is that doing this is a bad idea. The reasons why this is a bad idea have been elucidated numerous times in the thread, so I'll not repeat them here. Not that the idea is 100% bad, mind you, if it was, then this thread would be a LOT shorter.

The reason I think this thread has gone so long is because we are past the original topic. I surely wouldn't continue discussing a trope that I find cliched and have limited my own use of over the years. What the argument really seems to boil down to is that as DM one should be trusted to bend the rules to fit their game. While another camp seems to think that this kind of behavior shatters the entire system (or at least puts a minor bug in their bonnet). I'm certainly thankful for the tightening of the rules over the years to cover frequent situations, but I don't like the thought that any DM would be considered 'poor' or 'ham-fisted' when they make corner cases in an attempt to make a better experience for their players.

Turns out that players show up to play, not to listen to the DM tell stories. Funny that.

A couple of the many joys of being a DM is world building and story crafting. Without those two elements there is no game for the players to play. So give your DM a break if he tries an old cliche when crafting the setup to a story. If you don't like it I've already agreed the DM shouldn't do it again. But if you play along with the DM, instead of trying to find all the plot holes and cliches and bash him for it, you may have more fun. Then again, maybe some people here are the tye that annoy freinds and family to the point that they don't want to watch movies and TV with them because all they want to do is scoff at the plot while loudly pointing it out to all involved.

 

[Hussar]

There is the flip side to that VB that if you cannot take any criticism, then perhaps creative endeavors are not for you. If the DM is chucking out hackneyed plot points and, when his hackneyed plot point gets upset by a relatively simple and rather obvious player choice, instead of giving up his hackneyed plot point, he sticks to his guns and starts playing silly buggers with the rules, perhaps, just perhaps, instead he or she should try listening to the players. It might make this DM a better DM in the future.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If the DM is chucking out hackneyed plot points and, when his hackneyed plot point gets upset by a relatively simple and rather obvious player choice, instead of giving up his hackneyed plot point, he sticks to his guns and starts playing silly buggers with the rules, perhaps, just perhaps, instead he or she should try listening to the players. It might make this DM a better DM in the future.

You're assuming that his player is arguing the ruling he made though. There's just as much of a chance that when VB said "with his dying words, at this point, beyond all healing, he said X"... that his player went along with it.

If the player accepted it, then there's no problem, and his DMing skills are just fine.

Just because some people think they should put up a stink that the DM is creating this one ruling in order to use a "hackneyed plot point" in order to get around a "rather obvious player choice"... doesn't mean that is true for every player, and thus its use cannot be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Janx]

But, this idea is, in my mind at least, in the same category as doing labryinths in D&D. They seem like such a fantastic idea on paper, but, at the table, they do nothing but cause headaches and frustration and never, ever work out as cool as they seem they should.

Obviously, YMMV.

I think there's an order of magnitude difference.

A badly run dungeon maze adds hours of tedium and boredom. At least that's what i find is wrong with labryinths.

A last words scene takes 5 minutes, unless an argument breaks out about whether the cleric can heal him.

IF a GM were to set the scene with an NPC that is going to die and spout some last words, and he doesn't want to get into a lot of "why can't I heal him", it'd probably be a good idea to describe him as "being too far gone for even healing magic to save" or some such. It at least sets up the state that in this game, some wounds are beyond simple HP recovery rules. I would do so, to spare the player wasting spells on it (adding to their frustration).

And it doesn't get into the details or require planning out complex or special injuries.

Despite that, a GM who has FORGOTTEN that the PCs could try to save the NPC, should learn to roll with things when the players try the unthinkable. The lesson may be this:
when the players do something you did not anticipate and it would dramtically change what you thought would happen, your pennance is to let them succeed and benefit from their clever idea.

Because even if they accept the "can't heal him because he's too far gone", then 5 minutes after, they will try to Speak with Dead on him. 10 minutes later, they'll try to Ressurect him. You can't block all of those, as that's just too much. To be fair, one of those should work (if not 2 of them).

 

[Umbran]

I'm certainly thankful for the tightening of the rules over the years to cover frequent situations, but I don't like the thought that any DM would be considered 'poor' or 'ham-fisted' when they make corner cases in an attempt to make a better experience for their players.

I think we tend to forget that the proof is in the pudding.

There is a great tendency around here to critique GM calls based on the bad results that might, or could, happen. And, nearly invariably, the argument is that the unfortunate results are nigh certain to happen, and those things that are bad are downright ruinous things that will destroy your game. Even if we don't say that explicitly, we beat the dead horse so vigorously, that this is the implication - if it weren't ruinous, why pursue the issue with such vehemence?

What matters in the end are not theoretical potentialities, but what actually happens for your people. Most faux pas are recoverable, with a little discussion. Anecdotally, I've seen surprisingly few stories here about games that have completely disintegrated based upon one less-than-favorite GM action. If it doesn't concern a PC's death, your players will generally get over individual instances quickly.

You have to be wary of habits that clash with player desires, but GMs should be free to experiment a little bit, without fear that their table will burst into flames should they make one individual call the players aren't thrilled with.