Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5626401" data-attributes="member: 4892">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 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? 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.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." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />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.</blockquote>

Verification