D&D General Hit Points are a great mechanic

[Argyle King]

Depends on the hostage of course but if someone has a knife to someone's throat in my game I use a variation of 3e's coupe de grace. The hostage is considered unconscious which means that the attack has advantage and is automatic critical. In addition in my game if they survive that it's a fortitude save equal to the damage dealt (up to 20).

Even it's a common trope in TV shows and movies to have the bad guy with the gun to the head of a hostage of one of the protagonists telling the other protagonist to drop their gun or they'll shoot (something no one with any training would ever do by the way). The two protagonists look at each other and the captive does something unexpected and gets away with minimal injuries or the other protagonist shoots anyway ... it happens all the time. D&D is emulating fiction, not reality.

Sure, but that fiction needs some sense of danger to be meaningful. If our lived reality was that a bullet to the skull of a hostage or a slit throat were a regularly survivable thing, that trope of fiction wouldn't be very effective.

In other threads, I've used professional wrestling as an example. I think what I've said in those threads also applies here: even if I'm familiar with the tropes and know how things generally play out, I still need some semblance of being able to buy into the threat being real.

After a certain point you aren't going to survive a fall in my game either.

I think I agree with how you handle that.

It's a death spiral and simplicity thing to me. You may have found victory in spite of injury in an encounter. PCs put their life on the line constantly, a death spiral would be deadly and wouldn't work for the game. In addition there are plenty of stories of people continuing to fight despite serious injury, adrenaline is a hell of a drug.

Admittedly my first two are house rules but that's part of the appeal of the game. They are really minor tweaks that make the game work for me.

Agreed on the adrenaline thing.

 

[AlViking]

Sometimes I'm playing Fate with people from my hema gym and we grind combat to a literal crawl by very granularly modeling it, and arguing about interpretations of fencing manuscripts.

Is it bad for storytelling pacing? Yeah it is. Is it fun? Oh hell yeah it is fun.

Then it's fantastic that the game and the option exists for you. I would be bored to tears.

 

[BrokenTwin]

That is an interesting point. Some sort of "combo point" or "progress bar" system in which you fill it with weaker attacks and can then spend it for more powerful attacks is very common (though almost always alongside the HP) but I can't ever recall seeing something like that in a tabletop RPG. I wonder why? It would solve the issue of the PCs novaing first with the most powerful abilities and then boringly whittling away the enemies with weaker ones with lesser attacks.

I know a few rpgs that use that mechanic (like Mythenders), but none of them have ever broken into the hobby's public perception.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I actually still disagree. I don't believe that intentionally (because we're doing it like a director yells "cut!") slowing the pace for technical reasons ever aids immersion.

Slowing the pace of the storytelling, like how a slow-burn dialogue-heavy thriller does it, isn't the same as saying, "Hold on, gang, while I pull out my trusty Slashing Wounds Table!" -- there's nothing immersive within the storytelling about that. It may be mechanically interesting and amusing as the group pauses to wait and see, but it has little to do with actual roleplay. That's a boardgame mechanic, IMO.

Maybe it's just a personal preference thing, but I loathe things that force me or my players to stop painting word pictures to refer to a book to determine an outcome. Some of that is inherently necessary, but it's a truly slippery slope. Rules are both a blessing and a curse to roleplaying.

It absolutely is a personal preference thing. Please don't tell me how I feel and what helps me with immersion.

 

[Piperken]

...Maybe it's just a personal preference thing, but I loathe things that force me or my players to stop painting word pictures to refer to a book to determine an outcome. Some of that is inherently necessary, but it's a truly slippery slope. Rules are both a blessing and a curse to roleplaying...

Table running anxiety suddenly increases upon reading this...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sometimes I'm playing Fate with people from my hema gym and we grind combat to a literal crawl by very granularly modeling it, and arguing about interpretations of fencing manuscripts.

Is it bad for storytelling pacing? Yeah it is. Is it fun? Oh hell yeah it is fun.

Also worth noting that immersion and storytelling pacing are not the same thing, nor should telling a story be assumed as the primary purpose of RPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I appreciate the attempt to be diplomatic...but I still think there are certain truths to it. Saying it differs from table to table and player to player might be overstating it. Yes, one's appetite for complexity differs, but there comes a point where an RPG becomes so complex that it's no longer accurate to even refer to it as a roleplaying game. Make it complex enough and it becomes a documentary or a boardgame.

That point varies so much between groups and players that discussion of it in general terms seems to lack value to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What helps/hurts immersive roleplaying for you, personally.

Fair enough. I won't debate what is/isn't fun for different people. You do you. I'm only speaking for what helps/hurts immersive roleplaying, IMO.

 

[kermit4karate]

Sure, but that fiction needs some sense of danger to be meaningful. If our lived reality was that a bullet to the skull of a hostage or a slit throat were a regularly survivable thing, that trope of fiction wouldn't be very effective.

I'd love to call more attention to what you said here ----> "...fiction needs some sense of danger to be meaningful."

All I can say is that in my experience as a GM and player of TTRPGs over the years (I'm not new at this), that's a hugely meaningful statement. In too many games, and at too many tables, the strict adherence to certain rules creates too many risk-free scenarios, and RPGing without risk is...just chatting.

Whenever I see one of my players starting to believe that they understand their character sheet, their strengths and weaknesses, how their spells work (according to the core book) and the official rules of D&D so well that they stop feeling deeply concerned about the consequences of their actions in the game, I squash that ish right away, because it's toxic to fun, IMO. It invites boredom. The players need to feel, as real people frequently do, concern sometimes.

 

[Gimby]

What helps/hurts immersive roleplaying for you, personally.

Do you know what IMO stands for?