Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1021588" data-attributes="member: 5171">Aurance,In theory, yes.In practice, characters will keep attacking and fighting until they're in the negatives.  That's just the way the game goes.As I said, I like Buffy.  Actually, I generally like a lot of action sci-fi shows.  And one thing that those shows have in common is the "Shoot, get him an icepack. He's gonna have a headache" mentality that comes along with being knocked out.  If someone can be taken to negative hit points, and then treated with first-aid equipment and be back at their maximum hit points a few days later, that doesn't scream "Near Death Injury" to me.  That says "He'll be fine"-type injury.For example, Xander getting slammed against the wall by some big honking demon.  The SG-1 team taking go'auld staff weapon blasts as glancing flesh wounds on the shoulder and going down from shock and pain.  John Chrichton getting whacked by yet another giant muppet alien.  They always wake up with headaches or sore shoulders, and they groan and curse, and really, they're always fine later.  I like the -1 system for that.What I don't like is so little room between "he'll have a headache later" and death.  I understand why they did it -- it keeps the game going quickly -- but I don't love it.  Giving people more hit points won't fix that, because then everyone will just be fine longer -- and when they do hit the negatives, even if I gave them 30 more hit points, they'd still be in the same boat -- which is to say, 9 hit points difference between "he'll have a headache later" and death.  Adding another 10 hit points -- and having those next 10 add the potential for long-term injuries of varying degrees of ickiness -- keeps the characters alive without making unconsciousness a harmless, toothless affair.I can also imagine the other reason that the designers did things the way that they did.  In games with magical healing, there's no need to get really in-depth about broken bones or concussions, because that damage is gonna get healed quickly anyway.  I have no problem with that -- putting it in the core rules would be an unnecessary complication.  The game for which I'm thinking of adding additional stabilization points would be primarily non-magical, with no spellcasting PCs and no coming back from the dead (ie, if you die, either roll up a new character or declare that your PC had a long-lost twin).  And because my games are pretty plot-driven, and the plots are character-driven, I'd rather not go through a bunch of character changes if I can avoid it.  I usually model off of TV series, and given how much fan angst there was over the loss of Daniel Jackson, Tara, and Zhaan, I'd rather keep my players' characters around unless a) They do something REALLY stupid, b) The player leaves, or c) The player and I talk about it first for a long time and come up with a good, neat way for that character to exit.  I try not to artificially keep my PCs alive, but giving them more hit points, with interesting and potentially unpleasant effects, adds another layer that might be fun in a non-magical campaign.</blockquote>

Verification