New Article: Death and Dying

[Professor Phobos]

That's the problem. The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table. It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant. It's not like it hasn't been done.

But the DM has a different job and responsibilities. I could not function as a GM operating under the same 'restrictions' as the players. Couldn't do it, wouldn't want to do it.

 

[JamesM]

It's definitely in the 1e DMG. Alas, I don't have my copy at me at present, but it's around page 80, IIRC.

Page 82, 1E DMG: "When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally, as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."

 

[Grog]

But the DM has a different job and responsibilities. I could not function as a GM operating under the same 'restrictions' as the players. Couldn't do it, wouldn't want to do it.

Further, I doubt there's any player out there who would consider it cheating for the DM to rule that enemy mooks die at 0 hit points, rather than make a bunch of pointless stabilization rolls every round. Indeed, as a player, I'd probably be pissed if he did make the rolls, since he'd be wasting valuable gaming time we could be using for something that actually mattered.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's the problem. The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.

Keep in mind is one of the design goals is to make DMing easier, one of the largest complaints about 3e being the difficulty DMing.

 

[Loincloth of Armour]

That's the problem. The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table. It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant. It's not like it hasn't been done.

But it's not a problem unless the DM is trying to "win" against the players.

A correction to my previous post. A DM is not a player. He/she is a referee, a rules-interpreter, a set designer, a moderater of events, a guide for the players, a game-world builder.

A player has none of these powers. A player is concerned about how their avatar --the PC-- interacts with the world. That's it. Nothing else.

A DM is responsible for everything else.

Because of their limited interaction, a player has a vested interest in the longevity of their PC. It is their way of playing the game. When the PC dies, they can no longer affect the game. They are no longer playing the game. The loss of a PC ends the player's involvement, until the DM says "You can bring in a new character now."

Kill a DM-NPC and guess what? The DM is still playing.


To suggest that these two should follow exactly the same rule set --which is to suggest the two are playing the same kind of game-- seems to me a weird way of looking at the game.

Common rules where interaction between PC an NPC is necessary so everyone knows what to expect... but make no mistake: this is a serious difference between the game needs of a player and the game needs of the DM.

 

[The Little Raven]

Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:

A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.

I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.

<returns to conciousness and forces his hand inside his gut wound, sealing it shut with pressure>
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Sounds perfectly alright to me.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

True, there was always that quirk to the D&D rules. A 1st level character could be opened top to tails, and a Cure Light Wounds spell would fix him completely. But a 10th level character could just have a few bruises, and that same spell wouldn't even fix them all.

I guess you're always going to end up with these sorts of issues when designing an abstract system.

Well, what if all healing restores some fraction of your max HP? Second wind reputedly gives you back 1/4 of your max. It appears that all healing occurs through healing boosts, and healing boosts are triggered through different methods, including clerical abilities. However, if they're all the same effect--get back X% of your HP--then the Cure X Wounds problem goes away.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yeah, except we don't know how things like potions of healing work yet. Maybe a potion doesn't give back 5 hp at 20th level, but gives you a healing surge which restores a certain percentage of your hp.

Heh. Exactly. This is what I'm hoping.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't think that I, or anyone I knew, ever used the rules about X.

For anyone who never played 1st edition, the above quote summarizes the experience quite handily.

 

[Lizard]

Heh. Exactly. This is what I'm hoping.

In keeping with the self-scaling of many powers, and the presumed reduction in total powers per class (since rogues, fighters, etc, now get as many as wizards and clerics, we can assume wizards and clerics get fewer or the PHB will be the size of the Manhattan White Pages), I think we'll see "Heroic Heal", "Paragon Heal" and "Epic Heal", as well as some conditional heals, i.e, something that brings you to 75% health as long as you weren't bloodied, or the like.