questing gm
First Post
Isn't this convention already used in video games and CRPGs as a plot-driving device (or the monologue triggerd escape hatch for that pesky recurring villain)?
Last edited:
New ways to pwn people
- Thread starter hong
- Start date
jmucchiello
Hero
I first saw this mechanic in RISUS. In fact, in RISUS, all conflicts when resolved allow the winner to declare what happens to the opponent. So even a chess match resolved through the conflict rules could result in death. (He has a heart attack as I topple his king!)
Similarly, the transformation rules in HERO require that cause 2xBODY damage to your opponent (as a separate running total, so if someone else is shooting your victim, that won't make him easier to transform). The basic assumption is that if you do as much damage as to kill your victim outright in one shot, you may as well be able to turn him into a frog with your power.
I can see the potential for players complaining if this can be used against them. Especially in these times of over-emphasis on player empowerment (if you buy into that complaint about 3e).
OTOH, these rules could also allow for "cleaner" dismemberment options: lose of arm, eye, leg, etc. That might be worth looking into as well. "With a mighty blow, the BBEG severs your arm above the wrist, you hand and sword spiral away from you in different directions. Spend the next 1d4+1 rounds clutching your stump in shock and dismay." Thus putting him out of the fight until the dramatic moment when the BBEG has forgotten about him and he makes a despiration attack against the BBEG later.
I'm rambling now. Summary: Nice idea, seen it before.
Similarly, the transformation rules in HERO require that cause 2xBODY damage to your opponent (as a separate running total, so if someone else is shooting your victim, that won't make him easier to transform). The basic assumption is that if you do as much damage as to kill your victim outright in one shot, you may as well be able to turn him into a frog with your power.
I can see the potential for players complaining if this can be used against them. Especially in these times of over-emphasis on player empowerment (if you buy into that complaint about 3e).
OTOH, these rules could also allow for "cleaner" dismemberment options: lose of arm, eye, leg, etc. That might be worth looking into as well. "With a mighty blow, the BBEG severs your arm above the wrist, you hand and sword spiral away from you in different directions. Spend the next 1d4+1 rounds clutching your stump in shock and dismay." Thus putting him out of the fight until the dramatic moment when the BBEG has forgotten about him and he makes a despiration attack against the BBEG later.
I'm rambling now. Summary: Nice idea, seen it before.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Hong! You've turned D&D into Feng Shui.
It's a cool mechanic but I don't like to do that sort of stuff with rules-oriented games such as 3.X, only with free-wheelin', swashbuckling, rules-lite type systems.
It's a cool mechanic but I don't like to do that sort of stuff with rules-oriented games such as 3.X, only with free-wheelin', swashbuckling, rules-lite type systems.
jasin
Explorer
I like the negative hp = defeated but not necessarily dead rule, but I'm not sure about this one.hong said:
I see the advantages, but I'm not sure I like how it seems storywise. Someone gets hit by implosion and fails the save, or falls into lava, or gets taken down to -100 hp by a charging horseman. What happens? They're actually only messed up but not completely scrunched/badly burned but not incinerated/severely wounded but not skewered?
... which is really not that different from falling into lava and being left at 1 hp, rather than -10, so I'm not sure why it doesn't seem quite right. Maybe I like it after all.
Well, getting hit for one big strike by a charging horseman, or diamond nightmare blade, or any other (relatively) mundane attack is easy. It's still basically a physical attack, just with bigger numbers. Even implosion isn't so bad, because it's still physical damage even if it's not measured via hit points. Hence no conceptual difficulty.jasin said:
Something like prolonged immersion in lava would be trickier, as would energy drain, Con drain, drowning, etc. I'd just play those by ear. In the end, it comes down to whether an excuse plausible to the group can be found for why you might survive.
This could be important, as there's a chance the group will be fighting Con-draining vampires sometime in the next few sessions.
WhatGravitas
Explorer
I like it. It allows for more cinematic stuff... and since we already see stuff like that:
I'd probably say, that spells or area effects don't allow it, because they're not controlled enough (esp. area effects), but that's about it.
Or the possibilities of orbital divebomb barbarians (I mean 20d6 is a joke on higher levels)... or the fact that people in D&D survive Lightning Bolts, Disintegrates and worse - my suspension of disbelief has been changed enough.jasin said:
I'd probably say, that spells or area effects don't allow it, because they're not controlled enough (esp. area effects), but that's about it.
Gold Roger
First Post
I like. A lot. Sadly doesn't work so well with WHFRPG which I'll run next. But I'll propably adopt your negative hp=defeat rule for my next D&D game.
However, I'll keep possible death a part of the game.
However, I'll keep possible death a part of the game.
Similar Threads
