Not quite lethal game?

[Fat Man Standing]

I was sitting in the living room one day, watching reruns of A-team, and realized something. For all the explosions, gunshots, and car wrecks, no one ever really dies, they just get knocked out, to be handed to the local police at the end of the episode.

What if D&D was like this?

Does anyone ever play with the assumption that a character dropped to below 0 hp isn't dying, just out of the action for a scene? How would this change affect published adventures? Do you think it would encourage roleplaying instead of hack and slash? Or would it have the opposite effect?

Please, give me some feedback, as I'm thinking of trying this on my next game. Thanks, all.

~Sky

 

[Nathal]

Does anyone ever play with the assumption that a character dropped to below 0 hp isn't dying, just out of the action for a scene? How would this change affect published adventures? Do you think it would encourage roleplaying instead of hack and slash? Or would it have the opposite effect?
~Sky

Well...I never feared for the lives of the men in the A-Team. I remember as a kid watching that show wherein a helicopter crashed into the side of a mountain, fell to the ground, exploded, and the pilot RAN AWAY! I think I was 12 years old yet I remember thinking, "come on, nobody expect us to believe that!"

If I am playing a character and I know he cannot die then where is the tension and suspense? It would require a very special GM to run a game in which I was practically invincible and still keep me interested. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think D&D would be the most obvious choice of system for such a campaign.

 

[Mark Chance]

If I am playing a character and I know he cannot die then where is the tension and suspense?

A-Team meets D&D wouldn't be about suspense. It would be about goofiness, whomping on bad guys, and pitying fools who get in the way.

IOW, it would be different genre of the same game. Nothing wrong with that, but it would require adopting an appropriate mood.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Re: Re: Not quite lethal game?

If I am playing a character and I know he cannot die then where is the tension and suspense? It would require a very special GM to run a game in which I was practically invincible and still keep me interested. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think D&D would be the most obvious choice of system for such a campaign.

I don't know if tension and suspense are the things you have to have for a good game. Excitement and challenge will do for me. Just because you won't die doesn't mean you can't FAIL.

In terms of mechanics, its pretty easy. Look at any game with stun rules and import them. Was it Palladium that had Structural Damage Capacity? Loved that stuff. Soft damage at its best.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Cedric]

Champions can provide great roleplaying, fun, adventure experienes with almost no chance of Dying.

That would be the closest I ever came.

Cedric

 

[Mercule]

Do you think it would encourage roleplaying instead of hack and slash? Or would it have the opposite effect?

The latter.

The game would assume the intelligence level of the A-Team (which is to say minimal).

Personally, I refuse to play in games that don't have an actual chance of death. They don't have to be killer and could be pretty mild. I just have no respect for a DM who says "I don't kill characters". In fact, I usually test the theory.

Of course, certain genres are exceptions to that rule. Supers (Champions, etc.) is a prime example.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

This is quite similar to most superhero stories, as well. Character deaths, for the amount of violence, are incredibly rare and usually easily reversed.

 

[Fat Man Standing]

Wow! Thanks for the fast replies, guys. Just another reason to love the people here at enworld

To Mercule: While I mentioned the A-team specifically (because I was watching them at the time), many shows back then used less death as a rule. My question should be: Could D&D be D&D without killing every enemy you come across, or would it change the nature of the game to have enemies be disabled, but still alive?

Another question: Would you need to change the rules? I can see making new rules, or importing from another game system, as a valid choice, but I like to keep my rules as close to core as possible. Would you, as a player, object to a DM who leaves your opponents defeated, but not killed, as a matter of course (assuming you still have the option to kill them, just as an additional stated action?)

 

[Broken Fang]

What about just saying that once you go below 0 HP's you are unconscious. If someone wants to kill someone have them then make a coup de grace attack on the downed and helpless foe.

 

[Mercule]

To Mercule: While I mentioned the A-team specifically (because I was watching them at the time), many shows back then used less death as a rule. My question should be: Could D&D be D&D without killing every enemy you come across, or would it change the nature of the game to have enemies be disabled, but still alive?

Sorry if I sounded flippant. I was in a hurry and probably didn't choose my words particularly well.

I've found that most of the shows I used to love back in that time frame (A Team, etc.) seem pretty cheesy when I see them now. I'm not sure that it's related to the Nerf bullets or not.

My point really was that I think that setting everything to "stun", so to speak, would tend to cheapen the game somehow.

Now, having _characters_ who made that choice could be quite entertaining. I'm just not in favor of changing the "laws of physics" to make killing almost impossible.