Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The -10 Myth: How a Poorly-Worded Gygaxian Rule Became the Modern Death Save
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ace of Shadows" data-source="post: 8241707" data-attributes="member: 6911154"><p>I don't know mate all that banging about people misinterpreting rules because the were <strong>motivated</strong> to go get an advantage that doesn't exist, instead of just interpreting them intuitively, sounded to me an awful lot like a thinly veiled insinuation that we were all cheating munchkins - I didn't even have a DMG when I was taught that rule by a DM - when I thought my PC was dead - 'you don't die at 0 you die at -10 ... its in the DMG' he said to me. And when I eventually bought one that's how I read it too - apparently along with a whole bunch of other people such that it was most of the playing pool so much so I never encountered your way.</p><p></p><p>None of that language carries the clarity you seek to ascribe to it - the point when someone is BROUGHT TO THE POINT OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS or enters unconscious is the start of the story - you then look for when he then <strong>specifies</strong> they die not where the gate to the field of unconsciousness is ... he then starts to bang on about losing more hit points and still being unconscious and then finally indicates an actual death point of -10. You have just <strong>assumed</strong> death must occurs immediately after the start point for unconsciousness [1 point as soon as you step past the gate] <strong>although it doesn't actually state this</strong> and you do that by turning a blind eye to the very extensive immediate discussion about losing further hit points whilst remaining unconscious all the way to -9 and the various things that can happen in that zone as if that has absolutely no bearing on interpreting the rule at all although its plainly a discussion concerning about being unconscious at certain other negative hit points IN THE RULE beyond the start points indicated and not something you just assumed in your head must occurred beyond 0 and -3 that isn't actually stated in the rule ... that is a very large and artificial assumption especially when no rational reason is supplied for such a weird inconsistency IN THE RULE or anywhere. That is why I am saying your interpretation is artificial, incongruous and counter-intuitive and I believe wrong. Good luck explaining a 10 year old kid the logic behind two PCs both being on -1 hit point, one dead [his PC] and one unconscious [his mates] and that the unconscious one can then bleeds out to -9 before he is still saved but the one on -1 is still somehow dead. I'm not going to do that because I don't want to look like a cheating DM playing favourites with my players and I seriously doubt it was the intention of Gary to put me in that position when he wrote those paragraphs. Not if he is expecting the kid to want to keep playing the game as any commercial designer hopes. No-one comes back to play game that flaunts broken logic unless they realise the issue isn't the game but the DM interpreting its rules - then they go somewhere else - where logic is a thing.</p><p></p><p>Its not the letter of the rule its the intent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ace of Shadows, post: 8241707, member: 6911154"] I don't know mate all that banging about people misinterpreting rules because the were [B]motivated[/B] to go get an advantage that doesn't exist, instead of just interpreting them intuitively, sounded to me an awful lot like a thinly veiled insinuation that we were all cheating munchkins - I didn't even have a DMG when I was taught that rule by a DM - when I thought my PC was dead - 'you don't die at 0 you die at -10 ... its in the DMG' he said to me. And when I eventually bought one that's how I read it too - apparently along with a whole bunch of other people such that it was most of the playing pool so much so I never encountered your way. None of that language carries the clarity you seek to ascribe to it - the point when someone is BROUGHT TO THE POINT OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS or enters unconscious is the start of the story - you then look for when he then [B]specifies[/B] they die not where the gate to the field of unconsciousness is ... he then starts to bang on about losing more hit points and still being unconscious and then finally indicates an actual death point of -10. You have just [B]assumed[/B] death must occurs immediately after the start point for unconsciousness [1 point as soon as you step past the gate] [B]although it doesn't actually state this[/B] and you do that by turning a blind eye to the very extensive immediate discussion about losing further hit points whilst remaining unconscious all the way to -9 and the various things that can happen in that zone as if that has absolutely no bearing on interpreting the rule at all although its plainly a discussion concerning about being unconscious at certain other negative hit points IN THE RULE beyond the start points indicated and not something you just assumed in your head must occurred beyond 0 and -3 that isn't actually stated in the rule ... that is a very large and artificial assumption especially when no rational reason is supplied for such a weird inconsistency IN THE RULE or anywhere. That is why I am saying your interpretation is artificial, incongruous and counter-intuitive and I believe wrong. Good luck explaining a 10 year old kid the logic behind two PCs both being on -1 hit point, one dead [his PC] and one unconscious [his mates] and that the unconscious one can then bleeds out to -9 before he is still saved but the one on -1 is still somehow dead. I'm not going to do that because I don't want to look like a cheating DM playing favourites with my players and I seriously doubt it was the intention of Gary to put me in that position when he wrote those paragraphs. Not if he is expecting the kid to want to keep playing the game as any commercial designer hopes. No-one comes back to play game that flaunts broken logic unless they realise the issue isn't the game but the DM interpreting its rules - then they go somewhere else - where logic is a thing. Its not the letter of the rule its the intent. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The -10 Myth: How a Poorly-Worded Gygaxian Rule Became the Modern Death Save
Top