The ethics of ... death

[billd91]

This is the bit that, if I understand him right, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is querying (and also [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]?).

If I am a high level fighter I can take a "hit" from a fire giant and survive. However, given that even as a high level fighter I remain a mortal hero, a literal hit from a fire giant would kill me. It follows, therefore, that a "hit" from a fire giant isn't in the literal sense a hit - it is a blow that I narrowly dodge, or that send me flying rather than cutting me in two, or something similar (as per Gygax's essays on hit points).

Parallel logic suggests that 3 "hits" from a poisonous snake aren't literally bites that inject venom. Yet, by the rules, each requires me to make a poison save or die. That is the perceived inconsistency of SoD poison with the broader attack and damage mechanics - SoD poison implies that snakes and spiders pose a type of threat, or attack with a degree of accuracy, that fire giants lack. Which makes little sense within the fiction.

I would add - even if you regard hit points as meat, the oddity remains, because hit points are a type of meat that can survive being peppered by arrows or cut in two by a giant, but that can't survive a bite from a snake or spider. Very fickle meat!

It's suggests your thinking is narrowed to just hit point ablation already, rather than accepting the possibility that the venom (or other save or die attack form) may have a different effect on the body than the physical trauma of being struck or at least physically attacked. What about a neurotoxins and cardiotoxins that may interfere with internal organs and cause respiratory paralysis or heart failure? Frankly, I think those effects should be modeled in a different way from impact injuries.

 

[Umbran]

Frankly, I think those effects should be modeled in a different way from impact injuries.

That's as may be. But there's a bit of genre consistency to be aware of. We are talking about people who can eventually fall 100 feet without protection, and get up and walk away. And not as a fluke, but can do so regularly. The issue isn't how the impact injury is modeled, but of the type of genre that modelling implies. These are not people who should be killed by run of the mill rattlesnakes. These are more like old west heroes, so tough and leathery and just plain ornery that if a rattlesnake bites them, it's the snake that dies!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that's a very big ask for a given set of RPG rules, unless you are going to deal with the issue via supplementing a basically gritty ruleset with GM fudging, or player "fudging" using Fate Points etc.

I would think that rolls resulting in PC death (SoD or otherwise) are one of the most frequent situations where "DM cheating" is employed, which despite the name is an entirely legitimate DM tool. Nothing wrong with optional action points (or other mechanics that help evade death) either.

I also don't really see how you think that a GM is going to "pick a level of challenge that is appropriate" while eschewing the notion of "balanced" encounters. Once we have the notion of a spectrum of degrees of challenge, on which the GM is to find the appropriate point for his/her game, we also have the notion of a "balanced" encounter, namely one whose degree of challenges fits with some designated "balance point".

Each encounter is different. If the DM is trying to scare the PCs, one level of challenge is appropriate. If the DM is trying to kill them, another. If the DM is trying to reward them for reaching a certain goal with a fluff battle, the appropriate challenge is again different.

If the DM is running a true sandbox style game, then the level of the PCs is irrelevant and they simply find whatever is in a given environment.

So, figuring out the point at which an average party will use 20% of their resources is one thing (and again, one thing that is virtually impossible to do well). Figuring out what level of challenge is appropriate for what the DM is trying to do is a lot more than a simple table of recommended ELs.

 

[Hussar]

I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic. Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.

Actually, I mentioned this several times, but was told that just because the game designers decided that SoD was perhaps a bad mechanic for this, doesn't mean anything. Go figure.

 

[billd91]

That's as may be. But there's a bit of genre consistency to be aware of. We are talking about people who can eventually fall 100 feet without protection, and get up and walk away. And not as a fluke, but can do so regularly. The issue isn't how the impact injury is modeled, but of the type of genre that modelling implies. These are not people who should be killed by run of the mill rattlesnakes. These are more like old west heroes, so tough and leathery and just plain ornery that if a rattlesnake bites them, it's the snake that dies!

I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel? That's a quirky artifact of the way hit point ablation has been designed to keep more advanced PCs in the game and a solution is out there - the massive damage rule.

But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes? They're comparatively non-deadly aside from necrosis. Would a king cobra die if it was the one who bit Conan? Or an inland taipan? Or would being envenomed by one be an ordeal he had to grit through, perhaps with the help of spirits summoned by Akiro? I think the idea of a snake being the one who dies is a bit of a caricature even for fantasy - unless that fantasy involves either Chuck Norris or Vin Diesel.

 

[Balesir]

It's suggests your thinking is narrowed to just hit point ablation already, rather than accepting the possibility that the venom (or other save or die attack form) may have a different effect on the body than the physical trauma of being struck or at least physically attacked. What about a neurotoxins and cardiotoxins that may interfere with internal organs and cause respiratory paralysis or heart failure? Frankly, I think those effects should be modeled in a different way from impact injuries.

But, again, that misses the point; hit points don't "model" impact injuries. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, the fighter couldn't literally survive a direct hit from a Fire Giant's sword (or even a direct, unimpeded 100' fall) - the giant's blow narrowly misses (or at least glances off), the fall is broken by bushes, awnings, scree slopes or whatever is situationally appropriate.

Or, alternatively, the fighter is so supernaturally tough that surviving deadly poison should be a walk in the park.

I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel? That's a quirky artifact of the way hit point ablation has been designed to keep more advanced PCs in the game and a solution is out there - the massive damage rule.

The genre is the genre of D&D. It was inspired by Conan, Lankhmar and the Dying Earth, et al, but the very fact that it mixes sources should tell us that it's not meant to precisely "model" any one of them.

But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes? They're comparatively non-deadly aside from necrosis. Would a king cobra die if it was the one who bit Conan? Or an inland taipan? Or would being envenomed by one be an ordeal he had to grit through, perhaps with the help of spirits summoned by Akiro? I think the idea of a snake being the one who dies is a bit of a caricature even for fantasy - unless that fantasy involves either Chuck Norris or Vin Diesel.

That would depend entirely on what the author wants. If the author wants a character to bathe in and drink deadly venom while healing a variety of open wounds and survive, they can do that. That's one of the ways that written stories are different from RPGs.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[billd91]

Or, alternatively, the fighter is so supernaturally tough that surviving deadly poison should be a walk in the park.

Except that doesn't necessarily logically follow. Why should I expect someone who can take a giant's blow to be immune to the effects of venoms and how they effect things like the chemical interactions between neurons?

The genre is the genre of D&D. It was inspired by Conan, Lankhmar and the Dying Earth, et al, but the very fact that it mixes sources should tell us that it's not meant to precisely "model" any one of them.

Every time someone says D&D is its own genre I think the reasoning behind that runs along the ragged edge of tautological. Why is jumping off a 100' cliff and walking away D&D genre? Because you can do it in D&D. Why is D&D a separate genre from fantasy? Because you can jump off 100' cliffs and walk away.

D&D is definitely fantasy, it's not merely inspired by it. It just doesn't fit any single author's view of fantasy... something common to most authors of fantasy themselves. So unless we're all talking about Howard genre, Lieber genre, Tolkien genre, and Vance genre, I don't really see much point to being that specific over D&D.

That would depend entirely on what the author wants. If the author wants a character to bathe in and drink deadly venom while healing a variety of open wounds and survive, they can do that. That's one of the ways that written stories are different from RPGs.

But what author actually does that? Do you know of any other than people writing one or two-liners about Chuck Norris badassery? I can think of toxins being transformed by Bene Gesserit in Dune, but they're also described as having powers that border on quasi-psionic. But even that is described as an ordeal, not just something people casually do because they're tough.

 

[Balesir]

Except that doesn't necessarily logically follow. Why should I expect someone who can take a giant's blow to be immune to the effects of venoms and how they effect things like the chemical interactions between neurons?

It doesn't 'logically follow' (whatever that means in this rarefied zone) to suggest that such a character even has neurons! If you're adopting the "I'm tough enough to take a blow from a giant's club full in the face and walk away", how does having neurons even enter the picture??

That's the point [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (I think) and I are trying to make, here - either the inconsistency comes from assuming that 'poison' hits hit every single time where others (giants' clubs/axes) do not, or it comes from assuming creatures alien enough to survive fatal injuries are delicate flowers with neurons and such when faced with poison. Either way it's inconsistent.

Every time someone says D&D is its own genre I think the reasoning behind that runs along the ragged edge of tautological. Why is jumping off a 100' cliff and walking away D&D genre? Because you can do it in D&D. Why is D&D a separate genre from fantasy? Because you can jump off 100' cliffs and walk away.

How does a new genre get created? At first it's just a "quirky" take on another, most likely. Gradually, over time, it adds more and more of its own tropes and develops its own style. Taken in the round, I'm pretty sure that's something D&D has done over the last 40 years. Falling off 100' cliffs is one element, but 'Gorgons' that are poison gas breathing bulls, banshees that kill with their wail (rather than just presaging death), undead that "drain levels", magic users that can't wear armour, fireball spells, "arrangements" of "outer planes" and a host of other things are others.

D&D is definitely fantasy, it's not merely inspired by it. It just doesn't fit any single author's view of fantasy... something common to most authors of fantasy themselves. So unless we're all talking about Howard genre, Lieber genre, Tolkien genre, and Vance genre, I don't really see much point to being that specific over D&D.

Sure D&D is fantasy, but fantasy isn't a monolithic genre! You only have to read Conan, Johnathan Strange, Earthsea and the Order of the Stick to see that.

But what author actually does that? Do you know of any other than people writing one or two-liners about Chuck Norris badassery? I can think of toxins being transformed by Bene Gesserit in Dune, but they're also described as having powers that border on quasi-psionic. But even that is described as an ordeal, not just something people casually do because they're tough.

The point is not about whether they do or whether they don't - the point is that it is the nature of writing that they don't need to have rules about it. Conan can survive giant mamba poison this week but still be in mortal peril from it next week - because his survival is at the whim of the author, not subject to rules or die rolls.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[pemerton]

either the inconsistency comes from assuming that 'poison' hits hit every single time where others (giants' clubs/axes) do not, or it comes from assuming creatures alien enough to survive fatal injuries are delicate flowers with neurons and such when faced with poison. Either way it's inconsistent.

Yes - that is my point.

The idea that I can dodge giants' clubs til kingdom come but can't dodge a 1 HD snake (ie if it hits then I have been poisoned and must make a save) is silly.

The alternative idea that my dodging of giants' clubs is awesome (as modelled by my hp) but my dodging of snake bites is pretty ordinary(treating saving throws here as FitM adjudication of whether or not I dodged, which is one of the interpretations of saving throws flagged in Gygax's DMG) is also silly.

And the yet further idea that hp are meat, and I don't doge giants' clubs but rather take them full in the face and shrug them off (think Superman or the Hulk), yet am vulnerable to a snake's poison, is perhaps the silliest of all. Bringing in talk of "chemical interactions with neurons" just emphasises the silliness - acid does hit point damage for its chemical interactions with skin and other tissue, but poison doesn't because it is interacting with a different sort of tissue? Does acid dripped in the ear - which is likely to interact with a neuron or two! - trigger a save vs poison?

And saving throws for massive damage are just a kludge - a fighter who takes 40 hp out of 100 total has to save for massive damage, though if s/he saves s/he will be able to walk away, whereas a wizard who takes 4 hp out of 4, and so is guaranteed to be knocked out and dying, doesn't have to make any save at all despite taking what has the potential to be a fatal blow.

My view is, if you want a wound system go for a serious wound system - and now poison, giants' axes, etc are all variants within your wound mechanics - or if you want a hit point system go for a hit point system. The occasional oddity is tolerable, I think - eg vorpal swords or swords of sharpness - but too much of that sort of stuff can really drive home the weak points in a system. Poison saves are in my view certainly guilty of being "too much".

 

[Imaro]

But, again, that misses the point; hit points don't "model" impact injuries. As @pemerton said, the fighter couldn't literally survive a direct hit from a Fire Giant's sword (or even a direct, unimpeded 100' fall) - the giant's blow narrowly misses (or at least glances off), the fall is broken by bushes, awnings, scree slopes or whatever is situationally appropriate.

So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way? Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question? If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.

EDIT: I am also noticing that no one here on the side claiming SoD is inconsistent has addressed the massive damage rules... They allow for when a sufficient amount of damage is taken a character of any level with any amount of hit points to die. In fact the 100ft fall @Umbran brought up does have a chance of instantly killing any character, regardless of hit points (how does this happen if as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be implying no damage is really physically meaningful?). This is also disregarding the alternate methods of Massive Damage Threshold that are included in the SRD for 3.x.