We Used the new death and dying rules and it saved our ninja

[Hussar]

By the same token, even the most oblivious player can usually figure out, pretty closely, how far into the negatives you've gone. Particularly when Bob shout's out, "Oh crap, I'm at -5!"

 

[JohnSnow]

In fact, there is a term for it. Metagaming. Look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

Note the sentence:

Actually, I did look it up. I found a really interesting sentence.

In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics.

So technically, any character action based on the mathematical nature of stats is metagaming. Based on another thread here, I'm guessing a lot of people do that fairly frequently. For instance KarinsDad, weren't you arguing for the "rules as gameworld physics" interpretation? Sounds like that's textbook metagaming.

 

[Li Shenron]

We opted to use the new rules on death and dying and it saved our ninja! Shingu, who we lovingly call Chopped Raw Fish, decided to go outside of the small tomb we were in. Outside he encountered an assassin vine. It took him to negative right away. The rest of us ran out after making listening checks and the vine dropped him to attack us. He narrowly survived because his negative threshold was further down. He proceeded to fail two of the d20 saves and then we used a wand of CLW's on him and he went from negative-whatever-it-was to positive. It was pretty nice little rule and worked well. Good job, 4e design team.

We did, play to negative 1/2 HP (or -10) to die and not negative 1/4 or 1/3 though...

A ninja saved from death... that's pretty much a failure of the new system!

Seriously, I think the new dying rules are an improvement.

The only part which I am skeptic of is the fact that you die after 3 failed checks when unconscious. These checks don't add anything, but one more thing you need to remember, and 3 failures (50% chance each) are actually quite easy to roll.

I hope these are going to be different in the final version. Everything else sounds ok.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Ehh... I think it is a pretty fair number for it to be 10+ you survive. If it was to little there is no tension/suspense.

 

[FireLance]

The only part which I am skeptic of is the fact that you die after 3 failed checks when unconscious. These checks don't add anything, but one more thing you need to remember, and 3 failures (50% chance each) are actually quite easy to roll.

I think it's there to induce a sense of urgency in the other PCs and avoid the "He's only at -2, we can take our time" situations that cropped up occasionally in 3e.

 

[KarinsDad]

So technically, any character action based on the mathematical nature of stats is metagaming. Based on another thread here, I'm guessing a lot of people do that fairly frequently. For instance KarinsDad, weren't you arguing for the "rules as gameworld physics" interpretation? Sounds like that's textbook metagaming.

Go back and re-read that thread. I was stating that I was in a third group and merely leaned towards that position more than the alternative presented.

And as long as players know the rules, there is no way to completely avoid metagaming. However, there are ways to avoid some of it like no cross table talk, no knowing hit point totals of anyone else, anything pertinent to combat decisions said out loud is heard by the enemy as well, etc.

Finally, one can be a proponent of rules as gameworld physics and still be opposed to metagaming in the game. Some people are gamists, but still prefer staying in character to metagaming. What theory are you trying to propose that indicates that it must be otherwise? Or are you just blowing smoke here?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think it's there to induce a sense of urgency in the other PCs and avoid the "He's only at -2, we can take our time" situations that cropped up occasionally in 3e.

I think it does the opposite. "He just went down, we have two rounds and can take our time" situations that will crop up every single time a PC goes unconscious. That does not sound urgent to me.

 

[JohnSnow]

Finally, one can be a proponent of rules as gameworld physics and still be opposed to metagaming in the game. Some people are gamists, but still prefer staying in character to metagaming. What theory are you trying to propose that indicates that it must be otherwise? Or are you just blowing smoke here?

Ah. I think I understand. You only regard it as metagaming when people actually use the numbers in their play. I, on the other hand, consider it metagaming to base decisions on the character knowing the mathematical nature of his world, whether or not the player mentions those numbers.

For instance, I think it's less "metagamey" for the player to shout "OUCH!! That takes me down to -8 hit points!" than it is for him to think: "Well, since I know that falling 70 feet can't deal enough damage to kill me, I jump off the cliff to escape."

The first is just what happens when something in-game overwhelms a player. The second is the player actually making a decision based on the mathematical nature of hit points. As a player, he knows the fall can't deal enough damage to kill the character, so he has his character act on that knowledge. To me, that is textbook metagaming, and far, far worse than blurting out his negative hit point total.

Make sense?

 

[FireLance]

I think it does the opposite. "He just went down, we have two rounds and can take our time" situations that will crop up every single time a PC goes unconscious. That does not sound urgent to me.

I was responding to the point that the checks don't add anything and are just one more thing to remember. Without them, there would be even less urgency.

EDIT: I should also add that there's a bit of psychology here which is based on the fact that most people are risk averse when it comes to losses (I vaguely recall this from one of my college courses - I can't cite a reference offhand). Hence the small possibility (9%) that the dying character could be dead in three rounds causes most people to act as if he was at -7 in 3e, even though he is likely, on average, to still be alive after six rounds.

 

[Nine Hands]

I think it does the opposite. "He just went down, we have two rounds and can take our time" situations that will crop up every single time a PC goes unconscious. That does not sound urgent to me.

Just to note, you are missing one part of the rules. If the downed person is damaged, they MUST roll again. So...you could go down in the middle of a firefight and your allies really need to move you to safety or you might be toast very soon.