Wow, our views aren't all that different at all, it seems. It's just a matter of what situations are "important." For my part, I'd define it as "situations that have a pivotal effect on the adventure." That means any scenes involving the PCs, of course, and also any NPC scenes that directly shape the story. The latter may not get dice rolls, but they do get "audited" in my head for impossible or just plain misleading results. Your definition of "important" may just be a bit narrower, is all.
Possibly, but the whole broken leg issue is definitely different between us. You seemed to be saying that even if it was just a guy in a tavern that the PCs just passed by (an NPC that had no real effect on the story, just background decoration), having him with a broken leg was too much of a break (no pun intended) from the game rules.
Possibly, but the whole broken leg issue is definitely different between us. You seemed to be saying that even if it was just a guy in a tavern that the PCs just passed by (an NPC that had no real effect on the story, just background decoration), having him with a broken leg was too much of a break (no pun intended) from the game rules.
Well, if I wanted that guy, I'd be perfectly willing to introduce a quick rule for that ("if reduced to 0 hp or less by a fall, you damage a limb; roll 1d4 for which one; it's useless for 1d4 weeks or until healed") and get people to agree on it. Then I could have my cake and eat it, too.
The thing is, there would be a reason for broken limbs then, not just divine providence -- my players would vastly prefer that, even if it potentially impacts them, and even if I didn't care. The problem is, if I add the guy and no reason why his leg is broken, they'll jeer at him and ask things like, "How badly must he suck, considering how many times we've fallen and never broken anything?!" More importantly, they'll take the anomalous broken leg as an important clue that either (a) this guy is so inept he'll probably drown in his soup unless they help him, so he's obviously got some important info for them that necessitates protecting him; or possibly (b) he's just pretending to be super-inept so they'll let their guards down around him and he can assassinate them. Either way, he suddenly becomes important to them because of the anomaly: the broken leg suddenly appearing would prevent them from viewing him as decoration unless I either specifically said he was just decoration, or else there was some way for other people to break limbs, too. Is this over-analyzing by them? Maybe, but that's just how we like to play. A bit of "Clue" in our "D&D."
|
[
Ah, and here we have the major difference in philosophy, spelled right out. The game rules do not even come remotely close to being as detailed and refined as our current model of the laws of physics - and even that is incomplete, partially contradictory and unwieldy enough that even for relatively modest problems, we start ignoring inconvenient rules.Also, they are meant to simulate the typical adventurers trials and tribulations, but never really took the life of the baker, candlestick maker and horse-breeder too much into account. If the whole world ran by the game rules, then the whole world would be a very sad place where keeping a cat is tanamount to suicide, you will have trouble earning enough money to even wear clothes, let alone finance the live of a family of six, and still live to be 80.
I go away for 2 days and the conversation explodes. There is some really interesting sharing going on here, but I wanted to address Terra's comments before getting back into the rest of things. And Kirth did a pretty good job of interpreting my statement.
I never meant to imply that the D&D rules are in any way as comprehensive as the Laws of Physics (nor are they as "Realistic"). Like real world physics, the Rules will always be applied the same way (obviously Physics is way more complicated than this). If no rule exists, the DM creates one, based on prior information. From that point on, unless other information changes things, that rule is now a Law.
Gravity existed before Newton explained it, and so did the rule for a mimic hitting someone with a grappled PC, it just never came up before.
It is so complicated to explain D&D without actually playing it...
EDIT: Example of how I USE rules to help tell the story:
So, I changed the rules to allow the PCs to explore my world without certain rules (encumbrance, speed, ACP) scaring them off, and to provide a bit of realism. Sailors don't wear half-plate.
But, to balance things, I wanted to give classes with Armor Proficiency some benefit, so I tied in the Nonlethal DR from Unearthed Arcana. When the party got on land and fought their first cleric, the battle lasted twice as long, since all nonlethal damage was healed with a 0 level spell. After weeks aboard ship, the PCs looked around at land-lubbers and said "people actually wear armor? why...ohhhhh!"
So, story and mechanics intertwine and are logical choices - nothing wierd happens. Seeing a character in armor has immediate story implications.
Well, if I wanted that guy, I'd be perfectly willing to introduce a quick rule for that ("if reduced to 0 hp or less by a fall, you damage a limb; roll 1d4 for which one; it's useless for 1d4 weeks or until healed") and get people to agree on it. Then I could have my cake and eat it, too.
As I said, there is a difference. I see no reason to make a rule, and potentially hold the PCs to it, merely to add a little flavor to the game. Heck, I would think if you wanted to add in a character like the one on the blog:
AllevrahYou'd have to then decide to add rules for how you lose part of your ear.
The problem is, if I add the guy and no reason why his leg is broken, they'll jeer at him and ask things like, "How badly must he suck, considering how many times we've fallen and never broken anything?!"
Because people in real life who have never broken a limb think that about all the people that have? That seems to be thinking that is breaking the 4th wall, at least to me.
Either way, he suddenly becomes important to them because of the anomaly: the broken leg suddenly appearing would prevent them from viewing him as decoration unless I either specifically said he was just decoration, or else there was some way for other people to break limbs, too. Is this over-analyzing by them? Maybe, but that's just how we like to play. A bit of "Clue" in our "D&D."
I can certainly understand players going off on tangents. I guess it just depends on what the players are used to. If the only unique descriptions they get are plot issues, then they are going to see everything unusual as plot issues.
But frankly I can't see many groups if presented with the following, would make a big issue of it:
"You finally found the tavern called the Drowned Fish [the picture on the sign is of a mug with a fish tail hanging out], the sign looks like someone started to repaint it but stopped. You enter and a middle aged balding human approaches you. One of his arms is tightly bound. 'Greetings travelers. Welcome to the Drowned Fish. What can we get you? Ale, stew, a glass of wine? What's that? What happened to my arm? Well it is mite embarrassing. See I was trying to repaint the sign out front and my ladder slipped and I fell and broke my arm. The town healer says it will be fine in a few more weeks, so no worries. Anyway, how about you find yourself a table and I'll have one of the servers come get your order.'"
But frankly I can't see many groups if presented with the following, would make a big issue of it.
You're absolutely right about that, probably not many would. But the "majority" doesn't usually concern me as much as my own particular players do -- and they would be diving for their weapons, given that kind of description! Certainly, they wouldn't rest easy until they got a look at what was concealed under those bandages.
Maybe the issue is not what type of GMs we are, but whether some of us have, and are willing to accommodate (or maybe even prefer to play with), "type A" players?
I agree that it can be fun to throw out the rules -- diceless roleplaying can be a blast, for instance. But claiming to use a rule when it's not really a rule at all is another thing in my book.Is anyone here suggesting to play diceless or ruleless? Let's try to avoid the hyperbolies please.
My point is that the number of rules doesn't make a difference to me; it's just the consistency of rules that matters. So certainly I don't need a specific rule for everything, but if there is a specific rule for something, I like to use it as the benchmark of what actions are plausible for NPCs (not just PCs).
But the "majority" doesn't usually concern me as much as my own particular players do -- and they would be diving for their weapons, given that kind of description! Certainly, they wouldn't rest easy until they got a look at what was concealed under those bandages.
LOL, I can just see those players in my game.
So after spending the last two weeks in the local jail for assaulting the poor tavern owner and rebreaking his arm. You are released and told to leave the area immediately. Much of your money went to paying off your fines and to the victim. The constable and his men will ride with you to the border and then give back your weapons and equipment.
LOL, I can just see those players in my game.
So after spending the last two weeks in the local jail for assaulting the poor tavern owner and rebreaking his arm. You are released and told to leave the area immediately. Much of your money went to paying off your fines and to the victim. The constable and his men will ride with you to the border and then give back your weapons and equipment.
LOL! That's exactly the kind of trick I might play on them, too... but I somehow wouldn't feel justified "leading them on" like that using rules anomalies.
|
|
My point is that the number of rules doesn't make a difference to me; it's just the consistency of rules that matters. So certainly I don't need a specific rule for everything, but if there is a specific rule for something, I like to use it as the benchmark of what actions are plausible for NPCs (not just PCs).
Here here. For example, recently one of my PCs decided to throw a goblin at a hobgoblin. Quickly, I houseruled:
Yes you can, but:
-4 non-proficiency penalty.
5ft range increment.
Must be able to lift the goblin over your head.
Must grapple the goblin, then make a grapple to make him a projectile.
Ranged touch attack to hit the target.
The PC thought for a moment, said "yeah, that makes sense".
If he really wanted to do it, he could have burned an action point, which aside from normal benefits, the PCs can bust out a "ridiculous action not covered by the rules".
We had a real example of something akin to the broken-leg problem in RotRL #6.
The PCs found a giant who had apparently died by falling. We use averaged hp for monsters, so the giant had around 140 hp. Creatures like that--like the PCs at that level--do not die by falling. So, should the PCs consider that he might have died by falling, or should they know he can't? If they consider that he could, are they supposed to consider that *they* could? They had to climb a 2000' cliff shortly thereafter, and might well have preferred to jump off it rather than stay in a bad fight on top. Should they refrain because it "ought to kill them" or jump because it's a better choice under the rules?
The player flat-out asked me how he should interpret this event. (Good player/GM communication is a wonderful thing.)
We ruled no, the giant had to have been killed in some other way; a critter that tough really can't die by falling, and the PCs are more or less aware of this. The alternative is hard on the player if he has a chance to, say, push giants off a cliff. If he has to pretend that this can kill them--but it can't--that seems unfair to us, and hard to accomodate into a coherent worldview. Similarly, if the player has to stand and fight, maybe accept a TPK, because somehow the PCs won't jump off the cliff--even though they'd be fine if they did--that's very hard on him.
This one makes the world very unlike Earth. I think the gravity must be lower or something. But if I wanted to fix that, I'd have to change the falling rule--not ignore it when it's ugly. I chose to let the rule stand, and accept it as a valid description of the gameworld, applying to everyone. And then the PCs, who have lived here all their lives, would of course have some idea about it. (Just as you and I know that a two-foot fall is probably okay and a 200-foot fall is almost surely not, even though we have no idea about hp per se, the PCs should know that great heroes and powerful monsters can fall from the sky and land on their feet.)
As a point of clarification: I have no problem if the PCs refrain from doing something optimal because they have in-character reasons not to. But I don't think they should have to refrain from doing something because they are trying to patch up a mismatch between the game-world and the rules. Too much of that and meaningful in-character planning becomes nearly impossible.
Mary
Wouldn't a 2000 foot cliff do something like 200d6 ~= 700 damage when you fell off it? Sounds lethal to me, even to a high level PC.
Because people in real life who have never broken a limb think that about all the people that have? That seems to be thinking that is breaking the 4th wall, at least to me.
Turning it around:
As a player, when should I roleplay my PC as having broken his leg? Never? Should I roleplay him as being afraid of breaking his leg? Under what circumstances? When he's 16th level and falls off a 2000' cliff--and doesn't break his leg--how should he think about this event? Did he expect to break a leg (or die, for that matter) when he stepped off? In general, what's his view of the world, and is it compatible with the events of the campaign?
I really want to get into my PC's head. Having a mismatch between what I, his player, know can happen and what he knows can happen is a problem for me. I can "firewall" a certain amount, but after some point I can no longer make in-character plans for him. (Speaking from bitter experience here.) This cuts hugely into my enjoyment. Immersion in character is the #1 thing I play for.
This discussion is strongly suggesting to me that I should add a rule, "When you are knocked below zero you take some form of lasting damage appropriate to the type of attack" and apply it to everyone. The increase in mechanical complexity, and the worsening of the five-minute workday problem, may be a price worth paying to avoid either "No one ever takes lasting damage" or "Everyone takes lasting damage except, somehow, for PCs."
We had already had an agreement that if a PC ever uses a hero point to avoid death, there should be a permanent consequence of some kind. This isn't going too far beyond that. I'll propose it to the GM.
Mary
Wouldn't a 2000 foot cliff do something like 200d6 ~= 700 damage when you fell off it? Sounds lethal to me, even to a high level PC.
To the best of my knowledge, falling damage in v3.5 is capped at 10d6. The rule you mention was in earlier editions; the scene would not have been problematic in the same way under those earlier rules. (If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.)
Mary
Wouldn't a 2000 foot cliff do something like 200d6 ~= 700 damage when you fell off it? Sounds lethal to me, even to a high level PC.To the best of my knowledge, falling damage in v3.5 is capped at 10d6. The rule you mention was in earlier editions; the scene would not have been problematic in the same way under those earlier rules. (If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.)
Mary
*goes and checks*
Ahah. We we both wrong. The cap is 20d6, meaning no fall is worse than a 200 foot fall. Well, except tjhat Tumble, Jump, and Slow Fall would require epic rolls to protect you from a 2000 foot fall. The average damge on 20d6 is 70, and the 'worst case' is 140. Enough to kill most PCs if they're unlucky. But you're right, it's much safer than you'd think to leap into the Grand Canyon.
Of course, one way the DM could handle this for cliffs and cayons is to say that you actually hit and bounce off several ledges and such ont he way down, thus taking more shorter falls. Of course, that wouldn't apply to a sheer drop, or from falling off a dragon or something.
Having a mismatch between what I, his player, know can happen and what he knows can happen is a problem for me.
Then what you are talking about is metagaming. I know some people think "metagaming" is a bad word, but it is not. If the character knows everything that you the player know, then that is thinking outside the game. Whether it is knowing that trolls need acid or fire or knowing that you can walk off a 50 foot cliff and you'll be fine because you have more than 30 hp (5d6 of damage). It is also allowing a new character to join your tight-nit group when there really is not a whole lot of reason to except that one of your fellow party members just died. Metagaming isn't inherently bad, it is just how it is used and how far the group is willing to accept it. Heck, read Order of the Stick, they constantly metagame and it is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the comic.
Then what you are talking about is metagaming. Whether it is knowing that trolls need acid or fire or knowing that you can walk off a 50 foot cliff and you'll be fine because you have more than 30 hp (5d6 of damage).
There's a fine line, though. If the characters fight a lot of trolls, and use fire spells, then even the stupidest fantasy person ever born will eventually figure out that those spells work better than hacking with swords. That can be totally in-game. As DM, I don't feel justified in changing that to sonics mid-fight, just because the PCs start to catch on to the fire thing. Or is the player required to pretend not to notice?
Likewise, if a character with training in bull rushing keeps knocking people off of ledges, sooner or later he's bound to notice that this never once kills them. Is that metagaming? Or just observation by the character? Or does the DM occasionally need to make it kill one, just so the character won't catch on?
The term "metagamers" gets applied a lot, but I don't feel that it's not always justified. Certainly I don't feel that every player should be required to pretend not to notice anything that happens, for fear of being branded with that title.
EDIT: If they start spouting off about the toll's hp, on the other hand, then they completely deserve it, IMHO.
There's a fine line, though. If the characters fight a lot of trolls, then even the stupidest fantasy person ever born will eventually figure out that fire and acid work well against them. That can be totally in-game. Likewise, if a character with training in bull rushing keeps knocking people off of ledges, sooner or later he's bound to notice that this never once kills them. Is that metagaming? Or just observation by the character?
You're right, I wasn't as precise as I should have been. If your character didn't know anything about trolls, then knowing that they need fire or acid is metagaming. Also, if they never die, that seems like maybe not a good tactic, unless it is a delaying one. But you never bullrushed someone that was already injuried? Never bullrushed someone who had less hp than the fall took? That seems strange. Heck, I've seen PCs fall down appropriate level traps and die out right in my games (sure they were one of the "squisher" party members but PCs don't usually know about "hp"s do they?).
If your character didn't know anything about trolls, then knowing that they need fire or acid is metagaming.
See edit above: yer darn tootin' it is! No disagreement from me.
|
|
Ahah. We we both wrong. The cap is 20d6, meaning no fall is worse than a 200 foot fall. Well, except tjhat Tumble, Jump, and Slow Fall would require epic rolls to protect you from a 2000 foot fall. The average damge on 20d6 is 70, and the 'worst case' is 140. Enough to kill most PCs if they're unlucky. But you're right, it's much safer than you'd think to leap into the Grand Canyon.Of course, one way the DM could handle this for cliffs and cayons is to say that you actually hit and bounce off several ledges and such ont he way down, thus taking more shorter falls. Of course, that wouldn't apply to a sheer drop, or from falling off a dragon or something.
Plus, 20d6 means a likely Fortitude save against massive damage. Thus, the giant falling off a cliff and dying can be explained by a failed saving throw - I would say a 5% chance of instant death is low, but not too low for heroic fantasy.
Having a mismatch between what I, his player, know can happen and what he knows can happen is a problem for me.Then what you are talking about is metagaming. I know some people think "metagaming" is a bad word, but it is not. If the character knows everything that you the player know, then that is thinking outside the game. Whether it is knowing that trolls need acid or fire or knowing that you can walk off a 50 foot cliff and you'll be fine because you have more than 30 hp (5d6 of damage). It is also allowing a new character to join your tight-nit group when there really is not a whole lot of reason to except that one of your fellow party members just died. Metagaming isn't inherently bad, it is just how it is used and how far the group is willing to accept it. Heck, read Order of the Stick, they constantly metagame and it is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the comic.
I don't see a lot of "The PC mysteriously knows more than he should" in our games, though it may have sounded that way in my descriptions.
By the time the PCs had their encounter with the dead giant, (a) they were 16th level, and (b) they had been the heads of Mokmurian's ex-army for quite a while. They were in a good position to know about giants; they were living with a bunch of them, climbing mountains together, talking to them every day, listening to their stories around the campfire. Presumably giants know very well how far they are likely to be able to fall. After all, real-world humans do. My kid will jump from a four-foot height but not a twenty-foot one. (I hope!)
We didn't play out all those campfire conversations and close calls while marching, though. So the player doesn't know as much as his PCs do about the toughness of giants. To simulate their knowledge, we use mechanics instead.
(I love _Order of the Stick_. But we try not to play like that; it's good for funny, not so much for immersion.)
I don't think the giant conversation would have happened the first time the PCs met a giant, though the player might have checked in with me ("You do realize, don't you, that this is impossible? I trust you have an explanation? Okay, no problem.") But by RotRL #6 point, the PCs would reasonably have known.
My player's very rigorous about not using information his PCs couldn't have. If a PC turns invisible and moves to an unexpected location--this happened in a late scenario in RotRL--another PC may fireball him by mistake. But if it's information we agree his PCs *do* have, he's free to use it. By this point, if giants are in fact more or less immune to falls, he'd have known.
Mary
I should say--we don't use the death from massive damage rule. I had forgotten about it, since we never have used it, either in 3.0 or 3.5. My situation would not play out the same if we were, since then a high fall *would* have a chance to kill a high-level PC.
We found that massive damage led to too much PC death. Our problem with the APs has consistently been too much lethality, so we fine-tuned our rules to help cut it down a bit.
I'm sorry for not mentioning this--it does make a large difference.
We also tend to use average hp for both PCs and monsters; the 9th level fighter with 9 hp therefore doesn't occur. The variance seemed too big for us, plus it's quicker and easier to use the value in the MM rather than rolling all those dice.
Mary
We also tend to use average hp for both PCs and monsters; the 9th level fighter with 9 hp therefore doesn't occur. The variance seemed too big for us, plus it's quicker and easier to use the value in the MM rather than rolling all those dice.
Well again, that is assuming that whenever some giant fell they had to be at full power. If they had already lost some hp (what exactly do hps relate to in your game?), then a fall could surely kill them. I would think it would be strange that no giant has ever heard of any other giant falling to their death at any time. Nobody had Con damage before falling, loss of hp, was old (loss of Con), or anything else that could reduce their hps?
|
|
I should say--we don't use the death from massive damage rule. I had forgotten about it, since we never have used it, either in 3.0 or 3.5. My situation would not play out the same if we were, since then a high fall *would* have a chance to kill a high-level PC.
We found that massive damage led to too much PC death. Our problem with the APs has consistently been too much lethality, so we fine-tuned our rules to help cut it down a bit.
I'm sorry for not mentioning this--it does make a large difference.
We also tend to use average hp for both PCs and monsters; the 9th level fighter with 9 hp therefore doesn't occur. The variance seemed too big for us, plus it's quicker and easier to use the value in the MM rather than rolling all those dice.
Mary
Ah yes, that would explain the event in your game. Also, the massive damage rule does tend to favour monsters and spellcasters. And if a fighter somehow pumps his average damage beyond the threshold, things get bogged down as every foe makes saving throws...
I suppose you could have modified the giant scenario by describing the body as full of battle wounds, or diseased/emaciated - something to give the players the hint that it wasn't just falling that killed the giant?
Well again, that is assuming that whenever some giant fell they had to be at full power. If they had already lost some hp (what exactly do hps relate to in your game?), then a fall could surely kill them. I would think it would be strange that no giant has ever heard of any other giant falling to their death at any time. Nobody had Con damage before falling, loss of hp, was old (loss of Con), or anything else that could reduce their hps?
I'd have to echo Jal's point, that surely it would be obvious to Mary's in-game giants that the one who fell and died was old, or diseased, or cut up, or battle-shocked (one of the things that we consider a rationale for lost hp).
I should mention that that particular situation hasn't been a problem for me because our group uses MORE lethal falling and massive damage rules, not less... partly because we also use action points (hero points were a core mechanic under the very PC-lethal Victory Games rules, and the players LOVED them). Character death is avoided often through planning, luck, and cunning, and through occasional frantic bursts of heroism (the action points at work), but not through some inherent immunity from injury. It can work either way, as long as it's consistent.
We also tend to use average hp for both PCs and monsters; the 9th level fighter with 9 hp therefore doesn't occur. The variance seemed too big for us, plus it's quicker and easier to use the value in the MM rather than rolling all those dice.Well again, that is assuming that whenever some giant fell they had to be at full power. If they had already lost some hp (what exactly do hps relate to in your game?), then a fall could surely kill them. I would think it would be strange that no giant has ever heard of any other giant falling to their death at any time. Nobody had Con damage before falling, loss of hp, was old (loss of Con), or anything else that could reduce their hps?
Well sure; that's what the player was saying. "Describe some other injuries, please, so that the event makes sense" would be a fine approach. Or "describe the giant as elderly and weak." He was alerting me to the need to *do* this, so I don't describe the giant as uninjured, young, hale and hearty; and so I don't repeat the statement in the giant race description about how much *more* dangerous physical hazards like falling are to the large races, so that they must be very careful. If falling is mostly not lethal to giants, their folktales and so forth should reflect that, not reflect the opposite idea that falling is incredibly lethal to them.
I have gone back and forth on hp, and currently consider all hp damage as physical damage: I haven't been able to make the "fatigue and luck" interpretation work for me, because of how it interacts with recovery and healing. I think of a high-level fighter at half hp as being cut, battered and bruised all over. (Or scorched, poisoned, and seared with acid, as appropriate.) They're just somehow able to keep functioning with injuries that would kill a normal man. That's why it's so difficult to heal them. For the fatigue/luck interpretation I'd really want to do healing as % of hp, so that a battered high-level fighter was no harder to restore than a battered low-level one. But this is personal prejudice which I wouldn't particularly ask anyone else to share.
We try not to look too hard at hp: that's a "man behind the curtain" for us. But the general question of how dangerous falling is, needed a bit of consideration. *Should* the PCs be willing to step off the 2000' cliff to avoid the wendigo? *Should* they make a plan involving pushing giants off cliffs, expecting to kill them? Is this a spot where we have to grit our teeth and say "The rules don't describe the real gameworld?" I hate those: I'd like to have as few as possible.
The big one for us is economics. In our current game we are abstracting most considerations of money, because we know that if the PCs pay attention to money and how it works, everything will collapse like a house of cards. It's damned annoying, because two of the PCs are merchants, and it would be nice to be able to think their thoughts in more detail. But fixing the D&D economics is beyond us. They're internally inconsistent.
I try not to add anything to the "can't fix it, can't make it real, just have to ignore it" category unless I'm truly forced to do so.
Mary
I have gone back and forth on hp, and currently consider all hp damage as physical damage: I haven't been able to make the "fatigue and luck" interpretation work for me, because of how it interacts with recovery and healing.
Heh. I'm again forced to admit we take the opposite approach...
Amusingly, that's what makes the cure spells on the bard's list work so well for us: the bard's performance takes the PC's mind off the harrowing combat he's just been through, and allows him a break so he can refocus afterwards. We envision a heal spell as something akin to "dispel exhaustion" (the physical/mental condition, not the game status). My most serious RL taekwondo injury (nose obliterated) occurred after I'd narrowly avoided knockout blows several times, and just couldn't keep up any more; our workplace safety program emphasizes that most serious work injuries occur to exhausted workers. So higher-level characters have more "hp," in my mind, because their experience gives them a higher tolerance for "battle fatigue."
Then again, we have lethal falls, too. It's all a matter of personal preference.
Well sure; that's what the player was saying. "Describe some other injuries, please, so that the event makes sense" would be a fine approach. Or "describe the giant as elderly and weak."
Was your player's character a "medical examiner"? Sorry, not trying to be rude, just asking because I wonder how clear any "other injuries" would be on a body that had slammed on the ground from an amazing height. Especially since most bodies (especially huge ones) might not just hit and stop, but might actually bounce around a bit before coming to rest.
Was your player's character a "medical examiner"?
Sounds like a good use for a Heal check! (I've always wondered about forensic uses for that skill; has anyone else read Steven Brust's Athyra, for example?)
|
|
I have gone back and forth on hp, and currently consider all hp damage as physical damage: I haven't been able to make the "fatigue and luck" interpretation work for me, because of how it interacts with recovery and healing.Heh. I'm again forced to admit we take the opposite approach...
Amusingly, that's what makes the cure spells on the bard's list work so well for us: the bard's performance takes the PC's mind off the harrowing combat he's just been through, and allows him a break so he can refocus afterwards. We envision a heal spell as something akin to "dispel exhaustion" (the physical/mental condition, not the game status). My most serious RL taekwondo injury (nose obliterated) occurred after I'd narrowly avoided knockout blows several times, and just couldn't keep up any more; our workplace safety program emphasizes that most serious work injuries occur to exhausted workers. So higher-level characters have more "hp," in my mind, because their experience gives them a higher tolerance for "battle fatigue."
Then again, we have lethal falls, too. It's all a matter of personal preference.
I am kind of between on the issue of hp. In general, I assume hp from class levels is "training and luck" while hp from creature HD is pure damage (so when you deal 45 damage to a dragon, that is 10 average slices with a longsword). A characters first class HD is also pure damage (other houserules use CON score to represent this).
I find it much easier to describe things to the players in this manner:
Hit the human commoner with longsword - dead or dying.
Hit the 1st-level human fighter with said longsword - mortally wounded.
Hit the 20th-level human fighter with said longsword - huge bruise.
Hit the Great Wyrm Red Dragon with said longsword - same size cut as on the commoner or the 1st-level fighter.
Thus, the higher-classed characters avoid the actual weapon damage. I realize this is fairly similar to the 4th Edition mentality, but I still prefer taking a long time to regain your ability to fight. In this sense, hp does abstract the things talked about in this thread (bruises, scrapes). But even Achilles got tired fighting at Troy.
Well sure; that's what the player was saying. "Describe some other injuries, please, so that the event makes sense" would be a fine approach. Or "describe the giant as elderly and weak."Was your player's character a "medical examiner"? Sorry, not trying to be rude, just asking because I wonder how clear any "other injuries" would be on a body that had slammed on the ground from an amazing height. Especially since most bodies (especially huge ones) might not just hit and stop, but might actually bounce around a bit before coming to rest.
I don't think my player's problem was specifically with the one crushed giant.
I think the real question in his mind was, "Should my PCs treat falling as extremely dangerous to big tough creatures, as it is in real life, or as only mildly dangerous, as it is in the game rules? What are we really assuming here?" And he wanted to nail that right away, as soon as the crushed giant reminded him that it might be a problem. He had a small army of giants under his command at the time, and he was in a mountain range, so it wasn't exactly an academic question....
(The current CotCT does have a PC with ambitions of medical-examiner status, and who did take Heal at maximum ranks purely for that purpose. We've had a few gruesome discussions of rigor mortis and blood loss--all at medieval levels of understanding of course.)
Mary
Hit the 20th-level human fighter with said longsword - huge bruise.
I'm with you on dragons, etc. -- it's OK for them to take a lot of really grievous wounds to kill. (If a necromancer had the Improved Toughness feat, I might also consider that to be some kind of "unholy vitality.") But at our table, the 20th level fighter who gets "hit" with a longsword isn't even bruised, much less slashed -- he's just starting to accumulate some of the battle fatigue that will eventually make him more careless and/or unreactive (read: down to his last few hp), leaving openings that could get him killed. Indeed, when a player wonders aloud how "wounded" an opponent looks, I give him a Perception roll (opposed by the opponent's Bluff or Intimidate check) to notice if the guy's starting to get "rubber legs," or if he's able to hide it and act like he's still fresh.
Amusingly, that's what makes the cure spells on the bard's list work so well for us: the bard's performance takes the PC's mind off the harrowing combat he's just been through, and allows him a break so he can refocus afterwards. We envision a heal spell as something akin to "dispel exhaustion" (the physical/mental condition, not the game status). My most serious RL taekwondo injury (nose obliterated) occurred after I'd narrowly avoided knockout blows several times, and just couldn't keep up any more; our workplace safety program emphasizes that most serious work injuries occur to exhausted workers. So higher-level characters have more "hp," in my mind, because their experience gives them a higher tolerance for "battle fatigue."
It seems like that last nose-obliterating blow, though, should be quite a lot harder to recover from than the exhaustion preceeding it. I have trouble grasping that the exhausted but basically unhurt high-level fighter will take longer to recover (without assistance) than a commoner who's been hacked within an inch of his life.
Hp are a place where all of the rationalizations are a bit weak, anyway; no surprise that different groups go different ways, and I'd happily play in a game that called the hp "fatigue damage" as long as they didn't put inordinate stress on it.
I don't love the whole hp/cure spell mechanic particularly, but the system is already close to my upper complexity limit, and I'm not willing to try to fix this. It's pretty low on my problem list anyway. Economics, now....but that's beyond my abilities to repair.
Mary
It seems like that last nose-obliterating blow, though, should be quite a lot harder to recover from than the exhaustion preceeding it.
That's very true, and it is the major flaw in my hp viewpoint. In fact, now that you point it out, I'll be thinking about it when I should be sleeping or concentrating on other things, like my wife's grocery list! Well, no system is perfect; we've all just got to go with what works for us.
(BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I spent half my senior year in high school with a cast on my face).
It seems like that last nose-obliterating blow, though, should be quite a lot harder to recover from than the exhaustion preceeding it.That's very true, and it is the major flaw in my hp viewpoint. In fact, now that you point it out, I'll be thinking about it when I should be sleeping or concentrating on other things, like my wife's grocery list!
I'm not really sure that this aspect gets all that much in my way. Your usually being cured by magic. The big problems get deal with first but a fighter thats covered with bruises, is mentally and physically fatigued and has brutally sore and stiff muscles is not at the top of her game. She's going to have a lot more trouble side stepping those lethal blows and can probably absorb significantly fewer glancing blows before she really screws up and takes one that hammers home.
In some sense I envision the hps at the top of a high level character as being more amazing ability to side step the really hard blows or to keep going with nasty bruises and aching muscles. Since we are now talking about what amounts to top athletes it makes since that the time needed to rest and such remains similar all the way. Your body needs to be closer and closer to perfect physical condition to get access to those hps at the top.
In any case I never actually see this coming up much in games. The CLW wands heal everyone to full (or almost full) hps after every fight. Its just makes sense to me that healing magic would start with the worst problems and work their way out to eventually deal with sore muscles.
Having a mismatch between what I, his player, know can happen and what he knows can happen is a problem for me.Then what you are talking about is metagaming. I know some people think "metagaming" is a bad word, but it is not. If the character knows everything that you the player know, then that is thinking outside the game. Whether it is knowing that trolls need acid or fire or knowing that you can walk off a 50 foot cliff and you'll be fine because you have more than 30 hp (5d6 of damage). It is also allowing a new character to join your tight-nit group when there really is not a whole lot of reason to except that one of your fellow party members just died. Metagaming isn't inherently bad, it is just how it is used and how far the group is willing to accept it. Heck, read Order of the Stick, they constantly metagame and it is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the comic.
I don't really hate all metagaming but I still find the idea that the NPCs won't jump off the cliff to escape the monsters while the players are definitly willing to do it puts to much of a strain on the system for me. My players metagame moderately often, they know the bonus one gets for flanking and such and will consider their options in combat to make full use of these options. Thing is, I know these rules too and I'm not pretending that my monsters don't know them unless there really is no way that they would. Even the wolves will flank - they have natural cunning and are pack killers. The oozes - not so much.
Hence as a DM I definitly keep leaping from the cliff in mind as one option for possible escape. I'd probably not use it to much for more mundane monster encounters (too boring), though here its not really relevant - PCs get XP for defeating or bypassing monsters - if its badly wounded at the bottom of a canyon its no longer of much concern to the PCs. However for a main villain - well thats one way to escape the PCs. I find it more of a problem to play in a situation where my genius level arch villain is frustrated by the PCs leaping off cliffs to escape when they want to but its not an option for our major villain because he's under the delusion that this is going to almost certianly kill him, when, in game terms, it probably has almost no chance of doing so - and he'll probably be fine if the PCs accidentally knock him off the cliff face.
This is one of those core mechanics that, as a Type A DM, I realize forces reality to change in order to accommodate the rule. This is to close to the core mechanics that everyone knows backwards and forwards to get around. With something like a broken leg my solution is much more subtle - it just does not come up. I'll word smith my way around it. I can't even recall it being a core theme in an adventure. We've gotten this far without drawing attention to broken limbs and I'm willing to keep going. Maybe they happen in the world and maybe they don't - truth is I don't have to answer that question if it never comes up.
We tend to look at hps as both a measure of physical damage, but also of those other less defined aspects as well. But physical damage probably makes up a good majority of what hps represent to us. We also ruled that if healed naturally, you usually develop scars and such, but if you use magic the wounds are healed with no trace. Of course the extent that this is played out is dependent on the player and the character (we had a 1/2-orc barbarian that was proud of her scars for example).
I don't really hate all metagaming but I still find the idea that the NPCs won't jump off the cliff to escape the monsters while the players are definitly willing to do it puts to much of a strain on the system for me.
And nobody is suggesting that. Heck lots of people in real life have been known to make leaps from high heights when the other choice is seen as worse (want an example, look at the tragedy of 9/11/2001). If the only choices are (a) stay and get slaughtered or (b) jump and pray for the best, I think most people would take option (b).
My players metagame moderately often, they know the bonus one gets for flanking and such and will consider their options in combat to make full use of these options. Thing is, I know these rules too and I'm not pretending that my monsters don't know them unless there really is no way that they would. Even the wolves will flank - they have natural cunning and are pack killers. The oozes - not so much.
Of course. But I'm not sure I would label flanking as metagaming. Now if NPC rogues always come in pairs and when moving up on a target the first one always readies an attack as soon as the 2nd one gets in position, after the first 10 times that happens it starts to feel a bit fake (believe me, I know having experienced it constantly from one DM). Nobody is suggesting that players and DMs have to play their characters in a moronic fashion.
Hence as a DM I definitly keep leaping from the cliff in mind as one option for possible escape. I'd probably not use it to much for more mundane monster encounters, though here its not really relevant - PCs get XP for defeating or bypassing monsters - if its badly wounded at the bottom of a canyon its no longer of much concern to the PCs. However for a main villain - well thats one way to escape the PCs. I find it more of a problem to play in a situation where my genius level arch villain is frustrated by the PCs leaping off cliffs to escape when they want to but its not an option for our major villain because he's under the delusion that this is going to almost certianly kill him, when, in game terms, it probably has almost no chance of doing so - and he'll probably be fine if the PCs accidentally knock him off the cliff face.
Right, as I said, when faced with almost guaranteed defeat or taking your chances jumping, I can see characters jumping. But they probably shouldn't be thinking, "Well I still have 30 hps and this is only a 40 foot drop so the most damage I'm going to take is 20 points, so I'll be fine." No, they probably should be thinking, "Crap, if I stick around I'm done for. Looks like the cliff is the only choice if I want a chance to get away. Gods this is going to hurt!" Though I would find it strange if any arch villian would be considered a "genius" if he didn't already have a way to deal with cliffs (spider climb, ring of feather fall, fly potion, cloak of the bat, teleport contingence, etc).
This is one of those core mechanics that, as a Type A DM, I realize that I have to simply accept that reality has to change to accommodate this. Its to close to the core mechanics that everyone knows backwards and forwards. With something like a broken leg my solution is much more subtler - it just does not come up. I'll word smith my way around it.
Even if a character knew for a fact that they could survive a fall with no permanent damage, I seriously doubt many would consider such a thing desireable. The character would still take damage, which I would assume would translate into "pain" for the character. Then again since there are not rules for "pain", maybe characters don't feel it.
Then again since there are not rules for "pain", maybe characters don't feel it.
Or, more likely, it's one of those things like childbirth that we pretty much all agree doesn't need rules. Remember, none of the Type A people (that I know of, anyway) are advocating that everything needs rules.
Or, more likely, it's one of those things like childbirth that we pretty much all agree doesn't need rules. Remember, none of the Type A people (that I know of, anyway) are advocating that everything needs rules.
Well I wasn't really targetting Type A folks with that comment. Merely stating a possibility, maybe characters don't feel pain. I mean you can function well until you can't really function at all, so maybe pain isn't a product of hps, or loss of them.
But they probably shouldn't be thinking, "Well I still have 30 hps and this is only a 40 foot drop so the most damage I'm going to take is 20 points, so I'll be fine."
What a brain-fart. Obviously that should be 24 points not 20. I got the dumb today.
|
|
Here is a crazy suggestion:
Use ability damage to scare players off of doing ridiculous acts. Sort of like massive damage (maybe even replacing it), if you take a certain amount of damage you could take random ability damage, as follows:
When you take damage equal to or greater than (CON score + racial HD) you must make a fortitude save of DC = (damage dealt) or suffer 1d3 damage of the following (roll of d6):
1. Strength: torn/lascerated muscles
2. Dexterity: broken bones
3. Constitution: internal bleeding/organ damage
4. Intelligence: concussion
5. Wisdom: sensory/brain damage (eyes, mouth, nose, ears, skin)
6. Charisma: bruised ego...nah, maybe horrible scarring
Every day, make another saving throw equal to the DC (+2 per day).
Success: You may recover ability damage normally that day.
Failure: For every failed save, you take 1 more damage and 1 point of damage becomes ability drain instead.
After 2 successful saving throws in a row, you no longer have to save against the damage. You may use a Heal check in substitution of the save. Lesser restoration heals the damage, but does not remove the need for further saving throws. Restoration, Heal, or more powerful spells can completely cure a patient of this problem.
Not perfect, but it can simulate some of the requests on this thread for more "realistic" damage. And it certainly makes combat more deadly. You could design a series of fighter feats that lets them "target" an area. And it makes it dangerous for any character to jump off a cliff (but less dangerous for warriors or giants).
Here is a crazy suggestion:
Use ability damage to scare players off of doing ridiculous acts. Sort of like massive damage (maybe even replacing it), if you take a certain amount of damage you could take random ability damage, as follows:
When you take damage equal to or greater than (CON score + racial HD) you must make a fortitude save of DC = (damage dealt) or suffer 1d3 damage of the following (roll of d6):
1. Strength: torn/lascerated muscles
2. Dexterity: broken bones
3. Constitution: internal bleeding/organ damage
4. Intelligence: concussion
5. Wisdom: sensory/brain damage (eyes, mouth, nose, ears, skin)
6. Charisma: bruised ego...nah, maybe horrible scarringEvery day, make another saving throw equal to the DC (+2 per day).
Success: You may recover ability damage normally that day.
Failure: For every failed save, you take 1 more damage and 1 point of damage becomes ability drain instead.After 2 successful saving throws in a row, you no longer have to save against the damage. You may use a Heal check in substitution of the save. Lesser restoration heals the damage, but does not remove the need for further saving throws. Restoration, Heal, or more powerful spells can completely cure a patient of this problem.
Not perfect, but it can simulate some of the requests on this thread for more "realistic" damage. And it certainly makes combat more deadly. You could design a series of fighter feats that lets them "target" an area. And it makes it dangerous for any character to jump off a cliff (but less dangerous for warriors or giants).
After the lowest levels they'd just magic the problem away. Also, I'm not really sure any one is particularly requesting more realistic damage. Its more that we are grappling with different styles of dealing with an unrealistic model.
|
|
After the lowest levels they'd just magic the problem away. Also, I'm not really sure any one is particularly requesting more realistic damage. Its more that we are grappling with different styles of dealing with an unrealistic model.
Agreed to some extend (notice how only saves or high-level magic will completely negate the problem). But, it was just a crazy spur-of-the-moment idea that I wanted to get down.
If I wanted falling to be lethal, I'd follow Kirth and make it lethal. The cumulative-damage rule from older editions worked pretty well.
What I really don't want is a gameworld where falling isn't lethal, but we have to pretend it is; or it's lethal, but only offstage; or only for NPCs. I don't require the gameworld to be particularly realistic, as long as it's consistent. After all, anime has a long tradition of characters who can fall inordinate distances and bounce, so it's pretty easy for me to visualize.
The two places where I am currently in most discomfort about rules mismatch:
(1) Economics. We abstract away almost all PC interactions with wealth and money, because allowing PCs to think about that causes everything to fall apart. My merchant PC is not as vivid in play as she should be, because she has to be kept from thinking about something that should be a major concern of hers.
(2) Learning. There's a thread on one of the boards about graduates of the Academae and how to handle them. The same issue just came up in our game with regard to the training of a new fighting force. The advancement rules are about learning-through-adventuring; there is no support for learning-via-training. So it's very hard to think in-character about what the Academae is doing, without leading to contradictions with regard to the PCs' learning. A character who can multiclass into wizard suddenly in mid-adventure just makes the whole ten years' servitude at the Academae look senseless. And if my PC (currently an instructor at Thaumanexis) can teach skills to NPCs, why can't he teach skills to PCs? If he can't teach skills to NPCs, what the heck is he doing?
I've played in games that required training for PCs to advance. It can work for a low-advancement game but is troublesome for something paced like CotCT. I don't really have a good solution for either of these problems, so they remain thorny.
The city adventure format stresses both of these points particularly hard. I love cities, but it's easier to make D&D work away from them.
Mary
People get xp for overcoming challenges. This doesn't have to be "adventuring" challenges. While your typical NPC may not face alot of challenges on a regular basis, and thus not level quickly, a place that regular subjects students to difficult challenge might level them more quickly than they would if they were just studying on their own.
People get xp for overcoming challenges. This doesn't have to be "adventuring" challenges. While your typical NPC may not face alot of challenges on a regular basis, and thus not level quickly, a place that regular subjects students to difficult challenge might level them more quickly than they would if they were just studying on their own.
I'm inclined to agree, but then, if one PC is a student and the others are not, do you level them faster? How much faster?
In our game one PC was a student at Thaumanexis for the first part of the campaign (now an instructor) and another was similarly placed in a swordsmanship academy. I'd have been pretty uneasy about leveling them faster than the others, if I were the GM. But otherwise there is no clear way to show that they're learning more than they would on their own.
I'd go for leveling each character at his/her own pace (we don't give EXP anyway) if the system worked better for PCs of different level, but I've found it quite stressful to have parties with more than a small level difference among the PCs. The death rate of the weaker PCs, in our hands, is too high.
As another example, we just encountered a situation where an NPC was kidnapped and put to two months of hard sword-and-shield practice. Either she went up a level and learned that stuff, or she didn't--the latter makes no sense to us--but if she went up a level from that, it's hard to understand the NPC level distribution in the setting.
And the Academae takes *years* to produce a mage. It's hard to reconcile that with the usual behavior of PC mages. In this particular game we have a workaround (the PC mage isn't learning wizardry, he's relearning it, so of course he learns fast) but it's awkward in general. (Which touches on the related issue that I'd really be happier, from a world point of view, with much slower advancement. I have trouble reconciling what happens to the PCs with what happens to everyone else.)
Mary
Which touches on the related issue that I'd really be happier, from a world point of view, with much slower advancement. I have trouble reconciling what happens to the PCs with what happens to everyone else.)
In 3.5, I slowed advancement by making the characters pay the full XP value for the magic items they kept, as if they had crafted them. This also satisfied my annoyance at the idiocy of an NPC who would trade hard-earned XP for mere gold... if the customer pays the XP cost instead, then suddenly I could understand why NPC wizards would be willing to fabricate items.
|
|
I would suggest finding a happy balance between time/cost for partaking in an academy, and the amount of XP derived from study their.
Clearly, study at an academy is an inferior choice - if it were as viable as adventuring, noone would adventure. So, given that the NPCs and PCs are getting XP "for free", then they should have to pay for it.
In a way, it would provide a nice balance to a campaign:
You adventure for a few months, take a vacation at an academy and spend your riches on non-violent training.
I should mention that myself and another DM I play with both have rules for training required for advancing in any core classes. That avoids the whole lifelong-soldier-suddenly-learns-wizardry debacle.
In 3.5, I slowed advancement by making the characters pay the full XP value for the magic items they kept, as if they had crafted them. This also satisfied my annoyance at the idiocy of an NPC who would trade hard-earned XP for mere gold... if the customer pays the XP cost instead, then suddenly I could understand why NPC wizards would be willing to fabricate items.
It's dead easy to slow advancement. The problem is, how do you then use the AP, or indeed any published material longer than a Dungeon scenario? They all assume lightning-fast advancement.
My GM is currently inserting 2-3 side adventures between each episode of _Edge of Anarchy_ to get an advancement rate I can enjoy, but it's a lot of work for him. When I ran RotRL I simply didn't have time to do that, and the game suffered for it. I did 2 side adventures between #3 and #4, but I should have been doing that throughout....
We also find that there are spots in most of the APs where putting in side adventures really damages the arc of the main plot, but if you don't, in our hands the advancement rate is a big strain on characterization.
When we did SCAP we ended up capping PC advancement at 15th, which of course immediately makes the stat blocks in the later modules useless--the prep burden on the GM was so high that it definitely contributed to the death of the game, though that game had a lot of other problems as well. But it was clear that if those PCs went up any more levels my ability to characterize them would be zero, as would my ability to play them capably.
Mary
In a way, it would provide a nice balance to a campaign:You adventure for a few months, take a vacation at an academy and spend your riches on non-violent training.
I should mention that myself and another DM I play with both have rules for training required for advancing in any core classes. That avoids the whole lifelong-soldier-suddenly-learns-wizardry debacle.
How do you handle a plotline like RotRL or CotCT, which at some point turns very forcing and drives the PCs out of their base area?
In RotRL #5 the PCs are expected to go up three levels while trapped in a dungeon. If they don't, you're playing a lot of levels down. This was an interesting one for us because my player flatly refused the third level--he's much more tolerant of advancement than I am, but this was too fast even for him. It was scary for me as a GM, because I was worried about the PCs being too low level for the scenario. As it happened, that was the closest I came to a TPK all campaign, but the PCs recruited allies like crazy and did manage to survive.
For a homebrew campaign I'd have few qualms about just cutting the advancement rate to 1/3 or 1/4 what it is in Core. But how to continue using the APs if I do that?
Mary
|
|
It seems like that last nose-obliterating blow, though, should be quite a lot harder to recover from than the exhaustion preceeding it. I have trouble grasping that the exhausted but basically unhurt high-level fighter will take longer to recover (without assistance) than a commoner who's been hacked within an inch of his life.
We know that high-level (or high-HD) creatures are more resistant to magic?
What if that also applied to beneficial magic, like cures?
They heal less hp, proportionally, since they're getting less bang for their buck.