|
I tend to discourage players saying their hitpoint totals to each other at my tables. I've used the % system you've described OP to some great results. I use the keyword "bloodied (or injured)" for characters\monsters at 50% health, "critical" for 25% and "near death" at 10%. It helps people visualize the state of each thing in the combat, and lets people know the relative odds of someone going down in one hit.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Under ideal circumstances, hee's how it goes at my table:
If I've got a new-ish player...
Player 1: I pull a potion out of my pouch.
Me: That'll provoke an Attack of Opportunity from the guy with the spear. Do you still want to take your eyes off him?
Player1: Well, yeah.
Me: He strikes (roll attack in the open) It's a natural 20. (roll confirmation in the open) That's a 25. Does it hit?
Player 1: Aarg. Yes.
Me: How many hit points does your rogue have left?
Player 1: Twelve.
Me: You drop, the vial clattering noisily as it hits the smooth paved stones. (slip Player 1 a note, indicating to him that his rogue is at -2 hp)
Player 2: Is he dead?
Me: Do you have deathwatch up and running?
Player 2: No, but I should be able to tell. Breathing vs not breathing. Blood spurting versus quietly pooling. Head attached versus not.
Me: (laugh) If he's that obviously dead, I'd let everybody know. But how wounded he is? From across a busy melee? Then what good would it be for a mage to cast deathwatch? If you want, you can make a Heal check on your turn.
Player 2: ...
And, yeah, NN 959, if Player 2 wants his oracle to cast a spell, Player 1's rogue can either make a Spellcraft check or else ask Player 2 what the spell is. In which case, all the bad guys within ear-shot might get that information as well.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does there need to be a hard and fast rule for how this is handled in PFS? I hope not.
Typically I don't police hit point reporting but instead try to promote a more qualitative approach to players' broadcasting their respective hit point totals. For example, I might ask them to let the table know percentage-wise how many hit points they have remaining. When I describe how damaged a creature is, I might describe how it is suffering from many terribly wounds and might fall to another mighty hit.
I have a soft spot for divination and near-divination spells, especially those that give an in-character reason for some of the out-of-character inevitabilities that come with playing a social game. These include deathwatch, status and telepathic bond, which a frightening number of character seem to benefit from without actually casting. By setting a personal baseline for when I entertain qualitative vs. quantitative value judgments, I set myself up for being able to reward those who use the above spells.
That said, yes, NN 959, I also respect that it's a social game and like to encourage plenty of banter, but I find by regularly trying to translate numbers into descriptions for my players, they're usually quite good about reciprocating with each other. Once it's the shared cultural norm in a region, it's no longer a drag to do.
I've handled many a near death (and occasionally death) in a way similar to what Chris described above, but that's my GMing style.
It's just how I handle it in a not-binding-for-PFS way.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
N N 959, I'm letting players know what their teammate is casting, without a Spellcraft check. But the NPCs within ear-shot know, too, without a Spellcraft check, and can plan accordingly. The same is true for tactics. Please, call out to the intelligent opponents what maneuver you're planning.
It's one of the reasons I recommend characters who adventure together regularly all learn some common, obscure language. (Modesty Blaise and Willie used Arabic.) For ad-hoc groups, there's the gold nodule ioun stone. Or, you know, just fight oozes and talk amongst yourselves.
I wasn't sure ahead of time, but it turns out that I get a lot of bang for the buck when players aren't sure how close one another is to death. It's not the "Hey, I'm at -13" but rather the "Hey, no problem, I'm only at -3 over here" that drains the drama and danger out of the situation. Without that, the healers don't know how much time they have to save their comrades; that seems more plausible to me. I recommend you try it and see if people don't have an easier time getting into character.
|
Developer
|
I'm with Chris on the hp, but it's a personal style thing. As for casting, the character could announce it, but tactical table talk is in character at my tables absent telepathic bond, so the baddies can hear what you're doing. So if someone says "I've got a breath of life" or somesuch, intelligent foes with spellcraft will react accordingly. So I suppose I'm with Chris there, too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I handle this, when it becomes more fun to do than just plainly stating hit points (online, usually), is to say that I'm:
"fine"
"lightly wounded"
"moderately wounded"
"seriously wounded"
"critical"
And after anyone drops below 0, when the game starts feeling rough (and sometimes less fun), I'll announce negatives and let the players use their own method of abstraction - someone's fairly likely about to lose their character here. If someone's dropped, chances are it's already a sufficiently challenging and fun encounter, without having to add on the pressure.
Of course, if the players want bring-it-on hard mode, you can just not communicate anything at all beyond "really really bleeding" when you get to the negatives, I suppose.
If I had it my way, ideally, I'd do away with deathwatch/status to allow using the numbers, for all the reasons NN959 described. For me (and this is my personal opinion only), the convenience is worth more to the game.
|
|
I would have to agree with NN 959 in regards to GMs imposing restrictions on the players that they do not impose on the NPCs they are playing. I do not especially like ooc table talk either, but it is no different then a GM running a group of NPCs and always healing at just the right moment, or coordinating attacks with no verbal discussions that pcs can use to their advantage. If you are going to enforce that type of table talk make sure you are adjudicating your NPCs the same way. In my experience GMs almost never do, and I have played under many 4 and 5 star GMs including a couple involved in this discussion. I. Do not believe any malicious intent is meant...I think that many GMs just do not think about it from that point of view.
|
|
N N 959, I'm letting players know what their teammate is casting, without a Spellcraft check. But the NPCs within ear-shot know, too, without a Spellcraft check, and can plan accordingly. The same is true for tactics. Please, call out to the intelligent opponents what maneuver you're planning.
While I do typically like a game more attuned to the realistic implications of things in the rules, I think that given the fact that PFS is not a campaign with persistent stories or character interactions it is completely fine to bend realism little bit to get more inter-character interaction and cooperation out of players who are just tossed together by the vicissitudes of game-day sign ups. Also I am biased because most of the time I encounter DMs who are adamant bout this sort of thing they are also the kind of DM who enforces it solely to screw over the characters and runs NPCs with the kind of hive-mind that is mentioned upthread.
It's one of the reasons I recommend characters who adventure together regularly all learn some common, obscure language. (Modesty Blaise and Willie used Arabic.) For ad-hoc groups, there's the gold nodule ioun stone. Or, you know, just fight oozes and talk amongst yourselves.
This is absolutely the approach to take in the context of a real campaign in a home game. PFS is very different though. For the vast majority of PFS players this is tedious and wastes the chronically too-short times in most slots.
I wasn't sure ahead of time, but it turns out that I get a lot of bang for the buck when players aren't sure how close one another is to death. It's not the "Hey, I'm at -13" but rather the "Hey, no problem, I'm only at -3 over here" that drains the drama and danger out of the situation. Without that, the healers don't know how much time they have to save their comrades; that seems more plausible to me. I recommend you try it and see if people don't have an easier time getting into character.
Again, in the context of a real campaign with persistent character interaction I agree with this assessment. However in the context of PFS I think that it is ok to play according to more gameist, or more pejoritavely "video-gamey" logic and let things like this slide.
And do you have the BBEG or sentient NPC spell casters telling their mooks what they are casting? I've never once seen a GM do it. I've never, not once, heard GM have the NPC's talk out loud about their tactics.
I do this on a regular basis.
In the last few sessions, the enemies were yelling back and forth to each other - however, none of the PCs spoke the appropriate language to be able to understand them. Other times, the PCs are able to understand them.
Enemy spellcasters sometimes advertise what they are going to cast, at other times they don't - depending on the situation. A spellcaster summoning a creature might ask for some of the others to form a wall. A spellcaster casting fireball to catch the PCs only likely will not say anything - same as one casting hold person on a PC.
In one game, the PCs heard the necromancer tell the mindless undead to attack the half-orc (the team's cleric). The mindless undead proceeded to do so, but did take several AoOs from PCs who moved in to block them and made the undead take a couple of rounds more to be able to do so, as they moved around the rest of the PCs.
I too prefer that players not talk about their HP level. I would rather that they use more descriptive terms - I do the same for NPCs (hobgoblin line trooper: Medic! If I go down they will roll up this flank!)
I also try and be descriptive during the fight rather than just say - you take 7 points of damage, I try and say something like "The hobgoblin's blade scores your flank and he smiles tauntingly at you - take 7 points".
YMMV
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And do you have the BBEG or sentient NPC spell casters telling their mooks what they are casting? I've never once seen a GM do it. I've never, not once, heard GM have the NPC's talk out loud about their tactics. Amazingly, the NPC's know exactly what they are doing, when they are running, when they flanking..it's as if..it's as if...it's as if all the NPCs are being run by single mind. I won't mix genres.
Which is not only unrealistic in some cases, but it's also missing two bets.
1) When the Aspis boss does bark out orders to his minions, and the PCs who make a Perception check can overhear them, then they can act on that knowledge. When the enemy calls to his companion, "let's surround this guy here and make short work of him," it tells the players something about the tactics that the opponents are using. It gives the tactics-plus players something to work with, which they find fun.
2) It also helps differentiate different opponents. Long-standing combat teams might not need to bark more than "6-man assault, left corridor, 12 seconds away. Code Gamma, hot." and they all fall into position, using readied actions, flanking, battlefield control maneuvers, etc.
Meanwhile a group of competent mercenaries, all recently hired, will be calling out tactics, and the better ones mostly follow them. Some of these guys might talk with the PCs as the fight progresses. A group of guards will be able to handle themselves in a fight, but won't have elaborate tactics.
Vicious animals will have less coordination, depending on their natural attack forms. Mindless vermin and undead, none at all.
By having some groups call out tactics and maneuvers, the GM lets the role-playing-heavy players interact with the opponents during the fight, which they find fun. She also gives the players a feel for what kind of fight this is supposed to be.
I'm sure there are GMs who play all the bad guys as a hive mind. I confess that I did that a lot, myself, when I was learning how to run an enemy team. But now I spend some time into my prep-work deciding what kind of opponent team the PCs encounter, and how to convey that to the players during the fight. "They have tight combat tactics, and the guys with long spears routinely trip you and harass the spell-casters" is better than "They all have the same blue-star tattoo on their right hands."
---
For reasons I won't go into here, I would not want to disadvantage players who have to jump around compared to those who have the luxury of a persistent group.
My experience is that a lot of PFS is getting played in game stores, where people have semi-regular groups. Even at conventions, I see more groups of two and three players moving from table to table than singletons. If self-mustering continues to be a thing at larger conventions, that practice only reinforces this phenomenon.
My point being, even players who "jump around" are doing so with one or two buddies. The idea of bringing along a couple of ioun stones for the guests at the table isn't ridiculous. (The Pathfinder Society Primer isn't even three months old, and I've already seen one PC at a conventon -- I believe he was a battle oracle with the Tongues curse -- hand out ioun stones to the other party members so they could all communicate in Sylvan.)
I look forward to playing at your table sometime.
|
Our home group's preference (including when we run PFS sessions) is to have to Heal check for more than basic percentage/description of HP reports. I think it is so ingrained that we never even noticed these newfangled editions don't list a DC for it!
But we also favor a goose-gander philosophy. The NPC's have to heal check also, and sometimes that has hilarious results. Just this past week, in our home campaign, one my NPC's not only died, but wasted seven rounds of actions, because his team (all 13 of them!) could not make a Heal check in the double digits. Their specialized healer was dead, and the remaining oracle had healing spells but didn't bother to put any effort into learning about Heal.
I think when I finally get around to running PFS outside our gang, I'll just take a table poll before game starts, making clear that whichever way the players decide, the NPC's will do the same. Our group does this with a lot of other things too, but the tactics following requirements in PFS have made it a lot harder here. The players can have the choice of whether they want more uncertainty or not.
|
|
Does there need to be a hard and fast rule for how this is handled in PFS? I hope not.
I believe this is an excellent place for table variation.
Personally, I ask players not to use numbers when communicating hit points or skill bonuses. I have no issues with tables that do allow players to discuss numbers.
|
At our gaming table, we jokingly and yet seriously ask "If you were a pie..." to indicate roughly the amount of damage a character has sustained to determine how many hit points they have left.
A classic example (iterated just this past Sunday in fact), after the party's rogue was hit by a crit from the GM (me), when asked "If you were a pie...?", the player responded, "Slowly molding in the trash can". I might've killed him...
In all seriousness, unless they have Status up and running, at my PFS games the players typically agree to give rough approximations, whether generic percentages (about 25% HP left/gone), or physical descriptions (winded and slightly scratched, or bleeding profusely, or my favorite, "I have the sway" meaning they're at 0 HP).
-SK
|
My table rule is that you don't know the other PC's exact hit point status in combat (unless you've been tracking it yourself). I ask players not to discuss their current hit points, although they can say things like, "I'm badly hurt and need healing."
Of course, if they say that the bad guys can hear them, too.
Part of playing the game is paying attention to what happens to the other players around you when it's not your turn. If you're distracted then it stands to reason that your character is distracted. If you want to know how badly hurt your fellow PCs are, pay attention to the game or use magic that will let you know.
I don't have problems with discussing hit point totals out of combat, but in combat, in the rush and heat of battle, it doesn't make sense that a PC can tell the exact status of their allies (or enemies) with a glance.
And, yes, the same rules apply to my NPCs.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I never really "enforce" any hard and fast rules regarding HP at the table, except when it comes to the negatives.
I'd rather a player not inform others as to how negative they are when their PC drops, because deathwatch does precisely that.
Also, not knowing a downed allies current HP adds some tension. The situation becomes more exciting. You also get the opportunity to engage in more roleplaying if you share in your PCs emotions.
Picture this:
Knowing that your buddy is only at -2 and has a full minute before he bleeds out removes that excitement from the game.
In general, I'd rather people only talk about the damage they've taken, since that information is already public knowledge (as the GM announces it to the table).
You've taken 34 out of how much? Who knows? Only that player. Rather than,
Now everyone knows just how low that player actually is, and might change some actions because of it.
But in the end I'm too much of a softy to slap wrists about it.
When I do get the chance to play, I refrain from telling my current HP to other players (to the chagrin of some divine casters), because I don't think my character has the exact numerical knowledge of his current survivability. And this isn't Order of the Stick. Pathfinder Society doesn't break the 4th wall. So I try to communicate my damage taken in character, as best I can.
|
|
I've been DM-ing for a group consisting of some the same people session to session so I've been able to track changes in their behavior and enjoyment game to game. Last week I was playing "roll play" based on past experience where the players yell out things like "diplomacy" and then roll. This week I ran "role play" where I had the players tell me a story and then I asked for an appropriate skill check from that story (one person kept attempting to diplomacy by telling about things he had just failed a knowledge check on so that rolled around to being bluff instead as the character had no idea what he was talking about).
One of the new things I've been trying is being actively descriptive of the results in combat, having misses thematically slam into things or threaten the family jewels. Everyone at the table was enjoying it, but it blew me away when one of my players took a missed arrow (which I had described as slamming into the wall next to his ear) and used it to describe his action of pulling himself back up over the edge of the boat.
I've been musing over trying something similar in combat, and I like the idea of keeping players from shouting their hp totals back and forth. I think I'll see if I can get players to describe their conditions as much as possible next week and see what sort of feedback that gives.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.
Deathwatch tracks the amount of hit points you have left. Although undefined, I think we both agree that means "left until dead." Per the rules for taking damage, going unconcious, etc (found under Injury and Death):
If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.
Example, target with a Con of 10.
Current HP // Status from deathwatch-10 or lower: Dead
-7, -8, -9: Fragile
-6 or higher: Fighting off death
So it does in fact tell you "how negative" a target is. And since it is a core 1st level spell, exists as a permanent item (deathwatch eyes), this is as close to a "RAW mechanic to determine PC health" as one can find.
Given that, I am going to extrapolate that characters are unaware of each other's numerical levels of HP without such a spell. All effects that deal damage or heal hit points only exist to express varying levels of severity when it comes to wounds and recovery.
By that reasoning, you should never know how many hit points you have...or how many you got for next level. The GM should take away your character sheet and just tell you that you were wounded. While I may agree that this is more real, no RPG I've ever played, has withheld a character's health status from the player. I'll even point out that I haven't see this in a video game, where it would be very easy to implement. My guess is that players knowing their character's health and acting accordingly is an intended aspect of the game.
I think that the relationship between a player and their PC is a very intimate one. You know your characters hopes, dreams, fears, and flaws. If your character is savagely wounded by a blade, you know by how much. No one else knows how much that wound bites every time you move. That is your PC's knowledge, which is why you know your character's HP. But the GM's shouldn't know, and neither should your buddies (my opinion).
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
That quote is from the CRB.
Anything else we want to interpret from it is fine. I don't think that information is public knowledge, and you think it should be. That's fine. Any interpretation about this will be varied, as has been shown in this thread.
|
|
Ahh! Now that makes sense. I've been misreading the spell such that fragile = 3 or less hp. (As have most of the GMs I've played with -- though to be fair this is a spell I almost never see cast.)
That might actually be useful enough to take now -- especially since my cleric has it as a Domain spell.
|
|
Funny enough, I had this discussion with my players just last night. I'll describe in descriptive terms, but I refuse to just say 'so-and-so has X hp left', and I'm trying to get the players to stop doing it themselves.
It's not real-life, granted. BUT. It's also not a MMO. I can suspend disbelief for the fantasy part, but it's just inane to me that people/enemies/creatures would be running around with numbers or a life bar over their heads. Plus, that's what certain spells are -there- for. Why have a spell that tells you the status of someone's health, if you just look at them and say "How many hit points do you have?" Defeats the purpose.
... Then again, I fully admit, I'm firmly of the ROLEplay school, and I'm constantly fighting (what seems like an uphill battle more often than not) to stop metagaming in my games.
|
|
It's worth mentioning that the upside to not abstracting hit points is that there's no confusion. What one person thinks is "bloodied" someone else might read as "critical" - this becomes just GM/player misinterpretation.
If you were actually on the scene, you'd be able to see how they're looking, and there'd be no doubt. The same goes with saying 10/50hp remain.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the discourse, Walter. I appreciate the discussion.
Not a problem, it's what these boards are designed for! Unfortunately, I let time take over and posted a monstrous wall of text.
Spoilered for the weak of heart.
It gives you six areas and more or less defines their boundaries:
Dead - Pretty clear.
Fragile - anything between -Con and -Con +3
Fighting off death -so -Con +4 out to what?
Healthy - No clue what the criteria for this is other than it's not Fragile or lower.
Nowhere does the spell description give the caster knowledge of actual hit points or a continuous updates on changing hit points unless the creature crosses a threshold.
Entirely correct. The example I provided was to showcase what the spell actually did, as there was some indication previously that readers may have been confused. It does, however, remain as the only spell that monitors hit points in the Pathfinder universe. And in that regard (as a spell that monitors hit points), it is quite limited. So I agree with you here.
Given that, I am going to extrapolate that characters are unaware of each other's numerical levels of HP without such a spell.That's some very thin ice, Walter. You're essentially claiming that the the authors don't want you to have any clue about another creature's health except when that creature is -Con +3 hit points. There is not one single spell, magic item, skill, or feat (that I'm aware of), that allows characters to have even modicum of certainty about another PC's hit points...except for Deathwatch? A necromancer spell with a 10 min lifespan at 1st level and that operates in a cone?
I don't see it as thin ice, I guess. A lot of this game operates on the suspension of disbelief -- an acceptance, rather-- when it comes to the mechanics. The rules can only take us so far, which is where table variation takes over. The GM and the players together determine the atmosphere of a table.
GMs tell players exactly how much damage they've taken. Nor is there any explicit language preventing characters from sharing character sheets with one another.
Regarding the GM reporting damage -- I mentioned this earlier as a place where one has to suspend disbelief. In the game, my PC doesn't see a red "-5" appear after the goblin stabs him. He just knows he has been stabbed. There is no explicit language in either direction, your opinion or mine, which is why both perspectives are equally valid ones to have. If a system had to expressly disallow everything that wasn't permitted, the book would be infinitely long. This is why it is impossible to prove a negative in science.
In RL, you have no concept of how wounded or sick you are specifically, and you certainly don't know it down to a number and rounds that you have left to live. If somebody stabs you with a sword through the side, you have no internal nerves to determine the extent of the damage or how quickly you are losing blood. Humans do not have internal diagnostics.
Correct, entirely. However, the person who has taken the injury knows the extent of the pain more than anyone else, because the damage has befallen them. That is why any doctor you visit when you have a sword in you will ask "how much does it hurt?" They will then ask you how on earth you survived with a sword in you for so long!
When I look at my HP total, I see that as asking the same question: "how much does it hurt?" And because the CRB states that HP is "[a representation of] the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one," I think that my condensed question drives at more or less the same core concept.
Using your logic about PC's not being able to know the extent of someone else's injury, would apply to the PC as well. Born out by the real life need to visit a doctor.
It's impossible to have a system where we represent damage and health by numbers without someone being aware of those numbers. The closest we can get to an immersive combat system in Pathfinder (one where we forget that we are playing a game) is when we suspend our disbelief when it comes to all the calculations. We use descriptions for damage taken and damage dealt (e.g.: "you deal a savage blow!") instead of repeating the "34 damage" at the top of our lungs at the table.
We try to roleplay.
And yet, there is no skill or feat or spell in Paizo for determining the extent of someone's injuries.
Status, deathwatch, and to an extent (when table-ruled to do so) the skill Heal all do these things. None of them do it "well;" none do it with 100% mechanical knowledge of HP, damage taken, etc. But they do determine the extent of someone's injuries. I feel that ignoring them, and in doing so providing or using that mechanical knowledge at the table weakens the roleplaying there, and thus, the immersion.
If we wan't to be realistic about this, the player should know the PC has been wounded and when the PC is unconscious. Beyond that, the player would know nothing. As soon as the PC goes unconscious, thhe player should have her sheet taken away from her because she's no longer aware of the world around her. In fact, the player should be forced to leave the table and wait outside. That would be real.
That seems to be a little harsh and I think demeans your players. It assumes that they are unable to distinguish between OOC and IC knowledge. They should be aware that their character is unconscious and can no longer provide information to their buddies. They should also play in character when they wake back up, remaining oblivious to what happened while they were out.
Do you know how many blows you can take from the average person? Then why should your character?
I do, to an extent. I know that I could take several jabs and maybe one or two solid punches before I collapse. I know that if someone hit me with an axe, I'd likely beg for mercy. Things like that. I imagine other people have some gauge of their own physical fortitude as well.
How far are we going take the suspension of disbelief? At what point are we going to acknowledge this is simply a game and stop asking the player to play it blindfolded?
Take it to the level that the table is comfortable with. If I was GMing for you, we wouldn't take it as far as I normally do. That's where the atmosphere of the table becomes important. Figure out what the players are used to or would like, and work with that.
For me, playing without knowledge of my party members hit point totals has never been a hamstring or a hindrance. Even on my healing focused or support characters.
A lot of players, especially older 1e players, feel the game has become too meta-gamy. It's too much about numbers. So they look for areas to pull the game back. Hit points are an easy target. The authors left a huge gap in how the OOC knowledge translates into IC knowledge. The fact that they didn't give any RAW mechanic for players to routinely determine this data says something. That fact that there is so much unclaimed design space when it comes to player Hit Point knowledge....says something.
I can't comment on the 1e thing -- I started with ADND.
I think you are correct when it comes to the gaps left in the rules. There is something important is being said in the silence: that it's honestly not that important.
I think it, like a majority of this system, is undefined because frankly, it's not really important one way or the other. Either PCs know about HP, or they don't, not much changes mechanically. I see a benefit when that info is kept close to the chest, as I have seen the results of not knowing that information -- I've experienced the drama. Drama which would have been lacking were everyone's HP total provided for me. If I had known HP totals at the time, the game would have been less enjoyable. Because of this experience, and subsequent similar ones, I see concealing HP information as a boon to my games, not a hindrance.
I'm sorry Walter, but no objective reading of Deathwatch is going to agree that this single evil spell is a definitive statement that PC's at the table were intended to withhold hit point information. I would agree that it's a statement that NPC's should be allowed to pick off and target characters close to death.
There are no definitive statements, yet it remains as the only thing in the game that provides actual HP knowledge of one character to other players. Also, it's not a cantrip. It actually eats a spell slot. So I don't believe it can be ignored. It's evidence of something. What that is we can debate over, and have already.
I have no problem with increasing the immersion by changing the way information is communicated. I think there is a categorical problem when the techniques that are based on taking information out of the players hands when there is no explicit intention by the game developers to do so. I don't agree that more player confusion and uncertainty makes for a better game. It might make the game seem more plausible, but if you want to go down that road, you're opening Pandora's Box.
Perhaps I have presented the whole "keep HP a secret" thing as something that causes rampant worry at tables. For that, I apologize.
I have never had complaints at a table when I mildly offer that the game might be more enjoyable to the players assembled if they didn't ask questions like "how many hit points are you down?" I suggest that they would find the game to be more engaging if they phrased that like "how wounded are you, friend?" to which their companion could respond "for the love of Iomedae, HEAL ME!!"
I don't think such implementation is opening a Pandora's Box, especially when I, the GM at the table, can control how these undefined areas of the rules are explored.
I see it as this. GMing a table is like a contract. I agree to provide a fun and fair environment for my players, and they agree to provide me their attention and trust that I have some foresight with what I am doing. I trust that they will correct any egregious errors and they trust that I won't use GM fiat to ruin their evening. Because of this, when I suggest refraining from discussing HP numerically, they know that I have only their enjoyment in mind and trust that I will deliver the fun and fair game as promised.
If it ever changes from that to anything else, I'd be quite surprised.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
It's the revision to the original 1st Ed., with some substantial rule changes. The difference for me, as a 6th grader at the time, was that I couldn't get through the technical jargon of original 1st Ed., but could stomach ADND and 2nd Ed.
You can think of 1st Ed and ADND of being how 3.0 is in relation to Pathfinder. They're both similar, but have very different specifics and in the end are entirely different systems.
|
|
My feelings on the matter are that at the table, we should self-police ourselves on this issue. If you as a player don't feel your character should know this, then regardless of what another player says, you can role play it away:
Tim: Ah! I am down to -7, need some healing!
Kristina: My character wouldn't know how far down you were, just that you fell down and appear to be bleeding out. They don't know how much time you have so they'll do the best they can to help.
Tim: I have 3 rounds.
Kristina: I'll pretend I didn't hear that...
GM Picard: I appreciate you taking care of this betwixt the two of you.
Tim: Can we finish this please, I'm tired of talking about game theory.
GM Picard: Make it so.
|
It's the revision to the original 1st Ed., with some substantial rule changes. The difference for me, as a 6th grader at the time, was that I couldn't get through the technical jargon of original 1st Ed., but could stomach ADND and 2nd Ed.
You can think of 1st Ed and ADND of being how 3.0 is in relation to Pathfinder. They're both similar, but have very different specifics and in the end are entirely different systems.
Huh... there were two versions of AD&D 1st Edition?
The only differences might have been errata and cover art.
The original red demon face book for DM's Handbook and stuff... the original Deities and Demigods had Cthulu and Melnibonean mythos...
The 2nd printing, which is what I'm sure you are referring to as AD&D vs. 1st Edition, was the same game.
I have both in my house right now.
The only DnD printed prior to these were the Red Box Basic DnD, I think the Expert (Turqouis Box) DnD was printed before AD&D as well, but not sure on that. There was also a big blue box that was the precursor to the Red Box, and a small box that was a precursor to that. I own the big blue box, but not the small box.
|
|
History of D&D / AD&D Editions.
That about parallels my memory of things, although I didn't realize there was a magenta version of the Basic game between the Blue Box and the Red Box. And I wasn't aware that the Blue Box Basic was printed roughly at the same time as AD&D (1st edition) was either.
But cool link!