Dying, Wounded, Recovery.

[Ediwir]

So let's start by saying I am pretty sure the main aim here was to reduce the issues given by people falling to the ground and bouncing back up with a spring. And yes, I have a Sorcerer in my current group that does exactly that (not sure why he keeps being in front) and it's quite annoying, so, big fan of that.

However.

I am also a big fan of the idea that death should be a bad thing.
The perception of risk is what makes people feel relieved when they make it. It's what makes heroes heroes. It's what makes you proud of the character you made. It's what pushes you to cooperate and struggle.
If death is too easily reversed, or if it never even happens, the threat is seen as meaningless and the perception of risk vanishes, diminishing satisfaction.

(to my players: this is why I hit you and curse you and try to disintegrate you. It's just tough love)

Past this premise, I have a couple of issues with the current death&dying rules that relate to it (and one that's just about tracking).

Firstly, Dying and Wounded do not feel right in some way. It feels like I am just changing the name to the condition, rather than having two distinct ones. I would feel better if Dying didn't have a value, and you just took Wounded 1 or 2 when you got knocked down. A lethal blow would also give you Dying - which at this point becomes a condition that increases your Wounded value over time.

This makes tracking smoother for players or GMs, and allows one to remain Wounded 3 but not dying without any tweak or changes once they stabilise.

...speaking of which...

Random stabilising isn't particularly interesting. Swingy, yes, uncertain, yes, but it gives the feel that it's entirely up to the dice. At this point, I'm almost thinking it should just advance automatically if not removed, and characters could die at Wounded 6 instead. But giving the character some way to reduce their chance of bleeding out would be a good thing.

...unless...

Remember how I mentioned death should be a bad thing? How it loses value if it never even happens?
Who got the bright idea of making the basic function of an ever-replenishing resource to remove any trace of danger or risk of death or any lingering consequences?
Hero points removing Wounded cause the most ridiculous, instantaneous, ever-present rubberbanding I have seen in years of gaming. A player goes down (after the party runs out of Channels) and he's immediately back on his feet, heading back to get his potions and chatting about the weather, not a trace of deadly wounds on him, "because he's a hero".
I could see this as a 3-point, massive turning point, big hero thing. But basic 1-point functions flying in the face of a whole mechanic? why?
This, to me, feels like the whole system is nullified by a basic power. This is the reason I haven't given real feedback on the dying system until now - I really, honestly couldn't. It was almost never used. I read and understood it and liked it on paper, but it never made it to the table.

I am hoping this gets addressed before playtest is over and we get a final version, but this is going to be a big one for me. There is no merit without risk, and there is almost no risk with these rules.

Note that I don't want players to die more often (as much as it might sound like it): I want players to RISK dying more often. I want someone to tell me "damn, that was close", not "well, what's next?". I want a hero to jump in and rescue his dying teammate, not the teammate to get up and dust off his shirt. I want a heroic story. This isn't it.

[ShadeRaven]

I agree with you by and large, Ed, especially on the Hero Points. In fact, I don't get why bouncing up from dying is a cheap purchase while rerolling a single roll and having to live with the results is twice the cost. I am already a bit stingy on Hero Points because of it - one of the few things I am not trying to play RAW by. I also don't give out Inspiration like candy, but at least it's not as impacting as this Hero Point system which just feels like an immersion-breaking gimmick to me.

That said, finding that balance is tough. As we've seen in other threads, there are some who want combat to last 1 round and others who have a great distaste for any Save or Suffer powers. It's likely the Hero Point easy out appeals to them.

I'd like to see Hero Points reworked, too, so that escaping death is the big save and the rerolls as the 1 point usage (with extra action being in between) - that way, I can feel more comfortable handing them out for heroic acts (and PLEASE, remove that garbage about being able to bribe a GM for more points - AWFUL!).

As for the dying rules, I like your approach but we made use of the current one even if it was awkward to start. Give us something that creates the drama at the table for everyone, that sense of urgency that at least my tables find fun, without being "gamey".

[legolihkan]

I agree that hero points almost negate the risk of dying. Too powerful, even though I dont like death-heavy games (i get attached to my characters). I would never spend two hero points to reroll a die when i could save them to stave off death. I rarely end up spending mine for just that reason.

[Ediwir]

I currently handle hero points by giving 2 for showing on time, as I play online, and hand out the 3rd for good roleplaying moments. That part hasn't happened very often however, and I am fairly sure the rubberbanding power is contributing to my decision on that. It's already ridiculous enough when most people have two freebies.