|
|
Post by merctime on May 23, 2015 22:15:45 GMT -5
I believe you are a fan of Arduin, right, PD? I haven't read my empcho reprint for a bit, but if I recall rightly, I believe Arduin had a pretty solid method for having all the hit points up front, as you say. Is this the method, or something similar, you speak of? Love to hear how that turns out... And looking forward to hearing about your campaign! Any other house rules planned for this next one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 23, 2015 22:17:30 GMT -5
I believe you are a fan of Arduin, right, PD? I haven't read my empcho reprint for a bit, but if I recall rightly, I believe Arduin had a pretty solid method for having all the hit points up front, as you say. Is this the method, or something similar, you speak of? Love to hear how that turns out... And looking forward to hearing about your campaign! Any other house rules planned for this next one? Yes, I am an Arduin fan and I am looking at tweaking its method and I am looking at different options, because I am also going to tweak the player character races also. Yeah, I am looking at changing up a number of things. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 24, 2015 8:51:20 GMT -5
Unconscious at 0, dead at negative
Without getting hung up over "like it" versus "hate it", I'd like to point out that I've always found this notion to be very amusing because "exactly zero" is such a narrow range of numbers.
For example, a character might have 4 hit points and get hit by a 1d6 weapon:
Roll of 1 = Alive with 3 hp remaining
Roll of 2 = Alive with 2 hp remaining
Roll of 3 = Alive with 1 hp remaining
Roll of 4 = Unconscious
Roll of 5 = Dead
Roll of 6 = Dead
I like the way 5E (and probably other RPGs) assumes that "zero and negative" are all the same thing. 5E happens to call 'em all zero hp and allow for death saves and such, but it could be done many different ways.
Anyway, it always seemed strange to me that exactly zero had special meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 24, 2015 11:15:45 GMT -5
It always struck me as a kind of afterthought, as if someone some time during play thought there should be a point where people are incapacitated but not dead. In point of fact I'd imagine (without doing further research) that the range for "unconscious" should actually be fairly wide.
BTW, personally I prefer the idea of "incapacitated" because I don't think you necessarily have to be comatose to be so seriously wounded as to be unable to act.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 24, 2015 15:30:02 GMT -5
merctime, I learned from Philotomy's Musings to see HP as abstract and to include not just physical health but luck, stamina and skill. You have now added another layer! Thank you! Exalt! I think, perhaps, in my campaigns, it would not so much be that the PCs FELT that they were blessed by the gods or had supernatural capacities as much as they actually were and did and that this is the only way to explain a human being with the same HP as a dragon, etc.!
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 26, 2015 22:59:38 GMT -5
Unconscious at 0, dead at negativeWithout getting hung up over "like it" versus "hate it", I'd like to point out that I've always found this notion to be very amusing because "exactly zero" is such a narrow range of numbers. For example, a character might have 4 hit points and get hit by a 1d6 weapon: Roll of 1 = Alive with 3 hp remaining Roll of 2 = Alive with 2 hp remaining Roll of 3 = Alive with 1 hp remaining Roll of 4 = Unconscious Roll of 5 = Dead Roll of 6 = Dead I like the way 5E (and probably other RPGs) assumes that "zero and negative" are all the same thing. 5E happens to call 'em all zero hp and allow for death saves and such, but it could be done many different ways. Anyway, it always seemed strange to me that exactly zero had special meaning. Yea, that's where I'm at. I could see one way it would make sense, if everyone had 1-5 hit points, then the "exactly zero" is just a 1/6 probability that an injury makes you unconscious and your hit points influence the probability that you die from a blow. That system would even be not that badly blown if your hit points could be >5 (even much >5), if large numbers of hit points indicate a certain amount of luck. The big problem for me comes in when mass damage from spells comes into play and suddenly the chance of hitting that "exactly zero" plummets, yet, you could still have a high hit point character be able to take multiple such blows before going down. The system I am using (or AD&D's -10) will still have this problem with mass damage, but at least it smooths things out for smaller amounts of damage. The main reason I didn't go for a blanket death save when you went to zero or below is that it feels like it decreases the death rate too much, but I dunno, maybe one can make sense of it, and make some kind of penalty for the death save depending on how far down you go, maybe in proportion to your full hit points. Frank |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 27, 2015 11:55:16 GMT -5
That is exactly why I like a range for unconscious / incapacitated based upon the inverse of one's lvl:
Positive HP = conscious and capable
Zero to Negative HP = unconscious or incapacitated
Negative less that inverse of lvl = dead
(e.g., a 10 lvl MU is unconscious / incapacitated b/w -10-0)
This gives a mechanic that rewards leveling up, but only slighting (increasing one's range of incapacitation before death by only one per level). It is also commensurate with lvl, therefore lower levels, appropriately, are more apt to die.
It means that a character may survive an area affect spell unconscious or incapacitated, rather than simply dead. It means villains are going to have to "finish off" higher level characters to truly kill them. This actually feels more "realistic" to me (in terms of engaging and simulating the legendaria we inherit).
It still feels sufficiently "Old School" and deadly to me, however. Area affect spells and breath weapons can still kill a lvl 12 PC, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 27, 2015 23:42:43 GMT -5
But up to level below 0 is still such a small window compared to mass damage.
I think there's also a problem if you stick with 1d6 damage (or even variable damage) where a high enough level character will go unconscious with no chance of dying from a blow.
So really, some kind of death save, possibly modified by the amount of damage below 0 seems like the best mechanism. Then the trick is making it so there is still a significant chance of death.
The other mechanism I liked was the one I described we used in college, but that diverges quite a bit from D&D.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 28, 2015 1:47:33 GMT -5
If I went to a death save, I'd make it a fixed level for everyone and everything... so higher level/hit die creatures could still die.
"Oh, roll another death save, huh? Ok, no problem... I only need a 7."
But if it was the death save for everything was 3rd level (I chose that arbitrarily for discussion only) then anything and everything still has at least a moderate chance to die.
I might try a death save using something like this method to keep from having lots of" comic book death" happening. "Oh, geez... it's Dr. Destructo again!! I thought that rock-fall got him last week?"
But, truthfully, I prefer dead at less than 1 hit point. Keeps the level of tension I like. And higher level characters can pay for/cast raise dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 28, 2015 22:34:40 GMT -5
I'd recommend people consider number of HD before level because fighters have the most HD for any arbitrary amount of XP. Theives, then clerics, have the most levels for any arbitrary amount of XP. M-U's will have more levels than fighters throughout most (not all) of the XP progression too.
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 28, 2015 22:45:54 GMT -5
Hmm, that's a good point, Ways. I'm thinking out loud here. I like the death save idea, for fun, but not that later on the saves might get way too easy to pass. So, arbitrarily again, I'll toss out 3 HD. So, for PC's, each class makes death saves at the corresponding level of 3 HD for that class. The same could be true for monsters, as well. Each monster makes a death save as a 3 HD Fighter (Or M-U, or Cleric, given that they possess like abilities and the saves is in fact better). Or, more specifically, saves as a class level that those hit dice indicate as discussed above. Nice. I might try this. Also, Frank, I didn't intend my above post as snarky towards you. I was just in a really silly mood that day, and had a bit too much fun with that post  My apology to you, brother, if you read that as my being a punk towards you. Not intended! Fun idea there. |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 29, 2015 11:48:56 GMT -5
Hmm, that's a good point, Ways. I'm thinking out loud here. I like the death save idea, for fun, but not that later on the saves might get way too easy to pass. So, arbitrarily again, I'll toss out 3 HD. So, for PC's, each class makes death saves at the corresponding level of 3 HD for that class. The same could be true for monsters, as well. Each monster makes a death save as a 3 HD Fighter (Or M-U, or Cleric, given that they possess like abilities and the saves is in fact better). Or, more specifically, saves as a class level that those hit dice indicate as discussed above. Nice. I might try this. Also, Frank, I didn't intend my above post as snarky towards you. I was just in a really silly mood that day, and had a bit too much fun with that post My apology to you, brother, if you read that as my being a punk towards you. Not intended! Fun idea there. Didn't take offense... Saves as level 3 for each class is same as 1st level... Saves as the level the class gets 3 HD is also the same as 1st level... Clerics get the best death save... Also, the worst death save is 13+ (MU), Figher is 12+, Cleric is 11+. That's why I rejected death save, it started off too easy, and just got easier. Frank |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 29, 2015 15:27:19 GMT -5
Nice one, Frank!!
Yeah, those numbers are far too low in my opinion. Especially if they aren't locked and can improve.
I'll stick to death at below 1 hit point.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 29, 2015 15:29:42 GMT -5
If I went to a death save, I'd make it a fixed level for everyone and everything... so higher level/hit die creatures could still die. Great thread, and nice discussion so far. I think it all comes down to how deadly you want your campaign to be. If my players spend a lot of time in creation of characters they really grow attached to them and get annoyed when they die, but if they throw 'em together in two minutes they don't seem as traumatized by character death. 5E uses a death save which is essentially a coin flip, and it's the same for all characters of all levels. I think you need to roll a 10+ on a d20 without any modifiers (so 55% success; not quite a coin flip). You roll each round and if you get three failures before you get three successes then you die. Two exceptions to the above: A natural 1 counts as two failures. A natural 20 pulls you back up to 1 HP and awake. Clearly the system has in mind the notion that most characters will have healing and/or healers handy so that characters seldom die for real. I suppose you could tweak it a little and go for two rather than three, but a single one-roll live-or-die seems a little harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 29, 2015 15:53:06 GMT -5
If my players spend a lot of time in creation of characters they really grow attached to them and get annoyed when they die, but if they throw 'em together in two minutes they don't seem as traumatized by character death. The second part of the above is precisely what I'm aiming for, personally. The first part is what I'm attempting to destroy with fire. And earthquakes. Clearly the system has in mind the notion that most characters will have healing and/or healers handy so that characters seldom die for real. Bold emphasis mine, and illustrates an important note. Again, by no means do I intend this rudely, but I personally believe that character death is, or more correctly should be, the sole purview of player choice and capability. The system, for my game at least, has no business getting deeply involved in that. It should only track it mechanically. I don't mind a bit of minor house-rule attempts in a situation such as character death probability, but this really shows why I greatly prefer OD&D / Delving Deeper to other games. I see the mechanic above as the actual game system 'making apology' if you will for poor decision making. ((Not directing that at you, Finn... Or your players; Directing it at what I see as an over-bloated system treading way to far in a referee's right to run his game as he sees fit.)) Just give me a framework: I'll clothe the walls and establish the important bits. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 31, 2015 5:55:50 GMT -5
No offense taken, merctime. We're just two guys at a bar exchanging ideas to see what we like.  Perhaps some perspective on my group is appropriate. My high school group from the 1970s-1980s was mostly male, mostly miniatures and wargame players, and spent little time trying to get "into persona." We just played to have fun, and if a character died we hoped it would be glorious and memorable. My current group is around half female (wife, daughter and sister) and small kids along with a couple of guys who probaby don't care much about playing a role as much as having fun. The "problem" is that a lot of the girls spend a lot of time dreaming up motivation and background stories and the like. They tell me that playing without these details is pointless and they might as well be playing Monopoly without them. This has caused me to revise my DM style for my OD&D group. When I DM my 5E game at the game store I go back to being cut-throat because that's what is expected. I should point out that one of the strengths of OD&D (in my opinion) is the fact that I can run the "same game" many different ways and still get enjoyment out of it. I run shorter campiagns now than I used to, and I often announce little tweaks each time. So, if I want to try a different way of doing hit dice, experiment with a different weapon damage system, try a new way of defining character death, or whatever, I can just announce it and we play that way for that campaign. Some rules stick, others slide off and go away. It's like a non-stop playtest. |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 31, 2015 11:57:59 GMT -5
No offense taken, merctime. We're just two guys at a bar exchanging ideas to see what we like. I've got to salute you, brother... This is precisely my intention also. I usually include a cautious disclaimer online when I talk, because with only being able to read the typed word, one cannot see my silly smiling face and my laughing eyes that dull the blow of when I say something too simply direct. I'm almost always concerned that I can't think of a way to say something that I think is true, or at least my belief or desire, that won't upset people I think are cool. That's a real bummer with having only the typed word available  But, I hear you. While I understand the mentality behind folks saying that without depth of character persona they might as well be playing monopoly, I just respectfully disagree with it. I see that the games we all love can totally have entertainment value without this part of it initially. For me, at the start, its about developing player skill as opposed to character depth. I'd rather the players get so good it's hard for them to die, so that they can then develop hours of interesting persona that they can keep alive consistently. And, besides... After the time it takes to do that, enough has happened in the campaign, that there is a ton of specific game occurrences that can be brought into a characters overall story... The game helps to shape them. But, I'm action-oriented in these games... and personally don't enjoy all the waiting required for tons of character dramatics anymore. I used to live for it. Now, I wanna find secret doors, the answer to what the weird sigils on the flagstones mean, and the location of the treasure room of the evil fish-man cult  I can still get down with character development... it's just not my driving force anymore. But, if it is for your family... Hey, brother... I hope you guys have so much fun your heart's nearly burst!! It's all about how we, as individuals, enjoy the game and each other. I've got that in common with all of you!!! |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 31, 2015 13:59:47 GMT -5
finarvyn, I have the exact same "problem," in my at home campaign. My kids are young and mom and aunt are not so in to rolling up new characters. We are only playing for fun anyway. I am not trying to make them wargamers. So it isn't really a "problem," it's just the way we want to play right now. But I've told my kids that when the turn 12 we are going to have a restart and they are going to learn old school play! They look back at me wide-eyed. They know what that means. I think they are looking forward to it -- like turning 16 and getting a drivers license!
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 31, 2015 14:03:21 GMT -5
We are only playing for fun anyway. I am not trying to make them wargamers. So it isn't really a "problem," it's just the way we want to play right now. This is how I see it! It's all a matter of perspective. What each individual group wants to get out of the game. There is no wrong fun. Just different fun They look back at me wide-eyed. They know what that means. I think they are looking forward to it -- like turning 16 and getting a drivers license! Also, this is awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 31, 2015 19:07:47 GMT -5
It's like a non-stop playtest. Words to live and play by! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 11:12:49 GMT -5
Possibily allow the player (rather than the character) to accumulate XP, so that he can "carry over" his accumulated XP from game to game regardless of whether he lost a character or not? This is a really neat idea, especially if you're rolling with the idea that there is no player/character distinction and the player is accumulating experience as they go along, merely exchanging playing pieces now and then. I've thought about doing this for my campaign, but haven't bought into yet. The setting is a fantasized version of the local area, where the players themselves get on a magic locomotive (which comes to the local station at midnight, but only if you have a ticket), and it takes them to a parallel Fantasyland. During the trip they're transformed into their fantasy avatars. The premise was really just a lazy way to promote a certain mindset in the players without having to try and explain certain 'old school' concepts. I didn't want to spend time debating with players, for example, about whether they should get hung up on their character's background or name before we started playing. Anyway, this actually did the trick, but now I'm wondering if I should run with the idea and allow players to stash up XP for their new avatars after death. Maybe a karma system, where 10% of your dead PC's experience or money gets transferred either to the new PC. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jun 2, 2015 5:17:28 GMT -5
I do have a potential solution to the "family game" problem, one which I used when my kids were a lot younger and I taught them to play Hero Quest (the old Milton Bradley game). Anyway, HQ runs through a whole bunch of scenarios that use the same four hero characters. What I did was:
1. Allow them to trade who played which instead of one person "owning" one.
2. Emphasized that no matter what happens to any one hero, either the whole team wins or the whole team loses. The kids learned that they could sacrifice one hero in order to save the party or accomplish the team goal.
3. No matter who "dies" (is knocked out) in one scenario, all four heroes are back by the next one.
When we switched to OD&D (and when they playtested C&C) we lost some of that. I think that the turning point was character creation instead of pregens. When they started creating their own characters, they established ownership and then felt the loss when the character died.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Jun 2, 2015 13:48:20 GMT -5
I do have a potential solution to the "family game" problem, one which I used when my kids were a lot younger and I taught them to play Hero Quest (the old Milton Bradley game). Anyway, HQ runs through a whole bunch of scenarios that use the same four hero characters. What I did was: 1. Allow them to trade who played which instead of one person "owning" one. 2. Emphasized that no matter what happens to any one hero, either the whole team wins or the whole team loses. The kids learned that they could sacrifice one hero in order to save the party or accomplish the team goal. 3. No matter who "dies" (is knocked out) in one scenario, all four heroes are back by the next one. When we switched to OD&D (and when they playtested C&C) we lost some of that. I think that the turning point was character creation instead of pregens. When they started creating their own characters, they established ownership and then felt the loss when the character died. This has about it the smell of accuracy. The problem would only worsen as character creation became more and more complicated; there was a loss of effort invested and an imposition of faff and form-filling, with quiet resentment joining the sense of loss. I know I'm irritated at the prospect of a half-hour's buy-in cost all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on May 31, 2018 22:25:56 GMT -5
I thought I would share some stats with the people here, gives me food for thought and makes me rethink some of what I am doing, and whether I should incorporate some house rules to make it easier for players.
I have a veteran 6-player group. They have done four one-session mini-dungeons, and a single-level dungeon that took two sessions. Each of the adventures was advertised for first level characters. There have been 6 fatalities. The hobbit fighter died twice, everyone else died once, except for the magic user, who has 1986 xp. Nobody else has more than 800.
I would think that an acceptable rate would be 2-3 deaths by the time the remainder hit level 2. Two deaths were traps (a real issue in OD&D), the other four were high damage rolls in combat (like a 20 followed by a 6, and an 18 followed by a 5). Magic Items were not an issue; they found 3 magic weapons and four healing potions, just can't use a heal pot when you are dead.
Should I - award max hp at 1st level - allow 0 not to be death just unconscious (3 of four deaths were 0 hp) - eliminate traps - award more xp - say "suck it up, that's old school"
Any thoughts from other DM's? This is a great thread and I am sure that you solved this long ago given the date. I would still like to comment though. If I was having TPK's with veteran players I would take a look at how they are dying which it looks like you have done. I don't see any changes to make other than just tell them to "suck it up, that's old school" and to make sure that I am giving them the information they need to make good decisions. Sometime for whatever reason the players can be rash and not think it through. Also now that I think of it, I would revisit my traps and see if I am making them too deadly for first levels on the first level of a dungeon. But if you roll hot, you roll hot. Sometimes you just have to persevere. |
|
