0hp and death

[Blindhamster]

So, you die at the end of a melee round in which you hit 0hp unless you regain at least 1hp.

How does anyone have a chance to actually grant you hp back when their statement of intent will already be something else?

 

Thanks!

[Akhôrahil]

6 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

So, you die at the end of a melee round in which you hit 0hp unless you regain at least 1hp.

How does anyone have a chance to actually grant you hp back when their statement of intent will already be something else?

For one thing, a statement of intent might be something like ”I stand by to heal anyone who needs it”. For another, it’s something of a GM call for how harshly to enforce the statement of intent. Some see it just as a guiding principle - I allow changes at an SR cost (typically 5).

That said, it can definitely be tricky.

[Blindhamster]

Yeah my players were discussing the fact that if a pc has to essentially do nothing other than state they're going to heal allies that need it, it would be pretty unfun for the player.

That being said, the statement of intent and strike rank approach really doesnt feel suited to changing plans after you state what you're doing. I'd wondered if maybe it should be die at the end of the following melee round, but that may be too generous?

Tangent question for people, but some examples of what you players and GMs declare as statements of intent would be quite interesting!

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

So, you die at the end of a melee round in which you hit 0hp unless you regain at least 1hp.

I always play that it's the end of the melee round after you drop to 0HP before you die.  This provides chance for last minute healing attempts.

[Akhôrahil]

56 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

That being said, the statement of intent and strike rank approach really doesnt feel suited to changing plans after you state what you're doing. I'd wondered if maybe it should be die at the end of the following melee round, but that may be too generous?

12 SRs later might be a compromise, and it even makes sense - more sense than it happening at end of turn regardless of when in the turn.

[Arcadiagt5]

For various reasons we've adopted fairly strict interpretations of declarations of intent but have deferred death to the end of the next round to guarantee a chance at a reaction.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

I would strongly suggest that this "wait till next round" rule be made official.  @Jeff and @Jason D

[DreadDomain]

7 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

So, you die at the end of a melee round in which you hit 0hp unless you regain at least 1hp.

How does anyone have a chance to actually grant you hp back when their statement of intent will already be something else?

 

Thanks!

Statements of intent can be very loose. A healer type could say "While I defend against enemy, I remain ready to heal any fallen comrade but otherwise attack said enemy". It would only mean that they would consistently delay their attack late in the round and could have to forfeit it if they need to cast a spell.

Having final death delayed at the end of the following round or 12 SR later are totally acceptable house rule.

For increased survability and added tension, you can ask the fallen character to roll a CONx5 test at the end of the round to hang on to dear life. Then roll CONx4, the following turn and so on until he is saved, dies because he missed a roll or get to CONx0 on the 6th round and dies automatically (he would have to be very tough or very lucky to get there).

[Blindhamster]

Thanks all, i think i'll go with 12 strike ranks later for death. Feels far more logical.

I've also clarified to my players they can choose to increase SR by 5 if they want to give themselves a little flexibility

[Lordabdul]

Delaying death until the next round sounds like a decent house rule. Otherwise, the odds of surviving a mortal wound on SR10 are vastly lower than those of surviving a mortal wound on SR3.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

12 minutes ago, Fred said:

I haven’t figured out what healing would be needed before 12 strike ranks for a character who has his chest, abdomen, or head “destroyed” this way though.

The Heal Body rune spell should be good for this.  But not much else.

[Pentallion]

This is kinda morbid to talk about, but having seen a lot of death, it's not quick.  Not even quick deaths are actually that quick.  I - like everyone else on this thread apparently - give the PCs till the end of the next round to prevent someone from dying.

They should fix that rule because no one uses it as written.

[Jason D]

When in play, I tend to: 

1. Be very loose with allowing players to change statement of intent when it comes to adventurers dying.

2. Let the "actual death" be at the end of the round after the adventurer hit 0 hit points. 

When in doubt, remember the principle of Maximum Game Fun, which is so important that we made it the very first rule in the book.  

 

[DreadDomain]

6 hours ago, Jason D said:

When in play, I tend to: 

1. Be very loose with allowing players to change statement of intent when it comes to adventurers dying.

This. I am curious, if a character has already performed an attack, do you allow them to cast a non-attack spell (like Heal) afterwards?

Quote

2. Let the "actual death" be at the end of the round after the adventurer hit 0 hit points. 

It seems like even the line editor is not following the rules

Quote

When in doubt, remember the principle of Maximum Game Fun, which is so important that we made it the very first rule in the book.  

 

Yea, that too.

Edited August 6, 2020 by DreadDomain

[Jason D]

1 minute ago, DreadDomain said:

This. I am curious, if a character has already performed an attack, do you allow them to cast a non-attack spell (like Heal) afterwards?

I allow adventurers who have not already acted that round to change their statement of intent (essentially changing plans mid-round). 

 

1 minute ago, DreadDomain said:

It seems like even the game developper is not following the rules

Not everyone is a hardcore rules lawyer.

The rules are there to help people enjoy the game and to facilitate gameplay. If there's a situation or condition where rigid adherence to the letter of the rules stands in the way of people enjoying themselves, I cut the players some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt. 

[Blindhamster]

4 hours ago, Jason D said:

I allow adventurers who have not already acted that round to change their statement of intent (essentially changing plans mid-round). 

 

Not everyone is a hardcore rules lawyer.

The rules are there to help people enjoy the game and to facilitate gameplay. If there's a situation or condition where rigid adherence to the letter of the rules stands in the way of people enjoying themselves, I cut the players some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt. 

On the other hand, the rules as written are also what the default go to for GMs will be, especially GMs new to the system, the death at the end of the round you hit 0 rule is pretty clearly a non starter of a rule even to someone new to the system though and it seems like nobody uses it, so including a fix in the next rune fixes would be good for everyone. It's not about rules lawyering, its about rules giving appropriate guidance of the intent of the game.

The reason i came and posted this at all, was because the game suggests one thing and i couldn't see how it would work, seems it simply doesn't work so nobody uses it, including some of the writers - which is totally fine, but a simple acknowledgement and perhaps fix next time a rune fixes doc gets done would be good for other new players, not everyone that plays RQ:G will be experienced runequesters.

[Shawn Carpenter]

When I ran RQ, I did as has been suggested and gave PCs until the end of the next round to heal their fallen comrades. That still has a tactical impact on combat and introduces some tension without being murderous, particularly to characters who drop to 0 at the end of the round.

I honestly assumed the RAW was a typo of some sort, because it's pretty unfair to PCs who are taken out in later SRs. 

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

On the other hand, the rules as written are also what the default go to for GMs will be, especially GMs new to the system, the death at the end of the round you hit 0 rule is pretty clearly a non starter of a rule even to someone new to the system though and it seems like nobody uses it, so including a fix in the next rune fixes would be good for everyone. It's not about rules lawyering, its about rules giving appropriate guidance of the intent of the game.

I personally think that one of the best reasons to use RQ rules is when you want the rules as the game oracle, i.e. what they say happens, is what happens. For instance, I make all my GM rolls in public, just to dispel the idea that I might be fudging them to save the characters. When they're in a fight, the dice get cast. In this kind of situation, it's a real problem if the rules don't do what they're supposed to, and "oh, just MGF it" isn't really helpful. I'm trying to achieve MGF through a fairly mechanical and player-understood oracle, not by constantly ruling by GM Fiat. In this case, it isn't MGF to just fudge the rules.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[DreadDomain]

6 hours ago, Jason D said:

I allow adventurers who have not already acted that round to change their statement of intent (essentially changing plans mid-round). 

Makes sense. I was wondering how much leeway you were giving in such a situation.

Quote

Not everyone is a hardcore rules lawyer.

The rules are there to help people enjoy the game and to facilitate gameplay. If there's a situation or condition where rigid adherence to the letter of the rules stands in the way of people enjoying themselves, I cut the players some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt. 

No need to get defensive. Your reply came just after Pentallion's (emphasis mine).

On 8/6/2020 at 5:18 AM, Pentallion said:

I - like everyone else on this thread apparently - give the PCs till the end of the next round to prevent someone from dying.

They should fix that rule because no one uses it as written.

I thought it was funny that the line editor replied right after to say that he was house ruling the same rule like everyone else on thread. That's all.

Edited August 6, 2020 by DreadDomain

[ChrisJ]

We just had our first near death experience for one of my players - a demon had a special on its claw attack striking the abdomen of our bezerking Storm Bull (hence no parry) - a large demon has a claw attack that inflicts 4d6 damage, thus the special now did 8d6 - I rolled low and did 27 damage (against 5AP) so 22 penetrated - with the HP boost from the Bezerk the Storm Bull had 9hp in the abdomen (so no instant death) - but only 21 hp.  Fortunately the Babeester Gor Initiate was close by and had not acted and was able to cast Heal Body.  This did require 1 Fudge for MGF since Rune magic is supposed to occur at SR 1, so I ruled the Heal Body took effect 5SR after the change of intent.

Just an FYI - Large Demons are nasty - 21 POW => 21 HP and 21 AP.

[Lordabdul]

As far as I can tell, in RQG, there's nothing special happening when changing your Statement of Intent, so by RAW, it doesn't cost anything to drop what you're doing to run and Heal a dying comrade. However, there are still problems:

1. As mentioned previously, there's the difference being mortally wounded on SR10 and being mortally wounded on SR3. Even ignoring every rule except movement, that means someone would have to be within 6 meters from the victim if they're struck on SR10, compared to being able to come rescue a friend from as far as 21 meters away if they're struck on SR3. Or possibly 3 and 18 meters respectively if you count that it takes 1 SR to cast the spell (depends if you're casting Rune magic or Spirit magic), but hey, I said "ignoring every rule except movement" so let's not go into details 😛
2. In many cases, all the other PCs will be engaged in Melee, so they need to disengage first in theory. That takes a round to happen, more or less, but it's not clear from RAW when exactly the PC is free to run to their friend's side.

Using MGF to let a character disengage from melee and run 15 meters in the span of a couple Strike Ranks seems like an incredible abuse of MGF. There is obviously a limit to what a GM should do in a given situation, no? So let's say in that case, too bad, the character dies. But what about 10 meters with 3 SRs to spare? Or 7 meters and 4 SRs to spare? If only there was some guideline to help GMs draw the line in a sensible place.... oh wait  

Recommending that character death is mostly, or even partially, reliant on MGF is incredibly non-welcoming to newbie GMs and players in my opinion. MGF is just another name for "Rule Zero" or "The Golden Rule" and other names for the same principle, which is that the GM should always feel free to override the rules in special situations or in service of the story. Which means that if we bring up MGF in rules discussions, it should be accompanied by the special circumstances that called for MGF. If we invoke MGF regardless of the situation's circumstances, that's a called a house rule.

Stated another way: it's one thing to use MGF for special situations, but it's another thing to have to rely on MGF for what is arguably a very common situation (everyone is in melee, and someone gets badly impaled). If everybody is using MGF for this kind of mortal wound situation, it means the rules themselves aren't maximally fun to begin with, surely? Hence, the house rules. Or second editions of rulebooks. Or whatever.

Another thing that some people miss is that it's rare (and, I'll argue, undesirable) that there's only one rule affecting one situation. Rules form an ecosystem that is supposed to work as a whole. So for instance, sure, you have a house rule that the character dies only at the end of the next round, or on the next round on the same SR as when they were struck. That's fine, and that fixes problem #1 above. But your work is not done because there's problem #2 (all PCs being engaged in melee). You potentially need to figure out which SR the character is "free" to go help the fallen PC after disengaging, so you know how much time they have before the PC dies. Maybe you're not using Strike Ranks at all? In which case you need to figure out how your action economy works, and whether allies have, on average, a decent shot at saving a friend. Or maybe you don't even want to bother with all this and your house rule is that when you reach 0HP, you die after CON rounds or CON minutes unattended. That's simple, and it still forces PCs to not leave someone behind, but it means there's less incentive to heal someone right away, which means the player whose PC is injured might have to wait longer, excluded from combat, than with the other crunchier rules. And I'm not even going into the fact that the mortality rate of a specific system does have a big impact on how this system "feels" and whether we like it or not. So again, leaving that up to MGF has less to do with dealing with special situations, and more to do with "make your own rules"...

Edited August 6, 2020 by lordabdul

[Akhôrahil]

If it’s typically MGF to not use the rule, it shouldn’t be written that way. After all, the rules are supposed to support good play, not be an obstacle. If this makes me a rules lawyer, I wear the badge proudly.

[French Desperate WindChild]

PC death is something important

I m not sure we can say "hey this rule will fix any issue in any situation"

I personaly dislike the system "Round + SR", I would prefer "Round + initiative" or "SR without round" (SR 13 follows SR12) but any system I played has some issue, so I would apply the same rule in any system when death is coming : "Roleplay" , it is first a story telling part between GM and Players and after we will roll dices.

You want to save your partner ? but that means your opponent will automatically succeed to hit you ? Are your ready to sacrifice your life for him/her ?

Finally I don't care, if it is SR12 or round 2. The players must take the decision immediatly after they know one of them is dying (of course some of them may not be aware of the situation for any reason too).

If they continue their action, no issue about the "death rule" because they do nothing... the guy is dead, it is not really important to know which second.

The dying is already out of the game. The dices should be focused on the living : who are trying or not, to save the dying.

Will the healer be hit by his opponent ?

Will the vingan be able to block with her body all attacks to save everyone ?

Will the coward become a hero  ?

will the leader prevent the healer to risk his life because the ennemy is too strong and they have to retreat?

A good death story seems to me  better than a good death rule

 

[Ian Absentia]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

MGF is just another name for "Rule Zero" or "The Golden Rule" and other names for the same principle, which is that the GM should always feel free to override the rules in special situations or in service of the story.

I thought Rule Zero was "Never play with assholes."  Honestly.  But I take your point.

This discussion is slipping into similar territory to a concurrent discussion in the General BRP forum regarding asymmetrical rules for conflict.  Is your game fair, or is it fun?  Is it fun to be inflexibly even-handed in application of symmetrical rules for players and opponents?  Is it fair to rely on the rules as a framework for most interaction, from which players' circumstances deviate?  Or are the rules there in print just to appease rules lawyers and grognards?

!i!

Edited August 6, 2020 by Ian Absentia

[Lordabdul]

59 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Is your game fair, or is it fun?

Rules aren't the opposite of fun, otherwise we would all be playing Amber Diceless (and, well, arguably, everybody should be playing Amber Diceless at least once!)... or, even just straight up freeform improv.

Instead, what are rules for? They give structure and texture to a storytelling game. I can hand-wave rules away, modify them, or ignore them. I frequently do all of this. But the farther I depart from what the game was supposed to be about, the less reasons I have of playing that game in the first place. If I find myself adding lots of crunchy rules to a rules-light game, I might as well play the same story with a crunchier system. If I find myself ignoring rules often because they get in the way of the story, I might as well play that story using a lighter system, or at least a more streamlined one. And, depending on the players, changing the system might affect the story anyway, but that's another topic, and we're already hijiacking the current topic.

You could slightly better (IMHO) re-express your point in the form of "is your game consistent, or is it story driven?". That is, given the same situation ("X is trying to do Y with Z"), but different narrative contexts (plot B vs Act 1 climax), are you going to make very different rolls? To some degree, all games are at least a bit story driven. For example, nobody except the purest simulationists will do anything about fatigue or the effects of heat until that one adventure where the PCs have to trek for a week through the Forbidden Pits Of Devil's Inferno, because then that's a plot element. Other games completely embrace this story driven aspect, like HeroQuest, where it's actually less about X doing Y with Z, and more about the fact that it's a climax (which, by the way, recreates the narrative tropes where something is super hard to do for the hero at the end of Act 1, but is super easy to do several times in a row in the middle of Act 3).

Different game systems might be in different spots along this axis, but a particular GM's style will then move it further either way. I have played in a couple campaigns where the GM used a simulationist (crunchy) system but kept hand-waving things away to make the story go a certain way. I wished that GM had chosen a different system because what some people might consider "more fun", I thought was "inconsistent" (and, once, borderline "I don't even know what I'm supposed to roll for anymore"). You spend time and points to make a character that, say, will be fast, but it doesn't matter as much because you'll be able to move fast enough if the story warrants it... why even play with a system that models character movement speeds then? It often felt like "it's more fun if you can move fast enough to do X in this scene" was actually really the GM not wanting to deal with the consequences of the character not being able to do X, which IMHO could have been just as fun, or the GM not wanting to say they should have advanced the story past this entire scene instead of playing it out.

Anyway, sorry,  I keep making this thread drift away. I'll try to shut up now  

Edited August 6, 2020 by lordabdul