Less Deadly Crits

[Krensky]

It's somewhat circumstantial. but as a general rule I tend to send the PCs to the Table of Ouch rather then attacking wounds directly. I have more then enough Action Dice as GM for the extra expense not to matter. Not to say I don't use wound crits, but I typically try to avoid using them to one shot the PCs.

It's also important to remember that only Special NPCs can activate threats, so the PCs are only at risk from them in 'important' fights.

[Valentina]

But again, how are they getting killed in one hit? Seriously, I'm asking. Do they drop their Con score? Scorn armor? Are there really, really[/i] high damage values being inflicted? Does the Control like to add action dice in when he Crits a player? Do they not want to spend Feats on defensive options?
I feel like there's a thing go unsaid here that I'm not seeing that makes this a problem.

Play a Pech with a Con of 12 and you've got 8 wounds to last your entire adventuring career. Plenty of monsters can deal that in one bite.

Honestly I'd assumed it was an unwritten rule of GMing in Mastercraft that you NEVER crit the PCs. It's neat that the option exists, everyone loves it when they can cut through the villain's monologue with an arrow to his eyeball, but players need to feel that their death was 'fair' and they should feel safe to take more risks if they've got a big heap of Vitality remaining.

Ahh, right. Small: reduced Wounds. Mm, true. There's probably a way to get more, but them's the breaks of being bite-sized.

[Morgenstern]

I count the number of Crits I've survived as badges of honor.

In some respects that's making my point: most GM crits are only activated when the player could survive it. The question is how often have you ben killed by them, not how often have you survived them?

[Sletchman]

One of the group GMs who isn't me activates Critical Hits almost every time he rolls them.  It only bothered me when we were playing FC and the GM ruled I couldn't cheat death with no reason given (and not because of Dramatic Scene or Dead Means Dead being active).

I would usually spend the action die for a critical injury instead (with house rule that they cost one for either/or - may have mentioned it here), rather then potentially kill a player.  The only time I will is deal wound damage is when I can think of a reall good and fitting way for them to cheat death (just in case I do roll high and kill them) that I might subtly suggest to them.  Also, back in Spycraft I would crit the guy who wore Riot Gear with relative impunity.  DR 14 meant that even a crit was more of a nuisance then a death threat.  Same thing would apply if I had any man-tank players in a fantasy game I suppose.

[paddyfool]

Ahh, right. Small: reduced Wounds. Mm, true. There's probably a way to get more, but them's the breaks of being bite-sized.

The great fortitude feat and magic items are about all that I know of.

[Krensky]

GM defined prize.

[Valentina]

I count the number of Crits I've survived as badges of honor.

In some respects that's making my point: most GM crits are only activated when the player could survive it. The question is how often have you ben killed by them, not how often have you survived them?

Technically never killed. My closest brush with death was collapsing from being shot something like 47 times (really small rounds), and the Subdual damage disabling me.
Shadow's brush with death was just dumb luck. He ate 12 points with a 12 Con, only his 1 point of much-mocked DR saved him. Everyone plays the game that makes them happy, hopefully, but we rolled it as the die spoke. RPG'ing has a certain gambling aspect to it, after all.

Sletch: same here. The die comes up right, I eat a Crit. Nothing special about the occasion. It was considered bad form for the Control to spend AD on Crit damage, but it happened a few times.

[Bill Whitmore]

It was considered bad form for the Control to spend AD on Crit damage, but it happened a few times.

Which, I think, is the crux of Morgenstern's argument.

Second off, because it requires active consent of the GM rather than random dice rolls, it makes you a prick when you actually do it, the source of hard feelings at the table most effective GMs instinctively shy away from (if they want to keep having a game night populated by fun players anyway).

Why should it be perfectly acceptable for a PC to spend AD on crits to make sure they kill a Special NPC, but be considered "bad form" to have it done back to them?

In many ways, I preferred the confirmation roll required to score critical hits in D&D.

For one, it removed the GC having to make a potentially unpopular judgement call on whether a critical hit occurred or not.

For another, it meant better fighters were more apt to score a critical hit.  As is, the courtier with a 19-20 crit range weapon and a +5 to hit has the same exact chance of getting a critical hit as a warrior with a 19-20 crit range weapon and a +15 to hit provided the targets defense is less than 25.

[Valentina]

It was considered bad form for the Control to spend AD on Crit damage, but it happened a few times.

Which, I think, is the crux of Morgenstern's argument.

Second off, because it requires active consent of the GM rather than random dice rolls, it makes you a prick when you actually do it, the source of hard feelings at the table most effective GMs instinctively shy away from (if they want to keep having a game night populated by fun players anyway).

Why should it be perfectly acceptable for a PC to spend AD on crits to make sure they kill a Special NPC, but be considered "bad form" to have it done back to them?

In many ways, I preferred the confirmation roll required to score critical hits in D&D.

For one, it removed the GC having to make a potentially unpopular judgement call on whether a critical hit occurred or not.

For another, it meant better fighters were more apt to score a critical hit.  As is, the courtier with a 19-20 crit range weapon and a +5 to hit has the same exact chance of getting a critical hit as a warrior with a 19-20 crit range weapon and a +15 to hit provided the targets defense is less than 25.

I believe it's the difficulty of getting Special NPCs to buy pizza.

It's the difference between harming, and intending to kill. Control AD can explode like any others, after all, and the at least presence of danger is important.
While danger is important and death significant, ultimately getting blown out of the water at random isn't what's desired.
Don't fret, I get that.
I'm just not bothered much by how it is now, and want to illuminate the importance of taking steps to be ready for what can go wrong. I readily accept that Morg knows it all better then I, and that this is just brainstorming, but, much as I normally loathe the role, I'm taking up the briefcase of the Devil's Advocate.
Don't neglect Constitution. Don't shun armor. And while this isn't entirely fair to say, don't play fragile races if you're really worried about it.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

....I'm taking up the briefcase of the Devil's Advocate.

I don't think you're really playing Devil's Advocate if you're not advocating for staying with the existing rule.  You're just giving examples of how to live with it.  You haven't given any reason why the change-over should not be done, just reasons ways in which it need not be done or be seen as needing to be done.

[Valentina]

....I'm taking up the briefcase of the Devil's Advocate.

I don't think you're really playing Devil's Advocate if you're not advocating for staying with the existing rule.  You're just giving examples of how to live with it.  You haven't given any reason why the change-over should not be done, just reasons ways in which it need not be done or be seen as needing to be done.

Mm, fair enough then.
I guess I can live with things as they are, because I can both tolerate the results and am in favor of the rules working both ways. They don't, not completely, of course. But it's funny how, as I know it, the PC as a protected class of character is both accepted and denied by the gamers I know.
On one hand, using 4E as an example, there is a clear series of mechanical difference between PC and NPC and it comes up over and over. And I'm cool with that. I put my 3.5 time in, I'm really happy not to have to play in a system that's very roughly Simulationist -complete and equitable on the largest scale, but gradually breaking down as it approaches the individual level.

I think of the Crafty Catalogue as Simulationist, but minus so much of the misery and sacred cow****.

On the other is the perspective that the DM/GM/Control has lost his/her role as the "God" of the game, and become more of a referee/storyteller combination. That the newer model of the Gamist RPG is an impediment of the story and some kind of subtle personal slight on the GM -like they and the players have to be tightly controlled less they "do it wrong."

Campaign Qualities come somewhere in the middle. I like them, but it seems to me they go underused because of this weird tension between the GM getting to do anything they want (hopefully for the benefit of his/her game) and the Players being protected from the Random Drama of the dice.

I want a tightly honed Simulationist game, and I speak in favor of the idea that Random Happens, and that if you can ride it out when it's bad you'll blow some brains out in the surprise round and completely smash some gloating jackass's plans into grey matter pudding.*

(In the mean time I'm fine with 4E, and really it's local decline has more to do with WotC's irregular production quality and Living Forgotten Realms having screwed itself up from the word go. Appropos to nothing, of course)

*and THAT may have come from a gaming background where the PC commanded almost 0 Respect unless they were the ultimate pinnacle of carefully manicured power ie a primary Caster class in a high magic fantasy setting.
I'm still trying to get over gloating that Buzz is dead and Leopard isn't, and when a longtime friend of mine trash-talks the healer I played to keep his (among others) hinder alive for 4 years I still get riled.
OTOH the S&W .500 has carried my agents a long way on the path, and I'm damn happy to have a hand in it's conversion.
So yeah. I'm a mess.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

On the other is the perspective that the DM/GM/Control has lost his/her role as the "God" of the game, and become more of a referee/storyteller combination. That the newer model of the Gamist RPG is an impediment of the story and some kind of subtle personal slight on the GM -like they and the players have to be tightly controlled less they "do it wrong."

Another perspective on this is that the GM role has become another player of the game.  If you let the players get their way then the GM can, if not then the GM has to follow rules the same.  I don't think it's about tighter control so much as giving a GM the sense of something reacting to them, same as a player, rather than everything being lain out and known to them.

I want a tightly honed Simulationist game, and I speak in favor of the idea that Random Happens, and that if you can ride it out when it's bad you'll blow some brains out in the surprise round and completely smash some gloating jackass's plans into grey matter pudding.*

Problem is if you're not in it for that level of.......badass?  Not sure what to call it.  But if you're not into that level of visceral thrill it would be helpful if there were an alternative.  Using methods to avoid one-shotting isn't the same thing as the threat and thus the feeling is still there.

[Morgenstern]

This does cross polinate with my other thread musing on creating more dramtic combat gameplay - in my perfect world if you take hero death largely out of the equation, the GM is actually encouraged to go a little more no holds bared in kicking your ass and making the team take a second or third attempt. A situation that might ironically increase the player's commitment to good planning good execution, and bragging-points-worthy play despite the removal of the ultimate penalty. My concern is that Player Character failure is currently so inextricably linked with Player Character death (in no small part because players as a rule NEVER back down until dead... likely because most table-top gaming has no mechanism to tell a player "You lost. Pack it up and fall back") that GMs are inclined to hold back. Partially because of possible ingering animosity, and partially for the practical problem that while deceased charaters are almost always freely replaced upon death, its still a loss of time rebuilding and a loss of attatchment, which weakens the table.

I think if I do end up presenting any sort of alternative crit system, it will be shaped by that thinking - that if defeat =/= death, then fairly harsh criticals are fine - they don't trigger the real problems.

[Fortinbras]

Agree with that whole-heartedly Morgenstern, I've long felt that RPGs need to be more game-y with well defined loss conditions and strict rules for fair encounters and all that. I love FC's Cheating Death system precisely because it takes a common convention of long term play and makes it into an explicit rule, but it's kind of undermined by defining situations where the PCs stand a reasonable chance of losing as Dramatic Scenes where all losses are final.

I sort of like the degree of verisimilitude you get from knowing that it's theoretically possible for a character to get one-shotted and die right there, but I agree that the decision to initiate that shouldn't be on the GM. You don't want completely random insta-kills either, it makes combat far too swingy when it should be at least in part a game of resource management. In my ideal system it would be the player's decision to raise the stakes and open themselves up to the possibility of character death. Maybe leave a pool of Action Dice in the middle of the table and say they're up for grabs for anyone who wants to open themselves up to the possibility of taking crits?

edit: only somewhat related, but FC's open-ended Prize system seems like it should be perfect for those situations where you want characters to take a loss without death or hideous maiming, I was kind of surprised that wasn't part of the core rules.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Why not use Stress damage for "defeat =/= death"?  Although maybe you'd have to make a more linear track for Stress the same way Vitality has linear decrease.