Uping the drama in combat

[Morgenstern]

Discussion of lethal vs. subdual and the severity of crits got me thinking about hwo I might tinker with the combat rules to create a more dramatic experience for players. One thought was reducing the deathspiral of becoming fatigued when the vitality runs out, and instead give the special character a chance to come back from the brink.

NEW CAMPAIGN QUALITIES
Desperate Struggle: Special characters are not fatigued by being reduced to 0 vitality. Instead, the first time a special character is reduced to 0 vitality each scene they a choose one of the following benefits.

Desperate Clarity: You may immediately remove any combination of 3 of the following conditions: baffled, enraged, fixated, fatigued, and stunned. Conditions with multiple grades can be chosen multiple times.
Desperate Need: You gain 2 bonus action dice. These dice are discarded at the end of the current scene.
Desperate Plight: Your circumstances encourage your teammates to greater effort. Each of your teammates able to see and hear you when you gain this benefit immediately recovers vitality equal to twice your Career Level.
Desperate Retaliation: If the actions of another character reduced your vitality to 0, you gain a +5 bonus to all attack checks against that character until they are defeated, you have recovered at least half of your vitality, or the scene ends whichever comes first.

NEW SPECIES FEAT
Cling to Life
The will to survive is strong in this one.
Prerequisites: Desperate struggle campaign quality.
Benefit: Your maximum wounds increase by 5. When you choose a benefit from the desperate struggle campaign quality, you may instead choose 2 different benefits.

[Deral]

I don't have much constructive to add, but I want to say, I like where this is going and where it's evolved from the idea in the crits thread.

These would be a lot more likely to show up in low level combat, where they'd be pretty powerful (except, I suppose, Plight), and at high levels, depending on the game, they could be a very rare thing. Not like any of that isn't obvious, just an observation.

[Morgenstern]

Thanks . I'm still thrashing it out in my head. I'm thinking about how this would shape play in the Sinbad-styled setting I'm working on. It's probably one of three parts - the other two being a change to crits and/or a different definition of "defeated" when your various clocks run out.

Basically I envision a story where the PLAYER CHARACTERS are considered "plot sensitive", and basically can't die... but also aren't expected to win every encounter either. Something more MMO-style where when your wounds reach 0 you are "defeated" rather than "Dying". If there's at least one hero standing when the dust settles, the defeated characters are back in the mix. If the entire team is defeated, its a wipe rather than a TPK, and you lose the encounter, but you don't start rolling a new character. "Defeating" enemies also give the GM more latitude in describing what happens - clearing up some confusion about "intimidating an opponent to death".

Still thinking on the details, but plugging it in should be fairly seamless. Seems like encounters would fall into two categories - opportunity (one try only) and situation (can come back after a wipe and try again). Then they could be a LOT harder/more challenging than the current norm. Basically I still want that sense of interest and acomplishment without it hinging on "oh, and if you goof, you die."

[Deral]

Basically I envision a story where the PLAYER CHARACTERS are considered "plot sensitive", and basically can't die... but also aren't expected to win every encounter either. Something more MMO-style where when your wounds reach 0 you are "defeated" rather than "Dying". If there's at least one hero standing when the dust settles, the defeated characters are back in the mix. If the entire team is defeated, its a wipe rather than a TPK, and you lose the encounter, but you don't start rolling a new character. "Defeating" enemies also give the GM more latitude in describing what happens - clearing up some confusion about "intimidating an opponent to death".

Still thinking on the details, but plugging it in should be fairly seamless. Seems like encounters would fall into two categories - opportunity (one try only) and situation (can come back after a wipe and try again). Then they could be a LOT harder/more challenging than the current norm. Basically I still want that sense of interest and acomplishment without it hinging on "oh, and if you goof, you die."

I definitely think this is a cool idea and certainly allows for more and more frequent mortal danger without it ending in writing up a new character. Thinking about it I kind of like this concept as applying to standard characters- a Special character can't be killed, only "defeated" by a standard, but other specials at least have the opportunity to do so, if not, or perhaps during dramatic scenes, might be a campaign quality to consider when it's all said and done.

[Sletchman]

Interesting idea.  It also allows for captures, with the follow up dramatic escape from an enemy stronghold, without having to worry about "oh the unborn can't be knocked out and captured" or what not.

It does completely negate the cheating death rules though (it becomes automatic), but my group never made much use of them (probably due to a "dead means dead" mindset, rather then a rules issue).

Interesting idea, I'd like to know more.

[Morgenstern]

Ok, my current thinking is about rally points. Players get to pick a place they've been to (or possibly know of if the location is well established) as their rally point. "We'll meet at the the standing stones on the north side of the canyon if things go bad." Rally points are (semi-)safe locations where the party can rest and recouperate and basically renenter play in fairly good shape - most of their wounds, most of their vitality. If they are defeated, that's where the action picks back up.

When the party is defeated, the GM can spend 1 action die to force the party to rally somewhere of his choosing, making them set back up in a place probably surrounded by unpleasantness, and probably restart them with fewer wounds/vitality than a clean retreat. Say, half their wounds, half their vitality. This option could also let the players go to the spot they wanted, but have it be overrun before they've fully caught their breath ("you guys all make it back to town as planned, but theres a orc raid going on when you get there...").

The second GM options would be the capture - maybe one die per player character captured. This lets the GM spend some dice to move the plot forward with with the classic escape scene (because getting captured isn't just a good plan, its a great plan ). I foresee a good escape restocking both the players' and the GM's action dice spent on getting them there.

[Mister Andersen]

I like the sound of this.

[Sletchman]

The rally point idea is very cool, and I think it works in any style of campaign too (and across sytems) - in modern espionage an OP gets blown, the team takes some fire and thenregroups back at a safe house to patch up and plan the next stage.  I'm definitely gonna use this.

[Morgenstern]

It does completely negate the cheating death rules though (it becomes automatic), but my group never made much use of them (probably due to a "dead means dead" mindset, rather then a rules issue).

Part of how this slides past the cheating death rules is a full-on change in definitions. 0 Wounds no longer = dying/dead. At 0 wound a special character = defeated. The characters don't look dead in the first place, so they don't need a bit of narative fluff to undo that. And as a side-note I can't tell you how much I would look forward to ditching the negative wounds rules: bottom out at 0. Done. Finito.

Defeated characters might still be able to move to creep off the map, or they could just be out of play - I tend to think that's simpler. When the fight's over, either another PC props them back up (bing! order up! 1 Wound & 1 vitality to go please), or if the players all are defeated it's off to the rally point (unless someone gets captured).

The existing raise dead spells get re-skinned as battlefiled inspiration ("I said ON YOUR FEET soldier!") and heals remain valuable as they are now.

[Morgenstern]

The rally point idea is very cool, and I think it works in any style of campaign too (and across sytems) - in modern espionage an OP gets blown, the team takes some fire and thenregroups back at a safe house to patch up and plan the next stage.  I'm definitely gonna use this.

Now the mention of safehouses is kinda sexy - a sort of improved rally point with replacement gear stashed in advance and maybe some improved wounds/vitality on arrival for having it in place: Your gunner opens the mini-fridge, pops his favorite brew, takes a long swig, burps, and announces "well that went to shit quick" Ding- full vitality points!

Yes, I like rules that tell stories .

[Krensky]

Thereby bringing Cliche 153 from the console to the table top.

[Morgenstern]

Trope!  Trope, I say !

Console is kicking the crap out of table-top, despite table-top's vastly more powerful processor, flexible interface, easy prgramability, and infinitely greater range of content. That tells me there are a few things to be learned from consol . One of them is that when people want to do a little escapist fantasy, they don't want to roll a new character all that often. Given the complexity of FCs character options, I can totally get that aversion.

What's cliche 152?

[Krensky]

The Grand List of Console RPG Cliches predates the Tropers.

Frankly, though, I see this whole "video game rpgs are doing better then tabletop, so we must copy them" logic all the time. It sounds good, it makes sense that streaming things down, emulating the acessibility and whatnot would make tabletop rpgs more popular and attract new players.

Problem is, it's utterly wrong.

No matter what you do, you will never design a tabletop game, let alone a tabletop rpg that will pull new gamers who you weren't going get anyway.

Why? Because 'Dungeons and Dragons" is something girlfriendless looser nerds who live in their parents basement do.

We all know that's not true, but it is the general perception. It's even reinforced by so called 'geek friendly' media like Big Bang Theory or the D&D episode of Community. Those shows don't get made to tap into the geek demographic, they get made because the execs get a nostalgic thrill of laughing at the stupid nerds. Same for almost all the audience.

Studying video games to inform your tabletop game design with the goal of attracting new players is doomed to failure. It's a doomed to failure as furries studying tabletop games to learn how to attract tabletop gamers. It's the geek heirachy. Doubly so because video games are mainstream acceptable, except for some genres... Like rpgs.

This isn't criticising the idea of borrowing from other media design, but the idea that doing so can make them like us is folly.

I do like the rally point/no dying concept though.

Oh, Cliche 152 in tabletop terms would be that the GM PCs are infinately cooler then you could ever hope to be.

As for 153 for those who don't want to look it up, its title is: "Mommy, why don't they just use a Pheonix Down on Aeris?".

[foproy]

The Grand List of Console RPG Cliches predates the Tropers.

Frankly, though, I see this whole "video game rpgs are doing better then tabletop, so we must copy them" logic all the time. It sounds good, it makes sense that streaming things down, emulating the acessibility and whatnot would make tabletop rpgs more popular and attract new players.

Problem is, it's utterly wrong.

No matter what you do, you will never design a tabletop game, let alone a tabletop rpg that will pull new gamers who you weren't going get anyway.

Why? Because 'Dungeons and Dragons" is something girlfriendless looser nerds who live in their parents basement do.

We all know that's not true, but it is the general perception. It's even reinforced by so called 'geek friendly' media like Big Bang Theory or the D&D episode of Community. Those shows don't get made to tap into the geek demographic, they get made because the execs get a nostalgic thrill of laughing at the stupid nerds. Same for almost all the audience.

Studying video games to inform your tabletop game design with the goal of attracting new players is doomed to failure. It's a doomed to failure as furries studying tabletop games to learn how to attract tabletop gamers. It's the geek heirachy. Doubly so because video games are mainstream acceptable, except for some genres... Like rpgs.

This isn't criticising the idea of borrowing from other media design, but the idea that doing so can make them like us is folly.

I do like the rally point/no dying concept though.

Oh, Cliche 152 in tabletop terms would be that the GM PCs are infinately cooler then you could ever hope to be.

As for 153 for those who don't want to look it up, its title is: "Mommy, why don't they just use a Pheonix Down on Aeris?".

up till halo came out video games were the realm of children and geeks, and only recently gained mainstream popularity.

[MilitiaJim]

This a very YMMV item.  Sometimes you want a darker world where death is possible no matter how awesome you are, and sometimes you don't.

Back in the dim ages, when I had a regular game, I tried not to TPK my players, or give them cakewalk encounters.  (But it was fun blowing them up for wondering if the bad guys left the stove on.)  Anyway, I can very well see why NPC crits need to be random, and not activated by Action Dice.  (I'm split between open and hidden rolls and see the merits of both, but that is a different discussion.)