Violence & Viscera

[Croaker42]

Bryn-dead is when the poor bugger hits twice its Constitution in negative hit points. This is when the gruesome "you split it in half" description comes in.

I love it! "It's not dead until it's Bryn-dead." *hacks its head off*

Yes an excellent Idea.
I have just started a campaign and will certainly use this.

 

[Norm Morrison IV]

"To be clear, I am not saying that every combat must put the entire party at risk of being wiped out. But I am saying that every combat should put the entire party at risk of losing something. There are three broad levels of risk:


1.Assets
2.Character
3.Party
When an encounter risks "assets," it means that survival of every player character is likely but the participants might lose things they value. This could be treasure, vehicles, pets, henchmen, magic items, and so on. An encounter with a Rust Monster in Classic Dungeons & Dragons is an asset risk encounter.

When an encounter risks "characters," it means that survival of the party as a whole is likely, but individual player characters might die or be irreparably harmed. An encounter with energy-draining undead in Classic Dungeons & Dragons could be a character risk encounter, as even a victorious party might experience real harm.

When an encounter risks "party," it means that the survival of the party as a whole is in question. Losing this fight will mean that every character is killed and the campaign is over."


I enjoyed this article, and commend the thought process behind it. I am one who believes that the level of player satisfaction from a session or encounter or puzzle is directly in line with the level of actual risk; this means in games with little real risk (thetype you mentioned), the satisfaction and reward is also a pale shadow of what it could be.

However, I disagree with the above statement; as it smacks of the encounter levels and the corresponding lack of internal consistency. If Players meet a bunch of orcs in an area where an orc tribe is supposed to frequent when they are new, they are threatening. If the Pcs are running around in the same area, after playing for a few dozen sessions, aren't the likely to run inot the same type of party of orcs? Or are you going to 'goose' the power level of the encounter to create risk?
I may be a little too sand-boxy, but as much as I believe that combat should be risky and that that logical risk level is the coefficient of the feeling of reward; I also believe that the feeling of immersion created by a logical and internally consistent campaign is threatened by screwing with the encounter to make it more or less risky.

 

[lomylithruldor]

Your assumption is based on the fact that you would back yourself into a corner with your wording, which the article doesn't suggest. If you had the theoretically situation where you critically hit a creature and it still had hit points let, you would phrase your description accordingly. For example -

"You swing the metal pipe in a wide arc, viciously cracking him across the top of the head. Blood is leaking down into his eyes, but you can still see the fire of combat burning within."

In other words, downplay the effect of the 'critical' hit. There are only so many ways you can do that in a 'realistic' setting before it starts getting ridiculous. But of course this is less the fault of the GM and more the fault of the system in use itself (hitpoints et al.). Still, I concede your point: avoid backing yourself into a corner.

What I was commenting on was that by employing such 'visceral' language when in combat, it seems to me that the GM always runs a certain risk of adding more to a fight than what was intended, or sanctioned by the rules. Or am I really the only one who does that? A critical hit causes the dude to keel over into some chairs, temporarily out of the battle/rendered prone - it doesn't say so in the rules, but I said so as the GM since it seemed appropriate. That visceral descriptions can lend themselves to super-rule of GM fiat, is, I guess, my ultimate point.

It doesn't need to be GM fiat. Your example looks like Exalted's way of handling big hits. If a hit is strong enough, there's knock-back and/or knockdown involved (dmg vs stam so a stronger enemy won't be pushed around as much as a weak one). With Exalted, the collateral damage made by bodies flying around doesn't do extra damage since it's only for cinematic effect. You can always make an house rule for these kind of critical hits.

 

[Wolfrug]

One of my DMs still uses the critical hit/miss tables from AD&D in his 3.5 campaign. That's how my barbarian lost his left arm and was stuck with a ghost replacement limb. It keeps it interesting when you critically hit and miss and is significantly more helpful than double damage.

It doesn't need to be GM fiat. Your example looks like Exalted's way of handling big hits. If a hit is strong enough, there's knock-back and/or knockdown involved (dmg vs stam so a stronger enemy won't be pushed around as much as a weak one). With Exalted, the collateral damage made by bodies flying around doesn't do extra damage since it's only for cinematic effect. You can always make an house rule for these kind of critical hits.

Oh yes, this is definitely one way of doing it: both of you are describing either using set rules (Exalted, old AD&D), or deciding on a house rule for how to handle e.g. a critical hit outside of the rulebook. If such a rule exists, then nothing could be simpler than adapting one's 'visceral' language to the rule. Of course, this does quickly add up to quite a few rules. There's a reason why many systems don't have explicit rules for stuff like this, in my mind exactly in order to allow the GM/Players to decide for themselves how to deal with it.

Just to make it clear again: I DON'T MIND if the GM on the spot claims that a particularly nasty swing or gunshot or whatever had some effect that goes beyond the rules (=GM fiat), as long as it's a fair judgement (or a rule of cool judgement . I, in fact, think that it's totally awesome if my character's critical brawl attack is interpreted as a kick to the gonads, putting the enemy out of commission (despite said enemy still having plenty of HP left, and despite there being no 'rules' about gonad-kicking around). I furthermore don't mind if my next critical brawl attack is NOT interpreted as a gonad-kick, but instead as...heck...just a particularly nasty haymaker or whatever, with no extra effects.

What I've taken issue with is Mr. Macris' stated dislike towards such elements of 'fudging', and although I agree with him to a degree, I am still of the opinion that rules can be broken and worked around in the interest of the narrative. In particular when they're in the grey areas, such as "what exactly does '20 damage' mean in non-mechanical terms?'. No, I am not saying that fudging a dice so that 20 damage vs. your 2 hp somehow does not come to mean "instant and gruesome death", and here I and Mr. Macris agree. But fudging a dice so that 20 damage vs. a critter with 25 hp ends up with that critter getting a leg chopped off (if such an outcome should be expected) I think is perfectly okay. -Especially- if the players have solicited such an outcome through their actions ("I swing my axe at the creature, who is standing on a rock in front of me, in an effort to chop off its legs").

Yes, once again, there CAN be rules for all of this (I know there are usually rules for targeting specific bodyparts etc., before someone comes and bashes that example as well), but there is generally a -reason- why combat rules in practically all tabletop games essentially boil down to abstractions in the form of 'attack rolls' and 'hitpoints': because having rules, house or not, for every possible real-life combat situation is just not going to happen! It's all far too complicated for that.

So, to summarize my point: gruesome language is awesome, and gruesome GM fiat results of using said language is awesome (but would contradict earlier statements by the article author with regards to fudging and GM fiat).

 

[Archon]

Wow, great feedback/discussion!

I tend to ask the players to describe what they are doing before they do it, instead of the opposite. This is not something you discuss in the article, which I found rather strange... Essentially, just like with -any other action- in the game, ask the player to describe what they are trying to do before rolling the dice, and then interpret the roll as it comes."

I am not actually in disagreement with you. I completely agree that you should ask your players what they want to do and then interpret it. I'm suggesting that when you interpret it, the interpretation should include visual color along with mechanical interpretation; "fluff" to go with the "crunch". With regard to "fluff" that seems to disrupt the rules, I can give a clear example of how I handle this. Frequently, when a monster takes a hard blow, I'll describe him as 'lurching backwards'. But I won't move the miniature backwards on the map, for instance. The 'lurch backwards' is merely fluff.

The way I view it, the mechanics of any fight are always representing only the high points and the most important tactical events of the round, not all of the events. In any given round, a character might shift a few fight, step up on a table, step off the table, accidentally slash into the wall, and so on, but none of that matters per se to the mechanics. So describing such fluff is par for the course.

However, I disagree with the above statement; as it smacks of the encounter levels and the corresponding lack of internal consistency. If Players meet a bunch of orcs in an area where an orc tribe is supposed to frequent when they are new, they are threatening. If the Pcs are running around in the same area, after playing for a few dozen sessions, aren't the likely to run inot the same type of party of orcs? Or are you going to 'goose' the power level of the encounter to create risk?
I may be a little too sand-boxy, but as much as I believe that combat should be risky and that that logical risk level is the coefficient of the feeling of reward; I also believe that the feeling of immersion created by a logical and internally consistent campaign is threatened by screwing with the encounter to make it more or less risky.

Norm, I also don't disagree with you at all. If you've read my earlier articles you'll know I'm a strong advocate of sandbox play, and I actively DISCOURAGE 'goosing' the encounters to adjust for risk. So to the extent that my comments could be interpreted to be read that you should dynamically tweak encounters, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that you shouldn't adjust the rules of the game or fudge the dice to make encounters less challenging.

That said, I do think that in classic D&D, at least, an encounter is basically defined as something that poses at least some risk to the party. If an event genuinely, really, is of no risk to the party - do you actually run it as an encounter? I do not. For instance, when my 10th level party of adventurers roams through the wilderness, they frequently will see a single wolf, herd of deer, or circling hawk (all monsters in D&D) but I don't run these as encounters. If they want to kill the wolf, it dies. That would be different if it was a 1st level party, of course. Common sense need to be a guideline.

 

[Archon]

Oops! It turns out we're not on the same page after all, Wolfrug. Citing your most recent post, I would certainly not impose a "severed limb" result based on the spontaneous fluff that comes out of my mouth, or the player's, and in fact I generally would only go with that sort of fluff as a killing blow or other case where it's moot.

The narration is a description of what happened mechanically, not a trump that over-rides it, in my style of GMing. I certainly can see how one could enjoy a game doing it the other way, but it's not how I run.

 

[Norm Morrison IV]

Wow, great feedback/discussion!

[

However, I disagree with the above statement; as it smacks of the encounter levels and the corresponding lack of internal consistency. If Players meet a bunch of orcs in an area where an orc tribe is supposed to frequent when they are new, they are threatening. If the Pcs are running around in the same area, after playing for a few dozen sessions, aren't the likely to run inot the same type of party of orcs? Or are you going to 'goose' the power level of the encounter to create risk?
I may be a little too sand-boxy, but as much as I believe that combat should be risky and that that logical risk level is the coefficient of the feeling of reward; I also believe that the feeling of immersion created by a logical and internally consistent campaign is threatened by screwing with the encounter to make it more or less risky.

Norm, I also don't disagree with you at all. If you've read my earlier articles you'll know I'm a strong advocate of sandbox play, and I actively DISCOURAGE 'goosing' the encounters to adjust for risk. So to the extent that my comments could be interpreted to be read that you should dynamically tweak encounters, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that you shouldn't adjust the rules of the game or fudge the dice to make encounters less challenging.

That said, I do think that in classic D&D, at least, an encounter is basically defined as something that poses at least some risk to the party. If an event genuinely, really, is of no risk to the party - do you actually run it as an encounter? I do not. For instance, when my 10th level party of adventurers roams through the wilderness, they frequently will see a single wolf, herd of deer, or circling hawk (all monsters in D&D) but I don't run these as encounters. If they want to kill the wolf, it dies. That would be different if it was a 1st level party, of course. Common sense need to be a guideline.

I normally do run them as encounters, for a number of reasons, though I agree your examples are things I would be hard pressed to do more than ask how they were likking something. But due to various spells in the animist section of our game, all of the above encounters actually allow an animist caster to possibly make friends or commune to uinderstand the terrain. Outdoor encounters to an animist have often been considered giving the smart PC limited omniscience of the area.

Similarly, Encounters with anything intelligent can be useful and intersting, despite the lack of threat to PCs.

However, I totally accept your comments that you meant the comments in terms of not fudging the other way, to keep the world dangerous and stand by the outcomes the dice create, to the large degree. Totally with you, there.

 

[Altorin]

In your presentation you -amongst may other things- point out that generation Y has a very low tolerance for failure, and a short-ish attention span, and I find that this ties in nicely with the discussions on player agency, combat "stakes" and storytelling. Generation Y is not used to character death, nor to the fact that permanent damage (in the form of item loss or similar) can be sustained long before the story comes to its conclusion. I believe that gen Y (generally) are so accustomed to the save function and the "lack" of player agency in games that they fully expect to be able to come out on top from any situation they manage to put themselves in (for further refference, see the escapist article "killjoy" on the topic of save points and its effects on player agency). I think it would be interesting to see how a player group reacts when they after a long and hard campaign face off against a planned final boss, but are unfortunately under-equipped, level drained or somehow unable to take the boss on. The reaction from gen Y players would most certainly be "viceral" indeed. It's almost expected nowadays that players should have fun every second of a game, and that each and every challenge should be tailored to be challenging but not impossible, no matter what has happened earlier.

Agency is a dual edged sword.

Just as it's important not to fudge the rules to make the game easier, it's certainly just as bad to fudge them to make it harder, or to consistently put your players into situations where they cannot succeed (and then are captured etc.).

It's definitely a balancing act, but I've had DMs of both type, and often, their excuse is to not be the other. One DM makes sure to put us into situations where we're SURE TO DIE just to further his plot, and says that "Well, sometimes, your characters will be in situations out of their control". Another DM will fudge rolls to make the players invincible killing machines (or more likely will just play enemies dumb, whether it's intentional or not), and say that he doesn't want to be the "type of DM that browbeats his players"

I'd say the latter is definitely more fun then the former, just because you are actually accomplishing something. Whether that accomplishment is sullied by the fact that the DM didn't play the characters correctly, it's much funner to have a DM fudge to make your party seem awesome, then to fudge it to make them seem weak.

I'm not saying that you should strive for that.. just remember that it's better to error on the side of being soft, because you can always adjust it later.. If you error (and if it's an actual error on your part) and the players die (players WILL die, but it should truly be their fault if they do), then all you can really do is start over, or pull some contrived "EVERYONE GETS RESSURECTED BY AN ANONYMOUS BENEFACTOR!" rabbit out of your hat.

 

[Wolfrug]

Oops! It turns out we're not on the same page after all, Wolfrug. Citing your most recent post, I would certainly not impose a "severed limb" result based on the spontaneous fluff that comes out of my mouth, or the player's, and in fact I generally would only go with that sort of fluff as a killing blow or other case where it's moot.

The narration is a description of what happened mechanically, not a trump that over-rides it, in my style of GMing. I certainly can see how one could enjoy a game doing it the other way, but it's not how I run.

Yep, I do get it. This is, to bring in another video game example, sort of like how they've solved it in most turn-based RPGs: big fancy attack that makes the other person fall over or jump back or get turned into an icicle/eaten by a giant monster etc etc., but once its their turn again they're back to normal (minus some HP). All of that is just fluff, stuff to make the attack animation look more pleasing and whatnot. So, for instance, you describe a jumping-eye-stabbing-kickass attack, but in the end the two little models are still standing in the same square (just like two JRPG parties facing off against one another, always running back to the start after an attack).

I believe this is a point where we can agree to disagree, however. I think you have a good point, but I believe my way works as well Especially in a less combat-intensive, 'realistic' present day setting. Carry on writing them good articles!

 

[MNRA]

*snip*

I think you missunderstand me here. I wasn't talking about GM-fiat or fudging. I merely introduced the thought that current genretaion playres are too unused to the thought of "hopeless battles" and "high diffiucly" and generally "screwing-up-so-bad-that-you-can-recover" that I'm making a hypothosis that the best way for a DM to encourage player retention is to make the players believe that they can still win, even though the chances are so slim it's laughable.

I merely find that all stories, even the ones wherein I loose, are worth telling. I finished ME2 the other night and was NOT happy with the ending I got, and the people I lost, but I refrained from reloading or even playing the game further as I saw it as "Liam Sheppards story is now finished, for better and worse". But I think that with the current state of a lot of gamers (gross generalization I know) players will not accept an uphill battle, and that you must as a DM try to create an illusion of hope to keep them interested. It's a sad state of affairs that it "has to" be that way, but a lot of players really will not accept losses or dangers to their characters as they are unused to any real threat to the plotline, i.e. everyone knows the heroes get progerssively better, never totally die (and you can always reload) and finally overcome the many obstacles and kill the dragno, get the princess and move into a nice condo.

Also, this was all hypothetical. I just wanted to see if anyone agreed/diagreed or had anythign to add on this. I'm not certain I'm right, I'm not even sure I'm on the right track. It was just a thought

 

[Tavis Allison]

I think this is a great article & great discussion! The only thing I'd do differently would be to go to the players for these descriptions (in addition to setting an example when it's my turn to describe a NPC's visceral and vivid action). I gave some actual-play examples of this approach at The Mule Abides [http://muleabides.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/improv-techniques-made-art-gallery-gaming-awesome/]:


when a player missed their dice roll and I felt they could use a little more spotlight time, I'd ask them to narrate the failure: "Okay, your character is obviously a great and competent warrior, so something unexpected must have happened for you to miss like that. What was it?"

Likewise, when characters died, I'd make it an event by:

- asking the player of the dead PC "What are your dying words?"; even if these are usually "Aaargh!" it always drew a laugh from the table and reinforced the idea that death is an especially fun & vivid part of play
- instructing players to "describe your horrible death". This isn't going to be a run-of-the-mill slipping feebly into that good night; even if you were senselessly killed by a kobold, it will be a grisly senseless death worthy of an accursed hero (and as hammy an actor as you want to be)!
- displaying my evident relish of killing the PC with a big grin on my face: this is fun for me at least, and in retrospect it'll be memorable for you too, why not enjoy it now?
- letting players roll up new characters as soon as they died and introduce them the next time it was that player's turn so that losing a character didn't mean missing out on the action


In games that have more complicated character generation rules (and different goals for narrative continuity) than the OD&D we were playing in that session, having pre-gen characters or NPCs for the player of the deceased PC to take over could achieve that last goal of keeping the players involved despite their character's death.

 

[Archon]

I merely find that all stories, even the ones wherein I loose, are worth telling. I finished ME2 the other night and was NOT happy with the ending I got, and the people I lost, but I refrained from reloading or even playing the game further as I saw it as "Liam Sheppards story is now finished, for better and worse". But I think that with the current state of a lot of gamers (gross generalization I know) players will not accept an uphill battle, and that you must as a DM try to create an illusion of hope to keep them interested. It's a sad state of affairs that it "has to" be that way, but a lot of players really will not accept losses or dangers to their characters as they are unused to any real threat to the plotline, i.e. everyone knows the heroes get progerssively better, never totally die (and you can always reload) and finally overcome the many obstacles and kill the dragno, get the princess and move into a nice condo. Also, this was all hypothetical. I just wanted to see if anyone agreed/diagreed or had anythign to add on this. I'm not certain I'm right, I'm not even sure I'm on the right track. It was just a thought

MNRA, I certainly agree with you. In my campaigns there is never a certainty that the players will win. In fact, my taste often runs to what Tolkien called the "pagan themes" of courage in the face of hopelessness. Many of my campaign worlds revolve around empires that are in decline and likely doomed, but are nonetheless worth fighting to preserve for as long as possible. In one campaign, the players knew at the start that the empire was prophesied to fall within the next century, and the campaign was really just about making sure it didn't fall *right then*.

As a GM and player, I find there is a freedom that comes from this aesthetic sensibility that traditional "good guys must win" styles lack. If your approach is that good will always triumph, then if good doesn't triumph, it's not tragic - it's *pathetic* because they messed up a sure thing. Since being pathetic sucks, players cannot accept failure and the GM feels he has to prevent it at any cost. Whereas if good might win, but is likely to lose, and the true measure is how gloriously they try, then the outcome is either heroic or tragic, but never pathetic.

 

[Archon]

- letting players roll up new characters as soon as they died and introduce them the next time it was that player's turn so that losing a character didn't mean missing out on the action

This is a really key point. Thanks for sharing it, Tavis! This is how I run things as well. In fact, in our Classic D&D campaign, each player started with 5 pre-generated characters. If his first character died, we would introduce the next character as soon as possible. The funniest example of this was when one player (Erik) lost his Dwarf to a pit-trap, I introduced his new Ranger as an adventurer trapped in the very same pit the Dwarf had died in... "Will someone get this bloody dwarf off me?"

 

[The Random One]

I dunno. In the homebrewn RPG I used to run there was no death. But you could lose a fight - then you'd be arrested, or sent elsewhere, or start playing a bit character until you rescued the main characters. It's a videogame based idea, but it worked because since losing a fight wouldn't mean ending the campaign I was a lot more brutal with it.

 

[kouriichi]

I remember the first time i was DM and i was describe wounds and such. Now that i look back it was sooooooo..... well, stupid.

K: OH Sweet! 7 damage!
Me: The Ogres guts spill across the floor as your great axe tears its belly open! ((ogre still has 32 health left))
G: No way!! 15 damage!
Me: The Ogres arm is ripped clean from his body as you bring your mace down with a hard swing! ((ogre still at half health))

These days when i play DM i tend to be more comicly orientated.

K: I roll to see if i calm the Witch!
Me: You succeed, her wrinkly hands are now running down your chest from your mighty epicly seductive voice!
K: "please...... Gelvin ((one of our other players)).... kill me now...."

 

[Kaihlik]

http://www.windsofchaos.com/?page_id=19

We use these charts in our WFRP game which does alot of the work for you. Combined with our modified damage system means that any good hit can result in a critical result.

Last night my GM stuck me in an encounter with an Assassin, the assassin was after the head of the Ulrican church known as Ar-Ulric (for those with Warhammer knowledge we are playing in Middenland during the first Great War against chaos, bonus points for knowing how significant this guy is). The assassin tried to shoot me and take me out but I was able to hear him and dive into Ar-Ulric office and shut the door. The guy then booted it open rolled a hit on Ar-Ulric with his pistol and max damage causing Ar-Ulric to bleed messily to death. I then proceeded to fight him with nothing other than my hand axe as I had no other gear on me.

His second hit from his sword that got through my defences skewered me through the chest killing me instantly, so I fate pointed (we have a house rule that allows you to use Fate points to change any one dice role to a result of your choice) my parry so that I passed. The next hit from his dagger that passed through caused only 1 point of damage but was poisened so I died from the poison so I fate pointed the toughness check to resist. I then managed to get one shot passed his defences and rolled 1 for damage, knowing I would never get another chance I used my last fate point to change the damage to a 10 confirmed for extra damage (WFRP rule if you roll a 10) and added another 7 damage severing his arm.

All in all a tense fight, lots at stake and were it not for burning all my Fate points to survive and hurt him I would have died, now I am down 3 rerolls and should I ever be hit again I have nothing left that can save me should I die. The next session is going to be interesting.

Kaihlik