Topic: Unconsciousness at 0 Hits

[Karizma]

But of course this goes back to that old saying, "It depends on your playstyle."  If you're about life-or-death heroism with reasonable risk of the latter and make the player earn the former, then unconscious at zero is more than fine.  If your group is more focused on Epic Stories, then a dramatic last breath is a great idea (however, the PC doesn't DIE until -Con, so if he performs his Last Breath every time he hits 0, it might not be so dramatic the third time).

[jasonbrisbane]

<SNIP>
If your group is more focused on Epic Stories, then a dramatic last breath is a great idea (however, the PC doesn't DIE until -Con, so if he performs his Last Breath every time he hits 0, it might not be so dramatic the third time).

EXACTLY! 

This is why you need to hold the "Dramatic" last breath effect for those truly Epic moments....

We have found (at least in our sometimes comedic games) that the truly epic moments are not those with dramatic effect, but those with the "not so dramatic effects"! 

[RandalThor]

This is why you need to hold the "Dramatic" last breath effect for those truly Epic moments....

Which is where I feel things like Fate Points come in. They are a great explanaition as to "why" your character was able to do it, but the mook/grunt/cannon-fodder wasn't.

[jurasketu]

I apologize in advance for the snark...

The line between fighting (and talking) and zero hits (and apparently comatose) is ludicrously thin and always has been in RPGs from D&D to RM to WFRP to HARP or whatever. It is the 'fight to the last breath' meme of role playing games.

In real life, there is a much larger area between able to fight, able to stand, able to talk and comatose. SO... I think allowing characters to keep fighting and doing (with minuses or whatever) until they fall into a coma is "Epic Gaming" - not the other way around.

And boy, after 10,000+ hours of gaming over 30 years, do you think that maybe I might have thought to use role playing during a combat?

Robin

[jolt]

The line between fighting (and talking) and zero hits (and apparently comatose) is ludicrously thin and always has been in RPGs from D&D to RM to WFRP to HARP or whatever. It is the 'fight to the last breath' meme of role playing games.

In real life, there is a much larger area between able to fight, able to stand, able to talk and comatose. SO... I think allowing characters to keep fighting and doing (with minuses or whatever) until they fall into a coma is "Epic Gaming" - not the other way around.

But in real life you aren't fighting the way you are in an RPG.  Adding in those "real life" moments you want just draws out combats to tedium with near dead characters making roll after roll (and usually failing) for little to no real gain but adding ridiculously (IMO) to the length of the combats.  When the majority of the party is "near dead" they might as well just be all dead for the impact they're going to have.  This is why companies for 30+ years and millions of hours of rpg experience typically don't include such mechanics in their games; there's no benefit to it.  Tedium and epic are poor fits.

But, of course, it's your game.  If near dead characters stumbling around incompetently makes your game feel more epic, go for it.

jolt

[jurasketu]

Adding in those "real life" moments you want just draws out combats to tedium with near dead characters making roll after roll (and usually failing) for little to no real gain but adding ridiculously (IMO) to the length of the combats.

That's not a valid reading of my comments.

The question at hand is:

"Can a character at zero hit points SAY something - particularly in the context of a dramatic moment in the course of ROLE playing?"

By the gaming rules of HARP (and most any that you could name), the answer is NO - characters at zero hit points are considered to be comatose.

I then said that since the rules for that are not very realistic - it would seem perfectly reasonable to allow a character with zero hit points to talk, gesture or whatever if desirable.

Jason complained that was too 'epic'. So I pointed out that it was the reverse of 'epic' since it was actually really life-like. Now, you are complaining that's it 'not epic' and somehow 'not epic' leads to long tedious encounters...

If you have seen anyone really tough take a serious, but otherwise non-fatal injury in sports, construction or an actual fight, they usually aren't able to do anything that would be germane to fighting either. Mostly, they fall down in a heap, then moan loudly and then occasionally try to get back up and stagger around but obviously would be no 'danger' in a fight. That's REALISM.

So, in fact, in RPGs, we epically allow characters to keep right on fighting despite multiple injuries, any one of which, that would have rendered them unable to continue regardless of heroic desire. I don't mind too much - RPGs are EPIC - that's the whole dang point.

So, ironically, epic gaming tends to prolong combats and not realistic treatment of injuries.

Robin

[Right Wing Wacko]

I am of the opinion that you can do anything while above 0 hits (within the limitations of any maneuver or other penalties/modifications/effects), but once you fall below 0, you are unconscious and dying.
I don't see a problem.
If your PC wants to do something, he/she then needs to stay above 0 hits!
If your PC has, say, 12 hits left, he should know he is nearing the limit of his endurance and will soon pass out.
Having 0 hits (or less) needs to mean something.

[Arioch]

By the gaming rules of HARP (and most any that you could name), the answer is NO - characters at zero hit points are considered to be comatose.

I then said that since the rules for that are not very realistic - it would seem perfectly reasonable to allow a character with zero hit points to talk, gesture or whatever if desirable.

Actually, this is not true: since HARP is a rpg based on the rule zero, it allows the GM to change how rules are applied on the fly, according to the need of his group, to the story, etc...
This means that if a character is at 0 hp or less and the GM says that he can speak, he can do it, no matter what the rules say.

IMHO the point here is: do we need a rule to let character speak when they are at 0 hp or less? And the answer (always IMHO, obviously) is no. That's not necessary, as they can already do it, with the GM consensus.
Another question that has to be asked is: could a rule that allows PCs to move, attempt maneuvers, talk etc when they're at 0hp or less be abused? And I'd say yes, it could be abused pretty easily.

So adding such rule not only is unnecessary, but could also give room for abuse, etc...

[jolt]

That's not a valid reading of my comments.

Sorry, but I don't see how.

The question at hand is:

"Can a character at zero hit points SAY something - particularly in the context of a dramatic moment in the course of ROLE playing?"

This is not what you said in the post I previously quoted.  Let me focus in on the quote a little more clearly (emphasis mine):

SO... I think allowing characters to keep fighting and doing (with minuses or whatever) until they fall into a coma is "Epic Gaming" - not the other way around.

That's a lot more than just saying you should be able to talk at zero hp and other posters have already given methods for how to do this; not to mention that criticals cover most of these issues already.

I then said that since the rules for that are not very realistic - it would seem perfectly reasonable to allow a character with zero hit points to talk, gesture or whatever if desirable.

If that's really your only issue, then switch the rules for falling unconscious from "0" hp to "-1" though I don't really see that how that makes any significant difference.

Jason complained that was too 'epic'. So I pointed out that it was the reverse of 'epic' since it was actually really life-like. Now, you are complaining that's it 'not epic' and somehow 'not epic' leads to long tedious encounters...

I'm not seeing the post where Jason said that.  My post, which I thought was quite clear but I apologize if it wasn't, is that your "realism" isn't epic and that adding rules to have characters feebly flopping around adds nothing to the game and just draws out combats.

If you have seen anyone really tough take a serious, but otherwise non-fatal injury in sports, construction or an actual fight, they usually aren't able to do anything that would be germane to fighting either. Mostly, they fall down in a heap, then moan loudly and then occasionally try to get back up and stagger around but obviously would be no 'danger' in a fight. That's REALISM.

So, in fact, in RPGs, we epically allow characters to keep right on fighting despite multiple injuries, any one of which, that would have rendered them unable to continue regardless of heroic desire. I don't mind too much - RPGs are EPIC - that's the whole dang point.

Then why are you complaining about it? 

Here's an alternate "realistic" system:

You get hit with a weapon, roll 1d10 and consult the following chart-

1-2: Weak hit, you tough it out
3-5: Strong hit, you're rolling on ground with broken bones and/or spurting blood crying for your momma; you're effectively out of the fight
6-10: You're dead.  Deal with it

Others have already posted solutions that seem to deal with the problems you have.  If this hasn't worked for you then you need to be more clear about what your issue is.

So, ironically, epic gaming tends to prolong combats and not realistic treatment of injuries.

No.  Realistic treatment of injuries prolongs combats.  As I said before, in real life you aren't fighting the way you are in an rpg.  You seem to think that this is a grievous flaw.  Long and short combats can exist in all types of games; the game being epic has nothing to do with it.

jolt

[jurasketu]

Man. I never thought that saying there is a difference between being incapacitated and comatose would be controversial in any way.

Are you arguing that incapacitated and comatose are the same thing? If so, then we are having a semantic argument and not my intention.

And its also clear I'm not making myself understood... So let me try again...

Epic Gaming is being able to FIGHT until the last hit point is gone (whatever the cause). Then you fall over at zero. The usual interpretation is that you are comatose. That is standard garden variety, normal, everyday RPG combat.

My point is that there should be a reasonable (READ: Reasonable) way to allow an incapacitated character to SAY something. That is all. I allow characters at zero hit points the ability to speak/moan/crawl/point but nothing beyond what an incapacitated person would be reasonably capable of doing. Why is this even controversial?

I do think that hit point systems are pretty flawed while respecting them as decent game mechanics. To be honest, with the exception of undead, the number of times a PC/NPC/monster ends up at zero hits is terribly rare in my game. You take a serious hit, you're stunned, then you get pulped or filleted where the hit points remaining just don't matter.

Robin

[Thos]

I personally think that if that is something that you wish to make a house rule, and your group agrees, more power to you. It's all about a group of people sitting down and having fun. What ever ways work the best for each individual group are the way to go! All the best!

[jasonbrisbane]

Going back to the original point:

"Can a character at zero hit points SAY something - particularly in the context of a dramatic moment in the course of ROLE playing?"

Id say "yes".
if the character is injured, and bleeding then I'd make them make a conx2 roll to overcome there injuries for the round to say somehting, then next round, being a negative hits, they'd be unconcious.

If they werent bleeding then they'd need to make a Conx2 roll per round (harder difficulty every round?) to stay awake for that extra round of dramatic effect! This would allow the player to make an absurdly difficult maneuver after 10 rounds to make a "monty python" type speech "no, I'm not dead yet, just very hurt" speech, if your REALLY into that thing!

(I know I can see using this in OUR games!  )

[jolt]

jurasketu:  Apparently, I was reading more into your posts than you intended.  I apologize for that.  As for making feeble actions at 0 hits, isn't there already a rule in place for that?  Or maybe I'm thinking of RM...

jolt

[jurasketu]

jolt-

Apparently, I was reading more into your posts than you intended.  I apologize for that.

It can be hard to read the context of a post and so clarity/intention can easily go astray. And I apologize for getting frustrated and not saying what I meant clearly in the first place.

'Feeble actions' is definitely a good word for it.

Robin

[Pat]

IMHO if a player was exactly 0 hits then I would allow them to say something (not a huge speech but something along the line of "You got me you Son of a...." clunk unconscious. If a player is less than 0 then I'd say no because the player is unconscious so therefore, can't speak. If GM's rule that a player can speak at negative hits then there would be little to stop a player casting a spell (if his style is verbal).

Also, it has to be remembered that a character is not aware when he will go unconscious, only the player is. When a character gets low on hits they may feel woozy or unbalanced but they won't know exactly when they'll go down. Therefore they may shout for help, make speeches etc at the woozy stage, but if they ignore the warnings and get to negative hits, then bad luck, I hope your party mates saw you collapse bleeding from your eyeballs and are willing to help.