PDA

View Full Version : Making wounds matter.



Aliquid
2017-12-26, 05:40 PM
I’m used to playing in D&D settings where healing wounds is quick and easy.

I’m looking at running a campaign where there is no healing magic. Anyone have experience with this and have any tips on how to make it work? e.g. how to keep the game running when someone can barely walk.

I think about TV shows and movies where people get the snot beat out of them in some sort of conflict and then are back at it the next day... slightly unbelievable, but that could work. Time would have to flow differently, with people resting more often, and maybe even having to survive with an arm in a sling for a while etc.

This will NOT be D&D, so don’t worry about mechanics or “game balance”

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-26, 06:00 PM
It really depends on how often people are getting wounded, and the degree of verisimilitude you're comfortable with.

People getting shot and being fine the next day is perfectly fine with certain genres, if that's the way you want to go. If you want a grittier feeling then be prepared to either do large time skips, or have people have backup characters for when their other character is in the hospital for months.

There's nothing wrong with doing the occasional "months pass" montage with the other characters describing what they're doing during those months while their buddy is recovering from his gaping chest wound. There's also nothing wrong with the fallen character's player making a new guy to join in on the immediate trouble that really can't wait while the gaping chest wound guy is in a coma.

Nifft
2017-12-26, 06:24 PM
Dresden Files RPG is a FATE variant which has a "Stress Track", and some of the Stress boxes take longer to recover than others.

You could do a thing where you have various HP tracks, and the 'deeper' levels impose something longer-duration on you -- and you can't spend that box again until you've recovered from the longer-duration effect.


The first set of 'damage' boxes last for one scene. So that might be "sand in your eyes" or "broken glasses" or whatever, something that you can easily fix once the vampires stop shooting at you and you can catch your breath.

The second set of 'damage' boxes last longer. That might be a bruise, or overall fatigue, or a strained muscle, or a magical over-use migraine headache.

Etc., right down to nigh-permanent injuries which will last for several campaign arcs.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-26, 07:01 PM
As a general time, the more significant and leading the average wound the rarer the fight.

Also, let me give a better explanation of how damage works in Fate.

Now to understand how Fate deals with wounds, you need to know about Aspects. Aspects are always true, allow you to do things they suggest you can, and stop you from doing things they suggest you can't. Also whenever an Aspect could benefit you you can Invoke it for a bonus, either by spending a Fate Point or with a free invocation generated by an earlier action. It doesn't have to be your Aspect, it just has to benefit you.

Got that? Alright, when an Attack hits you it generates damage (one point per point you beat the defence roll by, called shifts*). Take any shifts and you're out of the fight (or argument, or political campaign, or having attempt, or whatever your Conflict represents). You reduce the damage by taking consequences, which are additional Aspects generally chosen by the defender and always negative (not that they can't ever benefit you, bit they generally shouldn't). PCs can take a Mild consequence to reduce damage by two shifts, a Moderate one to reduce it by four shifts, and a Significant one to reduce damage by six shifts. You can also optionally overwrite one of your normal aspects as an Extreme consequence to reduce damage by eight shifts. There are ways to get additional Mild consequence slots, and you get a free invocation on all consequences you cause.

Bit not every wound on fiction causes the character problems. Therefore most versions of Fate use Stress Boxes. Stress is that mixture of luck and toughness that makes you take insignificant wounds. In the normal build everybody gets two Stress boxes, rated 1-shift and 2-shift, and can her more by raising their Physique skill (a 3-shift box of they're at least Average, a 4-shift box of they're at least Good). A shift box can be checked if it's free, and reduces damage by it's rating. You do not have to check boxes in order, and can check up to one Stress Box and take one Consequence per attack.

So of we take a character with a standard set of consequences, and a standard three box Stress track. At the start of a conflict we take an attack and roll badly on your defence roll, taking five shifts of Stress. Aiming we don't want to be Taken Out we have three options: we can take a Severe Consequence (no need for an Extreme) and check no Stress Boxes, a Moderate Consequence and check our 1-shift Stress Box, or a Mills Consequence and check our 3-shift Stress Box.

Stress clears after the scene, Consequences take until at least the end of the session (and can potentially be very sticky).

* In both cases.

Aliquid
2017-12-26, 07:07 PM
Dresden Files RPG is a FATE variant which has a "Stress Track", and some of the Stress boxes take longer to recover than others.

You could do a thing where you have various HP tracks, and the 'deeper' levels impose something longer-duration on you -- and you can't spend that box again until you've recovered from the longer-duration effect.


The first set of 'damage' boxes last for one scene. So that might be "sand in your eyes" or "broken glasses" or whatever, something that you can easily fix once the vampires stop shooting at you and you can catch your breath.

The second set of 'damage' boxes last longer. That might be a bruise, or overall fatigue, or a strained muscle, or a magical over-use migraine headache.

Etc., right down to nigh-permanent injuries which will last for several campaign arcs.FATE is one of the systems I’m considering. I’m just wrapping my head around how the story and gameplay would work.

Koo Rehtorb makes an interesting suggestion with “backup characters”.

I guess I would also have to make scenarios where limping from place to place is a viable option.

Nifft
2017-12-26, 07:36 PM
FATE is one of the systems I’m considering. I’m just wrapping my head around how the story and gameplay would work.

Koo Rehtorb makes an interesting suggestion with “backup characters”.

I guess I would also have to make scenarios where limping from place to place is a viable option.

There are a lot of different FATE variants. The system in the Dresden Files RPG was (at one time) my favorite and recommended-as-best iteration -- but since that time, new stuff has come out, and I don't know if something better has been created.

(It's also a good game and a very well-written set of RPG books.)

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-27, 05:21 AM
FATE is one of the systems I’m considering. I’m just wrapping my head around how the story and gameplay would work.

Koo Rehtorb makes an interesting suggestion with “backup characters”.

I guess I would also have to make scenarios where limping from place to place is a viable option.

I recommend that you use Fate Core and the Fate System Toolkit (get the PDF, it's PWYW), the latter gives a bit of discussion on how to adjust Stress and Consequences. It has a few changes from earlier editions, including less aspects/character.

ImNotTrevor
2017-12-27, 09:32 AM
I'd actually recommend using FATE: accelerated.
It clears out a lot of the unneeded chaff that FATE brings along from FUDGE and puts the aspects (the part of FATE that is actually unique and worthwhile) in the forefront.

It's also easier to learn how to Aspect with since there's less in total going on. If you decide you need something crunchier, a wholesale conversion to FATE core is as easy as breathing.

Aliquid
2017-12-27, 11:12 AM
I’m really not that concerned about the system or mechanics. I’m more concerned about the story aspect.

All typical games assume that the characters can heal up fast, and the story flows with that assumption.

Wounded characters wouldn’t be at 100% when it comes to their skills and abilities. A thief with a twisted ankle will find it hard to climb up the side of a building to get to that balcony.

That’s fine. I’m just trying to figure out how to adjust the challenge levels in the game to adapt to the condition of the characters

Knaight
2017-12-27, 11:31 AM
I’m really not that concerned about the system or mechanics. I’m more concerned about the story aspect.

All typical games assume that the characters can heal up fast, and the story flows with that assumption.

Wounded characters wouldn’t be at 100% when it comes to their skills and abilities. A thief with a twisted ankle will find it hard to climb up the side of a building to get to that balcony.

That’s fine. I’m just trying to figure out how to adjust the challenge levels in the game to adapt to the condition of the characters

Generally you'd just tone down some of the more ridiculous parts of said challenge level (e.g. the combat frequency assumed in D&D games) and generally operate at a slower pace with more gaps in the action. It's actually pretty easy to get used to.


I'd actually recommend using FATE: accelerated.
It clears out a lot of the unneeded chaff that FATE brings along from FUDGE and puts the aspects (the part of FATE that is actually unique and worthwhile) in the forefront.

I'd go the other way - use Fudge instead of Fate, which puts back in several excellent mechanics that Fate removed. There's the simple workhorse mechanics of the more complex Fudge combat system (ODF, DDF, the wound track), more use of modifiers, and standout mechanics like Scale which let Fudge work across a wide range of scales better than almost any other game. It's also an easy transition from more conventional games, as Fudge is in many ways very conventional - just extremely well built.

Anonymouswizard
2017-12-27, 04:47 PM
I'd actually recommend using FATE: accelerated.
It clears out a lot of the unneeded chaff that FATE brings along from FUDGE and puts the aspects (the part of FATE that is actually unique and worthwhile) in the forefront.

It's also easier to learn how to Aspect with since there's less in total going on. If you decide you need something crunchier, a wholesale conversion to FATE core is as easy as breathing.

The point was more Core+FST allows you to customise it to the seriousness you want. I like FAE (although the Moor complicated and intricate Core is my breast), but it's not as customisable with just the book (although if you can work around around the handful of Core only terms in out the FST works just as well). Was thinking more of the virilizing potential (which, as had been said, is even greater in Fudge).

EDIT: note that the Fate Adversary toolkit is a bit overpriced, but if you can grab it for maybe $5 in PDF at some point it's still good. It's just heavier on examples and lighter on rules than it should be.

Slipperychicken
2017-12-28, 01:52 AM
e.g. how to keep the game running when someone can barely walk.
Unless this person is on some supremely important do-or-die mission, then he should limp away from the situation to recover. He can live to do stuff another day. I guess from a GMing perspective, you need to think about what happens when people retreat for recovery purposes. It'd likely be a timeskip, and filling in things like what the characters do and how the world keeps spinning while people lick their wounds.

Another possibility is to let players have a bench of characters to cycle in or out when the current one gets too damaged. It could even be an in-universe thing where the players have subordinates, squires, interns, relatives, or camp-followers who would be positively willing to walk in a PC's shoes for a time. That way, the player of the injured PC can just pick someone off the bench to keep playing.


Personally, I don't mind the way shadowrun handles wounds. They can be debilitating when characters are very hurt, but medical technology is advanced enough that people with medical assistance can recover from basically anything short of death within a week of total recovery. That said, the missions generally have a short shelf life for a variety of reasons, so pulling out early means losing the rewards (and losing reputation, which is everything in shadowrun). It means there are clear and immediate consequences to injury, but people also aren't forced to roleplay a cripple for the next five IRL months while they keep playing their injured characters.

Mutazoia
2017-12-28, 02:46 AM
1) Open D6 handles this fairly well. Each wound level reduces the number of dice you get to roll for a skill or ability, so wounds definitely have an effect on the characters actions. Depending on the tech level of your game, this can be cured quickly after combat with a "medpak" (al Star Wars), with magic (for a fantasy setting), or just waiting it out (modern setting) and letting it heal naturally.

2) The old Top Secret: SI rules had an interesting approach. You had hit locations for your character. Depending on your Con (equivalent) you had so many "boxes" per location. You could do stun damage or lethal damage. If you took stun damage to a location, you put a / through the number of boxes equal to the amount of damage. If you took lethal damage to a location, you put an X through the box. If you filled up a location, say your arm, with stun damage, that limb was useless until you got medical treatment. If you continued to take stun damage to that location, it automatically turned in to lethal damage. When a location filled up with lethal damage, again say your arm, you lost that location (your arm) for good. (Naurally, filling up your head or torso with lethal damage mean your character went teats up.)

I know there were penalties involved with all this, but I haven't cracked the books on that system in decades, so I can't really speak to them at the moment.

RazorChain
2017-12-28, 03:40 AM
I’m used to playing in D&D settings where healing wounds is quick and easy.

I’m looking at running a campaign where there is no healing magic. Anyone have experience with this and have any tips on how to make it work? e.g. how to keep the game running when someone can barely walk.

I think about TV shows and movies where people get the snot beat out of them in some sort of conflict and then are back at it the next day... slightly unbelievable, but that could work. Time would have to flow differently, with people resting more often, and maybe even having to survive with an arm in a sling for a while etc.

This will NOT be D&D, so don’t worry about mechanics or “game balance”

Run a game with less combat or less chance of getting injured. I run a game with limited healing and the PC's run a chance of getting crippling injuries. Most of them are temporary and they get better in days or weeks but they always run the chance of losing a limb.

This means that the PC's are less inclined to solve problems with violence and when they do they use excessive violence to end fights as quickly as possible preferably with their opponents naked and asleep.

The beautiful thing is that you don't have to worry about injuries, they have to and find creative workarounds

Vogie
2017-12-28, 11:45 AM
You can also adjust how each session is in relation to the others using time. You can see this in television shows as well - 24's whole schtick was that a single season took over the course of a single day, while House actively acknowledge that it's episodes were a week apart ("It's Tuesday again..."), and other shows will play with time between it's episodes.

If each session is separated by a long period of rest (a couple of days to a week) or there are epic timelines involved (it takes you 3 encounterless months on a boat to get to the point B) then a wound here or there may not be that big of a deal.

If your session is a hammer of situations one right after another, then it'd certainly be worth exploring. I know you stated that you weren't using D&D, but Pathfinder also had a system for Called shots that had 3 levels of wounding for various body parts that could be gleaned for options.

LibraryOgre
2017-12-28, 03:11 PM
Hackmaster (basic is free (http://www.kenzerco.com/hackmaster/)) has a couple ways wounds matter.

1) Each wound heals individually. Getting 10 one-point wounds will have you fine in a day or so... 1 ten-point wound takes a couple months to heal.
2) Bigger wounds have the potential to knock you out for a few seconds (it uses seconds, not rounds)... a wound that's about 40% of your HP in a single blow forces a Trauma Save, under half your Constitution on a d20. Roll too high, and you're down and defenseless for 5+ seconds. Roll a 20 and you're out for minutes.
3) A big hit (10pts if you're small, 15 points if you're medium, 20 points if you're large, for some reason), before DR, will knock you back 5 feet. Double that and you go back 10 feet and fall prone.

And that's in addition to the critical system.

So, someone with 45 HP who is hit for 20 points of damage might get knocked back 5-10 feet (10 feet if they're small), and have to make a save to see if they go unconscious, and will take a LONG time to heal, especially without magic or a medic. If they DON'T go unconscious, and only move back 5, they're still in fighting trim. But, that one hit has a couple ways to knock them out of the fight, at least for a moment, instantly, and will take time to recover from.

Rhedyn
2018-01-27, 11:21 AM
So in Savage worlds, a wound gives you a minus 1 penalty to most rolls and the target number is normally 4.

You can get up to 3 wounds. If someone doesn't treat them in an hour, you have to heal them naturally, which can take a long time.

If you take a 4th wound, you roll a Vigor check to be incapacitated. This can lead to an injury or even death.

The wound system covers a lot of bases but it isn't comprehensive from a simulation-ist aspect.

dps
2018-01-27, 01:12 PM
What type of setting do you have in mind?

Aliquid
2018-01-27, 03:36 PM
What type of setting do you have in mind?To be honest, I haven't really made up my mind. Might be sci-fi, might be low magic... might be modern.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference though. The trick I need to deal with is that a PC might be nursing a wound for a few sessions, and how do I as the DM make sure the story doesn't stall as a result. If there is no time pressure for something going on in game, I could just wave my hand and say "two weeks go by and your sprained ankle is now ok", but if they are in the middle of a mission... they might not have the luxury of time.

Tipsy_Pooka
2018-01-27, 06:21 PM
I really like the Wound/Vitality system from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana... your "Constitution" equals how much physical punishment that your body can take. Meanwhile level-based hit point gains are used to offset taking wound points. Using this system for NPCs also allows me to offset the "Cat vs Commoner" problem in the same system.

The other problem with these types of systems is the "Death Spiral". Taking "Wounds" that impact your various abilities make you more susceptible to more serious wounds... until you're a bloody mess on the ground... while this plays true in real life... how much of this do you want in your games?

Thrawn4
2018-01-27, 07:23 PM
The trick I need to deal with is that a PC might be nursing a wound for a few sessions, and how do I as the DM make sure the story doesn't stall as a result. If there is no time pressure for something going on in game, I could just wave my hand and say "two weeks go by and your sprained ankle is now ok", but if they are in the middle of a mission... they might not have the luxury of time.
I find it difficult to understand your problem. You ask for a system where wounds matter, but at the same time they should not inconvienience the PCs? IMHO the entire point of a more gritty system is that combat is actually dangerous and everyone has to decide whether they want to risk the possible consequences. So even if someone is injured for two sessions this is just par for the course. Depending on the system and setting, they might still be able to contribute.
And of course, there are other workarounds like drugs which may reduce the effects for a while.

Aliquid
2018-01-27, 09:05 PM
I find it difficult to understand your problem. You ask for a system where wounds matter, but at the same time they should not inconvienience the PCs? IMHO the entire point of a more gritty system is that combat is actually dangerous and everyone has to decide whether they want to risk the possible consequences. So even if someone is injured for two sessions this is just par for the course. Depending on the system and setting, they might still be able to contribute.
And of course, there are other workarounds like drugs which may reduce the effects for a while.I'm not asking for a system... I find it interesting how people on these boards go straight to the crunch and the mechanics when answering questions. I have a system, and I'm fine with it. I don't care about what the rules are or how to mechanically handle wounds.

I'm trying to figure out how to change how the game flows, since as a GM, I'm so used to "heal wounds" spells and potions. If I'm changing the game to be more gritty, I need to change the style of play and the way the stories progress. I'm looking for insight on how to do that.

I'm fine with a character being inconvenienced. I just don't want it to make the game completely stall. How do we keep the story moving forward when these challenges come up?

Rhedyn
2018-01-27, 09:38 PM
I'm not asking for a system... I find it interesting how people on these boards go straight to the crunch and the mechanics when answering questions. I have a system, and I'm fine with it. I don't care about what the rules are or how to mechanically handle wounds.

I'm trying to figure out how to change how the game flows, since as a GM, I'm so used to "heal wounds" spells and potions. If I'm changing the game to be more gritty, I need to change the style of play and the way the stories progress. I'm looking for insight on how to do that.

I'm fine with a character being inconvenienced. I just don't want it to make the game completely stall. How do we keep the story moving forward when these challenges come up?
Man it's almost like game mechanics do those kind of things for you and the answer to all your problems is just a good rules set.

dps
2018-01-27, 09:40 PM
To be honest, I haven't really made up my mind. Might be sci-fi, might be low magic... might be modern.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference though.

For the most part, it probably doesn't matter. It's just that to me, a modern or SF setting works better if you want a campaign will relatively little combat than the typical pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. And I think there is broad support in this thread for the idea that a campaign with relatively little combat is better if the impact of wounds is made more relevant.

Aliquid
2018-01-27, 09:58 PM
Man it's almost like game mechanics do those kind of things for you and the answer to all your problems is just a good rules set.No they don't. Game mechanics don't change the story or the pace. Saying "if you have x wound you get y penalty, roll this die" has nothing to do with how the game is run. I already have game mechanics that I am using, I'm not bothering talking about them because people have this obsessive need to nit-pick about the mechanics, and that would pull the conversation away from my actual question.

It's been a month since I posted the question, so I have had a chance to think about it already, and talk to other people. Things I have come up with so far:


Allow more time for quests/missions. e.g. if there is a "fetch quest", don't have the NPC say "I need this item in 2 days", instead say "I need this item in 2 weeks." That way, the PCs have a chance to retreat, lick their wounds and try again if things go sideways.
Design scenarios to ensure there is an option for a "plan B". So, if the PCs plan is to have the ninja scale the wall and go in through the window... but the ninja broke her leg, then there is another option for the party to get in (maybe a less desirable option, but an option none the less)
Plan for failure - don't design the scenario so that players have to succeed for the story to move forward. They can and maybe often do fail, but it is more of a "you lost the battle, but not the war" sort of scenario. There are more complications now... but the overall adventure can still move forward.


Those aren't "game mechanics" changes, those are "adventure design" changes.

Rhedyn
2018-01-27, 10:16 PM
Game mechanics don't change the story or the pace.

Really depends on the game and the amount the GM controls everything. If the mechanics couldn't change the story, it would bore me to run such a game. But I guess every GM is in it for different reasons.

Mechalich
2018-01-27, 10:45 PM
Significant healing times are tricky to deal with, largely because they will vary across the individual members of the party.

For example, suppose only natural healing is available - like you're playing pure mortals in the WoD. Everyone is likely to get wounded in a fight, but different degrees of wounds will take longer to heal. This makes intuitive sense. Getting slashed across the arms is miserable, you'll need a lot of stiches and will probably feel weak for a few days/weeks, but otherwise you're mobile and can perform light tasks. Meanwhile a guy who fails to block the same attack and gets stabbed in the chest might have internal injuries, a collapsed lung, and need highly intrusive surgery with a recovery time measured in weeks of a hospital stay plus months of convalescence. So if you skip ahead to 'recovered from wounds' you're implying that Character A sat around for weeks doing nothing while Character B recovered, and this isn't very realistic and eliminates any idea of time pressure. A game that has actually implemented this is the recent XCOM iterations, in which more serious injuries result in larger recovery times - but that's a squad-based game not a character-based game.

This is why most games make it trivially easy to restore all characters to full health in between adventures in a relatively short time frame. Combat heavy games like D&D even make it possible to come back from death.

One possible solution is to effectively convert all physical damage into mental damage (or some other, more esoteric cost) in order to allow wounds to impact a character but still let them attend the adventure. Eclipse Phase embraces this rather fully, but even games like Vampire (most injuries could be healed by copious use of blood, which was a resource subject to alternative limitations) or Mage (you could magically heal most damage but this would incur Paradox) toyed with the idea.

You can of course go squad-based and allow each player to control multiple characters so they always have an upright body to work with, but this has other consequences and many players are hesitant to embrace the idea. It also works poorly with wilderness adventure or similar scenarios where you don't return to a home base after a mission.

Aliquid
2018-01-27, 11:23 PM
Really depends on the game and the amount the GM controls everything. If the mechanics couldn't change the story, it would bore me to run such a game. But I guess every GM is in it for different reasons.Clearly we are talking about two different things, because that doesn't even make sense.

Thrudd
2018-01-27, 11:45 PM
No they don't. Game mechanics don't change the story or the pace. Saying "if you have x wound you get y penalty, roll this die" has nothing to do with how the game is run. I already have game mechanics that I am using, I'm not bothering talking about them because people have this obsessive need to nit-pick about the mechanics, and that would pull the conversation away from my actual question.

It's been a month since I posted the question, so I have had a chance to think about it already, and talk to other people. Things I have come up with so far:


Allow more time for quests/missions. e.g. if there is a "fetch quest", don't have the NPC say "I need this item in 2 days", instead say "I need this item in 2 weeks." That way, the PCs have a chance to retreat, lick their wounds and try again if things go sideways.
Design scenarios to ensure there is an option for a "plan B". So, if the PCs plan is to have the ninja scale the wall and go in through the window... but the ninja broke her leg, then there is another option for the party to get in (maybe a less desirable option, but an option none the less)
Plan for failure - don't design the scenario so that players have to succeed for the story to move forward. They can and maybe often do fail, but it is more of a "you lost the battle, but not the war" sort of scenario. There are more complications now... but the overall adventure can still move forward.


Those aren't "game mechanics" changes, those are "adventure design" changes.
Adventure design depends greatly on game mechanics, if you want the adventure to work for the game. Adventure design should change according to your mechanics. If the game mechanics say that a character will be incapacitated for 3 weeks from a wound, you will need to allow for characters to retreat and rest, or else for replacement characters to be brought in easily. If you don't want your adventures to allow for retreating and weeks of down time, then don't use a system that requires that.

Do you want a cinematic action game? Then wounds should probably last a small number of scenes according to severity. The wound gives an immediate effect to the character in the scene, then goes away in the next scene, or the scene after that.

The same probably goes for a "heroic" game, where you want time pressure and very little down time- if the adventure must continue non-stop because of "plot" and you do not want characters dying or being unable to continue from injuries, then you should have wounds with mild effects or that last only a short time.

So what kind of game are you running, what's the overall tone? Action movie fun? Gritty realism? Tactical combat battles with narration in between? Loosely connected short episodic adventures?

How frequent and how serious do you expect the violence to be? A game that is basically a string of fights needs to treat wounds and adventure design differently than a game where you have a long build up of exploring and social interaction with just one or two climactic fights.

Aliquid
2018-01-28, 01:59 AM
Adventure design depends greatly on game mechanics, if you want the adventure to work for the game. Adventure design should change according to your mechanics.I would rather do it in the other order, and tweak the mechanics to accommodate the desired game design. The challenge I am having is how to design the game in a way that flows well and has wounds with consequences. The mechanics will be dealt with later.

That's why I don't want to discuss mechanics. It restricts the options for game design, it creates tunnel vision and stifles options and creativity.


Do you want a cinematic action game? Then wounds should probably last a small number of scenes according to severity. The wound gives an immediate effect to the character in the scene, then goes away in the next scene, or the scene after that.

The same probably goes for a "heroic" game, where you want time pressure and very little down time- if the adventure must continue non-stop because of "plot" and you do not want characters dying or being unable to continue from injuries, then you should have wounds with mild effects or that last only a short time.

So what kind of game are you running, what's the overall tone? Action movie fun? Gritty realism? Tactical combat battles with narration in between? Loosely connected short episodic adventures?

How frequent and how serious do you expect the violence to be? A game that is basically a string of fights needs to treat wounds and adventure design differently than a game where you have a long build up of exploring and social interaction with just one or two climactic fights.These are the things I need to consider, and I am flexible for what the end result is... I just want it to work. I need to consider all of the combinations and issues that arrise when playing a game where you cant just drink a healing potion.

As per your comments. I can't have a game where adventure is non-stop, and wounds with serious effects/long recovery times. So I have to pick one.

I can't have a game where people can be incapacitated and the story grinds to a halt because the PCs can't do anything... so I need to design the scenarios with "plan B" options when "plan A" fails, OR I could make conflicts where failing doesn't really matter that much, but I prefer the "plan B" route.

I have to either somehow make it so the PCs never fail (even though they are incapacitated), or I need to design the scenarios where failure just leads them down a different (and less preferable) path and doesn't kill the momentum.

There are other questions like this I need to figure out now... rather than stumbling across them during the game. When I decide which direction I go for each of the questions, I can determine which mechanics most appropriately support that game play choice.

Slipperychicken
2018-01-28, 05:10 AM
As per your comments. I can't have a game where adventure is non-stop, and wounds with serious effects/long recovery times. So I have to pick one.

You can have both if you let players swap out PCs as they get injured.

One way is to have PCs as members of an organization or group, where they can be quickly replaced. A PC goes down, and his player gets a replacement while his first PC recuperates. But there are a variety of ways to justify this in your game's lore. Examples include having a stock of literal clone bodies (like in Paranoia), to having underlings (as in many old-school RPGs), or relatives (as in Pendragon), or having the PCs' organization contain a 'bench' of characters who can be called upon to serve in the PCs' places, or any number of other ideas possibly involving body-hopping, mind-uploading, or other means of transferring responsibility.

You can also choose to have adventures occur in a shorter time-span, under circumstances where the PCs absolutely must push through regardless of injury. You can also take injury into account with adventure design, tailoring challenges to the notion that one or more PCs may be quite injured by the time they get there.

Other options include giving players the ability to contribute despite injuries, perhaps letting their maimed characters control drones, operate vehicles, perform logistics tasks like radio or cooking, or supernaturally exert their will on the world (possibly via ghost, guardian angel, or astral projection).

Rhedyn
2018-01-28, 10:06 AM
I would rather do it in the other order, and tweak the mechanics to accommodate the desired game design. The challenge I am having is how to design the game in a way that flows well and has wounds with consequences. The mechanics will be dealt with later.

That's why I don't want to discuss mechanics. It restricts the options for game design, it creates tunnel vision and stifles options and creativity.

These are the things I need to consider, and I am flexible for what the end result is... I just want it to work. I need to consider all of the combinations and issues that arrise when playing a game where you cant just drink a healing potion.

As per your comments. I can't have a game where adventure is non-stop, and wounds with serious effects/long recovery times. So I have to pick one.

I can't have a game where people can be incapacitated and the story grinds to a halt because the PCs can't do anything... so I need to design the scenarios with "plan B" options when "plan A" fails, OR I could make conflicts where failing doesn't really matter that much, but I prefer the "plan B" route.

I have to either somehow make it so the PCs never fail (even though they are incapacitated), or I need to design the scenarios where failure just leads them down a different (and less preferable) path and doesn't kill the momentum.

There are other questions like this I need to figure out now... rather than stumbling across them during the game. When I decide which direction I go for each of the questions, I can determine which mechanics most appropriately support that game play choice.
Nope every answer to your problems is mechanics.

Want wounds to matter but players still need to play with them? See what I already talked about with Savage Worlds.

Want wounds to matter, but the story shouldn't grind to a halt? Well in Ars Magica the game is designed around playing multiple characters and there is all sorts of mechanics that support that approach.

Want wounds to only matter in a "narrative sense" or to only be a resource drain. D&D 3e does that. Recovery from hp is very slow without magic.

If your friends are getting together to write a book, then things like "mechanics" or player charters being "out of commission" for too long don't matter. Your problems are pointless without mechanics to make them a problem in the first place. You. Are. Playing. A. Game. Mechanics are always important.

Slipperychicken
2018-01-28, 12:19 PM
If your friends are getting together to write a book, then things like "mechanics" or player charters being "out of commission" for too long don't matter. Your problems are pointless without mechanics to make them a problem in the first place. You. Are. Playing. A. Game. Mechanics are always important.

It looks to me like he's trying to set up a vision for how gameplay should work, and then will try to make game rules to support that vision. Which IMO is the way game design should be done.

Aliquid
2018-01-28, 12:35 PM
You can have both if you let players swap out PCs as they get injured.

One way is to have PCs as members of an organization or group, where they can be quickly replaced. A PC goes down, and his player gets a replacement while his first PC recuperates. But there are a variety of ways to justify this in your game's lore. Examples include having a stock of literal clone bodies (like in Paranoia), to having underlings (as in many old-school RPGs), or relatives (as in Pendragon), or having the PCs' organization contain a 'bench' of characters who can be called upon to serve in the PCs' places, or any number of other ideas possibly involving body-hopping, mind-uploading, or other means of transferring responsibility.I would rather stick with one PC per player... and keep the wounds more manageable. Or have some of the PCs so tough that they can work through it (with penalties).

I also like the idea of scenarios where half of the party is busy dragging a wounded member away, while the other half is frantically keeping the bad guys off their back.


You can also choose to have adventures occur in a shorter time-span, under circumstances where the PCs absolutely must push through regardless of injury. You can also take injury into account with adventure design, tailoring challenges to the notion that one or more PCs may be quite injured by the time they get there.I like that


Other options include giving players the ability to contribute despite injuries, perhaps letting their maimed characters control drones, operate vehicles, perform logistics tasks like radio or cooking, or supernaturally exert their will on the world (possibly via ghost, guardian angel, or astral projection).I like this too. Maybe the injured person is the only one who can diffuse a bomb, but is busy trying to stay conscious through the pain of a broken arm. Meanwhile they are doing their best to carefully walk another PC through the process of which wire to cut etc.


It looks to me like he's trying to set up a vision for how gameplay should work, and then will try to make game rules to support that vision. Which IMO is the way game design should be done.Yes, Rhedyn is busy "solutioning", when I'm still in the "requirements gathering phase" of the project... note that nothing he is saying is technically untrue, it is just that he is putting the cart before the horse.

Thrudd
2018-01-28, 12:51 PM
There are other questions like this I need to figure out now... rather than stumbling across them during the game. When I decide which direction I go for each of the questions, I can determine which mechanics most appropriately support that game play choice.
So the question of this thread really shouldn't have been "how to make wounds matter", implying you are at the mechanics designing phase, it should have been "what kind of game do I want to design?" Or "what type of narrative do I like?"- because that's basically the stage you are at. You're not ready to even start working on mechanics for anything until you know exactly what it is you want the game to be able to do.

Aliquid
2018-01-28, 01:40 PM
So the question of this thread really shouldn't have been "how to make wounds matter", implying you are at the mechanics designing phase, it should have been "what kind of game do I want to design?" Or "what type of narrative do I like?"- because that's basically the stage you are at. You're not ready to even start working on mechanics for anything until you know exactly what it is you want the game to be able to do.Making wounds matter in a narrative context, not how to mechanically make them matter.

Thrudd
2018-01-28, 03:32 PM
Making wounds matter in a narrative context, not how to mechanically make them matter.

A wound matters in any narrative because it limits the activity of the wounded person. We need to narrow down what kind of narrative the game will be simulating. It sounds like you're leaning toward a cinematic/movie or tv show style. So you want wounds that give the player a restriction during the action but cutting short of making them sit out of key scenes. They need ways to either power through or have significant ways they can contribute in spite of physical limitation. magically immediate healing can't be normally available if you want the wound to matter.

If the game is designed to work on a episode format, healing or character replacement can happen in between episodes, and you can have rules that lets characters power through injuries, taking small penalties or loss of specific abilities just for the duration of the episode. At the end of the episode you can have a roll based on the accumulated injuries to see if they die or get a permanent injury, or more likely fully recover.

Fate is already good at this type of narrative, so you can probably just look there to start.

Aliquid
2018-01-28, 04:50 PM
A wound matters in any narrative because it limits the activity of the wounded person.A wound only matters in a narrative if it limits the activity of the wounded person. Therefore, I need to design a narrative where the wound does this.


We need to narrow down what kind of narrative the game will be simulating.And I plan on narrowing it down by getting a better understanding of what narrative challenges I will face if I run a game where wounds cause complications for the PCs. When I understand what these challenges are, I can design a narrative that complements these challenges, and then I can think about the mechanics to do that.


It sounds like you're leaning toward a cinematic/movie or tv show style. So you want wounds that give the player a restriction during the action but cutting short of making them sit out of key scenes. They need ways to either power through or have significant ways they can contribute in spite of physical limitation. magically immediate healing can't be normally available if you want the wound to matter. Yes, I'm currently thinking that healing won't be any better than it is in the "real world" today, but I'm willing to stretch things like they do in cinematics. Heroes like James Bond, Jason Borne, Aragorn, Conan, etc. take a severe beating and by all rights should be dead, but power through anyway. Sam & Dean from Supernatural often got beaten to a pulp and then were walking around the next day with a small bruise or scar, but nothing else to show for it. Occasionally they had to go to the hospital... but that was rare (at least for the couple of seasons I watched, don't know if that changed)


If the game is designed to work on a episode format, healing or character replacement can happen in between episodes, and you can have rules that lets characters power through injuries, taking small penalties or loss of specific abilities just for the duration of the episode. At the end of the episode you can have a roll based on the accumulated injuries to see if they die or get a permanent injury, or more likely fully recover. doesn't necessarily have to be episodic, but there would need to be lots of down time.

The biggest thing that I would need to deal with is:
- PCs are trying to do X, but they can't because PC Y is to injured to play his/her part

In a typical D&D type game you just quaff a potion, or have the cleric heal you

If you can't do that, then how does the story continue?

- The player can power through anyway
- The PCs must have a "plan B" to keep moving forward
- Failure is more of a "setback" than a story killer... and the players lick their wounds and try another day
- There are "backup" PCs that can be pulled into action when needed
- etc

Yes, I could easily run this in FATE, but that doesn't answer the question of how to address the issue noted above.

Rhedyn
2018-01-28, 06:18 PM
A wound only matters in a narrative if it limits the activity of the wounded person. Therefore, I need to design a narrative where the wound does this. What you describe is the mechanics of a wound and how those mechanics affect the story.

If you weren't so concerned about all those icky mechanics poisoning your narrative, you would be better able to isolate and understand your problem better. Some things are adventure design, others are the actual mechanics of the game.

Aliquid
2018-01-28, 07:14 PM
What you describe is the mechanics of a wound and how those mechanics affect the storymaybe you are using the word mechanics differently than I am. I’m having trouble figuring out any other reason why you don’t appear to get what I am asking.

When I think “mechanics”, I think “roll this die” or “take this penalty to that stat” or something like that.

Narrative might not be the best word for what I am thinking, but I can’t think of what other word to use.

But I am talking very specifically of what happens in the game world during the adventure. I am not concerned at all about what happens in our world when it comes to rolling dice or game rules or character sheets or anything. At this point I can keep that at a very high level of “player attempts to have his PC do something and fails or succeeds”. And work out the mechanical details later.

Mendicant
2018-01-28, 08:20 PM
Some random thoughts.

Combat could just be pitched lower. Whatever system you use, you could build in the assumption that the players aren't operating at peak efficiency when designing fights. The first fight or two of the day/arc/whatever might be laughers but an unlucky roll or two and the players are in normal (hurt) territory.

Time-bomb injuries. "The stitches came loose" is a really common action flick trope, and it could work here. Instead of these injuries acting on the player in combat or while the ninja climbs that wall, you check after the scene to see if the wound reopened or the alien parasite sensed stress and attacked or whatever. This way, the injuries don't preclude gameplay (right away, anyway) but they do inject a new layer of risk analysis. You'd still need built-in plan B options to make the risk an interesting choice and not just a random looming punishment.

A stable of backups would help, but it might not work well narratively with any system that has clear and necessary party roles. If Cleric Bill has to be replaced with his cousin, Cleric Will, or other cousin "I promise this is a different class" Healer Jill, wounds will feel like they matter even *less.*

Rhedyn
2018-01-28, 08:22 PM
But I am talking very specifically of what happens in the game world during the adventure. I am not concerned at all about what happens in our world when it comes to rolling dice or game rules or character sheets or anything. At this point I can keep that at a very high level of “player attempts to have his PC do something and fails or succeeds”. And work out the mechanical details later.

The mechanics are very much an in-world thing. If my wound applies a minus 1 penalty to all rolls, it does limit a character's actions narratively. That character is more likely to fail task as he struggles against a wound. If my wound caused me to lose an eye in the process, I may recover from the minus 1 penalty (pain/blood loss/ect) but the eye is lost forever (imposing sight related penalties).
If my wounds mechanically knock me unconscious, then narrative wise the character can't participate until the wounds are recovered or the incapacitate condition is removed somehow.

IMO the mechanics should be interwoven and justified by the narrative (and vice versa) in such a way that this attempt at separating the two should be needlessly confusing. Mechanics govern in-game-world interactions just as much as they affect dice rolls. If wounds don't mechanically matter all that much (D&D) then they do not have much of a narrative effect either.

Adventure pacing to address wounds only matter if wounds matter, and wounds only matter if they mechanically matter.

Thrudd
2018-01-28, 09:19 PM
But I am talking very specifically of what happens in the game world during the adventure. I am not concerned at all about what happens in our world when it comes to rolling dice or game rules or character sheets or anything. At this point I can keep that at a very high level of “player attempts to have his PC do something and fails or succeeds”. And work out the mechanical details later.

So we need to know the world the game is taking place in. You don't want to tell us that, for some reason. You can't plan an adventure for a game without knowing the rules (aka mechanics) of the game first. Because the adventure needs to provide players the chance to make strategic decisions using the rules of the game to progress.

The narrative challenge you face with wounded characters is their inability to participate in the action. It's very simple. A character with a hurt leg might not be able to walk or stand on their own. A character with damaged hand or arm can't use their arm. A character hit in the head, suffering blood loss or unable to breathe may fall unconscious. The problem with these types of injuries for the game is obvious - it means the player loses the ability to play while their character is incapacitated. As already mentioned, you either have a way for players to heal their characters or bring in new characters with long down times and the option to retreat, or you have rules in which the violence has unrealistic effects and unrealistic healing. Or you have a game world where commonly available magic or technology repairs injuries and even death.

You seem to have decided for a cinematic action approach, with heroes that do not suffer much impediment from injuries they receive and/or seem to have the improbable luck of always narrowly avoiding a serious injury (the bullet always hits the arm or shoulder, the knife never goes deep enough to hit anything vital, etc.), and who appear fully recovered very shortly after the fight scene, or with only cosmetic damage. That's fine, exactly what would work for a game that simulates inspirations from action movies and tv.

The thing you can't design is when exactly a character will get wounded and how a scene will play out when they do. It sounds like you keep asking "how do I design an adventure where one character is wounded and others need to help them", or something along those lines. The answer is you don't. You design the adventure, and the players figure out what to do if and when one of them gets wounded. You generally can't know when a character will get injured, and definitely can't predict which character in the group will get injured (like the lock-picker or the bomb-defuser or whatever.) You're making a game scenario that can be played-in, not writing a script or a story.

It is also not a great idea to try to design your adventure by planning for every possible event that could occur. It's too much work, and you likely won't think of everything anyway. You design a scenario, the players figure out how to approach it based on what their characters are able to do at that moment. You adjust the actions of the world according to what makes sense given the situation. Your overall narrative should be able to adjust to any possibility that is allowed by the rules. If the rules allow characters to die, you need to be able to deal with that, in every single situation where characters are in danger. If a character can get wounded and fall unconscious according to the rules, you design adventures that can deal with that. If you want to control when characters get injured and exactly what their injuries are, then you write into the rules the GM's ability to decide that without depending on random determination.

Your rules need to support the kind of narrative you want to have. You design your adventures after you know the rules, not before. It's impossible to do so to any degree of specificity without knowing the game rules. So "how do I make wounds matter" is not a question that makes sense, unless you're asking about how to design some game rules. Wounds will matter in your game exactly as much as the rules say they matter. Design the rules so they affect characters exactly as much as you want them to, to produce the sort of narrative result that you want.

Aliquid
2018-01-29, 12:02 AM
Some random thoughts.

Combat could just be pitched lower. Whatever system you use, you could build in the assumption that the players aren't operating at peak efficiency when designing fights. The first fight or two of the day/arc/whatever might be laughers but an unlucky roll or two and the players are in normal (hurt) territory.

Time-bomb injuries. "The stitches came loose" is a really common action flick trope, and it could work here. Instead of these injuries acting on the player in combat or while the ninja climbs that wall, you check after the scene to see if the wound reopened or the alien parasite sensed stress and attacked or whatever. This way, the injuries don't preclude gameplay (right away, anyway) but they do inject a new layer of risk analysis. You'd still need built-in plan B options to make the risk an interesting choice and not just a random looming punishment.

A stable of backups would help, but it might not work well narratively with any system that has clear and necessary party roles. If Cleric Bill has to be replaced with his cousin, Cleric Will, or other cousin "I promise this is a different class" Healer Jill, wounds will feel like they matter even *less.*Thanks Mendicant. The difficulty level of a fight will have to be something I approach differently for sure. I also like the "after scene" concept. It could be a situation of: "now that your adrenaline has stopped pumping so hard...."

A few people have mentioned the backup idea, but I don't think I'm going to go that way... it isn't quite the flavor I'm looking for. Which does help me narrow down the "feel" of the game, i.e. I'm not looking for a "hack and slash, characters die regularly" old school type of war game.




The mechanics are very much an in-world thing. If my wound applies a minus 1 penalty to all rolls, it does limit a character's actions narratively.If the character knows that he has a "penalty to his rolls", then you are playing a very different game than I am. When I say "in world", I mean from the perspective of the world and the characters. The PCs and NPCs should have no idea what a die roll is, or anything like that.





So we need to know the world the game is taking place in. You don't want to tell us that, for some reason.because I haven't decided yet, and I don't particularly care at this point.


You can't plan an adventure for a game without knowing the rules (aka mechanics) of the game first.I sure can, and I prefer to do it that way.
Because the adventure needs to provide players the chance to make strategic decisions using the rules of the game to progress. That is one way to play the game (and a totally legit way to play), but my preference is for minimal metagaming. So a player should make all strategic decisions based on what he/she thinks their character would do under the circumstances... irrespective of what rules are being used.
You seem to have decided for a cinematic action approach, with heroes that do not suffer much impediment from injuries they receive and/or seem to have the improbable luck of always narrowly avoiding a serious injury (the bullet always hits the arm or shoulder, the knife never goes deep enough to hit anything vital, etc.), and who appear fully recovered very shortly after the fight scene, or with only cosmetic damage. That's fine, exactly what would work for a game that simulates inspirations from action movies and tv. Yep, I'm leaning in that direction. And as such, I can't go and pull out my old D&D modules from the 80s to run this game. If I threw characters into "The keep on the borderlands" with this style of play, they would be dead... fast.

So, I need to do something different. I'm looking for what that "different" is, and I want to make sure I catch all the different things are before I design the adventure.
The thing you can't design is when exactly a character will get wounded and how a scene will play out when they do. It sounds like you keep asking "how do I design an adventure where one character is wounded and others need to help them", or something along those lines. The answer is you don't. You design the adventure, and the players figure out what to do if and when one of them gets wounded. You generally can't know when a character will get injured, and definitely can't predict which character in the group will get injured (like the lock-picker or the bomb-defuser or whatever.) You're making a game scenario that can be played-in, not writing a script or a story.I don't need to predict when they will get hurt. I just need to make sure that the plot isn't so linear that there is only one solution for succeeding in the mission/quest. I have to design the quest/mission so that if the PCs fail... that's ok, life goes on. It might suck a bit more now, but the game doesn't stall.


Your rules need to support the kind of narrative you want to have. You design your adventures after you know the rules, not before. It's impossible to do so to any degree of specificity without knowing the game rules. So "how do I make wounds matter" is not a question that makes sense, unless you're asking about how to design some game rules.I completely disagree. Not only is it a question that makes sense, it is a question that others on this thread have helped answer for me.

Mutazoia
2018-01-29, 03:00 AM
If the character knows that he has a "penalty to his rolls", then you are playing a very different game than I am. When I say "in world", I mean from the perspective of the world and the characters. The PCs and NPCs should have no idea what a die roll is, or anything like that.

You may be reading a little too much into your own theory. If I break my arm, you better believe that I will know that it will be harder for me to lift and carry stuff. I'm not going to think about it in terms of die rolls, I'm going to look at the couch and think "there is no way I'm going to move that with a broken arm", and come up with an alternative solution.

Likewise, if a character has a sucking chest wound, he's not going to thinking about die roll penalties, or about how he can defuse a bomb, he's going to be thinking he's in a lot of pain, and having trouble breathing because he's drowning in his own blood.

The die roll penalties just quantify an abstract difficulty, into something that the mechanics can simulate.


So, I need to do something different. I'm looking for what that "different" is, and I want to make sure I catch all the different things are before I design the adventure.I don't need to predict when they will get hurt. I just need to make sure that the plot isn't so linear that there is only one solution for succeeding in the mission/quest. I have to design the quest/mission so that if the PCs fail... that's ok, life goes on. It might suck a bit more now, but the game doesn't stall.

Hate to say it, but that has nothing to do with "making wounds matter". That's just basic adventure/campaign design. You want to write an adventure that doesn't have a single, set in stone, solution, and you want to write a campaign where the fate of the entire world doesn't rest on the outcome of one dungeon crawl.

Every GM does (or should be doing) that, every single time they plan an adventure/campaign. There is nothing "different" about it. At least for competent GMs.

Gravitron5000
2018-01-29, 09:47 AM
Thanks Mendicant. The difficulty level of a fight will have to be something I approach differently for sure. I also like the "after scene" concept. It could be a situation of: "now that your adrenaline has stopped pumping so hard...."

Another thought is that since wounds matter to PCs, they also matter to NPCs. This has the implication that everyone is less likely to engage in damaging combat. Guards would grapple and box rather than stab, and even before that would posture and negotiate before engaging in violence. Their job is to guard what they are guarding, not to kill or maim intruders, so why would they put themselves at risk?

Confronting the evil vizier, he's more likely to cower or run than to fight. Fighting hurts.

What is society's response to violence? Does the law get involved? Are you shunned as a psychopath? These could also be used as a deterrent to excessively violent solutions. Bar fights are overlooked until someone pulls a knife is a good spot of balance from a societal perspective. People can get roughed up without much consequence, but if there is a high chance of injury then there would be greater consequence putting a damper on acts that would result in significant damage.

TL;DR - Make most fights pillow fights :smallbiggrin:

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-29, 10:03 AM
If the character knows that he has a "penalty to his rolls", then you are playing a very different game than I am. When I say "in world", I mean from the perspective of the world and the characters. The PCs and NPCs should have no idea what a die roll is, or anything like that.


Under my way of approaching the rules, saying "the character doesn't know they have a penalty" is the same as saying "the character doesn't know that their wound is going to hinder them".

To explain this:

The character knows they have taken the wound.

The character knows that doing things with the wounded part of their body will be more difficult, or even impossible.

They know they won't see as well until their eye heals and the patch comes off... or that every time they try to use their shield that gash in their bicep is going to hurt and the stitches might rip... or that they won't be able to run from a monster or foe with that nasty limp.

The mechanical penalties in the rules represent those "in setting" effects as they are "mapped" in the mechanical interactions. The character doesn't know about the dice or the -1 or any of that, but the character knows in detail exactly the things that those penalties are representing.

Sinewmire
2018-01-29, 10:30 AM
In the 40k RPGS, Dark Heresy, Black Crusade et al. Players have a number of wounds (usually 1-20) which are basically HP.
When dealt wounds, if a player is lightly wounded (based on their Toughness stat) then they can be healed with First Aid* (up to a point) usually by 4-5. They also recover a set number of wounds (based on their HP) per day of rest, more with medical attention.

If a player drops below the threshold for light wounds, they are Heavily Wounded and First Aid only restores one wound, and wounds are restored per week of rest, more if they recieve medical attention.

Once they drop to 0 wounds, additional wounds cause Critical damage which start doing funky things like blowing parts off. Generally speaking at -7 on any location the player dies. This can result in player with 5-6 critical damage on every location but alive, but very very badly hurt. It's likely to cripple the character.

Critical damage is healed per week of bed rest with medical attention. Without medical attention it won't get better at all.

*First aid basically heals you based on the healer's intelligence, and then sets that as your new max hp for First Aid purposes. You can't just keep putting bandages on.

Thrudd
2018-01-29, 10:48 AM
If the character knows that he has a "penalty to his rolls", then you are playing a very different game than I am. When I say "in world", I mean from the perspective of the world and the characters. The PCs and NPCs should have no idea what a die roll is, or anything like that.
Of course characters don't know what a die roll is. The players know that die rolls represent things that happen in the game world. The way the rules are designed tells them their character's relationship to the world. Can my guy leap from a rooftop onto a moving car? In some settings, that's a reasonable thing for a hero to do, or at least attempt. In others, it would probably result in a person's death. So how do I know what my character would and wouldn't try? The numbers on the paper and the dice probabilities. That's not metagaming, that's role playing.



I sure can, and I prefer to do it that way.That is one way to play the game (and a totally legit way to play), but my preference is for minimal metagaming. So a player should make all strategic decisions based on what he/she thinks their character would do under the circumstances... irrespective of what rules are being used.
That is the definition of role playing. It's what all players ought to be doing all the time in any game. The game rules are essential to knowing what your character would do in many situations, unless the game is a simulation of the real lives of the players in the real world. The rules define the setting and what characters are capable of within it. Would my character be worried about fighting two men with knives when he's unarmed, or step up to them like a kung fu hero? Should you put two orcs with swords as the guards to encourage players to consider avoiding them? Or would it need to be two giants? Or ten giants?

You can't decide what your character would do without knowing what your character can do, and that's what the mechanics tell you. Including how your character would react to getting injured in different ways.



So, I need to do something different. I'm looking for what that "different" is, and I want to make sure I catch all the different things are before I design the adventure.I don't need to predict when they will get hurt. I just need to make sure that the plot isn't so linear that there is only one solution for succeeding in the mission/quest. I have to design the quest/mission so that if the PCs fail... that's ok, life goes on. It might suck a bit more now, but the game doesn't stall.

That's how all RPG adventures should be designed, always. Failure of the mission is always an option in a game, it would be silly not to prepare for that eventuality.



I completely disagree. Not only is it a question that makes sense, it is a question that others on this thread have helped answer for me.

You may be entering into this with assumptions that are not apparent to some of us, based on the posts. When I think about designing an adventure, I couldn't even start it until I decide what kind of game it will be- the way you design a D&D adventure is entirely different than how you'd design a Feng Shui adventure, or a Star Wars adventure, or an adventure for a GURPS game set in 12th century Japan, etc. The range of possibilities in each game is so different, and there are so many types of games out there, that I can't see how you would possibly decide anything without at least knowing the type of game it is. Talking about how wounds affect people likewise depends entirely on the type of game. For any advice to be useful, you must have narrowed down what system you'll be using or modifying, what genre the game will be.

Aliquid
2018-01-29, 10:56 AM
Another thought is that since wounds matter to PCs, they also matter to NPCs. This has the implication that everyone is less likely to engage in damaging combat. Guards would grapple and box rather than stab, and even before that would posture and negotiate before engaging in violence. Their job is to guard what they are guarding, not to kill or maim intruders, so why would they put themselves at risk?

Confronting the evil vizier, he's more likely to cower or run than to fight. Fighting hurts.

What is society's response to violence? Does the law get involved? Are you shunned as a psychopath? These could also be used as a deterrent to excessively violent solutions. Bar fights are overlooked until someone pulls a knife is a good spot of balance from a societal perspective. People can get roughed up without much consequence, but if there is a high chance of injury then there would be greater consequence putting a damper on acts that would result in significant damage.Good point. It won't just be the PCs that are shy of violence, the number of NPCs that run away during combat should go up substantially, even the ones that are reasonably competent fighters would flee when things start looking bad for them.




You may be reading a little too much into your own theory. If I break my arm, you better believe that I will know that it will be harder for me to lift and carry stuff. I'm not going to think about it in terms of die rolls, I'm going to look at the couch and think "there is no way I'm going to move that with a broken arm", and come up with an alternative solution.

Likewise, if a character has a sucking chest wound, he's not going to thinking about die roll penalties, or about how he can defuse a bomb, he's going to be thinking he's in a lot of pain, and having trouble breathing because he's drowning in his own blood.

The die roll penalties just quantify an abstract difficulty, into something that the mechanics can simulate.And I'm not arguing any of that. I'm saying that I don't care how these abstracts are quantified at this point. That doesn't mean I don't want to talk about what will eventually need to be quantified abstractly.
Hate to say it, but that has nothing to do with "making wounds matter". That's just basic adventure/campaign design.And here I am asking "how would adventure/campaign design change if you are using rules where wounds matter"...

Every GM does (or should be doing) that, every single time they plan an adventure/campaign. There is nothing "different" about it. At least for competent GMs.If I am failing to express my question effectively, read the examples that I have given, read the helpful answers that others have given me... That should give you an idea of what I am looking for. If you can't, maybe my "competence" as a GM that is the problem here.




Under my way of approaching the rules, saying "the character doesn't know they have a penalty" is the same as saying "the character doesn't know that their wound is going to hinder them".

To explain this:

The character knows they have taken the wound.

The character knows that doing things with the wounded part of their body will be more difficult, or even impossible.

They know they won't see as well until their eye heals and the patch comes off... or that every time they try to use their shield that gash in their bicep is going to hurt and the stitches might rip... or that they won't be able to run from a monster or foe with that nasty limp.

The mechanical penalties in the rules represent those "in setting" effects as they are "mapped" in the mechanical interactions. The character doesn't know about the dice or the -1 or any of that, but the character knows in detail exactly the things that those penalties are representing.Given the choice between:

Deciding on how I want the "in world" characters to experience something, and then creating rules to mechanically emulate that, and
Deciding what rules I want to use, and then figuring out how that would impact the "in world" characters' experience

My preference is the first option.

So, with your example of "they know they won't see as well until their eye heals and the patch comes off". I need to think about how that will impact the adventure and the "in game" character. Will I be able to design adventures where they can continue playing with one eye for months at a time, or will that mess with the flow of the campaign? Maybe having the eye patch on for only a couple of days will be better. When I decide on that, I can figure out how to map it into the mechanics.



Of course characters don't know what a die roll is. The players know that die rolls represent things that happen in the game world. The way the rules are designed tells them their character's relationship to the world. Can my guy leap from a rooftop onto a moving car? In some settings, that's a reasonable thing for a hero to do, or at least attempt. In others, it would probably result in a person's death. So how do I know what my character would and wouldn't try? The numbers on the paper and the dice probabilities. A very good example, thank you. So from this perspective, I am saying "I should decide if a person can jump from a roof to a moving car, and then decide which rules allow that". Not "I'm going to use these rules... I guess that means people can jump from a roof to a car"

I'm still figuring out all the requirements of the games. For example "can a person jump from a roof to a moving car". When I figure them out, then I can worry about the mechanics.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-29, 11:12 AM
Given the choice between:

Deciding on how I want the "in world" characters to experience something, and then creating rules to mechanically emulate that, and
Deciding what rules I want to use, and then figuring out how that would impact the "in world" characters' experience

My preference is the first option.

So, with your example of "they know they won't see as well until their eye heals and the patch comes off". I need to think about how that will impact the adventure and the "in game" character. Will I be able to design adventures where they can continue playing with one eye for months at a time, or will that mess with the flow of the campaign? Maybe having the eye patch on for only a couple of days will be better. When I decide on that, I can figure out how to map it into the mechanics.

~~~~

A very good example, thank you. So from this perspective, I am saying "I should decide if a person can jump from a roof to a moving car, and then decide which rules allow that". Not "I'm going to use these rules... I guess that means people can jump from a roof to a car"

I'm still figuring out all the requirements of the games. For example "can a person jump from a roof to a moving car". When I figure them out, then I can worry about the mechanics.


The approach you describe preferring here is the approach I'm getting at -- the rules are a means, not the ends.

My only "disagreement" (if that even) was over whether the characters realize they "have a penalty"... I'd say that they realize they have the complication or difficulty that the penalty represents.

Thrudd
2018-01-29, 11:48 AM
Good point. It won't just be the PCs that are shy of violence, the number of NPCs that run away during combat should go up substantially, even the ones that are reasonably competent fighters would flee when things start looking bad for them.



And I'm not arguing any of that. I'm saying that I don't care how these abstracts are quantified at this point. That doesn't mean I don't want to talk about what will eventually need to be quantified abstractly. And here I am asking "how would adventure/campaign design change if you are using rules where wounds matter"...
If I am failing to express my question effectively, read the examples that I have given, read the helpful answers that others have given me... That should give you an idea of what I am looking for. If you can't, maybe my "competence" as a GM that is the problem here.



Given the choice between:

Deciding on how I want the "in world" characters to experience something, and then creating rules to mechanically emulate that, and
Deciding what rules I want to use, and then figuring out how that would impact the "in world" characters' experience

My preference is the first option.

So, with your example of "they know they won't see as well until their eye heals and the patch comes off". I need to think about how that will impact the adventure and the "in game" character. Will I be able to design adventures where they can continue playing with one eye for months at a time, or will that mess with the flow of the campaign? Maybe having the eye patch on for only a couple of days will be better. When I decide on that, I can figure out how to map it into the mechanics.


A very good example, thank you. So from this perspective, I am saying "I should decide if a person can jump from a roof to a moving car, and then decide which rules allow that". Not "I'm going to use these rules... I guess that means people can jump from a roof to a car"

I'm still figuring out all the requirements of the games. For example "can a person jump from a roof to a moving car". When I figure them out, then I can worry about the mechanics.

That's exactly what you should do, I wouldn't suggest otherwise. You pick or create the rules that gives you the ability to simulate the type of narrative you want (ie, action heroes that can take on three ninjas solo, or normals who are concerned about whether that one guy has a knife in his pocket, etc.)

Its just that all these things go hand in hand.
When you think about how long and how severely characters should be wounded, you automatically need to start thinking about the passage of time in the game and the timescale on which an adventure takes place. This requires thinking about what kind of activities the characters are expected to be doing, in general, how likely they are to get hurt doing them, as well as the narrative flow of the game. And you can't ignore the players, either- what part of this is the fun game part for them and how do you make sure they aren't excluded from the game for too long, like when their character is knocked out or can't do anything. So the wound question automatically carries with it the necessity of discussing/deciding all these things.

You could say: Wounds should be temporary impediments that the players have to work around to complete their tasks, usually by helping each other/working together or by being creative. They should not be permanent disabilities the players will have to tolerate for the majority of the game.

If that is the given position, you can work from there to decide different mechanics and narrative structures that will allow that to make sense from a verisimilitude standpoint: some possible options for that were already discussed.

If you say "I want characters to always feel like they can/need to press on with the mission rather than retreating", that will have an effect on how you treat wounds- their effects can't be so severe and they can't happen so frequently that it becomes unbelievable for the characters to keep going.

And every single game-nature decision you make will likewise cause you to need to review the approach to wounds and many other things. This is why I think the smartest way to design the game is starting at the top layer- what is this game about and what sort of things do I want the players to experience? Other things flow from that original mission statement. Talking about specific aspects would be premature without knowing the big picture.