What if...players grant death saves to NPCs by getting them names?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Monsters and Death (PHB p198)
"Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.
Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters."

All DMs have had to name NPCs we never expected to have to name, and sometimes that random NPC becomes the party pet or source of purpose. Not always fun, but almost inevitable.

1. What if the party getting a name on a NPC that had the mechanical consequence of granting death saves, which in turn allows magical healing/medicine check stabilization to be relevant to a 4HP commoner statblock?

2A. Would we as DMs have to keep this "ability" a secret?

2B. If we didn't would a "good" party insist on finding the name of EVERY DANG ONE of the NPCs?

3. What if every NPC named in a published work had death saves (ex Klarg from LMoP)? Would we have more throat-slitting, curb stomping, etc.?

4. Would we keep this a secret and let the party discover this reality?

5. In the end, would it make the game better in any way at all?

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal rule is "if I said his name and it's a specific one, he gets death saves." So mook 43? Nah bro. Jim-bob the village blacksmith? Yup.

And if they want to save someone who wouldn't get death saves, that might be possible (if they're quick), but will always come at the cost of a permanent injury. And not one that healing magic will cure. Died to an arrow in the back? He's likely to be paraplegic. Etc.

In-universe, everyone has the same mechanism for "dying", it's just handwaved for mooks.

[Ionathus]

It's funny and interesting when it shows up in a self-aware world (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0472.html). But unless you run a very meta table, I don't think making this into a hardcoded mechanic the players (and PCs?) know about would increase fun for anyone at the table.

There's a legitimate reason that not every NPC gets a name, and it's the same reason we have unnamed "extras" in movies. Nobody wants to keep track of 30 names if they're never gonna see the person again. Players only have so much brainspace for the characters, and you don't want to introduce a mechanic that makes them feel like they have to get every character's name the second they meet them - it incentivizes behavior that doesn't actually improve the gaming experience, IMO.

I think this is much better to just adopt as your own private rule as the GM. "Named/important characters get death saves." Don't tell the players, just start following it. That's what I do, and it works out just fine.

[Sorinth]

For the most part I treat NPCs and even monsters as having that unconscious not dead yet state but they auto-fail death saves. Gives players the option to try to stabilize someone who goes down if they want to but there's no self-stabilizing to deal with.

[JonBeowulf]

I follow the Skyrim model: Some NPCs are important enough to keep around so they stay around (get death saves). Having a name is irrelevant.

[JackPhoenix]

The only reason enemies die at 0 hp is practical: GM has enough to do without having to roll death saves for every fallen monster every turn, and remembering how many saves they've made/failed. You absolutely can roll for every NPC, named or not, but what's the point? You could do it if you want to have a NPC show up later without cheating, and of course, there are some NPCs the players care about, but 95% of the time, nobody cares if something dies now, 5 turns later, or if gets up in 1-4 hours.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the most part I treat NPCs and even monsters as having that unconscious not dead yet state but they auto-fail death saves. Gives players the option to try to stabilize someone who goes down if they want to but there's no self-stabilizing to deal with.
That's roughly how we do it. If the PCs make the effort on any downed NPC or monster, there's usually a chance. That to me adds a bit of agency to the players and their choices/PoV.

[Keravath]

That's roughly how we do it. If the PCs make the effort on any downed NPC or monster, there's usually a chance. That to me adds a bit of agency to the players and their choices/PoV.

I generally do something similar. When DMing, I'll assume every creature might have the possibility of not immediately dying when they hit zero hit points. For convenience and efficiency, unless a healer is present, I assume that all NPCs will die at some point after hitting zero hit points so they are effectively out of the fight.

However, if the PCs decide that they want to intervene for an NPC that they have already "killed" in the last couple rounds of combat then I'll adjudicate attempts to stabilize that NPC. If a PC attempts to cast a healing spell on them, I'll check to see if the NPC has already died and if they are still alive allow the healing spell to work. NPCs may not always use exactly the same mechanic as PC death saves since that is a PC survival mechanic intended to make characters more durable and heroic. For every other creature there is the possibility that the blow that strikes them down could have killed them outright (which isn't an option with the death save mechanic).

P.S. for NPC party members I'll usually use the death save mechanic just to increase their durability.

[Chronos]

My general assumption is that everyone "really" uses the same mechanics, but we don't bother tracking it for unimportant NPCs. Even if some mook did roll a 20 on their death save, so what? They'll go back down immediately, and it won't matter.

On the other hand, if the players decide that someone's important enough to try to stabilize, then them deciding that is enough to make that someone important enough that it's possible to stabilize them.