I am sympathetic to player & gamemaster desire; and rpg tradition
towards
"giving the players a break"
especially when am a player

KAP officially favors 100% die roll results, rolled in the open

I've thought about allowing players some sort of
deux ex machina card to use for their characters
(and I've thought of linking it to being a GM in the campaign--shades of Prince Valiant!)
As a GM, I like the surprise such a switch can offer

but one "get our death free" card per character is too much
Perhaps an issue of one card per period per player?

In the D&D group I play in we have an interesting thing.

Once per game we can ask the GM to reroll something for us, but we have to use what the GM rolls.

So, I am in combat and close to death, and I roll a really lousy initiative. I can ask the GM to reroll it for me. If he gets a lower number, than I use it. If he doesn't, I still use what he rolled.

Now this isn't a "get out of death" card, but it might help.

When it comes to a full-on "get out of death" card, perhaps one per period would work. One thing I would allow is for an unused "card" to "carry over" into the next period.

Thus, if you didn't need your "get out of death" card in the Uther period, you would have 2 cards to use in the Anarchy period.

If you again did not need them in the Anarchy period, then ONLY ONE would carry over into the Boy King period.

Many years ago, I played in a Talislanta group. That system was largely d20 (long before WotC came up with theirs) and the GM at the time had each player roll four d20's before the adventure began and set them aside. Over the course of the adventure (not session) you could substitue one of those rolls for one you had just made. The caveat was that you could choose to use none of those rolls or you had to use all four (at some point before the adventure ended). To prevent abuse, they could only be used on rolls the GM called for - which was most of them anways.

His rationale for this mechanic was that luck often favors the "heroes" but that fate is fickle and this was how he chose to represent that.

I thought it was a neat idea but I don't think it would work in Pendragon where so many rolls are player initiated.

Perhaps instead of each player having a "get out of death" card make it a "get out of death but now you're cursed" card. Better yet, don't tell them what the curse is; make it subtle and force them to figure it out for themselves. Used "get out of death" on each of the last three adventures? Well, that's three curses...duck and cover.

Perhaps instead of each player having a "get out of death" card make it a "get out of death but now you're cursed" card. Better yet, don't tell them what the curse is; make it subtle and force them to figure it out for themselves. Used "get out of death" on each of the last three adventures? Well, that's three curses...duck and cover.
I'm not sure I like the "cursed" idea, but the idea that there would be a cost for using the "GOoD" card does sound interesting.

Perhaps -3 to your next 5 rolls (not including the battle you are currently in), cumulative.

Thus, first time you use a GOoD card, you are -3 for 5 rolls.
Second time becomes -6 for 5 rolls.
Third time is now -9 for 5 rolls.
etc etc.

This would NOT be inherited by descendants, so PK who used 3 GOoD's and then died would not force his son to start at -12 for 5 rolls. (cuz that would just really really hurt!)

but one "get our death free" card per character is too much
Perhaps an issue of one card per period per player?


During my campaign I used a 'Escape death by GM fiat or increase a roll by one success level' token, one per adventure (non-savable).
Very often players were tempted to increase one of their success to a critical (eg when performing for royalty). It sorta became a curse that whenever a player used it for this purpose he would a bit later fumble one of his passions (and not have the token anymore to save himself), while players saving the token to escape death never needed it.. Players also used it often when a major wound resulted in a loss of 4 stats..
I later ruled that the token could NOT be used for the harvest roll or any other winterphase roll.
I loved the rule, as GM, because several times a player faced certain death, I bluntly told them that their action would result in a (glorious) death and then after the action was done anyway, pronounce them dead, take the token (sometimes even forgotten in the heat of moment) and smile viciously..
Which usually resulted in their character coming back majorly inconvenienced by some faerie deus-ex-machine (one time the knight kept searching for 25 years for this lovely lady that had saved him from this mortal wound, refusing all other amors. He ended up retiring his character when he saved/married her and became the next King of Tomorrow.. Never ever would have come up with that plot line if it wasnt for this 'token'...

[PS: New pendragon players got two tokens, and new roleplayers even three]

I have an unwritten rule, that I won't kill knights randomly until they have an heir, after that its fair game and they can play a 'cousin' until the heir comes of age.

Saying that, each time they cheat death I'd make them roll on the aging table for the privilidge. They really hate that.

Spend 1000 Glory for a reroll or other get out of jail free card, instead of the usual bonuses?

Some of you are very creative.

I really like the idea, get benefit now, have penalty later. I use something like that already in my campaign, mostly along plot lines . Example, offering during the game a really good bonus, but don't ask questions about it, and then later, the player realizes certain strings attached to the bonus.

I think it mostly depends on the campaign the GM is running. Does he want to focus on the dynastic aspect of Pendragon, or who will rise to become the preeminent knight?

Bob

In our last session I started to use this kind of card system. In my systems players get one card which allows them to re-roll any roll in the game they wish. This includes my GM rolls, their own rolls and other players rolls. Skill rolls, damage rolls, winter phase childbirth rolls etc. They get new card every time they reach next 1000 glory points threshold. Limitation is that you can't have more than one card any time and of course you have to declare your intention to use the card before results are announced.

I'm not really sure if it is too often or not that players get new cards. Got to do some play testing.

After one session I'm quite pleased with this system. Benefit is that players can push their characters to the limits, be heroes as they should be, and when they hit the limit it's not game over right away but they still have chance to survive. Or not. Re-rolling major wound that puts you to -5 might turn up to be major wound that puts you to -10 after re-roll.

I even witnessed in our first session that one of my players used his own card to save other players (quite unlucky) character who already had used up his own card.

KAP officially favors 100% die roll results, rolled in the openKeep it that way.
As evidenced by those above ^ GMs who want such a thing will make a house rule anyway, so there is no need for them. But for the feel of Pendragon and its setting I don't think such a thing should be in the 'basic' rules. That will just open up another abuse factor for munchkins.

Now, gamewise, without the risk of death bravery will mean less. In almost all of the solutions above the player knows about the "fate" point/card/whatever, which means that the player will take more risks, leading to more situation that have a need for such "fate" points. etc
While the opposite is true, the more its obviuos that death is a possibility, the less reckless the players will behave, and it will lessen the need to "fudge" as the GM.

This leads to some strange things that in games which encourage these things - the GM will be even more compelled to "save" the players than in games that discourage it. Hence players playing D&D almost certainly "knows" they will live or be revived, thus "dying" is no biggie.
In Pendragon - going out in a gloriuos way is one of the greatest way to "retire" a character - don't take that away.

What I do is allow a "killed" character to know that the wound is mortal - nothing will save him, but if the character has unresolved plots or similar he will be kept on the 'death bed' to croak some final words of wisdom to his heir etc. Unless of course the end was a gloriuos one, if so I take them out instantly. Now, I usually also let there it be known to the group that next session will be the final for that character. This so that all can prepare if they wish.
This has on more than one occasion resulted in real tears etc among my players as they are saying their respective goodbyes to a beloved character or when they play the son holding the last vigil with his father while feeling him slip away.
It also lets the players plan those "go without me" moments that is so hard to get otherwise. In those the thumb of rule is to let them fight 1 round per 1000 glory or so.
For people whose characters have slipped, either through age or deeds and should be retired, then I also give them the option (outside of the session) to go out in an epic way. Think Boromir in LoTR.

This means that even the character who die in a random fight will get an opportunity to end with honor.

Good things!


While I applaud some of the great ideas in this thread, I agree with Spoonist. Don't change it. Let PKs live and die on their decision and fate (the 20 sided dice, that is): it makes combat harsh and bravery relevant.

In the end
I agree with the hard principles of open die rolls
I thank everyone for your opinions!




Good things!

While I applaud some of the great ideas in this thread, I agree with Spoonist. Don't change it. Let PKs live and die on their decision and fate (the 20 sided dice, that is): it makes combat harsh and bravery relevant.

Just throwing my denarius in...

In our campaign, we are allowing players to hoard their Glory Bonus Points (you know, that nice thing you can use to up your stat or skill when you cross the next 1000 Glory threshold) and use those as Fate points. Burning a Glory Point (henceforth GP) results in your roll being a success (not a critical) and the enemy roll a failure (not a fumble), regardless of the actual rolls. Most often GPs have been burned to reverse a critical from the enemy, or a normal hit from a giant or some such threatening to jellyfy the PK (or at least causing a major wound). Still, one often doesn't have that many GPs in storage, so deaths still happen... All players have now lost one PK, although one retired rather than died in order to return to playing the correct branch of the family as the child grew up.

Consequences:
1. Players tend to save their GPs to counter major/mortal wounds, or to ensure they are successful in some critical juncture, rather than use GPs to boost their stats/skills. Hence, we are not seeing that high skills and stats at the moment, making the power level creep less of a problem. And as a consequence of that...
2. PKs are 'weaker' than their Glory would indicate (for instance, I think the highest Sword at the moment is about 18 for a PK whose Glory is 9000+). I admit I have had some concerns about this. But since I have brought down the NPK skill levels as well, I figure they are alright.
3. Burning GPs HURTS. There is a price to be paid for cheating death.

I like the idea. For those who think that 1000 glory = 1 change of result is too much, a multiple might work better. Example 500 glory =1 fate modifiers and able to be spent as soon as 500 is accumulated.

Either would work, and I agree the players might be using them to burn through rather than the high stats, but a 1:1000 might be too harsh in their eyes. I would use it only if I was instant killed because of their critical against the odds. If just a major wound, I might tempt fate with the aging table.

Bob Schroeder

Part of the thing is that 1000 = 1 GP is canon, and I would be very hesitant to mess with that.

On the other hand, I could see gifting PKs with a 'reroll point' every 500 Glory or so, allowing them to reroll their own roll or forcing an enemy to reroll their attack or damage roll. That would cut down on the crits/fumbles, but probably would not be overpowering. I think what would happen in our campaign if we adopted that is that reroll points would become the fate points, as the players would use their glory points for improvement, keeping the PK mortality about the same. Apart from having higher skills and stats.

I did once use a rule that every time the players passed a 1,000 glory threshold, they recieved a fate point, in addition to the normal glory benefit. I don't like forcing people to choose.
Later I amended it to every time the players reached a new glory band (Ordinary, Notable, Famous, etc).

A fate point could be used as follows:
Immediately cancel one specific event that happened to you, at the cost of being rendered unconscious in a safe place.

So, you a facing a giant who criticals against you? You spend your fate point and the giants blow sends you flying into a haycart (with 7 hP remaining if you have an UNC of 7) and the giant forgets about you.

Or, the green knight says, "put your head on this block, and make a Chaste roll. If you fail, I chop of your head." You fail the roll, and the green knight brings his axe down - and then smashes you with its flat, and as you pass out, he says something like, "I sense there is some worth in you - but not enough for this test" and puts your unconscious body on your horse and sends you home.

That way the fate point cant be used to allow characters who are doing really well (high glory) to dominate a session even more than they already do. You can use the fate point, sure, and thus keep your character alive, but it pretty much guarantees the other players have the spotlight for a while after that.