Welcome to the Swiftguard TTRPG Design Log, a series of posts logging the development of my new d20 fantasy TTRPG, Swiftguard.
You can download Swiftguard Playtest Packet 1.2 at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VFvjcvc9ap6OnJju96wiuaGMd2urjPQ_/view?usp=sharing and Playtest Adventure 1, “Goons of Fool’s Ridge”, at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1is0fNPgeEUA0M1y0tGxlOrKHMUZqyFkB/view?usp=sharing
Let me know your thoughts in the comments of this post or on the Swiftguard Discord at https://discord.gg/pxpt6DH3
Today, we’re exploring a new design element that will be present in Playtest Packet 2 called “Zero Actions”, which will replace the current rules for when a Player Character drops to zero Hit Points.
Agency at Zero
A few weeks ago, I had the chance to finally playtest Swiftguard with a group of my regular players. Overall, they enjoyed the changes to 5e’s base system, praising the action economy, cumulative advantage system, and mana point system. One element I didn’t expect to playtest as early as we did was the Wound system, a fairly punishing system for when Player Characters are dropped to zero Hit Points.
Like many community members, I find that 5e is just a bit too forgiving when it comes to downed Player Characters. All it takes is a 1st-level Healing Word on an Unconscious party member bleeding out to bring them back to full capabilities, leading to a phenomenon called “Yo-Yo Healing”. Like a Yo-yo, there are cases where a party member is dropping down and standing up turn by turn. The most egregious example I can remember is when I was playing a 4th level Druid with a 4th level Paladin. In a set piece boss encounter, the boss would drop the Paladin to zero, but not be able to move due to being surrounded by two other tanks. As a Druid, I would use my Healing Spirit to simply heal the Paladin, allowing her to stand up and smite to her heart’s content. After four rounds of yo-yoing, she delivered the final blow to the boss. That fight felt less like an exchange of thoughtful strategies and more like an automated loop, and it was all due to there being little consequence for her dropping to zero.
In an attempt to encourage Player Characters from preventing their allies from dropping to zero, I implemented Wounds. Every time they hit zero, they’d get a Wound, which would decrease their Hit Point maximum by 25%. The idea was that allies shouldn’t be dropping over and over again, and if they did, they’d creep closer and closer to death. Well, due to poor positioning and bad die rolls, that’s exactly what happened in the session’s first encounter. Three of the four players dropped to zero at least once, leaving them beaten and bruised for the next two combat encounters after. It was great to see the storytelling effect I was going for. Battles now carried risk, and as the adventure continued, the Player Characters were getting more and more tired.
And yet, my players didn’t like it. They found it too punishing. One agreed that combat needed more risk, but this design, while simple, seemed to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. In addition, one thing that makes sense in the game, but I still don’t like, is how a player with zero Hit Points has to just sit around watching everyone else play. In 5e, I imagine that Death Saves were designed to create dramatic tension, but in practice, success or failure doesn’t mean anything because no matter what a player rolls, an ally is likely to Healing Word them back up anyways. I know I wanted players to be able to do more, but design-wise, I was coming up empty. Until…
Learning from other Systems
Eldritch Lorecast episode 197. The crew had a discussion of Daggerheart’s approach to “death mechanics”, putting the fate of a dying Player Character in the player’s hands. I know it’s anathema to some TTRPG groups, but this is how I prefer to handle character death in my games. I ask the player, “How do you want to handle this?”
Many of my players don’t want their character to die due to a high roll on my part. Often, if they want their character to live, I’ll have an NPC jump in the way of the fatal blow instead, or come up with some event that somehow saves them (like the random lightning strikes in Gundam Thunderbolt). Some players and GMs I’ve spoken to abhor this methodology. They believe it undermines consequences in storytelling and dishonors the element of luck in the game. I’ve found that it usually leads to deeper storytelling. If the Player Character dies, there’s nothing left to explore. If they survive with a great cost, it usually leads to that player having deeper introspection to their character’s mindset after brushing so close to death.
In either case, it again got me curious into Daggerheart’s approach. What I read I really liked. Players can choose for their character to go out in a “Blaze of Glory”, embracing their fate with one final act of critical success. They can “Avoid Death”, yet creep ever closer towards it similar to Distal’s Death Marks. Or, they can “Risk it All”, letting the dice decide if they recover or cross through the veil.
Reading these options reminded me of my time as a teenager playing Gears of War for the XBox 360. In Gears, taking damage would drop you, but you weren’t finished yet. If you were dropped, an ally could come save you, bringing you back on your feet. While getting dropped in the first Gears game would leave you a static, hunkered over mess, sequels allowed you to crawl around, retaining some semblance of agency if you hadn’t died yet.
That made me think: what if getting dropped to zero didn’t mean that you were unconscious, but rather just bleeding out?
So, here’s what I want to playtest for Swiftguard Packet 2.
If you get dropped to zero, you enter a “Zero State”. From here, you get three options.
1). Hold On. You stay still, not taking actions, but you get a d12 to add to an ally’s Check, Save, Attack, or Damage Roll before your next turn, similar to 5e’s Bardic Inspiration. The idea is that you’re clutching your wound, and your allies get a rush of adrenaline once they see you go down. You can take a Reaction, but doing so inflicts a Wound, reducing your Hit Point maximum by 25%. Better to just stay still and hold on if you can.
2). Push Through. The classic, “It’s just a flesh wound!” At Zero, your character can take their turn as normal, but they also automatically gain a wound. It’s a risky option, but it lets players stay in the fight if they want to take the risk.
3). End of the Line. This is for when you know your character isn’t going to make it. Maybe you’ve taken two or three wounds already, or you know you can deal a significant blow to the enemy so that your team can avoid a TPK. At the end of the turn, your character will die and they can’t be revived (unless the GM declares that there’s a way). Each of your three actions can be a main action. Imagine a warrior with three attacks per Main Action. In 5e terms, it’d be like Action Surging three times. A spellcaster can ignore their Max Mana Output, casting as many spells as they have Mana Points remaining.
The thing I hate most in TTRPG combat is having a player sit out because of a restrictive condition like Paralyzed or Stunned or by being knocked to zero. Zero Actions are a way to show the direness of the situation while still allowing Player Characters to do something.
So now I want to hear from you.
Have you played Daggerheart’s new death system and if so, what was your experience with it?
Do you like putting a character’s fate in the player’s hands, or would you rather the dice decide their fate?
Do these Zero Actions sound interesting, or do you prefer a different system?
Let me know in the comments below or in the Swiftguard Discord! And remember…
Your Story Matters.
-John