SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Hunger/Thirst Rules

Started by Jamfke, June 19, 2021, 12:46:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jamfke

I'm working on a post apoc setting where it's been a year or so since the world has gone belly up. By now everything that was mass produced is becoming harder to come by. The places where one might find some stores of supplies are either environmentally difficult to get into (radiation or biohazard), or are heavily patrolled by other forces. I'm thinking about adding some optional mechanics to motivate the characters to get out and look for food and water for their survival. The mechanic would impose penalties to the characters physical and mental activities after so many days gone without proper sustenance. Aside from record keeping, what other issues would you have with rules like this?
Thanks,
James F Keck
Keck Publishing
4C or Not 4C? The real question is why not 4C Expanded? PWYW now at DriveThruRPG

GeekyBugle

Quote from: Jamfke on June 19, 2021, 12:46:49 PM
I'm working on a post apoc setting where it's been a year or so since the world has gone belly up. By now everything that was mass produced is becoming harder to come by. The places where one might find some stores of supplies are either environmentally difficult to get into (radiation or biohazard), or are heavily patrolled by other forces. I'm thinking about adding some optional mechanics to motivate the characters to get out and look for food and water for their survival. The mechanic would impose penalties to the characters physical and mental activities after so many days gone without proper sustenance. Aside from record keeping, what other issues would you have with rules like this?

None, it's perfectly reasonable given the setting.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

― George Orwell

Pat

#2
Watch out for death spirals. When you apply a penalty to everyone's actions, you make it harder for them to succeed. And when they need to succeed or the penalties get worse, failure gets more and more likely. This is amplified if the difficulty is also increasing, say because they have to take higher risk actions due to time constraints. Due to that mechanical trap, it can become much harder than it looks to turn things around.

It might be better to get rid of the penalties and keep it descriptive, similar to the way hp work in D&D, i.e. no penalties until you drop. That way you can still die of hunger, but there's no spiral. Another option is to take away some of their agency, say having to make a will check to avoid grabbing a burger, even when it's clearly a trap. That adds danger and complications, while punishing the players in a different way, because they can't do what they want all the time. Or change to a mode that's not harder or easier, just different. For instance, give them a desperation bonus for immediate physical actions, but things that require concentration or thought suffer. That will change optimal tactics, and can make it feel like a different game, which can be a fun change up.

Or just make it all about resource tracking. After all, unless they're starting out, characters in a post-apocalyptic game should be collecting resources. A home bases, allies, stashes. Give numbers to everything, and let the players build up a scorecard/treasure trove. A disastrous event like losing their base and having to flee might result in a temporary shortage, but after the first few sessions the game shouldn't be about recurrent privation. Instead, the players should be focused on the best way to use and build the resources that are available. A campaign structure designed around this would have a timeline as store shelves are stripped and goods go bad, but also options to build new resources like setting up farms, or trading for the output.

Omega

We touched on this a little in an older thread of mine here some time ago.

Bottom line is it really depends on the players and system. Some just do not like even the bare minimum of just tracking food and water. Others are ok with that but not foraging/starvation. And others are fine with it all and more.

In Dragon Storm for example there was built in a system for tracking food and water, and for foraging, starvation and even ways to use cooking to extend rations. Certain character types, particularly the Werewolves and wolf form, could opt to pick up an ability allowing them to bring home food for the group when camping. This was all integral to gameplay as alot of overland travel was involved and areas could be suffuse with anything from pristine nature magical radiation to the exact opposite making it harder to camp for some or all present. Or some locales being better, or worse for foraging or even causing the party to need to use up more supplies to get any rest in the area. 

234ne

Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
Another option is to take away some of their agency, say having to make a will check to avoid grabbing a burger, even when it's clearly a trap.

In the opposite note, you could reinforce player agency by presenting options of morality; "If you are starving to death, would you steal the candy from the baby?" type of deal. Obviously only if you and your players want a dark campaign of desperate struggles and moral ambiguity.

HappyDaze

I wouldn't have any issues with it as long as it went both ways. NPCs should suffer from these issues as much as PCs, so make sure the penalties are easy to apply when the PCs brush up against some malnourished militiamen. Also, if the penalties work out to be so minor as to be forgettable,  then better to just skip them.

Mishihari

The way I'm doing it in the game I'm writing now:  physical feats (like climbing) and special combat maneuvers (more than just "I attack") cost stamina; hunger and thirst also reduce stamina; if you run out of stamina you get a penalty on related checks and thing that cost stamina now cause damage.  I wanted to be able to run the journey through Mirkwood, and this seemed like a good way to add tension without a lot of extra bookkeeping during combat.

Mishihari

#7
Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
Watch out for death spirals. When you apply a penalty to everyone's actions, you make it harder for them to succeed. And when they need to succeed or the penalties get worse, failure gets more and more likely. This is amplified if the difficulty is also increasing, say because they have to take higher risk actions due to time constraints. Due to that mechanical trap, it can become much harder than it looks to turn things around.

This is a commonly mentioned concern about this and related mechanics, but it's the price you pay if you want bad things happening to characters to have actual consequences.  I've never had much of a problem with it.  Maybe it's a DMing issue - there are all kinds of ways to adjust an adventure on the fly to keep it fun for the players.

HappyDaze

Quote from: Mishihari on June 19, 2021, 06:27:01 PM
The way I'm doing it in the game I'm writing now:  physical feats (like climbing) and special combat maneuvers (more than just "I attack") cost stamina; hunger and thirst also reduce stamina; if you run out of stamina you get a penalty on related checks and thing that cost stamina now cause damage.  I wanted to be able to run the journey through Mirkwood, and this seemed like a good way to add tension without a lot of extra bookkeeping during combat.
I might go with deprivation reducing maximum Stamina (since it sounds like Stamina points are in use). Eventually, it will bottom out, and you die. In the meantime,  your activity tolerance withers away, but it doesn't cause "damage" until the very late stages.

Pat

Quote from: Mishihari on June 19, 2021, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
Watch out for death spirals. When you apply a penalty to everyone's actions, you make it harder for them to succeed. And when they need to succeed or the penalties get worse, failure gets more and more likely. This is amplified if the difficulty is also increasing, say because they have to take higher risk actions due to time constraints. Due to that mechanical trap, it can become much harder than it looks to turn things around.

This is a commonly mentioned concern about this and related mechanics, but it's the price you pay if you want bad things happening to characters to have actual consequences.  I've never had much of a problem with it.  Maybe it's a DMing issue - there are all kinds of ways to adjust an adventure on the fly to keep it fun for the players.
It's not the price you pay for actual consequences. Low level old school D&D is notorious for being a bloodbath, but lacks a death spiral for hit points. And all the alternatives I suggested involved consequences, and none of them did away with the basic assumption that, if you don't have food for more 3 weeks, you're dead. The death spiral is a real mechanical problem, though it can be influenced (like the results of literally every mechanic in any RPG ever) by the DM's style, because DMs decide how and when mechanics apply, and set the framework in which mechanics operate. Sounds like your "adjustments" are doing just that. But that's a meta solution that bypasses the mechanic. It can also be addressed at the mechanical level.

Ratman_tf

Quote from: 234ne on June 19, 2021, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
Another option is to take away some of their agency, say having to make a will check to avoid grabbing a burger, even when it's clearly a trap.

In the opposite note, you could reinforce player agency by presenting options of morality; "If you are starving to death, would you steal the candy from the baby?" type of deal. Obviously only if you and your players want a dark campaign of desperate struggles and moral ambiguity.

Thread made me think of Dark Sun. The original game had rules for alignment in extreme conditions of water deprivation. Like, everyone who fails a check becomes Chaotic Evil until they get some water in them. >:)

---

So yeah, if it's a feature of the game, I'll roll with water/food tracking. Even in Dark Sun, I didn't make it the focus of every session, but it's expected as part of the setting to be an issue that can come up.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Mishihari

Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 09:58:07 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on June 19, 2021, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
Watch out for death spirals. When you apply a penalty to everyone's actions, you make it harder for them to succeed. And when they need to succeed or the penalties get worse, failure gets more and more likely. This is amplified if the difficulty is also increasing, say because they have to take higher risk actions due to time constraints. Due to that mechanical trap, it can become much harder than it looks to turn things around.

This is a commonly mentioned concern about this and related mechanics, but it's the price you pay if you want bad things happening to characters to have actual consequences.  I've never had much of a problem with it.  Maybe it's a DMing issue - there are all kinds of ways to adjust an adventure on the fly to keep it fun for the players.
It's not the price you pay for actual consequences. Low level old school D&D is notorious for being a bloodbath, but lacks a death spiral for hit points.

That's not how I see it.  The old D&D style you mentioned is a good example.  You take one point of damage.  There are no consequences.  You take 10.  Still nothing.  You take one less than your total.  Nothing yet.  One more and you're dead.  The last hit point has a consequence, but none of the rest do.  It has been proven over the years to work really well as a game mechanic, but I still find it very unsatisfying.  I would like lesser consequences with real impact along the way.  To me it seems a lot more realistic.  And it adds tactical depth.  At the end of a long boxing match, neither fighter is operating at 100%, and often the one who has done a better job of managing his energy uses that tactic to win in the end.  So if a character takes some hits and the rest of the adventure gets harder, I see that as a good thing.  It's that much more heroic when he wins in the end.  And if he doesn't, that was always a possibility anyway.  If the fun wanes, I can deal with that as DM.  Maybe it's time for a tactical withdrawal.  There are a lot of options.

Pat

#12
Quote from: Mishihari on June 19, 2021, 11:44:33 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 09:58:07 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on June 19, 2021, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 19, 2021, 01:45:31 PM
Watch out for death spirals. When you apply a penalty to everyone's actions, you make it harder for them to succeed. And when they need to succeed or the penalties get worse, failure gets more and more likely. This is amplified if the difficulty is also increasing, say because they have to take higher risk actions due to time constraints. Due to that mechanical trap, it can become much harder than it looks to turn things around.

This is a commonly mentioned concern about this and related mechanics, but it's the price you pay if you want bad things happening to characters to have actual consequences.  I've never had much of a problem with it.  Maybe it's a DMing issue - there are all kinds of ways to adjust an adventure on the fly to keep it fun for the players.
It's not the price you pay for actual consequences. Low level old school D&D is notorious for being a bloodbath, but lacks a death spiral for hit points.

That's not how I see it.  The old D&D style you mentioned is a good example.  You take one point of damage.  There are no consequences.  You take 10.  Still nothing.  You take one less than your total.  Nothing yet.  One more and you're dead.  The last hit point has a consequence, but none of the rest do.  It has been proven over the years to work really well as a game mechanic, but I still find it very unsatisfying.  I would like lesser consequences with real impact along the way.  To me it seems a lot more realistic.  And it adds tactical depth.  At the end of a long boxing match, neither fighter is operating at 100%, and often the one who has done a better job of managing his energy uses that tactic to win in the end.  So if a character takes some hits and the rest of the adventure gets harder, I see that as a good thing.  It's that much more heroic when he wins in the end.  And if he doesn't, that was always a possibility anyway.  If the fun wanes, I can deal with that as DM.  Maybe it's time for a tactical withdrawal.  There are a lot of options.
It doesn't add tactical depth. It tends to mean whomever hits first, wins. Not always, but games with death spirals skew in that direction. In fact, there's a good gamist argument to flip it, and give bonuses when someone is particularly injured. Some of the clicky mini games do that, it sounds like 4e had something in the same vein, and a lot of board games have a catch up from behind option. That creates tension, and makes the outcome less predetermined. Though it's not to everyone's taste, and it works better in competitive games than RPGs, where the PCs face hordes of monsters instead of playing against each other. In that case, simply getting rid of penalties works well. That's one of the reasons why hit points are a good mechanic.

Realistic is always a shaky argument when it comes to RPGs. It tends to be based on a far more subjective set of preferences than people tend to believe. And it's especially weak when it comes to hit points. But if you find it unsatisfying, you find it unsatisfying. That's a personal preference, and it's impossible to argue against. And if you're fine with the consequences of a death spiral, or have other meta ways to deal with it, that's fine too. But there are some relatively objective factors here as well. Death spirals have mechanical consequences. They can be ameliorated or evaded, but it's useful to know how they work.

Kyle Aaron

Pat is correct that death spirals, while realistic, are depressing.

In normal conditions, a person can go 1 day without water and 3 days without food before suffering measurably detrimental effects. Most people will perish after 3-5 days without water, and 8-21 days without food. Those who've survived longer had access to token amounts of moisture and were very inactive physically, basically just lying around like on a hunger strike in prison. Gandhi didn't do his 500 mile march to the sea on an empty stomach.

One way a number of computer games handle it is that the deprivations of lack of water and food - or radiation, or fatigue, etc - effectively drop attributes. Hit points would work, too.

You can tease the death spiral without imposing it straight away, eg small penalties at first with worse waiting ahead. The small ones are enough to annoy and want to avoid, but not so bad as to make getting out impossible, and the prospect of the large ones scare the PC into action. 
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Lunamancer

Quote from: Jamfke on June 19, 2021, 12:46:49 PM
I'm working on a post apoc setting where it's been a year or so since the world has gone belly up. By now everything that was mass produced is becoming harder to come by. The places where one might find some stores of supplies are either environmentally difficult to get into (radiation or biohazard), or are heavily patrolled by other forces. I'm thinking about adding some optional mechanics to motivate the characters to get out and look for food and water for their survival. The mechanic would impose penalties to the characters physical and mental activities after so many days gone without proper sustenance. Aside from record keeping, what other issues would you have with rules like this?

Reality, mostly.

Water is essential. You better get some quick. Food, on the other hand, people can go a remarkably long time without food. There was one guy who went a year without eating.

But that's different from keeping up strenuous adventuring type of activity on no food.

So I keep it real simple. When you run out, your time is up. I have no desire to roleplay out emaciated forms surviving on ketchup sandwiches. If you run out of food, you're out of the game. Roll up a new character. Now maybe if some new PCs get to the area where the old PCs ran out of food, we might say, "Hey, yeah, these guys managed to survive a few weeks on rat droppings" and assuming there's enough food to go around at that point, those characters can then be put back in play, perhaps requiring 1 day of recovery per 1 week without food. Same if you run out of water, only you've got a 3 day time limit before death.


I don't think tracking this stuff is a burden. IMO, this is one of the stupidest thing self-appointed gamer gurus ever came up with. No. Don't track torches. Don't track ammo. Don't track food. That stuff is no teh funz! It's just dead weight. Cut it loose then focus on teh funz! But then when asked "How can I make my adventures more fun and exciting" one piece of advice these same gurus will offer up is to emphasize the time element. There should be some sort of time limit or sense of urgency. Which of course can come off as contrived, especially if you have clever enough players who managed to sidestep time constraints until you've exhausted all reasonable options. And it's like, you fools. You gave up perfectly functioning organic time constraints implied in limited torches and food under the rationale that it was too much work, and now you're jumping through hoops just to force half-baked time constraints back into your game. /rant
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.