# Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)



## GlaziusF (Nov 14, 2008)

Forked from:  Disappointed in 4e 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I recall that I did so ad infinitum ad nauseum before, as did several other people, and have no need to do so again.
> 
> The drum being "banged again" seems to be "Prove it!"  "Uh, prove it with another example!"  "Uh, prove it with another example!"  "Uh, prove it with another example!"  "Uh, until you supply a fresh example for all my requests, you haven't proved a thing!"
> 
> ...




4E allows you to determine the damage model your character operates under. 



An ancient eladrin wizard borne aloft by a glowing cloud of runes, which start to flicker when he's bloodied and wink out at 0? Sure.
A paladin of Juste the Martyr God, whose body can be hacked to pieces but holds himself together with divine energy, who will, say, have his forearm knocked off into a corner and replaced with raw divinity when he's bloodied and collapse into a heap of gibs at 0? Why not?
A tough-as-nails ranger who gets rattled around by blows, but only takes one obvious cut at bloodied and tries and fails to get himself up off the ground at 0? That's fine too.
 You've demonstrated that you can construct a damage model for a character which exhibits "Schroedinger's Wounding" - one in which regaining hit points has different physical effects depending on the power source of the healing.

You have not demonstrated that you necessarily must. In fact, all the house rules are guidelines for people to construct damage models for their characters in such ways as to avoid the Schroedinger's Wounding problem.

So, "Schroedinger's Wounding" is a problem, but not an insoluble problem. In much the same way, scurvy is a disease, but not an incurable or inevitable disease. 

Certainly scurvy exists, but it is rather silly to tell people not to take long journeys because of the risk of scurvy. Similarly, it's disingenuous (at best) of you to present Schroedinger's Wounding as a necessary drawback to 4E since it's so easy to solve it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 14, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Forked from:  Disappointed in 4e
> 
> 4E allows you to determine the damage model your character operates under.
> 
> ...




These are very creative!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 14, 2008)

The thing that bugs me about the supposed "schroedinger's wounding" is that it doesn't really exist.

It only exists if you ignore the fact that you have a limited number of healing surges, that decrease as you take damage and use them to replenish hit points.

You don't go from wounded to 100% because 100% would imply all hit points and all healing surges available. You may have regained your full hit point pool, but you're still down 1 or more healing surges. You are not at 100% so why would a hit cease to be a hit?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 14, 2008)

Scribble said:


> The thing that bugs me about the supposed "schroedinger's wounding" is that it doesn't really exist.
> 
> It only exists if you ignore the fact that you have a limited number of healing surges, that decrease as you take damage and use them to replenish hit points.
> 
> You don't go from wounded to 100% because 100% would imply all hit points and all healing surges available. You may have regained your full hit point pool, but you're still down 1 or more healing surges. You are not at 100% so why would a hit cease to be a hit?



I guess that's what happens when you look at 4E rules through a 1E lens?


----------



## Delta (Nov 15, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> These are very creative!




And utterly convincing that 4E is not a game I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole. I literally flinched when I read that.

Edit: And let me expand on that. This very much reminds me of 2E sensibilities, for example: constructing magic items. They took a fairly concrete system in the prior edition, snipped it out, and said, "you can do anything you want, it's up to your imagination!". Quote from 2E DMG:



> The Nature of Magical Fabrication
> 
> The construction of magical items is a realm of the AD&D® rules open to broad DM interpretation. Just how the DM decides to approach it will affect the way magic is viewed in his game. There are two basic attitudes toward the making of magical items: The practical method and the fantastic method.
> 
> ...




So in the Odd Editions, the core rules give a concrete world-view that everyone introduced to the game can share as a basis. In the Even Editions, you have this attitude towards, "We don't even know what the world is like anymore. It could be (a) or (b) or (c), we don't know. Make it up yourself! It could be anything! Isn't that cool?"

Well, for some of us that's un-enticing. I know a large cohort is in favor of that kind of attitude, but for at least 40% of us it represents too much additional work. I think that "we don't know anymore, you tell us" attitude was a failure for 2E magic items, and was reverted back in 3E with specific prices and manufacturing techniques. We'll see if this attitude again gets shifted back with 5E (if one gets published).


----------



## Scribble (Nov 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> And utterly convincing that 4E is not a game I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole.




Yeah! Creativity is lame!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I guess that's what happens when you look at 4E rules through a 1E lens?




I wouldn't say that... It's just ignoring rules elements to force something absurd.


----------



## Andor (Nov 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Yeah! Creativity is lame!




Creativity is awesome. _Requiring_ creativity because the system can't handle the mundane is ... weak.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I wouldn't say that... It's just ignoring rules elements to force something absurd.




As I pointed out in the original thread, if you set out to deliberately contrive a situation in which the rules appear to be silly, you'll probably succeed.


----------



## Agamon (Nov 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> The thing that bugs me about the supposed "schroedinger's wounding" is that it doesn't really exist.
> 
> It only exists if you ignore the fact that you have a limited number of healing surges, that decrease as you take damage and use them to replenish hit points.
> 
> You don't go from wounded to 100% because 100% would imply all hit points and all healing surges available. You may have regained your full hit point pool, but you're still down 1 or more healing surges. You are not at 100% so why would a hit cease to be a hit?




Yeah, one has to realize that a lot of things that do damage sometimes remove healing surges instead of hit points.  Healing surges aren't healing potions, they're inner reserves.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 15, 2008)

When a character takes hit point damage, you have a quantum superposition in which Schrodinger's Wounding simultaneously exists and does not exist. The existence of Schrodinger's Wounding stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when narration takes place and the wave function collapses into one of the two states. The key to avoiding Schrodinger's Wounding is to game with players who are probabilistically inclined not to use narration that would result in Schrodinger's Wounding.


----------



## Agamon (Nov 15, 2008)

FireLance said:


> When a character takes hit point damage, you have a quantum superposition in which Schrodinger's Wounding simultaneously exists and does not exist. The existence of Schrodinger's Wounding stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when narration takes place and the wave function collapses into one of the two states. The key to avoiding Schrodinger's Wounding is to game with players who are probabilistically inclined not to use narration that would result in Schrodinger's Wounding.




Heheh, awesome.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> I think that "we don't know anymore, you tell us" attitude was a failure for 2E magic items, and was reverted back in 3E with specific prices and manufacturing techniques.




Was that before or after the caster level errata?

-Hyp.


----------



## Solodan (Nov 15, 2008)

Does it matter?  The system is elegant and it works.  I'd much rather be able to make stuff up on the fly, and have more leeway in even wounding rules, than have rulesy players say "No, according to splatbook X, wounds are exactly in this order and modifier x y and z apply" 

I'm happy that rules that get in the way of the story are getting out of the way in 4E.


----------



## Delta (Nov 15, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Was that before or after the caster level errata?




I'm still waiting for you to address the issue I asked of you here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ayers-not-characters-stats-5.html#post4501236

As you know, until that time, I don't play 20 questions with you anymore.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Nov 15, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Forked from:  Disappointed in 4e
> 
> So, "Schroedinger's Wounding" is a problem, but not an insoluble problem. In much the same way, scurvy is a disease, but not an incurable or inevitable disease.
> 
> Certainly scurvy exists, but it is rather silly to tell people not to take long journeys because of the risk of scurvy. Similarly, it's disingenuous (at best) of you to present Schroedinger's Wounding as a necessary drawback to 4E since it's so easy to solve it.




Nice analogy. It's a solvable problem for most groups.

I suppose one question is, do the benefits gained make it worth the trouble of solving or avoiding the problem?

Another question is, could the system have been designed to give the benefits without creating a possible problem?


----------



## pemerton (Nov 15, 2008)

I don't quite agree with the analogy, because it's not a problem to be solved so we can get on with the game - rather, narrating events in the gameworld that fit with what the mechanics tell us is part of the point of playing the game, part of what counts as getting on with the game.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 15, 2008)

Your post advocates a

( ) gamist  ( ) simulationist ( ) cinematic (*) narrativist

approach to understanding hit points. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which may to vary from campaign to campaign and edition to edition.)

( ) It adds a significant amount of bookkeeping to combat.
( ) It means that most successful hits in combat must be described as misses.
(*) No one will be able to agree on how wounded someone appears to be
( ) It will stop debate for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Players will not put up with it
( ) DM's will not put up with it
(*) WotC will not put up with it
(*) Requires too much imagination from players
( ) Requires too much math from players
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many GMs cannot afford to lose players or alienate potential new players
(*) Casual gamers don't care about crap like this
( ) Character deaths become too random or frequent
( ) Characters are nigh unkillable.

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Poison damage on a successful hit.
( ) Lava
( ) People being stabbed through the eye and killing their enemy before dying
( ) Falling several miles can kill you.
( ) You can survive falling several miles.
( ) Suspension of disbelief issues due to game rule / world action discrepancies
( ) Suspension of disbelief issues due to excessive simulation
( ) Scaling damage at higher levels
( ) Housecats killing low-level mages
( ) Mowing down armies of weak enemies
( ) Heros having a chance to actually kill a dragon with a sword
( ) Specific injuries
( ) Mathematically deficient gamers


and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on computers is unacceptable
( ) This is too Anime
( ) 4E sucks
( ) OD&D sucks
( ) BXCMID&D sucks
( ) AD&D sucks
( ) AD&D2E sucks
( ) 3.X D&D sucks
( ) Pathfinder sucks
( ) OD&D sucks
( ) We should be able to talk about Edition differences without being censored
( ) Tracking damage should be simple
( ) Death spirals are not fun
(*) Your style of play is badwrongfun.
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it will satisfy everyone
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 15, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> So, "Schroedinger's Wounding" is a problem, but not an insoluble problem. In much the same way, scurvy is a disease, but not an incurable or inevitable disease.
> 
> Certainly scurvy exists, but it is rather silly to tell people not to take long journeys because of the risk of scurvy. Similarly, it's disingenuous (at best) of you to present Schroedinger's Wounding as a necessary drawback to 4E since it's so easy to solve it.



It's a problem because it requires the players to define game mechanics instead of playing the definition and being blind to those same game mechanics.  Game model operation and real world operation equivalency is the ideal for a role-playing game.  Operational equivalency / simulation is the definition of quality for role-playing.  Computer RPGs are doing this nicely, but are limited in numerous other ways.

Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is.  Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play. Requiring constant redefinition of such makes the game a "playing of the system" instead of a playing of the role.  It removes the exploration / education a player has within that role and leaves absent that portion of the system the game element was designed to simulate in the first place.  

In other words, the role becomes something other than it is in actuality.  Like defining every hit in a Chess game as a hit in a boxing match player definition of mechanics during play can be a part of any game system, but that ability doesn't make every game system a role-playing game because such is possible.  I think what is confusing some may be that requiring storytelling when playing a role-playing game does not make it an RPG (telling a story is not == to role-playing).  It is the operational similarity to the sociologically-defined role.  For a role-playing game specifically, it is the confinement of the player to actions real people are capable of when actually in the roles.  If a particular operation in a game isn't mimicking the actual role's operation, whether the role is real or unreal (i.e. spellcasting), than it's a bad rule for a role-playing game.

I think many will agree 4E has rules that make it a more enjoyable game than 3E from a competitive balance point of view, but also has rules that make it less of a role-playing game under the strict definition of role-playing as it was originally defined some 60 years ago.  As these are two competing desires, it is a rational point of disagreement for those who prefer not to play an unrelated game, but rather prefer to play the role.  ...or at least more of it as 4E does include plenty of other aspects that make it an RPG in my opinion.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 15, 2008)

I think 4e is less about Schroedinger's Wounding than it is about Schroedinger's Healing.

Healing during combat has specific rules.  Healing between combats, and at night, follows only one rule- hand wave it.  Assume that you're sleeping off your fatigue, recovering your morale, bandaging your wounds, shaking off the bludgeoning you took, and generally being good to go by morning.

This bothers some people, because they might have a party where the only explicit hit point healing effects are Second Wind and a warlord yelling at them to get their sorry &*%es back on the front line and die like a man.  So they wonder how a person who's at zero could possibly end up at full, just from someone yelling at them and taking a breather.  Because presumably they were stabbed somewhere between full hit points and zero, and in order to get back to full, someone needed to fix that stab wound.

And the answer is that someone did.  Someone bandaged it, or stitched it, or whatever, and now they're ok to fight again.  But it happened off camera, and the game assumes you don't need to know exactly who did what.  Its Schroedinger's Healing- you don't have to know exactly how you heal off camera unless it matters, and it generally doesn't.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 15, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is.  Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play. Requiring constant redefinition of such makes the game a "playing of the system" instead of a playing of the role.  It removes the exploration / education a player has within that role and leaves absent that portion of the system the game element was designed to simulate in the first place.




Why don't you just say narrativist play is badwrongfun?  Its much more concise.

Roleplaying does not require precise world-physics/game-rule correspondence.      I find that games with such an occurrence to be hijacked by players who want to set themselves up as kings in a faraway desertl and because the found a decanter of endless water.  Give me an interpreted game and I can come up with some awesome stuff.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> Edit: And let me expand on that. This very much reminds me of 2E sensibilities, for example: constructing magic items. They took a fairly concrete system in the prior edition, snipped it out, and said, "you can do anything you want, it's up to your imagination!". Quote from 2E DMG:




2E only adds the Fantastical Method as an alternative or something to be mixed with the Practical Method.

1E had the Practical Method as its approach. The DM still has to come up with a list of ingredients and a recipe to create each item.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 15, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> For a role-playing game specifically, it is the confinement of the player to actions real people are capable of when actually in the roles.




This is where I think you are utterly wrong and narrow-minded in what constitutes role-playing. A role-playing game does not require you to play out actions of real people. At least not as it relates to real world people. The game defines what a "real person" is in the simulated world. Wizards are people that can hurl fire, Superhero games define real people as having extraordinary abilities, and the action-adventure genre defines real people as being able to take incredible amounts of punishment but keep going (see Die Hard, Rambo, etc.)

4E is definitely encamped in the action adventure/fantasy camp. Martial character can take massive amounts of punishment and keep going. They ARE real people as defined by the genre.

If you do not like roleplaying the action adventure genre, then you won't like 4E. To each his own.

But to claim that 4E is not "as much" rpging as other games is ludicrous at best. It smacks of claims of badwrongfun.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 15, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Why don't you just say narrativist play is badwrongfun?  Its much more concise.



That's not what I said at all, please don't attribute such an attitude with me.  I'm saying narratively  playing a role-playing game is awkward unless you use the second definition of the term (theatre acting).  Trying to tell a story while in an Army role-playing scenario in the woods or when role-playing a conflict mediation for divorce court judges is as much a misunderstanding of the term role-play as would be to play Poker as if the object of the game was to lose money.  



> Roleplaying does not require precise world-physics/game-rule correspondence.      I find that games with such an occurrence to be hijacked by players who want to set themselves up as kings in a faraway desertl and because the found a decanter of endless water.  Give me an interpreted game and I can come up with some awesome stuff.



Actually, role-playing under it's original definition is the testing of one's abilities in a role one isn't.  The idea is not for the Referee to tell a story, but for the Players to excel strategically and thereby learn the role.  In most cases this was to prepare for real life assumption of the role.  Running a role-playing game with any intent other than to unbiasedly present the world as it is confounds designers' intent.  Essentially, it is an honest telling of riddles and wondering why players are responding by continuing with a story rather than an attempted solutions.   The players are misunderstanding the riddle to be a story they are collaboratively telling.  (That is not just a metaphor, it's identical to what is happening when RPGs are misread as narratives.  You could just as easily redefine all riddles as narratives where players are expected to guess what the teller wants them to do.)



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is where I think you are utterly wrong and narrow-minded in what constitutes role-playing. A role-playing game does not require you to play out actions of real people. At least not as it relates to real world people. The game defines what a "real person" is in the simulated world. Wizards are people that can hurl fire, Superhero games define real people as having extraordinary abilities, and the action-adventure genre defines real people as being able to take incredible amounts of punishment but keep going (see Die Hard, Rambo, etc.)
> 
> 4E is definitely encamped in the action adventure/fantasy camp. Martial character can take massive amounts of punishment and keep going. They ARE real people as defined by the genre.
> 
> ...



Narrow-minded, huh?  I think I may not be posting clearly enough.  You are right about the healing and hit point system.  It simulates the cinematic hero like John McClane in Die Hard and Rambo in Rambo II.  I'm talking about other elements of the game world that are not well modeled by the rules. I should have made that clear.  Encounter power mechanics are one example.  I'm not looking for a dispute.  I think most folks recognize these aren't meant to be simulations.

And yes, I do like action adventure games, but prefer more realism when knowing what is going on in the game world matters.  For instance, I find mysteries require mechanical similarity that is knowable and assumable by the Players to a unrealism they must guess at.  Otherwise it becomes difficult to determine what's going on beyond what you're told.  Essentially you need Knowledge Checks to be told what is happening at certain points.


----------



## Zustiur (Nov 15, 2008)

Actually, the more I read these threads, the more I think the issue comes back to this:
What level of fantasy do you want in your game?
Do you play gritty, low fantasy games with long healing times?
or 
Do you play action packed, high fantasy games with healing times hand waved to be more like Bruce Willis/Bond characters?

I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 15, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> Narrow-minded, huh?  I think I may not be posting clearly enough.




I apologize if I am just misreading you. Even so, I want to be clear that my comment was only directed towards my understanding of your views on the hp system, not a general statement of your mind-set.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 15, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.




It is comments like these that add feul to the fire are are unnecessary.

One could more politely say:

I prefer low fantasy...where healing takes longer...etc.

Its not a matter or miracles that PCs heal in 4E, its just faster than your preference.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 15, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I apologize if I am just misreading you. Even so, I want to be clear that my comment was only directed towards my understanding of your views on the hp system, not a general statement of your mind-set.



Hey, no problem.  I'm not trying to incite other folks here either (as dull and pedantic as my posts may read )


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 15, 2008)

Ycore Rixle said:


> Nice analogy. It's a solvable problem for most groups.
> 
> I suppose one question is, do the benefits gained make it worth the trouble of solving or avoiding the problem?
> 
> Another question is, could the system have been designed to give the benefits without creating a possible problem?




The problem only arises if you care about narrating the damage. The mechanical effects of damage are defined - you're fine until 0, but at half hit points you become obviously wounded, or "bloodied", and certain things will affect you differently. Gnolls will turn into tiny furry landsharks and attempt to rip your flesh, et cetera. 

How you narrate these mechanical effects is something you're left without guidance for. I would argue deliberately, because it can be rather an open-ended question, and studies have shown that presenting even sketchy examples of a creative solution is enough to pretty much determine the thought process.

Keep in mind, the problem explicitly arises from:


Caring enough to narrate damage
Being specific enough to paint yourself into a corner when it comes to the effects of healing
Not being able to see any way to avoid painting yourself into said corner



pemerton said:


> I don't quite agree with the analogy, because it's not a problem to be solved so we can get on with the game - rather, narrating events in the gameworld that fit with what the mechanics tell us is part of the point of playing the game, part of what counts as getting on with the game.




Yes, and coming up with a model that sees Schroedinger's Wounding coming and turns down the other street is a problem to be solved ahead of time so you can get on with narration.



howandwhy99 said:


> Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is.




What's this "during play", kemosabe? You can come up with a damage model for your character completely independent of the game table.

I mean, unless you use some avant-garde definition of "play" that encompasses all moments you are aware of a system's existence.


----------



## Filcher (Nov 15, 2008)

I prefer the more realistic hit point style of 4E because it is a more simlationist depiction of the effect of shock (and the recovery from the same). People don't die in static, predictable ways.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 15, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.



How often does magic get involved in healing in your game?

If you're like most people, the answer is, "All the time, multiple times per day.  Magic healing happens continuously."

Which is fine and all, but I don't think its compatible with "low fantasy."  That's high fantasy.  I think "low fantasy" is much more compatible with the idea of hit points representing not physical wounds, but simply how far you are from falling unconscious in a sort of nebulous sense.

Enjoy what you enjoy, I guess, but I don't think that making magical healing of sucking chest wounds into a multiple-times-per-day occurrence makes your game "low fantasy."


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 15, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> You've demonstrated that you can construct a damage model for a character which exhibits "Schroedinger's Wounding" - one in which regaining hit points has different physical effects depending on the power source of the healing.




Actually that's not quite correct. I should know since I invented the theory of quantum hitpoints as they applied to 4e back in March. 

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...tpoints-modelled-after-quantum-mechanics.html

Basically, the quantum theory of hitpoints states that the actual physical effects of hitpoint damage to a 4e character exists in an indeterminate quantum state until the damage is recovered from, or the character dies.

So "Schrodinger's Wounding", as the term has come to be called, doesn't mean that regaining HP has different effects depending on the source of the healing.

What it means is that the nature of the original hitpoint damage (i.e. actual wounds vs. fatigue vs. morale) sustained by a character cannot be determined until those hitpoints are recovered by a character. It is the source of the hitpoint recovery that determines the original nature of the damage sustained.

For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.

Therefore if the DM had described that damage as wound damage when it occured, the DM would be proven wrong if the PC is then healed by an ability such as Inspiring Word. This would result in a retroactive time paradox because the DM would then have to revise their prior description of the source of the damage. Otherwise known as a "retcon".

To avoid such game "reality" paradoxes, HP damage can only exist in an indeterminate quantum state until the damage is recovered from, at which point the quantum wave function collapses and the DM can now accurately describe the original damage based on the nature of the recovery.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 15, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is. Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play.



But I think in the context of role-playing _games_, it doesn't have to be a problem. It can in fact be something players enjoy, especially if it grants particular freedoms that a harder game-rule/game-world mapping can't provide. 

If you are free to interpret certain game mechanics in different ways, you avoid the problems of rules that can become too complex. If you try to have a rules framework that allows you to map any (or at least a large enough subset) conceivable gameworld actions into rules, your rules might become to complex. You might, for example, want to have a rule for called shots, the difference between an uppercut and a bashing attack, the rules for fighting (and perceiving) with or without a helmet, and so on. All these can be things to describe in the game world and probably would matter in it - but we don't always want to bother also applying rules for this. I think the goal of rules is not just to provide a way to resolve situations at all, but to resolve them in interesting ways without requiring to much of our mental efforts. 
Maybe this is just a "gamist" approach, but I think rules complexity should be geared towards providing a certain "tactical" element - how do I solve a problem? That is basically the same thing we do outside the rules framework: "How do we free the captured slaves? How do we navigate through this dungeon?" 
One of the disadvantages of matching game rules and game world to close is that you think constantly in rule terms. You can't just freely narrate what your character does, you have to describe everything accurately in the rules. But that's not really how your character would think - he just does his thing. When you're swinging a sword, you probably don't think about skill checks, DCs, weapon hardness, handedness and what-else the game rules offer. And removing the rules a little more from this strictness means you can operate more freely on the descriptive level, and still have all the fun of using the rules in a clever way. 



Dragonblade said:


> Actually that's not quite correct. I should know since I invented the theory of quantum hitpoints as they applied to 4e back in March.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...tpoints-modelled-after-quantum-mechanics.html
> 
> ...



Though maybe words of encouragement make you willing to go on despite painful or nasty-looking wounds? That would bring us back to "Schroedingers hit points" - we don't know what the hit points you currently have represent - do you have all those hit points due to experience, training and a good health? Or is it because you're still highly motivated?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 15, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Zustiur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't read any offense in what Zustiur said. Don't stress too much about it. 



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> One could more politely say:
> 
> I prefer low fantasy...where healing takes longer...etc.
> 
> Its not a matter or miracles that PCs heal in 4E, its just faster than your preference.



Hmmm...the rate of healing in 4E does seem pretty miraculous; at least when compared to the "real" world. With the rules as written, you can go from death's door to premium grade health in about a day without any outside assistance. I would not myself be offended by someone calling this timespan miraculous - 4E characters are heroic aren't they?

I believe looking at the RAW, the quantum wounding/healing situation does exist - see Dragonblade's post. For some players, this is just going to be a complete non-issue and completely irrelevant to their fun at the table. For others (combined with the quicker than realistic hit point recovery, as well as their more "traditional" concepts of what hit points are), this is going to be a source of awkwardness that pops up more than just occasionally. I can't see why both sides of the fence don't just agree to disagree. To put up the hand and so "yes" or "no" this does/doesn't affect how our group plays, we're still having fun or whatever.

For me, the biggest problem with hit points is that they are generally trying to account for physical damage as well as other aspects such as skill, divine favor, inner power, the will to go on and so on. If hit points were split into their constituent parts (physical damage-_hit points_; and everything else-_combat points_), then I think you would find that almost all the hit point anomalies go away, and people are free to interpret the non-physical damage however they wish. But that is a subject of another thread I started here.

Anyway, peace people. There have been lots of great ideas expressed here, be it imaginitive interpretations for hit points and how they are roleplayed, or the sharp analysis of the 4E RAW.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 15, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I believe looking at the RAW, the quantum wounding/healing situation does exist - see Dragonblade's post. For some players, this is just going to be a complete non-issue and completely irrelevant to their fun at the table. For others (combined with the quicker than realistic hit point recovery, as well as their more "traditional" concepts of what hit points are), this is going to be a source of awkwardness that pops up more than just occasionally. *I can't see why both sides of the fence don't just agree to disagree. *To put up the hand and so "yes" or "no" this does/doesn't affect how our group plays, we're still having fun or whatever.




I don't really know, but some "positive" motivations I'd like to offer:
- They want to really understand the other side. How do they come to experience the problem or not to experience it? What thought processes do they follow?
- They want to see if there is a mechanic that works good for both sides. Maybe, if we discuss it long enough, someone will have a genius idea that will satisfy both sides.

Maybe these motivations are hopeless. I sure never had the impression we got closer to achieving either end (certainly not to satisfy any of the still involved posters...)


----------



## crash_beedo (Nov 15, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Enjoy what you enjoy, I guess, but I don't think that making magical healing of sucking chest wounds into a multiple-times-per-day occurrence makes your game "low fantasy."




QFT.  Every time I've seen a complaint that the 4E hit point and healing system isn't realistic, the alternative is usually the CLW wands and magic, magic magic.  If hit points never equal physical damage, than surges don't equal physical healing... its kinda simple.

But I think all this discussion of D&D's hit point has convinced me to go back to THE real gritty system...   I'm dumping my books for RoleMaster!  We need herbal healing and months of game time healing those broken bones and internal organ damage.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 15, 2008)

crash_beedo said:


> QFT.  Every time I've seen a complaint that the 4E hit point and healing system isn't realistic, the alternative is usually the CLW wands and magic, magic magic.  If hit points never equal physical damage, than surges don't equal physical healing... its kinda simple.
> 
> But I think all this discussion of D&D's hit point has convinced me to go back to THE real gritty system...   I'm dumping my books for RoleMaster!  We need herbal healing and months of game time healing those broken bones and internal organ damage.




Totally.  My sense of wonder is destroyed unless I require seventeen weeks of bed rest attended by a character with the correct combination of skills in order to recover from a mace injury to the left clavicle.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Though maybe words of encouragement make you willing to go on despite painful or nasty-looking wounds? That would bring us back to "Schroedingers hit points" - we don't know what the hit points you currently have represent - do you have all those hit points due to experience, training and a good health? Or is it because you're still highly motivated?




Indeed. Game physicists everywhere continue to seek answers to this quantum quandry.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 15, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I believe looking at the RAW, the quantum wounding/healing situation does exist - see Dragonblade's post.




It's an issue if you assume that a decrease in hit points of X, followed by an increase in hit points of X, returns the character to the identical cinematic state he was in prior to the two events.

In _Doom_, your health is expressed as a percentage... and there's a little picture of your face at the bottom of the screen.  At 100%, you look fine.  At 50%, you show some a bloodied nose.  At 20%, there's more blood, and one eye is blackened and swollen.  (Numbers are vague and approximate!)

If you pick up a health pack and go from 20% to 50%, some blood disappears, and your eye unblackens and unswells.  When you go from 50%, to 20%, to 50% again, your cinematic representation is identical before and after the -30, +30 sequence.  If 30% damage meant "More blood, black eye", then 30% healing means "Heal the eye, wipe some blood".  

If you treat 4E hit points the same way - "I said that when he lost 6 hit points, that was a shallow slice along his ribs, and when he lost 12 hit points, it was a club to his face that broke his nose" - then healing must reverse the cinematic effects of damage.  When you heal him 12 hit points, his nose becomes unbroken.  When you heal him another six, the gash along his ribs disappears.

And this is where Quantum Wounding appears.

But if you don't require an increase in hit points to cinematically reverse exactly the effects of the decrease in hit points, Quantum Wounding doesn't occur.  If 6 damage can be a slice in the ribs, but then 6 points of healing can represent a reinvigoration of fighting effort?  Then after the cycle, you are not returned to an identical cinematic state (you still have a slice in your ribs, but it's not impairing you); thus it's not necessary for you to know the form of the healing before cementing the form of the damage.

It's only when you assume that healing reverses not only the hit point loss, but _exactly reverses the cinematic description of the effect_ of the hit point loss, that Quantum Wounding rears up.

So I don't make that assumption, and it's not a problem.

-Hyp.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 15, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> Indeed. Game physicists everywhere continue to seek answers to this quantum quandry.




Maybe the new Goblin collider can solve this issue. Where the hell is that link....


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 15, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> It's an issue if you assume that a decrease in hit points of X, followed by an increase in hit points of X, returns the character to the identical cinematic state he was in prior to the two events.
> 
> In _Doom_, your health is expressed as a percentage... and there's a little picture of your face at the bottom of the screen.  At 100%, you look fine.  At 50%, you show some a bloodied nose.  At 20%, there's more blood, and one eye is blackened and swollen.  (Numbers are vague and approximate!)
> 
> ...



I would like to add that the expended healing surges repersent the original cut, brakes and nicks that are still there but not bothering you that much. 

Would it help to consider healing surges returning at a rate per day that all returned after a nights rest.


----------



## Kishin (Nov 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> And utterly convincing that 4E is not a game I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole. I literally flinched when I read that.




I like how you offered no further elucidation here as to why you thumbed your nose and harrumphed at someone taking a vagary and being creative with it.

The view from your pedestal must be pretty nice indeed.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> If you're like most people, the answer is, "All the time, multiple times per day.  Magic healing happens continuously."
> 
> Which is fine and all, but I don't think its compatible with "low fantasy."




QFT. It isn't. At all. If it were low fantasy, you'd be relying on heal checks and bedrest.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 16, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> What it means is that the nature of the original hitpoint damage (i.e. actual wounds vs. fatigue vs. morale) sustained by a character cannot be determined until those hitpoints are recovered by a character. It is the source of the hitpoint recovery that determines the original nature of the damage sustained.
> 
> For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.
> 
> Therefore if the DM had described that damage as wound damage when it occured, the DM would be proven wrong if the PC is then healed by an ability such as Inspiring Word.




Aaaand your theory collapses, because all a player has to do is not describe damage as wound damage if an inspiring word couldn't motivate him, a la the paladin of Juste, to heal physical wounds.

Can you fall unconscious without deep physical wounds? Fifty million gut punches say "yes". 

There's nothing in the game that necessitates describing damage as physical wounds beyond the ability of your character to tend to in the six seconds it takes to pop a second wind and get above bloodied.


----------



## CleverNickName (Nov 16, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Your post advocates a
> 
> ( ) gamist  ( ) simulationist ( ) cinematic (*) narrativist
> 
> ...



This was awesome.  1 XP for you!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 16, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> ...quantum....



I just saw Quantum of Solace and Bond definitely had Second Wind, Healing Surges (which he used between encounters), as well as encounters, dailies and at-wills. 



Dragonblade said:


> For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.



Bond seemed to use his own driving desire to make Vesper's death mean something (as well as avenge her), similar to the way a Warlord would shout encouragement to another PC.   He also seemed to heal from physical wounds during this time as well.

Now, I know that it is a movie, and we aren't talking about cinematic vs. realism here, but that movie is an example of how 4e's hit points system can work.  Without suffering an aneurysm to justify it.


----------



## Andor (Nov 16, 2008)

Kishin said:


> QFT. It isn't. At all. If it were low fantasy, you'd be relying on heal checks and bedrest.




For some low fantasy means that everything operates by real world physics unless magic is involved. By that standard a wand of CLW is perfectly acceptable, but a horse running all day is not. Others think low fantasy means there is almost no magic as if it were medieval europe, but cinematic action is just fine. (Never mind that in medieval europe priests held rituals to stop the advance of a glacier, hundreds were burned for witchcraft and some were succesfully prosecuted for being werewolves...) 

By definition 1 any wuxia movie counts as high fantasy even if not one supernatural element shows up. By definition 2 LotR could be low fantasy.


----------



## Zustiur (Nov 16, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It is comments like these that add feul to the fire are are unnecessary.
> 
> One could more politely say:
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but I do not see a problem with what I said.



> miracle - noun. An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.



I prefer low fantasy, where extraordinary events or effects in the physical world do not take place without the aid of magic.
Such as; healing from significant battle wounds over-night.

By comparison with the real world (and all previous editions), the speed at which characters heal in 4E is miraculous. Some players like this speed, others like the (marginally) more accurate modeling of the real world provided in other systems. I happen to be the latter, and I gather you're the former. I in no way indicated that either was better or 'badwrongfun'. I merely gave an indication of why _I_ prefer other healing systems.

If anything I expected to be pulled up on the use of 'low fantasy' as in DnD low fantasy typically refers to the abundance of magic (and magic items), not the level of fantasizing required to make the story believable.
--Edit--
Like this in fact:


Cadfan said:


> How often does magic get involved in healing in your game?
> 
> If you're like most people, the answer is, "All the time, multiple times per day.  Magic healing happens continuously."
> 
> ...



I'd respond but Andor beat me to it:


Andor said:


> For some low fantasy means that everything operates by real world physics unless magic is involved. By that standard a wand of CLW is perfectly acceptable, but a horse running all day is not. Others think low fantasy means there is almost no magic as if it were medieval europe, but cinematic action is just fine. (Never mind that in medieval europe priests held rituals to stop the advance of a glacier, hundreds were burned for witchcraft and some were succesfully prosecuted for being werewolves...)



I was referring to the former - fantasy as in people performing extraordinary actions without the aid of magic.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Nov 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> But if you don't require an increase in hit points to cinematically reverse exactly the effects of the decrease in hit points, Quantum Wounding doesn't occur.  If 6 damage can be a slice in the ribs, but then 6 points of healing can represent a reinvigoration of fighting effort?  Then after the cycle, you are not returned to an identical cinematic state (you still have a slice in your ribs, but it's not impairing you); thus it's not necessary for you to know the form of the healing before cementing the form of the damage.
> 
> It's only when you assume that healing reverses not only the hit point loss, but _exactly reverses the cinematic description of the effect_ of the hit point loss, that Quantum Wounding rears up.
> 
> So I don't make that assumption, and it's not a problem.




But don't you still run into the issue on the dying/not dying axis?  Let's take this to the simplest possible position.  A PC is fighting a goblin.  The goblin hits him with a shortsword, and the PC drops below zero hitpoints.  A couple of rounds go by, and the unlucky PC fails two death saving throws.

Now... has the PC been stabbed with a lethal wound, or not?  If we were to freeze time in the game world, and move in and look at how badly the PC is hurt at this moment, are his guts slashed open and slowly bleeding out into the dirt, or is it just a shallow cut that he can potentially grit through?

We don't know.  The DM can get away with vaguely describing the PC as having suffered "a cut", but if the player persists and asks, "No really, how badly is my PC hurt?" then the DM has to admit that he doesn't yet know.

If next round the PC fails a third death saving throw, then it was a lethal wound.  If the PC rolls a 20 or is in some other way allowed to spend a healing surge, then it was only a shallow cut.  It's a quantum wound.

Now I like 4E and I'm willing to live with this, but I have it admit that it's there.


----------



## Xris Robin (Nov 16, 2008)

Just say he was stabbed.  If he fails the saving throw, he got hit in the lungs or something and died.  If he rolled a 20, it missed anything vital and he manages to get up and struggle on.  Or he took a blow to the head and passed out.  Maybe he wakes up (a 20) or maybe he starts bleeding from his brain and dies (3 failed throws).

Of course you don't know if it's a lethal wound or not, you're rolling to determine that.  That's what the death saving throw IS, the roll to find out how badly you were hurt.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 16, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:


> But don't you still run into the issue on the dying/not dying axis?  Let's take this to the simplest possible position.  A PC is fighting a goblin.  The goblin hits him with a shortsword, and the PC drops below zero hitpoints.  A couple of rounds go by, and the unlucky PC fails two death saving throws.
> 
> Now... has the PC been stabbed with a lethal wound, or not?




The same thing happens in 3e with the stabilization roll.  Is it lethal, or not?  We don't know until all the stabilization checks have been made.

4e is a little more... thematic.  Words and will are more important in 4e.  A possibly deadly wound can be recovered from with force of will.

We can narrate how bad his wounds are; what we can't yet narrate, because that has yet to be resolved, is whether or not the PC has the will to carry on.

Are his guts slashed open?  Yes.  Can he grit through that?  Who knows?

edit: nevermind.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 16, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> By comparison with the real world (and all previous editions), the speed at which characters heal in 4E is miraculous.



Technically, you're wrong.  In 3e a character engaged in bed rest with a non magical doctor regained 4 hit points per level per day.  That means that a barbarian who rolled straight 12s on his hit dice and who has an 18 in constitution is going to regain all his hit points from zero in four days flat.  That's the example calculated to take the absolute maximum time I could make it take.  A wizard is probably going to need only one day of bed rest to heal from zero.

I mean, yeah, "heal over night" is faster than "heal over the course of a full day or maybe two," but if your goal is realistic fantasy, you're splitting hairs at this point.

I always think its fun to bring this up in conversations about 4e healing, because inevitably there's this weird pause where everyone checks the rules and discovers that I'm right, but they didn't know because they never actually used non magical healing for long term care.  They had a cleric who just magicked them back together every evening.

As for definitions of "low fantasy," I think you need a new phrase.  Because, no matter how much you try to rationalize your definition of "low fantasy," if you define "low fantasy" to mean "fantasy where the constant, ongoing effects of magic use continuously negate normal physical laws," then you have just defined "low fantasy" to mean "high fantasy."  And that's probably not good for the english language or for our brains.


----------



## Zustiur (Nov 16, 2008)

Christopher Robin said:


> Just say he was stabbed.  If he fails the saving throw, he got hit in the lungs or something and died.



So you agree that we cannot tell how badly wounded he actually is? There is no way to determine (and therefore narrate) his wounds because he may not in fact have any?

Is the 'cat' dead or not?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 16, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> So you agree that we cannot tell how badly wounded he actually is? There is no way to determine (and therefore narrate) his wounds because he may not in fact have any?




Who needs to know?

The character doesn't need to know - he's not in a condition to make use of the knowledge, since he can't take any actions.

The player doesn't need to know, because the player understands the death save mechanic.

The other characters might want to know, but they can't tell just by glancing at him.  They need to get closer so they can determine what state he's in.  DC 15 Heal check - if they fail, they can't tell, and if they succeed, they can tell that he's not in danger of immediate death (since a DC 15 Heal check stabilises the character, and he's no longer required to make Death Saves).

Just like in 3E, you don't describe a wound that's _inevitably_ fatal... because it's not inevitable that someone will die (even without aid).  But you can describe a wound that _could_ be fatal.

-Hyp.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 16, 2008)

All of these problems stem from the idea that real physical wounds "can't" be healing that quickly, or that only _certain_ fantastic power effects in the game are "magical enough" to "really heal" an injury.

Why not do away with this prejudice, and watch the system work perfectly?  Take the word FANTASY in "fantasy role-playing" to mean, well, *FANTASY*.  Take the words POWER SOURCE in "Martial power source" to mean, well, *POWER SOURCE*.

Real wounds simply "can't" close that fast, and especially not in response to some Warlord yelling some pep talk?  Probably true enough, in our real, non-fantastical, non-heroic, non-adventure, non-fictional world, the one in which we live and which our experience tells us is governed by certain nearly-indisputable scientific realities.  

I'm confused, though, as to which part of the D&D published material led people to believe that this game is set in such a world.  As far as I can tell, the assumed setting for D&D is _vastly_ more magical, mystical, wondrous, unusual, epic, larger-than-life, and divorced from our typical expectations of the limitations of "reality" than that.

I'm confused as to which part of the D&D published material led people to believe that the protagonists in this world are essentially just like us normal folks here on mundane Earth, save for having a few neat tricks up their sleeves.  Apparently, from my reading, the characters are *HEROES*, they're the best and the brightest, the ones who can do the things that other people can't do . . . and this, _in a dramatically fantastical world!_

Why can't everything they do be "magical" in some sense?  Maybe not in the big, flashy, drawing-upon-external-forces-beyond-this-world sense, like Arcane and Divine magic.  But a more subtle magic, a more personal, inner magic, that comes from their own heroic core.  Why can't the Martial "power source" be, you know, a *POWER SOURCE*?  Why do people almost universally _insist_ that you've got _*Reality-Defying Wielders of the Arcane Power Source of Mighty Arcane MAGIC*_, and _*Reality-Defying Wielders of the Divine Power Source of Mighty Divine MAGIC*_ . . . and oh yeah, some other guys who are basically just normal shmucks that happen to be decent with a weapon and foolish enough to brave the unknown.

Clerics and Wizards apparently get to partake in the magical, mystical, fantastical, epic, heroic, world-of-wonder awesomeness of the game and setting, they get to _be_ and _do_ things that no one in our world could ever hope to do.  But Fighters and Warlords?   Nah, they're not _magical_ in any sense, they're basically no different than a regular skilled martial artist or athlete here on Earth!

Bollocks, I say.  

I say that the Martial power source _is_ a *"power source"* indeed, not merely the retarded cousin left over after Arcane and Divine got done dividing up the fantasy coolness pot between them.  I say that it's not "unrealistic" for a *HERO* in a *FANTASY* world to recover from grievous wounds in "miraculous" time.  Know why we think it's miraculous?  Because we're judging from the perspective of our own _non-heroic, non-fantastical _lives in our own very, _very_ mundane world!

The idea of some guy throwing fifteen-foot radius bursts of magical fire around all day long, out of the thin air, without ever breaking a sweat . . . that we can totally buy, because it's "fantasy" and "magic".  But a hero on par with that level of power who . . . *heals* . . . more quickly than we do is apparently *preposterous*!

I think people have this idea that since Arcane power and Divine power are the big, overt, externally-derived sources of dramatic effects which are most often associated with "magic" that it must mean that anything _else_, no matter how heroic or how fantasy-based it is, must be *NOT-MAGIC*.  At all.  So no fast healing!  I want Wizards and Clerics and real-life Jackie Chans only.  If we can't do it in real life, I don't want our so-called _heroes_ doing it in-game . . . unless it's a Fireball.  If it didn't come out of a spellbook or a holy symbol, I'll be damned if anyone's gonna do anything "unrealistic" or "miraculous" in MY super-heroic epic fantasy game!

The game doesn't say that Warlord healing is somehow "less real" healing than Cleric healing.  Know why?  Because it _isn't_.  Yes, a person here on Earth probably can't make wounds close by shouting encouragement.  A person here on Earth can't fight liches and dragons with a hand axe, either.  The Warlord isn't some Marine Corps sergeant who's listened to a few Anthony Robbins tapes and memorized a speech or two from Shakespeare's history plays.  He's a *FANTASY HERO*, using not _merely_ the mundane resources of the common folk, not _merely_ the _absence_ of Arcane or Divine power, but the _equally potent and fantastical_ *Martial POWER SOURCE.*  It may not be "magic" in some limited sense(s) of the word, but there's no reason to assume that it isn't magical in terms of _how it can affect the world_.

There is no disconnect, no _Schrodinger's Wounding_, no need to make up narrative contrivances either before _or_ after the fact.  Not if you simply take the game at face value.  Fantasy world, heroes, these effects all "heal" in the same way, _wherever_ the power came from. Done.

I daresay that if you deny this simple principle, you're making the cover of the PHB into a liar.  According to the standard paradigm I've seen espoused in these threads, it SHOULD read:  *"Arcane and Divine Heroes, and also, Normal Folks Who Do Some Martial Stuff".*


Yes, that _Inspiring Word_ DID just cause my severed femoral artery to spontaneously fuse itself back together.  Cool, huh?  I guess that's why they call it a *"power source"*, and why they call him a *"hero"*.


----------



## Zustiur (Nov 16, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> All of these problems stem from the idea that real physical wounds "can't" be healing that quickly, or that only _certain_ fantastic power effects in the game are "magical enough" to "really heal" an injury.
> 
> Why not do away with this prejudice, and watch the system work perfectly?  Take the word FANTASY in "fantasy role-playing" to mean, well, *FANTASY*.  Take the words POWER SOURCE in "Martial power source" to mean, well, *POWER SOURCE*.



See my previous posts about high and low fantasy. This type of fantasy that you describe isn't the kind of game I want to play. And I think I could get away with saying that DnD didn't encourage that type of fantasy previously. Hence our collective objections.

To give an over-the-top example, I want to play wizards and warriors, not x-men.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 16, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Hmmm...the rate of healing in 4E does seem pretty miraculous;




4e healing is unrealistic?  Well, yeah.  Soooo . . . healing in BECMI, 1e, 2e, and/or 3e was realistic?  The hit point system in 4e most definitely has some serious changes from previous editions to be sure, but to complain that it is just not that realistic . . .

I think the whole issue would have been lessened with one simple change.  If WotC had not called the resource Second Wind pulls from "Healing Surges", and simply called them "Reserves" or something like that, people would have an easier time wrapping their heads around the concept.

I'm fine with the system as is, but I think (in my ignorance) I would have preferred the healing surge concept merged with the action point concept.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 16, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> So you agree that we cannot tell how badly wounded he actually is? There is no way to determine (and therefore narrate) his wounds because he may not in fact have any?
> 
> Is the 'cat' dead or not?



Hold on, I have to make my stabilization roll. 87. Dang, still bleeding out I guess. Maybe I can make it a non-lethal wound with a lucky roll next round.


08! Yes! I guess it's not life-threatening after all.


(To paraphrase: 4E fans do not claim that 4E wounds and healing are realistic. Just that unrealistic wounds and healing are not new to 4E.)


----------



## Andor (Nov 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> As for definitions of "low fantasy," I think you need a new phrase.  Because, no matter how much you try to rationalize your definition of "low fantasy," if you define "low fantasy" to mean "fantasy where the constant, ongoing effects of magic use continuously negate normal physical laws," then you have just defined "low fantasy" to mean "high fantasy."  And that's probably not good for the english language or for our brains.




Did you not read my post? You are using definition 2 for low/high fantasy.

He is using definition 1. 

Unless your name is Merriam-Webster you don't get to declare him wrong for using definition 1.

Now that we all understand how english (and courtesy) work do you actually have an arguement that doesn't hinge on insulting the other guy? 

4e hitpoints and healing differ from hp in previous editions. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 16, 2008)

We should be able to agree that a definition invented in this very thread and which is the direct opposite of the previously accepted definition isn't a very good definition at all.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 16, 2008)

I submit that Dungeons and Dragons has _never_, in any of its core incarnations, presented a "low fantasy" game.

Wikipedia has this to say about the term *Low Fantasy*:



> *Low fantasy* is an umbrella term, describing various works within different sub-genres of fantasy, to contrast specific works with high fantasy. Though a very vague term, some features that may indicate low fantasy are: downplaying of epic or dramatic aspects, de-emphasising magic, real-world settings, realism, cynical storytelling and dark fantasy. An archetypal example of low fantasy might take place in a quasi-historical setting where the protagonists lack a clear moral initiative, are haunted by dark pasts or character flaws and where conventional fantasy elements (such as magic, elves, or dwarves) are lacking or absent.





That doesn't sound much like _any_ version of core-rules D&D.  Now, of course, a bit of lip service to the idea of using the D&D game to play campaigns of a low fantasy feel has always been given.  And I'm certainly not claiming that you _couldn't_ play D&D in a decidedly low fantasy manner.  But to do so, you'd always have to ignore, change, reinterpret, or repackage various elements of the game.

Which, if you do the same thing to 4th edition, works just as well.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 16, 2008)

All this thread does is to confirm my thesis that 3E D&D rules were complicated and detailed enough to allow simulationists to rationalize to themselves that "realism" was addressed while the rules didn't truly do so, and that 1E/2E stalwarts can't accept change.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Forked from:  Disappointed in 4e 4E allows you to determine the damage model your character operates under.




Is this new to 4e?  A lot of folks have argued with me that 1e through 3e use the same hp paradigm, so I'm a bit confused.   

Me, I would (and did) say this is new.



> So, "Schroedinger's Wounding" is a problem, but not an insoluble problem. In much the same way, scurvy is a disease, but not an incurable or inevitable disease.
> 
> Certainly scurvy exists, but it is rather silly to tell people not to take long journeys because of the risk of scurvy.




I would agree with you....but I would also say that it is rather silly to pretend that long journeys without fruits & vegetables are a good idea.  Similarly, it's disingenuous (at best) to present Schroedinger's Wounding as a drawback to 4E that doesn't require a constant barrage of fruits & veggies (in the form of working to avoid it) to solve.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Yeah! Creativity is lame!




No, but 4e is certainly a combat-focused game, so that the narrative meaning of hit points will come up at least as often as in previous editions.

Creativity isn't lame.  

Having to jump through hoops to narrate common occurances at the table is extremely lame.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> It's a problem because it requires the players to define game mechanics instead of playing the definition and being blind to those same game mechanics.




Exactly.  Sorry, I already gave out my XP allotment for today.   



Cadfan said:


> I think 4e is less about Schroedinger's Wounding than it is about Schroedinger's Healing.




This is definitely a valid observation.

I will note that the vehemence of some in this thread suggests that I have struck a bit of a nerve with my observations re:  Schroedinger's Wounding.  Of course, IME observations of things that don't exist don't usually have this much of an effect.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> The problem only arises if you care about narrating the damage.





Yup.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 16, 2008)

In all my 4e sessions so far, the narrative meaning of hit points, other than something like "I'm dying," "I'm need healing," or "I'm out of healing surges," has not occurred, not once.  Personally, I don't care much and largely gave up narrating the effects of my combat actions (though not my actions) in non-game terms back in my BECMI days when I realized that a constant stream of flesh wounds or glancing blows sounded kind of dumb to my adolescent ears.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Similarly, it's disingenuous (at best) to present Schroedinger's Wounding as a drawback to 4E that doesn't require a constant barrage of fruits & veggies (in the form of working to avoid it) to solve.




I'd say that it takes a constant barrage of working to CREATE the problem, in the form of assigning impossibility to occurrences which the game itself does not declare or hint at being anything other than the status quo.

The game itself never states that for the protagonist heroes in its epic fantasy world, healing from any wounds short of fatal ones is not achievable by seemingly non-magical effects, or that it cannot happen in periods of time which would seem amazing in our non-fantastical real world.

The rules seem to support the opposite view, in fact.  Thus, the game itself isn't creating a logical inconsistency or a gap in internal realism.  It's just presenting a world which is apparently a bit TOO magically adventurous for you.  The only contradiction, the only conflict which requires all of this "constant working" you refer to, is overlaid onto the game from the outside, from the pre-conceived ideas of gamers.

I have a pre-conception that people absolutely cannot shoot fireballs out of their hands.  All of my experience agrees with this, therefore any world in which people CAN do this is obviously unrealistic.  So if a game appears to allow for this absurdity, then the GAME ITSELF must be broken, and I need to "constantly work" to reconcile this disconnect so that the game world makes sense to me.

That sounds silly, right?  Well, have you considered the possibility that you're doing the exact same thing?

You have the same pre-formed idea about how quickly and under what circumstances a wounded fantasy hero can heal physical injuries.  The game doesn't support your idea, though, in rules OR in descriptive text.  You're putting that contradictory concept into the game, yourself, and then saying that the game itself has this inner flaw which causes a narrative/gameplay disconnect.  But it's your imagination, not the game.

Just accept the premise that the game itself clearly indicates, which is that real healing can come from a variety of sources, many of them not overtly "magical" in an Arcane or Divine sense, and that a protagonist HERO in this fantastical world can, in fact, be savaged to death's doorstep today, and be healthy as a horse tomorrow, even WITHOUT the glowy hands of a cleric getting involved.

All the problems go away at that point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I'd say that it takes a constant barrage of working to CREATE the problem, in the form of assigning impossibility to occurrences which the game itself does not declare or hint at being anything other than the status quo.




So long as "assigning impossibility to occurrences which the game itself does not declare or hint at being anything other than the status quo" means "narrating the meaning of damage in any way, shape, or form", I suppose you are correct.


RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Sometimes an orange is simply an orange, and hp are simply hp. Making more out of it than that can make your head hurt.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 17, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> I think the whole issue would have been lessened with one simple change.  If WotC had not called the resource Second Wind pulls from "Healing Surges", and simply called them "Reserves" or something like that, people would have an easier time wrapping their heads around the concept.




That's what they call them in Iron Heroes, and that's a game that embraces the "mighty thews" genre of S&S fantasy.  IH stole it from 3e Unearthed Arcana, who got it from Omega World, where it was a way to account for the lack of magic healing in the setting.  Reserves are the "oh, I've been clobbered, but give me five minutes and I'll shake it off" mechanic, and healing surges are quite obviously a mutation of the concept.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> That's what they call them in Iron Heroes, and that's a game that embraces the "mighty thews" genre of S&S fantasy.  IH stole it from 3e Unearthed Arcana, who got it from Omega World, where it was a way to account for the lack of magic healing in the setting.  Reserves are the "oh, I've been clobbered, but give me five minutes and I'll shake it off" mechanic, and healing surges are quite obviously a mutation of the concept.




Again, it isn't the concept that bothers me so much as the execution.

After all, I have a "shake it off" mechanic in RCFG, too!


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, but 4e is certainly a combat-focused game, so that the narrative meaning of hit points will come up at least as often as in previous editions.




Yep. Just like all editions of the game it's got lots of rules for combat, and what stuff does in combat.



> Creativity isn't lame.




I agree. You're quoting a sarcastic comment.  Creativity is why I play D&D.



> Having to jump through hoops to narrate common occurances at the table is extremely lame.




It's even lamer when you make up a bunch of hoops to jump through so you can return to a message board and complain about all the hoops you had to jump through. My advice... If you don't want to jump through those hoops, stop putting them in front of yourself.

"Shroedingers Wounding" does not exist unless you create your own hoops and ignore the rules of the game. (IE you ignore healing surge level.)

Therefore, everything said by the OP is a creative ad-on. I REALLY like rules that can easily handle creative add-ons, and can inspire creative add-ons. In fact I think the BEST rules are the ones that serve that function, as opposed to locking you in to one strict interpretation.


----------



## Derren (Nov 17, 2008)

At best, you start to talk like politicans while gaming.

DM: The Orc hits you for 12 damage.
Player 1: I might or might not have been mortally wounded. Yet my character decides to lay on the ground and to slowly stop being alive.
Player 2: I cast Healing Word.
Player 1: I can neither confirm nor deny that I have been healed, yet I now work within normal parameters again.


Having a agreement about not to talk about HP doesn't really solve anything. It is rather awkward and not being able to talk about wounds in a very combat heavy game is very restricting.
But then, the only thing which gets hurt by Schrödingers Wounds is versimilitude, and that isn't much a priority of 4E anyway and its not as if it would be the only problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Yep. Just like all editions of the game it's got lots of rules for combat, and what stuff does in combat.




OK, then, let's look at other editions.  

In any given edition, various character classes have level-based class abilities that are not particularly useful inside combat, but may be particularly useful outside of combat.  We know that it was a design goal of 4e to "fix" this "problem" because we were told that it was.

I am thinking that, if I am given abilities that are specifically useful in non-combat situations, I am intended to engage in non-combat situations at least an amount of time roughly proportionate to the non-combat abilities I am specifically given.

Conversely, if you see this as a problem that needs fixing, it is because the game is intentionally more focused on combat.

And, given the sheer amount of time combat takes in 3e and 4e, it is understandable that WotC would want to make characters feel more useful during combat.  If you have two non-combat encounters, and one combat encounter, but the combat encounter eats away 90% of the play time, having a non-combat focus -- or even strong non-combat abilities -- can be a problem.

IMHO, the solution should be to make combats run faster, and hence eat up less table time per combat.  As this was a stated design goal, I suspect that WotC agrees.  Their solution simply didn't solve the problem.

I also note that the more codified an activity is, the easier it is to balance it in terms of game design.  Combat situations in every edition are far more codified than non-combat situations.  Therefore, it is easier to balance combat.  If you want a more balanced game, you should focus on combat.  A more balanced game was also one of the stated design goals, and one that I think is undeniable achieved by 4e.

Finally, the 4e designers intentionally focused on what they believe is "fun".  Clearly, Craft skills (for example) were not "fun".  Nor were a whole host of non-combat spells.

I think it is more than justifiable to say that 4e is more combat-focused than previous editions.  YMMV.



> It's even lamer when you make up a bunch of hoops to jump through so you can return to a message board and complain about all the hoops you had to jump through. My advice... If you don't want to jump through those hoops, stop putting them in front of yourself.
> 
> "Shroedingers Wounding" does not exist unless you create your own hoops and ignore the rules of the game. (IE you ignore healing surge level.)




Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't exist if you choose not to have game terms have direct meaning in the narration (i.e., choose not to narrate damage or healing in this particular case).  But that seems rather....lame.....to me.

Schrödinger's Wounding isn't a problem in episodic play, where the DM can narrate the players into extended rests to recover from damage that doesn't actually track to hit point loss.

The minute you get into the sandbox, though, Schrödinger's Wounding is there glaring at you.  


RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 17, 2008)

I can sum up my problem with the whole 4E wounding/healing thing as follows.

IME of DMing and playing DnD for the past 25 years a successful roll to hit has always been a hit regardless of edition or campaign.

Similarly once one had successfully hit it always did some physical damage again regardless of edition or campaign.

Now apparently a hit is sometimes a miss and damage is often not at all physical.

This represents a very significant and edition specific change to the way I have always played the game. It is a change and one which for me is not welcome or appreciated. I think it’s great that some folk have taken the time to write paragraphs of text justifying how or why hits are now misses and damage isn’t damage but it doesn’t change the fact that this dramatically alters how the game is played/described.

Of course YMMV…etc…


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> At best, you start to talk like politicans while gaming.
> 
> DM: The Orc hits you for 12 damage.
> Player 1: I might or might not have been mortally wounded. Yet my character decides to lay on the ground and to slowly stop being alive.
> ...




Sure. 

Once again provided you ignore elements of the rules in order to create a situation you can find fault with. (Which I guess IS kind of like politicians...)



> Having a agreement about not to talk about HP doesn't really solve anything. It is rather awkward and not being able to talk about wounds in a very combat heavy game is very restricting.




So talk about wounds.



> But then, the only thing which gets hurt by Schrödingers Wounds is versimilitude, and that isn't much a priority of 4E anyway and its not as if it would be the only problem.




Hrmmm lots of versimilitude (soooo sick of that buzz word) in my games... Wonder what you're doing difefrently? (Aside from ignoring rules elements in order to break versimilitude...)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Now apparently a hit is sometimes a miss and damage is often not at all physical.





Don't forget that a miss is now also sometimes a hit.  


The ever-helpful RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Hrmmm lots of versimilitude (soooo sick of that buzz word) in my games... Wonder what you're doing difefrently? (Aside from ignoring rules elements in order to break versimilitude...)




You know, I for one would like to see a transcription of a couple of actual games, to see if wounds are simply not being described, or exactly what is happening at the table.......Perhaps a podcast so that we can see/hear what is happening........Is that even in the realm of possibility?



RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, given the sheer amount of time combat takes in 3e and 4e, it is understandable that WotC would want to make characters feel more useful during combat. If you have two non-combat encounters, and one combat encounter, but the combat encounter eats away 90% of the play time, having a non-combat focus -- or even strong non-combat abilities -- can be a problem.
> 
> IMHO, the solution should be to make combats run faster, and hence eat up less table time per combat. As this was a stated design goal, I suspect that WotC agrees. Their solution simply didn't solve the problem.




Man... did your professors ever write "wordy" on your essays in college? 

My responce to this (outside of it doesn't really have anything to dow ith the shroedinger's wounding thing)  is that your comments seem to imply starting from the idea that combat isn't fun.

Since combat has always seemed to take up a large percentage of room in the rules (in all editions) it's easy to infer combat is fun. (Or at least that the majority of D&D playes find combat in the game fun.)

Instead of making it shorter, why not make it more fun? I find 4e fights sometimes do take a long time to resolve, but I don't notice that time, because the fight was fun. It's not just the same thing over and over, and the "pace" of the action in the game is faster.



> Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't exist if you choose not to have game terms have direct meaning in the narration (i.e., choose not to narrate damage or healing in this particular case).  But that seems rather....lame.....to me.




This is untrue and exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. You're ignoring elements of the rules in order to force shroedingers wounding into happening.



> Schrödinger's Wounding isn't a problem in episodic play, where the DM can narrate the players into extended rests to recover from damage that doesn't actually track to hit point loss.
> 
> The minute you get into the sandbox, though, Schrödinger's Wounding is there glaring at you.




No- it's not.

At most your issue is with the rate of healing. But this has nothing to do with a wound being either a wound or not a wound depending on whether or not an inspiring word or some other healing effect is used.


----------



## Derren (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Once again provided you ignore elements of the rules in order to create a situation you can find fault with. (Which I guess IS kind of like politicians...)




So, what am I ignoring?
1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dying(I haven't said that this is the only hit he took)
2. Because this guy can recover by his own, can be shouted into action or can actually be healed by magic the nature of the hit he took can't be specified at this point.
3. Only after the the character got healed can you say how he was wounded based on the method of how he was healed. (But I wanted to use the sentence "can neither confirm nor deny" as joke).


> Hrmmm lots of versimilitude (soooo sick of that buzz word) in my games... Wonder what you're doing difefrently? (Aside from ignoring rules elements in order to break versimilitude...)




Then we likely have different standards. As Raven said, when you run a sandbox, my prefered style of gaming, Shroedingers Wounds becomes obvious.
And if people wouldn't instantly dismiss any argument with "its fantasy with wizards" when I use the word "realism" I wouldn't have to use versimilitude


----------



## SteveC (Nov 17, 2008)

This discussion is still going on. Wow. I guess the idea that "we've been arguing about Hit Points and what they represent for over 30 years," doesn't mean that folks still won't keep trying to sort them all out.

Last weekend I played in a couple of 4E games, which is fantastic because I am usually the poor soul who runs, and this problem didn't come up. Not even once. We had seven combat encounters between the two games, with some great narration in most of the cases, and not once did anyone complain.

I was thinking about this thread as we were playing, and took some time to talk to the GMs and the other players about it. The consensus, to a person, was that I was thinking about it too much. All of that leads me to this conclusion: hong is right. Sometimes we think about our pretending to be elves too much.

That isn't to say that if you're still on an earlier edition you're doing it wrong, but man, I had a great time pretending to be an elf once I stopped worrying about this issue. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but I'm out of this sort of debate.

--Steve


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Man... did your professors ever write "wordy" on your essays in college?




Once, trying to clearly express an idea in unambiguous terms, I wrote several paragraphs.  A classmate then summarized the same with three words.  



> My responce to this (outside of it doesn't really have anything to dow ith the shroedinger's wounding thing)  is that your comments seem to imply starting from the idea that combat isn't fun.




Combat can be fun.  It isn't always fun.  In 3e, as levels rise, combat becomes less and less fun, IMHO.  In 4e, about the last third of any combat is a grind, and seriously unfun.  Again, IMHO.

I tend to think that for combat to be fun, it has to be both fast-paced and over in a short amount of time.  Any combat that takes more than 10-20 minutes of real time to resolve risks boring the participants.



> Since combat has always seemed to take up a large percentage of room in the rules (in all editions) it's easy to infer combat is fun. (Or at least that the majority of D&D playes find combat in the game fun.)




I would say it infers that it is important in terms of adjudication, and lends itself easier to create clear rules for, than other aspects of the game which might, in point of fact, be more fun for the participants.  Example:  almost everyone I've ever played with enjoyed talking to monsters that actually embody a different point of view.  There are few, if any, rules for this, both because they are not needed, and because they would be difficult (if even possible) to write well.



> At most your issue is with the rate of healing. But this has nothing to do with a wound being either a wound or not a wound depending on whether or not an inspiring word or some other healing effect is used.




I have issues about both.

Please do not presume to tell me what I have issues with!  


RC


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The minute you get into the sandbox, though, Schrödinger's Wounding is there glaring at you.




Sandbox gameplay has nothing to do with this supposed "Schrodinger's Wounding" problem, so please stop trying to make these entirely separate concepts parts of the same issue. If you were running a linear adventure, you'd still have the problem you claim to have.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> So, what I am ignoring?
> 1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dieing(I haven't said that this is the only hit he took)
> 2. Because this guy can recover by his own, can be shouted into action or can actually be healed by magic the nature of the hit he took can't be specified at this point.
> 3. Only after the the character got healed can you say how he was wounded based on the method of how he was healed. (But I wanted to use the sentence "can neither confirm nor deny" as joke).




What you're ignoring is the healing surge.

In 4e healing suges have been added as an element that works in tandem with hit points. 

When you take a hit, and you get a healing word, you still have to spend a healing surge. This means you're down a healing surge, and are no longer at 100% 

You're simply able to push on through whatever injuries you have.

There's no waiting or retconning involved. Describe the injury all you want.



> Then we likely have different standards. As Raven said, when you run a sandbox, my prefered style of gaming, Shroedingers Wounds becomes obvious.




And this is something that really bugs me in these threads. When someone tries to dismiss what you're saying (which is based on the actual rules of the game) by devolving down to "Oh well you must just have low standards..."  

Bull.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Sandbox gameplay has nothing to do with this supposed "Schrodinger's Wounding" problem, so please stop trying to make these entirely separate concepts parts of the same issue. If you were running a linear adventure, you'd still have the problem you claim to have.





Not really.  I can fully see the point LostSoul (and others) are making about disjoining the narration from the game mechanics, provided that this disjoining doesn't cause problems further down the line.

In episodic play, the DM can narrate a healing break between episodes, thus removing the problems that arise from this disjoining (unless the "episode" runs on for game days or game weeks, anyway).

In sandbox play, it is generally anathema for the DM to tell the players what they must do, so there is nothing enforcing an extended rest to allow the narration to rejoin with the game mechanics.  _*You could change the rules to make it so*_, but then we wouldn't be discussing the 4e rules anymore.  In having this discussion several times on a few threads, I have seen some pretty good house rules to deal with this problem.  They might create other problems, though; I don't know for sure how any of these house rules are in terms of actual game play.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> And this is something that really bugs me in these threads. When someone tries to dismiss what you're saying (which is based on the actual rules of the game) by devolving down to "Oh well you must just have low standards..."
> 
> Bull.




Please note that "different standards" does not mean "lower standards".


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Once, trying to clearly express an idea in unambiguous terms, I wrote several paragraphs.  A classmate then summarized the same with three words.




Shrug... It seems Gygax was your inspiration in more ways then one... 

Great mind on the guy, but man... He too tended to be a bit on the wordy side. 

Anyway I was just teasing, and hopefully not in an offending way.



> Combat can be fun.  It isn't always fun.  In 3e, as levels rise, combat becomes less and less fun, IMHO.  In 4e, about the last third of any combat is a grind, and seriously unfun.  Again, IMHO.




I agree with the first part... The last part I say CAN sometiems happen, but it isn't a given. In my opinion. I think it has to do with how the DM sets up the battle, and the elements in that battle. (Including the terrain, the objects, traps, and how the monsters relate to the above.)



> I tend to think that for combat to be fun, it has to be both fast-paced and over in a short amount of time.  Any combat that takes more than 10-20 minutes of real time to resolve risks boring the participants.




I can respect your personal prefferece, but I dissagree. A long combat can be fun as long as there are different things happening. If it devolves into simply "I hit, you hit" then yeah... It gets old real fast. 



> I would say it infers that it is important in terms of adjudication, and lends itself easier to create clear rules for, than other aspects of the game which might, in point of fact, be more fun for the participants.  Example:  almost everyone I've ever played with enjoyed talking to monsters that actually embody a different point of view.  There are few, if any, rules for this, both because they are not needed, and because they would be difficult (if even possible) to write well.




Maybe maybe not.  A lot of people seemed to enjoy live action Vampire... The rules I remember for combat and such seemed to boil down to rock paper scissors...  I'm guessing combat wasn't the part people who played the game thought was more fun. (But I could be wrong...)




> I have issues about both.
> 
> Please do not presume to tell me what I have issues with!
> 
> ...




I'm not. What I meant was the only part I can see you having any basis in the reality of the rules would be healing time, as schroedingers wounding doesn't exist. You can still have an issue with it... But then you're having issues with soemthing that doesn't exist.

I have issues with the guy standing behind me about to chop me up with an ax... Pretty easy to solve that one thoug... since there isn't really a guy standing behind me with an ax.


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You know, I for one would like to see a transcription of a couple of actual games, to see if wounds are simply not being described, or exactly what is happening at the table.......Perhaps a podcast so that we can see/hear what is happening........Is that even in the realm of possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> RC




Well since we have switched to 4E I have noticed a glaring absence of hit/wound description, perhaps this is also related to the fact that our healer/leader is a warlord.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Shrug... It seems Gygax was your inspiration in more ways then one...
> 
> Great mind on the guy, but man... He too tended to be a bit on the wordy side.




Nah, I was wordy before I became familiar with the man's work.    You can't blame Gary for my personal failings.



> Anyway I was just teasing, and hopefully not in an offending way.




Don't worry.  


RC


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 17, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I'd say that it takes a constant barrage of working to CREATE the problem, in the form of assigning impossibility to occurrences which the game itself does not declare or hint at being anything other than the status quo.
> 
> The game itself never states that for the protagonist heroes in its epic fantasy world, healing from any wounds short of fatal ones is not achievable by seemingly non-magical effects, or that it cannot happen in periods of time which would seem amazing in our non-fantastical real world.
> 
> ...




The rules also don't say that humans aren't purple with antennas and eat through giant nostrils. Maybe that is the way humans are in this world too. We all set different levels of abstraction from our real world when we set up and play in a campaign. From earlier discussions it is also apparent that some people also have issues with people shooting fireballs out of their hands and want to play in a low fantasy world. 

Sure its possible that all living creatures heal super fast and recover all their wounds overnight. This is a perfectly valid parameter change from our real world to want to play in. The difference in this case is that all players are forced to play in this super healing world while not everyone is required to play purple antenna humans that eat out of giant nostrils. Most other fantasy aspects of the game are easy to change out if it goes against the type of fantasy they want to play. It is easy to remove Elves, or Dwarves, or Fireballs, it is allot harder to throw out super healing with this ruleset.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Sure its possible that all living creatures heal super fast and recover all their wounds overnight. This is a perfectly valid parameter change from our real world to want to play in. The difference in this case is that all players are forced to play in this super healing world while not everyone is required to play purple antenna humans that eat out of giant nostrils. Most other fantasy aspects of the game are easy to change out if it goes against the type of fantasy they want to play. It is easy to remove Elves, or Dwarves, or Fireballs, it is allot harder to throw out super healing with this ruleset.




Slow the rate of Healing Surge recovery, and you slow the rate at which wounds are ultimately healed.

The rules already make use of this concept with things like disease, starvation, and inhospitable places.

If you want lingering wounds, Healing Surge penalties seem to be the way to go.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It is easy to remove Elves, or Dwarves, or Fireballs, it is allot harder to throw out super healing with this ruleset.




It really isn't.

Seriously, even if you accept (which I don't) that hp recovery has to represent healing of wounds, it's a matter of:

1) making Second Wind daily instead of encounter (if you want, you can remove the standard action entirely and have it only activated by heal checks).
2) removing the Warlord class
3) removing the sentence in the Short Rest description that says you can spend healing surges to regain hp
4) removing the sentence in the Extended Rest description that says you regain all hp

Done. Parties without a Cleric will have to spend a small fortune on magic items and potions to provide their healing, or else have to take frequent extended rests to maintain their fighting ability, but that's nothing new to D&D.

I'd put in a 5) about maybe throwing a bone to the PCs to make up for the loss of second wind, but I suspect 90% of people who'd bother with these changes would see the increased lethality as a feature, rather than a bug.


----------



## Derren (Nov 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> What you're ignoring is the healing surge.
> 
> In 4e healing suges have been added as an element that works in tandem with hit points.
> 
> ...




That doesn't change anything.
A character is in the danger of dying and after someone shouts at him he isn't any more. Or maybe he just recovers on his own within seconds. Or someone heals him with magic.
That he looses a healing surge for this recovery (which refill every day) doesn't change that you still can't be certain of why this character has been dying as you have to wait to see how he is healed.







> And this is something that really bugs me in these threads. When someone tries to dismiss what you're saying (which is based on the actual rules of the game) by devolving down to "Oh well you must just have low standards..."
> 
> Bull.




Be so kind and point out where I used the word "low".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> That doesn't change anything.
> A character is in teh danger of dying and after someone shouts at him he isn't anymore. Or maybe he just recovers on his own within seconds.
> That he looses a healing surge for this rather miracelously recovery (which refill every day) doesn't change that you still can't be certain of why this character has been dying as when you have to wait to see how he is healed.





I have come to realize that there will never be an answer to this, but there will be many statements that you are ignoring rules that cannot be quoted, and that you are playing the game wrong despite insta-healing being clearly what was intended by the 4e designers.

The "discussion" is so recursive that you could use a program to cut & paste bits of text from previous posts, on both sides, and it would continue on into infinity, without this point ever being addressed.  Unless, of course, you are engaged in episodic play, where you can disjoin the game mechanics from the narrative without any problem, and the mechanics _*might*_ really rock.

So, if you look at 4e as a game that really promotes/is geared toward episodic play, then one can see how, to someone engaged in episodic play, S's Wounding doesn't appear to be a "real" problem.  It could simply be that 4e and sandbox play don't mix very well.

OTOH, I understand that there is a new article you can pay to see on the WotC website, explaining how looking at the RAW like this is simply wrong.  


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Derren said:


> That doesn't change anything.
> A character is in teh danger of dying and after someone shouts at him he isn't anymore. Or maybe he just recovers on his own within seconds.




Sure it does. He's 1 less healing surge capable of not dying.



> That he looses a healing surge for this rather miracelously recovery (which refill every day) doesn't change that you still can't be certain of why this character has been dying as when you have to wait to see how he is healed.




And why not? Why do you have to wait and see how he's healed to determine how he was damaged? The healing changes nothing that happened previously.

You get hit by an axe. You go down, almost dead. Someone "shouts at you." You push past the pain, clear the fog out of your head, and get back into the fight. You're now down 1 healing surge, which shows you are injured. You are not at 100% Take too many hits with an axe, and no amount of "shouting" will get you back up. You are dead. 

What's different now is that even magic healing cannot fix you to 100% at all times. But this is not schroedingers wounding.

In addition to that, long term healing is now not very long term. Overnight is really quick, I agree. But D&D has always seemed to have really quick healing times, they just heightened it. Modify to taste.



> Be so kind and point out where I used the word "low".




Perhaps I misunderstood your words. Please be so kind as to explain it?  Perhaps you meant my standards were higher? I can live with that.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have come to realize that there will never be an answer to this, but there will be many statements that you are ignoring rules that cannot be quoted, and that you are playing the game wrong despite insta-healing being clearly what was intended by the 4e designers.




Healing surges can't be quoted?

This argument is akin to saying someone having an AC of 28 is bad because I can't roll that number on a d20... it ignores BAB, Stat bonuses, weapon bonuses, etc...

You can't ignore one element of the rules (healing surges) to promote how another element is broken. The two are part of a whole.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2008)

> In addition to that, long term healing is now not very long term. Overnight is really quick, I agree. But D&D has always seemed to have really quick healing times, they just heightened it. Modify to taste.




If healing surges are supposed to be taken as the measure of wounded/not wounded, then is the character not wounded until he takes the surge?  Is the damage transfered from hit points to surge?  (I could buy that as a good working house rule, but I don't recall that in the books...is there a page number?)

But almost-dead-to-perfect-tomorrow is still a problem.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If healing surges are supposed to be taken as the measure of wounded/not wounded, then is the character not wounded until he takes the surge?




He's wounded when he takes the hit, just like always. He's the wobbly fighter that gets back on his feat despite being pummeled.

The healing surge use means at that moment he's able to push past his injury and get back on his feet. There are only so many tiems he can do that though.



> Is the damage transfered from hit points to surge?  (I could buy that as a good working house rule, but I don't recall that in the books...is there a page number?)




I'm not sure what you mean by transferred? It's just a way of keeping track of things. You might be in decent enough shape for the current battle, but the long term effects are adding up. It's not really a house rule thing. it's just how the system works.

(Long term as in between extended rests... Although if you reduce the rate of HS return you can extend the long term to multiple days if you want. That part would be a house rule.)



> But almost-dead-to-perfect-tomorrow is still a problem.




I take no issue with people having a problem with the speed of overnight healing. I can (and have) offered some ideas to fix it, but it's a personal preference thing, so whatever floats yer boat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But almost-dead-to-perfect-tomorrow is still a problem.
> RC




It is probably a... what, a two to four times as big as a problem in, say 3E. But is it _fundamentally_ that different? The magnitude is still the same.
The problem is healing is awfully fast. 

I was actually surprised that healing surges recovered fully after each day, but I prefer it for gameplay reasons. "Fixing" it (and yes, I am talking house rules here) would probably require for slower healing surge regeneration rate. (1/5th of your max healing surges per day, rounded down to a minimum of 1?)


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It is probably a... what, a two to four times as big as a problem in, say 3E. But is it _fundamentally_ that different? The magnitude is still the same.
> The problem is healing is awfully fast.



True. However, in 3.x with clerics and curing wands a plenty, most healing was magical so the speed of natural healing in the gameworld never seemed to "affect" the story or it's believability (presuming of course that having healers who can heal wounds at a touch, repeatedly, after every combat is "normal" or believable). In 4E, natural healing is the predominant method and so the speed (which has been increased from 3.x) is doubly noticed. Just saying... again.


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I was actually surprised that healing surges recovered fully after each day, but I prefer it for gameplay reasons. "Fixing" it (and yes, I am talking house rules here) would probably require for slower healing surge regeneration rate. (1/5th of your max healing surges per day, rounded down to a minimum of 1?)



I suppose it comes down to what's "fun" or "unfun" for the majority. The mechanic works well enough provided you get over the rapidity-of-healing hurdle (or ignore it) - which as time goes on is becoming slightly easier and easier to do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 17, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> True. However, in 3.x with clerics and curing wands a plenty, most healing was magical so the speed of natural healing in the gameworld never seemed to "affect" the story or it's believability (presuming of course that having healers who can heal wounds at a touch, repeatedly, after every combat is "normal" or believable). In 4E, natural healing is the predominant method and so the speed (which has been increased from 3.x) is doubly noticed. Just saying... again.




Actually, it's only "predominant" in parties with no cleric (unless there's something I'm missing out on), because _healing words_ just gives you the most bang for your healing-surge buck...



Herremann the Wise said:


> I suppose it comes down to what's "fun" or "unfun" for the majority. The mechanic works well enough provided you get over the rapidity-of-healing hurdle (or ignore it) - which as time goes on is becoming slightly easier and easier to do.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




...which leaves people looking for a more traditional D&D experience a convenient way to "get over" or "ignore" the hurdle.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

The thing is, the game assumes the HP system for 4E. If you can't "naturally" heal yourself up to full after a battle, there is no alternative method, and 4E combat assumes you start at full HP. The way the 4E adventuring day is set up, not starting the day with full HP and surges means that you can't really complete an adventuring day. The Cleric(or whatever) cannot spam cure spells, and there is no 3E style sucking on the healing stick(wands of CLW/LV). If you were going to remove how surges work, you would have to reintroduce 3E style healing or change the entire system. This begs the question of whether changing things is really worth the hassle? 

This is a common aspect to 4E. The rules are really tight, and well designed to the point where they don't leave much room for change. The base skeleton is very flexible in what it can do and almost anything can be added to it, but any attempt to do anything to change the base skeleton itself is a nightmare.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, the game assumes the HP system for 4E. If you can't "naturally" heal yourself up to full after a battle, there is no alternative method, and 4E combat assumes you start at full HP. The way the 4E adventuring day is set up, not starting the day with full HP and surges means that you can't really complete an adventuring day. The Cleric(or whatever) cannot spam cure spells, and there is no 3E style sucking on the healing stick(wands of CLW/LV). If you were going to remove how surges work, you would have to reintroduce 3E style healing or change the entire system. This begs the question of whether changing things is really worth the hassle?




The cleric _can_ spam healing words. Twice every five minutes. Each one adding some d6s + Cha mod to the healing surge value. Your "short rest" goes from 5 minutes to maybe 30 sometimes, and you move on.



thecasualoblivion said:


> This is a common aspect to 4E. The rules are really tight, and well designed to the point where they don't leave much room for change. The base skeleton is very flexible in what it can do and almost anything can be added to it, but any attempt to do anything to change the base skeleton itself is a nightmare.




I find this statement to be pretty dubious in the general case. I'm sure there are specific cases where it's true, but I've been tinkering with the skeleton for a while now and I find it much _easier_ to predict how a given change will impact other areas of the game than I ever did in 3E.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 17, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The cleric _can_ spam healing words. Twice every five minutes. Each one adding some d6s + Cha mod to the healing surge value. Your "short rest" goes from 5 minutes to maybe 30 sometimes, and you move on.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this statement to be pretty dubious in the general case. I'm sure there are specific cases where it's true, but I've been tinkering with the skeleton for a while now and I find it much _easier_ to predict how a given change will impact other areas of the game than I ever did in 3E.




1. Spamming Healing Words during several consecutive short rests is how its done in most 4E games unless the DM forbids it. Its just that Artificers/Bards/Warlords can do the same thing. The difference is if you have a "leaderless" party, you can use the generic surges. 

2. That depends on the changes. I would assert that its more difficult to change 4E on a fundamental level, and much easier to change on a superficial level.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 17, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 1. Spamming Healing Words during several consecutive short rests is how its done in most 4E games unless the DM forbids it. Its just that Artificers/Bards/Warlords can do the same thing. The difference is if you have a "leaderless" party, you can use the generic surges.




I did say a cleric was required if you made these changes. Note that there are players who will not see this as a bug.



thecasualoblivion said:


> 2. That depends on the changes. I would assert that its more difficult to change 4E on a fundamental level, and much easier to change on a superficial level.




Changing any game on a fundamental level has ripple effects. I find that 4E's design makes me more _aware_ of these ripple effects, and, were I as timid as I used to be, that awareness might make changes more difficult for me to make.

I find as time passes, however, that I am more comfortable with striking out on my own. So I find that awareness of the ripple effect is useful in ensuring that the changes I make end up having effects I find desireable instead of backfiring.

EDIT: It's also liekly that 4E makes ripple effects more apparent to those who might exploit such things; this is less problematic in my view because those I play with are likely to notice them (and, if I ask politely, ignore them) anyway.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It is probably a... what, a two to four times as big as a problem in, say 3E. But is it _fundamentally_ that different? The magnitude is still the same.
> The problem is healing is awfully fast.
> 
> I was actually surprised that healing surges recovered fully after each day, but I prefer it for gameplay reasons. "Fixing" it (and yes, I am talking house rules here) would probably require for slower healing surge regeneration rate. (1/5th of your max healing surges per day, rounded down to a minimum of 1?)




Heck, put healing surges on a condition track, using the Endurance skill.  Tougher characters will heal faster, and it'll take days to recover from a tough day of getting beat up.


----------



## crash_beedo (Nov 18, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> True. However, in 3.x with clerics and curing wands a plenty, most healing was magical so the speed of natural healing in the gameworld never seemed to "affect" the story or it's believability (presuming of course that having healers who can heal wounds at a touch, repeatedly, after every combat is "normal" or believable)...
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Good stuff... we went from playing 1E all last year, to a 3.5 experiment earlier this year (haha, the books were on firesale, after all...) and then 4E.

Our Temple of Elemental Evil guys spent a lot of days/weeks 'down' doing the 1hp per night style of healing; then they added a second cleric and it went from weeks to days, as the clerics memorized nothing but heals, slept, more heals, slept, etc.  That's fun!

In 3.5, they stocked up on the CLW wands and never spent a night healing again!  Survive the fight, and everyone's back up to full.  We're not hitchhiking anymore, Stimpy, we're riding!

4E actually requires some overnight extended rests to recover dailies and surges... really slowing my enjoyment way down.  lol

I agree with the sentiment that if you modify your damage narration against the PC's, you don't run into problems then with Schroedinger's Wounding.  (And by modify, I mean eliminate it...)  Works for us.  My group is loving 4E, but I agree that this element of it *feels* significantly different than the other editions.  Feels like AWESOME.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Nov 18, 2008)

Out of curiosity, has anyone here tried adding SWSE's damage threshold/condition track concept to 4E?  I rarely see 'what is a HP?' arguments in SWSE boards because the condition track makes it more clear.  If you just take HP damage, it's morale, fatigue or cosmetic injury.  A condition track step is an honest-to-goodness physical injury.  Make the damage threshold equal to a healing surge?


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't exist if you choose not to have game terms have direct meaning in the narration (i.e., choose not to narrate damage or healing in this particular case).  But that seems rather....lame.....to me.



It is true there is no fixed correlation between hit points lost and gained (game mechanical events) and physical damage suffered and healed (gameworld events). But on any given occasion of damage or healing something happens in the gameworld, and it can be narrated with no need for retconning or suspension of description.



Derren said:


> 1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dying(I haven't said that this is the only hit he took)
> 2. Because this guy can recover by his own, can be shouted into action or can actually be healed by magic the nature of the hit he took can't be specified at this point.
> 3. Only after the the character got healed can you say how he was wounded based on the method of how he was healed. (But I wanted to use the sentence "can neither confirm nor deny" as joke).



You are ignoring that you can say that the game mechanical event of regaining hit pionts does not mean that there has been an ingame event of repair to the physical injury, but rather corresponds (on that particular occasion) to an ingame event of recovery of the will to fight.



Scribble said:


> At most your issue is with the rate of healing. But this has nothing to do with a wound being either a wound or not a wound depending on whether or not an inspiring word or some other healing effect is used.



I agree with this. The 4e rules for damage, healing, healing surges, short rests - in short, the bundle of rules that give rise to so-called "Schroedinger's Wounding" - are quite distinct from the rules for recovery after an extended rest. The latter is intended to remove mechanical impediments to play, and (for those who use it) can be written off as a genre convention.



Raven Crowking said:


> In episodic play, the DM can narrate a healing break between episodes, thus removing the problems that arise from this disjoining (unless the "episode" runs on for game days or game weeks, anyway).
> 
> In sandbox play, it is generally anathema for the DM to tell the players what they must do, so there is nothing enforcing an extended rest to allow the narration to rejoin with the game mechanics.  _*You could change the rules to make it so*_, but then we wouldn't be discussing the 4e rules anymore.



I still don't see why it has to be up to the GM, and why players who are offended by the non-verisimilitudinous nature of 4e extended rests won't just call their own longer healing times, even though the rules do not insist upon them (or, alternativley, make sure that there is a cleric in the party and narrate how that cleric heals everyone up during the extended rest). If they won't do these things, yet continue to complain about the mechanically permitted rapid healing ruining their senses of disbelief, they have only themselves to blame.



Raven Crowking said:


> Ithere will be many statements that you are ignoring rules that cannot be quoted, and that you are playing the game wrong despite insta-healing being clearly what was intended by the 4e designers.



I don't know exactly who you have in mind as the author of these "many statements". But the 4e rules obviously draw on rules systems from other RPGs with narrativist inclinations (eg HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth).

Those other rules systems have better discussions of how to narrate fortune-in-the-middle action resolution mechanics than the 4e rulebooks (one of the weaknesses of those rulebooks in my view). But there is nothing in my statements (or those from LostSoul, or Scribble, or Lacyon, or TheCasualOblivion) explaining and defending the 4e healing and recovery mechanics that could not be reconstructed pretty straightforwardly from those other rulebooks. Fortune-in-the-middle mechanics really exist (and have existed in RPGs for many years, including the saving throw rules in 1st ed AD&D). People play RPGs using them. And the narration of their games does not collapse into contradiction.

I have never seen pages and pages of complaints about so-called Schroedinger's Wounding in HeroWars. It doesn't come up, because the rulebooks explain how to narrate combat in that game. The only reasons I can see for it continually coming up in relation to D&D is that either (i) simulationist views (ie that there must be a fixed correlation between every game-mechanical event of hit point gain or loss and every ingame event of physical injury or recovery) are so entrenched that other ideas aren't contemplated, or (ii) the 4e rulebooks are so poorly written that they fail to communicate the key ideas of narrative freedom and flexibility in the relationship between game mechanical events and ingame events (despite comments in both PHB and DMG that flavour text is just flavour text and ripe for reskinning from moment to moment).

That's not to say that anyone should _enjoy_ narrativist D&D. I don't care who does or doesn't enjoy it. But it's possible, it needn't involve contradiction or absurdity, and the 4e rules support it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 18, 2008)

SteveC said:


> Last weekend I played in a couple of 4E games, which is fantastic because I am usually the poor soul who runs, and this problem didn't come up. Not even once. We had seven combat encounters between the two games, with some great narration in most of the cases, and not once did anyone complain.
> 
> I was thinking about this thread as we were playing, and took some time to talk to the GMs and the other players about it. The consensus, to a person, was that I was thinking about it too much. All of that leads me to this conclusion: hong is right. Sometimes we think about our pretending to be elves too much.



This.

In my past few 4e games (paragon level PCs, running Age of Worms) NOT ONCE have the players stopped battle and asked conversations like:


*DM:* Ok, you got hit for 17 and are taking ongoing 5 poison.
*Player:* Dangit!, What kind of damage was it? Was it psychological or physical?  What parts were actual wounds and which were just getting the wind knocked out of me, and which were just a psychological hit?
*DM:*  Ummmmm...  its 17 points of damage and ongoing 5 poison.
*Player:* OK, fine, but what KIND??? 
*DM:* The abstract kind.  Let's just play the game.
*Player:* But.... but... I need to know if the Warlord can heal me with a rousing word or if I need the cleric to magically heal my gaping wounds.
*DM:*  Don't worry about it, HP are abstract and you have lots of reserves, we just call 'em healing surges in 4e.
*Player:* What part of the body did he hit with the 17 damage?
*DM:*  AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
If I asked my group about this thread,  they would definitely tell me that I am thinking too much about it and let's just friggin play!


----------



## Derren (Nov 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> You are ignoring that you can say that the game mechanical event of regaining hit pionts does not mean that there has been an ingame event of repair to the physical injury, but rather corresponds (on that particular occasion) to an ingame event of recovery of the will to fight.




You don't die from a lack of will.



catsclaw227 said:


> If I asked my group about this thread,  they would definitely tell me that I am thinking too much about it and let's just friggin play!




Some people simply don't want to play a game where they have to force themselves not to think in order to ignore all the holes the games has.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> You don't die from a lack of will.










George Lucas says "Nuh-uh!"

... but seriously, pemerton's not suggesting someone should _die_ from a lack of will; he's suggesting that a bolstering of that will might permit someone to continue despite wounds that would incapacitate a lesser man, or grant them the presence of mind to partially avoid a subsequent blow that would otherwise have defeated them.

-Hyp.


----------



## Derren (Nov 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> George Lucas says "Nuh-uh!"
> 
> ... but seriously, pemerton's not suggesting someone should _die_ from a lack of will; he's suggesting that a bolstering of that will might permit someone to continue despite wounds that would incapacitate a lesser man, or grant them the presence of mind to partially avoid a subsequent blow that would otherwise have defeated them.
> 
> -Hyp.




But then you should still slowly die, even after the warlord shouted at you (making death saves). But that isn't the case. With enough shouting you aren't even bloodied anymore.

In order for that to work you have to retcon that the PC was dying and had to make death saves.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 18, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The rules also don't say that humans aren't purple with antennas and eat through giant nostrils. Maybe that is the way humans are in this world too. We all set different levels of abstraction from our real world when we set up and play in a campaign. From earlier discussions it is also apparent that some people also have issues with people shooting fireballs out of their hands and want to play in a low fantasy world.
> 
> Sure its possible that all living creatures heal super fast and recover all their wounds overnight. This is a perfectly valid parameter change from our real world to want to play in. The difference in this case is that all players are forced to play in this super healing world while not everyone is required to play purple antenna humans that eat out of giant nostrils. Most other fantasy aspects of the game are easy to change out if it goes against the type of fantasy they want to play. It is easy to remove Elves, or Dwarves, or Fireballs, it is allot harder to throw out super healing with this ruleset.



Dead easy, characters regain one healing surge per full nights bed rest.
there now, done.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> But then you should still slowly die, even after the warlord shouted at you (making death saves). But that isn't the case. With enough shouting you aren't even bloodied anymore.
> 
> In order for that to work you have to retcon that the PC was dying and had to make death saves.




With enough shouting, you no longer have the mechanical condition 'Bloodied'.  That doesn't mean you can't have any blood running down your face when we film the scene.

And the PC had the mechanical condition, 'Dying', but that doesn't have to mean his wounds were fatal.  Just like in 3E, someone can have the condition Dying, and with a successful stabilisation check, the wound wasn't fatal.

Let's say in the middle of a combat, I'm down to 6 hit points.  I'm tired, I'm sore, I'm bleeding, and I'm starting to realise that the orc may just be too much for me.

Scenario 1: _The orc attacks, dealing 8 hit points of damage._

The orc's sword sweeps in in a looping cut, and my leaden arm cannot interpose my buckler in time; I feel the impact through my armour, and an line of burning ice below my ribs... then the world goes black and I am falling... somewhere, seemingly in the distance, I can hear Strider's voice...

Scenario 2: _Strider the Warlord uses Inspiring Word, healing me for 9 points, bringing me to 15.  The orc attacks, dealing 8 hit points of damage._

"Don't falter!" Strider cries, in his ringing voice.  "This rabble shall soon fall before us!"  His words rekindle the flagging fires within me; I see the orc's sword sweeping in in a looping cut, and I smash it aside with my buckler.  I grunt at the pain as my already-bruised shield arm protests the abuse, but the orc is left off-balance, and my own sword is already in motion...

-----

The Inspiring Word didn't cause any existing wounds to heal over; rather, it increased my chances of making it through the next successful attack undefeated.

-Hyp.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 18, 2008)

On Earth, as far as the scientific community knows, people who are seriously injured to the point of near-death generally take weeks or months to heal.

*-* *D&D* does not claim to take place on Earth.

_Homo sapiens sapiens_, as a whole, are generally considered to be incapable of forcing their bodies to repair themselves at an accelerated rate, and any reports of such occurances are considered to be freak anomalies, miracles, acts of God, outright lies or hoaxes, paranormal or supernatural, or simply "unexplainable".

*-* *D&D* does not claim that its characters are _Homo sapiens sapiens._

Normal people, such as you and I and probably everyone we've ever known, are not, in the mythological, literary, or cinematic sense of the term, _heroes_.

*- D&D* characters ARE declared to be _heroes_, right from level one.

The world we live in, modern Earth, is the "real" world, as distinguished from a _fantasy_ world.

*- D&D* takes place in a _fantasy_ world, as distinguished from our real world.


Apparently, it's considered by many people to be *unthinkably* "unrealistic" to imagine that the inhabitants of a _fantasy_ world, which is already demonstrably different from our own world in many fundamental respects as regards the parameters of "reality", might experience or willfully _cause _biological repair of their injured bodies at a rate which dramatically exceeds that which is commonly believed to be possible for _Homo sapiens sapiens_ here on Earth.

Apparently, these people find this idea to be so utterly inconceivable, for the _heroes_ of such a world, a world which already contains world-shaking magic, mythical beasts, warring gods, and extraplanar forces -- _as a matter of course_ -- that they automatically *assume* that any narration of events and effects which would suggest that the aforementioned _fantasy heroes_ are able to repair their serious bodily wounds through sheer force of will, or aided by the impassioned shouts of a battlefield commander, or simply by resting for a matter of hours rather than weeks, would be entirely invalid and a shattering blow to any form of verisimilitude.

So, they say, in order to reconcile the rules of *D&D*, which seem to indicate that its _heroes_ do, in fact, heal just that quickly and that easily, with their _pre-conceived idea_ that the world of *D&D* works just like Earth and that its inhabitants have the same capabilities as _Homo sapiens sapiens_, at least so far as the capacity for bodily repair, we *must* play some sort of look-the-other-way, wait-and-see, depends-on-the-source-of-healing little narrative-dancing metagame in order for the story as presented in the gameplay to _make sense_.

And of course, if you're starting from, and unshakably clinging to, the premise that *D&D* takes place in a world just like Earth, populated with beings just like _Homo sapiens sapiens_, except with some special effects and costumes tacked on, then sure, you _would_ have to be very dodgy with your narrations and your conceptions of in-game events and effects regarding physical injury and healing.  Which _would_, indeed, lead to the _"Schrodinger's Wounding"_ syndrome that is being decried here.


But *D&D*, itself, does not insist that we view its game world, or the _heroes_ who adventure within it, in this limiting way.  It doesn't even suggest, or remotely _hint_ that we should do so.  The idea is coming _entirely_ from outside of the game itself, carried there by the minds of players who, rather unconsciously in most cases, are automatically _imposing_ or _projecting _the pre-suppositions of modern Earth's scientific thought onto a _fantasy_ world which is in *no way* _bound by_ any of Earth's perceived physical realities.

*D&D* tells us that the _heroes_ in its _fantasy_ world can be mauled by axes and savage claws, engulfed in dragon's fire, or mangled in any one of countless other gruesome ways, to the very point of being mere _seconds_ away from *death* itself . . . and yet, if they don't actually die, even given _no aid at all_, these stalwart _heroes_ will get out of bed the next day perfectly fine, fit and ready to run a marathon.


Now, we _could_ try to somehow shoehorn that vision of an epic _fantasy_ world together into some kind of bizarre mish-mash with the prejudices we already have about how _Homo sapiens sapiens_' bodies work here on mundane old Earth.  That would be pretty confusing though, and thus we have countless posts talking about just what a confusing mess it _is_, and proposing all sorts of ways to trick ourselves into ignoring the disconnect, or cleverly narrating around it, or _"waiting until we see HOW the character is healed before we declare just what that greataxe blow actually did to him"_.  

We _could_ do that, but as the detractors of this aspect of *4E* have made clear in this and many other threads, that's rather silly, and frankly a weakness in the game.

But here's the kicker:  *We don't have to do that, and D&D itself doesn't even ask us to.*  Yeah.  We could, instead, take the words _fantasy_ and _heroes_ and _damage_ and _healing_ and _power source_ at *face value*.  We really could!  We could, instead, accept that *D&D* _isn't_ happening on Earth, with a bunch of mundane, non-heroic _Homo sapiens sapiens_ sitting around for a month in the hospital waiting for their broken legs to laboriously knit themselves back together.

Seriously, it's not the "real world".  It's a _fantasy_ land of dragons and fairies and undead and fireballs and titanic, epic, mythological struggle.  It's a world of _heroes_ and monsters.  We already accept *so* much, in this game world, which is apparently impossible or "unrealistic" from the perspective of _Homo sapiens sapiens_ living in a scientific society on modern Earth.  Is a simple acceleration of bodily repair, and a greater conscious control over that function by the _heroes_, really _that_ insanely hard to reconcile with such a wildly fantastical, dramatic, supernaturally-saturated setting?


_I_ say that, given the accepted realities of the *D&D* world, it's *more unrealistic* to assign the frailties and limitations of Earth-people to the denizens of this ultra-dangerous place.  Why wouldn't the ravenous hordes of evil monsters, the countless armies of extraplanar fiends, the terrifyingly powerful forces of carnage and death have already wiped out these pathetically soft little humanoids by now?  If every time a protector of civilization fought the endless tide of bestial fury that hungers to obliterate them, he had to go rest up for three months after a skirmish to get back into fighting shape, don't you think we'd have lost the war by now?

_I_ say that it *makes sense*.  That the _heroes_ in such a _fantasy_ world of such extreme peril would almost _have to_ be capable of repairing their physical bodies miraculously fast, _with or without the aid of the gods_, or else they wouldn't last very long against the odds they face!


_"Schrodinger's Wounding"_ only applies if you insist on making the world of *D&D* into a _slightly-more-magical-but-still-bound-by-nearly-all-scientifically-assumed-limitations-of-Earth_ setting, and its protagonists into _Homo sapiens sapiens_ with ear tips, flowing capes, and a handful of magic tricks to throw around.


Let the damage *BE* damage.  Let the healing *BE* healing.  The game doesn't distinguish between a _Healing Word_, an _Inspiring Word_, or just a plain old _Second Wind_.  They all, actually, *heal* the damaged _hero_.  No need to jump through narrative hoops.  No need to pretend not to know what that lightning bolt did to the character.  Narrate as you wish, free in the knowledge that this _isn't_ Earth, and these _heroes_ aren't just _Homo sapiens sapiens_ thrown into a magical world that's WAY too dangerous for them.


Some dictionary definitions that I like:

*Fantasy:  *_Imagination unrestricted by reality._

*Fantasy:  *_Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

_*Fantasy:  *_An unrealistic or improbable supposition._


*Hero:  *_A being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.

_*Hero:  *_A man of superhuman strength or courage.



_"...*unrestricted* by reality . . . supernatural . . . unrealistic . . . *godlike* prowess . . . *superhuman* strength..."  These are the terms which describe the *D&D* world and its _heroes_.  Any wound these characters suffer which does not kill them is merely a temporary setback, and a _brief_ one at that!


There is no _"Schrodinger's Wounding"_, there is only the confusion which arises from trying to superimpose the limitations of _one_ reality onto _another _reality in which those limitations *do not belong*.



$


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 18, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> On Earth, as far as the scientific community knows, people who are seriously injured to the point of near-death generally take weeks or months to heal.
> 
> *-* *D&D* does not claim to take place on Earth.
> 
> ...




If you insist on dragging out Hongs tired and lame ass "you're thinking too hard" argument you might have just said as much instead of making us read 20 paragraphs of rant belaboring the point. Making me wish you were Hong != a good thing.

Justify it any way you like it doesn't change the fact that things have significantly changed regarding healing/wounding with the coming of 4E as I stated upthread.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 18, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> If you insist on dragging out Hongs tired and lame ass "you're thinking too hard" argument you might have just said as much instead of making us read 20 paragraphs of rant belaboring the point. Making me wish you were Hong != a good thing.
> 
> Justify it any way you like it doesn't change the fact that things have significantly changed regarding healing/wounding with the coming of 4E as I stated upthread.






This response doesn't appear to have anything to do with my post.  I guess I just don't understand.



$


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> You are ignoring that you can say that the game mechanical event of regaining hit pionts does not mean that there has been an ingame event of repair to the physical injury, but rather corresponds (on that particular occasion) to an ingame event of recovery of the will to fight.





No, he is not.

Simply because one does not include the full scope of an argument in every single post, it doesn't mean that the full scope is not there.

In a sandbox game, if you completely disjoin hit points from physical injury, as you suggest, and everyone is always in perfect (game mechanics) health the next day, the problem is worse, not better.

Your "solution" intensifies, rather than solves, the problem.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> This response doesn't appear to have anything to do with my post.





That happens to me a lot, too.  

I'll say, "X causes problem Y because of Z" and the response will be about how A solves B with C.  



RC


----------



## Zustiur (Nov 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> We should be able to agree that a definition invented in this very thread and which is the direct opposite of the previously accepted definition isn't a very good definition at all.



Oh for the love of ... Look, Low Fantasy was a bad choice of words. I already admitted that. I should have said something like 'less cinematic'. Could you please ignore my poor choice of words and concentrate on the meaning behind them? I find fast healing by magic, far more believable than fast healing by force of will, or heroics. 4E fails to suspend my disbelief due to the ability of characters to 'magically' heal, without making use of magic.

I don't favour high-action or high-cinema story-telling. I don't favour 4E's assumption that characters start out as heroes. Particularly because to me (and the majority of my gaming group) DnD has been about levels 1-6, where you're still trying to find your feet. Stories about BECOMING heros. Those are the stories I find interesting, and 4E does not seem conducive to that type of story. 





Hypersmurf said:


> Who needs to know?
> 
> The character doesn't need to know - he's not in a condition to make use of the knowledge, since he can't take any actions.
> 
> ...





Fifth Element said:


> Hold on, I have to make my stabilization roll. 87. Dang, still bleeding out I guess. Maybe I can make it a non-lethal wound with a lucky roll next round.
> 
> 
> 08! Yes! I guess it's not life-threatening after all.
> ...



My biggest issue with this is around the natural 20 'auto heal' you get when rolling death saves. 
Bob gets knocked down to -8 HP, and fails two death saves. Fred examines him to determine how close to death he is, and sees that in moments Bob will slip away. Then Bob's player rolls a 20, and Bob stands up and fights on as if he'd never been close to death.
Either you're about to die (but might stabilize (slip into a coma but stop dying)), or you're not about to die. 
Yes, previous editions were unrealistic. I never said they were realistic. I just feel that they're more realistic than 4E when it comes to wounds and dying.
I can handle "he's stabilized" but I can't handle "oh, actually he's okay now, and ready to kick ass".

I'd be interested to see a system which handled this with accuracy (but still did not include specific injuries), but I have never heard of such.


----------



## dnddays (Nov 18, 2008)

Delta said:


> And utterly convincing that 4E is not a game I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole. I literally flinched when I read that.
> 
> Edit: And let me expand on that. This very much reminds me of 2E sensibilities, for example: constructing magic items. They took a fairly concrete system in the prior edition, snipped it out, and said, "you can do anything you want, it's up to your imagination!". Quote from 2E DMG:
> 
> ...



Your comment suggests you already own previous editions.  If 2e and/or 4e don't provide you with any in-depth info on a subject, why not just use the ones already provided in 1e and 3e?  But that's anticlimactic, isn't it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> I find fast healing by magic, far more believable than fast healing by force of will, or heroics. 4E fails to suspend my disbelief due to the ability of characters to 'magically' heal, without making use of magic.




Me too.



> Yes, previous editions were unrealistic. I never said they were realistic. I just feel that they're more realistic than 4E when it comes to wounds and dying.




Let's say Bob thought that 1d8 is too much damage for a longsword.  Would it then make sense for Bob to promote an edition where longsword damage is 2d20?

Likewise, "There has always been an unrealistic element to healing/damage" doesn't mean it's a good idea to crank that element up to 11.


RC


----------



## dnddays (Nov 18, 2008)

*This old fight again!?*

Back when the Playstation 2 first came out and all I could afford was a Dreamcast, I got into a heated argument with a friend of mine about why DC was better than the PS2.  Later, it occurred to me that not only was a wrong but I was trying to convince myself as to why I didn't want a PS2 anyway.  That's what these arguments about whether 4e is as good as 3e remind me of.

Anyway, here we are and it's like we're fighting the same bloody trolls again.  Worse still and as usual, their arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the new system.

Le sigh.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

dnddays said:


> Back when the Playstation 2 first came out and all I could afford was a Dreamcast, I got into a heated argument with a friend of mine about why DC was better than the PS2.  Later, it occurred to me that not only was a wrong but I was trying to convince myself as to why I didn't want a PS2 anyway.  That's what these arguments about whether 4e is as good as 3e remind me of.




So.  You couldn't have X, and therefore you said X was bad.  And you assume that those who don't like 4e cannot have 4e, and therefore think 4e is bad.

Oooooookkkkkkakaaaayyyyyyyy.  

Or, maybe this is like the Playstation 2 for you all over again, and you've discovered that 4e is a Dreamcast that you'd like us to believe is better than it is?



> Worse still and as usual, their arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the new system.




Keep telling youself that.  



RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> My biggest issue with this is around the natural 20 'auto heal' you get when rolling death saves.
> Bob gets knocked down to -8 HP, and fails two death saves. Fred examines him to determine how close to death he is, and sees that in moments Bob will slip away. Then Bob's player rolls a 20, and Bob stands up and fights on as if he'd never been close to death.



How does Fred examine Bob?

The rulebook states that it is a Heal Check DC 10 (or 15?) to stabilize a dying character. So, was Freds action this Heal check? If yes, he will never see Bob standing up after he determined he is close to death. If he fails the check, he can't determine anything, if he succeeds, Bob is stable. 

Sure, you can say: "I'd allow a Perception Check to see if he's dying". But then you're not following the rules. That isn't bad per se, but sometimes this can lead to inconsistencies and problems. So use this option with care. Maybe you allow a Perception Check, but you should only say something like "It doesn't look good, but you need a closer examination to be sure." If Bob jumps up the next round, it was not as bad as it looked. If he dies, it was. But the character just didn't do enough to figure this out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sure, you can say: "I'd allow a Perception Check to see if he's dying". But then you're not following the rules.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Let's say Bob thought that 1d8 is too much damage for a longsword.  Would it then make sense for Bob to promote an edition where longsword damage is 2d20?



Probably not. But maybe he should at some point just say: "You know, I don't want that new edition with the 2d20 damage longswords. I have understood what the designers are attempting with this, but I still don't like their goals. I just have to do something else."
There is no need to open a new thread
"Longswords still deal 2d20. I still don't like it."
"Longswords should deal 1d6, but they deal 2d20. Explain this to me again."
"I think Longswords deal too much damage. That is terribly bad and this is no longer the type of game I want to play."



> Likewise, "There has always been an unrealistic element to healing/damage" doesn't mean it's a good idea to crank that element up to 11.
> 
> 
> RC



I can't make a good spin on that volume control analogy, so this will have to suffice: 

The idea isn't good because it is an unrealistic element. The idea is good because it is good for playing the game. The dynamic of an encounter focused game works a lot better if you can assume full hit points in every encounter and base the entire combat balance and rules around that. 

So, it is a matter of priorities or preferences. Better realism or better usability? More focus on strategic elements, or more focus on tactical elements? 

It's clear where the 4E design teams priorities were and that you don't share them. That's okay. But at some point you just have to acknowledge that people have these different priorities and that 4E is the right game for people with the 4E design team priorities and not so well suited for people with different priorities. 

I could try to come up with 5 Million ways (I would assuredly fail) to explain how I and others can play the game without our disbelief suspenders being torn apart. None of them would work for you, because you don't share the same priorities. Unless I can brainwash you to take my priorities in gaming, you won't love the system as much as I do. 

At this point, 4E fans really have to stop trying to convince 4E dislikers that they will like 4E if they just try it long enough, and 4E dislikers have to stop trying to convince 4E fans that their game isn't as much fun to them as it appears to be. 

There is still room for discussion of the merits and flaws of the design, but there is no point in trying to convince others that their priorities are wrong. 

Ah, well, it won't stop. I will let myself dragged into it again. But I am still saying..


----------



## dnddays (Nov 18, 2008)

This argument never gets old.  lol.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


>



You can allow a Perception check to see if someone looks like he's in a bad shape (but to be honest, I would probably not demand a check at all for that) is fine. Maybe this is getting circular, but: The rules do not provide for an option to determine (assuming a successful skill check) that a person is guaranteed to be dying without help. Because there is no such state described in the game rules. There are only states where death is a possibility or a reality. So you can't use Perception to do this. The closest thing to achieve this is using Heal, but using Heal also stabilizes the character. (So we are still in the state of "Possible Death" - after all, someone could deal enough damage to hit you next round, which basically applies in any scenario.  )

I am not sure if 3E had the "assured to be dead without aid" state (barring special effects). I think you rolled first for stabilization and then took the dying damage.


----------



## dnddays (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> So.  You couldn't have X, and therefore you said X was bad.  And you assume that those who don't like 4e cannot have 4e, and therefore think 4e is bad.
> 
> Oooooookkkkkkakaaaayyyyyyyy.
> 
> ...




I have and have played all of the D&D systems, so I don't need to convince myself of anything about D&D. I know it's better. You sound like the one who has to find something to nitpick to justify not playing under a new system.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Likewise, "There has always been an unrealistic element to healing/damage" doesn't mean it's a good idea to crank that element up to 11.




As long as we're willing to acknowledge that all 4E does is crank the dial up (and doesn't, in fact, use a totally different dial, with a different meaning attached), I'm pretty sure we almost totally agree .

(Turning it up to 11 is going to be better for some than others - and with practice, you can adjust the dial on any edition).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Probably not. But maybe he should at some point just say: "You know, I don't want that new edition with the 2d20 damage longswords. I have understood what the designers are attempting with this, but I still don't like their goals. I just have to do something else."
> There is no need to open a new thread
> "Longswords still deal 2d20. I still don't like it."
> "Longswords should deal 1d6, but they deal 2d20. Explain this to me again."
> "I think Longswords deal too much damage. That is terribly bad and this is no longer the type of game I want to play."





Agreed, but then I am not opening these threads.  If there was a thread for folks to discuss "Longswords deal 2d20.  I don't like it." without folks coming in to tell them that (a) longswords _*don't*_ deal 2d20, (b) longswords *always* dealt 2d20, (c) they are fooling themselves; longswords *should* deal 2d20, and even (d) they *really like *longswords dealing 2d20; they just don't know it yet, I suppose there would be less of a problem.

Of course, I have noted that, with Schroedinger's Wounding, a number of threads have opened with no apparent purpose but to say that those who believe it is a feature of 4e are kinda stupid.

Overall, I guess what I am saying is that (1) there is a thread ignore tool on EN World, and (2) if you don't enjoy discussing moonpies, don't discuss moonpies.  Again, have you seen me disrupting _*any*_ pro-4e discussions since the game came out?  Any?  There is a reason for that.

I will also note that there are some great pro-4e folks who are, apparently, not at all threatened that some don't like their game of choice, and don't go around disrupting anti-4e discussions.   Or maybe they are just really smart, and know that _the fastest way to make anti-anything threads go away is to not post pro-same thing in them._

Oh, also you missed my point:  "X has always had problem Y, Z just makes it worse" is not a very convincing pro-Z argument.  Making Y worse isn't good game design, and if you had problem Y when it was less of a problem, Z is unlikely to fix it for you.


RC


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> You don't die from a lack of will.



Try telling that to my Mom.  Her mother was most assuredly healthy when her husband of 61 years died.  She passed on 4 days later.



Derren said:


> Some people simply don't want to play a game where they have to force themselves not to think in order to ignore all the holes the games has.



I suppose this is where our gaming groups differ.  We think that this whole "Schroedinger's Wounding" thing is creating holes where none need exist.  

Last night, I asked this of a tenured physics professor I know who enjoys some fantasy literature but has never played an RPG in her life.  She paused and asked again with a straight face, "Now, you are talking about a fantasy game, right?  How is a Schroedinger's effect even a legitimate conversation?"

I tried to explain things deeper, and it all kept going back to that fundamental question.  After a bit, she smiled and said that I am taking my games more seriously than some of her colleagues take their work.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> As long as we're willing to acknowledge that all 4E does is crank the dial up (and doesn't, in fact, use a totally different dial, with a different meaning attached), I'm pretty sure we almost totally agree .





Well, we don't agree on this.  I was using an analogy.

OTOH, it probably doesn't matter that we don't agree.  Except, perhaps, to WotC, because if I am right, they can claim their paradigm isn't derived from the SRD.  


RC


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> So, what am I ignoring?
> 1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dying(I haven't said that this is the only hit he took)
> 2. Because this guy can recover by his own, can be shouted into action or can actually be healed by magic the nature of the hit he took can't be specified at this point.
> 3. Only after the the character got healed can you say how he was wounded based on the method of how he was healed. (But I wanted to use the sentence "can neither confirm nor deny" as joke).




Linking together "hit point damage" and "physical injury" as an automatic assumption is something that I can understand. It's fairly obvious and consistent with D&D throughout the editions.

However, linking together "regaining hit points" and "injuries disappearing" is an assumption that D&D players in this thread are making - it is not something that is in the rules. It doesn't matter if this assumption is referred to over and over again - it is not in the RAW, nor the RAI.

Therefore - when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word, all they are doing is the mechanical "regaining hit points" effect, not the "making injuries disappear" effect that is being added on. And as such, when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word they are helping a character continue with the fight, not fixing physical injuries.

As such, Schrodinger's Wounding disappears in a puff of logic.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> It's an issue if you assume that a decrease in hit points of X, followed by an increase in hit points of X, returns the character to the identical cinematic state he was in prior to the two events.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> ...




This is pretty much exactly what I was saying in the above post. Quantum Wounding is a problem created by a choice of the people sat round the table in the way in which they choose to narrate damage. It is not a function of the 4e rules.


----------



## dnddays (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Me too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In 4e hit points aren't about damage as much as about how long you can keep fighting in general.  

From the 4e PH: "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."  

So, healing surge is a misnomer; you're putting too much focus on the word healing and not enough or the word surge.  Healing surges aren't closing your wounds; they give you a second wind.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

Before 4E was released, I created a 3.5E Warlord class based on what was said of the 4E Warlord. I basically cobbled together class features of the Dragon Disciple, Marshall, and Crusader, and ramped up the healing a bit. The guy could heal as well as any 3E Cleric(if not better outside of combat), and we actually used the Warlord as our primary healer for the campaign(we also had a Shugenja). 

The thing is, when describing what this Warlord does to people raised on 3E's magical healing assumptions, I described the Warlord's "Inspirational" healing as granting temporary HP that never go away, and instead work just like your "real" hp. 

I find that description suffiencient to justify a 3E Warlord, and it applies just as well to 4E.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> As such, Schrodinger's Wounding disappears in a puff of logic.




Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).


RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).
> 
> 
> RC




Which is only a problem if *YOU* make it one. 4E D&D chooses to treat this as unimportant. If it is important to you, then 4E D&D has chosen to be different than what you want. This isn't an accident, it was a design decision.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But almost-dead-to-perfect-tomorrow is still a problem.




Only if you make an assumption, as a group, that full hit points + all healing surges = no physical marks of the previous days fighting.

If you choose to say that the group is battered & beat up, with minor cuts, bruises & other injuries, yet also accept that _for the purposes of the game_ the party are able to continue because they are at full hp & max healing surges, then the issue goes away.

You can then choose to narrate, at a more convenient time for the story, how the characters recovered from their exertions in the Tomb of Fatal Death over a few weeks, whilst also making magic items, training, talking to other NPCs, etc, allowing the characters to start the next segment of the story at full hp, full healing surges, _and no visible physical damage to themselves or their equipment_.

As I said, Quantum Wounding is a problem caused by the way in which groups choose to narrate damage and healing whilst playing 4e. It is not something that is in the rules, as the rules do not specify how to narrate damage and healing (which are mechanical parts of the game, seperate from the way in which they are narrated).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Which is only a problem if *YOU* make it one.




Resolving everything by flipping a coin is only a problem if *YOU* make it one.  That still doesn't make it a good mechanic for rpg combats.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> You can then choose to narrate, at a more convenient time for the story, how the characters recovered from their exertions in the Tomb of Fatal Death over a few weeks, whilst also making magic items, training, talking to other NPCs, etc, allowing the characters to start the next segment of the story at full hp, full healing surges, _and no visible physical damage to themselves or their equipment_.





Have you read through this thread?

I have already stated, many times, as a given that Schroedinger's Wounding can be resolved by disjoining mechanics from narrative, without causing further problems, provided you are engaged in episodic play.

The above quoted assumes episodic play.


RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Resolving everything by flipping a coin is only a problem if *YOU* make it one.  That still doesn't make it a good mechanic for rpg combats.
> 
> RC




Not being a good mechanic is your opinion. Don't speak for the rest of us.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).




Except that you decided in one of the other threads that this "problem" of wounds that exist narratively but not mechanically also happens when you try to explain natural healing in prior editions of D&D.

This is what I mean when I say the numbers have changed, but the paradigm hasn't. It happens _more frequently_ in 4E. You sometimes have to _acknowledge_ that it happens in 4E, where you could _ignore_ it more easily in prior editions (e.g., by letting the cleric use magic instead of watching one character's minor scratch heal as fast as another's deep cut). _But it's fundamentally the same issue that any hp system has to have_.

Moreover, it's fundamentally _the point_ of having an hp system instead of a detailed wound-tracking system - to remind people that it's ok to gloss over the specifics for the sake of making gameplay easier.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).
> 
> 
> RC




DND characters are at full power until they die, in all editions. HPs have no effect on combat power - or non combat -  only how long, on average, they can stay in the fight.

In 4e there is a slight change in power when the bloodied condition kicks in, but the effect differs depending on race, class and monster being fought.

Having full HPs after one days of rest or several does not make a bit of difference, it only indicates sprains, bruises and minor cuts/abrasions. Any deep wound is going to require weeks of downtime or you'll end up dead, DND doesnt do that.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> My biggest issue with this is around the natural 20 'auto heal' you get when rolling death saves.
> Bob gets knocked down to -8 HP, and fails two death saves. Fred examines him to determine how close to death he is, *and sees that in moments Bob will slip away*. Then Bob's player rolls a 20, and Bob stands up and fights on as if he'd never been close to death.
> Either you're about to die (but might stabilize (slip into a coma but stop dying)), or you're not about to die.
> Yes, previous editions were unrealistic. I never said they were realistic. I just feel that they're more realistic than 4E when it comes to wounds and dying.
> I can handle "he's stabilized" but I can't handle "oh, actually he's okay now, and ready to kick ass".




Bold text mine.

How can Fred determine exactly whether Bob is going to pass or fail his next (and possibly final) death check? By what game mechanic does he do this? You've made an assumption that isn't based on any rules.

Fred can only determine that the character is dying, by the rules. He can't determine mechanical aspects of the rules. Out of character the players may share information, but again, that's irrelevant to the RAW or RAI. If Bob does roll a 20, he may be ready to kick ass, but he's a glass cannon - one good hit will see him straight back down again - and with only one chance at making a death check or he's dead. I'm not sure why you can't handle this idea - it seems fine to me for the purposes of a game.

The idea that "either you're about to die, or you're not about to die" is false. In 4e, at negative hit points, you roll death checks - thus making your chances of dying in any particular round a matter of luck. IMO, this makes for an exciting game.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).




I do not understand why you say this is a problem. I would appreciate it if you could explain.

When you say "need never worry about wounds..." I would say that again, this is down to the DM and the players to decide. They can decide that after an adventure (the Tomb of Fatal Death in my example) they want to narrate how they all spent days feeling ill, or taking bed rest whilst healing and nursing injuries, or, they can choose to ignore the slow healing of those wounds in narration if they want. Neither is badwrongfun IMO, but also mechanically speaking it is also irrelevant which they choose.

Which is more important to you, if I may ask - that the rules define the world in the same way that 'real-world' science describes the world, or that the rules describe the world in terms of stories? If it's the former, then you're dealing with some problems. If it's the latter, like me, I'm very happy that my game assumes that each new day sees the group *mechanically* at full strength, even if I can *narrate* them to still be carrying injuries. It supports the style of game that I wish to run, and play in.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Resolving everything by flipping a coin is only a problem if *YOU* make it one.  That still doesn't make it a good mechanic for rpg combats.




No, it doesn't.

But the problems you are bringing up are not caused by the rules. They are caused by the way in which players & GMs _may_ narrate injuries and healing.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Have you read through this thread?
> 
> I have already stated, many times, as a given that Schroedinger's Wounding can be resolved by disjoining mechanics from narrative, without causing further problems, provided you are engaged in episodic play.
> 
> The above quoted assumes episodic play.




Yes, I have read through the whole thread. Some of my fellow posters in the Hivemind thread in Off-topic called me a masochist for even coming in here. 

I've seen you talking about 'sandbox play' and 'episodic play' but I'm not clear as to why Quantum Wounding is only an issue in episodic play. I would appreciate it if you could explain exactly what the differences are between sandbox and episodic play, and how Quantum Wounding is or isn't a problem in each one.

Also - given that you're happy to admit that Quantum Wounding isn't a problem if you seperate mechanics from narrative - why are you continuing to argue that it's a problem?  What is forcing you to push mechanics and narrative together in a way that causes you a problem? Is it the rules, or is it just that's what you've always done, or what?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).



You're still conflating these two issues? At least with this one we know it's only the *rate* of healing that's a problem. As you said in another thread, if you were only able to regain 1/4 of your hp overnight then it would be better.

So this really is just a "dial turned up" issue. I can't see how that's a "worse" problem than something you claim has to do with an entirely new paradigm.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Yes, I have read through the whole thread. Some of my fellow posters in the Hivemind thread in Off-topic called me a masochist for even coming in here.




You are.  We all are.  



> I've seen you talking about 'sandbox play' and 'episodic play' but I'm not clear as to why Quantum Wounding is only an issue in episodic play.




Other way around.  Schroedinger can safely stay with his cat in episodic play.

I'm at work right now, but I'll try to come up with a detailed and long-winded answer later.


RC


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Other way around.  Schroedinger can safely stay with his cat in episodic play.
> 
> I'm at work right now, but I'll try to come up with a detailed and long-winded answer later.




I'm only at work for another hour, so I guess I'll enjoy responding to that tomorrow.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed, but then I am not opening these threads.  If there was a thread for folks to discuss "Longswords deal 2d20.  I don't like it." without folks coming in to tell them that (a) longswords _*don't*_ deal 2d20, (b) longswords *always* dealt 2d20, (c) they are fooling themselves; longswords *should* deal 2d20, and even (d) they *really like *longswords dealing 2d20; they just don't know it yet, I suppose there would be less of a problem.
> 
> Of course, I have noted that, with Schroedinger's Wounding, a number of threads have opened with no apparent purpose but to say that those who believe it is a feature of 4e are kinda stupid.
> 
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I suppose the problem is no side is willing to stop "educating" the other. I am not sure I want to put the blame on a particular side, because it doesn't help anyway, and I can only speak for myself.





You might see ant-4e folks in pro-4e threads trying to "educate" the other side.  I'm not sure; I don't participate in those threads.  I have nothing useful to add.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

My preemptive "strike" on episodic vs. operation play is this:

Is it crucial for operational play that the motivation for rest comes entirely from the rules of the game? 

The entire motivation for entering the game of operation play doesn't come from the rules, either. There is no rule forcing me to even go adventuring and exploring a dungeon or traveling the wilderness. There are no rules telling me that I have to save the princess, that I have to hunt down the six-fingered murderer of my father, that I have to aim for greater glory, that I have to flirt with the barmaid.

We do all this without rule incentives to do so. What is so special about extended rests in operation or sandbox play that we need rules to enforce them? And why should these rules be healing in the first place? AD&D and 3E had lots of magical healing that brought people back to full hit points in rarely more then a day. So, even if theoretically you didn't have a Cleric or a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, lasting injuries might be reason to rest for some time. But won't you, in practice, have that Cleric and maybe even those Wands to recover the party? Isn't relying on the wound system for enforcing rests questionable? 

The way I see it, and probably the 4E designers saw it - whatever hit points are supposed to represent in the game world. For actual gameplay, they are not the tool used to determine long bedtimes. There is to much magic in the game to make that impossible. So no longer try to pretend otherwise, instead go full in and make it all recover automatically. That's the way the game will probably be played anyway. 

This is exactly one of the things that I find so refreshing and so laudable about the entire 4E design. Thinking things through to the point when the game is played and thinking about what will _really_ happen. And then consequently design the way in the way so that the RAW and RAI match how the game is played.

I can see how this is also disconcerting or feels wrong. Just because most people "cheat" with magic doesn't mean that we should make this "cheat" official part of the rules and make it available to everyone.

 But I see this just as the kind of brutal honesty I wish more games and designers would employ. "We figured most of you play the game this way anyway, so we said - screw it - make the game work exactly like you play it anyway". Yeah, maybe they missed a few people. Maybe there are groups that don't use Wands of Cure Light Wounds in 3E, maybe there are people that don't rely on Clerics to recover the party in a day of rest. But the truth is, they are not using the system to its full "potential". So, if they could do that in AD&D or 3E, they can do it in 4E. If they don't want healing overnight, they pretend it won't exist, just as they pretended that buying or creating Wands of Cure Light Wounds wouldn't be a good strategy. 

Maybe the designers were wrong in this assumption. Maybe the people that "pretended" instant healing over night didn't exist because the rules allowed them to get into situation were it actually didn't, even if it was not "smart play" or "power-gaming". And now that the rules don't even offer this "illusion" anymore, it's just too much. But maybe even that is a good thing. Now these people can say what they really want, and figure out their goals, likes and dislikes. And maybe they will find a system that suites their needs, or get heard by someone else that will make a system fitting for them.


----------



## Derren (Nov 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Linking together "hit point damage" and "physical injury" as an automatic assumption is something that I can understand. It's fairly obvious and consistent with D&D throughout the editions.
> 
> However, linking together "regaining hit points" and "injuries disappearing" is an assumption that D&D players in this thread are making - it is not something that is in the rules. It doesn't matter if this assumption is referred to over and over again - it is not in the RAW, nor the RAI.
> 
> ...





And is replaced by Shroedingers Death saves.

Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.
In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.

But somehow the character is able to stand up again and be rather fine off without outside help, or after a warlord shouts at him (Are you unconscious at negative HP?). And despite that those things can't heal any physical injury which would lead to this persons death they do.
So you at least have a Schroedingers Death Save effect where you can't say for certain if a PC sustained a mortal wound or not. That can only be determined after the PC self heals/is shouted back up or after he dies or is healed by magic.
And as such death saves are caused by wounds we are right back at Schroedingers Wounding


----------



## Scribble (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> And is replaced by Shroedingers Death saves.
> 
> Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.
> In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.
> ...




And what about the lost Healing Surge?


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In a sandbox game, if you completely disjoin hit points from physical injury, as you suggest, and everyone is always in perfect (game mechanics) health the next day, the problem is worse, not better.




My gut tells me that I agree with you, but I am not too sure why that is.  Can you expand on this?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.



No. The fact is that the PC is disabled/unconscious/unable to take further action, and this is the result of HP loss. 

Whether or not they're about to die hasn't been determined yet. They are wounded.



> In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.



Sure. But the severity of that physical wound hasn't been determined yet. What has been concretely established is they can no longer fight/take actions.



> But somehow the character is able to stand up again and be rather fine off without outside help, or after a warlord shouts at him (Are you unconscious at negative HP?). And despite that those things can't heal any physical injury which would lead to this persons death they do.



It works like this:

Character goes to zero HP or below - they go down. 

Character fails three death saves - their wounds turned out to be quite severe. They die.

Character makes their death save - their wounds are pretty bad. They're unconscious, but stable/not bleeding out.

Character rolls a 20 on their death save - their wounds weren't as bad as they first appeared to be. Character is stunned for a moment, then gets back up as adrenaline surges through them (think Rocky...). 

Character is healed by shouting (ie Warlord) - their wounds weren't as bad as they first appeared, the character is conscious after momentarily blacking out, and quick pep talk is all that's needed to bring them around.

Character is healed by magic - the objective severity of their wounds is irrelevant. God makes them better -mainly by using the resources found in their own bodies, natch.

Note that it's _significantly_ harder to make healing surges/4e healing sound ridiculous than it is to offer perfectly reasonable descriptions of how they work.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Character is healed by magic - the objective severity of their wounds is irrelevant. God makes them better -mainly by using the resources found in their own bodies, natch.




Yep... sometimes even magic isn't strong enough to actually heal physical damage in 4e. Like the Healing Word... it costs a healing surge so you're still damaged. It just effectively turns you into a fanatic... God says I should press on?!?! HELLS YES!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> My gut tells me that I agree with you, but I am not too sure why that is.  Can you expand on this?




I will expand on it, but it requires the ability to concentrate to do well, which I suspect wouldn't be a big hit here at work.  


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 18, 2008)

Derren said:


> And is replaced by Shroedingers Death saves.




I agree that when somebody goes down, it's unknown as to whether the wound is fatal or not (just like in 3E, with the stabiliization roll).

But like I said before, this is the time when it's appropriate for nobody to know.

The person who's in the best position to know whether or not it's a serious wound is insensible and incommunicative, so it doesn't need to be nailed down for their benefit.

The other people who are concerned about the answer aren't in a position to know, unless they take an action to evaluate the wound via a Heal check.  If they beat a DC 15, they determine that the wound is not fatal (since the character is now stable by virtue of the DC 15 Heal check).  If they don't beat a DC 15, they're still unsure (since their medical knowledge was not sufficient to determine if the wound is fatal or not).

So nobody knows if the wound is fatal or not until the character recovers or dies... _but that fits in the game world anyway_.

-Hyp.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would agree with you....but I would also say that it is rather silly to pretend that long journeys without fruits & vegetables are a good idea. Similarly, it's disingenuous (at best) to present Schroedinger's Wounding as a drawback to 4E that doesn't require a constant barrage of fruits & veggies (in the form of working to avoid it) to solve.




But the thing is, you only need to pack up the fruits and veggies once, at the start of your journey. 

Similarly, when you come up with the character concept you can also come up with a damage model. And if circumstances change - say, your martial character starts realizing his epic destiny as a demigod of tactics - you can come up with a new one - his tattoos form into armies to "repel the invaders".

If your damage model has you going down in a pile of blood and guts at 0 hit points when you can't possibly jam them back in and get up without external (divine) aid, that's a problem with your damage model, not a problem with the system.

Admittedly, the "default damage model" that, say, the DM applies to the monsters he's running works roughly this way, and if you consider the hit point system as modeling life at full and death at 0 with a continuum in between, which is what the use of numerical "ratio" data intuitively suggests, it's the first thing to spring to mind.

But if you want to narrate incoming damage to your character you have to construct a damage model that has your character able to go from 0 hit points to full completely on his own. For anyone who doesn't want to rely on the supernatural, like for example "pure martial" characters, this can be done by modeling the loss of hit points as not lasting damage but shock - hard parries, glancing blows, et cetera. Hit point loss by itself doesn't have any persistent effects, though characters can still be knocked unconscious and die without grievous bodily harm. 

The unified damage model can't meet several expectations. It can't account for healing from multiple sources necessarily having different physical effects - martial healing restores morale and vigor, divine healing closes wounds, arcane healing reverses time for the wound or constructs a mystical exoskeletal "cast" or "bandage". It also can't generate random combat wounds, though individual monsters can have "wounding powers" which apply a persistent effect after the pattern of the disease track. If you expect either of those, you have to bodge them in yourself, which often opens the door to indeterminacy.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 18, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> My gut tells me that I agree with you, but I am not too sure why that is. Can you expand on this?




It essentially boils down to this*: PCs in a sandbox are reasonably likely to, at some point, be narratively described as pretty physically beaten up, at a point where there's nothing mechanical in the sandbox** to suggest that they should stop and nurse these narrated injuries (or seek magical healing, or whatever). So they don't - they'll push forward to the next tomb, or the next level of the megadungeon, or whatever, and keep going. Which means the next time they're at a reasonable stopping point, they'll have even more narrative physical injuries, with still no mechanical effect. This can continue ad absurdum; even if you like this kind of thing in moderation, it can grate when done to excess.

*Really not meaning to put words in your mouth, RC, but I think I understand where you're going with this. Feel free to add/contradict or whatever when you get the time. 

** As I mentioned in another thread, there are ways other than healing rules to mechanically incentivize downtime, and once the PCs take some time off for any of those other reasons, the inconsistency naturally resolves itself.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 18, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> This can continue ad absurdum; even if you like this kind of thing in moderation, it can grate when done to excess.




If it grates for the sandbox players, they can choose stop and rest - it's their sandbox!

If it grates for the sandbox DM, he can narrate less-severe injuries next time.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If it grates for the sandbox players, they can choose stop and rest - it's their sandbox!




If there are mechanical advantages to pressing on*, and none for resting, players will be grated by the idea of giving up a mechanical advantage for the sole purpose of avoiding grating.



Hypersmurf said:


> If it grates for the sandbox DM, he can narrate less-severe injuries next time.




Even less-severe injuries add up over time; ad absurdum can still be reached.

*This is an assumption implicit in the original complaint that needn't be true, and suggests other angles for mitigating the issue.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 18, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> If there are mechanical advantages to pressing on*, and none for resting, players will be grated by the idea of giving up a mechanical advantage for the sole purpose of avoiding grating.




Then the players need thicker skins   Or, of course, they need to watch _Die Hard_ again, and _then_ get thicker skins.

Alternatively, they can decide whether they're more bothered by losing the mechanical advantage, or by the cinematic conundrum of pressing on while carrying injuries... and repeat each time new injuries are incurred.  At some point, either they'll find that giving up the mechanical advantage is worth relieving their anxiety over the bandages and they'll rest; or they won't, in which case the mental image of the injuries isn't really the issue they pretend it is.

Alternatively, they can use 4E for Episodic Play, and find somewhere else to build their sandbox.

Alternatively, get the DM to house-rule in a lingering wounds system for sandbox play.



> Even less-severe injuries add up over time; ad absurdum can still be reached.




But less-severe injuries _heal_ over time as well, so by the time you've accumulated more, the old ones are better.

Time is exactly the cause of the complaint... so if narrating less-severe injuries causes the time component to extend, the problem solves itself.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 18, 2008)

I think it's mainly a problem if the DM and the players aren't on the same page about the importance of the narrative.

IE if the narrative element is important to all players then they will stop and rest to recover from injuries despite there being no mechanical benefit to doing so, or no mechanical penalty for not doing so. Just because logically thats what you have to do.

If the narrative element is important to the DM, but not the players, then when they decide to press on, because well- no reason mechanically they shouldn't, then it will grate on the DM that they are so injured but still continuing on despite the insanity such an action would cause in real life...

Having a game rule element in place forces even players who have no issue with continuing on despite their injuries to stop and rest. 

I personally think it's better to just be on the same page.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Then the players need thicker skins  Or, of course, they need to watch _Die Hard_ again, and _then_ get thicker skins.
> 
> Alternatively, they can decide whether they're more bothered by losing the mechanical advantage, or by the cinematic conundrum of pressing on while carrying injuries... and repeat each time new injuries are incurred. At some point, either they'll find that giving up the mechanical advantage is worth relieving their anxiety over the bandages and they'll rest; or they won't, in which case the mental image of the injuries isn't really the issue they pretend it is.
> 
> ...




There are plenty of ways to deal with this without either rejecting the system itself (which may have other merits for the style of game you wish to play) or even introducing house-rules.

Simply allowing PCs to spend time gathering useful information about potential adventure sites before setting off to explore one mitigates the issue quite well, while _also_ serving sandbox play generally.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This is exactly one of the things that I find so refreshing and so laudable about the entire 4E design. Thinking things through to the point when the game is played and thinking about what will _really_ happen. And then consequently design the way in the way so that the RAW and RAI match how the game is played.
> 
> I can see how this is also disconcerting or feels wrong. Just because most people "cheat" with magic doesn't mean that we should make this "cheat" official part of the rules and make it available to everyone.
> 
> But I see this just as the kind of brutal honesty I wish more games and designers would employ. "We figured most of you play the game this way anyway, so we said - screw it - make the game work exactly like you play it anyway".




I will give my reasoning for why this seems wrong to me and maybe ask for your take a look at my analogy. Does this make the rules fit the way the game is played also apply to sports? Should steriods be allowed in Baseball because large numbers of players use them anyway? Should fighting be allowed in Hockey because basicly all players end up fighting on the ice anyway? I for one apreciate the illusion that baseball isn't about steriods or that hockey players aren't supposed to fight on the ice.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 18, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I will give my reasoning for why this seems wrong to me and maybe ask for your take a look at my analogy. Does this make the rules fit the way the game is played also apply to sports? Should steriods be allowed in Baseball because large numbers of players use them anyway? Should fighting be allowed in Hockey because basicly all players end up fighting on the ice anyway? I for one apreciate the illusion that baseball isn't about steriods or that hockey players aren't supposed to fight on the ice.




So, you are implying that the way most people play the game is morally equivalent to using steroids or fighting?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 19, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Should steriods be allowed in Baseball because large numbers of players use them anyway?



Absolutely.



> Should fighting be allowed in Hockey because basicly all players end up fighting on the ice anyway?



Yes. And fighting is allowed in hockey, as evidenced by the way the insignificant penalties for it are incorporated into the game play.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I will give my reasoning for why this seems wrong to me and maybe ask for your take a look at my analogy. Does this make the rules fit the way the game is played also apply to sports? Should steriods be allowed in Baseball because large numbers of players use them anyway? Should fighting be allowed in Hockey because basicly all players end up fighting on the ice anyway? I for one apreciate the illusion that baseball isn't about steriods or that hockey players aren't supposed to fight on the ice.




Not really the same.

Allowing Steroids effects how a player performs in the game. Performance in the game measures things like how much fans like seeing you, and want you on a team, which effects your career and how much a team wants to employ you etc...

So taking steroids would give a player an unfair advantage over another that chooses not to due to health reasons, etc...

Changinmg hit points does not offer an unfair advantage, or effect anyone's D&D career. (well maybe a designer, but not in the same way.)


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Nov 19, 2008)

Now that we're full into the death-save realm, I would like to coin another physics-based term to facilitate discussion.  I offer to you the first draft of the _Healsenberg Uncertainty Principle_:

For all characters, D&D can measure either the speed at which a character moves towards the point of death or the absolute distance from the point of death that the character stands, but not both simultaneously.  Furthermore, attempting to measure one affects the other.   That is, peforming a successful Heal check to determine stability stabilizes a character, thus halting their movement toward the death point and determining their absolute position from it.  Determining the movement towards death (via death saves) makes determining the absolute distance from the death point impossible.  Unlike the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there is no standard mathematical correlation between measurement of speed and measurement of position.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Simply allowing PCs to spend time gathering useful information about potential adventure sites before setting off to explore one mitigates the issue quite well, while _also_ serving sandbox play generally.




There's a difference between _allowing_, and _requiring_, though.

If the PCs choose to move directly to the next site, without spending time to gather information, the time issue remains.  And if the DM _requires_ them to gather information before moving on?  That's episodic play!

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Here’s an attempt. Beyond a doubt, it is a wordy and flawed attempt, so bear with me if you want and skip the post if you don’t want. 

*Background*

First off, let me lay down some background. 

Every game has an element of “smart play” to it. “Smart play” is whatever leads you to success within the game system itself. For instance, if the game system allows xp for both gold and monsters, and gold gives more xp, then smart play focuses on the acquiring of treasure over the slaying of monsters. In games where gold translates to better equipment (and thus more in-game power), smart play still focuses on acquiring treasure, although not necessarily more than whatever grants xp. In games that don’t include story awards, there is no game incentive to rescuing the princess for free, and adventure design usually includes a cash reward for the same.

“Satisfying play” is not necessarily the same thing as smart play. For example, the oft-quoted “greyhawking” of dungeons is an artefact of smart play, but it is often described as unsatisfying. This is one of the primary reasons for including wandering monsters in early editions – the monsters create an offset for greyhawking that allows players to be “smart” while achieving a satisfying experience.

To use a non-rpg example, in the game of Monopoly, smart play at the beginning of the game usually means trying to buy up as much property as you can, and landing in jail is something that is undesirable. Later on, you might have to avoid landing on other people’s hotels, and landing in jail is a good thing. Smart play is entirely dependent upon the rules. It has nothing to do with whether you believe landing in jail is fun or not fun.

It is my belief that, when designing a game, it is desirable to not have smart play interfere with satisfying play.

*Sandbox Play*

The purpose of sandbox play is not to make each individual game session (or group of sessions) into a single “story” with a beginning, middle, and end. In fact, instead of being a story, within a sandbox a series of “stories” are going on, all at the same time. The DM lays hooks and background material, generally giving a context so that the players can make meaningful decisions. The DM is allowed to make any rules about the world, but he is emphatically not allowed to tell the players what they will do, where they will go, or when they will do it.

The best sandboxes do not just have a single PC group involved in the setting; instead, there are multiple PC groups, all of whom interact with (and through their interaction, change) the setting. The interactions of all of these characters make the setting richer, and that is often the primary draw of a sandbox setting.

It cannot be emphasized too much: The biggest draw of a sandbox setting – for players and DM alike – is the ability to immerse in the setting. This is a function both of the richness of the setting itself, and how the rules interact with the players.

I could (and almost did) write an essay on the job of the DM in a sandbox setting. Instead, let me point out two things:

(1)    In a sandbox, there is always more to do than can ever be done. The world is larger than the characters. Players can only be offered meaningful choices between X and Y if, in some sense, choosing X excludes Y. In a sandbox, the most precious commodity is time.

(2)    The DM of a sandbox game never tells the players what to do. He merely supplies the context for their choices. It is okay for the DM to say that IF the princess is not rescued THEN Country A goes to war with Country B. It is okay for the DM to say IF you spend too much time greyhawking, THEN you will meet more wandering monsters. It is okay for the DM to say IF you go to the Mountain of Death, THEN you might meet the undead giants. It is most emphatically NOT okay for the DM to say that the PCs must rescue the princess, must not greyhawk the dungeon, or must not go to the Mountain of Death.

One more thing about verisimilitude in a fantasy world. It is my opinion (and YMMV) that richness in a campaign setting – the primary draw of the sandbox – cannot be achieved unless the mundane world is reasonably understandable to the players’ experience. Creatures like wolves and bears are important to encounter. A gloss on a normal ecosystem is important so that players can gain clues from what they see around them. Players must understand how gravity normally works, must be able to assume that there are various normal small animals in the Vesve Forest, etc.

Fantasy elements, of course, exist in this world, but the fantasy elements are largely understandable by (a) how they contrast to the mundane elements, and (b) how they resonate with the players. 

_*Schrödinger’s Wounding, Healing, etc.*_

The best solution to the wound/hit point problem in 4e is to completely disjoin game-world damage from hit points. Some go so far as to claim that this is what the rules imply, although I do not believe that this is true. Hit points in 4e are still, for example, described as representing damage to some degree, and “healing surges” does not imply shifting damage from one type of representation to another type of representation. “Healing surges” as described strongly imply that they are performing actual healing.

Disjoining in-game wounds from game mechanics leaves the players in a situation where they have no mechanical reason to role-play their characters as wounded. In previous editions, low hit points would cause players to behave more cautiously the more they became wounded. In this way, smart play followed satisfying play, assuming that one believes it is satisfying to have greater (rather than lesser) verisimilitude.

It has been pointed out that healing in earlier editions can be extremely fast, but there is a difference between magical healing and mundane healing. Different people have different points at which verisimilitude is stretched past the breaking point. 3e was very, very close to that point for me, and 4e is well over it. YMMV.

Be that as it may, in episodic play, there is a space between adventures which is narrated by the DM. It is simplicity in itself, in this form of play, for the DM to say “Two months pass, and you’ve healed all of your wounds.” The narrative covers the discrepancy between mechanics and what the mechanics (IMHO) should be describing. Schrödinger’s Wounding exists, but isn’t experienced as a problem, if it is even noticed at all.

_*4e Enters the Sandbox*_

The sandbox wants verisimilitude. It wants richness in setting. It wants a ruleset that allows the players to interact with the setting in a way that is both smart (in terms of game rules) and satisfying (in terms of setting).

Satisfying sandbox play requires immersion. Indeed, if you aren’t looking for immersion and decision making, one wonders what value you would get from a sandbox. Immersion requires narration and events that do not strain credibility. You neither want to avoid narrating damage, nor to only narrate damage that is, effectively, no worse than a hangnail.

Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.
(Ed Greenwood brought this up in an excellent article in The Dragon, long ago, and before TSR bought the Forgotten Realms.)

Lacyon has it essentially right when he says



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> It essentially boils down to this*: PCs in a sandbox are reasonably likely to, at some point, be narratively described as pretty physically beaten up, at a point where there's nothing mechanical in the sandbox** to suggest that they should stop and nurse these narrated injuries (or seek magical healing, or whatever). So they don't - they'll push forward to the next tomb, or the next level of the megadungeon, or whatever, and keep going. Which means the next time they're at a reasonable stopping point, they'll have even more narrative physical injuries, with still no mechanical effect. This can continue ad absurdum; even if you like this kind of thing in moderation, it can grate when done to excess.




If one were incredibly dismissive, one might say

If it grates for the sandbox players, they can choose stop and rest - it's their sandbox!

If it grates for the sandbox DM, he can narrate less-severe injuries next time.​
But this doesn’t really help. The players in a sandbox don’t want to choose between smart play and satisfying play. Tell them that they must, and they begin to wonder why they are in the sandbox at all. If the DM only narrates less-severe injuries, he (a) removes expected potential consequences from player decisions, thus effectively devaluing them, and (b) removes expected description from the narrative, thus damaging immersion.

Nor is "Then the players need thicker skins  Or, of course, they need to watch Die Hard again, and _then_ get thicker skins" anything more than dismissive of the playstyle, and the problems trying to use 4e causes with that playstyle.

I remember one pre-release blog entry where a designer suggested that 4e was going to be a good edition for sandboxes.  It mentioned the possibility of a revamped Forbidden City from _Dwellers of the Forbidden City _that would essentially be a big sandbox.  I was looking forward to that.  Even if I didn't switch editions, I could convert the module!

4e isn't the first edition where problems arise in sandbox play.  3e had two glaring problems:  (1) power curve made it harder for players to determine what are appropriate areas in sandbox play, and (2) too much "homework" in designing areas makes it hard for a DM to prep a sandbox.

All IMHO, of course.

And, probably pretty flawed overall......but there you have it.


RC


----------



## justanobody (Nov 19, 2008)

*database error*

Am I the only one getting a database error when trying to view anything but the first page of this thread?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time.




Why?  If the DM is not insisting that the PCs must go to the Mountain of Death, can they not take time to rest where they feel it is necessary?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Why?  If the DM is not insisting that the PCs must go to the Mountain of Death, can they not take time where they feel it is necessary?
> 
> -Hyp.




Cut & Paste from the post you are quoting:

(1) In a sandbox, there is always more to do than can ever be done. The world is larger than the characters. Players can only be offered meaningful choices between X and Y if, in some sense, choosing X excludes Y. In a sandbox, the most precious commodity is time.​
If you don't mind, I am not planning on answering questions with answers that can be cut & pasted from upthread anymore -- let alone from within the same post.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Why is "We are wounded, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a bad thing, but "We are wounded and suffering a mechanical penalty due to the long-term healing rules, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a good thing?

If the players find that going to the Mountain of Death the day after suffering a wound is jarring, then why is it necessary for the rules to penalise them for it in order for them to choose to rest?

If I, as DM, say "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary", versus "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary, taking a -5 penalty to speed and a -2 penalty to all attack rolls"... shouldn't the party who is concerned about 'realistic' healing times for injuries make the same decision in either case... whether it be 'press on' or 'rest'?

The party who is only concerned with mechanics, naturally, might make a different decision in each situation... but they aren't the people who are bothered by 'realistic' healing times!

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1) In a sandbox, there is always more to do than can ever be done. The world is larger than the characters. Players can only be offered meaningful choices between X and Y if, in some sense, choosing X excludes Y. In a sandbox, the most precious commodity is time.




But if there's more to do than can ever be done, there will still be something to do after you take two weeks to recover from your injuries...

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> But if there's more to do than can ever be done, there will still be something to do after you take two weeks to recover from your injuries...
> 
> -Hyp.




Sure.  But.....

(1)  The world continues to move while you recover.

(2)  In the best sandboxes, there are other player groups, and those groups may also be moving on the same goal.  Heck, there might even be NPCs that the players are aware of, moving on the same goal.

(3)  A well-run sandbox contains a tension between the desire to move and the desire to wait until you are at your best.  This makes the decision to rest or go meaningful.

(4)  Remember all of those threads about the 15-minute adventuring day, and the reasons why players might not want to just rest whenever they get low on resources?  They still apply.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If I, as DM, say "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary", versus "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary, taking a -5 penalty to speed and a -2 penalty to all attack rolls"... shouldn't the party who is concerned about 'realistic' healing times for injuries make the same decision in either case... whether it be 'press on' or 'rest'?




Thats the crux of it to me... Anytime I've ever been in immersive mode, and everyone is on the same page, the rules seem to matter less. If something seems invalid, even if allowed by the rules, players tend to just go with what would be more realistic. IE we rest until our wounds heal. Or we don't jump off a cliff even though we know it will never kill us, etc...

It's only when players and Dm aren't on the same page that problems arise.

Immersive DM: "Your wounds pain you, and you feel it will take a week to heal..."

Mechanics Player: "I'm at full HP, so who cares. I'm pressing on."

Immersive DM: "But your wounds aren't healed."

Mechanics Player: "Whatever..."

Imposing a mechanical penalty gives the immersive Dm some measure of control over that. To sort of force everyone, mechanical player or immersive, into his sandbox. (Whether you agree with it or not is another topic.)

Immersive DM: "Well then you take a -5 on your attacks until you heal."

Mechanics Player: "Damn... I guess I wait a week to heal up."


Raven, I still don't understand what the issue with the healing surge representing overall health is?

So it doesn't say thats the case in the book... 4e like all D&D versions leaves a lot open to interpretation. Which is the best part in my opinion. None of the versions have said anything about lasting wounds.

Using Healing Surges to track overall health is a way to allow both martial and magic healing without the weird how did his words close up my wounds issue. 

I'd still admit you'd have trouble with it in your sandbox though because of the speed of their recovery. That's an easy fix though by just slowing the rate down. Yep, it's a house rule, but D&D has a long history of modifying to suit whatever page the players are on...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Why is "We are wounded, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a bad thing, but "We are wounded and suffering a mechanical penalty due to the long-term healing rules, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a good thing?
> 
> If the players find that going to the Mountain of Death the day after suffering a wound is jarring, then why is it necessary for the rules to penalise them for it in order for them to choose to rest?




Another cut & paste from the same post:

Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.​
And that is, absolutely, the last cut & paste answer I am doing on this thread.  If you can't be bothered to read the post you are replying to, I am certainly not going to be bothered to reply further & give you more things to not read.



RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure.  But.....
> 
> (1)  The world continues to move while you recover.




Of course it does.  And you might miss an opportunity...

... _but if there are healing rules that necessitate downtime, you'll miss that opportunity anyway_.



> (3)  A well-run sandbox contains a tension between the desire to move and the desire to wait until you are at your best.  This makes the decision to rest or go meaningful.




Then why is it necessary for there to be mechanical punishment for not waiting until you are at your best?  If the meaningful decision is enjoyable in and of itself, the players can still decide to rest to heal their wounds somewhat, creating that tension.  If the meaningful decision is not enjoyable in and of itself, then how does mechanical punishment make it so?



> (4)  Remember all of those threads about the 15-minute adventuring day, and the reasons why players might not want to just rest whenever they get low on resources?  They still apply.




But mechanical punishment _imposes_ the fifteen minute adventuring day.  Removing the mechanical punishment means that if the story is better served by the PCs moving on instead of resting, they can do so.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Another cut & paste from the same post:
> 
> Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.​
> And that is, absolutely, the last cut & paste answer I am doing on this thread.  If you can't be bothered to read the post you are replying to, I am certainly not going to be bothered to reply further & give you more things to not read.
> ...



Given that this is an extremely obtuse block of text, and does not seem to relate directly to Hypersmurf's rather clear question on the subject, I think that this stock response of yours--that you already answered the question--is perhaps ill-advised.  If you're not interested in replying to questions, then we can just let this thread die (and that might be the humane thing to do).  But we're not combing through 10 pages to see if you made some kind of point that might have something to do with something someone said, especially when the ones you actually copy-paste are less than clear.

Perhaps you have not answered these questions to the satisfaction of those asking them, despite thinking that you have--which is why they keep asking them.  Hypersmurf is the biggest stickler for detail I've seen on these boards.  I would give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.




But if 'smart' play is not satisfying, then it's not especially smart!

If you're not gaining satisfaction from your game, then you're doing it wrong... for yourself, if not necessarily for everyone else out there.  Surely 'smart' play is play that achieves one's objectives, and satisfaction is among those objectives!

What you're calling 'smart' play sounds like what others might define as 'mechanical optimisation' or 'powergaming'.  And while Pun-Pun makes for an amusing intellectual exercise, it's not fun in play... and so 'optimised' isn't what I'd call 'smart', because it diminishes the enjoyment of the game.

Which sounds like what you're protesting - that taking the mechanically-optimal route of pressing on despite wounds is less enjoyable than the less-optimised route of resting first.  If players are finding that their powergaming is decreasing their enjoyment, the simple solution is for them to rein in those tendencies.

Any game can be broken; just because it's possible doesn't mean it's advisable, or 'smart'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Given that this is an extremely obtuse block of text, and does not seem to relate directly to Hypersmurf's rather clear question on the subject, I think that this stock response of yours--that you already answered the question--is perhaps ill-advised.  If you're not interested in replying to questions, then we can just let this thread die (and that might be the humane thing to do).  But we're not combing through 10 pages to see if you made some kind of point that might have something to do with something someone said, especially when the ones you actually copy-paste are less than clear.
> 
> Perhaps you have not answered these questions to the satisfaction of those asking them, despite thinking that you have--which is why they keep asking them.  Hypersmurf is the biggest stickler for detail I've seen on these boards.  I would give him the benefit of the doubt.





Hyp wants to know why it matters that there are reasons within the context of the game (as opposed to within the context of the narrative) to rest.

Of course it does. And you might miss an opportunity...

_... but if there are healing rules that necessitate downtime, you'll miss that opportunity anyway._​
The rules of the game determine what is smart play.  It is one thing to miss an opportunity because, within the rules of the game, you gain a benefit, and another wherein you miss an opportunity without gaining any benefit.  Even if that benefit is, essentially, avoiding a penalty.  

In the begining of a Monopoly game, getting out of jail as soon as possible is smart play.  Later on, sitting in jail to avoid having to pay rents might be smart play, even though the benefit you gain is avoiding a penalty.

Players should always be able to choose smart play, and have that result in satisfying play.  A game that does not allow you to do that is poorly designed.  In the event of 4e, I am saying that it is poorly designed for sandbox play.

So, why is it different missing an opportunity when there is a mechanical reason to do so, as opposed to when there isn't, if the net end is the same?  The answer is that the net end isn't the same.  In one case, the players are making a meaningful decision about what is smart, and gaining satisfying play as a result, while in the other the players are making a meaningful decision about what is satisfying, and losing the advantage of smart play.

Consider smart play as being worth 1 and satisfying play being worth 2.

A situation which leads to smart and satisfying play is (1 + 2 = 3) more valuable than a situation which leads to satisfying play but not smart play (2 + 0 = 2).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Any game can be broken; just because it's possible doesn't mean it's advisable, or 'smart'.





One of the most disatisfying parts of 3e is how smart play requires a degree of optimization that damages satisfying play.  It came up repeatedly on these boards and others.

This is the same, in fact, as the dissatisfaction some feel about needing to have a cleric in TSR D&D.....what is smart play isn't necessarily satisfying play.

Even so, there is a difference between corner cases leading to dichotomies between smart and satisfying play, and _*the end results of every combat or series of combats doing the same*_.

From your responses in this thread, though, I perceive that you haven't read what I wrote......You don't apparently know what I am talking about when I say "smart play", for instance.  

So, despite Dr. Awkward's feelings to the contrary, it seems to me like you are not actually interested in the POV I am elaborating (on request), but are rather interested in somehow "winning" by a process of eroding the desire of anyone to continue posting a viewpoint you don't endorse.

Your earlier dismissive posts certainly point to this conclusion.

IMHO, you can only "win" if, at the end of a discussion, you're viewpoint has grown beyond what it was at the start.  For example, over the course of this discussion I learned that the problem I see with sandbox play isn't necessarily a problem with episodic play.  Staying where you are, though, isn't "winning" and isn't particularly worthwhile.

IMHO.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Raven, I still don't understand what the issue with the healing surge representing overall health is?
> 
> So it doesn't say thats the case in the book... 4e like all D&D versions leaves a lot open to interpretation.




I don't like "You're causing this problem by ignoring the rules" when I am not at all convinced that your interpretation _*is*_ the rules, or what the designers intended.

OTOH, I think it is probably the best single "fix" in terms of cost for benefit ratio that I have seen, and if I didn't have other problems with 4e's design philosophy, I would very, very probably adopt it, and then slow down healing surge recovery as you suggest.






> I'd still admit you'd have trouble with it in your sandbox though because of the speed of their recovery.




Thank you.

And I'll admit you can completely avoid that problem in episodic play without even trying.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Even so, there is a difference between corner cases leading to dichotomies between smart and satisfying play, and _*the end results of every combat or series of combats doing the same*_.




But it only requires the decision to be made once, after the first series of combats - that despite the mechanical advantage to pressing on despite injury in 4E Sandbox play, the party will assume the rest-when-wounded to be advantageous - and you've solved the problem.

You don't need to cover the same ground after every combat... just like the player of the high-level cleric in 3E doesn't need to select fifty spells to prepare every time the party rests.  Unless circumstances have changed, the player can assume that the cleric will prepare the same fifty spells he prepares for any ordinary adventuring day.

Once you've made a decision to assume that rest-after-injury improves the play experience _once_, you don't need to revisit that decision except under exceptional circumstances... and so the 'smart'-vs-satisfying dichotomy _becomes_ a corner case.

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2008)

Derren said:


> Shroedingers Death saves.
> 
> Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.
> In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.



I don't see how this differs in any fundamental way from stabilisation rolls in 4e, or even from 1st ed AD&D, where (with minor medical attention) a wound that otherwise would have been fatal can be recovered from in a week or so. D&D has never had mechanics for implementing your notion of a mortal wound (if it did, the Regeneration spell might have actually seen play).



Derren said:


> You don't die from a lack of will.



In the world of D&D you can - consider Lancelot in the 1981 version of Excalibur, for example, or Aragorn in Peter Jackson's version of The Two Towers, or Kull diving into the taboo lake and fighting all sorts of beasts underwater and not drowning only because of the strength of his will (I think the story is Delcarde's Cat).

I think both these matters are best viewed as a genre thing. If you don't like the genre, then 4e is not for you - but I'm personally baffled as to how any earlier edition of D&D (except perhaps Moldvay basic or low-level OD&D, which combine a certain grittiness with no death's door rules) was.



Tallarn said:


> Linking together "hit point damage" and "physical injury" as an automatic assumption is something that I can understand. It's fairly obvious and consistent with D&D throughout the editions.
> 
> However, linking together "regaining hit points" and "injuries disappearing" is an assumption that D&D players in this thread are making - it is not something that is in the rules. It doesn't matter if this assumption is referred to over and over again - it is not in the RAW, nor the RAI.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I've been saying the same thing (as have LostSoul, Hypersmurf and others) for many months in many threads.



Raven Crowking said:


> Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).





Raven Crowking said:


> In a sandbox game, if you completely disjoin hit points from physical injury, as you suggest, and everyone is always in perfect (game mechanics) health the next day, the problem is worse, not better.



I think I already posted that the healing surge/short rest/dying mechanics (roughly, the bundle of mechanics that are said to yield "Schroedinger's Wounding") are quite distinct from the extended rest mechanics, which are what you seem to be complaining about above.

One solution to the extended rest problem, if you can't embrace the underying genre assumption (that also serves a useful game mechanical function for at least some values of "useful"), is (as others have said) to slow down the rate of recovery. Ari Marmell's APG has rules for this based on the disease track. One surge per day might also do the job, making natural healing actually slower than it is in 3E, I think.

Another is my oft-repeated suggestion of simply narrating the passage of time. I know you think that this is at odds with sandbox play, but I don't really see why, provided the players are doing the narrating. (I think there are other features of 4e that don't fit especially well with sandbox - such as the quest rules and the emphasis on highly metagamed encounter design.)



Hypersmurf said:


> If it grates for the sandbox players, they can choose stop and rest - it's their sandbox!
> 
> If it grates for the sandbox DM, he can narrate less-severe injuries next time.



I've been saying this for a billion pages on the "Dissapointed in 4e" thread. But for some reason I don't really get it's not a solution.



Lacyon said:


> If there are mechanical advantages to pressing on*, and none for resting, players will be grated by the idea of giving up a mechanical advantage for the sole purpose of avoiding grating.



But in a sandbox game, as opposed to in a railroad or at the culmination of a dramatic episode, I'm hard-pressed to see what those advantages might be.



Raven Crowking said:


> (1)    In a sandbox, there is always more to do than can ever be done. The world is larger than the characters. Players can only be offered meaningful choices between X and Y if, in some sense, choosing X excludes Y. In a sandbox, the most precious commodity is time.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time.



It's obvious that this claim about ingame time is crucial to the argument. But like Hypersmurf I don't see it. Are the players really worried that their PCs will die of old age before reaching a level high enough to use magic that renders old age irrelevant if they narrate some down time? Certainly, in a sandbox, the world will still be there to be explored in the future.



Raven Crowking said:


> Sure.  But.....
> 
> (1)  The world continues to move while you recover.
> 
> ...



My feeling about (1), (2) and (4) is that these really signal the existence of ongoing episodes, in which case the teeth-gritting solution can be used until the episode comes to an end. Where (1) is not about an episode, but just a generic worry that time is passing, then in a sandbox game surely the answer is that the sandbox is temporal as well as spatial.

Number (3) above is a bit different. But in my long experience GMing more-or-less sandbox Rolemaster, penalties from injury are one of the least satisfactory ways of generating the tension you refer to, as opposed to (for example) trading of striking now versus negotiating an alliance first. The second choice is dramatic and meaningful. The first simply makes the players resent their lack of a decent healer.



Raven Crowking said:


> I don't like "You're causing this problem by ignoring the rules" when I am not at all convinced that your interpretation _*is*_ the rules, or what the designers intended.



Given the games that have obviously influenced the desing of 4e, including it's conflict resolution mechanics, not to mention some of what Chris Sims posted on a pre-release hit point thread, I think the better-warranted view is that some version of a flexible-narration approach to hit points and damage is exactly what was intended.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 19, 2008)

Thanks RC, that was interesting.

Just one question:



Raven Crowking said:


> It cannot be emphasized too much: The biggest draw of a sandbox setting – for players and DM alike – is the ability to immerse in the setting. This is a function both of the richness of the setting itself, and how the rules interact with the players.




What does immersion in the setting mean?  Is it seeing the world through the eyes of the character (and feeling what he feels, reacting to things as he does), or is it more about exploring all the nooks and crannies in the world without really feeling like you're the character in the world?

Or have I got it wrong?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

Hmm, I think I am getting RC explanation.

Smart Play means using rule mechanics and game-world elements to succeed at a task, preferably with the least resources expended.

Satisfying Play depends on your desires from a game. Playing smart might be one, but there can be others - playing the character you envision (I'd like to play a charismatic Fighter), or being immersed in the game world (the world is going on everywhere, so I must choose where to affect the world and when. The world feels "real").

Smart Play and Satisfying Play can be at odds. For example, in 3E, playing a charismatic Fighter grants you no real benefits, and if you're using a (stingy) point buy character creation method, it's not smart play to spend a lot of points on Charisma. 

---

Satisfying play in operational or sandbox play usually means that you want to affect the sandbox as continuously and often as possible. The PCs want to avoid the passage of time where they can't affect anything going on the world. The typical thing that avoids the PCs affecting the world at all is resting to recover injuries or lost resources.
So, handling resources well is satisfying play. Avoid resource expenditure, gather a lot of resources. And all of this over a long play. It is satisfying in a a sandbox to ensure that you expend little resources and manage them well so you can affect the sandbox continuously, and don't spend long time to recover resources.

A game where instant healing is provided after 6 hours of rest, there are no long-term resources to be handled. This means the effect of smart play are not visible on the sandbox scale, because the party is ready every day to go on their adventuring trip. 

In essence this means smart play and satisfying play are not the same. It doesn't matter how smart you play, you can't affect your goals. In a way you might say: "Great, so you can act all the time. That's great, right, that's what you wanted!" But the thing is - you wanted to work for this. It was supposed to be a challenge to ensure that you got to act in the sandbox. And now, it's just handed to you. In a combat/encounter focused game, it is as if success was guaranteed, and all your opponents fall over dead if you choose to engage them. There is no threat, no challenge, and the entire game is meaningless. 

---

For experimental game design purposes only, here's my gamist sandbox mod for 4E (draft version): 
Every character has 4 sandbox points. You can spend an extended rest and one sandbox point to recover all your healing surges, hit points and all your daily powers, and reset all action points to 1. If you don't spend a sandbox point during your rest, you regain only enough hit points to get you to your bloodied hit point value. 
Each extended rest you don't spend a sandbox point, you regain one sandbox point.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 19, 2008)

Derren said:


> And is replaced by Shroedingers Death saves.
> 
> Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.
> In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.




Yes, potentially mortal. But then nearly all wounds are potentially mortal. But the manner is which the wound was narrated (either by DM, PC, or both) is entirely down to the choice of the people at the table. It has nothing to do with anything written in the rules.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> But somehow the character is able to stand up again and be rather fine off without outside help, or after a warlord shouts at him (Are you unconscious at negative HP?). And despite that those things can't heal any physical injury which would lead to this persons death, they do.




Why are you so tied up with regaining hp = healing physical wounds. We're all in agreement that in 4e hp are not exclusively tied to physical, observable, quantifiable damage. So why should the game mechanic of regaining hp be tied to the removal of damage, when instead you can make a choice at the table to narrate it in a different way?



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> So you at least have a Schroedingers Death Save effect where you can't say for certain if a PC sustained a mortal wound or not. That can only be determined after the PC self heals/is shouted back up or after he dies or is healed by magic.
> 
> *And as such death saves are caused by wounds* we are right back at Schroedingers Wounding




Death saves are not caused by "wounds", if by wounds you mean physical injury. They are caused by hit point loss, which, as stated in the rules, covers a bunch of different things.

Death saves are also inherently and completely random - they're a d20 roll! Of course they're uncertain until they're resolved, that's the whole point of them! 

If someone is dealt psychic damage, goes to negative hp, and receives a Cure Light Wounds, is the damage to their brain repaired, physically? Or is it more the case that this abstract system of hp works, as a game mechanic, because it's simple and effective to do so. Could we instead choose to say that Cure Light Wounds, in this case, refers to a feeling of divine power washing through the character to such an extent that they feel capable of continuing to fight, although they may not stand for long?

I say again - there is nothing in the rules that specifies that losing hp = taking physical wounds, nor that regaining hp = healing physical wounds. Hp is an abstract game mechanic, that can be narrated it an infinite number of different ways. Some narrations lead to Quantum Wounding - some do not.

Therefore, I conclude that the problem with Quantum Wounding is a choice of narration, not a function of the rules.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 19, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Therefore, I conclude that the problem with Quantum Wounding is a choice of narration, not a function of the rules.



I understand where both sides of the argument are coming from here, the frame of reference of each such that seen through one lens the other argument is false/wrong/illogical/unfun/not RAW etc.

Now you make the obvious point here that narratively, the abstract definition of hit points opens up a plethora of suitable, interesting and imaginative interpretations. However, how many of these narrative interpretations could conceivably kill a heroic character? Is it not easier to work on the premise that in most cases in combat, that if a character is dropped into unconsciousness and is forced to start making death saves that it was a physical injury that caused it?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking - you and I obviously make some very different assumptions about playing D&D. These assumptions are what's driving the discussion between us, but we're never going to close the gap and agree. So I'm going to stop posting in response to your posts, because I don't want to go round in circles, agreeing that we disagree over and over again.

However, I do still disagree with you in regards to these assumptions, particuarly in regards to sandbox play and Quantum Wounding.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 19, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Now you make the obvious point here that narratively, the abstract definition of hit points opens up a plethora of suitable, interesting and imaginative interpretations. However, how many of these narrative interpretations could conceivably kill a heroic character? Is it not easier to work on the premise that in most cases in combat, that if a character is dropped into unconsciousness and is forced to start making death saves that it was a physical injury that caused it?




It may or may not be easier to work on that premise, but I've been arguing about it because it was suggested (and no, I can't find a quote to support that directly) that 4e was causing this problem by something in the rules.

I maintain that there is nothing in the rules about "hp loss = physical damage" or "regaining hp = curing of physical damage", and therefore Quantum Wounding is a non-issue.

It MAY be physical damage that causes your PC to go to negative hp. It may be a lack of will to carry on. It may be a sense of crushing despair. It may be any number of things, and the hp & healing mechanics are non-specific on the issue. Therefore any Quantum Wounding problems are happening because the players & DM are choosing to have them at the table, not because of the rules.

That's all I've ever wanted to get across. I don't deny that the problem CAN exist, nor do I wish to tell people how to play their game. I do, however, object to the idea that it's something in the 4e rules that is causing this problem.


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 19, 2008)

pemerton said:


> It's obvious that this claim about ingame time is crucial to the argument. But like Hypersmurf I don't see it. Are the players really worried that their PCs will die of old age before reaching a level high enough to use magic that renders old age irrelevant if they narrate some down time? Certainly, in a sandbox, the world will still be there to be explored in the future.




Time is crucial because if the PCs don't act in time the mage may complete his ritual and become a lich, or the evil duke's bid to overthrow the king and take control of the kingdom may come to fruition, or the drow ambassador might reach and agreement with the local humanoid tribe and combine thier forces when assaulting the local community, or the rival party might find the sword of awsome hidden in the dungeon of death before your party does. In immersive play these things should be meaningful to the PCs, things they don't want to just let happen.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2008)

ShadeyDM, that was why I said that time pressure is mostly within an episode, in which extended rest recovery can be narrated as teeth-gritting in the same manner as short rest recovery.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

pemerton said:


> ShadeyDM, that was why I said that time pressure is mostly within an episode, in which extended rest recovery can be narrated as teeth-gritting in the same manner as short rest recovery.




There are no discrete "episodes" within a sandbox.


RC


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> For experimental game design purposes only, here's my gamist sandbox mod for 4E (draft version):
> Every character has 4 sandbox points. You can spend an extended rest and one sandbox point to recover all your healing surges, hit points and all your daily powers, and reset all action points to 1. If you don't spend a sandbox point during your rest, you regain only enough hit points to get you to your bloodied hit point value.
> Each extended rest you don't spend a sandbox point, you regain one sandbox point.




This is pretty cool.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

I have no idea how you could design a game in which "smart play" _never_ conflicted with _any_ player's idea of "satisfying play".

I agree that doing so would be GREAT game design, but I don't see how it could be done, so I think it's a bit unfair to call a game which doesn't achieve this "bad game design".

Perhaps you can explain more?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> I have no idea how you could design a game in which "smart play" _never_ conflicted with _any_ player's idea of "satisfying play".
> 
> I agree that doing so would be GREAT game design, but I don't see how it could be done, so I think it's a bit unfair to call a game which doesn't achieve this "bad game design".
> 
> Perhaps you can explain more?




Bad game design is where you believe X is satisfying, and therefore give players incentive to not-X without realizing what you are doing.

Overall, while I think 4e is a bad design for sandbox play, I don't believe that the game was designed for a sandbox.  It is a much better design for episodic play.

Failing to explain that wounding is being disjointed from mechanics, though, is a flaw.  If that is what was intended.  Not an insurmountable one, though.  I've said that 4e is well designed for what the designers believe to be "fun" in the past.  

There are some claims made by 4e supporters that, IF true, THEN would mean that 4e was poorly designed, because they are essentially claims that 4e is a intended for Y, wherein Y conflicts with 4e's "smart play/satisfying play" paradigm.  So there are certainly times in discussing 4e's systems where a claim is made, and I will respond with IF that is true, THEN 4e is poorly designed.

(The same can be said for any game.)


RC


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Failing to explain that wounding is being disjointed from mechanics, though, is a flaw.





What if it's not being disjointed from mechanics, though?  I mean, what if it's actually _intended_ that a Warlord shouting at you is supposed to be reattaching your hacked off arm or whatever?


I mean, it might sound unrealistic to _us_, but I can imagine a bunch of Troll gamers in Troll World sitting around complaining about how _slow_ their PCs heal in *D&D*, and how it really breaks their immersion and ruins verisimilitude to have to wait _five whole minutes_ to heal to full.

_*Grumbling Troll D&D Player:  *"There's no WAY anyone heals this slowly!  I have to sit here and make up a bunch of unrealistic narration about how my character basically rolled around in a bonfire after every fight, just to explain why these sword slashes take forever to regenerate!  There's no way that this mechanical damage could possibly be intended to model actual physical wounds!"_


----------



## Mallus (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are no discrete "episodes" within a sandbox.



Of course there are... they just aren't so clearly marked as such and are primarily player-initiated rather than DM initiated.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Failing to explain that wounding is being disjointed from mechanics, though, is a flaw.




I disagree, partly because wounding doesn't _have_ to be disjointed from mechanics, but mostly because modern players don't have to have this explained to them.

(Anyone who's played a CRPG in the past forever is used to the idea of full-heal on rest. They've either resolved the inconsistency or resolved to ignore it.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> What if it's not being disjointed from mechanics, though?  I mean, what if it's actually _intended_ that a Warlord shouting at you is supposed to be reattaching your hacked off arm or whatever?




That's a possibility that I accounted for earlier.  Not an idea that makes me happy, though.  

YMMV.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Of course there are... they just aren't so clearly marked as such and are primarily player-initiated rather than DM initiated.




"If X doesn't work in playstyle Y, we will just argue the definition of playstyle Y until we are talking about playstyle Z, in which case X will work."



Not remotely convincing.


RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking:

I think you are blowing the importance of sandbox play in regards to D&D way out of proportion. The amount and nature of magical healing in 3E(especially the stupid wands) and what you could do with it emphatically did not serve sandbox play well. While we may argue about the relative success of 4E, I think that we can all agree that 3E D&D was a tremendous success in its day. After eight years of a game that ignored sandbox play, they put out a new edition that again is clearly not designed to foster sandbox play. This leads to the conclusions:

1. Not serving sandbox style play didn't hurt the success of 3E at all.
2. 4E chose to continue ignoring sandbox play, while changing things in regards to a LOT of other issues with 3E.
3. As we have had two editions now that haven't fostered sandbox play, and since this lack has not seemed to hurt the success of the game at all(it certainly didn't hurt 3E), I think it is safe to say that sandbox is a fringe playstyle with little importance to modern D&D.


Now, I can see you really like sandbox play, and I'm not going to take that away from you. I would just like to say that trying to portray 4E's lack of support for sandbox play as some sort of flaw is fallacious. 4E certainly does not serve your interests, but that doesn't mean that the game is flawed by design. It was just designed to serve different interests.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "If X doesn't work in playstyle Y, we will just argue the definition of playstyle Y until we are talking about playstyle Z, in which case X will work."



Stop using algebra!



> Not remotely convincing.



All I'm trying to say is that, in practical terms, D&D play is made up of a series of episodes/encounters. Even the kind of sandbox play you advocate. Play can be broken down into the events that are played out in detail (episodes) and everything else (downtime, off-camera time, etc.), which are not.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  In the best sandboxes, there are other player groups, and those groups may also be moving on the same goal.  Heck, there might even be NPCs that the players are aware of, moving on the same goal.



So you are basically implying that since my sandbox doesn't have other player groups, then it couldn't be considered with the best.

You have basically invalidated any argument that you have made this post.  Clearly, us "one PC party" DMs aren't up to snuff for your games, so why even discuss esoteric gaming nuances with you?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't like "You're causing this problem by ignoring the rules" when I am not at all convinced that your interpretation _*is*_ the rules, or what the designers intended.




I'm not entirely sure that matters. Who cares what the intention of the designers was when they did it, so long as it works? They don't say one way or the other really, so do whatever works best for you.

When I said "ignoring the rules" I just meant that if you're critiquing 4e's HP system you have to take the whole thing into account, and not just parts of a whole. 

I could argue that the rims on a car are a horrible design because when they travel down the road they spark and bend up... But that completely ignores the tires being a part of the system.



> OTOH, I think it is probably the best single "fix" in terms of cost for benefit ratio that I have seen, and if I didn't have other problems with 4e's design philosophy, I would very, very probably adopt it, and then slow down healing surge recovery as you suggest.




Well, that's something, glad I could help... kind of? 




> Thank you.
> 
> And I'll admit you can completely avoid that problem in episodic play without even trying.
> 
> ...




Yep, my guess is 4e is designed with the idea that the majority of players want to emulate things like TV shows and movies. 

But something else occured to me on the train last night heading home from work...

You mention smart play indicates the player should ignore the wounds his character has narratively, in favor of pressing on since he's at full HP.

Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?

If you're assuming the character is still wounded despite what his HP tally says, isn't the player then acting on information that the character does not have? The player knows he's at full HP, but the character knows he/she is a mess of wounds.

Similar to a player knowing a silvered weapon works best against a  lycanthrope yet his character has never encountered one. Isn't it meta-gaming to act on that knowledge?

Or are you froma  school of thought that there is no meta-gaming?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are no discrete "episodes" within a sandbox.



There are in my sandbox games.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 19, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> There are in my sandbox games.





Well, sure.  You have room for "episodes" in _your_ sandbox, because you're running one of those inferior sandboxes with only _one_ PC party.  If you had multiple PC groups, like any halfway decent sandbox has, then you'd have to push those pesky "episodes" out of the way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> So you are basically implying that since my sandbox doesn't have other player groups, then it couldn't be considered with the best.




:rollseyes:

Please.  I've run multi-group and single-group, and both are fun.  But multi-group has a depth that single-group doesn't have, IME.

"Best", though, is always a matter of opinion.  If you want to be insulted, though, I guess you will be.  I wonder why you might want to consider that some form of insult?



> You have basically invalidated any argument that you have made this post.




And the very next line answers my question.

If you want to feel X is invalid because something involved with X hurt your feelings (however spurious the reasons), then that is what you are going to feel and and nothing is going to change your mind.

I won't lose any sleep over that, though.  And I suggest that you don't, either.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm not entirely sure that matters. Who cares what the intention of the designers was when they did it, so long as it works? They don't say one way or the other really, so do whatever works best for you.
> 
> When I said "ignoring the rules" I just meant that if you're critiquing 4e's HP system you have to take the whole thing into account, and not just parts of a whole.
> 
> ...




RC is from the school of thought that if the rules say I am at full hit points and has no mechanic indicating that my character might be tired or wounded, then the charcter is not tired or wounded. 

And pretending to be tired or wounded is not "smart play", because you are not using your characters full capacities. Satisfying play would expect me to rest, smart play says I absolutely shouldn't do that because my character is fine and I am just wasting my characters time (which is a resource inside the game world.)

---
Using the 4E hit point / healing surge system, the easiest way to avoid any "narrative" inconsistencies is to never narrate any hit point damage as real, physical damage, until the damage actually kills someone. You still need some ambiguity in your narration when your a 0 hit points and rolling death saves (that's where "Schrödingers Wounding" might be unavoidable - until observed by either death or survival, you don't know what the state of the character is).

I can live with that. I can also live with the idea that I don't really know if my character still looks a little injured or scarred when at full hit points and full healing surges. But not everyone can. And it's jarring for sandbox play, because you can't determine which is actually true using the mechanics and thus smart play means you never have to rest, while satisfying play would demand it occassionally.

---

Here is yet another idea for sandbox play.
Every encounter a character is bloodied or reduced to 0 hit points, the character gains one "injury token". For every two injury token acquired, a character regains one healing surge less on an extended rest, or loses his still available highest level daily power (players choice). (Wizards can't concentrate well enough, Fighters muscles are too sore and injuries keep bothering them).
Each extended rest, you lose one injury token. If you spend an entire day (24 hours) only with light activity, you regain two injury tokens. 
A character with a number of injury tokens equal to twice his number of healing surges cannot regain any hit points beyond his bloodied value, and dies on his second failed death saving throw.

Optionally: As a first level Healing Ritual (1 hour, 25 gp) removes one injury token.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> You mention smart play indicates the player should ignore the wounds his character has narratively, in favor of pressing on since he's at full HP.
> 
> Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?




I am of the school of thought that says 

"Smart play is based upon the game rules, satisfying play is based upon the players' expectations.  When these work together, the game is fun.  When these do not work together, the game is not fun.

There is no such thing as a game that can be played without metagaming.  Therefore, the metagaming -- playing the game's rules intelligently -- must be taken into account in game design."


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am of the school of thought that says
> 
> "Smart play is based upon the game rules, satisfying play is based upon the players' expectations.  When these work together, the game is fun.  When these do not work together, the game is not fun.
> 
> ...




So then attacking the lycanthrope with a silvered weapon despite your character never having encountered one before = smart play?

(I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what you consider smart play.)


----------



## Mallus (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Smart play is based upon the game rules...



So investing your PC with a personality isn't smart play, since character personality is not addressed in the game rules? How about naming your PC? Is that smart? Relevant? Are you sure you want a definition of "smart play" that's pegged so tightly to game mechanics?

Or are there other dimensions of "smart play"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So then attacking the lycanthrope with a silvered weapon despite your character never having encountered one before = smart play?
> 
> (I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what you consider smart play.)




Sure is.

I tell my players, "Treat the monster books as lore you might know; just don't be surprised if some of that lore turns out to be wrong."


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?




100%.

RC's 'smart' play is entirely about gaming the system.  The more people would call a particular mechanical loophole 'broken', the higher it ranks on the smart-o-meter.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Mallus said:


> So investing your PC with a personality isn't smart play, since character personality is not addressed in the game rules? How about naming your PC? Is that smart? Relevant? Are you sure you want a definition of "smart play" that's pegged so tightly to game mechanics?




I'm just going to answer this for others, in case anyone was actually confused, and not just interested in an argument about semantics.

If you go back and read my long-winded post ("shudder", I know.....) you will see that what Mallus is talking about here is what I call "satisfying play".  

But, really, they are just terms.  Rename "smart play" Factor A and rename "satisfying play" Factor B, and the argument doesn't change.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> RC's 'smart' play is entirely about gaming the system.  The more people would call a particular mechanical loophole 'broken', the higher it ranks on the smart-o-meter.




No, but if that's what you want to think, think away.  

You know, as a mod you should maybe not engage in this kind of snark?

Just saying.......!


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So then attacking the lycanthrope with a silvered weapon despite your character never having encountered one before = smart play?
> 
> (I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what you consider smart play.)




_I've_ never encountered a lycanthrope before, but _I'd _certainly try to find something very silver and vaguely weaponlike if I had to fight one.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> :rollseyes:



cute.



Raven Crowking said:


> Please.  I've run multi-group and single-group, and both are fun.  But multi-group has a depth that single-group doesn't have, IME.



And our experiences are different.  But one is not better than the other.



Raven Crowking said:


> "Best", though, is always a matter of opinion.  If you want to be insulted, though, I guess you will be.  I wonder why you might want to consider that some form of insult?



Maybe it is because i have sensed an elitist tone throughout your arguments on this topic.  This may have triggered my need to point out that _your_ best isn't _the_ best.  Then again, I could be wrong.



Raven Crowking said:


> If you want to feel X is invalid because something involved with X hurt your feelings (however spurious the reasons), then that is what you are going to feel and and nothing is going to change your mind.



Hmmm... you are assuming hurt feelings.  Interesting.

I would venture to guess that all over the world, people are making personal judgment calls about the validity of another's statements based upon what they have stated previously. 

If a teacher, politician, sports figure, whoever, makes a statement about something that smacks of something totally off-base (to the listener), it more often then not causes that person's arguments prior to the offending remark seem invalid.  I am not the first nor the last to experience this. I am guessing that you have done it yourself before, as most people have.



Raven Crowking said:


> I won't lose any sleep over that, though.  And I suggest that you don't, either.



Believe me, I won't lose sleep.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Believe me, I won't lose sleep.




Great!

Really, there was no intention to insult anyone else's preferences, and I tried to include words to that effect, as well as to the effect that my explaination was far from perfect.  I was also specifically answering LostSoul's request to elaborate on what *I* meant by "sandbox"....and I would hope that my remarks would be taken with that understanding.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure is.
> 
> I tell my players, "Treat the monster books as lore you might know; just don't be surprised if some of that lore turns out to be wrong."
> 
> ...




Hrmmm Ok then. Your definition of smart play is at odds with mine. Well, not really "at odds" but defined by different ideas I guess.

In my games metagaming gets you the stern DM "dude don't be a dick" look at best. 

So in my book smart play = utilizing your skills and abilities in the best possible fashion but still taking into account your character and his view of the world around himself.

Shrug, to each his/her own.

One thing I might recomend though? Sometimes your posts come across as indicating your view of something = THE view as opposed to simply your own view... If that makes sense... IE Smart play = X as opposed to my idea of smart play = x. (I'm sure all of us are guilty of that at points though.)

It's a small nitpick, but I think one that might go a long way towards helping you get your point across without provoking a large string of people dissagreeing with you not about your actual issue, but about whether or not your issue is an issue in the first place?

Does that make any kind of sense?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

For the purposes of explaining what I mean, I am defining the terms that I am using.  You can rename them "Factor A", "Factor B", etc.  I used the term "smart play" to describe what I was talking about because it has a long history being used in this way with the hobby, not because of any intrinsic meaning of either "smart" or "play".

EDIT:  Allow me to call the kettle black for a moment.  It's what I try to do, but I am as fallable as (or more fallable than) the next guy.  If you look at others' posts with the same gentle eye you would hope others would look at yours with, the InterWeb becomes a lot more pleasant.  IOW, please don't allow my writing style to interfere with my intent; it has allowed me to sell my opinions from time to time!

Or, as I once told LostSoul in a pub, (and I paraphrase, badly) if we were all sitting in a pub, and had the benefit of voice tone and body language, most of this hackle-raising would disappear.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> _I've_ never encountered a lycanthrope before, but _I'd _certainly try to find something very silver and vaguely weaponlike if I had to fight one.




Sure you have. You might not have ever had to fight one, but you've encountered one in books and movies and popular culture. Did you somehow know lycanthropes could be hurt by silvered weapons before the very first time you'd ever seen or heard of them?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, really, they are just terms.  Rename "smart play" Factor A and rename "satisfying play" Factor B, and the argument doesn't change.




A bit like how renaming the Unconscious condition 'Condition 6' doesn't change the mechanics...



Raven Crowking said:


> No, but if that's what you want to think, think away.




So if there is a spell I can cast that would grant a significant advantage by the rules, legal despite it being considered a 'loophole' by many, would it be 'smart' play to cast it?  Would it be 'smart' play to refrain from casting it?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf,

I know that I am not the first person who has told you they have no interest in playing these games with you, and I very much doubt that I will be the last.

RC


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Sure you have. You might not have ever had to fight one, but you've encountered one in books and movies and popular culture. Did you somehow know lycanthropes could be hurt by silvered weapons before the very first time you'd ever seen or heard of them?




That's a rather broader definition of the word 'encounter' than I expected you were using, which makes the question you asked significantly narrower than it appears.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> That's a rather broader definition of the word 'encounter' than I expected you were using, which makes the question you asked significantly narrower than it appears.




Possibly. Raven seemed to understand the intent of my question, but I'll restate:

Would acting on player knowledge (that lycanthropes can be hurt by silvered weapons) despite the character not having that same knowledge in game, be considered "smart play."


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Would acting on player knowledge (that lycanthropes can be hurt by silvered weapons) *despite the character not having that same knowledge in game*, be considered "smart play."




The reason the question is narrow is because of it's assumption.

"Smart play" in this instance is to act like the lore's been changed. "Satisfying play" therefore requires that the lore be changed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Possibly. Raven seemed to understand the intent of my question, but I'll restate:
> 
> Would acting on player knowledge (that lycanthropes can be hurt by silvered weapons) despite the character not having that same knowledge in game, be considered "smart play."




Absolutely.

Remember, in this case, "smart play" is just a term denoting what the game mechanics promote.

Although wisdom tells me I shouldn't go there, were the question

So if there is a spell I can cast that would grant a significant advantage by the rules, legal despite it being considered a 'loophole' by many, would it be 'smart' play to cast it? Would it be 'smart' play to refrain from casting it?​
the answer would be that it would depend upon the game system being used and the circumstances whether it would be smart play to cast it.  Ultimately, it would be nice if a game system was worked so that Factor A doesn't interfere with Factor B, but every game system includes corner cases where Factor A does, indeed, interfere with Factor B.

In general, it would be Factor A to cast the spell.  However, such a spell would also be considered by most to be a flaw in the rules.  A good DM attempts to fix flaws where he can, and attempts to make rulings that unify Factors A and B, IMHO.

For example, with S's Wounding, were I planning on running 4e, I would consider it part of my job as DM to institute some of the fixes suggested on this thread (and others).  I would do this because I want Factors A and B to mesh as seemlessly as possible.

"Smart play" in the sense I am using it, though, is not simply "gaming the system".  It is not attempting to break the system, or seeking out the most broken combinations possible.  If you really want to understand what is meant by "smart play" in this context, I would recommend reading Mr. Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, which is the only edition that (AFAICT) actually _*tells the players what the game system considers smart play*_.  

I believe Mr. Gygax might call it "good play"; again, this is "Good play for the game as it was intended by the author to be played" not "good play for all people at all times."  Or, at least, that is what I understand Mr. Gygax to mean.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> RC is from the school of thought that if the rules say I am at full hit points and has no mechanic indicating that my character might be tired or wounded, then the charcter is not tired or wounded.
> 
> And pretending to be tired or wounded is not "smart play", because you are not using your characters full capacities. Satisfying play would expect me to rest, smart play says I absolutely shouldn't do that because my character is fine and I am just wasting my characters time (which is a resource inside the game world.)



I still think that the paranthetical remark is controversial - my PC's time is a limited resource only under certain assumptions about the nature of the world, the nature of the adventures taking place in that world, the nature of my PC's motivations and the nature of my motivations as a player which are simply not true in all sandbox games. And certainly not true at all times.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I know that I am not the first person who has told you they have no interest in playing these games with you, and I very much doubt that I will be the last.




I'm not playing a game; I'm attempting to clarify why my understanding of "smart play is metagaming and playing the game's rules intelligently" receives a "No" from you.

At what point does playing the game's rules intelligently cease to be 'smart' play?

Edit:


> In general, it would be Factor A to cast the spell.  However, such a spell would also be considered by most to be a flaw in the rules.




Ah.  Thank you - this was posted after I started replying.

So if the rules are not changed, then what I said is correct?  The more mechanical advantage one can wring from the existing rules, the more that course of action fits under the 'smart' play (or 'Factor A') umbrella?



> If you really want to understand what is meant by "smart play" in this context, I would recommend reading Mr. Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, which is the only edition that (AFAICT) actually tells the players what the game system considers smart play.




Can you paraphrase?  If 'smart' play is _not_, as you say, seeking the most broken combinations, then you haven't explained it clearly so far.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Hyp,

There is no doubt in my mind that, if you had written my posts, and I had written yours, I would be enjoying a three-day vacation from EN World right now.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The reason the question is narrow is because of it's assumption.
> 
> "Smart play" in this instance is to act like the lore's been changed. "Satisfying play" therefore requires that the lore be changed.




Dissagree. Yeah a lycanthrope is a pretty well known bit of lore in our world, but what about the dreaded Quijibo?  

Should the fact that the player read throught he MM and knows the Quijibo can only be harmed by pickles influence his decision making for his dumb as a stump 2 intelligence thwack monkey character? 

In my opinion, no it should not. The thwack monkey should approach things in the same manner he/she always approaches things. By Thwackin them, as opposed to suddenly arming himself with a pickle.

In Raven's opinion this would not be smart play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Dissagree. Yeah a lycanthrope is a pretty well known bit of lore in our world, but what about the dreaded Quijibo?
> 
> Should the fact that the player read throught he MM and knows the Quijibo can only be harmed by pickles influence his decision making for his dumb as a stump 2 intelligence thwack monkey character?
> 
> ...




Sure, but in Raven's game the players would know aforehand that, if they faced something rare, their lore is not necessarily reliable.  This is because, in Raven's game, Raven doesn't wish the players to have to choose whether to engage in "smart" or in "satisfying" play.

So, Raven says that the thwack monkey arming himself with a pickle might be in trouble.

Also, Raven says that the monster you describe is a fat, balding North American ape.  He has a short temper, too.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you really want to understand what is meant by "smart play" in this context, I would recommend reading Mr. Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, which is the only edition that (AFAICT) actually _*tells the players what the game system considers smart play*_.



I know the section well. It overlaps in content with a lot of other D&D writing from the period, by Pulsipher in White Dwarf for example.

But if that's your notion of sandbox play - so that any game mechanics that don't support that sort of play (in the sense that they push against it rather than render it optimal) don't support sandbox play - I think it's a little narrow. At a minimum I'd call that sort of play "dungeon sandbox + mercenary/tomb-looting motivations".


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure, but in Raven's game the players would know aforehand that, if they faced something rare, their lore is not necessarily reliable.  This is because, in Raven's game, Raven doesn't wish the players to have to choose whether to engage in "smart" or in "satisfying" play.
> 
> So, Raven says that the thwack monkey arming himself with a pickle might be in trouble.




So how does a player know iof his play is smart or just a shot in the dark?



> Also, Raven says that the monster you describe is a fat, balding North American ape.  He has a short temper, too.




Why you little!!!   (We need a strangle smiley)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So how does a player know iof his play is smart or just a shot in the dark?




There is no reason, within this context, that smart play _isn't_ taking a shot in the dark.  What is not desireable is that the mechanics interfere with satisfying play, so that a player doesn't have to feel that he is making bad choices in order to have a satisfying experience.



> Why you little!!!   (We need a strangle smiley)




Nah.  It would get too much use.  


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> 100%.
> 
> RC's 'smart' play is entirely about gaming the system.  The more people would call a particular mechanical loophole 'broken', the higher it ranks on the smart-o-meter.
> 
> -Hyp.



I think you're a little unfair towards Raven Crowking - or still don't get his point (or play style) yet.

Smart play is about using the rules in a "smart" way to achieve the goals of the game (beating monsters, the clock, navigating a dungeon, travelling through the wilderness). It includes mechanical and non-mechanical elements (stocking up supplies for a mountain climbing tour is barely affected by mechanics, more by "common sense".)

In the worst case, this means also exploiting loop holes. 

But if "smart play" was everything to RC, how can he say that satisfying play and smart play don't always match?

If smart play would lead to everyone playing pun-pun in 3E, this wouldn't satisfy me, for example. Satisfying play for me means I can play somthing else as a tricked-out Kobold. Partially, because I enjoy using different mechanics, partially because the scenes I envision don't involve a lot of godly Kobolds.

For sandbox play, strategic resource management is an element of smart play, but also of satisfying play. The satisfaction comes in this being a challenge that you face and beat, because you played smart. 
For one thing, there is no challenge in long-term resource management in 4E, since most of your resources return after each extended rest. You don't have to work for it.
Another part is - sandbox play would envision scenes where the party rests. But if I play smart, there is no reason to take any rests. If the rules would have an effect that forced me to rest to gather resources for beating the next challenges, then smart play would result in exactly the rests I originally envisioned.

---

An example that's closer to my experience of satisfying play not matching smart play. Character Creation in D&D 3E, using 25 point buy. 

I like the idea of playing a charismatic fighter with a noble background. He knows how to speak with high-ranking people as well as commanding lower-ranking people. But if I really want to play a fighter smart, I shouldn't waste ability and skill points on this. A fighter played smart is a combat machine that sacrifices his charisma for a little extra strength or con. If I wanted to play a noble like character, I'd be better of with a Bard or a Rogue. I lose a lot less playing these characters with good social skills.

The goals of the game-part of the role-playing game aim at a Fighter being effective at combat. Everything I do that hinders me here is not "smart play". But for my satisfaction, I want to sacrifice some of my combat ability to get more social abilities. This means I have to choose between satisfactory and smart play. 
The game could do things differently. For example, it could allow me to make a different type of choice. Maybe it adds a valuable "social path" for my fighter. It offers me a reward for playing the noble Fighter - maybe I really lose some combat effectiveness, but the gain I get from my social abilities mean that I am actually good at what I do then, so I can be effective - play smart - and play the character I was interested in.

---

Maybe "satisfying play" is the wrong term. Maybe the right term might be more "interesting play" - I play what I am interested in. If "interesting" and "smart" play match, I get satisfaction. If not, I don't. My interested would be to play a charismatic warrior. RCs interest would be to play a sandbox game, with aspects like long-term resource management (avoiding or minimizing rest periods through smart play).


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So how does a player know iof his play is smart or just a shot in the dark?




You won't know until your character does.

To me, that's a feature. I suppose some might see it as a bug.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But if "smart play" was everything to RC, how can he say that satisfying play and smart play don't always match?




I'm certainly not suggesting that 'smart' play is everything to RC.  He's distinguishing between the two.

But it still reads to me that Pun-Pun ranks highly on the 'smart' play scale, regardless of where he ranks on the satisfying play scale.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no reason, within this context, that smart play _isn't_ taking a shot in the dark.  What is not desireable is that the mechanics interfere with satisfying play, so that a player doesn't have to feel that he is making bad choices in order to have a satisfying experience.




I guess we will just dissagree on this then. I don't feel it's possible to have a character that is not you, but still never conflicts with your own knowledge/ideals/abilities/tastes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I guess we will just dissagree on this then.




No problem.



> I don't feel it's possible to have a character that is not you, but still never conflicts with your own knowledge/ideals/abilities/tastes.




Not what I said.  For example, nothing I said has anything to wo with your character's ideals/abilities/tastes.  And, as your "knowledge" about the pickle might be wrong, you don't have to feel that you are playing in a sub-par manner in order to explore another possibility.




RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> You won't know until your character does.




In which case there isn't any such thing as "smart" play.

Not attacking with a silvered weapon is just as "smart" as attackign with a silvered weapon, since there's no way of knowing if the DM decided to change things. 

You still need to wait until you've encountered the problem to discover what the solution is.

Also in my view you're no longer realy role-playing a character. You're playing YOURSELF with some added tools.



> To me, that's a feature. I suppose some might see it as a bug.




It's not really either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I know the section well. It overlaps in content with a lot of other D&D writing from the period, by Pulsipher in White Dwarf for example.
> 
> But if that's your notion of sandbox play - so that any game mechanics that don't support that sort of play (in the sense that they push against it rather than render it optimal) don't support sandbox play - I think it's a little narrow. At a minimum I'd call that sort of play "dungeon sandbox + mercenary/tomb-looting motivations".



Well, they might not totally fail to support that, but their are games that would support it better. Similar to how I could use AD&D to create a fantasy/cyberpunk genre mix. But maybe it would be easier to play Shadowrun.




Raven Crowking said:


> There is no reason, within this context, that smart play _isn't_ taking a shot in the dark.  *What is not desireable is that the mechanics interfere with satisfying play, so that a player doesn't have to feel that he is making bad choices in order to have a satisfying experience.*




This seems a good way to describe the idea, too. 

An example for this I learned from people talking about their Call of Cthulhu preferences:
They noticed that eventually, they always decided to give every new character heavy weaponry, so that they have at least some survival chance against the horrors and cultits awaiting them. 
But if you think about this - this is not really what you'd want from the game - the entire theme supposes that you are a more or less average human that gets dragged into cults and horrors, starting as an innocent investigator. Why should you then be loaded with automatic weapons, shotguns or elephant guns? But not having this kind of equipment is a bad choice for "smart play". 

There could be metagame constraints that make it a less bad choice. Maybe characters get "survival points" at begin of play. Solving mysteries or uncovering evidence gets extra survival points. Starting play with a weapon costs survival points. Suddenly, smart play is figuring out the right ration of using (and having) weapons or solving the mysteries. 

In Torg, the reality of Horrorsh was (as the name implies) a world of horrors. Werewolves and Vampires are waiting in the dark, and Spirits and other Undeads threaten you, as well as lunatic serial killers. The World Laws of Horrors required you (at least for sufficiently "special" monsters) to find a monsters "True Death". You could engage in as many combats as you'd liked, and used the heaviest weaponry available in the game, the only thing you got was a short reprieve (and spending a lot of possibilities). Smart play was figuring out all the clues for the "True Death" - and then you could beat the enemy once and for all. And this is exactly how you'd a horror game expect to work - you can't end the threat without investigating it. You might be able to shoot thousands of zombies in th mean while, but until you have figured out how to kill the mummified and reawakened Egyptian prince once and for, they keep coming. 


Without the world law of the True Death, smart play would just be "business as usual" - shoot or stab your enemy until he doesn't move anymore. There is no point in spending resources or time on investigating. Mindless violence will do the trick every time.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> In which case there isn't any such thing as "smart" play.




The "smart play" is to experiment with different attacks and attempt to discern a weakness.



Scribble said:


> Not attacking with a silvered weapon is just as "smart" as attackign with a silvered weapon, since there's no way of knowing if the DM decided to change things.
> 
> You still need to wait until you've encountered the problem to discover what the solution is.




Your question assumed that this was desirable - my character is not supposed to know the weakness.



Scribble said:


> Also in my view you're no longer realy role-playing a character. You're playing YOURSELF with some added tools.




? 

If I'm playing a character in a world where lycanthropes exist and I am expected to be playing a character who has had NO knowledge of them from ANY source, I don't generally feel like I'm really roleplaying a character from that world.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or, as I once told LostSoul in a pub, (and I paraphrase, badly) if we were all sitting in a pub, and had the benefit of voice tone and body language, most of this hackle-raising would disappear.




Most definitely!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> An example for this I learned from people talking about their Call of Cthulhu preferences:
> They noticed that eventually, they always decided to give every new character heavy weaponry, so that they have at least some survival chance against the horrors and cultits awaiting them.
> But if you think about this - this is not really what you'd want from the game - the entire theme supposes that you are a more or less average human that gets dragged into cults and horrors, starting as an innocent investigator. Why should you then be loaded with automatic weapons, shotguns or elephant guns? But not having this kind of equipment is a bad choice for "smart play".




Because it's fun? 

In my opinion sometimes playing the character is more fun then playing the rules for the same reason sometimes in horror movies the characters do things that seem stupid when approached from the "god's eye" of the viewer. It makes the story more fun. "Don't go in the closet!"

Why were there never any lights on in the x-files? Why did they never wait for backup even when they had pelnty of time to do so?

I played a call fo cthulu d20 game, and had a character that was super rich, but also dumb as a stump. He did a lot of dubass things I as a player knew to be a pretty poor plan of action, but it was fun as hell.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The "smart play" is to experiment with different attacks and attempt to discern a weakness.




I agree with that.




> Your question assumed that this was desirable - my character is not supposed to know the weakness.




Yep.



> If I'm playing a character in a world where lycanthropes exist and I am expected to be playing a character who has had NO knowledge of them from ANY source, I don't generally feel like I'm really roleplaying a character from that world.




So your character has all knowledge of all monsters and foes in the universe he lives in becvause you as a player have a copy of the MM handy? Even when the character has a pretty low intelligence?


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> So your character has all knowledge of all monsters and foes in the universe he lives in becvause you as a player have a copy of the MM handy? Even when the character has a pretty low intelligence?




No. (Not only no, but this is almost exactly the opposite of what I said).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> The "smart play" is to experiment with different attacks and attempt to discern a weakness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Pretty much with you here. In a world with monsters, unless intentionally playing low int/wis then a smart adventurer should be all boy scout (be prepared) when getting ready to adventure. As soon as there is any indication in the real world, or if not then after the first encounter with, a monster has any immunity/weakness regarding different weapon types then those weapon types and probably several others would be a must have. 

Only a stupid soon to be dead adventurer wouldn't go out with a regular, silver, gold, bronze, copper, cold iron, adamantine, wood, holy (or unholy), blunt, sharp, and any other weapon type that can be thought of. When running into an unknown monster that doesn't seem to take damage from your normal weapon then pull out the type that has the next most lore/experience in being useful. If that doesn't work then lather, rinse, repeat until something works or you run out of options.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not what I said.  For example, nothing I said has anything to wo with your character's ideals/abilities/tastes.  And, as your "knowledge" about the pickle might be wrong, you don't have to feel that you are playing in a sub-par manner in order to explore another possibility.




So you know The Dread Quijibo can be harmed only with a pickle because you read the MM. So smart play indicates you should in fact attack with a pickle.  But that might be wrong of course because the DM decided to change that fact so attacking with a pickle is no longer the best option.

Ok... So

You know pressing on despite your wounds is the best course of action because you know you're at full HPs, and nothing in the rules says you have a problem. So the smart play indicates you should press on. But that might be wrong because the DM decided to change that fact so pressing on despite your wounds is now a HUGE problem...

Where's the difference?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> No. (Not only no, but this is almost exactly the opposite of what I said).




Then maybe we're misunderstanding eachother in some way?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Because it's fun?



But it would be even more fun if it was also a good idea to play the unarmed non-warrior type guy. That's the thing.

Maybe that's what simulation or genre emulation is all about. 

If you want to may a "silly horror" game, you would want a game that rewards you for not checking on the supposed corpse of the serial killer. Maybe it doesn't give you points for not doing so, but maybe you first have to make a willpower check to dare looking. So if you don't look, you know "hey, that's trope #3 in horror games. And it just happened, right here while I was playing!" 

A different example: Imagine you wanted to play a high action game, where the characters go in guns blazing and kill enemies by the dozen. And then the game rules tell you that you have have between 8-12 hit points and a 50 % chance to avoid a typical attack dealing 2d6 points of damage. On the other hand, if you roll a Charisma Check, you have a 85% chance to bring your enemies to accept a "reasonable" bluff (like wearing the right disguise - no check required - and claiming to be someone with the right to be in the area.  This game clearly fails at being a high action game, but it might be great for an investigative game or a "heist" game.

For similar reasons, I love the "Come and Get It" power in 4E - it facilitates a common scene in stories and movies - the warrior getting the enemies to all approach him and get whacked up for it...


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Then maybe we're misunderstanding eachother in some way?




If you want me to play a character with limited, vague, and potentially unreliable information, I can do that.

One way to do this is to detail specifically what limited, vague, and potentially unreliable information my character has. I'll, of course, treat the information as potentially unreliable. He'll act in accordance with this limited, vague, and potentially unreliable information until he comes across other information which contradicts it (from direct experience, old tomes, or whatever).

Another way to do this is to allow my own personal recollection of such information to substitute for the vague and unreliable information my character possesses. In which case, it's up to the DM to make sure that this information is, in fact, incomplete and occasionally unreliable.

RC and I both seem to prefer the second alternative. I prefer it for the same reason I prefer abstract hit points - detailing all the specifics of what every character "knows" about every monster is a lot of extra work for (what I find to be) an insufficient reward, compared with the DM occasionally changing up a vulnerability or resistance.

As always, of course, tastes will differ.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Failing to explain that wounding is being disjointed from mechanics, though, is a flaw.  If that is what was intended.




I thought that there being *absolutely no mechanic *supporting hit point loss having any effect that won't go away when you rest and/or sleep was enough explanation that, y'know, hit point loss doesn't have any mechanical effect that won't go away when you rest and/or sleep.

There are two things that don't just go away: anything on a disease track, which can include any persistent wound you'd care to name with a minimum of creativity, and any effect you suffer from during a multi-day skill challenge, such as losing healing surges from exhaustion in the jungle.

So if you want to introduce challenges that persist longer than just a day, you have to use mechanics that persist longer than just a day. I didn't think that was too much of a stretch.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 19, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry to belabour the point but I think it has been generally accepted in previous editions that if a character gets "hit" into the negatives, it has been a physical injury that has done it. 4E clouds the definition of hit points but examples given in the 4E book use physical damage (otyugh slam) and continually express characters taking damage. As I said, it is fair enough conclusion still that it is physical damage that has forced a character into the negatives the majority of the time. As such is it just a problem of narration?



			
				Tallarn said:
			
		

> Therefore any Quantum Wounding problems are happening because the players & DM are choosing to have them at the table, not because of the rules.



I disagree. The rules guide you down the physical injury path as I showed above, but as you say, it is up to the player's and DM to narrate around this to avoid quantum wounding.



			
				Tallarn said:
			
		

> I don't deny that the problem CAN exist, nor do I wish to tell people how to play their game. I do, however, object to the idea that it's something in the 4e rules that is causing this problem.



From how I'm reading my 4E rules, the problem is caused by how the rules are explicitly and implicitly presented mixed with how groups have typically played in previous editions. You can either tepidly narrate against it or you can just use the neutral "you take _x_ points of damage" and leave it at that; or you can describe the wound that has knocked a character unconscious and describe the character getting back up to unhindered health the next day (which bothers some) and introduces the Schroedinger's wounding conundrum. 

In the great scheme of things as Hypersmurf points out, it's most probably not that bigger issue. However for me, hit points and healing are most likely the biggest issue I have with 4E. I've never been satisfied with any treatment of hit points yet in D&D, but it certainly has not stopped me from enjoying D&D either - 4E included.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Sorry to belabour the point but I think it has been generally accepted in previous editions that if a character gets "hit" into the negatives, it has been a physical injury that has done it.




I can think of at least one counterexample:

Phantasmal Killer


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Another way to do this is to allow my own personal recollection of such information to substitute for the vague and unreliable information my character possesses. In which case, it's up to the DM to make sure that this information is, in fact, incomplete and occasionally unreliable.




And if you're playing a very dumb character that should in all rights have a hard time remembering his own name let alone as much as you might remember about the MM?

Aside from that, the real issue is it seems to disqualify the idea of "Smart Play."

Smart play according to Raven indicates you should attack with a silvered weapon, because it says so in the MM. To not attack with a silvered weapon would be unsmart. 

But you also know the DM might have changed it so that silvered weapons heal the lycantrhope...  So now the "Smart" action becomes the unsmart action. 

So really there's no smart play at all because every action is equally valid depending upon the DM's mood.

The same would be true with HPs. The smart action is to continue on because you're at full HPs depsite narration being difefrent. But the DM might have changed it, so maybe the smart option is now to rest up and heal your wounds.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> And if you're playing a very dumb character that should in all rights have a hard time remembering his own name let alone as much as you might remember about the MM?




If the rules contain no mechanic that specifies a character with a low Intelligence score should forget his own name, and if there is advantage to remembering it, then it is 'smart' play to remember the name, and it is not 'smart' play to forget the name.  To give up advantage where the rules do not require it is not 'smart' play.

It may be satisfying to have a dumb character forget his name, even if it gets him in trouble... but then there's a conflict between 'smart' and satisfying play.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> And if you're playing a very dumb character that should in all rights have a hard time remembering his own name let alone as much as you might remember about the MM?




Typically, I'm not playing such a character. Particularly not in D&D, and even moreso in 4E where standard generation has a minimum Int of 8. But if I were, it might make more sense to use the first option for that character.



Scribble said:


> Aside from that, the real issue is it seems to disqualify the idea of "Smart Play."




Dubious.



Scribble said:


> Smart play according to Raven indicates you should attack with a silvered weapon, because it says so in the MM. To not attack with a silvered weapon would be unsmart.
> 
> But you also know the DM might have changed it so that silvered weapons heal the lycantrhope... So now the "Smart" action becomes the unsmart action.




It still is "smart play" in option 2, for the same reason that attacking a small creature's Fort instead of Reflex defense is smart play. The fact that information is potentially unreliable does not make it completely unreliable.



Scribble said:


> So really there's no smart play at all because every action is equally valid depending upon the DM's mood.




If it's mood-dependent, I may be needing to find a new DM.



Scribble said:


> The same would be true with HPs. The smart action is to continue on because you're at full HPs depsite narration being difefrent. But the DM might have changed it, so maybe the smart option is now to rest up and heal your wounds.




I'm generally fine with the statistics of creatures that my character does not have reliable information on being changed to reflect the fact that my information in the game is sometimes unreliable. Once my character has reliable information on such creatures, I generally expect that to stop.

Likewise with healing.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Typically, I'm not playing such a character. Particularly not in D&D, and even moreso in 4E where standard generation has a minimum Int of 8. But if I were, it might make more sense to use the first option for that character.




At which point you're at odds with "smart play."




> It still is "smart play" in option 2, for the same reason that attacking a small creature's Fort instead of Reflex defense is smart play. The fact that information is potentially unreliable does not make it completely unreliable.




Sure but it still leaves room for option #2 to be just as "smart" as option number 1 since the end result is you have to attack it and find out.

Talk about Shroedinger.... A lycanthrope is both vulnerable to silver and immune to silver. 

I guess the DM could make the determination based ona  die roll weighted in favor of the MM option being the one that is actually true so that the original "smart" option stays true to being the smartest choice.




> I'm generally fine with the statistics of creatures that my character does not have reliable information on being changed to reflect the fact that my information in the game is sometimes unreliable. Once my character has reliable information on such creatures, I generally expect that to stop.
> 
> Likewise with healing.




Cool. So once you realize that despite being at full HPs your narrative wounds still hurt you, things should remain that way, and now resting to heal your narrative wounds should be the smart option...


----------



## Lacyon (Nov 19, 2008)

Scribble said:


> At which point you're at odds with "smart play."




Sure, I guess.



Scribble said:


> Talk about Shroedinger.... A lycanthrope is both vulnerable to silver and immune to silver.
> 
> I guess the DM could make the determination based ona die roll weighted in favor of the MM option being the one that is actually true so that the original "smart" option stays true to being the smartest choice.




That's one option.



Scribble said:


> Cool. So once you realize that despite being at full HPs your narrative wounds still hurt you, things should remain that way, and now resting to heal your narrative wounds should be the smart option...




...you're barking up the wrong tree, here.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 20, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> I can think of at least one counterexample:
> 
> Phantasmal Killer



Fine, but in general? I think my point still stands.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 20, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Sorry to belabour the point but I think it has been generally accepted in previous editions that if a character gets "hit" into the negatives, it has been a physical injury that has done it. 4E clouds the definition of hit points but examples given in the 4E book use physical damage (otyugh slam) and continually express characters taking damage.



As did the interminable (IMO) video of WotC staffers playing out the fight with the mind flayer.  Every hit was described, when it was described, in terms of physical damage, sometimes _nasty_ physical damage.

However people want to define hit points in their 4E games, it's pretty clear that WotC intended (and intends) them to represent --in some significant fashion -- physical damage.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 20, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> From how I'm reading my 4E rules, the problem is caused by how the rules are explicitly and implicitly presented mixed with how groups have typically played in previous editions.



I agree that one of the weakest parts of the 4e rulebooks is the lack of advice and examples of narration of ingame events in light of game mechanical results. In this respect it compares very poorly to a number of other RPG rulebooks.

I think GlaziusF posted upthread that the lack of examples has the advantage of leaving things flexible rather than having some examples become canonical. But I think it is possible to give examples in a way that avoids the problem of rigidity.


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 20, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> As did the interminable (IMO) video of WotC staffers playing out the fight with the mind flayer.  Every hit was described, when it was described, in terms of physical damage, sometimes _nasty_ physical damage.
> 
> However people want to define hit points in their 4E games, it's pretty clear that WotC intended (and intends) them to represent --in some significant fashion -- physical damage.




Did they have a warlord healing too, because that would be interesting in light of this information?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Most definitely!




Of course, we are unsure whether the hackle-raising disappears because of face-to-face communication or because of the pub........


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I disagree. The rules guide you down the physical injury path as I showed above, but as you say, it is up to the player's and DM to narrate around this to avoid quantum wounding.
> 
> From how I'm reading my 4E rules, the problem is caused by how the rules are explicitly and implicitly presented mixed with how groups have typically played in previous editions. You can either tepidly narrate against it or you can just use the neutral "you take _x_ points of damage" and leave it at that; or you can describe the wound that has knocked a character unconscious and describe the character getting back up to unhindered health the next day (which bothers some) and introduces the Schroedinger's wounding conundrum.




This.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 20, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I agree that one of the weakest parts of the 4e rulebooks is the lack of advice and examples of narration of ingame events in light of game mechanical results. In this respect it compares very poorly to a number of other RPG rulebooks.
> 
> I think GlaziusF posted upthread that the lack of examples has the advantage of leaving things flexible rather than having some examples become canonical. But I think it is possible to give examples in a way that avoids the problem of rigidity.




It's actually not, surprisingly.

Work by Ward and others (for example "Structured Imagination" in Cog Psych 27:11 pp 1-40, 1994) demonstrates the idea that people asked to come up with a creative idea and given an example will tend to hew very closely to that example. It's why most SF aliens tend to be Forehead People. Even better, people given an example and told to judge answers by creativity will judge how different the provided answers are from the example. 

Still crazier is the fact that people told to be creative and given something that generally has strong associations will bring those associations in. That's why people tend toward viewing hit points as a continuum between dead and alive, since hit points are expressed in numbers, which as a ratio measure lend themselves to a continuum with a zero point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Still crazier is the fact that people told to be creative and given something that generally has strong associations will bring those associations in.





If that wasn't the goal, the people should have been told "be creative while avoiding resonance."

Including resonance is not being uncreative.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> It's actually not, surprisingly.




I'm not really sure how suprising I find that... I'm guessing it has to do with how humans learn about patterns and the world around them.

If it's know that snake bites cause death by poison...

Those that follow the example of not getting bitten don't die... those that strike their own path, and say let themselves only get bitten on the foot... have a much higher chance of dying.

Anyway that's a difefrent topic...


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If that wasn't the goal, the people should have been told "be creative while avoiding resonance."
> 
> Including resonance is not being uncreative.
> 
> RC




If you tell people to come up with an alien that swims, people will make a fishoid, because fish swim. Tell them to come up with one that flies, they make a birdoid, because birds fly. Tell them to come up with one in general, they make a forehead person. Give them an example, they follow the example.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 20, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> If you tell people to come up with an alien that swims, people will make a fishoid, because fish swim. Tell them to come up with one that flies, they make a birdoid, because birds fly. Tell them to come up with one in general, they make a forehead person. Give them an example, they follow the example.



I can understand exactly where you are coming from with this.

HOWEVER

Are you honestly saying that if a few examples outlining the breadth of interpretation of hit points had been given in the 4E Player's Handbook the whole entirety of imaginitive people in our hobby would be so constrained? Some yes, but some most certainly no. And these people who come up with both creative and valid yet alternative ideas (such as yourself in your very first post of this thread), would they not have come up with such ideas if a few more examples had have been given in the Player's? Could not such ideas have been a springboard to more imaginitive interpretations still?

I respect cognitive theory (I trained as a mathematics teacher), but the application (and the mis-application) of such theory is always possible. I don't think in this circumstance that you are correct. [But with the greatest respect to you for bringing such theory into the discussion in the first place].

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> If you tell people to come up with an alien that swims, people will make a fishoid, because fish swim. Tell them to come up with one that flies, they make a birdoid, because birds fly. Tell them to come up with one in general, they make a forehead person. Give them an example, they follow the example.




Maybe.  I can think of several aliens that swim that are not fishoids, and several that fly that are not birdoids.  And I can think of a lot of aliens that are more than forehead people.

But....

I can also think of fishoid, birdoid, and forehead aliens that I would argue are creative nonetheless.

There is a difference, I think, between resonance and creativity, and that simply because a response isn't "out there" doesn't make it more creative.  Moreover, it doesn't necessarily make it more desireable.


RC


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 21, 2008)

I can't believe I sat here and read through this entire thread in one go, but I did none-the-less, so I may as well post now.

I really don't see the 4E rules as being necessarily problematic for the reasons that most people claim they are. A lot of what people like Hypersmurf said earlier in the thread, about not assuming that healing undoes damage, is very much true.

Anyways, there are three main numbers that can be used to determine how damage a character is: current HP (which is restored with Healing Surges), Healing Surges remaining (which is resotred with an Extended Rest), and the current number of failed Death Saving Throws (which is healed with a rest). The interplay of these three is a bit complicated, but because each one is so specific and has a distinct purpose, you can pretty easily construct a set of "narrative rules" to describe damage without ever contradicting them.

First off, HP damage can be any form of damage. You can lose HP by getting hit by a monster's claw, by taking psychic damage, etc. If you _lose_ HP, then it means you have taken an "actual wound", though they are not necessarily all that big or life-threatening. Most likely, most wounds would be minor scratches or bruises, because they _can't_ be life-threatening until they knock you into the negatives. However, _gaining_ HP does not necessarily mean that an actual wound has closed, since HP can be restored through raw grit, willpower, and the occasional Inspiring Word. However, increased HP does mean that you can continue to take additional wounds, so there is a real improvement to the character's physical and/or psychological condition when HP increases. If anything, HP is more mental than it is physical.

Anyways, A Healing Surge represents your capability to be healed, so it works well as an abstraction of the body's physical ability to keep going. It represents the total sum of things like adrenaline, the limits of the immune system, reserves of endorphins, reserves of blood, raw physical fatigue levels, and the like. In a fantastic setting, even more obscure principles of Ki and the like can be folded into this limit. These are resources that can even transform psychological motivation into real physical improvement, but they are finite, and need time, rest, and nutrition in order to be recovered, in other words, an Extended Rest (I can't imagine how important a good, hot meal must be to a guy who has been cut apart with swords and claws all day).

So long as a character doesn't fall beneath 0 HP, and potentially lethal wounds are not a concern, I can't agree that there is any problem at all with "Quantum wounding" if you use simple assumptions like these. Of course, I don't think it is a problem even if lethal wounds do come into it, but I am still getting there.

The issue of "Shrodinger's Wounding" only _really_ begins to peek its head when you get into lethal damage. Fortunately, 4E _doesn't_ have the "bleeding and losing HP until stabilized" rule, so I can actually count raw negative HP damage out of the discussion. Sure, if you get reduced to a certain negative HP value you die, but that can easily be narrated as your luck running out and the blow that finally _did_ knock you that low was in fact a 100% guaranteed fatal blow, with no room for discussion. The only complications appear when you factor in the Death Saving Throw.

The problem with the Death Saving Throw is that if you make the save you don't suffer any lasting penalties, and if you _don't_ make the save you are stuck with a penalty (the hanging failed saving throw) until you make a Short or Extended Rest (where you presumably get the offending wound stitched up or something). There actually is wiggle room for "Quantum Wounding" to appear here, since the question of "is this a lasting, penalizing wound?" is not answered until well after the wound is actually inflicted, which can make narration a bit tricky. Fortunately, I don't think this is an unsolvable problem, but I will admit some difficulty in putting my answer to that problem in words... Something about the saving throw reflecting the character's body's response to the wound, either clotting up and closing the wound or it getting worse, or something like that. Sorry, I can't seem to get it right.

Anyways, there are certainly a few situations that some people have been claiming to be true that clearly are not. A character who has been restored to normal condition from the Dying state by a Warlord's Inspiring Word is not necessarily at "100%". Such a character can not possibly have all of his Healing Surges, and if he was _actually_ at risk of dying from his present injuries (meaning he has two failed death saving throws), then that risk is still present, making it far riskier for him to fall into the Dying condition again before getting those penalties cleared. The simple fact that the character has been roused into consciousness means he is at no more risk of being finished off without any luck to save him (the negative HP limit).

Also, while it may be a risk to touch the conversation regarding Raven Crowking's "sandbox style" even with a ten-foot pole, I suppose I may as well do so anyway.

Based on what I understand of Mr. Crowking's preferred style, there may in fact be a logical disconnect between it and the healing rules as they are written and intended. However, I don't think this disconnect has anything to do with the "Quantum Wounding" principle. Furthermore, the number of assumptions that Mr. Crowking has claimed are behind his definition of "sandbox" means that it really is a fairly specific corner case. Actually, I think there is a certain argument to be made that sandbox vs. episodic is the irrelevant part of the distinction he is making, and that the important part is whether or not the characters are presumed to have any protracted downtime or not (which can occur in either episodic or sandbox games). However, if this kind of realism is necessary or you and you play in a game with no assumptions of protracted downtime, then there may very well be a logical disconnect with the rules. But again, this is only a problem for a limited sub-set of players looking for a particular experience, so I think it is more appropriate to create house rules to make the problem work for you than it is to condemn a system that works very well in most other situations.

My suggestion for a house rule would be to simply slow down the rate of how many Healing Surges are restored for each Extended Rest. That way, characters can still enter battle at full HP, but it means that every so often, depending on how well they fight, they may need to take a break from fighting so they don't get stuck in a hard battle without any healing surges. If you want something more complicated, you can probably concoct something based on making characters give up the potential to regain a Healing Surge in order to make failed Death Saving Throws go away.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Maybe.  I can think of several aliens that swim that are not fishoids, and several that fly that are not birdoids.  And I can think of a lot of aliens that are more than forehead people.
> 
> But....
> 
> ...




But the thing is, you'd be wrong, at least when you're put up against other humans told to judge your responses based on creativity.

That's the giant paradox of the whole thing - that when told to judge how creative something is, people judge it by how different it is from what they themselves would create when told to be creative.

"Here are some guidelines: be creative" is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Not that "here are no guidelines" is really any better, because then people work from the underlying bits.

Such as, for example, taking the ratio scale of hit point numbers and constructing a model based on what they know about ratio scales - linear continuums with a defined zero point.



Herremann the Wise said:


> Are you honestly saying that if a few examples outlining the breadth of interpretation of hit points had been given in the 4E Player's Handbook the whole entirety of imaginitive people in our hobby would be so constrained? Some yes, but some most certainly no. And these people who come up with both creative and valid yet alternative ideas (such as yourself in your very first post of this thread), would they not have come up with such ideas if a few more examples had have been given in the Player's? Could not such ideas have been a springboard to more imaginitive interpretations still?




Okay, but now you've replaced a single problem with hit points with a varying set of problems about hit points:

If all the examples shared a common theme, people would triangulate toward that theme.

If all the examples were completely random, people would complain they didn't think any of them fit, and then blink uncomprehendingly when told, yes, that's the point.

If the examples were based around power origin, such as my three, then you'd have people of one origin complaining its associated damage model didn't work for them and another origins might work better, and blinking uncomprehendingly when told, yes, that's the point.

And NO MATTER WHAT you'd have everybody who doesn't give a care  about narrating hit points complaining about all this arty-farty imagination-and-rainbows crap in their D&D.

It wouldn't matter that the part about hit points was clearly marked as optional. I mean:

*OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL* You may possibly now want to think about something that may be a red sports car *OH GOD THAT WAS OPTIONAL YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT*

And how well did that work? 

Ideas tend to stick.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> But the thing is, you'd be wrong, at least when you're put up against other humans told to judge your responses based on creativity.
> 
> That's the giant paradox of the whole thing - that when told to judge how creative something is, people judge it by how different it is from what they themselves would create when told to be creative.




I'm not sure about that.  For example, when asked to create a flying alien, is coming up with mustard creative?  I suppose you could argue that it is, but I would argue that true creativity lies in being able to create within the context of guidelines.  A comlete non sequitur, IMHO, is not creative.

YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> I can't believe I sat here and read through this entire thread in one go, but I did none-the-less, so I may as well post now.




We don't agree, but I'm not going to argue with you.

What I am going to do is thank you for a well-considered and respectful response.

Thank you.


RC


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut's given an excellent summation of the thread and issue - a cookie for you good sir.



TwinBahamut said:


> The problem with the Death Saving Throw is that if you make the save you don't suffer any lasting penalties, and if you _don't_ make the save you are stuck with a penalty (the hanging failed saving throw) until you make a Short or Extended Rest (where you presumably get the offending wound stitched up or something). *There actually is wiggle room for "Quantum Wounding" to appear here, since the question of "is this a lasting, penalizing wound?" is not answered until well after the wound is actually inflicted, which can make narration a bit tricky. *



I think this is the point some people (myself included) have been making. It does exist, and yes, you do have to carefully narrate around it. The separate issue of health being completely restored within the space of a day further impacts upon how serious a wound may or (as the case may be) may not have been. A reflective process that can be ignored or explained away by some but not others.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Fortunately, I don't think this is an unsolvable problem, but I will admit some difficulty in putting my answer to that problem in words... Something about the saving throw reflecting the character's body's response to the wound, either clotting up and closing the wound or it getting worse, or something like that. Sorry, I can't seem to get it right.



Unsolvable? I agree most probably not; your idea seems OK. Personally, I wish they had have done hit points and healing slightly differently so these problems would not come up.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 21, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Okay, but now you've replaced a single problem with hit points with a varying set of problems about hit points:
> 
> If all the examples shared a common theme, people would triangulate toward that theme.
> 
> ...



If it was my responibility, I would come up with examples that show how hit points could be interpreted in a variety of situations. These situations would not have a common theme otherwise a single example would do. Random examples serve no clear purpose. And power origin based examples while interesting _would _ cause issues with people railing against a uniform delivery of damage from a particular power source. A discussion of the types of things that can reduce a combatant's will to fight would be suitable (but again you run into difficulties with killing people from an interesting effect, rather than their will to fight). Perhaps if rather than being killed, a PC was defeated based upon the damage that brought them to 0 hp or under and rolling death saves. If it was from physical injury, then yes they have been defeated and killed. If it was from psychic damage, they remain comatose. If it was defeat from another's overt presence, then it is a surrender. If it was from fear, they are cowering uncontrollably. Examples would be based upon the different damage "types" so to speak.



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> And NO MATTER WHAT you'd have everybody who doesn't give a care  about narrating hit points complaining about all this arty-farty imagination-and-rainbows crap in their D&D.



Those guys aren't touching 4E with a barge pole anyway. Personally, I thought your examples interesting rather than _arty-farty imagination-and-rainbows crap_.



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> It wouldn't matter that the part about hit points was clearly marked as optional. I mean:
> 
> *OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL* You may possibly now want to think about something that may be a red sports car *OH GOD THAT WAS OPTIONAL YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT*
> 
> ...



I disagree, but hey disagreements happen on these boards from time to time. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm not sure about that.  For example, when asked to create a flying alien, is coming up with mustard creative?  I suppose you could argue that it is, but I would argue that true creativity lies in being able to create within the context of guidelines.  A comlete non sequitur, IMHO, is not creative.
> 
> YMMV.




On the contrary.

If you could get somebody to believe that mustard was a flying alien, that would be MAD creative.

Can't you just see a little glass jar bobbing down the condiments aisle at Kroger's, getting more and more furious until it starts breaking out the death rays?


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 21, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> If it was my responibility, I would come up with examples that show how hit points could be interpreted in a variety of situations. These situations would not have a common theme otherwise a single example would do. Random examples serve no clear purpose. And power origin based examples while interesting _would _ cause issues with people railing against a uniform delivery of damage from a particular power source. A discussion of the types of things that can reduce a combatant's will to fight would be suitable (but again you run into difficulties with killing people from an interesting effect, rather than their will to fight). Perhaps if rather than being killed, a PC was defeated based upon the damage that brought them to 0 hp or under and rolling death saves. If it was from physical injury, then yes they have been defeated and killed. If it was from psychic damage, they remain comatose. If it was defeat from another's overt presence, then it is a surrender. If it was from fear, they are cowering uncontrollably. Examples would be based upon the different damage "types" so to speak.




Two more problems:

1 - a giant list of contingencies to plan for makes the problem of creating a damage model seem more imposing than it actually is. Actually it makes it seem as imposing *as *it actually is, but people make things out to be more imposing than they actually are, so you have to make your stuff look easy or it'll never seem worth it.

2 - a giant list of contingencies may be used as a cookbook, which results in dependency and an unwillingness to account for anything the cookbook doesn't explicitly cover, viz: "What I cannot create, I do not understand." -- Richard Feynman, a guy who may have known a thing or two about teaching people complicated stuff. 

What a book needs to do to get people to create their own damage model is:


Sell people on the idea that narrating damage can be fun, perhaps via the concept of character agency vs. DM agency. _e.g._ As a DM I want all my players to narrate their own damage because a) then I don't have to do it b) it's something more they can do when it's not their turn and c) they fall down at zero anyway so what do I care what they say?
Show that assuming hit points to represent the linear continuum between health and zero-point death that they seem to represent has more than two problems
Spell out the (extremely limited) mechanical implications of hit points and the strictures they apply to a damage model
I'm not sure that can be done without polarizing examples. I'm doubly not sure it belongs in what is essentially an introductory text because damage modeling is 201 material if ever there was 201 material.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> I think there is a certain argument to be made that sandbox vs. episodic is the irrelevant part of the distinction he is making, and that the important part is whether or not the characters are presumed to have any protracted downtime or not (which can occur in either episodic or sandbox games). However, if this kind of realism is necessary or you and you play in a game with no assumptions of protracted downtime, then there may very well be a logical disconnect with the rules. But again, this is only a problem for a limited sub-set of players looking for a particular experience, so I think it is more appropriate to create house rules to make the problem work for you than it is to condemn a system that works very well in most other situations.



Agreed.



Herremann the Wise said:


> I think this is the point some people (myself included) have been making. It does exist, and yes, you do have to carefully narrate around it.



Isn't one answer to narrate it the same as you did stabilisation rolls in 3E?


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> It's actually not, surprisingly.





Herremann the Wise said:


> If it was my responibility, I would come up with examples that show how hit points could be interpreted in a variety of situations.



I was thinking along similar lines Herremann - a few examples of narration in particular mechanical situations so that people can get the idea of it. HeroWars/Quest and The Dying Earth both have such examples.

It may be true that such examples are prone to make people draw on particular genre tropes (or cliches, to be less polite) for their own narration - but in an RPG like D&D I don't know that that's a bad thing.



GlaziusF said:


> What a book needs to do to get people to create their own damage model is:
> 
> 
> Sell people on the idea that narrating damage can be fun, perhaps via the concept of character agency vs. DM agency. _e.g._ As a DM I want all my players to narrate their own damage because a) then I don't have to do it b) it's something more they can do when it's not their turn and c) they fall down at zero anyway so what do I care what they say?
> ...



Given the centrality of damage and healing to D&D play I think the book has to tackle it. I think that examples are probably required. Provided they're reasonably genre-appropriate I'm not sure that they have to be more controversial than the ruleset is in any event.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 21, 2008)

Folks need to stop comparing the uncertainty of 3E's stabilization checks with 4E's death saves.

In the case of 3E, there is no quantum wounding question ... you _have_ been badly wounded, and you very well might die.  Even if you don't die, you were badly wounded.

In 4E, whether you were actually wounded or not can't be determined until you either die or recover.  If you die, you were actually badly wounded.  If you recover, you weren't.

They're not the same thing, because it isn't the randomness of both systems that's the issue.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In 4E, whether you were actually wounded or not can't be determined until you either die or recover.  If you die, you were actually badly wounded.  If you recover, you weren't.




Why weren't you?

You weren't _fatally_ wounded.  But neither was the 3E character who made his stabilisation check.

What makes you say he wasn't _badly_ wounded?

-Hyp.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 21, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> What makes you say he wasn't _badly_ wounded?



Because in six hours, with absolutely no treatment, he's at perfect peak fighting form.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Because in six hours, with absolutely no treatment, he's at perfect peak fighting form.




Would you say the 3E character with 1 hit point remaining is Badly Wounded?  He's in no danger whatsoever of dying; he's not required to make stabilisation checks; what defines Badly Wounded?

-Hyp.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 21, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Would you say the 3E character with 1 hit point remaining is Badly Wounded?  He's in no danger whatsoever of dying; he's not required to make stabilisation checks; what defines Badly Wounded?



If you want to respond with a coherent argument against what I wrote, please do.  Like many others, I'm not interested in playing Twenty Questions with you.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 21, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Would you say the 3E character with 1 hit point remaining is Badly Wounded?  He's in no danger whatsoever of dying; he's not required to make stabilisation checks; what defines Badly Wounded?
> 
> -Hyp.



I suppose he's like a guy in 4E with no healing surges left and 2 failed death saves on the board. One decent sized hit and he's gone.

As for what defines a state that's badly wounded? One where recovering to unhindered health naturally is going to take a bit of time (read longer than overnight). I understand where you're coming from and it's most probably best stated that hit points/damage/healing have always had their issues in D&D regardless of edition.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 21, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Because in six hours, with absolutely no treatment, he's at perfect peak fighting form.




In 3E this is a matter of days. Still, nobody needs to give you medical treatment. (Though strictly speaking, I think 3E also has a second stabilization roll requirement on a hourly basis). What kind of badly wounds do allow full recovery without any aid? Even if you just break your arm, without proper treatment, you are likely to keep a lasting hindrance. 

Though of course from the perspective of an encountard or 4E designer, this all doesn't matter. Once a character is stabilized, he won't die because his allies will bring him back to full fighting force in no time, using medical aid, potions, spells or wands of cure light wound. So from that perspective, the "verisimilitude" concessions created by alternative healing models are meaningless in actual play, and thus not required.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Because in six hours, with absolutely no treatment, he's at perfect peak fighting form.



And in 3E it is a matter of a day or two for a first level Wizard, perhaps a little longer for a more combat-oriented class.

In any event, as I've posted before, I think that the short rest and healing surge mechanics are quite distinct from the extended rest mechanics. As many have posted, you can alter the latter if you wish without changing the dynamics of combat and in-combat healing at all (eg using the approach in the Advanced Players Guide). Or you can just narrate it the same as you do recovery from a short rest - that is, as grit and determination.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Though of course from the perspective of an encountard or 4E designer, this all doesn't matter. Once a character is stabilized, he won't die because his allies will bring him back to full fighting force in no time, using medical aid, potions, spells or wands of cure light wound. So from that perspective, the "verisimilitude" concessions created by alternative healing models are meaningless in actual play, and thus not required.



This really can't be stressed enough.

If the complaints are really about extended rests, just add the following class feature to Clerics: also automatically learn the 1st level ritual Heal All Wounds, cost free, no skill check required, 10 minutes to perform, after an extended rest the target recovers all healing surges. Now the game plays no differently except every party needs a cleric (or some other ritualist who has payed to learn this ritual).

We have now recreated the verisimilitude of 3E healing.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 21, 2008)

pemerton said:


> We have now recreated the verisimilitude of 3E healing.



Speaking for myself, the responses are to arguments I wasn't making.

I simply advised against likening the stabilization rolls of 3E with the "am I really wounded or not?" effect of 4E.  Despite both being random, they are not the same.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 21, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Folks need to stop comparing the uncertainty of 3E's stabilization checks with 4E's death saves.
> 
> In the case of 3E, there is no quantum wounding question ... you _have_ been badly wounded, and you very well might die.  Even if you don't die, you were badly wounded.
> 
> ...




I love how you're making the two giant assumptions that a) only people who are badly wounded ever die and b) death in 4e constitutes what we in the modern age would call clinical death. 

I mean, if a guy gets KOed by a purple dragon's MIND CRUSH, what's wrong with saying that he just kind of collapsed, normal attempts to heal him don't seem to work, and he's fully breathing and autonomically responsive but otherwise A PRISONER IN HIS OWN MIND and he'll stay there until somebody ritually goes in and busts him out, in a process that bears an uncanny resemblance to Raise Dead.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 21, 2008)

> In the case of 3E, there is no quantum wounding question ... you have been badly wounded, and you very well might die. Even if you don't die, you were badly wounded.




  So badly wounded that you will be completely healed in 1-3 days, with no magical healing applied, yes. About as long as it takes to recover from a slight cold or minor muscle sprain. 

   I realize that nobody, (myself included) actually used the 3E non-magical healing rules past 3rd level, but it really is extremely fast.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I simply advised against likening the stabilization rolls of 3E with the "am I really wounded or not?" effect of 4E.  Despite both being random, they are not the same.




In both cases you are making rolls against a clock. 3E your countdown lasts 1 to 9 rounds as you approach -10 hp. 4E countdown is 3 failed death saves.

In both cases you can not get back up until you receive healing or awake naturally on your own. 3E healing is via spells or potions. 4E healing is via spells, exploits or healing surges. You have a 10-90% chance of self-stabilizing in 3E, then its a matter of hours until you wake up on your own. You have roughly a 10-30% chance to recover if you have a healing surge remaining, 0% if you have no healing surges remaining, in 4E to recover on your own.

So I'd say you are usually more severely wounded in 4E. Healing is more abundant in 4E, but if you are left to yourself you are more likely to die in 4E than 3E.

So I really don't see how stabilization rolls and death saves create a difference in determining whether a character is wounded.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 21, 2008)

Apropos of nothing but the thread title....

-O


----------



## Derren (Nov 21, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In both cases you can not get back up until you receive healing or awake naturally on your own. 3E healing is via spells or potions. 4E healing is via spells, exploits or healing surges. You have a 10-90% chance of self-stabilizing in 3E, then its a matter of hours until you wake up on your own. You have roughly a 10-30% chance to recover if you have a healing surge remaining, 0% if you have no healing surges remaining, in 4E to recover on your own.




That is not correct.
When you stabilize in 3E you now loose 1 HP at an hourly basis. And every hour you again have a 10% chance of stabilizing again (of course you don't recover HP during that time). If the chracter stabilizes again he becomes conscious and stops loosing HP each hour. But he is disabled and can only stagger around. And he still does not heal naturally. He now losses 1 HP every day unless he makes yet another 10% roll to start healing naturally.

So without outside help a character in 3E has a very low chance of survival even if he stabilizes the first time. And by the time the 3E character starts to regenerate HP the 4E character has already taken an extended rest (when you allow that being unconscious counts as resting) and is, as far as teh game is concerned, completely unharmed again.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I suppose he's like a guy in 4E with no healing surges left and 2 failed death saves on the board. One decent sized hit and he's gone.




Right, but in neither case is their fighting ability impaired, and there is no danger of them dying spontaneously, and there is no mechanical requirement that the hit point damage they have sustained be apparent in the form of a bad wound.

If the distinction between 3E natural healing mechanic and 4E natural healing mechanic is that the 3E character can be badly wounded and the 4E character cannot, then what is the mechanical definition of 'badly wounded'?  

Is it any time the character takes more than 6 hours to regain his full hit point total?  If so, the 3E Barbarian with 19 hit points at first level is 'badly wounded' if he takes 2 points of damage.  He won't be at full for two days unless he gets complete bed rest.

-Hyp.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2008)

Derren said:


> That is not correct.
> When you stabilize in 3E you now loose 1 HP at an hourly basis. And every hour you again have a 10% chance of stabilizing again (of course you don't recover HP during that time). If the chracter stabilizes again he becomes conscious and stops loosing HP each hour. But he is disabled and can only stagger around. And he still does not heal naturally. He now losses 1 HP every day unless he makes yet another 10% roll to start healing naturally. So without outside help a character in 3E has a very low chance of survival even if he stabilizes the first time.




You are correct, so that changed your chances of recovery on your own to 0-1% determined over the course of as little as a round to as long as 9 days. After 9 hours the 3E character is either dead or can get up and go seek aid in the next 24 hours.



Derren said:


> And by the time the 3E character starts to regenerate HP the 4E character has already taken an extended rest (when you allow that being unconscious counts as resting) and is, as far as teh game is concerned, completely unharmed again.




An extended rest is 6 hours. That's 360 death saves you would have to make. The chance of making that many in row before failing 3 is smaller than the chance of a 3E character dropped to -9 hp from recovering on his own. Even if you allow a short rest model, that's 5 minutes, or 50 death saves.

Getting a natural 20 on a death save before failing 3 times is what makes it more likely a 4E character will recover on his own. And I'm sure someone who understands statistics better than me will explain why I haven't encountered the 10-30% recovery figure I stated before.

My point still stands that the numbers may have changed, but death saves and stabilization rolls are effectively the same. If you can't wrap your head around what kind of wound a dying character has in 4E, then you should have had the same problem in previous editions. The truth is that most characters in any edition get help through healing or die if left on their own.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 22, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Right, but in neither case is their fighting ability impaired, and there is no danger of them dying spontaneously, and there is no mechanical requirement that the hit point damage they have sustained be apparent in the form of a bad wound.
> 
> If the distinction between 3E natural healing mechanic and 4E natural healing mechanic is that the 3E character can be badly wounded and the 4E character cannot, then what is the mechanical definition of 'badly wounded'?
> 
> ...






Zing!



$


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> On the contrary.
> 
> If you could get somebody to believe that mustard was a flying alien, that would be MAD creative.
> 
> Can't you just see a little glass jar bobbing down the condiments aisle at Kroger's, getting more and more furious until it starts breaking out the death rays?




One could only get another to believe that mustard was a flying alien by finding some sort of resonance between the two ideas -- thus become "less creative" by the standard you espoused earlier.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If the distinction between 3E natural healing mechanic and 4E natural healing mechanic is that the 3E character can be badly wounded and the 4E character cannot, then what is the mechanical definition of 'badly wounded'?



In 3E, in the negatives is good enough for me. They're going to have to stabilize, and slowly work their way back to consciousness and some form of health. In 4E with the RAW, the only time you seem to be enter a condition of "badly wounded" is if you die. As I said before though, I still don't think D&D has got the whole hitpoints/damage/healing thing right.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Is it any time the character takes more than 6 hours to regain his full hit point total?



No, although if one can naturally heal within 6 hours back to unhindered health, I think it's fair enough to say that they were not "badly injured" - pretty much what I said.  



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If so, the 3E Barbarian with 19 hit points at first level is 'badly wounded' if he takes 2 points of damage.  He won't be at full for two days unless he gets complete bed rest.
> 
> -Hyp.



In the scheme of things, a 1st level 3E barbarian with 19 hit points and another one with 17 hit points, will perform similarly in combat. As such and in context, I don't think describing the 17 hit point barbarian as badly wounded would be accurate.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 23, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> In the scheme of things, a 1st level 3E barbarian with 19 hit points and another one with 17 hit points, will perform similarly in combat. As such and in context, I don't think describing the 17 hit point barbarian as badly wounded would be accurate.




The wizard with 4 hit points and no remaining spells won't perform similarly in combat to the barbarian with 19 hit points.  Is he badly wounded, by virtue of having expended his spells?

-Hyp.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 23, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Because in six hours, with absolutely no treatment, he's at perfect peak fighting form.



No version of D&D deals with debilitating wounds properly, The week recovery for wounds with out magical care is just as unreal as the 6 hours in 4th edition and no version models the long term debilitating effects of suffering such wound either not to mention the death due to oppurtunistic infections.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2008)

ardoughter said:


> No version of D&D deals with debilitating wounds properly, The week recovery for wounds with out magical care is just as unreal as the 6 hours in 4th edition and no version models the long term debilitating effects of suffering such wound either not to mention the death due to oppurtunistic infections.




I am afraid we are still running circles, because this has been said before. 

I think these are the cruicial differences regarding hit points: 
1)
 Healing all damage and regaining all healing surges per day means that most concern for "operational" play or sandboxes is gone. Even if healing time and rules have always been unrealistic, this affects the play style the strongest. I am not sure how people dealt with Cure Light Wound Wands, though, since they mostly had the same effect on play. Of course, that is just an artifact of 3E and didn't exist before, as far as I know. 

The only thing I'd like to point out: Once you have Clerics with healing spell in the mix, it is not unlikely (and I think that is even true before 3E) that you can recover all damage in one day by blowing all healing spells on the injured characters. I am still not convinced that a difference of 16 hours in rest period is that relevant to play. Unless magical healing was in fact removed from game, short healing times will be part of the game.


2) 
Since you do no longer need any magical regenration abilities to regain hit points, hit points become more abstract or imprecise. Either you assume wounds regenerate incredibly fast (few would do that), or you assume that characters can be at full hit points and yet be injured (only thanks to a heightened moral and soldiering on they managed to ignore the pain), or that real injuries are only ever taken if a character died. The latter means you have a state where you don't know if there was a serious wound or a superficial wound until the dying character is stabilized or dies.
In both the later cases you have to accept that the rules do not describe the characters status entirely, they really only describe his fighting ability, not whether he looks or _is_ injured or not. 

Where do people disagree on these observations? (avoiding to tell me that this is a terrible thing to do to the game or to tell me that this is the greatest invention ever.)


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 2)
> Since you do no longer need any magical regenration abilities to regain hit points, hit points become more abstract or imprecise. Either you assume wounds regenerate incredibly fast (few would do that), or you assume that characters can be at full hit points and yet be injured (only thanks to a heightened moral and soldiering on they managed to ignore the pain), or that real injuries are only ever taken if a character died. The latter means you have a state where you don't know if there was a serious wound or a superficial wound until the dying character is stabilized or dies.
> In both the later cases you have to accept that the rules do not describe the characters status entirely, they really only describe his fighting ability, not whether he looks or _is_ injured or not.
> 
> Where do people disagree on these observations? (avoiding to tell me that this is a terrible thing to do to the game or to tell me that this is the greatest invention ever.)




I disagree that real injuries even need to be taken if a character died. Plenty of people die all the time by, say, falling down and cracking their heads, or drowning, and heck, even if you want to get into mythology, at the end of John Henry, John just lays down his hammer and he dies, with the whole "it burst in his chest" bit being added in many years after the original legend.

The steam drill didn't have to come over and punch through his chest, he was just so tired that when he sat down he couldn't get back up again.

I also disagree that having wounds regenerate incredibly fast is somehow not fitting. It isn't always, of course, but it's a great way to model damage to the servant of a god of healing or sacrifice.

You know, like I said in the original post?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 23, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I disagree that real injuries even need to be taken if a character died. Plenty of people die all the time by, say, falling down and cracking their heads, or drowning...



Cracking one's head... drowning... not real injuries? I think if a character has died to a bunch of kobolds and a goblin with a big weapon, they've taken an injury. While I appreciate once more your imaginiation, I think its best to keep things within the context of a game that's modelling armed heroic characters and monsters fighting each other. If you die, it's extremely likely that it's a "real injury" that's going to have done it.



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> I also disagree that having wounds regenerate incredibly fast is somehow not fitting. It isn't always, of course, but it's a great way to model damage to the servant of a god of healing or sacrifice...



Great idea (I personally think) but as you allude to, this will apply to only an incredibly small minority. Within the context of D&D as I mentioned above, wounds regenerating very fast doesn't make sense (to the vast majority of campaigns), leading to the situations the good Mustrum Ridcully details.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I disagree that real injuries even need to be taken if a character died. Plenty of people die all the time by, say, falling down and cracking their heads, or drowning, and heck, even if you want to get into mythology, at the end of John Henry, John just lays down his hammer and he dies, with the whole "it burst in his chest" bit being added in many years after the original legend.
> 
> The steam drill didn't have to come over and punch through his chest, he was just so tired that when he sat down he couldn't get back up again.



That is a possibility, too, but I would consider it as rare. (But is cracking a head not some kind of injury?)



> I also disagree that having wounds regenerate incredibly fast is somehow not fitting. It isn't always, of course, but it's a great way to model damage to the servant of a god of healing or sacrifice.



It would work for that, but I think this would still be a rare case.  Especially for those that the 4E hit point model is a problem, this still seems to be a problematic approach.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> The wizard with 4 hit points and no remaining spells won't perform similarly in combat to the barbarian with 19 hit points.  Is he badly wounded, by virtue of having expended his spells?
> 
> -Hyp.



Obviously not. The expenditure of spells has no effect on the wizard's hit points. The 4hps represents the fact that if the wizard is hit, chances are the shot's going to take him down (into the negatives) fighting for his or her life.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 23, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Obviously not. The expenditure of spells has no effect on the wizard's hit points. The 4hps represents the fact that if the wizard is hit, chances are the shot's going to take him down (into the negatives) fighting for his or her life.




So having low hit points and not being as effective in combat doesn't define the badly-wounded state either.

So when is someone badly wounded in 3E?  We can't say "3E allows for people to be badly wounded, but 4E does not" if we can't say when someone in 3E is badly wounded.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So having low hit points and not being as effective in combat doesn't define the badly-wounded state either.




See, this is why you have people saying they don't want to play 20 Questions with you.

There is a difference between low hit points as relates to your maximum hit points, and your maximum hit points being low.  I suspect you know that, though.  IMHO, ultimately, sophistry is unlikely to get anyone to agree with you who doesn't agree with you already, and seems like something that, were you not a moderator, would end with a moderator telling you to stop it.

YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## Gort (Nov 23, 2008)

I don't understand the purpose of the argument here. D&D is a game in which characters have to survive hundreds upon hundreds of fights in order to reach their peak potential. If they get into five fights and get their limbs permanently disabled, the characters are screwed. 

I don't think D&D can afford to realistically model damage or any recurring heroic characters become pretty much impossible, unless you make them so good that they never ever get hurt at all, in which case you eliminate all tense combat situations.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So having low hit points and not being as effective in combat doesn't define the badly-wounded state either.



Low hps does not mean badly wounded and nor does a lack of spells.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So when is someone badly wounded in 3E?  We can't say "3E allows for people to be badly wounded, but 4E does not" if we can't say when someone in 3E is badly wounded.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If the distinction between 3E natural healing mechanic and 4E natural healing mechanic is that the 3E character can be badly wounded and the 4E character cannot, then what is the mechanical definition of 'badly wounded'?





			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> In 3E, in the negatives is good enough for me. They're going to have to stabilize, and slowly work their way back to consciousness and some form of health. In 4E with the RAW, the only time you seem to be enter a condition of "badly wounded" is if you die from it. As I said before though, I still don't think D&D has got the whole hitpoints/damage/healing thing right.



Yeah, I'm sticking with my answer from upthread. I have to be polite here and ask "what is your real question here"? What is the point you're trying to make? 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am afraid we are still running circles, because this has been said before.
> 
> I think these are the cruicial differences regarding hit points:
> 1)
> Healing all damage and regaining all healing surges per day means that most concern for "operational" play or sandboxes is gone. Even if healing time and rules have always been unrealistic, this affects the play style the strongest. I am not sure how people dealt with Cure Light Wound Wands, though, since they mostly had the same effect on play. Of course, that is just an artifact of 3E and didn't exist before, as far as I know.



I agree, with your analysis but I suppose that my problem is that I have a hard time going along with the idea that taking a sword thrust through the body can be cured with a week of bed rest, and limited medical care and this adds versimilitude, when it should take longer and your survival would be a matter of considerable doubt.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The only thing I'd like to point out: Once you have Clerics with healing spell in the mix, it is not unlikely (and I think that is even true before 3E) that you can recover all damage in one day by blowing all healing spells on the injured characters. I am still not convinced that a difference of 16 hours in rest period is that relevant to play. Unless magical healing was in fact removed from game, short healing times will be part of the game.



agreed



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 2)
> Since you do no longer need any magical regenration abilities to regain hit points, hit points become more abstract or imprecise. Either you assume wounds regenerate incredibly fast (few would do that), or you assume that characters can be at full hit points and yet be injured (only thanks to a heightened moral and soldiering on they managed to ignore the pain), or that real injuries are only ever taken if a character died. The latter means you have a state where you don't know if there was a serious wound or a superficial wound until the dying character is stabilized or dies.
> In both the later cases you have to accept that the rules do not describe the characters status entirely, they really only describe his fighting ability, not whether he looks or _is_ injured or not.
> 
> Where do people disagree on these observations? (avoiding to tell me that this is a terrible thing to do to the game or to tell me that this is the greatest invention ever.)



'Realism' (I do deslike versimilitude, its such a pain) would dictate that most characters would die in a ditch of some random fever they picked up wandering about  Not much fun, I'll admit so we ignore that stuff and for a similar reason, I ignore the possiblility of serious wounds to a character because that would take them out of the adventure. Though if i was running a more political campaign then i might keep it in.

I agree that the rules only cover fighting ability and have little to say on wounds. I would add that if you have wounds and are full fightining ability then the wounds are not that bad.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> See, this is why you have people saying they don't want to play 20 Questions with you.



Not me. I've found Hypersmurf to be an incredibly intelligent poster who has changed my mind on several other things, based upon his arguments, discussion and careful questioning. However, on this one my mind is not changing and nor do I find his smurfiness's arguments cogent - which is starting to make me feel awkward. It makes me feel like either I'm on a different planet or that Hypersmurf is losing his touch (both poor conclusions from my perspective).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Not me. I've found Hypersmurf to be an incredibly intelligent poster who has changed my mind on several other things, based upon his arguments, discussion and careful questioning. However, on this one my mind is not changing and nor do I find his smurfiness's arguments cogent - which is starting to make me feel awkward. It makes me feel like either I'm on a different planet or that Hypersmurf is losing his touch (both poor conclusions from my perspective).
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




I know what you mean by this, and I would say that, previously, I have not found Hypersmurf's posting to be.....well, as I am finding it now.  Certainly, prior to the last two months, I have never found cause to suggest that an EN World moderator might need moderation.  

And I am very much hoping that I will not find it so in the future.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> In 3E, in the negatives is good enough for me. They're going to have to stabilize, and slowly work their way back to consciousness and some form of health.




So our 80 hit point fighter goes to 1 hit point, and takes 8 days of rest to recover full hit points.  

Or he goes to -1, stabilises, recovers, and takes 9 days of rest to recover full hit points.

Our 2nd level wizard with 7 hit points goes to -1, and his buddy bandages him up and puts him to bed; he's back to max in 24 hours.

If we take negatives to be our benchmark of 'badly wounded', then we have someone who was not badly wounded taking 8 days to recover peak condition, while someone who was badly wounded can be there in one day with some non-magical attention.

In 4E, an unaided character who goes negative will likely die.  In 3E, an unaided character who goes negative will likely die.

In 3E, a character who goes negative and is then aided will gain back a significant fraction of his hit points in 24 hours.  In 4E, a character who goes negative and then takes an extended rest will gain back all of his hit points overnight.  If we assume that extended rest activities for wounded characters cover the same sort of ground in both editions - someone bandages your wounds, etc - is there a significant difference?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

A 2nd level character, without the benefit of spells or magic, who drops to -6 in 3e will, at best, be at -2 the next day (2 hp, +2 hp for medial aid, although that should require a day of bed rest, so the DM is being kind not to leave the bloke at -4).  The next day, he can recover a maximum of 8 hit points, bringing him to 6 (or 4, without a kind DM).  The day after, he might be ready to adventure again.

A 2nd level character, without the benefit of spells or magic, in 4e can surpass the 2nd-day healing of the 3e character without having an extended rest, and can be fully healed following an extended rest.

Big difference?  Yes.

In 3e, a high enough level party can have a wizard teleport them just about anywhere.  If the game system then assumed that a fighter of that level ought to be able to teleport himself just about anywhere, 'cause, y'know, he could do it if a wizard were there, and this ability is also not magical, it wouldn't make any more -- or less -- sense then the same claim re: healing.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> A 2nd level character, without the benefit of spells or magic, who drops to -6 in 3e will, at best, be at -2 the next day (2 hp, +2 hp for medial aid, although that should require a day of bed rest, so the DM is being kind not to leave the bloke at -4).




With a day of bed rest, he'd recover 8; 2 per level, doubled with assistance.

-Hyp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So our 80 hit point fighter goes to 1 hit point, and takes 8 days of rest to recover full hit points.
> 
> Or he goes to -1, stabilises, recovers, and takes 9 days of rest to recover full hit points.



This is the difficulty of combining physical health and skill, inner power, luck, resolve into the one stat. However in both cases, the character takes a while to get back to their best, but for different reasons. 

One has the character up and about but at a point where another hit could kill them. It takes a while for the character to get back to their skilful best. Sure they've taken some bumps and bruises but not enough to force them into unconciousness. For whatever reason though, they're out of luck, don't have as much will power, are fatigued enough to not be able to defend themselves as well as previously; to turn serious blows into lesser ones.

The other has the character attacked and injured into unconsciousness (into the negatives). The 9 days to recover this time is attributed moreso to the injury inflicted.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Our 2nd level wizard with 7 hit points goes to -1, and his buddy bandages him up and puts him to bed; he's back to max in 24 hours.



And here is the crux of the argument. 3E's natural healing mechanic where healing is based upon level is not a realistic one. You could further exacerbate this by having the fighter have a hale constitution (large positive modifier) and the wizard a poor consititution (negative modifier). In this case, the fighter would take even longer to heal naturally, whilst the sickly 2nd level wizard will take even less resources to fully "heal". 

So, in terms of the wizard, the 3E natural healing mechanic produces a different frame of reference. Since a wizard can retain their health quickly (4 days in your example if healing without assistance and with all rolls going their way), you would be more inclined to say that a blow that puts them into the small negatives was not serious, while any sort of serious blow will more than likely kill them. Even at -9 and stable, your wizard will only take an extra day to naturally heal (with full assistance - that is first aid and long-term care). And this is the other factor that makes 3E natural healing unrealistic, that such assistance could speed up healing (or return of health) so dramatically.

However, what happens when not receiving assistance? Whilst in the negatives, our wizard has to make repeated stabilizing efforts (10% every hour) or lose a further hit point (and thus get progressively worse). Perhaps then with the wizard, a blow that gets them into the small negatives is not that bad taking into account how little "healing" is required to get them back to their best. However, if in the deep negatives and with a lack of increase in hit points (in fact the character will more than likely go backwards), I think it fair enough to then say the wizard was significantly wounded. However, I think you do have a case for saying that a wizard who is badly injured, is badly injured because they're about to die from those injuries as in 4E. For low hit point characters, their exact situation and what can be considered "badly wounded" is different to high hit point characters. So fair enough, there is more to it than just being in the negatives.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If we take negatives to be our benchmark of 'badly wounded', then we have someone who was not badly wounded taking 8 days to recover peak condition, while someone who was badly wounded can be there in one day with some non-magical attention.



Yes. It makes you then say that the wizard could not have been that badly injured. There is more to it than just being in the negatives. It is also within the context of time taken to return to full health.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In 4E, an unaided character who goes negative will likely die.  In 3E, an unaided character who goes negative will likely die.



More than likely true.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In 3E, a character who goes negative and is then aided will gain back a significant fraction of his hit points in 24 hours.



This requires both first aid and long term care, something the rest of the party may not be guaranteed of providing.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In 4E, a character who goes negative and then takes an extended rest will gain back all of his hit points overnight.  If we assume that extended rest activities for wounded characters cover the same sort of ground in both editions - someone bandages your wounds, etc - is there a significant difference?



Now, the first aid and long term care is assumed to be automatic and successful. In 3E, only a fraction of the hit points were regained. The significance of this fraction is dependent upon how successful the healer was and that the injured character is able to get full bed rest. In 4E this is assumed to be automatic and successful. So yes there is a difference here.

However, there is a further and more dominant factor here that while not explicit in the rules, is implicit within the context of general gameplay. In the majority of cases in 3E, magical healing is both accessible and often used. This is to the point where I cannot specifically remember a time in a 3.x game I have played where if a character was forced into the negatives, someone did not come along with a magical potion, spell or wand to "save" the character. Because of this, a DM could describe some truly horrible injuries, safe in the knowledge that magical healing was on the way and that the plausability factor of the event would not be undermined (if anything, the horrid injury description would hasten the other PCs to assist).

In 4E though, magical healing is nowhere near as pervasive as it was in 3E. Natural healing is the most common form of healing in 4E. As such, moderation is required in description less the plausibility of the description be undermined. Describe what you want but if it is more than what a PC can recover from whilst returning to unhindered performance in a short space of time, then there will be a disconnect between your description and what is reasonable. As such, in 4E you can never validly describe a character as badly wounded, unless they then die from the injuries (but not until they die).

All told, there is a significant difference between the editions. However, I think it is also fair to say that neither edition deals with hit points/damage/healing very well. There are lots of anomalies that are easy enough to find. The only way to fix these is to separate hit points into its constituent parts, so you can separately track a characters health, and their skill, luck, divinity, inner power, ability to turn blows and more. See my thread on a hit point solution if you're interested.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 24, 2008)

As I read this thread, a thought, among others, comes to mind. 

Warlord healing is through encouragement and mental focussing. Like a drill instructor telling his men to push on through danger and pain.

Artificer healing is mechanical. The muscle and bone restored according to some Platonic Ideal.

Cleric healing is an act of grace. A blessed touch that knits together torn flesh as well as a battered mind.

So, warlords and other martial sources can only heal damage above Blooded, since those are the hit points representing drive, mental stamina and determination. Artificers and other arcane source healing can only heal hit points lost below Blooded since those hit points represent actual physical damage. The divine source can restore any hit point loss as it can address any wound, be it mental or physical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> With a day of bed rest, he'd recover 8; 2 per level, doubled with assistance.
> 
> -Hyp.




That's a day of bed rest, which isn't the day he took the wounds.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That's a day of bed rest, which isn't the day he took the wounds.
> 
> RC




That is a different, but is it meaningful? Does natural healing only kick in a day later? 
What is so special about 24 hours compared to 6 hours? 

Does everyone in the sandbox operate only in 24 hours interval? Couldn't, say, a rivaling group of adventures use those 6 hours the PCs are resting to enter the dungeon and steal the prize? Couldn't a BBEG steal the artifact he needs for his ritual at dawn and start the ritual at dusk, being done no later then midnight?
And on the flip side, is everything 24 hours apart from each other? Is the Lair of the Dragon 24 travel hours from the Tower of Despair, and the Tower of Despair 24 travel hours from the Elven City of Halfmoon? Does the serial killer roaming Silver River take at least 24 hours to find, mutilate and kill his victim?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That is a different, but is it meaningful?




Yes.

And it is the benefits of medical attention, not the benefits of natural healing, that only kick in a day later.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 24, 2008)

Baron Opal said:


> As I read this thread, a thought, among others, comes to mind.
> 
> Warlord healing is through encouragement and mental focussing. Like a drill instructor telling his men to push on through danger and pain.
> 
> ...




Mechanically, I like that.

Of course, like any other sort of healing / hp, there is room for comedy gold:

Fred the Fighter: Argh, I am injured nigh unto death. Wilst not my erstwhile comrades and brothers-in-arms not help me?
Andy the Artificer: Sure. Let me apply these salves and bandages to stop the bleeding.
Will the Warlord: And then I'll come over and shout at you some, soon you'll be all better!
Clive the Cleric: You know, you could just let me help for once...
Andy: No! This is an important experiment to see if I can match your divine abilities!
Will: And if I don't get to shout at him, what use am I? WHAT USE AM I?

I now return you to your schedules thread, sorry.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes.
> 
> And it is the benefits of medical attention, not the benefits of natural healing, that only kick in a day later.




How is the 18 hour difference critical? Is it impossible in a sandbox to make 6 hours mean a meaningful delay, and you need 24 hour increment. It's obvious there is a time difference, but does this really make the entire style of play so different?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 24, 2008)

Baron Opal said:


> So, warlords and other martial sources can only heal damage above Blooded, since those are the hit points representing drive, mental stamina and determination. Artificers and other arcane source healing can only heal hit points lost below Blooded since those hit points represent actual physical damage. The divine source can restore any hit point loss as it can address any wound, be it mental or physical.



Interesting. But this assumes that all wounds above bloodied are non-physical, and all wounds below bloodied are physical. Which will generally not be the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How is the 18 hour difference critical? Is it impossible in a sandbox to make 6 hours mean a meaningful delay, and you need 24 hour increment. It's obvious there is a time difference, but does this really make the entire style of play so different?




If 6 hours is meaningful, doesn't it follow that 18 hours is three times as meaningful?  

It does in my book.

Also, while I would certainly agree with the implication that natural healing in 3.x is _*too fast*_, I would not therefore agree that making it _*even faster *_doesn't matter.  Quite the opposite.

As I said earlier, in 3e, a high enough level party can have a wizard teleport them just about anywhere. If the game system then assumed that a fighter of that level ought to be able to teleport himself just about anywhere, 'cause, y'know, he could do it if a wizard were there, and this ability is also not magical, it wouldn't make any more -- or less -- sense then the same claim re: healing.

And, you know, the fighter being able to "teleport anywhere" might work in an episodic game, where it could mimic the ability of, say, James Bond to get where he needs to be in order to be in the next scene.

If you can understand the objections that might be raised re: teleporting fighters, you should be able to understand the objections being raised re: instant healing (just add shouting).  Neither one is necessarily a problem if you want your game to include that sort of thing.  


RC


----------



## Obryn (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, while I would certainly agree with the implication that natural healing in 3.x is _*too fast*_, I would not therefore agree that making it _*even faster *_doesn't matter.  Quite the opposite.



So, have you made any changes to slow down natural healing in 3e?  If not, why?

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If 6 hours is meaningful, doesn't it follow that 18 hours is three times as meaningful?



Well, on some level yes, on some level not. I think it should be possible to make a sandbox work with 6 hour rest periods just as well as 24 hour rest periods or 48 hour rest periods. 

But I also believe that one of the biggest time factors should be travel times, not bed rest. (Speaking of Teleport - that of course would be very disruptive, too.) Interestingly, it seems the 4E shared my thoughts - healing happens over night, Long-Range teleportation is difficult to achieve, limited and reserved for higher levels.



> And, you know, the fighter being able to "teleport anywhere" might work in an episodic game, where it could mimic the ability of, say, James Bond to get where he needs to be in order to be in the next scene.
> 
> If you can understand the objections that might be raised re: teleporting fighters, you should be able to understand the objections being raised re: instant healing (just add shouting).  Neither one is necessarily a problem if you want your game to include that sort of thing.



But I still don't understand how you actually deal with Clerics healing people in a day or less, or Wizards teleporting (or the Cleric Wind Walking) the party to its destination. 

I don't see how it is relevant that theoretically the Fighter might never get healed in 24 (or 6) hours if on his own, when practically he is never on his own and will be healed by the party's Cleric or other magical healing in short time. What's stopping the sandbox player from using a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or the parties Cleric to get him his hit points back? 

I ask this specifically because I know that a lot of the design decisions made to 4E are based on how the game is actually played and avoiding the rules first pretending something different and then still providing all the tools to play that way. There is no "standard buff spell list I cast in the morning or upon entering the dungeon" in 4E, because they just confuse the issue, by giving you first your "regular" stats and then adding some extra abilities that you will have on you all the time, making the regular stats irrelevant except maybe for introducing some math (errors).

So, similarly, yeah, theoretically healing should take days or weeks, but people would just use a Cleric or magical items to heal themselves to full hp over a short time period. So, away with that nonsense of slow natural healing. Handwave it, explain it with wounds still visible but overcome by moral or pain resistance, or performing some healing ritual, it doesn't matter, the end effect is the same - the party is up and running the next day, whether you have full hit point recovery as RAW or not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Obryn said:


> So, have you made any changes to slow down natural healing in 3e?  If not, why?
> 
> -O




RCFG will be my "big" attempt to deal with all of the problems in WotC-D&D, while dropping none of the improvements.  (IMHO, of course; the farther you are from my game of choice, the less RCFG will be to your liking!)  So, you will have the opportunity to see exactly how slow I think natural healing should be.  



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, on some level yes, on some level not. I think it should be possible to make a sandbox work with 6 hour rest periods just as well as 24 hour rest periods or 48 hour rest periods.
> 
> But I also believe that one of the biggest time factors should be travel times, not bed rest.




Sure, but as your cheese-o-meter might ding with instant teleports everywhere, mine dings with instant healing everywhere.  



> I don't see how it is relevant that theoretically the Fighter might never get healed in 24 (or 6) hours if on his own, when practically he is never on his own and will be healed by the party's Cleric or other magical healing in short time. What's stopping the sandbox player from using a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or the parties Cleric to get him his hit points back?




I have no problem with magic being able to achieve things that cannot be done without magic.  From comments I am reading, I am not alone in this.



> I ask this specifically because I know that a lot of the design decisions made to 4E are based on how the game is actually played and avoiding the rules first pretending something different and then still providing all the tools to play that way.




I missed how the game was "actually played" using mundane healing that took characters to full health overnight.    IME, it never happened.

(But I am sure that some DMs handwaved travel time, so this "reasoning" should have made teleporting fighters the norm, right?)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> RCFG will be my "big" attempt to deal with all of the problems in WotC-D&D, while dropping none of the improvements.  (IMHO, of course; the farther you are from my game of choice, the less RCFG will be to your liking!)  So, you will have the opportunity to see exactly how slow I think natural healing should be.



I wish you continually success, even though I know that I will not "like" the results considering our play style preferences. 



> Sure, but as your cheese-o-meter might ding with instant teleports everywhere, mine dings with instant healing everywhere.



No, not y cheese-o-meter. Just my "can I run a travel focused evening as I sometimes do"-o-meter. 



> I missed how the game was "actually played" using mundane healing that took characters to full health overnight.    IME, it never happened.



Yes, it never happened, because nobody waited on natural healing. 
The game was not played with people taking long rests to recover via mundane/natural healing. The game was played with Clerics or "Clerics-on-a-stick", making the fact that there was a rule for natural healing irrelevant. 
This gives me a low result on my "Do I need a specific class to play the game the way I like"-o-meter, which I like, and also a good result on my cheese-o-meter, because I don't need to have cheesy magical items to at least rudimentary reduce the need for that class. 



> (But I am sure that some DMs handwaved travel time, so this "reasoning" should have made teleporting fighters the norm, right?)



If the game never uses travel times or overland travel because there is always someone in the party that can teleport it, yes. But this is only the case at around 9th level and upwards in 3E. So I think there should be just a "tier" of play where this is true.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The game was not played with people taking long rests to recover via mundane/natural healing. The game was played with Clerics or "Clerics-on-a-stick", making the fact that there was a rule for natural healing irrelevant.




Your Mileage Varies From Mine.

RC


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 24, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Interesting. But this assumes that all wounds above bloodied are non-physical, and all wounds below bloodied are physical. Which will generally not be the case.




Why do you say that? Since hit points are divorced from any real in-game physicality the DM can make that division arbitrarily.


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I missed how the game was "actually played" using mundane healing that took characters to full health overnight.






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, it never happened, because nobody waited on natural healing....
> The game was played with Clerics or "Clerics-on-a-stick", making the fact that there was a rule for natural healing irrelevant.






Raven Crowking said:


> Your Mileage Varies From Mine.
> 
> RC




Indeed. In my experience, after 5th level the party holed up somewhere after they got beat up badly and the cleric memorized all healing spells. The next day everyone was healed and the cleric rememorized his standard list. While jarring, having the party ready to rock after one sleep instead of two isn't very different from my expectations.

On the whole, I agree with RC about the benefits of sandbox style play. However, I find that _choices have consequences_ is the main theme of that style of play. The choice of how much time to spend on healing is just one of many.

It does irritate me, however, that an ogre can use your ribcage as a xylophone and as long as you have at least a hit point left you'll be right as rain in the morning.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Your Mileage Varies From Mine.
> 
> RC



By this, do you mean that clerics in your game don't cast heal spells as quickly?  Or that wands of cure light wounds are unavailable?

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Your Mileage Varies From Mine.
> 
> RC




I assume you mean you didn't rely on Clerics or Healing Wands?

If you don't the following might be alien to you because it doesn't fit your experience or playstyle: 

If you look at the 3E situation, you will notice that a lot of groups will be loaded with Wands of Cure Light Wounds and similar items (at higher levels, Staffs of Healing also became popular) and use their Cleric to cover the rest. 
Nobody relied on natural healing after the 1st level and their first 750 gp.

A designer can look at 3E and have different thoughts:
1) Wait, you can heal your character in 2 to 3 days to full hit points? That's not realistic, we need to make the healing rate slower. 
2) What, it takes a Wizard longer to recover then a Fighter? We need to figure out a way to fix that.
3) Wait, nobody is using the natural healing rules in practice! Magical healing is too strong, we need to nerf that. Let's start by taking away these Wands of Cure Light Wounds
4) Wait, nobody is using natural healing and instead uses the Clerics divine spells and Wands of Cure Light Wounds to recover in short time! They are perfectly willing to accept that in a D&D world, apparently Priests ask their good for healing, and then some more healing, and then even some more healing, and everyone is running around with a stick that heals people, just to avoid having to use natural healing? And they even demand a Cleric (or at least a Druid) in every party to have enough of the healing? 
Maybe Natural Healing is just too slow. All the rules do at the moment is creating a "healing tax", that becomes mostly irrelevant over time and is just some extra book-keeping. Let's remove this superflous stuff. Healing happens over night, done. 

It's obvious that I agree mostly with designer #4. Maybe I would have added: "And to avoid someone asking, I put my thoughts in a neat little "Behind the Curtain" box or something..."


Of course, there is a yet a different way to look at it, not going by what players typically do in their campaigns, and instead asking what you personally want to do in your campaign. Certainly the best way to get a game you personally like, especially if the current alternatives are not very close to what you like.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Obryn said:


> By this, do you mean that clerics in your game don't cast heal spells as quickly?  Or that wands of cure light wounds are unavailable?
> 
> -O




I have never played in a game with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Ever.

Moreover, I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2008)

That seems kind of sub optimal...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> That seems kind of sub optimal...



Well, it certainly a different on a different scale: But not playing pun-pun is also suboptimal  .


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> That seems kind of sub optimal...




I'm not sure I would agree.  Certainly, I have had players who disagreed, and I have also been a player in groups without a cleric.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, it certainly a different on a different scale: But not playing pun-pun is also suboptimal  .




Playing any character that is a one-trick pony is suboptimal, no matter how good he is at that trick.  At least, it's sub-optimal in the games I enjoy.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm not sure I would agree.  Certainly, I have had players who disagreed, and I have also been a player in groups without a cleric.
> 
> 
> RC





Shrug. Not saying it wouldn't be fun... I've been in plenty of groups that didn't have a cleric... It was harder, and sometims we just ended up hiring an NPC cleric.

But still, optimal performance (especialy in a time sensative sandbox game) says you should ahve some sort of way to heal quickly.

Which is part of why I think they added roles to the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> But still, optimal performance (especialy in a time sensative sandbox game) says you should ahve some sort of way to heal quickly.




Optimal performance is based not only on what you get, but also what you have to give up to get it.  I've played with clerics and without clerics.  The more you play the game as a combat engine, the more damaged you get, the more you need a healer.  That isn't the only way to approach problems, though.

RCFG includes magical healing, certainly, and I don't find it problematical within reason.  I am a fan of the _potion of healing_, for instance, but not the _cure light wounds wand_.  I'm not at all certain that I could parse the difference out rationally, but there certainly seems to be a difference _to me_.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Playing any character that is a one-trick pony is suboptimal, no matter how good he is at that trick.  At least, it's sub-optimal in the games I enjoy.  YMMV.
> 
> 
> RC




Well using pun-pun as an example is always a little tricky, but I am not he can be called a one-trick pony if he can gain almost or actual god-like status in a very short time period. Unless you consider gaining ultimate power just one-trick.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have never played in a game with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Ever.
> 
> Moreover, I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric.
> 
> ...



I just have to say that we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter, after how long exactly? Your experiences in this regard differ from the vast majority of D&D players. It sounds to me like you're looking for something very different from the direction the game has been moving in since day one: each edition has had more healing and been more focused on getting the group back into the action faster.

What do I mean by that? Well in OE, starting clerics didn't have any healing spells at all. In AD&D they had cure light wounds, and received bonus spells by high wisdom. 2E had specialty priests and kits that allowed even more healing. In 3E we had the advent of the cheap cure light wounds wands (the spell also healed more) and spells like vigor which could be used out of combat to full heal the group. 4E has it's extended rest and healing surges. In each case there has been an emphasis on getting the group back to the fun stuff faster.

Now there isn't anything wrong with concentrating on having heroes either have lots of downtime or be walking wounded, it just isn't very post OE D&D.

--Steve


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Optimal performance is based not only on what you get, but also what you have to give up to get it.  I've played with clerics and without clerics.  The more you play the game as a combat engine, the more damaged you get, the more you need a healer.  That isn't the only way to approach problems, though.




Sure less combat = less need for a healer no doubt.

But if your group decided it liked combat, then not having a cleric was kind of sub-optimal. Which tended to mean someone in the party "had" to play a cleric (despite whatever archetype they might have originaly envisioned.)

The idea of roles kind of eliviates this. Your party can still heal (by choosing a leader) but a player doesn't have to sacrifice his concept too much.

I think thats why we've seen soo many classes falling into the leader role. Getting as many archetypes into the leader role allows the guy stuck playing the healer to have as many choices as possible.



> RCFG includes magical healing, certainly, and I don't find it problematical within reason.  I am a fan of the _potion of healing_, for instance, but not the _cure light wounds wand_.  I'm not at all certain that I could parse the difference out rationally, but there certainly seems to be a difference _to me_.




Probably easier to justify your players not having as much healing on hand. "You can't carry all that healing" works better if it's multiple bottles and not just a stick.


----------



## doppelganger (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have never played in a game with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Ever.
> 
> Moreover, I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric.



Hhave you played many ongoing (ie not one shots) D&D games with absolutely no magic healing at all?


----------



## Obryn (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have never played in a game with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Ever.
> 
> Moreover, I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric.
> 
> ...



So, I have to ask - _why_ weren't there any wands of Cure Light Wounds?  Did you house-rule the game?  Or was there just no interest?  I can hardly imagine there being no interest; were I running a cleric, I'd pick up Craft Wand ASAP if Ye Olde Magic Shoppe were unavailable/nonexistent.  Healsticks are just too useful.

If it's a house-rule, why is it different to house-rule 3e than it is to house-rule 4e?  Neither one seems to fit your sandbox criterion.

It sounds like your 3e gameplay is pretty dramatically different from most peoples'.

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2008)

SteveC said:


> I just have to say that we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter, after how long exactly? Your experiences in this regard differ from the vast majority of D&D players. It sounds to me like you're looking for something very different from the direction the game has been moving in since day one: each edition has had more healing and been more focused on getting the group back into the action faster.



Maybe it's because RC and I have been sparring so long now... but this old news for me now.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe it's because RC and I have been sparring so long now... but this old news for me now.




Good point! Both of you are starting to sound like an old married couple! 

Seriously, though, and something that gets lost in all of the posturing here: there are a lot of good ideas about how damage and healing work in this thread, and the basis to make a very interesting game that takes the basics of D&D and takes the game in a different direction. 

--Steve


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

SteveC said:


> I just have to say that we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter, after how long exactly? Your experiences in this regard differ from the vast majority of D&D players.




Hmmmm.....

(1)  We were at the crux of the matter at the begining.  It would be highly unlikely both that my experiences in this regard differ from the "vast majority of D&D players" and that others would have the same experience re: Schroedinger's Wounding (and post to that effect) if this was "the crux of the matter".  Do we all, somehow, happen to fall into the same minority?  Or do we ignore that I have run/played in games with clerics, too, because doing so helps you compartmentalize and ignore the actual issues raised?

(2)  I am not at all certain that you have the authority to say what the experiences of the "vast majority of D&D players" is.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

SteveC said:


> Good point! Both of you are starting to sound like an old married couple!




So long as it is perfectly clear that Mustrum is the "wife".  

(I kid)


RC


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  I am not at all certain that you have the authority to say what the experiences of the "vast majority of D&D players" is.
> 
> 
> RC




Yes, in this case, I actually am. If you've actually played a significant amount of 3E D&D and have never seen a Cure Light Wounds wand, you're playing D&D very differently than most people. I fully expect to hear from everyone else about how they never use wands of cure light, but that isn't really how the game is played. Seriously. You can play a D20 game with little or no healing at all, but we're talking about *D&D*. Ready access to healing is how the vast majority of people who play D&D play the game. Frankly, if you don't see that, there is literally nothing left to say or discuss with you.

Again, your game !=badwrongfun. Just different.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

SteveC said:


> Yes, in this case, I actually am. If you've actually played a significant amount of 3E D&D and have never seen a Cure Light Wounds wand, you're playing D&D very differently than most people. I fully expect to hear from everyone else about how they never use wands of cure light, but that isn't really how the game is played. Seriously. You can play a D20 game with little or no healing at all, but we're talking about *D&D*. Ready access to healing is how the vast majority of people who play D&D play the game. Frankly, if you don't see that, there is literally nothing left to say or discuss with you.




And you know this because..........?

See, you are attempting to argue by authority, but I am not at all certain how your saying "but that isn't really how the game is played. Seriously. You can play a D20 game with little or no healing at all, but we're talking about *D&D*" has any evidenciary value whatsoever.

Would you like to point out how you "know" this?  Is it, for example, revealed knowledge that just popped in your brain one day?  Is it the result of an InterWeb poll?  Is it just how you and your friends play, that you are assuming is widespread?

If you want to argue by authority, you have to be willing to divulge the source of that authority, or accept that your argument will not be taken seriously.



RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Would you like to point out how you "know" this?  Is it, for example, revealed knowledge that just popped in your brain one day?  Is it the result of an InterWeb poll?  Is it just how you and your friends play, that you are assuming is widespread?




My guess would be:

1. Paying attention to this and other boards.
2. Paying attention to what wizards says/does (as they would be in position to most know their client base's wants and needs.)
3. Paying attention at conventions and such. 
4. Paying attention to your own game. (For the most part I think most groups play in a similar way. If the way your playing the game doesn't make others act in a confused fashion when you talk about that style, then you're probably pretty average.)

I think it's not really a big stretch to say most groups out there:

1. Have combat in their games a lot.
2. Use magical healing a lot.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I think it's not really a big stretch to say most groups out there:
> 
> 1. Have combat in their games a lot.
> 2. Use magical healing a lot.



I completely, 100% agree.  I'd add on...

3. Have found a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to be an inexpensive, but invaluable, source of healing during a campaign.

Again - this is unless the DM has houseruled the magic item rules, or else runs a very low-combat or low-magic campaign.

-O


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 24, 2008)

Hi RC,

I understand where you're coming from, and that effectively there is no way how you could use an authoratative source that we all know doesn't exist to back this claim up. 

However, it is built into the game for a group to have easy and ready access to magical (read instant) healing - unless the DM makes it difficult by choice. If you look at many of the official adventures, as well as adventures in dungeon magazine, healing wands and potions are plentiful and seem to be an expected (and in some cases needed) part of any adventuring groups resources. As such I have to agree with Scribble:



Scribble said:


> I think it's not really a big stretch to say most groups out there:
> 
> 1. Have combat in their games a lot.
> 2. Use magical healing a lot.




However, I don't like this coming off as if it is the correct or "official" way of playing the game - there is obviously no such thing. However, I do feel it would be what the majority of groups experience.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Obryn (Nov 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> However, I don't like this coming off as if it is the correct or "official" way of playing the game - there is obviously no such thing. However, I do feel it would be what the majority of groups experience.



I didn't get that at all from his statement.  I think it's just a statement of fact, not the best way to play the game.

I think that asserting that most 3.x D&D groups didn't/don't regularly use magical healing from clerics, wands, and potions is rather indefensible.  I'd start a poll - but sadly, ENWorld is not a representative sample of all gamers.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Nov 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> However, I don't like this coming off as if it is the correct or "official" way of playing the game - there is obviously no such thing. However, I do feel it would be what the majority of groups experience.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Not sure I understand quite what you mean...  There's no "true" way to play the game above all others... It's kind of (in my opinion at least) one of the things thats makes RPGs great... Play them in any way your group find fun.

But what I can say is: The game needs to make some assumptions about how people are playing in order for things like "balance" and "encounter building" to work. (Or at least to give advice about said things in the books.)

If your groups playstyle differs significantly from these assumptions, then the other parts will also be different.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And you know this because..........?
> 
> See, you are attempting to argue by authority, but I am not at all certain how your saying "but that isn't really how the game is played. Seriously. You can play a D20 game with little or no healing at all, but we're talking about *D&D*" has any evidenciary value whatsoever.
> 
> ...



I don't have to prove that playing D&D by the default rules is the default. You're the one making an assertion: that one of the default roles for the game is not, a default. The game assumes access to healing and access to clerics. If you don't use them or have never seen them, more power to you. If you can honestly say "oh, man, what is this guy saying? Healing in D&D? Why would you need that..." I just don't have the words.

I do, however, see that we're pretty much done here. We have absolutely no common ground to discuss things on, so the only way I won't get in trouble with the mods is to bow out of this discussion.

Sorry for any disruption on the thread.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Not sure I understand quite what you mean...  There's no "true" way to play the game above all others... It's kind of (in my opinion at least) one of the things thats makes RPGs great...



That's exactly what I was saying. It is just by saying the "rules say this" and that "dungeon magazine says that", I didn't want it to sound like some official statement of how to play the game. RC does not play the game like that, and I've played in games not like that, and as you say it is part of the beauty of rpgs that there is no "official" way of playing things.

In essence, I thought RC's position was valid, but that I agreed with your point.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> But what I can say is: The game needs to make some assumptions about how people are playing in order for things like "balance" and "encounter building" to work. (Or at least to give advice about said things in the books.)



Very true. There are lots of explicit, implicit and "metagame" assumptions in any D&D ruleset. By saying "metagame", I'm actually talking about metagame in a Magic: the Gathering competition sense.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Cracking one's head... drowning... not real injuries?




Yep. Keep in mind by "crack" I don't mean "your skull splits open" I mean "hit your head sharply". Your brain's rattled so much it jumps the rails but the body's intact. Drowning similarly. You just run out of air and consciousness cuts off, and you can "be revived" if someone clears your lungs. 

I trust I don't need to go into hypothermia or heat exhaustion, both of which can surely kill, or the possibility for a psychic to trap you in your own mind, as many coma patients are completely aware of their surroundings but unable to make the body move or communicate with the outside world.

It's also important to note that death doesn't have to be clinical death, it's just a state where you're not responsive to conventional healing and you need a ritual to get back up.



> I think if a character has died to a bunch of kobolds and a goblin with a big weapon, they've taken an injury. While I appreciate once more your imaginiation, I think its best to keep things within the context of a game that's modelling armed heroic characters and monsters fighting each other. If you die, it's extremely likely that it's a "real injury" that's going to have done it.




Except that if a warlord shouts "GET UP YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN" when you're 6 seconds away from "death", you get up like the horrible little man you are. This suggests that most "death" is just unconsciousness from shock that leads to a coma, which is different from having your spleen taken as a trophy.

If you go down to -bloodied, that's fair to describe as a fundamental wound because you're beyond help. But while someone can still shout you back to consciousness you can't have been hurt in a way that might prevent that.

Yes, this means death on the battlefield is often cheap and empty in 4E, barring environmental effects like pools of lava. But I have no problem with that.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I didn't get that at all from his statement.  I think it's just a statement of fact, not the best way to play the game.
> 
> I think that asserting that most 3.x D&D groups didn't/don't regularly use magical healing from clerics, wands, and potions is rather indefensible.  I'd start a poll - but sadly, ENWorld is not a representative sample of all gamers.
> 
> -O




That was pretty much my point. I in no way want to tell anyone about the "best" way to play the game aside from saying "the best game is the one where you and your players have the most fun." My own game differs significantly from the baseline assumptions for D&D, but I'm okay with that. More importantly, it's okay with my players who are the whole reason I run it. 

People do play low-healing games, just like they play low-magic or low-combat games. Those games can be fun (they're the type I run), but they're not the assumptions that D&D draws on for it's rules. We can all disagree on different points about "what is D&D:" that's what makes this board interesting and something I can learn from, but if we don't have some common ground to start from, frankly, we get threads that end up getting moderated and closed down.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 24, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Yep. Keep in mind by "crack" I don't mean "your skull splits open" I mean "hit your head sharply". Your brain's rattled so much it jumps the rails but the body's intact. Drowning similarly. You just run out of air and consciousness cuts off, and you can "be revived" if someone clears your lungs.



The first is a bruising of the brain, the second a lack of oxygen to the brain, both of which are/or cause damage and thus what I consider to be injuries. YMMV. 



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> It's also important to note that death doesn't have to be clinical death, it's just a state where you're not responsive to conventional healing and you need a ritual to get back up.



Our group does not go with this interpretation. To us dead id dead, as in "bury me before I start to smell funny" dead. Resurrection magic is not commonplace in our campaigns. I appreciate where you're coming from with this (as I did on the previous thread, and the thread before that), but we just don't play that way.



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> Except that if a warlord shouts "GET UP YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN" when you're 6 seconds away from "death", you get up like the horrible little man you are. This suggests that most "death" is just unconsciousness from shock that leads to a coma, which is different from having your spleen taken as a trophy.



I play a warlord in our group's 4E campaign and we ruled as a group that Inspiring Word does not work if the target is unconscious (even though there is nothing in the rules that specifically states whether it should or shouldn't). It's just something that doesn't seem right to us. As such, your arguments that are a consequence of this do not work for our group either, thus for us, dead is spleen as trophy unfortunately.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2008)

SteveC said:


> I don't have to prove that playing D&D by the default rules is the default. You're the one making an assertion: that one of the default roles for the game is not, a default.




No; the assertion that I am making is that your assertion is not evidence.

IME, few of the D&D players I know go to conventions.  Few of them are reliant on WotC or Paizo for their fun.  Few of them are on EN World.

You made the assertation that the "crux" of my problem with Schroedinger's Wounding is that I tend to run lower-magic (and hence, lower-healing) games.  It is not.  It is that what is called "mundane" healing is, by any sane measure, so far beyond the threshold of our world that it seems like magic to me.

As mentioned upthread, RCFG uses a "shrugging it off" mechanic.  I have no problem with access to healing.  I don't shaft players for choosing to play clerics.  I don't make clw wands appear in treasure hoards, though.

There is a real difference between questioning your assertation that using CLW wands is "how the game is played" and saying "Healing in D&D? Why would you need that..." 

Pretending they are the same thing?  I just don't have the words.



SteveC said:


> My own game differs significantly from the baseline assumptions for D&D, but I'm okay with that. More importantly, it's okay with my players who are the whole reason I run it.




IME, games that differ signifiantly from the baseline assumptions for D&D are not at all uncommon.

"No CLW Wands" differs from the baseline assumptions of D&D no more, IMHO, than a game with no ravids.  Just because something is possible, it doesn't follow that the majority use it.

(Especially given the number of folks who have complained in the past about how CLW wands break the encounter balance guidelines, and have been advised to ban them by other DMs who have done the same, here and elsewhere, in the past.)


RC


----------



## Delta (Nov 24, 2008)

SteveC said:


> I don't have to prove that playing D&D by the default rules is the default. You're the one making an assertion: that one of the default roles for the game is not, a default. The game assumes access to healing and access to clerics. If you don't use them or have never seen them, more power to you. If you can honestly say "oh, man, what is this guy saying? Healing in D&D? Why would you need that..." I just don't have the words.




You know, honestly, I played in a 3E game for 5+ years, every week. I played the cleric. And we never had a wand of CLW.

Here's the reason: No cleric took the Craft Wands feat. We weren't allowed to buy arbitrary magic items -- we had to find a specific NPC with the right feats to craft it. We didn't use the "Variant: New Magic Items" which might have short-circuited to another feat requirement. And none of our clerics (including the one I played) took Craft Wands, because the only thing we would have used it for was CLW.

Hey, I wanted a Wand of CLW! I certainly see the value. But we always got by with plain rest-and-day-of-curing, and had better things to spend our feats on.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 25, 2008)

Delta said:


> You know, honestly, I played in a 3E game for 5+ years, every week. I played the cleric. And we never had a wand of CLW.
> 
> Here's the reason: No cleric took the Craft Wands feat. We weren't allowed to buy arbitrary magic items -- we had to find a specific NPC with the right feats to craft it. We didn't use the "Variant: New Magic Items" which might have short-circuited to another feat requirement. And none of our clerics (including the one I played) took Craft Wands, because the only thing we would have used it for was CLW.
> 
> Hey, I wanted a Wand of CLW! I certainly see the value. But we always got by with plain rest-and-day-of-curing, and had better things to spend our feats on.




So, you had no cure light wounds because the DM made getting them virtually impossible.  You cannot buy them, so the only way to get them is to make them.  And no one spent the feat.  

Note, I find it very difficult to believe that NO ONE in your group took craft wand.  Note, you don't have to cast the spell to make the wand.  A wizard with a cleric's help can craft a wand of Cure Light.

But, that's fine, no one's saying that you absolutlely MUST have a wand of Cure Light to play the game.  What's being said is that a very large number of groups did, in fact, have these wands, and that many game designers, like Paizo and WOTC assumed that you would have these healing sticks available.

Then again, I just finished running Paizo's There is No Honor and I'm about 1/2 way into the Bullywug Gambit (1st two modules of the Savage Tide AP) and the party has gathered well over 20 healing potions (18 cure light and 3 cure moderate) just from treasure.  So, someone's assuming lots of free healing.


----------



## Psion (Nov 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I completely, 100% agree.  I'd add on...
> 
> 3. Have found a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to be an inexpensive, but invaluable, source of healing during a campaign.




And I find it to be a stop gap in the case there is no cleric, but otherwise, just throwing money down the drain in the face of renewable resources.


----------



## Psion (Nov 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, you had no cure light wounds because the DM made getting them virtually impossible.   You cannot buy them, so the only way to get them is to make them.  And no one spent the feat.




Not automatic != virtually impossible.

FWIW, I don't make it automatic, either. Nothing about the DMG states that magic items are automatically available. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.



> Note, I find it very difficult to believe that NO ONE in your group took craft wand.




(shrug) My players rarely take craft feats. Some players are a bit "old school" in that they rely on the DM to provide magic items.

It would appear, like SteveC, your experience is less than universal.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 25, 2008)

Psion said:


> It would appear, like SteveC, your experience is less than universal.



I don't think he said universal?  I know I didn't.

Default, sure.  Extremely common, also true.  Universal?  No, that's a strawman.

EDIT:  Also, Raven Crowking's original point involved magical clerical healing, as well.  Which you say is used frequently in your games, so at least part of our experiences agree.

-O


----------



## Psion (Nov 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I don't think he said universal?  I know I didn't.
> 
> Default, sure.  Extremely common, also true.  Universal?  No, that's a strawman.




And you're splitting hairs. I was being hyperbolic; "not universal" was an understatement. 

I don't think the "CLW in every pot" paradigm is merely not universal, which would be a trivial observation. I believe that my experience is broad enough that I can say with a good amount of comfort that it is GREATLY less than universal. I think it could be a common sign of a troubled game with lax DM control and exploitative players. I won't venture what percentage of games that actually constitutes, but it's wouldn't surprise me to learn they were the minority.



> Also, Raven Crowking's original point involved magical clerical healing, as well.




If at any point you got the impression I defend and stand by everything RC says, you don't have a good memory of our track record. ("Sense of wonder" my posterior...) I only choose to intervene WRT a point I disagreed with. To wit, regarding SteveC's overstated statement and related perceptions.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 25, 2008)

Psion said:


> And you're splitting hairs. I was being hyperbolic; "not universal" was an understatement.
> 
> I don't think the "CLW in every pot" paradigm is merely not universal, which would be a trivial observation. I believe that my experience is broad enough that I can say with a good amount of comfort that it is GREATLY less than universal. I think it could be a common sign of a troubled game with lax DM control and exploitative players. I won't venture what percentage of games that actually constitutes, but it's wouldn't surprise me to learn they were the minority.



I wouldn't split your strawman's hairs if he weren't wearing a wig! 

Anyway, that's pretty different from my 3.x experience and the published settings.  I don't think magical item availability - at least for the cheap ones - was ever a sign of a lax or exploited DM...  The game's various settings assume magic item shops of various kinds (from FR's Red Wizards to Eberron's Artificers, even to Monte Cook's Ptolus) and I'd think those are pretty representative of how many people play the game.

It's not really a stretch to think that the published settings mirror many peoples' play experiences.



> If at any point you got the impression I defend and stand by everything RC says, you don't have a good memory of our track record. ("Sense of wonder" my posterior...) I only choose to intervene WRT a point I disagreed with. To wit, regarding SteveC's overstated statement and related perceptions.



My apologies. 

-O


----------



## SteveC (Nov 25, 2008)

Psion said:


> And you're splitting hairs. I was being hyperbolic; "not universal" was an understatement.
> 
> If at any point you got the impression I defend and stand by everything RC says, you don't have a good memory of our track record. ("Sense of wonder" my posterior...) I only choose to intervene WRT a point I disagreed with. To wit, regarding SteveC's overstated statement and related perceptions.




Well I suppose if you go on long enough, you're bound to disagree with everyone, even people you're with 99% of the time. I *never *said that everyone played with Cure Light Wound wands (and similar items) what I said was:



			
				Stevec said:
			
		

> If you've actually played a significant amount of 3E D&D and have never seen a Cure Light Wounds wand, you're playing D&D very differently than most people. I fully expect to hear from everyone else about how they never use wands of cure light, but that isn't really how the game is played. Seriously. You can play a D20 game with little or no healing at all, but we're talking about D&D. Ready access to healing is how the vast majority of people who play D&D play the game.



The words that I chose were very specific, and I chose them deliberately. I stand by them 100%. Let me ask if you've never seen a wand of cure light wounds in a game of D&D. Can you say that you haven't? I would be surprised in extreme if that was the case. I never said anything about it being universal, since I've run a game like that myself.

When I did I had to deal with the assumptions of how combat and healing work and change the game from its default assumptions. Without that, the game would not have worked, just as changing other fundamental assumptions about how the game works without compensating for it has huge consequences.

--Steve


----------



## Delta (Nov 25, 2008)

SteveC said:


> Let me ask if you've never seen a wand of cure light wounds in a game of D&D. Can you say that you haven't? I would be surprised in extreme if that was the case.




I've actually never seen a wand of CLW in-game (having played every week for 5+ years, as I said before; and RPGA tournaments at Gen Con '04). Available, sure. Desirable, sure. Just never reached the point of spending a feat or seeking out a craftsman just for that. I've got a cleric with a mess of spell slots to spontaneously cure, that always seemed enough.

This could admittedly be a case of old-timers bringing 1E sensibilities to the table. It already looked like healing ran abundant like a river in 3E, so we never reached the point where we prioritized getting more.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 25, 2008)

After the first year or so of playing 3E, I have yet to see a party that did not make buying CLW wands the very first prioirity once they had the money and contact to do so. All you have to do is hear about it once to go 'why did we never think of this before?'.

The CLW wand goes a long, long way to eliminating the '15-minute-adventuring day' problem, and in most adventures I've been in, is a necessary tool in case the cleric dies or runs out of spells. Our cleric almost always is out of spells at some point, so spontaneous healing isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's not unusual for the party barbarian at 6-7th level to be taking in 40-60 damage in a combat, and the rest of us usually wind up in the 25% to 50% damaged range per combat. That's a heck of a lot of Cure Moderate and Cure Light.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

I would expect a lot of groups to have learned the "Wand of Cure Light Wound" trick by now. But:

My original thought was: Most groups do not rely on mundane/natural healing to recover their parties injuries. 

How many of you disagree? I already saw Psion and Delta remarking that they had Clerics in the game, and Delta specifically notes that he never searched for Wands of CLW because his Cleric seemed sufficient.

So did anyone rely on mundane healing because it seemed sufficient? Or the alternatives were unattainable or not desirable enough?


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 25, 2008)

My groups were allways willing to shell out cash to either improve the efficency of the caster or outright buy healing from an allied temple in town. My groups never made a wand of CLW, but there were many potions and a couple jade lenses.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, it never happened, because nobody waited on natural healing.  The game was not played with people taking long rests to recover via mundane/natural healing.






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you look at the 3E situation, you will notice that a lot of groups will be loaded with Wands of Cure Light Wounds and similar items (at higher levels, Staffs of Healing also became popular) and use their Cleric to cover the rest.
> Nobody relied on natural healing after the 1st level and their first 750 gp.




Please note that the assertation being made here is very clear, to which I responded:



Raven Crowking said:


> I have never played in a game with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Ever.
> 
> Moreover, I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric.




Please note that, while I said "I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric" I most emphatically _*did not*_ say that I have not played or run D&D for PC groups with a cleric, or that magical healing is not available.  Indeed, I go on to say:



Raven Crowking said:


> I've played with clerics and without clerics.  The more you play the game as a combat engine, the more damaged you get, the more you need a healer.  That isn't the only way to approach problems, though.
> 
> RCFG includes magical healing, certainly, and I don't find it problematical within reason.  I am a fan of the _potion of healing_, for instance, but not the _cure light wounds wand_.




At which point the assertation is made that, somehow, the "crux of the matter" re: my complaint about Schroedinger's Wounding is revealed:



SteveC said:


> I just have to say that we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter, after how long exactly?




To which I responded

We were at the crux of the matter at the begining.  It would be highly unlikely both that my experiences in this regard differ from the "vast majority of D&D players" and that others would have the same experience re: Schroedinger's Wounding (and post to that effect) if this was "the crux of the matter".  Do we all, somehow, happen to fall into the same minority?  Or do we ignore that I have run/played in games with clerics, too, because doing so helps you compartmentalize and ignore the actual issues raised?​
and



> Your experiences in this regard differ from the vast majority of D&D players.




to which I responded

I am not at all certain that you have the authority to say what the experiences of the "vast majority of D&D players" is.​
SteveC then claims to have the authority to make this statement, and that not using CLW wands is "playing D&D very differently than most people".  Note that this is not access to magical potions of healing, or clerics, or any other class with magical healing abilities.  If you aren't using CLW wands, you're not doing it the way most people do it.  



SteveC said:


> Yes, in this case, I actually am. If you've actually played a significant amount of 3E D&D and have never seen a Cure Light Wounds wand, you're playing D&D very differently than most people.




Indeed, CLW wands are apparently the default.



SteveC said:


> I don't have to prove that playing D&D by the default rules is the default.




Then SteveC made an attempt to conflate my assertion that CLW are not necessarily the norm with an assertion that no type of magical healing was ever the norm....a rather far cry from my actual statement, to wit:  "I've played with clerics and without clerics....RCFG includes magical healing, certainly, and I don't find it problematical within reason.  I am a fan of the _potion of healing_, for instance, but not the _cure light wounds wand_."

So, I am certainly making two assertions here:

(1)  Mustrum_Ridcully is wrong in saying "nobody waited on natural healing", and

(2)  SteveC does not, and cannot, know that CLW wands are the norm across the majority of D&D players.

One assertion I am definitely _*not making *_is the one SteveC ascribes to me:  "that one of the default roles for the game is not, a default."  CLW wands are not a default role, AFAICT.

And I make sure that I am clear about this:



Raven Crowking said:


> No; the assertion that I am making is that your assertion is not evidence.
> 
> IME, few of the D&D players I know go to conventions.  Few of them are reliant on WotC or Paizo for their fun.  Few of them are on EN World.
> 
> ...






Obryn said:


> EDIT:  Also, Raven Crowking's original point involved magical clerical healing, as well.  Which you say is used frequently in your games, so at least part of our experiences agree.




Now, Obryn, please go back and tell me where my original point involved magical clerical healing as well.......?

Indeed, Psion (in this case) has the right of it, IMHO:



Psion said:


> I don't think the "CLW in every pot" paradigm is merely not universal, which would be a trivial observation. I believe that my experience is broad enough that I can say with a good amount of comfort that it is GREATLY less than universal. I think it could be a common sign of a troubled game with lax DM control and exploitative players. I won't venture what percentage of games that actually constitutes, but it's wouldn't surprise me to learn they were the minority.





RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 25, 2008)

Psion said:


> Not automatic != virtually impossible.
> 
> FWIW, I don't make it automatic, either. Nothing about the DMG states that magic items are automatically available. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.




It's a bit beyond that though.  He states that it is flat out impossible to buy magic items.  Which right there, takes it out of the realm of baseline assumptions.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.  But, if you are moving beyond baseline assumptions (which buying magic items IS part and parcel to) then your campaign is already outside the norm.  Heck, most of my campaigns have also been outside the norm.  It isn't until my current campaign that I would say that we are playing anywhere near what is typical.  But, I do admit that freely.  My World's Largest Dungeon campaign was not baseline and was an outlier.  My high RP Scarred Lands campaign with almost zero combat was an outlier.  My naval based campaign was an outlier.

There's nothing wrong with that.  But, it is playing outside the base assumptions of the game.  The game certainly assumes that magic items are easily available.  That you or I choose not to play that way is fine, but, let's be honest enough to admit that we are moving beyond what's standard.

RC's apparently trying to claim that a "No cleric" campaign is any sort of normal for play now.  Are you going to stand with that one too?



> (shrug) My players rarely take craft feats. Some players are a bit "old school" in that they rely on the DM to provide magic items.
> 
> It would appear, like SteveC, your experience is less than universal.




Note, I never stated universal.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

Please, RC, we should know better to take anything we say as 100 % literal and if there is just one counter-example, everything said is invalid!

My main assertion is that relying on mundane healing happens very rarely, and people will always prefer magical items to it (assuming 3E healing rates or weaker) - be it by potions, wands of Cure Light Wounds or Clerics and Druids. Groups will _typically _ensure these means are available.

Which leads to the conclusion that the actual mundane healing rules exist only for a corner case. And as a drawback, they lead to
- Trivial book-keeping (Potions and Wands become very cheap at high levels, using default wealth by level assumptions)
- Magical healers becoming a necessity (Clerics, Druids, Bards or similar classes with access to healing spells)

So, the case of "we don't actually have any way of gaining magical healing" vs the case of "we don't rely on natural healing", and the former is a lot less common then the latter, and few care about it. The drawbacks seem to outweigh the benefits, so off they go. 

How can I come to the "typically" conclusion? Quite simple - i have read the message boards and remember more posts indicating reliance on healing magic rather then mundane healing. Now, maybe the set of message board posters is very unusual, maybe I accidentally forgot the countless of counter examples. But... I don't believe that. 

In game, there are a lot of good tactical and strategic reasons to heal characters fast. Since the only means to do that are spells or magical items, I think they will be prevalent, just like people probably more typically play Fighters with a high strength and Wizards with a high Intelligence, despite me never making a formal evaluation and poll on this matter to ensure that I have just noticed the 500 people that do it this way and missed the 5,000 people that don't. 

Moreover, even in games outside of D&D, you will find a reliance on "fast healing" methods. Not always magical, but typically so. Potions and Healing Draughts in Warhammer are certainly frequently requested items. Most mages in Shadowrun will learn the healing spell, and many characters will look for having a high Biotech skill rating or a good medkit.


----------



## Psion (Nov 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> It's a bit beyond that though.  He states that it is flat out impossible to buy magic items.




That's fine. What I am drawing attention to is the excluded middle that seems to be ignored here.



> Note, I never stated universal.




Sigh.

See my response to Obryn on this score.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Please, RC, we should know better to take anything we say as 100 % literal and if there is just one counter-example, everything said is invalid!




I am not saying that there is a single counter-example.  What I am saying is that you cannot know that "relying on mundane healing happens very rarely....that the actual mundane healing rules exist only for a corner case".  That is not my experience.  My experience is that, unless the DM mandates party composition, party composition cannot be assumed.

I have played D&D for many years, in several American states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Michigan) and in Canada.  Part of this was moving because of being in the US Army.  Overall, I would say that mundane healing took place at least 10% of the time, whether I was DMing or not.  In some cases, even where magical (item) healing is available, players will conserve it for "more important" situations.  I have also seen PCs require natural healing because the players have used their magical resources to heal NPCs.

IMHO, something that occurs that frequently is not a corner case.

I certainly accept that the same hasn't occurred as frequently in _*your*_ experience.  What I do not accept is that your experience is automatically more likely to be indicative of the norm than *my* experience.

Further, an examination of CR values, where a CR = APL encounter is intended to expend 1/4 or daily resources, demonstrates amply that the CLW wand wasn't intended as standard equipment within the context of the 3.x rules.



> Moreover, even in games outside of D&D, you will find a reliance on "fast healing" methods. Not always magical, but typically so. Potions and Healing Draughts in Warhammer are certainly frequently requested items. Most mages in Shadowrun will learn the healing spell, and many characters will look for having a high Biotech skill rating or a good medkit.




There is a reason that these games make fast healing reliant on magic or superior-to-modern technology, you know.  The designers are well aware that if they create a game with "mundane" healing that is, by any sane measure, so far beyond the threshold of our world that it seems like magic, it is going to throw some people right out of the immersive element of the game, every time.



RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not saying that there is a single counter-example.  What I am saying is that you cannot know that "relying on mundane healing happens very rarely....that the actual mundane healing rules exist only for a corner case".  That is not my experience.  My experience is that, unless the DM mandates party composition, party composition cannot be assumed.
> 
> I have played D&D for many years, in several American states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Michigan) and in Canada.  Part of this was moving because of being in the US Army.  Overall, I would say that mundane healing took place at least 10% of the time, whether I was DMing or not.  In some cases, even where magical (item) healing is available, players will conserve it for "more important" situations.  I have also seen PCs require natural healing because the players have used their magical resources to heal NPCs.



I have done this, too, many years ago, when I hadn't figured out the CLW Wand "trick" yet, or when we didn't have a Cleric. But at some point, we decided that without magical healing, things were to tedious.



> IMHO, something that occurs that frequently is not a corner case.



At what percentage does it become a corner case? How many of the 10 % you experienced for mundane healing was actually seen as "good" for the game and the game would have been missing something without it? How much of these 10 % were actually required by the way the game rules operated, and how many because people were "conservative" with their approach to magical healing (either a DM restricting access to items, or someone playing a Cleric not wanting to cast healing spells, or a variety of other reasons). 



> I certainly accept that the same hasn't occurred as frequently in _*your*_ experience.  What I do not accept is that your experience is automatically more likely to be indicative of the norm than *my* experience.



I didn't say it's automatically indicate of the norm. I post the reasons why I think my experience is more indicative of the norm. (Admittedly, I did so only in one of the latest post. But that didn't invalidate the point I made before, just explains how I came to that conclusion).



> Further, an examination of CR values, where a CR = APL encounter is intended to expend 1/4 or daily resources, demonstrates amply that the CLW wand wasn't intended as standard equipment within the context of the 3.x rules.



Yes, indeed, a big flaw in the 3E rules. The designers didn't understand the implications of their magical item and wealth by levels rules, particularly in this case. But the CLW Wands are not the only source of magical healing. Potions might be more expensive, but they work pretty well, too. 



> There is a reason that these games make fast healing reliant on magic or superior-to-modern technology, you know.  The designers are well aware that if they create a game with "mundane" healing that is, by any sane measure, so far beyond the threshold of our world that it seems like magic, it is going to throw some people right out of the immersive element of the game, every time.



And I think these designers might worry too much. I can see the point for a wound system like in Shadowrun or a non-ablative hit point model like Warhammer (with criticals dealing nasty to deadly injuries). But ablative hit points like in D&D? 

But just to be clear on this: I say so because I think trying to use "simulation" to faciliate immersion and then give enough ways to allow people to ignore the consequences of the simulation is borderline self-deception. Maybe it falls in the "pretentious" category on that stupid-retro-pretentious scale.

"Huhu, we have the most realistic wound system ever! Let's create a few magical spells and items that effectively circumvent that wound system, so people can easily bypass having to go through 4 weeks of bed rest and rolling wound infection rolls after every combat!" Sure, you give people the option to ignore that magical healing, but you also make it difficult for people that like fast healing but don't like reliance on magic.

The designers could have easily fooled you. Using the disease track to make recovering healing surges difficult should be very easy, for example. And then just add a 1st level Ritual that allows people to recover all healing surges if cast before an extended rest. I could now go and defend their system against sandboxers that love mundane healing and discover that just one spell can ruin their fun: "Just don't use the ritual, and you'd be fine, just as you didn't use Clerics or Wands of CLW or Potions in some AD&D and D&D 3E campaigns!"

That's why I often think of the 4E design as "brutally honest".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I have done this, too, many years ago, when I hadn't figured out the CLW Wand "trick" yet, or when we didn't have a Cleric. But at some point, we decided that without magical healing, things were to tedious.




That is your experience, and your viewpoint.

It is not mine, nor do I believe that your experience in necessarily in the majority.



> At what percentage does it become a corner case?




When it rarely comes up in a game, something like 1-2% at most.



> How many of the 10 % you experienced for mundane healing was actually seen as "good" for the game and the game would have been missing something without it?




100%, IMHO.  Obviously.

Even if you have a cleric in your party, that cleric isn't necessarily going to have the spellpower remaining by the time the party is well and truly banged up to heal everyone.

Obviously, you can design a game where a party is expected to have sufficient healing to be at (or near) full at the start of each encounter, but the closer you get to this design, IMHO, the closer you get to a game where each encounter plays out all too similarly.  

There is a real benefit, IMHO, to having encounters that get handled in ways that the DM doesn't expect.  Something that might have been a straight combat encounter becomes something different simply because the PC resources have changed.  This is a good thing, IMHO and IME.

And having to hole up somewhere to heal can also bring major benefits to play with even a halfway decent DM.  Time passes, which means that events move and the world seems more real.  Having to heal makes combat seem less like the perfect Option #1 to all problems.  Relying on NPCs for medical attention and/or a place to stay while resting hooks the players into the world, while giving them people that they can develop relationships with/care about.

In terms of actual game play, the whole thing need only take a few minutes of narration, or can be expanded as the details strike the players' fancy.



> How much of these 10 % were actually required by the way the game rules operated, and how many because people were "conservative" with their approach to magical healing (either a DM restricting access to items, or someone playing a Cleric not wanting to cast healing spells, or a variety of other reasons).




Tough to say, because the amount of healing items the party has available relates to both sides of your question.  100% are because of the way the game rules operate.  Probably 50% are related to conservation, but this number may be adjusted up or down by +/-15%, and is very guessy.



> Yes, indeed, a big flaw in the 3E rules. The designers didn't understand the implications of their magical item and wealth by levels rules, particularly in this case. But the CLW Wands are not the only source of magical healing. Potions might be more expensive, but they work pretty well, too.




I am guessing that, re: damage/healing in 4e, the designers worried too little, and that a future edition will correct this "big flaw in the 4E rules".



> But just to be clear on this: I say so because I think trying to use "simulation" to faciliate immersion and then give enough ways to allow people to ignore the consequences of the simulation is borderline self-deception. Maybe it falls in the "pretentious" category on that stupid-retro-pretentious scale.




Whereas, I think that simulating a world with magic should be approached by first determining how to simulate a world without magic, and then adding magic to it.  In this way, both are parts of the same simulation, and what occurs within that simulation _*are*_ the consequences of the simulation.

IOW, that clerics can magically cure damage* is *a consequence of the D&D simulation, not a means to avoid the consequences of the simulation.  IMHO, of course.

I'll ignore the ad hominen attacks in the preceding and following paragraphs, and just roll on to



> Sure, you give people the option to ignore that magical healing, but you also make it difficult for people that like fast healing but don't like reliance on magic.




There is no edition of D&D, prior to the 4th, that makes it at all difficult to adjust the rate of natural healing.  If you had any difficulty whatsoever in changing, say, "1 hp/level, double with bedrest, double with medical attention" to, say, "5 hp/level, double with bedrest, double with medical attention" then I agree that you have a valid point here.  

You would, I agree, make the CR system harder to use if you allowed the sort of healing that a CLW wand represents, but even so I am 100% certain that I, for one, could deal with such a difficulty with a minimum of fuss.  If you don't find 4e that difficult to balance, I have to assume that you could too.  So, again, unless I am mistaken here, I am not seeing a valid point.

Prior to now, AFAICT, D&D has never been balanced on the basis of the overnight healing rate, nor did you have to worry that increasing it was nerfing any given class.  Certainly, doing so wouldn't nerf clerics, who have other spells to cast.  I guess that you might want to increase paladin healing to match, but that is as easily done as said.

Sorry, but I am really, really having a hard time how any edition of D&D, from OD&D to 3.5e, made it at all difficult for people who wanted to increase the natural (mundane) healing rate.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Whereas, I think that simulating a world with magic should be approached by first determining how to simulate a world without magic, and then adding magic to it.  In this way, both are parts of the same simulation, and what occurs within that simulation _*are*_ the consequences of the simulation.



You're going from the world simulation, I am going from the gameplay. 

I look to what those "simulation" rules create when people play the game using the rules. In a game where magical healing is available and not too difficult to attain, it will be typical for the players to use that healing instead of weaker means of healing. So, from a purely gamist perspective, those "weaker" options lose their value and brings up the question: Why do we keep it around? 

The fundamental difference here is that I am just thinking of the Roleplaying Game as a game, not as a simulation, and you do it the other way around.



> Sorry, but I am really, really having a hard time how any edition of D&D, from OD&D to 3.5e, made it at all difficult for people who wanted to increase the natural (mundane) healing rate.
> RC




So, which edition of D&D makes it difficult to slow the natural healing rate?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You're going from the world simulation, I am going from the gameplay.




I am going at this from both.  However, when you make a claim that X allows one to ignore the simulation, my answer will be from that side, should I feel that X is untrue.

Moreover, if you say "Given Y, then Z loses value in a game" where Z has strong value in terms of actual play experience, the rational thing to do is to avoid Y, not to increase it.



> So, which edition of D&D makes it difficult to slow the natural healing rate?




I have heard some good ideas about slowing the healing rate in 4e, but I am not at all certain that doing so will not affect class balance.  It might be as easy as it is in all other editions; the jury's still out on this one.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have heard some good ideas about slowing the healing rate in 4e, but I am not at all certain that doing so will not affect class balance.  It might be as easy as it is in all other editions; the jury's still out on this one.



One of the concerns one could have is that Defenders take more damage and might need more healing then other roles. But they also recieve more hit points and more healing surges in the first place, so I think the only thing you need to to do to keep balance is to make the healing surges recovered per day proportional to the total healing surges of a character. (Of course, that means a lot of rounding.  )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, which edition of D&D makes it difficult to slow the natural healing rate?






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> One of the concerns one could have is that Defenders take more damage and might need more healing then other roles. But they also recieve more hit points and more healing surges in the first place, so I think the only thing you need to to do to keep balance is to make the healing surges recovered per day proportional to the total healing surges of a character. (Of course, that means a lot of rounding.  )




You answer your own question here, methinks.

Not necessarily "difficult", but certainly "more difficult".

(Your "brutally honest" is, apparently, my "hamfisted".)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You answer your own question here, methinks.
> 
> Not necessarily "difficult", but certainly "more difficult".
> 
> ...




Actually, it is just as in 3E. If you increase natural healing, Wizards get healed to full health faster then Fighters. Is that what you'd want? For verisimilitude? For balance? For gampeplay? "Hey, Fighters, get off your lazy ass, Mr.Wizard is already fit to blast his enemies".

Speaking of Wizards - what if I'd see spell levels recovering over night as stupid or bad for my game? How would you change the spell recovery rates?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Actually, it is just as in 3E. If you increase natural healing, Wizards get healed to full health faster then Fighters. Is that what you'd want? For verisimilitude? For balance? For gampeplay? "Hey, Fighters, get off your lazy ass, Mr.Wizard is already fit to blast his enemies".




If the party was waiting until everyone was at full, what difference would it make if X recovered at Y-1, and Z recovered at Y?  If you wanted to, you could just as easily say "All remaining damage to all characters is healed after the passage of X days/hours/minutes."  Whatever it is you want.  Fast healing is laughably easy to set up in D&D 0 to 3.5.  Hecek, in 3.0 and 3.5, you can even use the "Fast Healing" quality, adding it to all PCs or all creatures....whatever it is you want.



> Speaking of Wizards - what if I'd see spell levels recovering over night as stupid or bad for my game? How would you change the spell recovery rates?




In the case of wizards, spells recover after 8 hours of rest, plus study time, so you have specific numbers you can play with quite easily.  For "24-hour" types, like clerics, you just need to use the wizard paradigm and say "4 hours rest," "two hours rest", etc.

This is really, really simple to do in D&D versions 0 to 3.5.  I am rather surprised that you would think otherwise?



RC


----------



## Scribble (Nov 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the party was waiting until everyone was at full, what difference would it make if X recovered at Y-1, and Z recovered at Y?  If you wanted to, you could just as easily say "All remaining damage to all characters is healed after the passage of X days/hours/minutes."  Whatever it is you want.  Fast healing is laughably easy to set up in D&D 0 to 3.5.  Hecek, in 3.0 and 3.5, you can even use the "Fast Healing" quality, adding it to all PCs or all creatures....whatever it is you want.




If time is of the essance, sometimes you can't wait for everyone to be at 100% and have to make due with some people at like 80-90%

Plus like mustrum says... why should it take the guy who's in peak physical condition longer then the weakling mage to heal up?

I agree the better way to do it would be to tie it to the endurance skill.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 26, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> The first is a bruising of the brain, the second a lack of oxygen to the brain, both of which are/or cause damage and thus what I consider to be injuries. YMMV.




Well, yes, and the muscle tears and strained ligaments that come with parrying off an ogre's club rather than letting it crush your fragile human ribcage (but still losing 24 hit points) are also "injuries". 

But continuing the potentially inappropriate quantum physics analogies, these are Heisenbergian injuries - to verify that they exist you need to inflict worse damage. They are "below the resolution limit of the observer", if you will. 



> Our group does not go with this interpretation... I play a warlord in our group's 4E campaign and we ruled as a group that Inspiring Word does not work if the target is unconscious.



Well, yes. If you're going to decide that parts of the rules don't apply, the parts of the model that follow from those rules don't apply either.

This is, in fact, my entire problem with the idea that the wounding paradox is integral to 4E - the people who complain that the rules mandate it have already decided that the rules don't mean what they say they do.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 27, 2008)

FWIW as a data point, none of my groups makes regular use of _wands of cure light wounds_.  We certainly don't craft them or go out of our way to buy them.  Nor do we go out of our way to buy potions of healing.  (We have gone out of our way to buy a _wand of lesser restoration_, though.)

As I think about why this may be, the thing that jumps at me is the statement made upthread that the cost for a _wand of cure light wounds_ or potions is trivial ... we really don't consider it to be so.  Don't get me wrong, we're quite capable of doing the math; we know that a _wand of cure light wounds_ is the cheapest healing in the game ... except for PCs with healing powers, which is what we rely on.

(In the interest of full disclosure, though: one game (14th level) has a heal-bot radiant servant of Pelor as a cohort, one game (12th level) has two characters with strong healing ability, and one game (12th level) has a spontaneous healer with Augment Healing, and an artificer with a bajillion defensive items that heavily mitigate damage as it's taken.)


----------



## pemerton (Nov 27, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> However, there is a further and more dominant factor here that while not explicit in the rules, is implicit within the context of general gameplay. In the majority of cases in 3E, magical healing is both accessible and often used. This is to the point where I cannot specifically remember a time in a 3.x game I have played where if a character was forced into the negatives, someone did not come along with a magical potion, spell or wand to "save" the character. Because of this, a DM could describe some truly horrible injuries, safe in the knowledge that magical healing was on the way and that the plausability factor of the event would not be undermined (if anything, the horrid injury description would hasten the other PCs to assist).
> 
> In 4E though, magical healing is nowhere near as pervasive as it was in 3E. Natural healing is the most common form of healing in 4E. As such, moderation is required in description less the plausibility of the description be undermined. Describe what you want but if it is more than what a PC can recover from whilst returning to unhindered performance in a short space of time, then there will be a disconnect between your description and what is reasonable. As such, in 4E you can never validly describe a character as badly wounded, unless they then die from the injuries (but not until they die).
> 
> All told, there is a significant difference between the editions.



I think this is a good point.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't see how it is relevant that theoretically the Fighter might never get healed in 24 (or 6) hours if on his own, when practically he is never on his own and will be healed by the party's Cleric or other magical healing in short time. What's stopping the sandbox player from using a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or the parties Cleric to get him his hit points back?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, similarly, yeah, theoretically healing should take days or weeks, but people would just use a Cleric or magical items to heal themselves to full hp over a short time period. So, away with that nonsense of slow natural healing. Handwave it, explain it with wounds still visible but overcome by moral or pain resistance, or performing some healing ritual, it doesn't matter, the end effect is the same - the party is up and running the next day, whether you have full hit point recovery as RAW or not.



Or you could fudge it by adding a new, gameplay-neutral ability to clerics (gameplay neutral under the assumption that every party contains a cleric, which seems to have been the norm in earlier editions):



pemerton said:


> If the complaints are really about extended rests, just add the following class feature to Clerics: also automatically learn the 1st level ritual Heal All Wounds, cost free, no skill check required, 10 minutes to perform, after an extended rest the target recovers all healing surges. Now the game plays no differently except every party needs a cleric (or some other ritualist who has payed to learn this ritual).
> 
> We have now recreated the verisimilitude of 3E healing.





Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The designers could have easily fooled you. Using the disease track to make recovering healing surges difficult should be very easy, for example. And then just add a 1st level Ritual that allows people to recover all healing surges if cast before an extended rest. I could now go and defend their system against sandboxers that love mundane healing and discover that just one spell can ruin their fun: "Just don't use the ritual, and you'd be fine, just as you didn't use Clerics or Wands of CLW or Potions in some AD&D and D&D 3E campaigns!"



Exactly.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 27, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Plus like mustrum says... why should it take the guy who's in peak physical condition longer then the weakling mage to heal up?



This sounds like a cut & paste question from many of my posts earlier in this thread. To which I imagine we'll get a C&P answer about C&Ping previous answers.

Hit points are *awesome*!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> This sounds like a cut & paste question from many of my posts earlier in this thread. To which I imagine we'll get a C&P answer about C&Ping previous answers.




Nah.  What would be the point?

Me, I'm just shocked that _*this thread *_is still clinging to life.  I mean, how many hit points does it _*have*_?!?!



> Hit points are *awesome*!




Sorry, I have to spread some XP around before I can give them to you again.



May I say that this is a refreshing.....[9th Doctor]and fantastic[/9th Doctor]......way of making the boards seem just that little bit better?  Kudos.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 27, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Me, I'm just shocked that _*this thread *_is still clinging to life.  I mean, how many hit points does it _*have*_?!?!



This is probably the first thing in this thread that I agree with you 100% on.

(Oh, and you should also ask how many healing surges it has. Otherwise you don't know how wounding it really is.  Healing surges are *awesome*.)



Raven Crowking said:


> May I say that this is a refreshing.....[9th Doctor]and fantastic[/9th Doctor]......way of making the boards seem just that little bit better?  Kudos.



Thanks. Hopefully sometimes it can get people thinking about what they like about the game rather than what they don't like.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 27, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is something that out group has house-ruled pertinent to the discussion here? It is because an unconscious person shouldn't be able to hear a warlord's shouting that we introduced the house rule. Generally if people complain about a "problem", wouldn't you then expect them to do something about it to fix the problem? I believe the discussion and points made in regards to schroedinger's wounding obviously still stand regardless of what our group has house-ruled above and beyond that.

But on that, is it some type of commonsense that I (and my group) are not seeing whereby an unconscious combatant can be stirred to both consciousness and health by having the martial (that is non-magical) warlord "calling out inspiring words of courage and determination"? To us this does not make sense. GlaziusF, I'm sure you could come up with another colourful, imaginative and wonderful explanation for this, that would have me trying to give you experience points again, or alternatively, you may point to the rules that try to muddle around what the "official" definition of unconsciousness is, but to us, a warlord calling out to an ally is just not going to cut the mustard when they're unconscious.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton (Nov 28, 2008)

Herreman, one narration I've heard suggested (can't remember by whom) for healing of an unconscious ally by the warlord is this: that as the ally lies on the ground, having given up the fight, they suddenly remember the warlord, and their duty to him/her and their other allies, and rouse themselves into action. (For a cinematic instance of this, think of Aragorn's recovery from the fall over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)

Of course, this way of doing it opens up even more the gap between gameworld and mechanics - as the use by the warlord's player of the healing power does not correspond to something that the warlord PC is actually doing in the gameworld at that time - and so may not be attractive to you.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 28, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Herreman, one narration I've heard suggested (can't remember by whom) for healing of an unconscious ally by the warlord is this: that as the ally lies on the ground, having given up the fight, they suddenly remember the warlord, and their duty to him/her and their other allies, and rouse themselves into action. (For a cinematic instance of this, think of Aragorn's recovery from the fall over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)
> 
> Of course, this way of doing it opens up even more the gap between gameworld and mechanics - as the use by the warlord's player of the healing power does not correspond to something that the warlord PC is actually doing in the gameworld at that time - and so may not be attractive to you.



Story-wise this is great. I can even imagine my fat agressive slob of a tiefling warlord berating the other PCs that if they fall when he's still up, he'll haunt their dreams for eternity... but as an ongoing repeated happening, this one's going to run a little thin. In the end to accept this healing as working, you either have to come up with a commonsense approach that is repeatable, producing a narrative that doesn't conflict with what's happening (which at the moment I can't), or you just have to shrug the shoulders and say - well that's how it works... um... yeah.

Or, you can do what our group did and say, "hey, while this would be real handy, it doesn't make sense so we'll house rule against it".

Thanks Pemerton anyway for the response, I really appreciate your time and thoughts.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 28, 2008)

What I would like to see, instead of a 'repeatable narrative', is for the warlord's player describing a narrative appropriate to the scene...

Until that ideal group of players lands at my table, I think I am stuck with:
or you just have to shrug the shoulders and say - well that's how it works... um... yeah


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Fast healing is laughably easy to set up in D&D 0 to 3.5.  Hecek, in 3.0 and 3.5, you can even use the "Fast Healing" quality, adding it to all PCs or all creatures....whatever it is you want.



You're missing the point here, I think. The point is, per RAW, the pre-4E healing system produces a ridiculous result. It must produce a ridiculous result, because RAW says it takes a mighty warrior longer to recover from the same wounds as a wimpy wizard. Your suggested solution seems to be: just house rule it away.

But when you see a ridiculous result in 4E's healing, we go on and on and on about it. Why not just house rule it away? You only get a certain proportion of your healing surges back per day of rest, for instance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You're missing the point here, I think. The point is, per RAW, the pre-4E healing system produces a ridiculous result. It must produce a ridiculous result, because RAW says it takes a mighty warrior longer to recover from the same wounds as a wimpy wizard. Your suggested solution seems to be: just house rule it away.




No; my suggested solution is that you are misunderstanding what hit points represent.  I went into no small amount of detail about the same; no house rules were needed.  The "damage" unrecovered by the mighty warrior represents less than 1 hp damage to the wimpy wizard, not because warriors take longer to heal, but because hit points do not have an absolute value.

IOW, especially in 1e, these are explicitly *not* the same wounds.

OTOH, if you want to change the paradigm presented, you must house rule.  And, it is easier to do so in (say) 1e than 3e, or in 3e than 4e.  IMHO, of course.

Unlike, say, falling damage in 1e (and etc.), which consistently produces ridiculous results and requires house ruling if you want to avoid them.  



> But when you see a ridiculous result in 4E's healing, we go on and on and on about it. Why not just house rule it away? You only get a certain proportion of your healing surges back per day of rest, for instance.




I have said many, many times upthread that, were there not other problems with 4e that are just as problematical to me, I would do exactly that.

However, I should note that the argument is the result not of an inability to devise houserules where needed, but the inability of some folks to recognize that the RAW might result in ridiculous results in the first place.  I.e., the cut & paste-go-round only continues due to the denial that the RAW consistently produces a result where one of the following occurs:  (1) players disjoin game mechanics from narration, (2) players do not narrate portions of the game results related to the in-world meaning of damage and/or healing, (3) players retcon narration, or (4) plays accept that ridiculous results will ensue.

AFAICT, every "solution" presented requires either changing the RAW (house-ruling) or dealing with one of the four situations outlined above.  Some of the houserule suggestions are good ones, and some playstyles make one or more of the four RAW options above less problematical.

And, out of curiosity, why blame _*me*_ that "_*we*_ go on and on and on about it"?  You're free to get off the cut & paster -go-round any time you want.




RC


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 29, 2008)

Raven Croewking and Fifth Element step away from the thread, it might not have heard you.  
To continue on this path, madness lies and ye'll be cursed to forever haunt the interwebs disputing the relative weight of a hit point between a wizard and a barbarian and the rest of us will have to read it.


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I.e., the cut & paste-go-round only continues due to the denial that the RAW consistently produces a result where one of the following occurs:  (1) players disjoin game mechanics from narration, (2) players do not narrate portions of the game results related to the in-world meaning of damage and/or healing, (3) players retcon narration, or (4) plays accept that ridiculous results will ensue.
> 
> AFAICT, every "solution" presented requires either changing the RAW (house-ruling) or dealing with one of the four situations outlined above.






Gah, this continues to drive me _crazy_.  This seemingly automatic and totally unchallenged _assumption_ that the four options listed above are, essentially, the only ones on the table.

Now, the fifth option I'd propose COULD simply be a subset of your *(4)* above, but in my opinion, you'd simply be applying the word "ridiculous" in a pretty darn arbitrary manner at that point.


What about:

*(5)* Players assume that *D&D* *4E* takes place in a much more inherently magical world than Earth, every PC is somewhat superheroic and "magical" in some sense, and so the heroes recovering with seemingly-miraculous speed from terrible injuries without requiring the aid of Arcane or Divine spells or items is _not_ a narrative disconnect, but merely a different _theme_ for the game, and a different _model of in-world physical reality_?


I _totally understand _that lots of players don't LIKE that kind of world, that kind of narrative, that kind of underlying assumption as to how the *D&D* fantasy world _works_, but _not liking it_ doesn't mean that it literally _cannot be considered_ as being what the game is intended to model.


The ONLY argument I've ever seen against that possibility amounts to _"Yeah, but I don't want to play that kind of game.  I want to play *Conan* or *Lord of the Rings*, not *The X-Men*."  _

I _get_ that, and more power to you, but that PREFERENCE doesn't totally invalidate the _possibility_ that *4th Edition D&D* is built to represent a different sort of fantasy world than you're used to or would prefer.


I'm not asking that anyone embrace that idea, if they don't like it.  I just want to see the _possibility_ listed with the others, because if it _is_, it means that not EVERY choice has to equal an inherent brokenness in the game or a necessary willful choice by players to turn a blind eye to something intrinsically inconsistent.


Of course, you _could_ say, _"That's just part of *(4)*, because suggesting that anyone would recover from being disemboweled to being just FINE after a night's rest, or following a rousing pep talk from the Sarge (who has never studied a lick of magic in his life), is plainly ludicrous."_

But that's just a personal _preference_ issue in game theme.  There's nothing MORE ridiculous about that kind of "fantasy world physics" than any of the other "not congruent with Earth reality" assumptions and tropes which are already widely accepted by gamers and fantasy fiction lovers.

And, in my view, since the game rules _as written_ directly suggest that such IS the way the *D&D* world actually works, in-game and in-narrative, it's my opinion that the possibility that *4th Edition* is, in fact, built around such an assumption of altered reality, and thus contains no _actual_ disconnect between the mechanics and the in-story occurrences.


I'd be MUCH happier to see people saying something like, 
_
"Oh wow, *WotC* has turned *D&D* into *Marvel Superheroes*, and every character is *Wolverine* now.  How lame!  The rules are consistent with that in-world narrative reality, so it works as a game system with no need to jump through hoops, thus it isn't actually broken as such.  However, I REALLY hate that thematic choice, and feel that it doesn't adequately present the kind of fantasy world and story that I want to play in, or am used to, and I will thus either change the game or not play it.  Furthermore, I'm so unhappy about this drastic change to the basic nature of the game world and fantasy style of *D&D* that I'm going to continue to complain about it here, because it was really such a poor idea," _

instead of, 

_"There's NO possible way that anyone could EVER intend to tell a fantasy story in which the heroes heal that fast naturally, or in which some non-magic-using mundane guy shouting at your unconscious body suddenly causes a giant axe wound in your chest to close as you jump back to your feet ready to fight.  That's just silly.  So therefore, *D&D 4E* is BROKEN and in order to make it work, you HAVE TO play all sorts of metagamey narrative tricks or change the rules themselves for consistency with the only sort of "realism" which could POSSIBLY be considered "non-ridiculous".  This is so patently obvious that in any discussion of this whole topic, I will always portray the situation such that the game MUST BE flawed, and the ONLY options are to ignore the rules, ignore the narrative, perform an amazing juggling act with the rules and the narrative to fit my idea of what should be realistic, or house rule some stuff."_


The first example above is reasonable, to me.  I don't mind people HATING the new edition, bashing it, loudly stating that it doesn't fit their preferences, and even saying that it's _"not *D&D* as I understand the definition"_.  But the second example is what I'm seeing a LOT of, whether or not they put it in such direct terms, and it just seems extremely tunnel-visioned to me.


This is not a straw man.   This is really how I see the arguments playing out in these threads.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Gah, this continues to drive me _crazy_.  This seemingly automatic and totally unchallenged _assumption_ that the four options listed above are, essentially, the only ones on the table.




Sorry, firesnakearies, I should have listed an option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not.  I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human.  Frankly, I forgot your point when I wrote the bit you quoted.

It is certainly a valid solution, though not one I favour.


RC


----------



## firesnakearies (Nov 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, firesnakearies, I should have listed an option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not.  I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human.  Frankly, I forgot your point when I wrote the bit you quoted.
> 
> It is certainly a valid solution, though not one I favour.
> 
> ...





Thank you!  I'm happy now.


As an aside, I don't favor it especially, either.  I'm houseruling the hell out of the damage system in *4E*, myself.  But it IS a perfectly valid way of interpreting the game, and I find it unfair that people seem to constantly overlook that.


EDIT:  Oh, and wow, you put my own point MUCH more elegantly than I did!  _"option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not. I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human."_ 

Great way of stating it, nice and succinctly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Thank you!  I'm happy now.




Pleased to be of service.  

Really, I wasn't attempting to pass over your solution, especially as it is the only one that I've had to add to the first time I parsed out the options oh-so-long-ago.  Kudos to you, Sir!  

If it helps, I _*have*_ read comments where folks say 4e is like Marvel Superheroes, and healing surges are Wolverine-ish.    I don't think the designers intended a supers game, though.  



> EDIT:  Oh, and wow, you put my own point MUCH more elegantly than I did!  _"option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not. I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human."_
> 
> Great way of stating it, nice and succinctly.




Thank you, Sir.  Thank you very much.

(It is a rare day that I am more succinct than _*anyone*_ else!  


RC


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 29, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> Gah, this continues to drive me _crazy_.  This seemingly automatic and totally unchallenged _assumption_ that the four options listed above are, essentially, the only ones on the table.
> 
> Now, the fifth option I'd propose COULD simply be a subset of your *(4)* above, but in my opinion, you'd simply be applying the word "ridiculous" in a pretty darn arbitrary manner at that point.
> 
> ...



Interesting idea, personally not keen on it but interesting idea. Speaking for my self I am quite happy to view hit point as plot protection. Many years ago I decided that as a plysical wounds modeling system D&D (in all variation) was ludricous and went in search of better sytems, Rolemaster, GURPS and so forth. In the end of the day I decided if I was grim an gritty I'll use Warhammer and for more magical campaign I'll go back to D&D. But nobody get seriously hurt unless it is fatal. So no PC ends up as a blind beggar in the village green or dies screaming in the woods as gangerene eats his guts. 
I want Conan the movie or LoTHR the movie with a bit more magic not the grim reality of medieval warfare. 
To a certain extent why do people want realistic wounding? Not sure I understand the sandbox play argument. A week down time (with out magical healing)  is  sprained ligaments territory. Deep life threatening iwounds 2 to 6 months on the flat of your back and you survive because they cut off the rest of the limb. So your character is out for another year to retrain the cope with the missing appendage, if it is an arm or an eye. 
And given the ubiquity of magical healing, from potions,pc characters and or wands, natural healing is almost  never invoked so what exactly is all the fuss about anyway?
Combat narration, I do see the argument there, but don't understand as to why a healing surges used as are not taken into account. 
Comparing 3e to 4e directly is not a proper comparison a 1st level fighter in 3e (absent magical healing) has Xhp but his 4e counter part has x*healingSurgeValue hit points.


----------



## Zustiur (Nov 29, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> The ONLY argument I've ever seen against that possibility amounts to _"Yeah, but I don't want to play that kind of game.  I want to play *Conan* or *Lord of the Rings*, not *The X-Men*."  _



I think I've just been paraphrased from about page 5. lol.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 29, 2008)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> What I would like to see, instead of a 'repeatable narrative', is for the warlord's player describing a narrative appropriate to the scene...



That's what I've been assuming. Each scene gets narrated in a way that fits the mechanical parameters and the thematic context. No need for ubiquity.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 29, 2008)

pemerton said:


> That's what I've been assuming. Each scene gets narrated in a way that fits the mechanical parameters and the thematic context. No need for ubiquity.




Right.  _Any_ piece of narrative can get stale if it's overused.

The first time the rogue describes his sneak attack as "I kick him in the groin, then hammer the pommel of my dagger behind his ear as he doubles over!", it's cool!  The tenth time he says exactly the same thing, we're over it.  But if he changes it up, and keeps it fresh - this time he kicks him in the groin, the next time he ducks under a slash and stabs upward at the unarmoured gap in the enemy's armpit, the time after that he hangs back until his flanking ally engages, then leaps in to take advantage of the distraction - it doesn't become hokey.

If a PC has an Aragorn-vision every time he becomes unconscious, we roll our eyes.  But if it happens once or twice, it stays fresh.  Other times, he might hear the warlord's voice in the distance, and claw his way back through the fog of unconsciousness to get back in the fight.  Or the DM might narrate the unconscious condition as the PC slumped on the floor, his ears ringing from the clout on the head that knocked him down, barely capable of making out the fuzzy shape of the warlord urging him to snap out of it.  Or the warlord, adjacent to the fallen PC, might press his dropped weapon back into his hand and give him a slap - the sensations providing a tactile anchor for him to latch onto and drag himself into sensibility.

Keep the variety, and it doesn't come across as silly as if you repeat the same thing every time.

-Hyp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 29, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If a PC has an Aragorn-vision every time he becomes unconscious, we roll our eyes.  But if it happens once or twice, it stays fresh.  Other times, he might hear the warlord's voice in the distance, and claw his way back through the fog of unconsciousness to get back in the fight.  Or the DM might narrate the unconscious condition as the PC slumped on the floor, his ears ringing from the clout on the head that knocked him down, barely capable of making out the fuzzy shape of the warlord urging him to snap out of it.  Or the warlord, adjacent to the fallen PC, might press his dropped weapon back into his hand and give him a slap - the sensations providing a tactile anchor for him to latch onto and drag himself into sensibility.



Some good suggestions there Hypersmurf, thank you.
I think perhaps our (as in my group's) previous ideas of unconsciousness are pretty much "flat out, unresponsive on the ground". If you temper this to include a "groggier" state, then yeah, you can most probably get a few more descriptions in there that make some sort of sense. So yeah... good stuff.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 29, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I think perhaps our (as in my group's) previous ideas of unconsciousness are pretty much "flat out, unresponsive on the ground". If you temper this to include a "groggier" state, then yeah, you can most probably get a few more descriptions in there that make some sort of sense.




As long as you're helpless, taking a -5 penaly to defenses, can't take actions, can't flank, and you fall prone, you fit the mechanical definition of the Unconscious condition.

-Hyp.


----------



## GlaziusF (Nov 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, firesnakearies, I should have listed an option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not.  I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human.  Frankly, I forgot your point when I wrote the bit you quoted.
> 
> It is certainly a valid solution, though not one I favour.




I'm guessing "define your own damage model" falls under that?

I guess we'll have to chalk this up to differences of opinion then. For the life of me I can't see why in a game with eladrin wizards and dragonborn paladins (or if you'd rather, half-elf warlocks and dwarven clerics) there's a need to worry about the realism of the human fighter.


----------

