# Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2008)

Disclaimer - I'll state this right out at the front.  I think game first is superior design.  I'm going to try to be as even handed as I can here, but, I do feel that game first is the better way to go.  

Disclaimer the Second - In the hopes that we're all on the same page here for this discussion, I'm going to define my terms AS I SEE THEM.  I'm not trying to get all Forgist here, and, probably would only embarrass myself if I tried.  So, for the purpose of my little essay below, apply the following definitions:

*Flavour First*:  The designer comes up with an idea first and then tries to create mechanics to best fit that idea.

*Game First*:  The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that.  Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.​
For most of the history of D&D, we've had flavour first mechanics.  Going all the way back to the beginning, (I'd argue especially back at the beginning) elements were first dreamed up as fitting with the genre or the game and then bolted on using mechanics that hopefully worked at the table.  Now, I would like to state that this can work.  It most certainly can.  Frequently we get some very good stuff out of this approach.  

But, when it goes wrong, it goes VERY, very wrong.  I'll offer four cases to support my point:

1.  The paladin.
  From a flavour standpoint, there is probably no more archetypal element you could add to a fantasy game than a holy knight out to right wrongs and lay the beat down on evil.  This tunes into some very old memes.  Heck, if it worked for Arthurian tales, it can work for D&D right?

But, is there a class that has caused more problems at the table than the paladin?  From day 1, the paladin has caused all sorts of issues at the table.  Frustration and outright hostility quite often.  The flavour says that the holy knight should only work with other good characters.  Right off the bat, you're telling the entire table what they can and cannot play the second you put this down.  I was just told in no uncertain terms that a player most absolutely cannot tell a DM what races should be in play in the DM's campaign, but, if I play a paladin, I've just told the entire table that they can only play good characters.

Never mind all the restrictions that came with the paladin.  The whole "paladin's code" is informed by a very narrow view of what constitutes a holy warrior.  Why should a paladin automatically mean Teutonic knight?  I cannot have a paladin from any other culture than faux-European?  

2.  The Ranger.
   Again, the flavour here is great.  The edge-walking warrior who patrols the borders between civilization and the great unknown.  Very archetypal, very inspirational.  But, again, when the mechanics hit the table, you get huge problems.

Take the ranger's favoured enemy ability.  Back in 1e and 2e, the ability was very limited - basically only giants and giant-kin.  Great, did loads of damage against them.  But, if you're playing in a game that doesn't feature giants, it's just taking up space on your character sheet.  3e went a little ways to helping, by broadening the ability and allowing players to choose, but, again, the player is pretty much at the mercy of the DM to provide those opponents.  

The only way the ability is of use is if the DM tells the player what to take as a favoured opponent.  Otherwise, it's just taking up space.

3.  Prestige Classes

A 3e issue, because there were no PrC's in earlier editions.  Many PrC's relied on role play, or in game elements as balancing.  "To become the Yellow Blade Master, you must study with a master for six months".  But, what does the rest of the group do for that six months?  What if the campaign is on a bit of a time limit?  Most of the time, these restrictions meant that either the PrC languished in obscurity, or they were outright ignored.

The other problem was in PrC design that narrowed the focus based on the flavour.  Knight of the Chalice (at least the 3e version) is a poster boy here.  A PrC that gives you massive bonuses against demons, because that's their purpose - kill demons.  But, what if the DM doesn't use a lot of demons, just some?  Or he uses demons sometimes, devils another time and other evil outsiders a third?  This is so campaign specific that the only way it works is if the DM specifically tailors his game to cater to the PrC.  It's essentially the same problem you see with the Ranger's Favoured Enemy.

4.  Rogues

Ohh, backstab, sneak attack, how I love thee.  I love rolling all that damage.  Pulling it off was a thing of beauty.  From a flavour point of view, limiting backstab or sneak attack, makes sense.  After all, how do you kick a jelly in the vulnerables?  Stabbing a golem in the kidney doesn't do a whole lot.  Makes perfect sense right?

But, then you hit the table.  And the poor rogue player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs because his one main combat ability is nerfed entirely by about a quarter of the creature types out there.  In a tomb raider scenario, quintessentially D&D, the rogue is reduced to the role of well armed commoner by pretty much any monster most likely to inhabit a tomb.

And this makes sense?

I could go on, but, I'll stop here.  There are many more examples and I'm sure you can think of a few of your own.  And, I'm also sure I'm going to be told that the above examples are not really problems with the game, but with the players.  To me, these are GAME issues.  Anytime the game forces this sort of thing on the players, this is a game issue.  

We've had flavour first mechanics for the past thirty years.  I think that's more than long enough of a kick at the cat.  It's time to let game first rule the table.  Find out what works at the table, what results in the most fun (yes, I'm going to use the "f" word here) and then design to that.

We'll see in a few years if things like second wind, or daily abilities, cause anywhere near the gaming anguish that paladins have.


----------



## Delta (Sep 8, 2008)

Short reply: In my opinion, definitely, ideally _both_. The best games are where the designer came up with a mechanic that is simultaneously very playable and conjures the flavor of the in-game situation. 

Personally I find that best games start out this way, and then degenerate over time as the two jobs are split out. Frankly, that's easier (mechanics first, then separate staff doing flavoring). I've worked at two computer game companies and seen this evolution first-hand. It's a bit of an auteur-vs-corporate filmmaking distinction.

Regarding D&D, in my opinion OD&D/1E was a nice balance. 2E went too far into "flavor only" and I skipped it. 3.0 swung back in the middle and I liked it. 4E over-swung into "game only" and I'll avoid that, too.

If the two goals come to loggerheads, and one absolutely must be picked for a particular decision, then I would narrowly tip towards the "gameism" side. So, my philosophy doesn't match either of your proposals. I would avoid any game where one or the other is ignored during the initial design stage.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 8, 2008)

I find myself in agreement with you. Making a fun game is like making a tasty cookie. Can you imagine a chef saying, "let's make a cookie, but make it as awful tasting as possilbe!"

The thing is, to some people, fun = flavor first. Some people are willing to play around bad rules in order to have the type of flavor they want.

For example; in a 3.5 game, Jim could create an uber wizard that dominates everything. Many people would talk to Jim and tell him, "don't dominate the game with your wizard." They would not want to change to a different system where a wizard can not dominate. They enjoy the wizard the way it is and feel the current system best represents what a wizard should be. Some people would rather deal with the flaws then change their flavor.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 8, 2008)

Hussar said:


> 1.  The paladin.
> ...
> 2.  The Ranger.
> ...
> 4. Rogues




Aren't these things just results of bad design rather than failures of a flavour first approach to design?



Hussar said:


> 3.  Prestige Classes




I'm not sure this is a design problem as much as it is a matter of limited applicability of material. Going for a prestige class that specialises in hunting a particular type of enemy when you've no idea whether or not you'll be fighting them, or you can't count on your DM to take the hint you're giving him by taking the class, seems a little silly to me.

More generally, in contrast bad game first design could have mechanics that play brilliantly but leave a disconnect where no one really knows what the mechanics are supposed to be representing. I'm not accusing 4E of this but highlighting that I think the success of either approach would have more to do with the talent of the designer than the approach itself.

Is it even really this black and white when it comes to how game design is approached? I wouldn't expect that it is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2008)

I am not that certain that "flavour first" was really how D&D began - D&D has its roots in war-gaming, and the Wizard seems more inspired by artillery pieces as by magic as it appears in most fantasy or history. (Magic Missile, Fireball? Most magic in fairy tales for example is a lot more subtle...)

Furthermore, I think you can't do the one without the other.
The 4E classes seem to be based on flavor as much as on game. Ranger, Rogue and Warlock are all three just game elements called "Strikers". Two of them also have the same power source. Yet they play and feel differently, thanks to their class features, powers and their skill selection. 

Sure, the roles are game elements, but did they really come first? Did the designers think "We need a Arcane Striker, what do you come up with?" As far as I see, it did definitely not start that way, they seemed more to believe the Warlock should be a (Arcane) Controller, and figured that it worked better as a Striker. 

Was the Warlord created from the idea "Martial Leader, how do we do this?" Or was it based on classes like the 3E Miniatures Handbook Marshall and wondered "So, we want some guy that fights with weapons and usually in melee, and leads his guys in battle. Sounds like a Fighter focusing more on tactics then on sword tricks in combat. We're also using the "Leader" denotation to describe a role on the battlefield - we could have used the Fighter and just made it a possible fighter build, but with the Leader concept we make a new class..."

Of course, in some ways, classes still come from the question "what do people play". Again, the Warlord - playing someone that focuses on tactics and aiding his allies is something people enjoy. I suppose even the Marshall himself was already based on this line of thinking. But the flavor of a tactical leader with some (para)military trappings can be concluded from the way such a character is played.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 8, 2008)

Mephistopheles said:


> Aren't these things just results of bad design rather than failures of a flavour first approach to design?




That is my opinion. When it comes down to, all mechanics in a roleplaying serve one purpose....to allow a person to play an archetype. Every character is an archetype...the holy knight, the smooth talker, the thug, etc. Now sometimes people will merge archetypes and make a tweak here or there, but archetypes is what the game is all about.

The most critical requirement of every roleplaying system is the ability of the system to model archetypes. To that end, flavor first design is paramount.

However, the thing about mechanics is that there are 1000's of ways to model archetypes. Some work better than others. Some work just as well as others, but also fit the flavor of the game better, etc. The evolution of the roleplaying system is a continual attempt to fit mechanics that model archetypes and that can be run smoothly at a table with a bunch of people that aren't computers.


To the OP's paladin example. 3e's paladin was a holy knight with a code. That's an archetype. But the mechanics tightened the archetype more than was needed. The rules don't need to tell me who my paladin hangs out with, it needs to tell me what a holy knight can do...what ability do I have to heal the injured, fight off evil, and gave a commanding speech to rally those around me. So in 4e we have another holy knight. But they focused the mechanics on what needed to have mechanics, and let the flavor more tend to itself. Its still flavor first, its just a change in mechanics to better adapt that archetype for the players.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2008)

I agree that mechanics need to work well at the table.  That's not the same as saying come up with mechanics first, then find flavour to justify them.  The flavour should come first, but the mechanics should be tailored with an eye to actual play.  If Paladins as written don't work in your game, tweak the mechanics to fit.  For instance, if Det Evil is a problem, have it only detect massive, supernatural Evil, as in 1e-2e.  That way slightly evil PCs won't ping, and there's no moral dilemma what to do with the evil commoner.  If he Dets as Evil, he's either a demon, undead, evil high priest, or serial killer.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 8, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I agree that mechanics need to work well at the table.  That's not the same as saying come up with mechanics first, then find flavour to justify them.  The flavour should come first, but the mechanics should be tailored with an eye to actual play.  If Paladins as written don't work in your game, tweak the mechanics to fit.  For instance, if Det Evil is a problem, have it only detect massive, supernatural Evil, as in 1e-2e.  That way slightly evil PCs won't ping, and there's no moral dilemma what to do with the evil commoner.  If he Dets as Evil, he's either a demon, undead, evil high priest, or serial killer.




I fully agree. Flavor is what defines a roleplaying game for me. The mechanics are needed for an enjoyable game experience, but the flavor makes me pick the game up in the first place. The mechanics should offer a balanced and fun way to play the game defined by the flavor, and therefore should be done after the flavor is defined.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I fully agree. Flavor is what defines a roleplaying game for me. The mechanics are needed for an enjoyable game experience, but the flavor makes me pick the game up in the first place. The mechanics should offer a balanced and fun way to play the game defined by the flavor, and therefore should be done after the flavor is defined.




Yes, well said - this is my view exactly.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Flavor is what defines a roleplaying game for me.



Me too. 



> The mechanics should offer a balanced and fun way to play the game defined by the flavor, and therefore should be done after the flavor is defined.



I think this is really true only for games that designed for focused genre emulation. In 'broad-spectrum' systems like D&D, the 'flavor' mainly comes from the people playing the campaigns. _They_ supply it --and that flavor changes radically from group to group. So the mechanics have to come first.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 8, 2008)

I think it's only a problem if the DM and players are not on the same page prior to character generation or the player ignores the campaign guidelines.  The problem, in my experience, is usually a) the player made a character prior to learning about the DMs setting; b) the player made a character and ignored the setting/campaign guidelines; or c) the DM had either no setting in mind or so vague an idea that players just create characters on their own and then show up.

If the DM has a setting, then the player needs to work within the setting.  However, the DM (or group if the setting is group designed) should have worked out Favorite Enemies (by culture) and Paladin Codes (by deity).   

As with Favorite Enemies and codes, the DM needs to preestablish the PrCs .  They are optional and supposed to help define the setting. The designers, however, don't know what your homebrew is going to be. Therefore,  the DM should be deciding which PrCs exist in the world before the game starts. For example, if there are no undead or aberrations (or they are extremely rare that they are not going to play a major role), PrCs based around them should not be included.  Or, maybe a particular Prc is only found among a particular culture.


If, the DM has no setting or only a vague idea, the group needs to find another way to get on the same page before character generation- a group meeting or something (always a good idea even if the DM has a coherent setting).  If players, can just show up with premade characters, there is a good chance of running into the problem the OP talked about.  However, as I said, that is , imo, not a problem with the design, but with the lack of communication.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 8, 2008)

Ideally, its a dynamic equilibrium.

I think we've swung too far towards the mechanics, personally.  D&D needs some sort of integrating architecture to unite certain aspects of gameplay- specfically, arcane magic.  The Golden Wyvern school and whatnot would have accomplished that, but it died a horrible death at the hands of people who mostly aren't playing 4e anyways.

Lots of other areas of D&D have this sort of flavor/mechanical unity.  The Warlock, for example.  Why is there a warlock track that gives you teleportation, invisibility, and mental control?  Well, because it involves a pact with the Fey, see, and they're powerful at illusions and charm magic, and they have a connection to the Feywild, which is associated with teleportation magic.  It doesn't make sense from a flavor-neutral perspective, of course.  But it makes great sense from a flavor based perspective.  The same is of course true of the other pacts: there's no flavor neutral explanation for an association of cold, madness, and prophecy, or fire and temporary hit points.

But the ways in which these things can be arranged is multiplied greatly when we integrate flavor and mechancs rather than keeping them separate.

I only wish that wizards had a similar system.  Instead, their spells are just disparate and miscellaneous.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 8, 2008)

Its flavour first. But not, first, last, and everywhere in between. 

The flavour is key to get design going. Say I wanted to do an RPG focused on WWI pilots...I probably need some ariel combat rules, and they should probably avoid helicopters, supersonic travel...etc. But given that, I will need mechanics so that the GM can throw some enemy planes at the players patrol, they can do their cool things in the sky, and nobody is pulling their hair out before it is all over. 

This may require a lot abstraction and simplification, but the goal is still to achieve the desired flavour. So, if the idea is to be heroic...then complications in that system probly involve exciting manuevers...if it is to be grim and gritty...well then the players are going to need some back up charecters.  But I think that is they basic way it should and does work. How well it is done is another story.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 8, 2008)

S'mon said:


> I agree that mechanics need to work well at the table. That's not the same as saying come up with mechanics first, then find flavour to justify them. The flavour should come first, but the mechanics should be tailored with an eye to actual play. If Paladins as written don't work in your game, tweak the mechanics to fit. For instance, if Det Evil is a problem, have it only detect massive, supernatural Evil, as in 1e-2e. That way slightly evil PCs won't ping, and there's no moral dilemma what to do with the evil commoner. If he Dets as Evil, he's either a demon, undead, evil high priest, or serial killer.




Exactly. The play of game mechanics is pretty pointless if you fail to capture the spirit of the game they are written for. The rules should serve the game and not the other way around. Here is an example of how the opposite is implemented:

At our last session playing KOTS we engaged a group of enemies near some water. One of the bad guys ran away to warn his allies. My cleric stopped him from getting very far but we both came within detection range of those allies as I dropped him. The allied group of enemies did nothing. There are many in game possibilities for this but the DM let me in on what happened after the session. Apparently the adventure says that the 2nd group will ignore the plight of the 1st group for whatever reason.

I am only going on what I was told, as I have not looked through the adventure. The game reason is simple- one linked running combat with both groups without a short rest would most likely result in a wipe, thus they are separate encounters. The flavor reason is non-existant because there really isn't one. This is prime example of the the GAME serving the RULES first. Because abilities are recharged on a "per encounter" mechanic which is a subjective unit of time, the behavior of the NPC's serves the mechanics first.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> The play of game mechanics is pretty pointless if you fail to capture the spirit of the game they are written for.



Doesn't this assume that the game has a single (or at least one predominant) "spirit"/theme to capture? 

My experience with D&D over the years tells me that D&D _doesn't_ have that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 8, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Doesn't this assume that the game has a single (or at least one predominant) "spirit"/theme to capture?
> 
> My experience with D&D over the years tells me that D&D _doesn't_ have that.




And that is the heart of all confusion. What that "spirit" is will vary from group to group. We have multiple editions that capture the spirit well for a lot of different groups.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Doesn't this assume that the game has a single (or at least one predominant) "spirit"/theme to capture?
> 
> My experience with D&D over the years tells me that D&D _doesn't_ have that.




Hmm. I guess it's possible to use D&D as a generic system like GURPS, but to me it has a strong inherent flavour, a mash-up of high fantasy, swords & sorcery, and '70s wargaming.  With dungeons.  And dragons.


----------



## The Ghost (Sep 8, 2008)

Hussar said:


> _Snip..._
> 
> And this makes sense?
> 
> ...




What you have listed here are not problems with design philosophy but one of player expectations. I think that there is a larger question here that is not being asked - What do I want from the game? And then how does WotC best make that game? Mechanics first or flavor first?


----------



## Andre (Sep 8, 2008)

While I agree that both good flavor and good mechanics are necessary to a good system, how one goes about designing that system makes a difference.

It seems to me that a flavour-first design is best for a "rulings-based" system, while mechanics-first works best for a "rules-based" system. Early versions of DnD tended to be rulings-based, as there were so many situations not covered by the rules. 3E and 4E tend to be much tighter designs, with more standardized mechanics, e.g., d20 + modifiers.

Each has its drawbacks. Flavor-first tends to put more responsibility on the GM's shoulders. This makes the game much more dependent on the quality and experience of the GM. Mechanics-first removes some of that responsibility, but potentially at the cost of everything feeling the same. A perfect example of the latter are the complaints that different classes have the same powers, just different flavor text.

An example of what I'm referring to: True Strike.

Mechanics-first. "You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target. Focus: A small wooden replica of an archery target."

Neat, simple, to the point. No question how it works in play. No real flavor, though. This could just as easily be a rule from a boardgame, or a card in MtG.

Flavor-first. "Closing your eyes, you attempt to shut out the distractions of the world around you. Navigating through the mists of the spellweave, you spy glimpses of past, future, and present. One such image is seared into your mind - an image of the world just seconds away. You snap out of the trance, knowing with certainty where your enemies will be. This power grants you a +20 bonus to your next attack, so long as it occurs within the timeframe of your vision."

(Kindly ignore cheesy text...)

This one's a bit trickier. You know how you gained the bonus, but by defining where the effect comes from, lots of questions come up. Are there any in-game consequences of closing your eyes? How long are you in the trance? Can you misinterpret the vision, actually gaining a penalty to your attack? Can you use this spell to gain other knowledge, for example, knowing that a comrade will be struck done shortly?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2008)

It does not seem to me that the issues sighted in the OP arose because flavor came first.  The order of operations is not what caused the problem - if you do the job right, which comes first is not relevant.  

The thing we have to remember is that rpg game design is not like mechanical engineering, where you can go take some classes, and learn how it is done.  There aren't any text books one can learn from.  As time goes on, new designers learn from the mistakes of the old, so designs improve.  Earlier editions have problems because one makes mistakes when innovating.  And, there's mistakes in 4e, too, and we'll learn from them.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2008)

S'mon said:


> Hmm. I guess it's possible to use D&D as a generic system like GURPS, but to me it has a strong inherent flavour, a mash-up of high fantasy, swords & sorcery, and '70s wargaming.  With dungeons.  And dragons.



In my view, D&D arrives at being a generic system by virtue of being a mash-up of fantasy sub-genres. Individual campaign 'flavor' then becomes a matter of whatever the group/DM choices to accentuate. 

I have a hard time picturing 'flavor-first D&D' since D&D is by definition, a big blend-in. Which is why I --currently-- prefer to focus to be on solid mechanics that I can "spice up" using whatever genre trappings I like.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 8, 2008)

For me, I don't see how the two can be divorced from eachother.  I feel good games and game systems use a combination of both.  Flavor based can inspire interesting and new mechanics, mechanics can inspire interesting flavor descriptions.  For me it's six of one, and a half dozen of the other.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 8, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I fully agree. Flavor is what defines a roleplaying game for me. The mechanics are needed for an enjoyable game experience, but the flavor makes me pick the game up in the first place. The mechanics should offer a balanced and fun way to play the game defined by the flavor, and therefore should be done after the flavor is defined.




yep.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2008)

See, to me, given the choice, I'd rather the designers said, "Ok, based on what we know, what works at the table"?  Look at 3e.  What made 3e a better system for those who chose it over 2e or 1e?

Was it better flavour?  Or better mechanics?  

Look at the changes going from 3e to 3.5 and you get an even better view of what I'm talking about.  2e Haste was a flavour first design.  You get double your attacks, but, there is a slight chance that using this spell will kill you.  Makes perfect sense from the point of view of flavour, but, at the table, it was problematic to say the least.

3e stripped out the chance of death and then lessened the effect - you got an extra partial action.  But, again, this is trying to keep the flavour of 2e - Haste makes you incredibly super speedy.  In 3.5, the designers realized that Haste was way too powerful - sorry, 5th level wizards don't really need to cast two spells per round - and nerfed it again.

The whole reason for all this was because the spell was designed without a view of the table.  Polymorph is another perfect example.  Incredibly flavourful spell - very archtypal, WAYYY overpowered as written.

Now, take a look at the Binder from Tome of Magic.  Every vestige, regardless of flavour, source, or background, works identically.  You get 5 (possibly 4) abilities, which, in 4e terms would be a single per-encounter ability, two or three at wills and a couple of buff abilities.  Every level, every vestige works off the same premise.  To make a new vestige, you simply look for a concept that isn't covered, and plug in the applicable effects.

Short, sweet, to the point, and, after you are done, you can cover it with whatever flavour you wish.  Invent a new being like Ahazu from Paizo, and poof, you got yourself a new vestige.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 9, 2008)

Hussar said:


> See, to me, given the choice, I'd rather the designers said, "Ok, based on what we know, what works at the table"? Look at 3e. What made 3e a better system for those who chose it over 2e or 1e?
> 
> Was it better flavour? Or better mechanics?
> 
> ...



 Agreed, mechanics first can be important.

Look at Paladin/Monk in 3.5.
The multiclass restrictions are 100% flavor not balance reasons (designers even said they did to applease playtesters).

Really, 3.5 had a lot of flavor that made the mechaniocs suck.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 9, 2008)

I understand what you're saying, but I think (1) and (3) are player problems, not game problems; they're in the same vein of 

Patient: Doc, it hurts when I do this.
Doc: Then don't do that.  

If you're in a campaign that's not going to feature a lot of demons, then don't take the Demon Killer PrC. If the rest of the party are grey-morals mercs, don't play a paladin. 

(2) and (4) are problems, indeed.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2008)

I would agree that 1 and 3 would be player problems except for one thing - rangers are a core class.  This isn't some far out mechanic that never comes up.  This is one of the base classes we're talking about.  And, as far as PrC's go, Knight of the Chalice is hardly alone in having flavour first restrictions.  IME, narrow focus PrC's either had their focus broadened enough to make them useful, or they languished in books, utterly forgotten about.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 9, 2008)

I think one needs to step back and reazlie that in a game that tries to be as diverse and to allow as many archetypes as D+D does, some of those archetypes simply will not work in conjunction with each other.  Paladin and (known) Assassin in the same party?  Not unless the circumstances are truly bizarre.  But don't ban one or the other...let 'em fight it out if it happens!

That said, there's been some restrictions that haven't made sense from either a flavour or mechanics perspective.  Example is the 1e Ranger: they had to be Good, and no more than 3 could operate together.  This has no mechanical impact, and flies in the face of flavour (why can't a mass murderer on the run learn woodscraft just as well as anyone else?).  So, out said rules went around here, a long time ago.

Prestige classes were a disaster in all ways.  'Nuff said, except I'm glad someone else seems to think so too.

As for Thief/Rogue being useless sometimes...again, it comes back to the simple fact that not everyone is going to always be the perfect tool for every job.  A good example is the 1e Illusionist, or any-e Illusionist, in an adventure that is all undead.  Or a Druid in an adventure that is all underground.  I don't see this as a design flaw in the slightest; just a logical reflection of reality.  the flip side, of course, is there'll be times when the Illusionist (vs. dumb Orcs or Giants) and Druid (in an outdoors adventure) just rock.  And Thieves can do much more than backstrike...just make sure your DM is giving you ExP for the locks you pick and the gold you steal. 

A bigger design flaw would be a class that is useless *all* of the time.  1e's Monk was close to this at anything less than high level.

Hussar, it's interesting to note your take on Haste...you say it was "problematic" when it had a risk of killing you when used, but that was the whole point...it had a drawback that made it risky to use, and thus it wasn't used except in dire need, as designed.  Take away that drawback and of course it becomes broken...but the solution is not to nerf it, but to put the drawback back in!   Same is true of Polymorph...it only broke when the drawbacks were removed (that you could only poly. yourself, or for Poly-Other you had to make a system-shock roll and even then might truly become the creature you'd been turned into, and NOBODY would willingly undergo this).

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that the rules can be designed around the flavour, and should be where it makes sense.  Don't design for "what happens at the table"...let the players figure that out, and design for "what happens in the game world".

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2008)

Re Haste & Polymorph Self - the original 1e designs were fine.  Haste aged you and could kill you.  It doubled attacks, but did not increase spellcasting rate.  IMC only desperate NPCs used it.  Polymorph gave you a creature's basic form, but no attacks or special abilities.  They were then screwed up by 3e because of *poor design * - the designers lost sight of the 1e/2e limitations.  No flavour issue.

Edit: Prestige Classes - a player IMC wanted to work towards being a dragon slayer.

Him:
"Will there be dragons?"

Me:
"Yes."

No problem.

A player of a Ranger IMC was chosing his favoured enemy.

Him:
"What threats are there in the area?"

Me:
"Goblinoids to the south, orcs to the north, humans to the west. I wouldn't choose aberrations if I were you."

No problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> I think one needs to step back and reazlie that in a game that tries to be as diverse and to allow as many archetypes as D+D does, some of those archetypes simply will not work in conjunction with each other.  Paladin and (known) Assassin in the same party?  Not unless the circumstances are truly bizarre.  But don't ban one or the other...let 'em fight it out if it happens!
> 
> That said, there's been some restrictions that haven't made sense from either a flavour or mechanics perspective.  Example is the 1e Ranger: they had to be Good, and no more than 3 could operate together.  This has no mechanical impact, and flies in the face of flavour (why can't a mass murderer on the run learn woodscraft just as well as anyone else?).  So, out said rules went around here, a long time ago.
> 
> ...





Abilities that either work or cause a great negative effect (e.g. death) also have the tendency to be great for NPCs, terrible for PCs - off course, entirely for meta-game reasons. The PCs are in the spot-light the entire campaign, the NPC only for one session. No one is really attached to the NPC, so why not have him use an ability that is 20 % likely to kill him, or 80 % likely to double his power, allowing him to crush the PCs? No one will really care if the NPC dies.

If there is a chance that a possible, single action you can perform - like casting a spell - creates a powerful negative effect (like dying), it is always the "ultimate gamble" - but not in the "gamist" way, as in over-coming challenges due to smart play. It is just pure luck.

And maybe the "pure luck" part is the flavor-first part - some things are beyond the control of an individual. And the resulting mechanic is based on pure luck. 

There could be other ways to create the flavor, though. For example, the power could be a "once-in-a-lifetime" or even a "martyr"-power. The player may decide to have his character use it once, and it will work (in-game due to incredible chance and luck), but the second time he uses it, it will kill him (possibly still giving him the benefit, to help his comrades, but in the end, the PC is dead). 
You can shorten the time-frame between use for beneficial/deadly effect that is less likely.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> For me, I don't see how the two can be divorced from each other.



Are you familiar with Champions or Mutants and Masterminds (both are effects-based point-buy superhero RPGs)? They are fine examples of systems which focus on providing mechanical frameworks for character abilities, with mere suggestions on how to define ("flavor") them in-game. For example, a ranged attack power could be a bolt of lightning from a hero's fingertips, a laser beam from his battlesuit, a fireball from his wand, a razor-edged boomerang, etc. They'd all be same mechanics-wise, outside of the modifiers you could choose to apply. The specific flavor would be up to the player to provide. 

I have a Mutants and Masterminds character that's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling; he can paralyze enemies using the secrets of  "Ka-Wrestling", which tie of their seven souls into knots (a base power called Snare, which covers things like Spiderman's entangling webs or Iceman trapping someone in a block of ice), weaken their powers with a hold called the Khonsuplex (a base power called Drain), or use his super-secret "Cheops Drop" move that summons a pyramid out thin air and drops it on opponents (the area attack form of the Create Object power).

I could _never_ have created this character without the ability to overlay my own "flavor" onto the game mechanics, and I'm fairly certain that I''ll never find a game which included flavor like this to start with.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus- That brings up a really interesting point.

Mutants and Masterminds is mechanics-first (obviously this isn't a 100% truth, because it can't be, etc, etc, you get the idea).  It provides generic abilities that you can mix and match to create whatever character you like.

But your character is very clearly a flavor-first creation.  If you look at your character sans flavor, it doesn't make sense.  With flavor, it works great.

I think that D&D class creation is more analogous to the reasoning that went into creating your character than the reasoning that went into designing the "create item" power.  Its not 100%, but I think that's the direction the scales lean.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 9, 2008)

The question is then: How open and flexible does a "mechanics first" system have to be? And how much should the flavor that was added be pushed in the system?

From what I gather, M&M offers more flexibility for character concepts than 4E. I also think 4E is pushing its flavor rather heavily on the game. I do think 4E would have been more accepted if it had focused more on flavor being optional, and the system itself been more flexible and variable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The question is then: How open and flexible does a "mechanics first" system have to be? And how much should the flavor that was added be pushed in the system?
> 
> From what I gather, M&M offers more flexibility for character concepts than 4E. I also think 4E is pushing its flavor rather heavily on the game. I do think 4E would have been more accepted if it had focused more on flavor being optional, and the system itself been more flexible and variable.




I don't think so. I think it would have appealed to a different set of gamers, but probably not more. Especially for casual gamers or newbies, it is hard to figure out what to play. If you get a limitless set of mechanical options, it is hard to pick the ones you might like. It's even harder if you don't even have an idea on the flavor. 

Ultimately, 4E tells you that you can use the powers as you see fit - the flavor text is a suggestion, but if for the life of it you can't believe Brutal Strike was a bone-shattering blow against that Ooze, you are free to describe it something else. 

But it provides you with base assumptions on the flavor to guide you. The only think that is really "limiting" in options are the roles, and you can't just throw them away, since the entire power set of a class is balanced on its role assumptions.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Mutants and Masterminds is mechanics-first (obviously this isn't a 100% truth, because it can't be, etc, etc, you get the idea).  It provides generic abilities that you can mix and match to create whatever character you like.



The great thing about M&M2e is that it provides a sound (and easy to use) mechanical framework upon which to hang any number of character concepts. While any system can be broken, M&M2e is really pretty solid, especially when you consider how much freedom you have to model different types of heroes and abilities.

In that way the focus on mechanics allows for more and better flavor.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The great thing about M&M2e is that it provides a sound (and easy to use) mechanical framework upon which to hang any number of character concepts. While any system can be broken, M&M2e is really pretty solid, especially when you consider how much freedom you have to model different types of heroes and abilities.
> 
> In that way the focus on mechanics allows for more and better flavor.




I am so waiting for both "Wizards and Warriors" and  "Mecha and Manga".


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

Greg K said:


> I am so waiting for both "Wizards and Warriors" and  "Mecha and Manga".



Ooooh... those are the different genre-emulation source books for M&M2e, aren't they? I want them. Badly. My group kept talking about switching our current 3.5 homebrew campaign to the M&M rule set, but we never got around to working out the conversion guidelines.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 9, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Flavour First: The designer comes up with an idea first and then tries to create mechanics to best fit that idea.
> 
> Game First: The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that. Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.



This is a neat way to look at game design, but I don't think it's the source of the problem you describe. Like others up thread, I think flavor should come first but that a positive feedback loop between both is necessary to end up with a playable game. 

Your problem though is primarily with PCs that were designed for a different campaign then the one they find themselves in. Or maybe your problem is more generally with class design that's not universally useful in all kinds of campaigns.

After all, a Ranger in a borderlands orc-war campaign is going to be pretty bad ass. The Paladin though is going to be frustrated by always having to leave his horse and plate armor behind when it's time to spelunk or brachiate. Is that a problem with flavor first class design, or campaign design, or just a player-dm communications breakdown. I think it's the last one.

As a simple for-instance, I had to reengineer my character in my Iron Heroes group because I had designed him expecting more wilderness adventuring. Since we were all city, all the time it was frustrating that several of his feats and skills were never used. That was my fault for making a PC poorly made for the campaign, not the game's fault.

Is it possible to make a character that will be useful in every possible setting? Is it a good idea? Do they have a distinct flavor and character left if you do that? I think the answer to all three is: No.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> We've had flavour first mechanics for the past thirty years. I think that's more than long enough of a kick at the cat. It's time to let game first rule the table. Find out what works at the table, what results in the most fun (yes, I'm going to use the "f" word here) and then design to that.



I disagree. We play D&D for its flavor. Throw that out and we might as well be playing chess or TF2. It's nice to have good rules, but the flavor _must _be right. When push comes to shove, flavor should win. Many people seem a lot more tolerant of minor rules inconsistency than flavor inconsistency. Just look at the thread on "Are Fighter Exploits Magic?". The rules must be well designed _and _support the flavor you're looking for.




			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Are you familiar with Champions or Mutants and Masterminds (both are effects-based point-buy superhero RPGs)? They are fine examples of systems which focus on providing mechanical frameworks for character abilities, with mere suggestions on how to define ("flavor") them in-game.



How does M&M handle flavor/rule conflicts?  It seems to me that the flavor can either be anything or nothing, but not in between.  If the rule say "Power A can do X, Y and Z, and is limited by 1 and 2." then only certain things (and maybe nothing!) can fit that description. Power Suits run out of fuel; electricity grounds when fire doesn't; boomerangs are slower than bullets; etc. When you're playing M&M (or any game where flavor is "tacked on" by the players) you need to decide ahead of time "Okay, when flavor and rule conflict (which is inevitable, even if rare), which wins?"  

I say flavor wins, alway. What does M&M say? If it says "Rules win", then what's the point of your Cheops Drop Pyramid when it's only a pyramid "most of the time"?

My takeaway points are:
1. Great roleplaying needs great flavor, so flavor first. There's a reason _The Lord of the Rings_ inspires more D&D campaigns than ... well, anything, or that the new _Battlestar Gallactica_ is more likely to have RPG success than the 1970s version.
2. Fun times are helped by playable rules, so keep an eye on those; but they aren't the reason you play an RPG. 
3. Make sure PCs are suited to the campaign. Paladins in Lankmar or Pirates in Mongolia just aren't good ideas.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> How does M&M handle flavor/rule conflicts?



I've honestly never seen one come up. 



> It seems to me that the flavor can either be anything or nothing, but not in between.



I don't know what this means.



> If the rule say "Power A can do X, Y and Z, and is limited by 1 and 2." then only certain things (and maybe nothing!) can fit that description.



Can you give me some examples, because I'm not following you. Remember that powers are described as _effects_. Therefore, just about _anything_ can describe them (using comic-book logic, at least). Therefore you can have an immobilizing power defined as tying someone up using "solid electricity", webbing them with artificial spider silk, rooting them in place with the psychedelic power of the Summer of Love, etc.   



> ...Power Suits run out of fuel...



Only if you build them that way. 



> ...electricity grounds when fire doesn't...



Only when it's convenient. 



> ...boomerangs are slower than bullets...



Yes, but also irrelevant. A boomerang is as deadly (or non-deadly) as an arrow or a bullet or a plasma bolt in narrative space of a comic. 



> When you're playing M&M (or any game where flavor is "tacked on" by the players) you need to decide ahead of time "Okay, when flavor and rule conflict (which is inevitable, even if rare), which wins?"



Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?   



> What does M&M say? If it says "Rules win", then what's the point of your Cheops Drop Pyramid when it's only a pyramid "most of the time"?



Again, what do you mean by this? "Most of the time"???


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Are you familiar with Champions or Mutants and Masterminds (both are effects-based point-buy superhero RPGs)? They are fine examples of systems which focus on providing mechanical frameworks for character abilities, with mere suggestions on how to define ("flavor") them in-game. For example, a ranged attack power could be a bolt of lightning from a hero's fingertips, a laser beam from his battlesuit, a fireball from his wand, a razor-edged boomerang, etc. They'd all be same mechanics-wise, outside of the modifiers you could choose to apply. The specific flavor would be up to the player to provide.
> 
> I have a Mutants and Masterminds character that's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling; he can paralyze enemies using the secrets of "Ka-Wrestling", which tie of their seven souls into knots (a base power called Snare, which covers things like Spiderman's entangling webs or Iceman trapping someone in a block of ice), weaken their powers with a hold called the Khonsuplex (a base power called Drain), or use his super-secret "Cheops Drop" move that summons a pyramid out thin air and drops it on opponents (the area attack form of the Create Object power).
> 
> I could _never_ have created this character without the ability to overlay my own "flavor" onto the game mechanics, and I'm fairly certain that I''ll never find a game which included flavor like this to start with.




Yeah, I don't disagree at all.  I was just trying to say, for me, a mechanic without any flavor (whether provided for you, or provided by you) is boring.  A flavor without a mechanic to represent it, to me is just as boring.  It's the combination of the two that makes it interesting.  Sometimes the flavor will inspire a mechanic, sometimes the mechanic inspires the flavor, but they both have to be there for either to be complete (again, this is just my opinion and preference - but I freely admit I'm probably equal parts simulationist and storyteller - however, I like the story to make sense in my mind - rational suspension of disbelief).

I just can't have my chocolate without my peanut butter.  Whichever one came first really doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Ooooh... those are the different genre-emulation source books for M&M2e, aren't they? I want them. Badly. My group kept talking about switching our current 3.5 homebrew campaign to the M&M rule set, but we never got around to working out the conversion guidelines.




My understanding is that they are genere-emulation source books. I have a few concerns about the books (e.g, Steve not being the primary author of the fantasy book).  However, I definitely want to see what they have to offer.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 9, 2008)

My problem with the 3e classes is the hard codiing of many class abilities. A good designed class, imo, lays the basic foundation (e.g, BAB, Save Bonuses, Skill Points, and skill choices  but keeps things general so that the player and DM can take the class into different directions rather than prescribing specific abilities unless they truly are necessary to the class (e.g., spellcasting and spell lists for spellcasters and tracking for rangers, sensing and turn/rebuke spirits for a shaman).  Otherwise, abilities should be left open to tailor with bonus feat choices and specialize further with additional feats and PrCs.

The fighter is one  example of how I like classes designed.  So, is AEG's Myrmidon by Mike Mearls despite being horribly named.  The class is a warrior mage class gets spells, decent armor, BAB and hit die, but gets bonus feat choices every so often rather than forcing the designer's idea of some cool ability ( for example channeling a spell through a sword, on the player and DM setting. Now, there is nothing wrong with channeling spells through a sword, but that decision is, imo, a player and setting decison and, therefore, better handled as a feat with additional feats or a prestige class to specialize.


This is why, I dislike most of the 3e core classes as written and like the customizing a character (PHB) and Unearthed Arcana style class variants. Rage, Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, Sudden Strike, Favored Enemy- all of these should have been feats that anyone should be able to take, and bonus feats for there respective classes.  

Rage: What limits this to a wilderness warrior? There are examples in myth and other stories of characters from more urban or civilized socieities that rage.  

Turn Undead: Arent' there examples of non-priests, who just happen to do this  through their conviction of faith?  Iam thinking of the classic situation of the vampire telling the hero or victim, "You must have faith for that to work against me).  Also, in setting where deities have their own portfolios, why is turn/rebuke given to every cleric.  And what about settings without undead?
Don't get me wrong, I think a cleric of an appropriate deity should have this ability. I just don't it is an appropriate ability for all clerics or that it should be limited to only clerics when people of the appropriate faith should be able to learn this to represent their strength of faith.

Animal Companion: Why does every ranger or druid need an Animal Companion? It's fine as an option, but not something that should be hard coded into the class. The same for the Paladin's mount.

Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, Sudden Strike: Why should someone have to be a particular class to make a sneak attack, precise strike or sudden strike?  Sneak Attack seems like something anyone can learn. Precise Strike and Sudden strike also seem appropriate to those trained for combat with the right weapon or appropriate style making it approriate for warrior types.

The Monk abiltities after level 5 are too specific for every setting. They sound more like prestige class abilities.

Duskblade's Channel: Why is it necessary for duskblades to channel through their weapons? That to me should have been a feat and something that wizards and sorcerers should also be to do through a staff.  And, if a warrior mage  type of character wants to focus their schtick on this, to me it is  better done through feats or a prc.    The designers, imo, would have better to have gone with a more general approach as per AEG's Myrmidon.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> A flavor without a mechanic to represent it, to me is just as boring.



Oh sure... I just prefer it when the game designers leave the flavor to me (or at least don't design with too much of a specific flavor in mind). 



> - but I freely admit I'm probably equal parts simulationist and storyteller - however, I like the story to make sense in my mind - rational suspension of disbelief).



If I had to label myself, I'd call me a 'narrative simulationist'. My games _are_ simulations... of certain kinds of freewheeling fantasy adventures stories. Simulations of texts, not simulations of physical worlds.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 9, 2008)

But M&M also has some "flavor first" issues...

Big issue with M&M (or Champions): making a charecter. For some of us, its pretty involved. Why? becuase the genre demands very flexible, option filled, chargen. 

I think if you really parsed the system, you will see a bunch of stuff in there that follows from comic book (and I would even dare to say "silver age comic book") conventions and sensibilities.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I don't know what this means.
> 
> Can you give me some examples, because I'm not following you.
> 
> ...



Your below quotes hi-lite the problem.



Mallus said:


> Only if you build them that way.
> 
> Only when it's convenient.
> 
> Yes, but also irrelevant. A boomerang is as deadly (or non-deadly) as an arrow or a bullet or a plasma bolt in narrative space of a comic.



My point is that flavor implies unspoken rules. The imaginative player or DM will notice opportunities to exploit this.

1. Power Suits must have a power source (that's what makes them Power Suits). That power source is presumably limited in some ways. If you use "power suit flame thrower" to justify your Iron Man flavor, you bring "fusion torch" baggage with that explanation. Otherwise it's a Magic Suit.

2. No, electricity grounds whenever conditions are right. Convenience has nothing to do with it.

3. Boomerangs and arrows may both do 2d6+1 damage, but only the arrow can fit through a 1" wide crack in a wall. They are not the exactly same.

Electrical attacks usually do the same xd6 damage as Fire attacks, but not under water or in a unusually-oxygen-rich atmosphere.  For instance, in a Supers game where one of the Supers always (and can only) use "Call Down The Lightning" on his foes I might anticipate his attacks by 6" wearing copper spikes on my shoes that immediately ground all of his attacks.

Since M&M explicitly says "Here are effects; flavor the means as you will", how does M&M suggest you resolve corner cases? I always resolve corner cases with "Flavor wins" because it guarantees game-world consistency. Occasionally this produces results that are not perfectly "game balanced", but life is like that too, so players are fine with it. But then, we're "roleplaying in a fantasy world" not "gaming", so YMMV.


----------



## Toras (Sep 9, 2008)

I think my biggest problem is not either approach, but rather when someone tries to do both and then drops the ball.  That is the primary difference between M&M on the onside, and Adventure on the other, and 4e and similar.

I would have been fine with 4e being constructed like a Gurps or M&M system, with rules for generating powers and items, and a few sample archtypes to start with.  Hell, you wouldn't even need archtypes, though if you wanted to you could have them setup like moderns strong/smart...hero.  

That would have been a better idea and really you could have saved yourself a great number of pages.  Have the class/powersource splats have additional bases or mechanics, along with some more samples.  Settings would have more flavor and sample powers, along with any specific powers that exist only within the setting.  

Approaching it the other way works best when you take a much more rules light approach than I think that many are comfortable with.  I can conjure fire and do X damage with it. Toss in stunts and a few high flying mechanics and let the players hand the rest.  Cut everything down the simplest mechanics possible to remove any conflict with flavor.  Let Flavor be your guide.

If you want a balance approach, than everything has to be internally consistant.  It is more difficult and frankly not something you can do half or quarter assed.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> My point is that flavor implies unspoken rules. The imaginative player or DM will notice opportunities to exploit this.



To a certain extent, yes. The trick is to reward creative play while still maintaining fidelity to the rules.



> That power source is presumably limited in some ways.



No. It's only limited if you buy the power with limits. The 'power suit' is really just a kind of container/framework for a set of powers.



> Otherwise it's a Magic Suit.



What's the difference? This looks like semantics to me. To be clear, an M&M character with a power suit a la Iron Man could have a limited 'battery', or their powers could be limitless in use/duration. They're both 'power suits', except one has a lithium-ion battery and the other a Zero-Point generator (and one would cost fewer power points to construct because of the limitation). 



> No, electricity grounds whenever conditions are right. Convenience has nothing to do with it.



In the real world. In the comic book narrative, science operates in a more dramatically appropriate fashion. 



> Boomerangs and arrows may both do 2d6+1 damage, but only the arrow can fit through a 1" wide crack in a wall. They are not the exactly same.



Sure. And a simple GM ruling handles this. 



> For instance, in a Supers game where one of the Supers always (and can only) use "Call Down The Lightning" on his foes I might anticipate his attacks by 6" wearing copper spikes on my shoes that immediately ground all of his attacks.



Aha... I understand you're point better... here's how to handle this in M&M. All abilities are paid for in character building points. If you want to ground Dr. Lightning's bolts with copper spikes, you buy a certain amount of energy immunity to lightning --and describe it as fancy copper Nikes. If you want to improvise an electrical defense on the spot, I'd allow a limited circumstance bonus to resist the damage (for wrapping yourself in scads of copper wiring pulled from a conveniently-placed wall). If you wanted that to be permanent, you'd eventually have to pay the build points for it.

Such is the gentleman's agreement that all point-buy games I've seen use. 



> Since M&M explicitly says "Here are effects; flavor the means as you will", how does M&M suggest you resolve corner cases?



Through common sense and GM Fiat. M&M has a lovely mechanism for handling GM Fiat; anytime the GM uses fiat to negate or harm a character, that character receives a Hero Point; which can be used as a bonus to rolls, to reverse certain conditions, and to directly manipulate the narrative.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Aha... I understand you're point better... here's how to handle this in M&M. All abilities are paid for in character building points. If you want to ground Dr. Lightning's bolts with copper spikes, you buy a certain amount of energy immunity to lightning



Ah, I see the problem. I took to heart Dragon articles like "101 Uses for a 10' Pole". If a player finds a clever way to use a 10' pole (or copper shoe spikes) I always allow it. I don't make them spend finite feats or skill points on something that burning a couple hours on an A-Team Build-Anything Montage can handle.



Mallus said:


> M&M has a lovely mechanism for handling GM Fiat; anytime the GM uses fiat to negate or harm a character, that character receives a Hero Point; which can be used as a bonus to rolls, to reverse certain conditions, and to directly manipulate the narrative.



Yuck. I've heard very good things about M&M, but it's clearly not my kind of game. See my sig.


----------



## Delta (Sep 9, 2008)

Irda, I think you've got your answer, but I'll pile on some more. I've played M&M a small number of times as a player:



Irda Ranger said:


> Power Suits run out of fuel; electricity grounds when fire doesn't; boomerangs are slower than bullets; etc. When you're playing M&M (or any game where flavor is "tacked on" by the players) you need to decide ahead of time "Okay, when flavor and rule conflict (which is inevitable, even if rare), which wins?"




In M&M: (a) they don't, (b) it doesn't, and (c) they're not. Personally I think M&M is okay, it's not my favorite system because of issues like these. It sort of makes sense in a high-level comic book/ action-hero-who-never-runs-out-of-bullets way. (Or 3E+ D&D stipulating that electricty doesn't arc in water, and most equipment is almost always immune to fire while worn by a PC.) 

My experience with M&M benefited from a master comic artist who runs the sessions and makes professional stand-up illustrations for every PC/ NPC/ scene/ figure in play ( THE BIGFELLA MACHINE ).


----------



## Andor (Sep 10, 2008)

Mechanics without flavor are meaningless.

Here is a game: Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you lose.

Satisfying game? No? Let's continue.

Mechanics (except in puzzle games) are always intended to present a resolution mechanic abstracted from some fictional reality.

Another game: It is the final battle of good vs evil. Armageddon day has dawned and all the souls of mankind hang in the balance. Terribly the sides are exactly balanced. Flip a coin, heads good wins, tails evil wins.

Satisfying? Not really, it's still too abstract, but it's better than the first one.

Real satifaction in gaming comes when the story that emerges from the resolution of the conflict is one that the players can sink their teeth into.

Another game: Set up a 100 combatant ladder match of good vs evil. Resolve each match by flipping a coin, heads good wins, tails evil wins. Play out the tournament to decide the fate of the future.

Still too abstract but zeroing in on the individual fights gives us a better sense of story. If we name the combatants it becomes more interesting as we find combatants to root for.

A coin flip may be an accurate way to resolve an evenly matched fight, but it's over too quickly. There is no anticipation, no clenched teeth and beaded brows. 

Another game: Good vs Evil has boiled down to the final 10 champions. 5 Paladins of righteousness and 5 vile Warriors of Darkness. Set up the ladder, name each combatant. Each match is resolved by the best 2 out of 3 flips as the champions trade blows.

Now it's starting to get interesting. As each match plays out you can write the story in your mind. A good character who loses each first throw but rallies and wins the next two seems different from some brutal villain who slaughters his foes in the first 2 flips without allowing them to draw blood. The potential back and forth allows us to imagine that drama hangs on each flip.

I could continue but I hope I've made my point. Mechanics uninformed by flavor are meaningless. You might as well flip that quarter. It is the stories that the rules allow us to tell that entertain us. Without flavor there are no stories, and there is no game.


----------



## Runestar (Sep 10, 2008)

I agree that ideally, I too can benefit from the best of both worlds.

Else, if you asked me to choose, I would opt for mechanics over flavour over time. My rationale is that it is much easier to come up with my own fluff for balanced mechanics, than have to rework poorly-designed mechanics to make them balanced. So it is really the lesser of 2 evils.

Funny on the rogue comment though. I thought it was the best designed class in 3e...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> This is a neat way to look at game design, but I don't think it's the source of the problem you describe. Like others up thread, I think flavor should come first but that a positive feedback loop between both is necessary to end up with a playable game.
> 
> Your problem though is primarily with PCs that were designed for a different campaign then the one they find themselves in. Or maybe your problem is more generally with class design that's not universally useful in all kinds of campaigns.




Not really.  Campaigns change.  What works at one point may not work at another.  With inflexible, flavour first mechanics, you are stuck with what you started with.  Granted, the Retraining rules from PHB 2 go a long way to helping here.

But, you mention the paladin being unhappy about leaving his mount behind.  Now, here's another textbook example of what I'm talking about.  In earlier editions, you had to quest to get your mount.  Great, fantastic flavour - the chosen of the gods goes out to secure his trusty steed.  

Then came play at the table.  What does the rest of the group do while Mr. Paladin goes out to get this mount?  It's the Decker problem from Shadowrun all over again.  (well, actually predating the decker issue by quite some time really  )  And, after Mr. Paladin gets his steed, what does he do with it?  Most adventures don't allow for horseback riding.  Unless you happen to be doing outdoor adventures in fairly clear terrain, horses are pretty much useless.  

3e helped a bit here by making the mount summonable, but, again, it was keeping the flavour without sitting down and looking at the game first.  Mounts in D&D, by and large, are rarely used.  Other than for traveling from A to B, you don't see them too often.  How many PC's took Mounted Combat in your campaigns?  I think I saw it once, maybe.  Why?  Because the vast majority of adventures are not mount friendly.

A game first approach would think, "ok, what do adventuring PARTIES (not individual PC's) do?  What does a paladin need to help him do that and act within the party?  Would a mount help?  Is a mount a good idea for a fairly major ability for the class?"

If the answer is no, then the mount is simply not added and you go with something else.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 10, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> Ah, I see the problem. I took to heart Dragon articles like "101 Uses for a 10' Pole". If a player finds a clever way to use a 10' pole (or copper shoe spikes) I always allow it. I don't make them spend finite feats or skill points on something that burning a couple hours on an A-Team Build-Anything Montage can handle.



Then superhero roleplaying may not be for you.

In comic books, gadgets are intrinsic to the character.  Green Lantern has his ring, and Batman has his utility belt.  Batman never gives his utility belt to Green Lantern, and if he did, he'd get it back by the end of the episode.

Superhero RPGs generally mimic this genre convention.  If you want your character to have a bunch of gadgets, then you're making your character into a gadgeteer style hero, and you have to pay the appropriate points.  Your objection is valid in terms of personal preference, but in terms of judging the RPG its kind of like a superhero roleplayer coming to D&D, and being shocked that loot is a crucial part of character strength.  Different genre, different conventions.

Although some RPGs might have a "McGuyver" style power that lets you ad hoc create one shot gadgets that augment your character.  But you'd pay for the ability to create the gadget, rather than pay for the gadget itself.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> In comic books, gadgets are intrinsic to the character.  Green Lantern has his ring, and Batman has his utility belt.  Batman never gives his utility belt to Green Lantern, and if he did, he'd get it back by the end of the episode.




But.....Villians can and do remove Batman's utility belt.  And sometimes Bruce Wayne just doesn't have the old belt available.  Likewise Green Lantern's ring can and is removed from time to time.  The Atom's shrinking gear can not only be used by Ray Palmer, but can also be used by his ex-wife to commit murder.

In early Spider-Man stories, Spidey frequently defeats villians because he remembers his high school science.  He grounds out Electro or vaccuums up Sandman.

You can quite easily play a superhero rpg by agreeing that, once you have defined the flavour of your powers, those definitions have real meaning within the game world.

In any event, what I am reading from Mallus is that the agreement at the table is to use the game powers (mechanics) to create a genre-appropriate story (flavour).  Where the game powers could be read in a non-genre-appropriate way (such as the boomerang being "shot" through a 1-inch wide hole), "GM Fiat" rules in accordance to genre (flavour) over mechanics.

The mechanics of M&M are wide-open not in defiance of flavour, but because the genre of flavour mandates that it be so.

IMHO, of course.


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 10, 2008)

You're not getting it.

Its not that these characters never lose their items.  They lose them all the time!  It creates dramatic tension, and then they get the item back.  And its not like they never share items- they share them all the time!  It mixes things up, and then they get the item back.

And sure, they utilize their surroundings and come up with plans and such.

But after Spiderman defeats the Green Goblin, he doesn't gank the Goblin's sled and start flying around.  He could.  There's no reason he couldn't.  But he doesn't because it violates genre convention, which treats gadgets like they're part of the superhero.  A detachable part, to be sure, but one which long term is part of who the character is.

Superhero RPGs adhere to that genre convention.  As a result, they need different rules for gadgets and loot than you need in a fantasy RPG, where slaying the lich-king and stealing his sword is a key part of the story.

There are several ways gadgets get handled.

One time gadgets get handled like they do in comic books.  They exist for an episode, then they go away.

Long term gadgets are part of the character's stats.

Sometimes, a propensity to create gadgets is an attribute that a character can purchase.  This lets him create short term gadgets more easily.

Fantasy games often have a sort of Medieval McGuyver thing going on, where the party has a ten foot pole, a sack of sand, a waterskin, 50 feet of hempen rope, and a weasel- and with that they're going to slay a dragon in his own lair.  That's not the sort of story that superhero games typically strive to embody.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The mechanics of M&M are wide-open not in defiance of flavour, but because the genre of flavour mandates that it be so.
> 
> IMHO, of course.
> 
> ...




Oh, I think you're absolutely right. The flexibility of the games designed around superhero gaming like Champions and Mutants and Masterminds is a result of looking for the best mechanics to emulate the astonishing variety of superheroes in a systematic way.

The flavor of a wide variety of comics is, essentially, anything goes. So the mechanics to get there have to be particularly flexible.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 10, 2008)

Hussar said:


> A game first approach would think, "ok, what do adventuring PARTIES (not individual PC's) do?  What does a paladin need to help him do that and act within the party?  Would a mount help?  Is a mount a good idea for a fairly major ability for the class?"



No, that's "_Campaign _First" design.  Most D&D campaigns don't involve sailing ships either, but a explicitly sea based campaign would be lousy for half of D&D's classes but make excellent use of classes like Pirate or Sea Witch.

Your problem really is with classes that narrowly designed to permit certain types of campaign environments.  The Paladin could work perfectly from "game first" point of view if it assumes campaigns where mounts are (almost) always relevant and useful.




			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Then superhero roleplaying may not be for you.



I know; I don't even like most comic books.  I haven't bothered with a Supers game since trying a Marvel game back in .... the late 80s? Maybe '91 ...


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not that certain that "flavour first" was really how D&D began - D&D has its roots in war-gaming, and the Wizard seems more inspired by artillery pieces as by magic as it appears in most fantasy or history. (Magic Missile, Fireball? Most magic in fairy tales for example is a lot more subtle...)




In the case of D&D, the mechanics may have been there and the fantasy individual characters going on missions flavor put on them, but the mechanics were devised, originally, to model something and capture a certain flavor.
Historical wargames are all about capturing flavor.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 10, 2008)

billd91 said:


> In the case of D&D, the mechanics may have been there and the fantasy individual characters going on missions flavor put on them, but the mechanics were devised, originally, to model something and capture a certain flavor.
> Historical wargames are all about capturing flavor.




Without a doubt, the Fireball and Lightning Bolt spells were mechanics first. They just adapted the mechanics of the existing ballista/catapult rules they were using to allow a wizard to do something on the battlefield.

Cheers!


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 10, 2008)

Hussar said:


> To make a new vestige, you simply look for a concept that isn't covered, and plug in the applicable effects.
> 
> Short, sweet, to the point, *and, after you are done, you can cover it with whatever flavour you wish*.  Invent a new being like Ahazu from Paizo, and poof, you got yourself a new vestige.




I'm not a fan of tacked on flavour and can smell it a mile away. I think to be done right, there needs to be a neat/elegant symbiosis between mechanic and flavour. Coming up with a cool mechanic and then shopping around for flavour to tie it to just seems backward in my opinion. At the same time, having a chosen "flavour" and then trying to match a mechanic to it is not always easy, elegant or even playable. I think in the end, one has to guide the other and vice versa.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 10, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, you mention the paladin being unhappy about leaving his mount behind.  Now, here's another textbook example of what I'm talking about.  In earlier editions, you had to quest to get your mount.  Great, fantastic flavour - the chosen of the gods goes out to secure his trusty steed.
> 
> Then came play at the table.  What does the rest of the group do while Mr. Paladin goes out to get this mount?



Easy.  Mr. Paladin leaves the party, and his player and the DM sit down during the week over a beer and sort this out before the next session, while the main party goes without its Paladin for a while.  In other words, the main session carries on as usual (with the Paladin's player running a different character), knowing that by next week the Paladin will either have his mount or not, and will be back in circulation once the rest of the party catches up in game-world time.







> And, after Mr. Paladin gets his steed, what does he do with it?  Most adventures don't allow for horseback riding.  Unless you happen to be doing outdoor adventures in fairly clear terrain, horses are pretty much useless.



This is a much better question.  I've always kind of seen the mount's role as more a matter of looking imposing while riding into town, and for jousts and tournaments, than being involved in hard field work.  And, if the Paladin ever gets involved in an army war, the mount again adds to the aura of imposingness.  But it's quite true, horses and dungeons don't mix well; other than the horse providing food for the opposition. 


> A game first approach would think, "ok, what do adventuring PARTIES (not individual PC's) do?  What does a paladin need to help him do that and act within the party?  Would a mount help?  Is a mount a good idea for a fairly major ability for the class?"
> 
> If the answer is no, then the mount is simply not added and you go with something else.



You're running aground on the 4e design paradigm of the PCs being special flowers, and the world and its rules revolving around the Party.  Me, I'd just add a few lines of text in the call-for-warhorse write-up explaining how horses and dungeoneering don't often mix, and leave it alone.

Lanefan


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> If a player finds a clever way to use a 10' pole (or copper shoe spikes) I always allow it.



Oh, so would I. Like I said, creative one-time things like the copper shoes would yield a bonus during the encounter. But if the player wanted that bonus to be a permanent part of their character's repertoire, then they'd need to spend the points. That's just how effects base systems like M&M and Champions work.  



> I don't make them spend finite feats or skill points on something that burning a couple hours on an A-Team Build-Anything Montage can handle.



It's no different from 'making' PC's spend XP to level. Except that abilities are bought a la cart, at a much finer grain/level of detail. Players get character points after every adventure and usually spend them immediately. 



> Yuck. I've heard very good things about M&M, but it's clearly not my kind of game. See my sig.



Don't let me put you off an excellent system (best of the d20 crop IMHO). I do think you're misinterpreting what I said though; the Hero Point mechanic isn't about enabling the GM to tell a specific predetermined story. It's supposed to be used to enable specific kinds of challenges (commonly found in comics). A typical use would be something like a GM declaring that the PC's are automatically captured by the villain and placed in a 'foolproof' deathtrap. Each PC would receive a Hero Point because the GM Fiated them into the scenario, and then play would resume with the PC's trying to escape the trap. This is no different from old-school AD&D modules with puzzle rooms that were immune to spells (which forced players to overcome the challenge in a certain way).


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2008)

Andor said:


> Mechanics without flavor are meaningless.



Then it's a relief no one here is advocating mechanics without flavor.


----------



## Delta (Sep 10, 2008)

Mallus said:


> ... the Hero Point mechanic isn't about enabling the GM to tell a specific predetermined story... A typical use would be something like a GM declaring that the PC's are automatically captured by the villain and placed in a 'foolproof' deathtrap.




Heh, I don't think you're going to sway him -- that's clearly a predetermined story. 

In fact, it's possibly worse (for non-narrativists) -- it's a predetermined story, with the implied obligation that you pay back the players with their own "story points" in exchange for it. Non-narrativists will soooo not groove on that.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2008)

Delta said:


> Heh, I don't think you're going to sway him -- that's clearly a predetermined story.
> 
> In fact, it's possibly worse (for non-narrativists) -- it's a predetermined story, with the implied obligation that you pay back the players with their own "story points" in exchange for it. Non-narrativists will soooo not groove on that.



I think we're using radically different definitions of the word 'story'. Dumping superhero characters into a deathtrap is no more a predetermined story than placing a dungeon room with a chess board puzzle between some AD&D characters and the treasure room. They are both obstacles. Challenges to overcome. How you do that is the story... or at least a part of it.


----------



## Delta (Sep 10, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think we're using radically different definitions of the word 'story'. Dumping superhero characters into a deathtrap is no more a predetermined story than placing a dungeon room with a chess board puzzle between some AD&D characters and the treasure room. They are both obstacles. Challenges to overcome. How you do that is the story... or at least a part of it.




Your original anecdote used the phrases "automatically captured" and "GM Fiated them into the scenario", which you have deleted in this passage. That is the crucial difference.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 10, 2008)

People are really really good at making up stories. We start doing it even before we can actually talk.

People are really really terrible at math involving more numbers than we have fingers. We need to train for it through adolescence and beyond, and even then it's something of a labor.

Unless the game we're playing is pure narrative, there are going to be numbers butting heads with other numbers at some point, and I want really really really REALLY sturdy numbers.

There's a REASON why nobody ever does improv math.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2008)

Delta said:


> Your original anecdote used the phrases "automatically captured" and "GM Fiated them into the scenario", which you have deleted in this passage. That is the crucial difference.



OK. Add the words 'automatically captured' back in. That's what I meant by 'dumped into a deathtrap'. Doesn't change the point I'm making. 

I'll say it again: the DM/GM using fiat in order to present a specific challenge has nothing to do with narritivism, simulationism, or predetermined storytelling. In fact, it's a lot like those magic spell-proof rooms so common in AD&D tournament modules which were big puzzles that the players had to solve using specific means.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> You're not getting it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Superhero RPGs adhere to that genre convention.  As a result, they need different rules for gadgets and loot than you need in a fantasy RPG, where slaying the lich-king and stealing his sword is a key part of the story.





Which is another way of saying that, in M&M, mechanics are based on flavour, instead of the other way 'round.  My point exactly.


RC


----------



## Delta (Sep 10, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I'll say it again: the DM/GM using fiat in order to present a specific challenge has nothing to do with narritivism, simulationism, or predetermined storytelling. In fact, it's a lot like those magic spell-proof rooms so common in AD&D tournament modules which were big puzzles that the players had to solve using specific means.




If they could choose not to go in, then no, it's not like those.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 10, 2008)

Delta said:


> In fact, it's possibly worse (for non-narrativists) -- it's a predetermined story, with the implied obligation that you pay back the players with their own "story points" in exchange for it. Non-narrativists will soooo not groove on that.



Indeed. The _quid pro quo _was exactly what made me say "Yuck" in the first place.  My games are more about full & fair disclosure, and once the game is afoot quarter is neither asked for nor received (in either direction). If my PCs figure out a way to "cheat" their way to a quick & easy victory that's my problem and they've earned every point of XP.

To use the death trap example, my game would go more like this:

*PC*: I think we should investigate that Temple.
*Crusty Tavern NPC*: Arg, don't go there! Twas built by chaotic Gnomes; they build massive clockwork devices designed to tear a man apart _sloooowly_!
*PC*: We'll be careful.
(*Me*: _Heh heh heh_.)

If they beat the traps they get XP and a high-five. If not, 30 point buy.  The "Narrative" part only comes in later when we're playing Soul Caliber and I say "Remember the time Diego tried to use his Aasimar's 1/week _Holy Word _on the Lich and stunned the whole party unconscious instead ... what a douche." And then Diego says "Hey, that's not as bad as the time Joe failed his Test of High Sorcery four times in a row ..."

Ah, good times.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2008)

Mallus said:


> It's supposed to be used to enable specific kinds of challenges (commonly found in comics). A typical use would be something like a GM declaring that the PC's are automatically captured by the villain and placed in a 'foolproof' deathtrap.





To me the death trap is not a common use.  It has never even come up in my own experiences. More common uses, in my experience are :

- Activating a character's  complication like Spiderman's webshooter running out fluid or Aunt May being at the scene at an inopportune moment.

- Activating things like the grounding of electric powers (to answer a question brought up Irda earlier) which don't warrant a lmitation, but are  just inherent to the fx of the power.

Of course, how fiat is used depends on the GM and the group.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 10, 2008)

To me, using the OP's definitions, playing the game is all about flavor.  All I ask of the mechanics is that they don't get in the way.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Even when you pick mechanics first you often pick a sort of flavor for it. For 4E it was for example "team combat with defined, narrow roles in battle".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Even when you pick mechanics first you often pick a sort of flavor for it. For 4E it was for example "team combat with defined, narrow roles in battle".




I am still not convinced that Flavor First or Game First characterizes the 4E or previous approaches well, for matters like these.

Another example might be Martial Powers - sure, the mechanic on how powers work is not linked to the power source - everyone gets dailies, encounters and at-wills. But every instance of a power is designed in a way to suite the flavor of a martial character. There are no Close Burst 1 fireshroud for a Fighter, even if it would probably work fine for a Defender.

Maybe the deal is that it is, like many designs, an iterative cycle - you go from mechanics -> flavor -> mechanics -> flavor.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Another example might be Martial Powers - sure, the mechanic on how powers work is not linked to the power source - everyone gets dailies, encounters and at-wills. But every instance of a power is designed in a way to suite the flavor of a martial character. There are no Close Burst 1 fireshroud for a Fighter, even if it would probably work fine for a Defender.




That doesn't really matter, fire damage or weapon damage is a flavor choice in 4E. You've got the mechanics - close burst X - and the the flavor is propped up (like sweeping blow or shift the battlefield f.e.).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That doesn't really matter, fire damage or weapon damage is a flavor choice in 4E. You've got the mechanics - close burst X - and the the flavor is propped up (like sweeping blow or shift the battlefield f.e.).




The power is also a mechanic that needed to be designed. I am not sure how it doesn't matter.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The power is also a mechanic that needed to be designed. I am not sure how it doesn't matter.




4E seems to be designed with "Striker, defender, controller, leader" roles in mind. Any flavor - anything other than the mechanics for those functions - is entirely optional. It really doesn't seem to matter at all if a power does fire damage or weapon damage, all that matters is the numbers/mechanics.

You could take the wizard, and rewrite all the flavor to "fighter" with not too much trouble (replace fireball with a thrown flask of oil, close burst spells become "wind of steel" or whatever, movement hindering spells become "hobbling strike" and so on.)

To some degree - with the quasi-magical powers that compell enemies to act in a certain way - it is clearly visible. Those pwoers were needed for a function/role, and so were added to the class, period. No flavor or fluff concerns entered that decision.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

But that is not what the system actually does. I think that is important. 

I could also try to reflavor a 3E Vancian Wizard as a Fighter, or a Bo9S Swordsage as a Wizard, selecting the right spells and changing the flavor text. That doesn't mean that the system assumes the flavor is irrelevant, since you are ignoring the flavor part of the system in the first place.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But that is not what the system actually does. I think that is important.
> 
> I could also try to reflavor a 3E Vancian Wizard as a Fighter, or a Bo9S Swordsage as a Wizard, selecting the right spells and changing the flavor text. That doesn't mean that the system assumes the flavor is irrelevant, since you are ignoring the flavor part of the system in the first place.




The system actually does that. As long as you have a striker in the party it doesn't matter what kind of flavor it has. All that counts are the mechanics. 

Of course you can reflavor 3E classes too - but those, especially prestige classes, are usually build with a theme in mind, not a function. In 4E, the function comes first and foremost. It is even clearly stated that they made sure your character will function in its role no matter what you do. So, it really doesn't matter if you call your striker a warlock or rogue or ranger, or what mechanics you use for any of the three, as long as it's a striker.

Flavor is irrelevant for the mechanics - which is also seen by the lack of "antimagic field" and similar things that may only affect one sort of powers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The system actually does that. As long as you have a striker in the party it doesn't matter what kind of flavor it has. All that counts are the mechanics.
> 
> Of course you can reflavor 3E classes too - but those, especially prestige classes, are usually build with a theme in mind, not a function. In 4E, the function comes first and foremost. It is even clearly stated that they made sure your character will function in its role no matter what you do. So, it really doesn't matter if you call your striker a warlock or rogue or ranger, or what mechanics you use for any of the three, as long as it's a striker.
> 
> Flavor is irrelevant for the mechanics - which is also seen by the lack of "antimagic field" and similar things that may only affect one sort of powers.




Is seems as if we are talking cross-purpose.

You are right, it doesn't matter what kind of Striker you play for the purpose of defeating encounters. But each individual power is still themed after what kind of Striker you are.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Is seems as if we are talking cross-purpose.
> 
> You are right, it doesn't matter what kind of Striker you play for the purpose of defeating encounters. But each individual power is still themed after what kind of Striker you are.




But there is no mechanical difference. Flavor is irrelevant for the power design. Function is all that matters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But there is no mechanical difference. Flavor is irrelevant for the power design. Function is all that matters.




No. Compare the Ranger, the Rogue and the Warlock Powers. How many of them are easily interchangeable? Would a power like _Tendrils of Thuban_ make sense for a Rogue?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No. Compare the Ranger, the Rogue and the Warlock Powers. How many of them are easily interchangeable? Would a power like _Tendrils of Thuban_ make sense for a Rogue?




Is that a trick question?

Death Cloud
You throw a flask of contact poison. When it shatters it creates a poisonous cloud, causing the victims to become poisoned and suffer seizures, rendering them immobile. Since most of the substance is usually left where it fell, it can be stirred up with a thrown stone.

Daily * Martial, Poison, Implement, Zone
Standard action * Area burst 1 within 10 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 4d10+dex modifier poison damage, and immobilised (save ends)
Effect: Burst creates poisonous cloud that lasts until the end of your next turn.
Sustain minor: Maxe a dex vs. AC attack against all targets within the zone. On a hit, the target takes 1d10+dex modifier poison damage and is immobilized (Save ends).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Is that a trick question?
> 
> Death Cloud
> You throw a flask of contact poison. When it shatters it creates a poisonous cloud, causing the victims to become poisoned and suffer seizures, rendering them immobile. Since most of the substance is usually left where it fell, it can be stirred up with a thrown stone.
> ...



I like it. Well, except for one thing - where does the flask of poison come from? I am not saying we won't say powers like this eventually, but at least the core avoids creating something out of nothing for martial characters. 

But it's a cool item effect.  I wouldn't be surprised if some alchemy item in the Adventures Vault would look like this.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like it. Well, except for one thing - where does the flask of poison come from? I am not saying we won't say powers like this eventually, but at least the core avoids creating something out of nothing for martial characters.
> 
> But it's a cool item effect.  I wouldn't be surprised if some alchemy item in the Adventures Vault would look like this.




The flask comes from the same source arrows for rangers come from. If you can handle martial powers and dailies, having a flask at hand when needed for a daily is really no stretch at all.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The flask comes from the same source arrows for rangers come from. If you can handle martial powers and dailies, having a flask at hand when needed for a daily is really no stretch at all.




What I can handle is not necessarily what the system will handle.  

But I've played Torg - Ammo is no concern if you don't have a setback. Hollywood magazines are standard. But i think even Torg doesn't support hollywood grenades.

On the other hand, we're talking about a daily power. So I suppose you are right.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What I can handle is not necessarily what the system will handle.
> 
> But I've played Torg - Ammo is no concern if you don't have a setback. Hollywood magazines are standard. But i think even Torg doesn't support hollywood grenades.
> 
> On the other hand, we're talking about a daily power. So I suppose you are right.




Indeed. Ammo seems no concern for rangers either. Or does anyone actually count arrows, and then tells the ranger "sorry, you don't have enough arrows for hail of arrows"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like it. Well, except for one thing - where does the flask of poison come from?





If you start thinking in terms of "in world" logic, 4e falls apart rather quickly.  Indeed, the most common 4e advice that I am reading here (and elsewhere) is to not think about it from a simulationist viewpoint.  I.e., don't consider what X ability represents, just accept the mechanics and move on.

That seems, to me at least, to bolster Fenes' claim considerably.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Indeed. Ammo seems no concern for rangers either. Or does anyone actually count arrows, and then tells the ranger "sorry, you don't have enough arrows for hail of arrows"?




I don't know if anybody does, but the rules assume you do for other items, IIRC. Whether you actually do that is another matter. I think counting Ammo is a task that can be ignored in most games that promote lots of violence. I'd probably keep doing it in Warhammer, since it belongs to the gritty feel. Of course, we also did it (including the arrow breaking rule) in 3E for quite some time... *yawn* 



> If you start thinking in terms of "in world" logic, 4e falls apart rather quickly.



"in world" in the sense of "game rules = physics of the world", yes. Assuming that logic tells us that the physics must be identically to our own, except where it's explicitly not, like effects labeled as magic/supernatural.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> "in world" in the sense of "game rules = physics of the world", yes. Assuming that logic tells us that the physics must be identically to our own, except where it's explicitly not, like effects labeled as magic/supernatural.





The lengthy thread about whether fighter exploits are magic or not offer good examples of how 4e breaks down in terms of "in world" logic.  "In world" logic doesn't have to mean that physics must be identical to our own, but that there must be some "physics" out there from which one can rationally extrapolate corner cases.

Are fighter exploits magic?  Um, "not in the traditional sense".  But, are they magic?  Um, er, maybe yes maybe no.

I think it is safe to say that, when the most common response to "What is this meant to represent?" is "Don't think about it that hard", that the game fails to have a strong "in world" logic.  

Every game requires some idea of "this is what we want the game to do", and one's enjoyment of a game is based on (1) whether or not you want a game that does that thing, and (2) how well it does that thing.  It is when one examines question (1) that it is clear that 4e was meant to model mechanics; if it was meant to simulate anything other than mechanics, it is a truly dismal failure on (2).

(For me, this makes it a truly dismal failure on (1), but YMMV.   )

RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> "in world" in the sense of "game rules = physics of the world", yes. Assuming that logic tells us that the physics must be identically to our own, except where it's explicitly not, like effects labeled as magic/supernatural.




I think the point was that 4E is only concerned with the game effects, not with any logic based in physics, not even "setting-physics". Ideally, the flavor, logic and mechanics overlap to some degree, but if they clash, mechanics win. Flavor, or "logic" does not result in additional limits or options for a power.

If a power lets you do X, you can do X, period. If it doesn't let you do X (you used up your daily, for example) then you can't, period.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 10, 2008)

Oh, look!  Another thread where people make up homebrew material for 4e, point out that their homebrew material is flawed, and analogize to a larger flaw in the game system!

For the record,

1. The game actually says, explicitly, that the DM can declare that a power doesn't work in a particular instance if the DM feels that the power doesn't make logical sense in the given context.

2. Per the rules, ammunition is tracked.  I wish it were otherwise, but I didn't get what I want.  Arguing that the game has flaws like a lack of ammunition tracking is silly, because the game doesn't lack ammunition tracking.  If many people ignore ammunition tracking, it takes a serious leap of logic to then complain that the system doesn't require it.  Because it does.  The most abstract ammunition tracking practice in the game is probably the artificer, who, for many powers, has an ammunition limit of "one," which he recrafts during every short rest.  So even that one has a justification given.  If you don't like that justification then criticize it, but don't just assert that ammunition comes from thin air.

3. Each class has a distinct flavor.  You may not like it, but its there, and its built right into the class powers.  The ranger, for example, has a lot of abilities that let it move and make multiple attacks at the same time.  The warlock has none.  The warlock has lots of abilities that let it teleport.  The ranger has none.  This can go on for a while.  While the overlap isn't 0% (both classes have attacks that boil down to "hit for more damage than usual and inflict status effect X"), that doesn't make their flavor the same anymore than the 3e fighter and paladin had the same flavor because they both made melee attacks in exactly the same manner.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Oh, look!  Another thread where people make up homebrew material for 4e, point out that their homebrew material is flawed, and analogize to a larger flaw in the game system!
> 
> For the record,
> 
> ...




If there is a class that has an ammo of "1", then you can recreate the warlock with a poison/gimmick-based rogue almost perfectly, substituting shadow step/hide/smoke bomb based "flavor" for the teleport powers' flavor.

As far as flavor goes, it is interchangeable. You can have a "warlock rogue", or a "ranger warlock" by taking the mechanics and reflavor them - easily. Any logical problems are taken care of already as seen by the martial "magic" powers.

You may wish it was different, but in its essence, 4E has the mechanical function trumping flavor anytime, anywhere.

Some people would actually call this added flexibilty, and not feel it was a bug.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You may wish it was different, but in its essence, 4E has the mechanical function trumping flavor anytime, anywhere.




Oh, look! Another thread where people ignore "flaws" in the game system by claiming that, effectively, the DM can overrule the "flawed" rules!

(I put "flaws" and "flawed" in quotes because I believe that these are not "flaws" in the sense that they cause problems with what the game designers wanted the game to do.  I believe instead that they exist _as a direct result of_ what the game designers wanted the game to do.  In my "1 & 2" post earlier, these things may cause problems with some folks, such as myself, re: "1", but they are not a problem with "2".  I.e., they are what the game is intended to do, but are not a failure of doing what the game intended to do.

This is a reverse of 3e, where what the game intended to do was [mostly] aces in my books, but where the execution of that intent was sometimes problematic.)


RC


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You may wish it was different, but in its essence, 4E has the mechanical function trumping flavor anytime, anywhere.
> 
> Some people would actually call this added flexibilty, and not feel it was a bug.




4E? Take a six-year old child and ask him to make up a story to justify anything, up to and including A not being A, and he can pull it off. You can paste your own contrasting flavor on top of anything, including other flavor.

4E bases class powers around an underlying theme. Rogues control enemy movement and perception and move around quickly. Warlocks pile on different badstats depending on what pact they take and can more easily stay unseen than even rogues, since their damage doesn't depend on it. 

Sure, you can easily describe any warlock power so that a rogue's pulling it off through martial means, but that doesn't mean you can actually use it as a rogue power. You can call it a "poison rogue" or even a "trap ranger" if you really want, but it still attacks with the same stat and uses the same tool. You can even call your "fey pact initiate" feat "rogue poison training" and your "pact blade" a "dagger of venom". But you can't just cast _eyebite_ without investing a feat or a progression choice in it, and you can't get a bonus to it from a dagger without the _pact blade_ enchantment on it.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> For the record,
> 
> 1. The game actually says, explicitly, that the DM can declare that a power doesn't work in a particular instance if the DM feels that the power doesn't make logical sense in the given context.




Doesnt this just revert  back to the "sneak attacks dont work on monsters without vital parts" type of dilemmas that the game designers were trying to avoid.

I think the designers specifically wanted a game where character powers were not nullified by encounter specifics.

I think most people who like the 4E paradigm would not like DMs that keep nullifying abilities because of encounter specifics (eg "The dragon is too big you cant move him"; "The critters are deaf or the battle is too loud and you cant taunt them" etc.

I think they wanted the mechanics to be pretty inviolate which I think really agrees with Fenes analysis.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 10, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> I think they wanted the mechanics to be pretty inviolate which I think really agrees with Fenes analysis.



I think they wanted DM judgment to be involved.  So, for example, a DM might permit you to use Crushing Blow with your maul against a locked door (its description is nothing more than a really hard hit), but not permit you to use Gryphon's Wrath against the same door in order to penalize its AC (it describes your attack as forcing your opponent's guard off center, doors do not have a guard, etc).

I think the designers realized quite well that by making many different martial and melee attacks available, they were multiplying possible combinations of setting, terrain, foes, and tactics.  And rather than write out all the possible situations, they just gave that power to the DM (explicitly, actually) and urged him to "say yes" as much as possible.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Doesnt this just revert  back to the "sneak attacks dont work on monsters without vital parts" type of dilemmas that the game designers were trying to avoid.
> 
> I think the designers specifically wanted a game where character powers were not nullified by encounter specifics.
> 
> ...





Exactly.

If you agree that this is what the game designers intended, then (whether it is to your taste or not), I believe that 4e wildly succeeds in that goal.  If you disagree, and believe that the 4e mechanics were intended to directly simulate _anything_ outside of the mechanics themselves, then I would argue that 4e fails dismally.

IMHO, 4e says, "Here are some mechanics, with a bit of flavour tacked on.  Mangle the flavour as you like, but think twice about mangling the mechanics."

Earlier rulesets said, in effect, "Here is the flavour we are trying to achieve.  Here are some mechanics that we feel help to achieve that flavour.  If you want to change flavour, you should probably change the mechanics to match.  If you think a mechanic is inhibiting flavour, ditch it or change it."  This is the reason, btw, that the 1e DMG drips flavour, but is hard to grip on the basis of mechanics, and why it is such an excellent resource to dip into from time to time.  Random prostitute charts, laughable as they may be, are an attempt to inject flavour.  The Gygaxian Fantasy World duology (Troll Lord Games) are all about flavour.  

While I would certainly agree that it is harder to construct a playable ruleset from the "flavour -> mechanics" paradigm, I would also argue that such games are emminently more _*fun*_ to play.  IMHO.  YMMV.

I think that this may also be why I enjoyed so many 3pp materials more than WotC materials, even when the same designers were involved (especially in WotC's late 3.5 period).  The design goals were different.  WotC is very good at setting, and achieving, design goals IMHO.  They are just not the design goals that I prefer.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 10, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you disagree, and believe that the 4e mechanics were intended to directly simulate _anything_ outside of the mechanics themselves, then I would argue that 4e fails dismally.




I would argue that it succeeds just fine.

Shall we argue about this?   Perhaps in another thread?


----------



## Spatula (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Of course you can reflavor 3E classes too - but those, especially prestige classes, are usually build with a theme in mind



As are the 4e classes.



Fenes said:


> Is that a trick question?
> 
> Death Cloud
> You throw a flask of contact poison. When it shatters it creates a poisonous cloud, causing the victims to become poisoned and suffer seizures, rendering them immobile. Since most of the substance is usually left where it fell, it can be stirred up with a thrown stone.
> ...



Doesn't work as a martial power, which (a) don't produce energy damage, and (b) don't produce effects that are sustained via the attacker's actions.  Also, a poison cloud that attacks AC instead of something like Fort is rather nonsensical.

It also doesn't fit the theme of the ranger or rogue powers.  It could make the basis for a decent Artificer power, but they're arcane and not martial.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Spatula said:


> As are the 4e classes.
> 
> Doesn't work as a martial power, which (a) don't produce energy damage, and (b) don't produce effects that are sustained via the attacker's actions.  Also, a poison cloud that attacks AC instead of something like Fort is rather nonsensical.
> 
> It also doesn't fit the theme of the ranger or rogue powers.




Mechanically, that's irrelevant. Reflavoring the entire warlock power line doesn't change anything for 4E, it still functions the same.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 10, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Doesnt this just revert  back to the "sneak attacks dont work on monsters without vital parts" type of dilemmas that the game designers were trying to avoid.



Rather, sneak attack has been redefined to avoid that problem.



apoptosis said:


> I think most people who like the 4E paradigm would not like DMs that keep nullifying abilities because of encounter specifics (eg "The dragon is too big you cant move him";



There are forced movement powers that are restricted by the size of your target (like Tide of Iron).


----------



## Spatula (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Mechanically, that's irrelevant. Reflavoring the entire warlock power line doesn't change anything for 4E, it still functions the same.



And you can reflavor anything in 3e (or 2e, or 1e, or OD&D).  Mechanically it still functions the same.  Mechanics are funny like that.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Rather, sneak attack has been redefined to avoid that problem.
> 
> There are forced movement powers that are restricted by the size of your target (like Tide of Iron).




That's in the power mechanic though - not deducted from flavor like "the Dragon has claws digging into the ground, you can't move him".


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Spatula said:


> And you can reflavor anything in 3e (or 2e, or 1e, or OD&D).  Mechanically it still functions the same.  Mechanics are funny like that.




With more troubles, since the system had more subsystems, which were connected to flavor.

4E is at its core flavor-free function-focused.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that this may also be why I enjoyed so many 3pp materials more than WotC materials, even when the same designers were involved (especially in WotC's late 3.5 period).




Same here. Although, WOTC had some mechanics in their non-DND d20 products that I wish they would have introduced for DND, but didn't.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That's in the power mechanic though - not deducted from flavor like "the Dragon has claws digging into the ground, you can't move him".




If the dragon were intended to have claws digging into the ground so I can't move him, he would have been created with the Claws Digging Into the Ground power, perhaps as a passive ability which reduces the distance of all pushes, pulls, and slides, or as an immediate interrupt to an effect which would otherwise cause him to be pushed, pulled, or slid.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That's in the power mechanic though - not deducted from flavor like "the Dragon has claws digging into the ground, you can't move him".



What are you even talking about, at this point?  I must have missed the "claws digging into the ground" rules in previous editions.



Fenes said:


> 4E is at its core flavor-free function-focused.



...except that it's not.  Your previous example of a warlock power as a martial power doesn't work.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 10, 2008)

> Disclaimer - I'll state this right out at the front.  I think game first is superior design.  I'm going to try to be as even handed as I can here, but, I do feel that game first is the better way to go.
> 
> Disclaimer the Second - In the hopes that we're all on the same page here for this discussion, I'm going to define my terms AS I SEE THEM.  I'm not trying to get all Forgist here, and, probably would only embarrass myself if I tried.  So, for the purpose of my little essay below, apply the following definitions:
> 
> ...




No, you just told them that they can't be OPENLY evil and still go adventuring with the paladin.



> Never mind all the restrictions that came with the paladin.  The whole "paladin's code" is informed by a very narrow view of what constitutes a holy warrior.  Why should a paladin automatically mean Teutonic knight?  I cannot have a paladin from any other culture than faux-European?




Nope.  You can play a holy knight though.  The very definition of paladin refers to a European culture.



> 2.  The Ranger.
> Again, the flavour here is great.  The edge-walking warrior who patrols the borders between civilization and the great unknown.  Very archetypal, very inspirational.  But, again, when the mechanics hit the table, you get huge problems.
> 
> Take the ranger's favoured enemy ability.  Back in 1e and 2e, the ability was very limited - basically only giants and giant-kin.  Great, did loads of damage against them.  But, if you're playing in a game that doesn't feature giants, it's just taking up space on your character sheet.  3e went a little ways to helping, by broadening the ability and allowing players to choose, but, again, the player is pretty much at the mercy of the DM to provide those opponents.




2e and 3e screwed this up royally.  In 1e, the ranger had a whole host of opponents his "favored enemy" worked upon.  What campaign doesn't include at least a few giant class creatures?  Kobolds, orcs, goblins, giants, xvarts, trolls, bugbears, hobgoblins, flinds, gnolls, ogres, quagrillions, ettin, gibberlings, grimlock, just to name a few?  The ranger's bonus used to caome into play quite often, but 2e screwed it up.



> 3.  Prestige Classes
> 
> A 3e issue, because there were no PrC's in earlier editions.  Many PrC's relied on role play, or in game elements as balancing.  "To become the Yellow Blade Master, you must study with a master for six months".  But, what does the rest of the group do for that six months?  What if the campaign is on a bit of a time limit?  Most of the time, these restrictions meant that either the PrC languished in obscurity, or they were outright ignored.




Yep, that happened in the old days too.  And it was solved by simply having the player play another character for that time frame, perhaps one of his henchmen.  What happens when a character has a sick relative and they want to sit by him for a few weeks?  Or if he wants to make a magic item?  I don't see this as a problem at all.  The dm can either hand wave it  - "6 months go by...."  or the player can run another character for a few sessions.



> The other problem was in PrC design that narrowed the focus based on the flavour.  Knight of the Chalice (at least the 3e version) is a poster boy here.  A PrC that gives you massive bonuses against demons, because that's their purpose - kill demons.  But, what if the DM doesn't use a lot of demons, just some?  Or he uses demons sometimes, devils another time and other evil outsiders a third?  This is so campaign specific that the only way it works is if the DM specifically tailors his game to cater to the PrC.  It's essentially the same problem you see with the Ranger's Favoured Enemy.




I agree, demons narrows the focus of the class, the simple answer is, if there's not going to be a few demons to fight, don't play a knight of the chalice.


> 4.  Rogues
> 
> Ohh, backstab, sneak attack, how I love thee.  I love rolling all that damage.  Pulling it off was a thing of beauty.  From a flavour point of view, limiting backstab or sneak attack, makes sense.  After all, how do you kick a jelly in the vulnerables?  Stabbing a golem in the kidney doesn't do a whole lot.  Makes perfect sense right?
> 
> ...




It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief.  But not any more, since he's basically a ninja.  The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat.  Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 10, 2008)

*Spatula's Splendid Suppository*
Conjuration (Healing)
*Level:* Wiz/Sorc 6
*Components:* V, S, M
*Casting Time:* 1 standard action
*Range:* Touch
*Target:* Creature touched
*Duration:* Instantaneous
*Saving Throw:* Will negates (harmless)
*Spell Resistance:* Yes (harmless)
Spatula's splendid suppository enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level.

Spatula's splendid suppository does not remove negative levels, restore permanently drained levels, or restore permanently drained ability score points.

If used against an undead creature, Spatula's splendid suppository instead acts like harm.

_Material Component:_ A small piece of stinky cheese.

I have now shown that there is no difference in flavor between wizards and clerics - a reskinned cleric spell works just as well as a wizard spell!  Therefore all spellcasters are exactly the same and 3e spells are flavor-free function-focused game constructs that display no imagination and cause babies to die.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Spatula said:


> What are you even talking about, at this point?  I must have missed the "claws digging into the ground" rules in previous editions.




I meant that the DM couldn't rule that a mob has some claws that make it immune to tide of iron. Any limit is built into the mechanic, not the flavor, of a power in 4E.



Spatula said:


> ...except that it's not.  Your previous example of a warlock power as a martial power doesn't work.




Says you. Apart from "Martial powers can't do this" you brought no arguments. WHat exactly prevents a power from being reflavored in 4E? It's not game balance, which is handled by mechanics, not flavor. It's not flavor, since that can be redone.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 10, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "In world" logic doesn't have to mean that physics must be identical to our own, but that there must be some "physics" out there from which one can rationally extrapolate corner cases.
> 
> Are fighter exploits magic?  Um, "not in the traditional sense".  But, are they magic?  Um, er, maybe yes maybe no.
> 
> I think it is safe to say that, when the most common response to "What is this meant to represent?" is "Don't think about it that hard", that the game fails to have a strong "in world" logic.




Is Blade Runner an action film? A sci-fi film? Film Noir? Does the fact that you can make an argument for each category mean that our own in world logic is destroyed? 

The real issue in my opinion here isn't that it's breaking any "in world logic" but instead that it can't be easily categorized into a particular knowledge chunk, and this annoys some people. 

The problem with categorizing, however, is that it leads to limitations on what you can do. Loosening the categories allows for more options and variations.

That said, martial powers are well, martial, and they function in the way martial powers function. Why does no one ask how arcane powers or divine powers work? 

Saying "don't think so hard" is short for saying theres no scientific breakdown of arcane powers, how a dragon flies, or why despite other races being stronger/faster/smarter, then humans- humans are always "the best." It's just accepted as a fact of the world, so accept martial power in the same way. 



> Every game requires some idea of "this is what we want the game to do", and one's enjoyment of a game is based on (1) whether or not you want a game that does that thing, and (2) how well it does that thing.  It is when one examines question (1) that it is clear that 4e was meant to model mechanics; if it was meant to simulate anything other than mechanics, it is a truly dismal failure on (2).




In your opinion I assume, as in my opinion it does a much better job then previous editions.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 10, 2008)

On the note of "Where does the ammo for the grenades come from?" question, it's funny, but when I asked that _exact same question_ in the Artificer thread, I was told to stop thinking about it 

Actually, that isn't funny at all.

As always, it amuses me that the big defense for 4e is "Well just change it from how Wizards made it."  When the defense is to just _not play it_...


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> "Well just change it from how Wizards made it."



Dude, this is how people have been playing D&D since 1974 (except back then "Wizards" was called "TSR").


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 10, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief.  But not any more, since he's basically a ninja.  The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat.  Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway.



It's not a problem at all. Just realize that all the Martial Classes are really two sub-classes each of the generic Fighting-Man, each focusing on a particular fighting style.  The Rogue "class" represents two fighting styles, and so does Ranger, Fighter and Warlord.  There is no thief class because a "thief" has no role in combat. The "thief" role (just like all the other traditional non-combat roles - Scout, Healer, etc.) has been booted out of the class entirely into a Skill or two which anyone can take Skill Training in.




Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, 4e says, "Here are some mechanics, with a bit of flavour tacked on.  Mangle the flavour as you like, but think twice about mangling the mechanics."
> 
> Earlier rulesets said, in effect, "Here is the flavour we are trying to achieve.  Here are some mechanics that we feel help to achieve that flavour.  If you want to change flavour, you should probably change the mechanics to match.  If you think a mechanic is inhibiting flavour, ditch it or change it."




I agree with that, but I don't think that makes 4E unplayable as you seem to. At most 4E just needs a one more coat of polish from the flavor-first camp to make it perfect. The martial class powers are _mostly _thematically correct for someone who uses non-magical bad-assery to overcome his opponents. To correct for the last few bits either (1) make it explicit that they're Shadow or Primal sourced, or (2) re-work the mechanics or flavor just a little to get it "right."

4E is a very well designed game. IME it's much, much easier to corral 4E into the flavor you want than to try to fix everything that's wrong with the rules of previous editions.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Dude, this is how people have been playing D&D since 1974 (except back then "Wizards" was called "TSR").




Indeed. But ProfessorCirno's right that it's a lame defense to pull out every time someone complains about the way things are designed in a game. I may have better things to do with my time than redesign a game that isn't designed the way I like it or with the same priorities and flavor. 

Little tweaks here and there are one thing and everybody does it to a certain degree. But there comes a time to cut losses and jump to another system (or stay with the previous edition). People have been doing that since the first competitor to D&D came out.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2008)

billd91 said:


> I may have better things to do with my time than redesign a game that isn't designed the way I like it or with the same priorities and flavor.



Sure. But I kinda take it for granted that individual players/groups will apply their own flavor to the game-as-published (whatever game that is). I can't really imagine _not_ wanting to do that. My experience over the years is that most people do this. 

To me, not wanting to add your own particular flavor is like not wanting to create your own character (and using nothing but pregens). 



> Little tweaks here and there are one thing and everybody does it to a certain degree.



And some make _big_ tweaks... 



> People have been doing that since the first competitor to D&D came out.



In small numbers, yes.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief.  But not any more, since he's basically a ninja.  The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat.  Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway.



Exactly right.  I find nearly every example in the OP to be riddled with claims of truth that don't nearly match to the reality I experience.  But I think that comes down to game play.

The paladin thing was argued about all the time.  Sure.  But relative morality is great grist for the argument wheel anyway.  So 20 pages thread wars could go on and on over an issue that was 99% of the time solved in less than 5 seconds by DM stating a clear position for the game at hand.

But rogues....  Sheesh.  An armed commoner????!!!???  How many armed commoners can move silently and hide in shadows?  Detect and disable traps?  Scale walls and evade explosions?  The OP seems to see the rogue as either god of war thrashing total devastation or else they are relegated to "sitting on their thumbs".  I've played with people who want to be able to apply martial destruction to anything they meet.  These people play FIGHTERS.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

BryonD said:


> But rogues....  Sheesh.  An armed commoner????!!!???  How many armed commoners can move silently and hide in shadows?  Detect and disable traps?  Scale walls and evade explosions?  The OP seems to see the rogue as either god of war thrashing total devastation or else they are relegated to "sitting on their thumbs".  I've played with people who want to be able to apply martial destruction to anything they meet.  These people play FIGHTERS.




The problem with the rogue is that as designed he's the skill guy. The problem with skills is that they're binary - either you sneak past the patrol or you don't, either you climb the wall or you can't, either you disarm the swinging blade or IT CUTS JOO, et cetera. This means that, after passing a "skill obstacle", the rogue is cut off from the party members who can't pass it. Several obstacles in a row, as might easily be encountered in any infiltration mission, are practically hopeless for anyone except the rogue. So while the rogue is infiltrating the castle, all your other players are sitting around and doing nothing except, perhaps, being an audience. Or you could do a thing where the rest of the party causes a distraction, say by storming the front gate, and then you're just ignoring the rogue and the rest of the party in turn. 

For the things the rogue can do with the rest of the party, he may as well be an armed commoner on a greased trolley. For the things the rogue can't do with the rest of the party, why should they care?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2008)

....loosing a long post sucks...

Basically: you're misdiagnosing the problem, and 4e has as many "flavor-first" designs as any other edition.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 11, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Doesn't work as a martial power, which don't produce effects that are sustained via the attacker's actions.




Feinting Flurry, Rogue Attack 19, is a martial power that has an Effect entry with a Sustain Minor.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2008)

On the rogue - I SPECIFICALLY noted IN COMBAT.  How often are you using your rogue skills in combat?  And, how useful are you really being in combat if you are using skills and not attacking?  In combat, when the rogue loses his sneak attack, he's about as useful as a commoner.  Maybe a warrior.  That's about it.

Note, I'm not arguing that mechanics don't need flavour.  I'm arguing that flavour based mechanics primarily focus on flavour and NOT what's happening at the table.

JRRNeikalot (I think) referred to characters not acting "openly evil" around the paladin.  What about Detect Evil?  Your paladins simply never used it on the PC's?  

An ability which removes the PC from the group for an extended period of time is a BAD ability from the view of the group first.  It has nothing to do with being a "special snowflake".  It has to do with the idea that making a player a spectator for extended periods of time is bad.

Sure, you might be able to sit down with your DM and play special sessions.  But, many people don't have that kind of free time.  Many people just want to play D&D, not turn it into this massive time sink.  And the rules should not force groups to do so.  If they want to do it, fine, but, having mechanics in place which actually require this is bad.

Mechanically, and flavour wise, there's nothing wrong with the paladin as written in any edition.  It's interesting, it's archetypal and pretty balanced against the other classes.  Not too weak, not too powerful.  Pretty good.  But, the flavour based mechanics fly in the face of group first design.  The idea that game mechanics should focus on how the game is played, not on trying to force a certain type of story on the group.

You need more examples?  Since, apparently the ones I've given so far aren't good enough.  How about the 1e rules for Druids and Monks having to fight for every level beyond a certain point?  These are entirely flavour based mechanics, and damned good flavour at that.  The idea of the Grand Druid is fantastic.

Until it comes time at the table when the entire group has to stop and let John do his Druid challenge to level up.  And then get shafted because John failed his challenge and loses a level.  Not a huge deal in 1e since levels weren't quite so important, but, still a pretty large time sink.

Sure, campaign decisions, as Irda Ranger points out, will change the effects of different classes and mechanics.  But, the game never assumes a naval based campaign.  So, the classes don't really work in that style of game.  But, the game does assume a certain amount of going to dungeons, or cities, or forests, or mountains or any number of other terrains where a horse isn't so useful.  I would think that mechanics, certainly core mechanics, should be created with an eye for what is most likely going to happen in most campaigns.

Again, how many campaigns feature horseback riding?  As a major element?  Looking at modules, I'm thinking it's pretty few and far between.  I'm sure YOUR campaign featured horse lords battling across the plains, but, I'm thinking that's the outlier not the main.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2008)

Just as an additional point.

Despite the efforts of some, this is not meant as an edition war thread.  This has nothing to do with edition really.  The reason I haven't pointed at 4e is simply that I'm not terribly familiar with 4e mechanics, so, I cannot really make any comment either way.

This is about changing the paradigm for design.  Flavour first design, regardless of edition, fails at the table.  It causes far more problems than it solves.  Sure, it's interesting, but, when the dice hit the wood, if it causes the game to grind to a halt, its bad.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2008)

All right, let's try this in a bit more depth. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Flavour First: The designer comes up with an idea first and then tries to create mechanics to best fit that idea.
> 
> Game First: The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that. Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.




That's all well and good, but the division works at an even more basic level than that: what are you willing to give up at the table? Are you "flavor-first," willing to give up wonky mechanics in pursuit of the plot or character development or whatever? Would you be okay with something super-powerful if it felt right? Or are you "game-first," willing to give up your idea of a character or a world or a plotline if the mechanics work against you? Would you be okay if your character couldn't exist because they're too super-powerful by the numbers?

It's not a simple design philosophy, really. It's fundamentally the same question of style that has haunted D&D and other PNPRPG's forever. It's Crunch vs. Fluff. Every game finds a different middle ground. 4e has found its middle ground as well, and certainly isn't looked at from purely one direction.



> For most of the history of D&D, we've had flavour first mechanics. Going all the way back to the beginning, (I'd argue especially back at the beginning) elements were first dreamed up as fitting with the genre or the game and then bolted on using mechanics that hopefully worked at the table. Now, I would like to state that this can work. It most certainly can. Frequently we get some very good stuff out of this approach.




Actually, historically, D&D has always used a "mix." What is a wandering prostitute table if not "Game-first" thinking? The idea that there's a difference between an expensive doxy and a brazen strumpet that should be encoded into the rules is because it's fun to roll the dice and spontaneously adopt the persona at the table, not because if fullfills some archetype. 

In 4e, D&D still uses "Flavor-First" design. The process of generating an NPC begins by defining what role the character will have in the story (are you going to fight them? are you going to rescue them? are you going to shop for items with them?) as the basis for what stats you need. 



> 1. The paladin.
> From a flavour standpoint, there is probably no more archetypal element you could add to a fantasy game than a holy knight out to right wrongs and lay the beat down on evil. This tunes into some very old memes. Heck, if it worked for Arthurian tales, it can work for D&D right?
> 
> But, is there a class that has caused more problems at the table than the paladin? From day 1, the paladin has caused all sorts of issues at the table. Frustration and outright hostility quite often. The flavour says that the holy knight should only work with other good characters. Right off the bat, you're telling the entire table what they can and cannot play the second you put this down. I was just told in no uncertain terms that a player most absolutely cannot tell a DM what races should be in play in the DM's campaign, but, if I play a paladin, I've just told the entire table that they can only play good characters.
> ...




This is actually a DM/Player communication problem, not a problem of design, because the problem doesn't lie within the _rules_ of the Paladin class, but rather in the fact that the DM can revoke the players' power if the DM thinks the player isn't "playing it right" (even if the player does). The reason for the existence of the code/alignment requirement/ally requirement in early editions was to keep Paladins from being played because they were otherwise clearly superior. By 3e, it had become purely a flavor issue, and thus purely a DM/Player communication issue, just like trying to shoehorn a dragonborn into a strictly medieval Europe-style setting is. 



> 2. The Ranger.
> Again, the flavour here is great. The edge-walking warrior who patrols the borders between civilization and the great unknown. Very archetypal, very inspirational. But, again, when the mechanics hit the table, you get huge problems.
> 
> Take the ranger's favoured enemy ability. Back in 1e and 2e, the ability was very limited - basically only giants and giant-kin. Great, did loads of damage against them. But, if you're playing in a game that doesn't feature giants, it's just taking up space on your character sheet. 3e went a little ways to helping, by broadening the ability and allowing players to choose, but, again, the player is pretty much at the mercy of the DM to provide those opponents.
> ...




You've got a bit of something here. However, there's no reason to think that the reason Favored Enemy doesn't work is because it is flavor-based. It is an example of regular old bad design. Other games have taken the flavor idea of a hated enemy and have dealt with it admirably (drama/fate/karma/hero/action/extreme points come first to mind). D&D lost by tying it to a class, and thus consuming one of the rarest of resources as well as tying it to excess baggage.

You're missing the target there. The problem isn't that they wanted to come up with mechanics for a hated foe, the problem was the specific implementation of that mechanic. Other mechanics work just fine.



> 3. Prestige Classes
> 
> A 3e issue, because there were no PrC's in earlier editions. Many PrC's relied on role play, or in game elements as balancing. "To become the Yellow Blade Master, you must study with a master for six months". But, what does the rest of the group do for that six months? What if the campaign is on a bit of a time limit? Most of the time, these restrictions meant that either the PrC languished in obscurity, or they were outright ignored.
> 
> The other problem was in PrC design that narrowed the focus based on the flavour. Knight of the Chalice (at least the 3e version) is a poster boy here. A PrC that gives you massive bonuses against demons, because that's their purpose - kill demons. But, what if the DM doesn't use a lot of demons, just some? Or he uses demons sometimes, devils another time and other evil outsiders a third? This is so campaign specific that the only way it works is if the DM specifically tailors his game to cater to the PrC. It's essentially the same problem you see with the Ranger's Favoured Enemy.




The first part of this fits into "not really a problem" territory. Not every PrC needs to fit into every campaign. Some campaigns can't handle tieflings, some campaigns won't be able to handle 6 months of downtime. I guarantee 4e will have many things that you won't be able to use in it. I bet it already does. PrC's went with the same approach: there's a lot of them, we don't expect you to use them all, but we'll fill a couple of different niches with them.

The second part of this is just an exacerbation of the Favored Enemy problem mentioned above. It's an "all your eggs in one basket" problem. 25-75% of your characters' power shouldn't be limited like that. But there are successful ways to implement the idea that don't rely on those mechanics.



> 4. Rogues
> 
> Ohh, backstab, sneak attack, how I love thee. I love rolling all that damage. Pulling it off was a thing of beauty. From a flavour point of view, limiting backstab or sneak attack, makes sense. After all, how do you kick a jelly in the vulnerables? Stabbing a golem in the kidney doesn't do a whole lot. Makes perfect sense right?
> 
> ...




Again, this is just the Favored Enemy problem. Bad design, okay, but the flavor has also caused good design. 



> I could go on, but, I'll stop here. There are many more examples and I'm sure you can think of a few of your own. And, I'm also sure I'm going to be told that the above examples are not really problems with the game, but with the players. To me, these are GAME issues. Anytime the game forces this sort of thing on the players, this is a game issue.
> 
> We've had flavour first mechanics for the past thirty years. I think that's more than long enough of a kick at the cat. It's time to let game first rule the table. Find out what works at the table, what results in the most fun (yes, I'm going to use the "f" word here) and then design to that.




You're missing your mark. This isn't baby-with-the-bathwater territory, this is baby-instead-of-the-bathwater territory. I guess the baby's no longer in dirty water, but you've hardly addressed the real problems.

This bogeyman of "flavor-first design" that you've conjured rears its head in 4e, and has in all editions of the game. Our potential savior of "game-first design" has likewise popped up all over the place. 

The metric of success of a mechanic is how well it help you play the game.

The metric of success of a game (of D&D, anyway) is how well it helps you evoke the flavor of a good fantasy story.

A rule is usually poorly designed for D&D if it makes the game bad (by preventing you from telling your good fantasy story) or if it makes the play bad (by getting in the way somehow).

A paladin's ally restriction and a ranger's favored enemy only really make the play bad. Both can be solved without making the game bad. Mostly by getting new mechanics that still represent the archetypes and genre tropes that the players are going to enjoy.

Certainly for some, the changes 4e has made to make the play better have made the game worse, because it erodes the very reason some people play the game. They have more trouble telling the fantasy stories they like to tell. So while the game might be a breeze to play, why would you even play it in the first place?

It comes back to Fluff and Crunch. Some people play D&D for the former and feel it has been violated by a focus on the latter. Some don't feel it's really been violated. Some people play D&D for the latter and are pretty happy. 



> We'll see in a few years if things like second wind, or daily abilities, cause anywhere near the gaming anguish that paladins have.




For some, they already have, because while paladins could have been overlooked by a group that had a problem with them, everyone has second winds and daily abilities, and those can't be overlooked. 

...and yeah, my first run was better...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2008)

KM said:
			
		

> The metric of success of a mechanic is how well it help you play the game.




Agreed.  100%



> The metric of success of a game (of D&D, anyway) is how well it helps you evoke the flavor of a good fantasy story.




Completely and utterly disagree.  The measure of the success of a game is how much people at the table enjoy it.  No other metric is more important than that.  I don't care how well it evokes a fantasy story, if the game is not enjoyed by everyone at the table, it is a failure.

Again, this is not a fluff vs crunch debate.  You are right, you can have perfectly acceptable, even good mechanics that started as flavour.  But, typically, if you start from a flavour standpoint, then bolt on mechanics, you are ingnoring how it plays out at the table.

It's not a case of good mechanics vs bad mechanics - it's a case of mechanics inspired by an attempt to emulate some flavour concept, causing the game to be less enjoyable during play.

I am most certainly not saying that all elements in earlier editions were flavour based.  I'm saying a lot of them were, but, certainly not all.  

You bring up the Random Strumpet Table.  There's a good idea.  Mechanically fine - it causes no major malfunctions in the game, flavour wise perfectly acceptable for the idea of D&D, and causes no major problems at the table.  I got no beef with that.  I think it was a flavour first mechanic - but, that's a quibble, and it doesn't really matter.  It causes no malfunctions at the table.  It passes.

But, if you look at the mechanics that DO cause malfunctions at the table, I think you will find that they are primarily driven from a flavour first concept.  That the creators of the mechanics are trying to bring out some bit of flavour into the game without stopping and considering how that will actually function at the table.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 11, 2008)

Just a couple of notes:

In the very early days of D&D, when Gary was playing the system, he was playing it a _lot_. Daily. If you look at the AD&D DMG, there's a section on keeping track of time. In it, Gary recommends keeping a 1:1 correspondence of 1 day of gaming missed to 1 day of "game" time.

There's also a discussion there of a group of five players and what they're doing. They've split up... a lot - gone on quests, etc.

For the modern campaign, which is often played once per fortnight, none of that discussion applies very well at all! You've got a bunch of assumptions about game play which may be boiled down to:

* very frequent play
* players having more than one character (henchmen, etc.)
* solo play (one DM and one player, who may have many characters)
* lot of dungeoneering and few really narrative plots.

In such an environment, things like the "paladin's quest for a mount" are far less significant than in the 1/fortnight play we have today.

I feel any discussion on "mechanics or flavour" needs to keep that in mind: the game environment we play D&D in today is not the same as the environment in which it was originally designed.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2008)

Merricb - I'd agree with that one.  

The question in my mind is whether or not people played 1e in the same style that EGG did.  My bunch generally did actually.  But, then again, we were in elementary and high school at the time.  We HAD lots of time to do this.

Maybe you're right though, it's just a case of the game evolving with an aging playerbase.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's not a simple design philosophy, really. It's fundamentally the same question of style that has haunted D&D and other PNPRPG's forever. It's Crunch vs. Fluff. Every game finds a different middle ground. 4e has found its middle ground as well, and certainly isn't looked at from purely one direction.




What's this "middle ground" stuff, kemosabe? There IS no middle ground. The question is being asked wrong.

Here's the right question: which would you rather do?

- given a stable numerical relationship, tell a story

- given a story, intuit a stable numerical relationship

You would rather do A, because you are a human, and humans are great at A and awful at B. Unless you're this guy and even then he only looks like he can do B because he's got a writing staff behind him.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 11, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Feinting Flurry, Rogue Attack 19, is a martial power that has an Effect entry with a Sustain Minor.



Hmph, so it does.  Seems a bit out of place.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 11, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Kamikaze Midget said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I think KM has narrowed things down a step too far, I don't think you are giving enough credence to his point separating D&D from other games. The enjoyment of a D&D game I think should be different than in a game of Puerto Rico [the game that is most probably going to be voted the best board game by board game enthusiasts] for example. While there is a basic element of role play in Puerto Rico, it is the elegant mechanics behind the game that provides such an incredibly wide sand box of possibilities. For D&D, I think the game has evolved beyond its war-gaming roots into a rich experience of fantasy story for a large number of players. Whilst not all players focus on this, a large percentage do consider a D&D games success by how well it evokes a fantasy story or epic that they are a significant part of. I think for most players, they play D&D more for the flavour of the game than for the underlying mechanics.


Hussar said:


> But, if you look at the mechanics that DO cause malfunctions at the table, I think you will find that they are primarily driven from a flavour first concept.  That the creators of the mechanics are trying to bring out some bit of flavour into the game without stopping and considering how that will actually function at the table.



Can you give an example or two here. I can give a couple of examples of the reverse, solid mechanics but poor flavour.

4E My character is whacked to within an inch of his life - the rest of the party thought him dead until he somehow got up after a fight. Using 4E mechanics, I'm back to full strength the next day if not a fraction earlier with no magical healing whatsoever. Great for getting me as a player back into the action without holding the rest of the party up from the adventure. A solid mechanic. In terms of flavour, absolutely, diabolically artificial.

3.x Hit points. Great mechanic at keeping the game moving. Definitely mechanic first rather than the other way around. A sacred cow that perhaps deserves to be. However, there are several anomalies that result: 15th level human fighter falls from 200 feet and survives. 1st level fighter falls from the same height is a puddle of goo. As well, a poor constitution wizard and a very healthy barbarian (both of the same level) are dropped to zero hit points. The unhealthy wizard recovers more quickly to full health than the hale barbarian. A competent cleric can heal a low level fighter back to full health without issue. If the fighter was higher level though with the same level of physical injury to be healed, it would suck up the same cleric's resources for the entire day.

I suppose I re-iterate what I said earlier. It is the sybiosis between flavour and mechanic that makes a game-feature good, not one or the other first. Mechanics first is fine for board games, but I think D&D is a different kettle of fish for the majority of players; D&D relies more so on flavour than the conventional (and albeit brilliant) boardgame.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 11, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Hmph, so it does.  Seems a bit out of place.




Alternatively, your model of which mechanics have a place within each power source needs adjustment 

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2008)

Andor said:


> Mechanics (except in puzzle games) are always intended to present a resolution mechanic abstracted from some fictional reality.



Not necessarily. They may be intended to distribute some sort of power among the players in the real world, which power is then used to specify the details of the fictional reality.

Such mechanics can be called "metagame mechanics". D&D has had them at least since the 1st ed DMG (3 examples: arranging stats for one's PC rather than just rolling in order; the explanation of hit points; the explanation of saving throws).



Raven Crowking said:


> The lengthy thread about whether fighter exploits are magic or not offer good examples of how 4e breaks down in terms of "in world" logic.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think it is safe to say that, when the most common response to "What is this meant to represent?" is "Don't think about it that hard", that the game fails to have a strong "in world" logic.



What does a saving throw represent in 1st ed AD&D? The answer given in the 1st ed DMG is, in effect, "don't think about it that hard" - or, more precisely, treat the saving throw as fortune in the middle, which is to say, depending on the nature of the threat, the class of the PC, and the success or failure of the save, narrate what happened as seems to make sense in the gameworld ("the fighter toughed it out", "the magic-user's attempt to subtley manipulate the magic failed", etc).

I don't think it remotely follows from this aspect of the 1st ed saving throw rules that the game had no in-world logic. It's just that that logic is supplied not by the mechanics, but by the narration the players engage in to explain the results delivered by the mechanics.

(The fact that, in this respect, 1st ed AD&D saving throws were very different from those in 3E, which are more-or-less fortune at the end simulationist mechanics, seems to be forgotten by many people who criticise 4e.)



Raven Crowking said:


> Every game requires some idea of "this is what we want the game to do", and one's enjoyment of a game is based on (1) whether or not you want a game that does that thing, and (2) how well it does that thing.  It is when one examines question (1) that it is clear that 4e was meant to model mechanics; if it was meant to simulate anything other than mechanics, it is a truly dismal failure on (2).



Many of the contentious 4e mechanics - healing surges, daily and encounter powers, etc - are obviously not meant to simulate anything at all. It doesn't follow that, in playing the game, a rich fantasy world is not created, explored and (if you like) simulated. It's just that this is done more by the players (exercising the power allocated to them by the mechanics), and less by the mechanics, than is the case in a game like Rolemaster.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is actually a DM/Player communication problem, not a problem of design, because the problem doesn't lie within the _rules_ of the Paladin class, but rather in the fact that the DM can revoke the players' power if the DM thinks the player isn't "playing it right" (even if the player does).



This raises a question - what counts as game design? I am inclining more and more to the view that thinking of the design of the game as including only the character build, action resolution and reward mechanics is to think too narrowly.

Both 3E and 4e clearly treat encounter design as an integral aspect of the game - while in the strict sense a precursor to play rather than the play itself, it nevertheless needs to be strongly supported if the play of the game is not to suffer. To compare with some other RPGs: both RM and HARP suffer (IMO) from offering no support at all for encounter design, thus requiring the GM to wing it.

In a party-based game like D&D, party composition is also crucial to the playability of the game. The 4e rulebooks (both PHB and DMG) expressly tackle this issue to a degree that far surpasses any earlier edition of the game. That is an improvement in game design. I'm not sure it is best classified as mechanics first or flavour first, but if I had to put it in one or the other of those baskets, I'd put it in mechanics first (the goal is playability, and the flavour of the party of PCs can be build around that).


----------



## Delta (Sep 11, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> 3.x Hit points. Great mechanic at keeping the game moving. Definitely mechanic first rather than the other way around. A sacred cow that perhaps deserves to be. However, there are several anomalies that result: 15th level human fighter falls from 200 feet and survives. 1st level fighter falls from the same height is a puddle of goo. As well, a poor constitution wizard and a very healthy barbarian (both of the same level) are dropped to zero hit points. The unhealthy wizard recovers more quickly to full health than the hale barbarian. A competent cleric can heal a low level fighter back to full health without issue. If the fighter was higher level though with the same level of physical injury to be healed, it would suck up the same cleric's resources for the entire day.




I agree with the healing criticism. However, I think the falling criticism is not really about character hit points -- it's about assessment of falling damage, and that's where a fix should be applied. (Like geometric falling damage as seen in 1E UA, which is what I do.) Trying to fix the falling issue in the hit points is what gave us the "massive damage" abomination.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, if you look at the mechanics that DO cause malfunctions at the table, I think you will find that they are primarily driven from a flavour first concept.  That the creators of the mechanics are trying to bring out some bit of flavour into the game without stopping and considering how that will actually function at the table.




I think it's not flavour first that's the problem, it's more "quick, find _some_ mechanic that represents the flavor, and go on to the next topic". In other words, not thinking through all the implications of the mechanics. 
What might also be important - not considering the gameplay effect relevant enough. So a mix of "laziness", negligence, and plainly different priorities can lead to such mechanics. 
I think that might be what you want to say anyway, but I think "game first" or "flavour first" are not the correct descriptions of the design.

Of course the designers always think about what flavor they want to achieve. And some stop the moment they have found some mechanic that can give the flavor. And some look further to see how it affects the gameplay and consider the alternatives that lead to the best gameplay effect. It is either a matter of priorities or a matter of "thinking it through".


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course the designers always think about what flavor they want to achieve. And some stop the moment they have found some mechanic that can give the flavor. And some look further to see how it affects the gameplay and consider the alternatives that lead to the best gameplay effect. It is either a matter of priorities or a matter of "thinking it through".



I don't disagree, but "best gameplay effect" and "some mechanic that can give the flavour" aren't necessarily independent considerations, give that (for some players) the mechanical method whereby the gameplay effect is achieved may be an important characteristic _of_ the gameplay effect. For example, a player with highly simulationist/immersive priorities may find that a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic has a bad effect on her/his play experience, no matter how flavoursome and conducive to smooth gameplay it is (some of the martial exploits in 4e appear to fit this description, leading some players to prefer the manifestly more clunky 3E mechanics for combat manoeuvres).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I don't disagree, but "best gameplay effect" and "some mechanic that can give the flavour" aren't necessarily independent considerations, give that (for some players) the mechanical method whereby the gameplay effect is achieved may be an important characteristic _of_ the gameplay effect. For example, a player with highly simulationist/immersive priorities may find that a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic has a bad effect on her/his play experience, no matter how flavoursome and conducive to smooth gameplay it is (some of the martial exploits in 4e appear to fit this description, leading some players to prefer the manifestly more clunky 3E mechanics for combat manoeuvres).



At some point, a compromise must be achieved, yes. Sometimes fluff and crunch get in the way of each other.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Is Blade Runner an action film? A sci-fi film? Film Noir? Does the fact that you can make an argument for each category mean that our own in world logic is destroyed?
> 
> The real issue in my opinion here isn't that it's breaking any "in world logic" but instead that it can't be easily categorized into a particular knowledge chunk, and this annoys some people.





The first paragraph doesn't relate to my point, so I can see that I am not communicating it effectively.  "In world" logic doesn't mandate that a work be of a particular genre.  Cross-genre work also can -- and should -- have "in world" logic.

"In world" logic means that there is an underlying set of assumptions about why the world works as it does, and that specific cases are then extrapolated from those underlying assumptions.  

This is, in reality, often a messy process.  For example, within the Star Wars universe, there was an underlying assumption that there was a mysterious Force that allowed those who learned its ways to do things that would seem either "psychic" or "magical" (depending upon your outlook).  Much of what happens in the classic trilogy is founded upon this bit of "in world" logic.  

However, the classic trilogy was dismissed by some as "fantasy" or "not real science fiction" as a result, so in Episode 1, Lucas introduced the midichlorians.  These don't violate the "in world" logic of the classic trilogy, but they certainly shift it.  For example, we learn in Star Wars that the Force gives you power over weak minds.  The presence/absence of midichlorians begs the question, though:  Are weak minds weak because they lack a high midichlorian count?  IOW, is weak-mindedness something that can be detected through technology in the Star Wars universe?

Similarly, Blade Runner (either the novel or the film) has a set (different for each) of "in world" assumptions that the work hangs on.  In both cases, the "in world" assumptions disallow, say, Godzilla showing up just because it would be neat, or Deckard being able to perform supernatural combat stunts that don't happen to be supernatural.

A good hint that something fails on the "in world" logic front is that, when you begin to ask what something is supposed to represent, you are repeatedly told to just not think about it.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:


> I agree with that, but I don't think that makes 4E unplayable as you seem to.





I don't think it makes 4e unplayable.  I think it makes 4e unsuitable for what _*I*_ want from an rpg.  I am well aware that my tastes are not universal.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2008)

pemerton said:


> What does a saving throw represent in 1st ed AD&D? The answer given in the 1st ed DMG is, in effect, "don't think about it that hard" - or, more precisely, treat the saving throw as fortune in the middle, which is to say, depending on the nature of the threat, the class of the PC, and the success or failure of the save, narrate what happened as seems to make sense in the gameworld ("the fighter toughed it out", "the magic-user's attempt to subtley manipulate the magic failed", etc).
> 
> I don't think it remotely follows from this aspect of the 1st ed saving throw rules that the game had no in-world logic. It's just that that logic is supplied not by the mechanics, but by the narration the players engage in to explain the results delivered by the mechanics.





That's true; there are several places in 1e (as in all "e"s) where, explicitly, mechanical implementation is given precedence over simulation.  It isn't that you can't describe it at the table; it is simply that (at some point) simulation breaks down in terms of what is mechanically desireable/possible.  Likewise, one doesn't want a Craft skill for basketweaving that forces you to simulate each step of the process.

However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical _in the traditional way_.....just don't think about it.

There is a difference between abstracting subsystems, and major abstraction of what the characters themselves represent.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Many of the contentious 4e mechanics - healing surges, daily and encounter powers, etc - are obviously not meant to simulate anything at all.





My point exactly.  They exist independent of a "flavour" framework, which may or may not be tacked on later.  If one describes 4e as being based on a mechanics-first approach, it is the mechanics by which its merits are determined.  A+ on the mechanics.

However, if one is not as concerned with the mechanics (perhaps because one doesn't need to be able to intuit higher mathematics to utilize a role-playing system), then the mechanics-first approach can damage one's enjoyment of the game.  As it does mine.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> 4E My character is whacked to within an inch of his life - the rest of the party thought him dead until he somehow got up after a fight. Using 4E mechanics, I'm back to full strength the next day if not a fraction earlier with no magical healing whatsoever. Great for getting me as a player back into the action without holding the rest of the party up from the adventure. A solid mechanic. In terms of flavour, absolutely, diabolically artificial.




First of all, you can be up and running in 5 minutes after you've been "beaten within an inch of your life", assuming you have either 4 healing surges or a slightly smaller number and a friendly leader archetype. Faced with your own initial story of what happened - "I was a pile of mangled limbs 5 minutes ago and now I can do cartwheels" - why do you conclude that the underlying mechanic must be flawed, rather than admit the possibility you need to tell a new story?

Consider this: hit points do not represent what you think they represent - they are not a spectrum between perfect health at full and a mangled pile of limbs and organs at -CON. That's what they may represent for NPCs after facing the business end of a bugbear ranger with serrated swords, but for PCs hit points are simple: they're your will to fight. This isn't Journey to the West, where Goku and Gojo pound on each other for 20 hours before one of them starts to get tired - fights take seconds, perhaps a minute or two. You don't die at 0 hit points, you pass out because you can't take the shock. Sometimes, yes, people can't recover from a shock and the body shuts down. But when you go from full hit points to single digits you only take the single bleeding wound that represents your getting bloodied - perhaps it's the only strike that even lands straight on. 

That's my story of hit points.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> *snip*
> That's my story of hit points.



Well, that's one interpretation. The other is you still have mangled limbs, but you keep going on, because you're soldiering on. 

Hit Points (as found in D&D since its first edition) will probably be always require some "careful" handling. 



> However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical in the traditional way.....just don't think about it.



Actually, I think it's just that we have grown too accustomed to hit points to think much about them. The physical state of your character is important for your immersion, since it decides about how he might react and looks.

If you have been just damaged brought to -3 hit points and bled for two rounds, and then have been fully healed by a _heal _spell - are your clothes still covered in blood? If you're down to 50 % hit points, are you limping or tired, or still running around as if nothing happened? 

Having to decide whether your character is tired or not, or is covered in blood or not, and having to decide whether your fighting techniques are super-powered or the mix of skill and luck (controlled by the player, not the character) can be both very important to your "immersion" in the character.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2008)

LOST ANOTHER ONE



I'll be back later. But in summary:

In order to enjoy a game of D&D, people need to evoke a fantasy story. Otherwise, I'm just going to go play checkers instead of spending $90 and blowing 4 hours and trying to coordinate 6 peoples' schedules. I can have fun with checkers just fine. I enjoy checkers. D&D is worth the effort because it lets me do something checkers can't let me do: evoke a fantasy story.

If D&D were all about game-first design, it would be checkers, and then I'd just frickin' play checkers.


----------



## Set (Sep 11, 2008)

My apologies if this has already been covered, as I haven't read the entire thread yet (working on it though).

I see this as a false dichotomy.

For me, form follows function.  For it to have a flavor other than unpalatable, it has to work as a game.  For it to work as a game, it has to be tasty, and all of the flavors need to meld together pleasingly into a complete and consistent dish.  I don't think the two can exist without each other, although there are games that certainly seem to have tried, and, no great surprise, they tend to fall down.  (Everway, for instance, a game of pure flavor with only the most cursory nod towards the concept of mechanics.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> LOST ANOTHER ONE





Try to hit at least CTRL-A -> CTRL-C to mark and copy all text before hitting submit. Even better (if you keep having the problem) - write in notepad before replying!


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, that's one interpretation. The other is you still have mangled limbs, but you keep going on, because you're soldiering on.
> 
> Hit Points (as found in D&D since its first edition) will probably be always require some "careful" handling.




In 4E, that other interpretation is wrong. Nothing about it fits the way people recover from those kind of injuries. You are not slowed if you have a mangled leg, you are not weakened if you have a mangled arm, and it is not easier for you to take a bleeding wound and/or pass out, as it would be to a character who was devastated by injury but only just got to the point where they were up and walking.

Furthermore, it would be wrong to amend the mechanics to reflect these sorts of injuries, as there are many powers which slow or weaken their targets but do less damage to compensate. Why even bother using those when doing enough damage takes care of that on its own? It would also be wrong to say "well, my character can run just fine even though his knee's bent the wrong way because he's that much of a trooper". You can go fine through that but when some hobgoblin wings you with a flail it slows you down? No.

In 3E it's more open for interpretation, yes, in that you can get wounded badly enough that you can't recover from it for several days or even a week. But in 4E you can recover from even the worst combat wounds with a good night's sleep. The two possible explanations are a) no combat wounds are ever severe enough to heal in more than a day or b) this is  _Fist of the North Star_ where no matter how many bones snap and muscles tear dudes are in one of two states: combat-ready or exploderated. And explanation B is inconsistent with the presence of badstats other than exploderation.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If you have been just damaged brought to -3 hit points and bled for two rounds, and then have been fully healed by a _heal _spell - are your clothes still covered in blood? If you're down to 50 % hit points, are you limping or tired, or still running around as if nothing happened?




In 4E, the answers are: your clothes were never covered in blood to begin with, unless it was the blood of your enemies. "Bloodied" does not mean you bathed in the stuff, it means you took a single wound that bled or otherwise exposed you to environmental damage effects like drifting mushroom spores or tiny but voracious sharks. If you're shocked into unconsciousness by a blow that shaves off the last of your hitpoints and a cleric drops Cure Serious Wounds on you (or, uh, Clarion Call of the Astral Sea, that being the other utility that reliably restores more than half health) then you're back to consciousness and your wound closes over. If you're down to 50% hit points you have been battered around a lot but only taken a single wound that actually mattered. Angelic Presence wears off when you're bloodied - enemies previously trembling in fear realize they can actually hurt you. Dragonbreath recharges right away when the dragon gets bloodied - it's content to take things in moderation but the shock of one of those overgrown monkeys in a tin can actually _hurting_ it gives it an adrenaline rush. And lastly, if you run out of healing surges and have to move around on a local or global scale when you're bloodied, you're not actually slower or less aware than you previously were. You can try to play it up a little bit for effect, but don't be that guy in a knee brace who sets down his crutches and does the Roger Rabbit.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Having to decide whether your character is tired or not, or is covered in blood or not, and having to decide whether your fighting techniques are super-powered or the mix of skill and luck (controlled by the player, not the character) can be both very important to your "immersion" in the character.




Yes they are. But sometimes you can make the wrong decisions. For example, a fighter who shatters Orcus's exarch's skull with his mailed fist and says "oh, I'm just an ordinary guy" is like Scrooge McDuck saying "ach, I'm no' rich, laddie". Just because you don't shoot off pretty sparklies that doesn't mean you don't have a Destiny waiting for you, just as powerful in its own way as the archmage-aspirant wizard who pinioned the exarch's arms with glowing bands of mystic force.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 11, 2008)

Hussar said:


> How about the 1e rules for Druids and Monks having to fight for every level beyond a certain point?  These are entirely flavour based mechanics, and damned good flavour at that.  The idea of the Grand Druid is fantastic.
> 
> Until it comes time at the table when the entire group has to stop and let John do his Druid challenge to level up.  And then get shafted because John failed his challenge and loses a level.  Not a huge deal in 1e since levels weren't quite so important, but, still a pretty large time sink.




The thing I take issue with in this assessment is the suggestion that John doing his Druid thing somehow robs the other players of their enjoyment of the game, that the players aren't sitting around the table enjoying being spectators for one of their _friend's_ potentially most awesome game moment. I've done one-on-one fights/negotiations/love scenes/etc... as a DM, with all the other players still sitting at the table, and when it has been important to the player involved, it has almost invariably entertained and engaged the other players regardless of the status of their character at the time.

Just because D&D is a group activity doesn't mean that the group of PCs have to be involved in every situation for the group of players to enjoy it.  Spotlight scenes/fights/whatever can be overdone, of course, and the DM needs to pay attention to whether he's boring his other players, but in my experience players start drifting off into la-la land, reading game books or watching TV when its not their turn in combat a lot more than they do it during another's player's spotlight time.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 11, 2008)

Reynard said:


> The thing I take issue with in this assessment is the suggestion that John doing his Druid thing somehow robs the other players of their enjoyment of the game, that the players aren't sitting around the table enjoying being spectators for one of their _friend's_ potentially most awesome game moment. I've done one-on-one fights/negotiations/love scenes/etc... as a DM, with all the other players still sitting at the table, and when it has been important to the player involved, it has almost invariably entertained and engaged the other players regardless of the status of their character at the time..




This has been my experience as well.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical _in the traditional way_.....just don't think about it.



It's funny you mention hit points, which are the original and ultimate "don't think about it" game construct.  Yes, they are abstract because it's simpler than explicitly modeling hit locations and damage.  But that doesn't require that HP dramatically increase over a character's lifespan, which results in 10th level fighters that "are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical _in the traditional way_..." (magically and supernaturally tough, that is)

The HP explosion leads to all sorts of silliness, which has been gone over for close to 30 years now, so I won't rehash it here.  Note that 4e actually removes a few of the HP/realism roadblocks.  The big one is, surges ensure that healing received is relative to your HP total, so you don't get the diconnect when a cleric uses a CLW first on the 10th level fighter and then on the 0th level peasant (the static amount of healing provided by the _cure_ spells being just as much of a game construct as surges are).  And being restored to full HP with a night's rest removes the issue where the fighter takes twice as long to recuperate from zero than the wizard - although any % would have worked just as well for this purposes (such as, "you get back 25% of your total HP with each night's rest").


----------



## Delta (Sep 11, 2008)

Spatula said:


> It's funny you mention hit points, which are the original and ultimate "don't think about it" game construct.




And yet a lot of thought went into it, and explanation provided, in the 1E PHB and DMG.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 11, 2008)

Delta said:


> And yet a lot of thought went into it, and explanation provided, in the 1E PHB and DMG.



And yet there was 30 years of people realizing that the mechanic made no sense within the reality of the game world, which led to a lot of tinkering with alernate wound systems and a lot of variations of "don't think about it."


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 11, 2008)

Spatula said:


> And yet there was 30 years of people realizing that the mechanic made no sense within the reality of the game world




Which is probably why Gygax wrote that essay in the 1e DMG about how D&D isn't intended to represent the "reality of the game world."


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 11, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Just as an additional point.
> 
> Despite the efforts of some, this is not meant as an edition war thread. This has nothing to do with edition really. The reason I haven't pointed at 4e is simply that I'm not terribly familiar with 4e mechanics, so, I cannot really make any comment either way.
> 
> This is about changing the paradigm for design. Flavour first design, regardless of edition, fails at the table. It causes far more problems than it solves. Sure, it's interesting, but, when the dice hit the wood, if it causes the game to grind to a halt, its bad.




But the perspective of the OP seems to me to be entirely based on the "anti-1E" (or whatever you want to call it) side of the edition war.  If you say something is a bad game element, and then base that opinion on what the prevailing design philosophy is for the current edition, then I think this is, necessarily, going to be about edition.

For example - the design philosophy of 1E says it's ok that specialist characters (like a giant-slaying ranger) to sometimes not be very effective (like when facing all non-giants or whatever).  The idea that the player is somehow "owed" his character always being effective seems IME to belong to later editions, especially 4th.  1E was fine with characters being sub-optimal.  If you've used up your spells, or the party is fighting something you're weak against, then hide in the back and wait for the next battle.  

Look - it's not like it's that much fun to play Monopoly for 3 hours and wind up losing.  But the philosophy that most people seem to operate under is that the existence of adversity makes the good things more enjoyable.  The alternative, which is true of a lot of DnD games, is that you "just barely" kill everything that you fight, time after time - after a while people are going to catch on, and the illusion of risk that your character was taking (perhaps an artifact of people's memories of previous editions) will fade.

It would be like comparing soccer to horseshoes.  4E players would probably complain that soccer isn't fun because no one wants to do that much running.  Similarly, 4E players probably don't enjoy mapping dungeons in detail, catching diseases, getting lost, dealing with paladin vs. assassin party problems, running away from monsters, losing levels for kissing a demon, having their equipment turn to rust, and dying from a system shock roll.  Because those things aren't fun to you doesn't mean that they were designed from a "flavor first" perspective.  

The "flavor first" train of thought is not about what you think is fun/not-fun.  It's logically about what the motivations/priorities of the designers were, and so IMO it helps to recognize that they probably thought a lot of things were mechanically fun/interesting that many of the current generation of gamers don't.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

Reynard said:


> The thing I take issue with in this assessment is the suggestion that John doing his Druid thing somehow robs the other players of their enjoyment of the game, that the players aren't sitting around the table enjoying being spectators for one of their _friend's_ potentially most awesome game moment. I've done one-on-one fights/negotiations/love scenes/etc... as a DM, with all the other players still sitting at the table, and when it has been important to the player involved, it has almost invariably entertained and engaged the other players regardless of the status of their character at the time.




Here's the problem: you can do that in 3rd ed. Heck, when they release the druid class you can do it in 4th ed. Why the hell not. You have players who are okay with it, fine, go nuts.

But let's assume you had some players who weren't okay with the idea of, say, driving two hours for the once-every-two-weeks game and spending the whole time being a spectator to somebody else's awesome thing. In 3rd ed and 4th ed it's just Mr. Awesome arguing with the Unwilling Cheerleaders. But before then the Unwilling Cheerleaders go up against Mr. Awesome and THE RULES, which is a much bigger psychological block. And even if the Unwilling Cheerleaders win that fight, you've acknowledged that THE RULES, which started out as being accepted in common, are now mutable if enough players make enough noise. 

Now in principle this isn't a bad thing. Democracy, right? But even if you make some new rules, piecemeal, that you all agree on, they're just temporary practical patches, and they may not work - or worse, they may undermine the entire rest of the original rules. So you make new patches as you go, and maybe your whole adventure collapses in on itself in a wonderfully perverse way, and you're left with either an unworkable system or you change your mind and then become in the players' eyes Sir Arbitrary the Unreliable. 

Somewhere in there I drove past something that looked kinda like a point, so here it is: THE RULES are the basis for the social contract among your gaming group. Fluff can't support something like that, no matter how much shellac you dip it in.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 11, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Which is probably why Gygax wrote that essay in the 1e DMG about how D&D isn't intended to represent the "reality of the game world."



Exactly.  Don't think about it; it's just a game construct, move on and have fun.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The first paragraph doesn't relate to my point, so I can see that I am not communicating it effectively.  "In world" logic doesn't mandate that a work be of a particular genre.  Cross-genre work also can -- and should -- have "in world" logic.
> 
> "In world" logic means that there is an underlying set of assumptions about why the world works as it does, and that specific cases are then extrapolated from those underlying assumptions.




You're categorizing.

This poweris X type of power therefore it will always have M, L, and P qualities. 

Or the reverse: This power has M, L, and P qualities, therefore it is X type or power.

This is the same as trying to categorize things into genres. This film has M, L , and P qualities therefore it's X genre.

Call it in world logic if you want, but it amounts to categorizing elements of the game.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Mainly on the rules side, but yeah there does need to be a certain amount of underlying assumptions, but they should not be strict guidelines, otherwise you run into stagnation. The guidelines need to be flexible, and basically just an overal idea.

In the case of Martial Powers:

These are powers some have that allow them to perform feats and tricks others cannot. The source of said powers is different from what is considered "magic." 



> This is, in reality, often a messy process.  For example, within the Star Wars universe, there was an underlying assumption that there was a mysterious Force that allowed those who learned its ways to do things that would seem either "psychic" or "magical" (depending upon your outlook).  Much of what happens in the classic trilogy is founded upon this bit of "in world" logic.
> 
> However, the classic trilogy was dismissed by some as "fantasy" or "not real science fiction" as a result, so in Episode 1, Lucas introduced the midichlorians.  These don't violate the "in world" logic of the classic trilogy, but they certainly shift it.  For example, we learn in Star Wars that the Force gives you power over weak minds.  The presence/absence of midichlorians begs the question, though:  Are weak minds weak because they lack a high midichlorian count?  IOW, is weak-mindedness something that can be detected through technology in the Star Wars universe?




So what? 

Was there a big PC movement to have people with a low Midichlorian count equal status within the Jedi Order that I missed? 

I have to ask at what point is the issue finalized? There can always be a question asked about a subject. Will it never be "complete" in that case?

Eegads!




> Similarly, Blade Runner (either the novel or the film) has a set (different for each) of "in world" assumptions that the work hangs on.  In both cases, the "in world" assumptions disallow, say, Godzilla showing up just because it would be neat, or Deckard being able to perform supernatural combat stunts that don't happen to be supernatural.




I'd say what prevented Godzilla from showing up has nothing to do with any kind of in world categorization, but instead because the story didn't call for Godzilla to show up. Had the story called for Godzilla, he would have been there.

And Deckard actually did perform some particularily inhuman stunts. Just about all action heroes do.



> A good hint that something fails on the "in world" logic front is that, when you begin to ask what something is supposed to represent, you are repeatedly told to just not think about it.
> 
> RC




Or that you've been asking the question too much and trying to get WAY too much into the details because you don't like the answer, or want to try to prove some sort of point.

Saying stop thinking so much seems to be a responce to an endless stream of  "but why?" 

You can always ask "but why." Eventually you have to just stop- otherwise you end up constantly asking "but why." Usefull in fields like science or research... But in  a game... Kind of gets in the way of actually playing.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> It would be like comparing soccer to horseshoes.




You wanna talk about sports? Okay. Let's talk about sports. Let's talk about basketball.

Did you know basketball didn't originally have a shot clock? It's true. The team that was ahead would often just hold onto the ball forever, and the team that was behind would deliberately foul their opposition for a chance at getting the ball back after the free throw. Games ended with scores as low as 19-18 at times, in one memorable case rolling over to QUINTUPLE OVERTIME with the first four of them SCORELESS. Then came the shot clock. Suddenly games were faster-paced and more fun for both players and audiences, and basketball's popularity took off like a rocket!

Were there people who would have preferred the old low-scoring high-fouling ultra-conservative shot-clock-less basketball? Sure there were! Some of 'em even wrote letters to the editor deriding the new innovation. Some people also think the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it. The point of this all is: some people are very wrong. 

There is already a time when you are in a combat but cannot do anything to affect it. That time is called "everyone else's turn". Already you are only one person out of five or six who can affect how a combat plays out - why make your part even smaller?


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 11, 2008)

Scribble said:


> You can always ask "but why." Eventually you have to just stop- otherwise you end up constantly asking "but why." Usefull in fields like science or research... But in a game... Kind of gets in the way of actually playing.




Do I have to post a Youtube video with me asking "but why" and rolling a d20 simultaneously?  It's not like I'm talented enough to join the circus or anything - I just don't think that asking "why" is a barrier to playing the game.  

I personally think that most of the "don't think about it" responses are just a variation of "don't criticize our game system".  Asking a question doesn't have to lead to more question asking until your head explodes.  Being defensive about the question, and feeling a sense of insecurity is probably a more powerful motivation for putting the breaks on the question asking.  When the Wizard of Oz was encouraging the adventuring party to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he wasn't worried about their heads exploding.  He was worried about himself.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 11, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Were there people who would have preferred the old low-scoring high-fouling ultra-conservative shot-clock-less basketball? Sure there were! Some of 'em even wrote letters to the editor deriding the new innovation. Some people also think the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it. The point of this all is: some people are very wrong.




Some people think the earth is flat, and some people conflate their opinions with facts.  There's no objective basis for discussing whether or not a shot clock is "right" or "wrong" completely absent of context (which is appears is the case here).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Do I have to post a Youtube video with me asking "but why" and rolling a d20 simultaneously?  It's not like I'm talented enough to join the circus or anything - I just don't think that asking "why" is a barrier to playing the game.
> 
> I personally think that most of the "don't think about it" responses are just a variation of "don't criticize our game system".  Asking a question doesn't have to lead to more question asking until your head explodes.  Being defensive about the question, and feeling a sense of insecurity is probably a more powerful motivation for putting the breaks on the question asking.  When the Wizard of Oz was encouraging the adventuring party to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he wasn't worried about their heads exploding.  He was worried about himself.



That's because people ask "but why" only in a particular question. They ask "how is it working in the game world". If it was just a "but why" question and I can point you to the reason why it works that way - because it works better that way at the game table! That *is *the reason. You can make up all kinds of reasons in the game-world, but that won't answer the question. That's why you eventually have to stop asking the question.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's because people ask "but why" only in a particular question. They ask "how is it working in the game world". If it was just a "but why" question and I can point you to the reason why it works that way - because it works better that way at the game table! That *is *the reason. You can make up all kinds of reasons in the game-world, but that won't answer the question. That's why you eventually have to stop asking the question.




So the answer to the question "why does it work this way in the game world" is "I don't know."  I would think that would pretty much end the questions.  Talking about the game table is an answer to another question AFAICT.

Now on the internet I wouldn't be surprised to find the asker going to some other thread or another poster and repeating the question.  Maybe somebody somewhere knows how a certain exploit can be described convincingly as non-magical within a game world.  IME people are generally bad at admitting when they don't know something (school typically trains you to not do this), and will try to talk around it first with a bunch of weird and contradictory statements.  It wouldn't surprise me if the people whose heads you're concerned about exploding are just trying to make sure the answer is really "I don't know." after sifting through a lot of what is often probably obfuscation.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 11, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Do I have to post a Youtube video with me asking "but why" and rolling a d20 simultaneously?  It's not like I'm talented enough to join the circus or anything - I just don't think that asking "why" is a barrier to playing the game.




It's a barrier if for some reason you need all of those questions answered before you can use the system, and no matter what you continuously ask more and more questions.

It's not a barrier to me. In fact I like those questions because they allow me to roam in my answers. It gets annoying when someone out there decides the official answer.

I don't care if you want to answer them all really. More power to you if you want to spend your time answerign them. But to claim that a system is somehow flawed because it hasn't answered EVERY possible but why... is a bit reaching.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Some people think the earth is flat, and some people conflate their opinions with facts.  There's no objective basis for discussing whether or not a shot clock is "right" or "wrong" completely absent of context (which is appears is the case here).




A right thing fulfills the purpose it sets out to fulfill.

The purpose of a game is to satisfy its players. The purpose of paying to watch a game is to be satisfied by watching it. 

More players were satisfied with (you could even say "enjoyed") the new shot-clock-enabled basketball, and more people were satisfied by watching it. 

Therefore, basketball with the shot clock is more right than basketball without the shot clock. Is it the most right basketball could ever be? Who the hell knows? But you can't use "it won't be perfect yet" as an excuse not to make a change.

Similarly, satisfaction implies a certain completion. An accomplishment, if you will. This has been out in idea space since Aristotle. Accomplishment is the result of a series of meaningful choices, many of which are meaningful actions. A "game" where a player makes no meaningful choices has no accomplishment and is not satisfying.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 11, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Maybe somebody somewhere knows how a certain exploit can be described convincingly as non-magical within a game world.




Hey go check the end of that thread there's a surprise.

SPOILERS:



			
				Glazius said:
			
		

> Everybody's powers have the same unified source: Destiny. Y'know, that thing you're going to start realizing at level 21, and once fully realized, you shuffle off this PC coil? Yeah, that Destiny.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 11, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Hey go check the end of that thread there's a surprise.
> 
> SPOILERS:




there is no spoon.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical _in the traditional way_.....just don't think about it.
> 
> There is a difference between abstracting subsystems, and major abstraction of what the characters themselves represent.





Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Having to decide whether your character is tired or not, or is covered in blood or not, and having to decide whether your fighting techniques are super-powered or the mix of skill and luck (controlled by the player, not the character) can be both very important to your "immersion" in the character.





Spatula said:


> It's funny you mention hit points, which are the original and ultimate "don't think about it" game construct.



I guess I agree with Spatula and Mustrum rather than Raven Crowking. Hit points are part of my PC just as much as powers. It doesn't matter to me that neither directly represents an ingame property, but rather is a metagame regulator of descriptions of ingame events.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical _in the traditional way_.....just don't think about it




Not really.

Fighter powers are not magical in the "traditional way" They are not effected by things that effect magic in the d&d world, nor are they achieved in the same way. Their source is the martial power source.  What is it? You can decide for yourself, but whats important is it's not the same thing as the arcane power source, or the divine power source. Maybe they're supernatural, maybe not. This might even be a source of speculation and legend in your campaign!

Saying "don't think so hard" is short for:  I don't need to know the exact workings of said source in the same way I don't need to know exactly how bat guano helps you create a blast of fire. 

All thats needed is the knowledge of: There is a source of power called martial power, and some people can tap into it, and how it is effected by other parts of the game. 

if you WANT to get into detail about exactly what it is, you can, just like you can write a whole essay about how said bat guano interacts with magicum particles to create heat and force, but that's up to you. It doesn't hinder the game if you don't.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 12, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The measure of the success of a game is how much people at the table enjoy it. No other metric is more important than that. I don't care how well it evokes a fantasy story, if the game is not enjoyed by everyone at the table, it is a failure.




So to tease out more of what I did this morning: why do I play D&D instead of, say, A Link to the Past (which, for my milage, is one of the Best Games Ever (tm))? I could go fire up my old SNES right now and have the time of my life scuttling around Hyrule whacking things with a sword. The game works perfectly, the story is there enough to justify it, I don't have to worry about anyone else, and I have no pre-prep work to do. I just flip on my game and I'm there, enjoying myself.

In fact, I've got a D&D game scheduled for this Sunday. Why don't I say I'd rather play A Link to the Past? Surely I won't have any headaches trying to play 4e without a minis board. I won't have to travel the hour to get to where we're gaming. I won't have to put up with some weird friend tension. I won't even have to get dressed in the morning. I could just wake up, play the game for an hour or so, get bored, and do something else. Maybe look for a better job or surf ENWorld and amuse myself in theoretical design debates. All are plenty of enjoyment for me.

So why am I going to D&D?

Because D&D offers me something, in the gameplay, that none of that does: the ability to evoke a story with friends. 

So why isn't this important? It is, essentially, the justification of the existence of, if not the entire PNPRPG industry, at LEAST of D&D. 

I don't play D&D just to have fun. I'm a 21st century digital boy. I've got a lot of toys (apologies to Bad Religion). I'm lousy with fun. Furthermore, I'm of legal drinking age, and have ready availability of a legal hallucinogen, so I can make staring at the wall and giggling fun. More fun than D&D could ever be in it's wildest, wettest, most scantily clad dreams. 

What makes me choose D&D over these other toys is not "fun." It is a particular style of rarely-had fun that I very much enjoy: interactive, spontaneous storytelling. 

Wherever D&D fails to deliver me that, it fails to deliver me the brand of fun I am seeking, and so I'll either seek it elsewhere, or just content myself with a decade-plus old videogame and save myself some time and effort. 

In sacrificing everything on the altar of "game-first" you forget that the game itself is "story-first." Without Legolas and Conan, there never would have been a D&D. 



> Again, this is not a fluff vs crunch debate. You are right, you can have perfectly acceptable, even good mechanics that started as flavour. But, typically, if you start from a flavour standpoint, then bolt on mechanics, you are ingnoring how it plays out at the table.




Actually, your argument seems to be fluff-and-crunch at its core because you specifically argue that starting from fluff gives you bad crunch, while starting from crunch gives you good crunch and can fudge the fluff. I'm arguing that crunch and fluff are two things that you need to get right, regardless of which one you start with. 



> It's not a case of good mechanics vs bad mechanics - it's a case of mechanics inspired by an attempt to emulate some flavour concept, causing the game to be less enjoyable during play.




Any mechanic that causes the game or the play to be less enjoyable is a bad mechanic. It doesn't really matter what the reason behind it is, it's bad. A flavor concept can give you some dynamite rules. Heck, that's basically what a class is -- a flavor concept. 



> You bring up the Random Strumpet Table. There's a good idea. Mechanically fine - it causes no major malfunctions in the game, flavour wise perfectly acceptable for the idea of D&D, and causes no major problems at the table. I got no beef with that. I think it was a flavour first mechanic - but, that's a quibble, and it doesn't really matter. It causes no malfunctions at the table. It passes.
> 
> But, if you look at the mechanics that DO cause malfunctions at the table, I think you will find that they are primarily driven from a flavour first concept. That the creators of the mechanics are trying to bring out some bit of flavour into the game without stopping and considering how that will actually function at the table.




The mechanics that cause problems come from all sorts of places, and 4e is no stranger to any of the "problems" you bring up. A bad mechanic is a bad mechanic, and trying to muddle out the motives of dead and aged gaming designers is pointless when addressing the problem of bad mechanics.

Though I think the fact that two rational people can look at one mechanic and one person think it's "flavor-based" and another think it's "game-based" means that your terms are probably too vague to be useful in the first place. 

At the highest level of "Why am I doing this?", the game and the flavor, the fluff and the crunch, become one experience that compliments itself. It helps me tell a story in a way that isn't clunky or difficult. 

A lot of people who have rejected 4e do so because the "flavor" they're looking for has failed to be supported, while it could be supported with earlier editions. The ability to ban paladin and the inability to ban healing surges scratches the surface of part of why this is.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> I agree with the healing criticism. However, I think the falling criticism is not really about character hit points...



Perhaps, but perhaps not. Hit points are overloaded in that they measure physical damage as well as the ability to turn serious damage into less serious damage (through either skill, luck or whatever). However, I don't see where skill or luck is going to help you if you fall 200 feet. All of that damage is straight to the head - unless obviously you are of high enough level to survive (and continue fighting actually at one's peak ability too). The UA fix is exactly that. An inelegant solution to cover such a situation. The issue is in the disconnect between the hit points mechanic, its flavour and the myriad of anomalies that follow from that disconnect.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 12, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Disclaimer - I'll state this right out at the front.  I think game first is superior design.  I'm going to try to be as even handed as I can here, but, I do feel that game first is the better way to go.




I don't think it really matters what you start with, as long as you end up with non-dissociated mechanics that are fun to use.

Generally I design a world and then make mechanics that both (a) work and (b) describe it, because I think it's generally more interesting to start with the awesome and then make the numbers work, rather than trying to figure out ways to make numbers sound awesome.



> But, is there a class that has caused more problems at the table than the paladin? From day 1, the paladin has caused all sorts of issues at the table. Frustration and outright hostility quite often. The flavour says that the holy knight should only work with other good characters.




Plus, I think your thesis is kinda broken. D&D started out by kitbashing a wargame -- it was hardly a "flavour-first" design methodology.

For example, paladins were weighted down with lots of limitations because they were considered a superior class. So what you're claiming is "flavour-first" design was, in fact, "game-first" design.



> But, then you hit the table. And the poor rogue player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs because his one main combat ability is nerfed entirely by about a quarter of the creature types out there. In a tomb raider scenario, quintessentially D&D, the rogue is reduced to the role of well armed commoner by pretty much any monster most likely to inhabit a tomb.




But, on the flip-side, all of the rogue's non-combat abilities (finding traps, opening locks, etc.) are at their most useful during a tomb raider scenario.

To me this complaint about the rogue not being able to backstab everything in sight is like the arcanist complaining that some creatures have spell resistance.

You can't use your bestest ability all of the time?

I weep you for. They're crocodile tears, mind you. But I weep for you.



> The other problem was in PrC design that narrowed the focus based on the flavour. Knight of the Chalice (at least the 3e version) is a poster boy here. A PrC that gives you massive bonuses against demons, because that's their purpose - kill demons. But, what if the DM doesn't use a lot of demons, just some?




Then you probably shouldn't be playing a Knight of the Chalice in that campaign. Ditto to your Ranger complaint.

Similarly, if you're playing in a campaign without a lot of combat, you shouldn't play a fighter. If you're playing in a campaign set entirely with an antimagic zone, you shouldn't play a wizard. If you're playing a campaign in which the PCs are an elite team of political assassins, you shouldn't play a paladin.

Yada yada yada.

Some people apparently want all classes to be all things at all times. Personally, I find that lack of variety pretty boring.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Sep 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So to tease out more of what I did this morning: why do I play D&D instead of, say, A Link to the Past (which, for my milage, is one of the Best Games Ever (tm))? I could go fire up my old SNES right now and have the time of my life scuttling around Hyrule whacking things with a sword. The game works perfectly, the story is there enough to justify it, I don't have to worry about anyone else, and I have no pre-prep work to do. I just flip on my game and I'm there, enjoying myself.
> 
> In fact, I've got a D&D game scheduled for this Sunday. Why don't I say I'd rather play A Link to the Past? Surely I won't have any headaches trying to play 4e without a minis board. I won't have to travel the hour to get to where we're gaming. I won't have to put up with some weird friend tension. I won't even have to get dressed in the morning. I could just wake up, play the game for an hour or so, get bored, and do something else. Maybe look for a better job or surf ENWorld and amuse myself in theoretical design debates. All are plenty of enjoyment for me.
> 
> ...




Damn Kamikaze!!!

This! 

You have stated for me, more clearly than I ever have, exactly why I don't like 4e. D&D has always had strong gamist elements but IMO 4e ups the gamist ante dramatically. 

For me, 4e feels like a boardgame, a game whose gamist elements do not easily allow me to immerse myself in the "reality" of the RPing experience. All these conversations about whether or not martial class powers are magical exist bcause there is absolutely no in-game rationale for how they are supposed to work and every argument I have seen yet boils down to....don't think too much and have fun.

Well it isn't fun for me if there is too much dissonance between gamist, narrative and simulationist elements. Its as if fun means, just shut-up and kill something, shut up and roll some dice. For me and my players, the fun is actually the setting, the fluff, the story and mechanics that support those things first.

If I wanted endless gamist fun, I can play my Xbox 360 or Risk. PNP games have, for many of us, allowed us to get into the world and be there. Yeah, the model provided by any PNP RPing game is flawed, it always will be, but their at least seemed to be a desire to give a nod to versimilitude but now even that is gone.

I have played the game....DM'ed it actually....for a few sessions and even though mechanically it is a strong game, stylistically I find it uncompelling and won't be playing it again. D&D 3.5 has demonstrated repeatedly its ability to be successfully modified to reflect different kinds of fluff, from horror (ravenloft), survival horror/fantasy (Midnight), Grim and Gritty (Conan D20), traditional High Fantasy (Dragonlance), to super-magical High Fantasy (Forgotten Realms). It is the fluff that came first in these settings/3.5 variants with the mechanics supporting the core setting concepts.

Mechanics first can IMO make every world setting exactly the same.

 To add: To show this is not an edition war thread, I must say that IMO both True20 and Mongoose Runequest's mechanics are more my cup of tea than any version of D&D to date.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> First of all, you can be up and running in 5 minutes after you've been "beaten within an inch of your life", assuming you have either 4 healing surges or a slightly smaller number and a friendly leader archetype. Faced with your own initial story of what happened - "I was a pile of mangled limbs 5 minutes ago and now I can do cartwheels" - why do you conclude that the underlying mechanic must be flawed, rather than admit the possibility you need to tell a new story?
> 
> Consider this: hit points do not represent what you think they represent - they are not a spectrum between perfect health at full and a mangled pile of limbs and organs at -CON. That's what they may represent for NPCs after facing the business end of a bugbear ranger with serrated swords, but for PCs hit points are simple: they're your will to fight. This isn't Journey to the West, where Goku and Gojo pound on each other for 20 hours before one of them starts to get tired - fights take seconds, perhaps a minute or two. You don't die at 0 hit points, you pass out because you can't take the shock. Sometimes, yes, people can't recover from a shock and the body shuts down. But when you go from full hit points to single digits you only take the single bleeding wound that represents your getting bloodied - perhaps it's the only strike that even lands straight on.
> 
> That's my story of hit points.




Interesting. This is how D&D has interpreted it.



			
				AD&D PHB said:
			
		

> Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.





			
				3.5 PHB said:
			
		

> Hit points mean two things in the game world, the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favour or inner power.





			
				4E PHB said:
			
		

> Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. 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.





			
				4E PHB said:
			
		

> Dying: When your hit points drop to 0 or fewer, you fall unconscious and are dying. Any additional damage you take continues to reduce your current hit point total until your character dies.



It's interesting how the interpretation of hit points has changed over the various editions. However, even under what the 4E is telling me (it's interpretation of my dying character 1hp from death, not mine by the way), I think the possible rapid turn-around from death's door to complete health without any sort of magical healing is unrealistic/artificial. Your story and your interpretation of hit points does not convince me otherwise that this is a serious disconnect between mechanic and flavour.

By the way in my original post, I included hit point issues from 3E and 4E so as not to appear as if I was bashing one edition of the game over the other - I did not want some one to grab hold of them and start an edition war. As such, I'll just say that my interpretation of what 4E is telling me is different to yours. If you can come up with a flavour fix that makes sense to you then cool. It doesn't mean though that that flavour fix is going to jive with all of the myriad of D&D players out there. Telling my I need to admit to the need to come up with a different story when my character is 1hp from being dead (that is 1hp from his negative bloodied value) was a little trite by the way. Perhaps you need to understand where a poster is coming from first before posting such comments.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 12, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Damn Kamikaze!!!
> 
> This!
> 
> You have stated for me, more clearly than I ever have, exactly why I don't like 4e.




I aim to please.  If I want to hack some stuff up, I've got Diablo III comin' out soon. If I want to do that with friends, I've got an internet connection. 

If I want to craft an interactive story, PNPRPG's are pretty much the only place I can turn to. 



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Mechanics first can IMO make every world setting exactly the same.




Good examples of mechanics-first systems that have no concern about flavor at all? True 20. GURPS. 

I'd still rather play D&D most of the time (though T20 is good for when I'm doing something wacky).


----------



## Delta (Sep 12, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Perhaps, but perhaps not. Hit points are overloaded in that they measure physical damage as well as the ability to turn serious damage into less serious damage (through either skill, luck or whatever). However, I don't see where skill or luck is going to help you if you fall 200 feet. All of that damage is straight to the head - unless obviously you are of high enough level to survive (and continue fighting actually at one's peak ability too). The UA fix is exactly that. An inelegant solution to cover such a situation. The issue is in the disconnect between the hit points mechanic, its flavour and the myriad of anomalies that follow from that disconnect.




Again, I entirely, fully agree with the first 80% of your comment, right up to "an inelegant solution". IMO the UA fix is the most elegant solution, and I apply it to all environmental-based damage (falling, cold, heat, starving), thereby washing out the "skill or luck" component of hit points in those cases. For me that elegantly solves all my problems on that end.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Sep 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Good examples of mechanics-first systems that have no concern about flavor at all? True 20. GURPS.
> 
> I'd still rather play D&D most of the time (though T20 is good for when I'm doing something wacky).




True20 is really a toolbox and with the additional books like the Warrior's and Adept's Handbooks, it is an excellent toolbox indeed that a GM can use to run nearly any genre of game. Personally, I always use it for fantasy. I couldn't imagine playing True20 "out of the box" and don't know anyone who hasn't used the True20 mechanics to reflect the "fluff and feel" they were trying to emulate. 

True20 without a setting in mind is IMO akin to an erector set without instructions. Lots of cool pieces without any focused purpose.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 12, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> True20 without a setting in mind is IMO akin to an erector set without instructions. Lots of cool pieces without any focused purpose.




Right. Which, I guess, is better for some than 4e's instructions for something they don't actually want to build.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Sep 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Right. Which, I guess, is better for some than 4e's instructions for something they don't actually want to build.




LOL 

Good point.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Delta (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Which is probably why Gygax wrote that essay in the 1e DMG about how D&D isn't intended to represent the "reality of the game world."




There is no such quote in the 1E DMG, and that is not remotely the subject of the essay on hit points. 

What there is: a specific and concrete interpretation of what hit points represent. It's not left ambiguous, it never mentions PC morale or will-to-fight, and it's certainly not "don't think about it".

You may disagree with that interpretation -- I can fully respect that! But in 1E it's not left unspecified, nor without connection to the game world reality.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> There is no such quote in the 1E DMG, and that is not remotely the subject of the essay on hit points.
> 
> What there is: a specific and concrete interpretation of what hit points represent. It's not left ambiguous, it never mentions PC morale or will-to-fight, and it's certainly not "don't think about it".
> 
> You may disagree with that interpretation -- I can fully respect that! But in 1E it's not left unspecified, nor without connection to the game world reality.




I think Gygax is misquoted more than the Bard himself.

(BTW, the quote The Little Raven was thinking about was the one in the first couple of pages where Gygax is saying that AD&D combat is not intended to be a simulation of historical combat -- that's it.  Not "AD&D isn't intended to be a simulation" -- especially since it very obviously was given the content of the DMG.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 12, 2008)

I agree strongly with just about everything Kamikaze stated.  Except this.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I've got Diablo III comin' out soon.




Soon?  More like in ten years


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 12, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> For me, 4e feels like a boardgame, a game whose gamist elements do not easily allow me to immerse myself in the "reality" of the RPing experience.




I find this point of view fascinating and frustrating.  Why do I find 4e so much better at immersion, colour, and story than 3e?

It's not In a Wicked Age... or Sorcerer, but it grabs me.



Wyrmshadows said:


> All these conversations about whether or not martial class powers are magical exist bcause there is absolutely no in-game rationale for how they are supposed to work and every argument I have seen yet boils down to....don't think too much and have fun.




Here's mine: Describe them in whatever way makes the most sense to you at the time.  Don't describe them the same way each time; you might describe a power working one way in one situation, and the same power working a different way in a different situation.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In sacrificing everything on the altar of "game-first" you forget that the game itself is "story-first." Without Legolas and Conan, there never would have been a D&D.




Okay, here's the thing. Legolas? Written by one dude. Conan? Written by one dude. How many dudes are sitting down at your gaming table? HINT: it is more than one.

This is not to say that collaborative storytelling doesn't exist. Of course it does. It's called improv. But the problem with improv is that if you ever contradict someone else the whole thing just kind of trips over itself and falls into an open grave which is then filled in. There's a reason why most pure improv skits only last a couple of minutes, and why most improv is done in small teams: as the number of things said becomes arbitrarily large, the chances someone will contradict someone else approach 1.

You need a mechanic of conflict resolution more robust than "everyone always agrees with each other". That is the game. Or rather, the rules of the game. Which you implicitly agree to by sitting down to play it.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, your argument seems to be fluff-and-crunch at its core because you specifically argue that starting from fluff gives you bad crunch, while starting from crunch gives you good crunch and can fudge the fluff. I'm arguing that crunch and fluff are two things that you need to get right, regardless of which one you start with.




Crunch and fluff as commonly used are not actually different from each other at all.

Here is the big secret of mathematics: numbers all represent ideas. If you walk into an amusement arcade and see on the wall a sign that says blue plastic tokens are worth 5 dowactoos and the yellow ones are worth 25 dowactoos, then you know a yellow token is worth 5 blue ones, even if you have no idea how to earn the tokens or what dowactoos are.

All mathematics really does is express and explore the abstract relationships between the ideas represented by numbers. So a mathematical formula is just a very compact way to communicate relationships between ideas. 

So, "crunch" communicates ideas and relationships between them in a compact and sometimes abstract manner. "Fluff" also communicates ideas and relationships between them, in a verbose and still sometimes abstract manner. They are both ideas, just in different packaging, and it's disingenuous to say that a game "starts with fluff" or "starts with crunch". It starts with ideas.

There is, of course, bad crunch and bad fluff, and in both cases they are ideas so disparate that the effort it takes to tie them together on the part of the GM or the player isn't worth the payback. Rolling dice six times and consulting twelve tables to adjudicate a single sword swing, for example, or trying to define "lawful good" in such a way that the game doesn't become an exercise in "Paladin Says". 

There is also unnecessary crunch and unnecessary fluff. The Dragon article full of new star warlock powers is unnecessary crunch. You can ignore it and it won't affect your game much, if at all. The flavor text for the new star warlock powers is unnecessary fluff. You can ignore it and it won't affect those powers much, if at all.

There is, however, a practical difference between crunch and fluff. People are much more apt at filling a perceived gap in fluff than they are a perceived gap in crunch. Just look at the scores of improv actors compared to the dismal showing on the improv math circuit. "What improv math circuit?" you may ask. *Exactly.* For this reason, a game with a lot of crunch and minimal fluff is preferable to a game with a lot of fluff and minimal crunch.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> By the way in my original post, I included hit point issues from 3E and 4E so as not to appear as if I was bashing one edition of the game over the other - I did not want some one to grab hold of them and start an edition war.




I focused on 4E specifically because its recovery mechanic is so drastically different from 3E. In 3E I agree the waters are a lot muddier with respect to what hit points actually represent. But in 4E there's less wiggle room, explcitly because:



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Telling my I need to admit to the need to come up with a different story when my character is 1hp from being dead (that is 1hp from his negative bloodied value) was a little trite by the way. Perhaps you need to understand where a poster is coming from first before posting such comments.




Yes, 1 HP from negative bloodied a PC can roll a natural 20 on a death save and get back up. And if the PC has three more healing surges it can be running around and bodychecking orcs into the undergrowth in 5 minutes, like nothing ever happened. This is something that can and probably will happen according to the extant mechanics.

You have two options: either you don't accept that that much recovery can occur in that little time, or you don't accept that being 1 HP away from negative bloodied actually represents a fundamental injury that the PC cannot recover from in 5 minutes. As I understand things, you have chosen option 1 and I have chosen option 2, and the difference between option 1 and option 2 is that option 1 requires you to also not accept the rules.

I am wondering, what's so bad about option 2?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 12, 2008)

One point that wasn't mentioned so far: Mechanics influence fluff not just during the design phase, but also or even more so during the "Life" of a game. You can see that most clearly in MMOGs, but the PnP games are not too far behind.
No matter the mechanics present, the players tend to pick what combo of gear, powers and tactics works "best", which becomes the standard, and sets the flavor. In MMOGs, that's the "tank holds aggro, healer heals, DPS does damage and CC holds the monsters at bay while we kill them one by one" mantra. Usually complemented with specific builds. Anyone who wants to try something different is fighting an uphill battle, and generally won't have many takers when building a group.
In PnP games, that's usually not that much the case in individual and house ruled games, where people fiddle until they got the flavor they want, but in RAW games (cons, torunaments, living whatever) it's whatever works best according to the optimising boards.
So, mechanics generate their own flavor, even if the designers wanted something else - especially if there are not many "best" variations for character or party builds. If magic trumps swords for dealing damage, or vice versa, then that's what will be used by most, and the game will be flavored accordingly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2008)

> There is, however, a practical difference between crunch and fluff. People are much more apt at filling a perceived gap in fluff than they are a perceived gap in crunch. Just look at the scores of improv actors compared to the dismal showing on the improv math circuit. *"What improv math circuit?"* you may ask.* Exactly.* For this reason, a game with a lot of crunch and minimal fluff is preferable to a game with a lot of fluff and minimal crunch.



I loled! 



> So, mechanics generate their own flavor, even if the designers wanted something else - especially if there are not many "best" variations for character or party builds. If magic trumps swords for dealing damage, or vice versa, then that's what will be used by most, and the game will be flavored accordingly.



Another example might be magic items rules - if you have ideas like "wealth by level" or "expected magical items" and "treasure per monster", you get a world with a lot of magical items. The rules don't seem to be based on any particular flavor concept (why does a CR 10 Giant have to carry more treasure then a CR 6 giant?), but it creates a world where a lot of magical items are lying around. 

Sometimes it can be helpful to decouple fluff and crunch more strongly. Treasure Parcels don't imply that certain monsters carry around lot of stuff. It only implies what kind of treasure characters of a given level have, but the rules don't tell us where they will have gotten it from - loot? Gifts? Rewards?

Another example might be spells as found in the system. Every Cleric or Wizard is aware of the name of his spells and what they does exactly. This creates a world where magic is not "improvised" on the fly. Moreover, the fact that each of them are put into very discrete "slots" (instead of using a psi or mana point system, or a drain mechanic) probably means that characters in-game know exactly how powerful they are to each other. They can compare the number of spells they can cast, and possibly they are even aware of the levels of the respective spells. (A lot of experimenting among magicians might be able to discern the "slot per levels" and "extra spells by ability score" rules!)

Martial Encounter/Dailies are at a certain "tipping point" - you can interpret them literally (making martial powers very magic in feeling), or you can interpret them as metagame tools of players - meaning that characters don't have to be aware of these specific powers. 
Of course, we use the "metagame" approach usually only for martial characters (if at all), but it might be interesting to consider using them for spellcasters, too!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 12, 2008)

Reynard said:


> BTW, the quote The Little Raven was thinking about was the one in the first couple of pages where Gygax is saying that AD&D combat is not intended to be a simulation of historical combat -- that's it.  Not "AD&D isn't intended to be a simulation" -- especially since it very obviously was given the content of the DMG.



Except for the saving throw rules, which make it clear that they aren't intended to be a simulations - using terminology that didn't exist when the 1st ed DMG was written, they're described as a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic.

Arguably, hit points are the same - 8 points of damage from a sword is sometimes a devastating blow (eg vs a kobold) and sometimes a mere threat that requires avoiding (eg vs an otherwise uninjured high-level PC or NPC) and sometimes a non-fatal hacking away of a chunk of flesh (eg vs a giant slug or a gelatinous cube). The mechanics don't simulate anything - rather, they set up the parameters within which the ingame events are narrated. (Compare this to a game like RM or RQ, in which 8 hits of damage always means the same thing, whichever target it is delivered to and however many hit points they started with and have remaining.)



LostSoul said:


> Describe them in whatever way makes the most sense to you at the time.



Just like the 1st ed DMG says to do with saving throws and hit points!

Of course D&D 4e is very different from 1st ed AD&D. But the notion that D&D has always and only ever had simulationist mechanics is nonsense - this is purely an artifact of 3E. It was the non-simulationist character of these central AD&D mechanics that was one factor in driving people to games like RQ and RM, and which prompted simulationist alternatives within the D&D framework like vitality/wound points (which did not originate with Star Wars RPG but rather, as far as I know, with Roger Musson in an early White Dwarf article called "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive").


----------



## pemerton (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I am wondering, what's so bad about option 2?



I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed you series of posts about hit points - sensible points well expressed.


----------



## rounser (Sep 12, 2008)

> For this reason, a game with a lot of crunch and minimal fluff is preferable to a game with a lot of fluff and minimal crunch.



If this were the case, the D&D IP would be worth little, d20 Modern would still be in print and a success, and the RPGs with the most elegant rules would draw the most players.

None of that is the case.  What you've said there is the kind of academic game designer thinking that has got us into this mess.  It also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes D&D tick, IMO.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 12, 2008)

rounser said:


> What you've said there is the kind of academic game designer thinking that has got us into this mess.



What mess? And who is in it?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2008)

pemerton said:


> What mess? And who is in it?




rounser is. The rest of the world, not so much. 



> If this were the case, the D&D IP would be worth little



The strong tie between crunch and fluff is not what makes D&D IP worth so much. The fluff on its own is what makes it powerful. Because it is inspiring for creating new stories.

Illithids as tentacled humanoids that read minds and eat brains are an interesting theme. But you could implement this theme in any game system. 

But I agree with you that fluff is not irrelevant. It inspires us to create stories around it. It's why every D&D edition and many OGL "variant player handbooks" had at least an implied setting. It gives a starting point, a common frame of reference.


----------



## rounser (Sep 12, 2008)

> The rest of the world, not so much.



Because I'm the only person not to convert to the latest edition, and it's got no flavour issues whatsoever.  None. 


> It's why every D&D edition and many OGL "variant player handbooks" had at least an implied setting. It gives a starting point, a common frame of reference.



And this time around, it happens to suck, IMO.  Dragonborn warlords don't belong in the implied setting, and nor do eladrin or tieflings.

The new implied setting provides a common frame of "WTF?" for the rest of the world, which is the last thing the game needs.

D&D is not Warhammer 40K.  You can't get away with eladrin the same way GW do eldar because D&D is a thousand worldbuilds, not one universe with everyone agreeing on the same flavour.  It's just not thought through.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2008)

rounser said:


> Because I'm the only person not to convert to the latest edition, and it's got no flavour issues whatsoever.  None.



Yes. It can be hard to be so alone. At least you don't get all "emo" on us like "You don't understand my feelings!" 
But for someone not playing D&D 4 you can be found a lot discussing it. A lot more then you could be found discussing other games or editions. 


Spoiler



Oh, you are certainly not the only one, but you are the one exaggerating the situation way too much. Of course, there are others. Hence the "not so much".


----------



## rounser (Sep 12, 2008)

> Yes. It can be hard to be so alone. At least you don't get all "emo" on us like "You don't understand my feelings!"



I wouldn't care if I was the _only one_ expressing these sentiments.  Millions fall for stupid causes or drink the kool aid all the time.  Political and financial systems revolve around that fact.

Look at this thread - it's using my jargon, and a frame of reference I've been referring to.  If you believe so much in social proof, might that not suggest I might have a point?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'm pretty sure my opinion has basis either way, and don't need to play the "hey, you have no friends and no-one agrees with you so shut up" game with the opposition.


> But for someone not playing D&D 4 you can be found a lot discussing it. A lot more then you could be found discussing other games or editions.



Maybe because it's the latest edition of D&D?  I don't need to play with dragonborn to have issues with their flavour, and discuss how that flavour is an important part of the game's appeal in the first place.  Or be incredulous about the flavour design of the latest version of the world's most popular RPG.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 12, 2008)

So far the new flavor doesn't appeal to me at all. That's a good thing, should we ever convert to D&D - most of it can be discarded without troubles since it's not tied at all to the system.
Still means the flavor I want is not supported well or at all.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> There is, however, a practical difference between crunch and fluff. People are much more apt at filling a perceived gap in fluff than they are a perceived gap in crunch.




I'm not so sure about that; just about every campaign I've played in has had its fair share of house rules to go with it. I've also played with a few DMs who were prone to making things up as they went along and so long as they were consistent it wasn't a problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

Scribble said:


> You're categorizing.
> 
> This poweris X type of power therefore it will always have M, L, and P qualities.
> 
> Or the reverse: This power has M, L, and P qualities, therefore it is X type or power.




In some cases, categorizing is appropriate.  This power has the qualities of electricity, therefore it is an electrical power.  One might even say that the ability to categorize based on properties is a defining characteristic of systems with an "in world" logic.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> When the Wizard of Oz was encouraging the adventuring party to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he wasn't worried about their heads exploding.  He was worried about himself.




Exactly so.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> So the answer to the question "why does it work this way in the game world" is "I don't know."  I would think that would pretty much end the questions.  Talking about the game table is an answer to another question AFAICT.





Which is, again, the hallmark of mechanics over simulation.  Just as with hit points.

The question, of course, is how much "mechanics over simulation" does one want in an rpg?  Like the reversed question (how much "simulation over mechanics" does one want in an rpg?), there is no "right" answer for all people.  Heck, for most people (IME), there is no "right" answer that applies across all of their gaming experience.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> A right thing fulfills the purpose it sets out to fulfill.
> 
> The purpose of a game is to satisfy its players. The purpose of paying to watch a game is to be satisfied by watching it.
> 
> ...





Ah, the argument that a McDonalds hamburger is objectively better than the one barbecued in your backyard.  

"Newer is better" and "bandwagon is better" are both fallicious thinking.

RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Which is, again, the hallmark of mechanics over simulation.  Just as with hit points.
> 
> The question, of course, is how much "mechanics over simulation" does one want in an rpg?  Like the reversed question (how much "simulation over mechanics" does one want in an rpg?), there is no "right" answer for all people.  Heck, for most people (IME), there is no "right" answer that applies across all of their gaming experience.




But many seem to believe they know the right answer for other people.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But many seem to believe they know the right answer for other people.




True dat.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah, the argument that a McDonalds hamburger is objectively better than the one barbecued in your backyard.




The whole bit where you can talk about barbecuing burgers in your backyard and I understand what you mean kind of puts lie to this. If a McDonalds hamburger were really objectively better supermarkets wouldn't carry ground beef and hamburger buns since everybody would be going to McDonalds.

A McDonalds hamburger is arguably less costly and definitely less time-consuming to make. Hence the name "fast food". For some people the savings in money and time makes up for the drop in quality. For some it doesn't. 

New Basketball didn't cost any more than Old Basketball to watch. It may have taken less time on occasion. It was actually more physically demanding on the players, who pounded up and down the court much more frequently. Unlike the McDonalds hamburger there aren't any obvious factors which would explain the rise of New Basketball, other than it actually worked better than Old Basketball.



> "Newer is better" and "bandwagon is better" are both fallicious thinking.
> 
> RC




"People have reasons for what they do" is never fallacious thinking. This is why the slow-food movement over in Italy is plunking down a dining table across the street from the new McDonalds and staffing it with an old Italian grandma with a big plate of pasta. They know people value their time highly enough to trade quality for it at McDonalds, so their argument is not "you are making a dumb decision" but "why value time so highly?"


----------



## Fenes (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> "People have reasons for what they do" is never fallacious thinking. This is why the slow-food movement over in Italy is plunking down a dining table across the street from the new McDonalds and staffing it with an old Italian grandma with a big plate of pasta. They know people value their time highly enough to trade quality for it at McDonalds, so their argument is not "you are making a dumb decision" but "why value time so highly?"




My question would be: Why value your choice in edition so highly as trying to prove it is "more right"?


----------



## La Bete (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Newer is better" and "bandwagon is better" are both fallicious thinking.
> 
> RC




As is _naturellement_, "older is better", and "not jumping on the bandwagon"...


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

rounser said:


> If this were the case, the D&D IP would be worth little, d20 Modern would still be in print and a success,




d20 Modern? REALLY? Maybe you missed the part where I said there was such a thing as "bad crunch". d20 Modern introduced a new mechanic, Wealth, which doesn't do at all what it says on the label (model gear progression). It also tried to make two creaky mechanics from 3E even more load-bearing: the "pick what you suck at" skill system with the addition of "skill encounters" without even any guidelines for setting the right difficulty, and the multivariate calculus of multiclassing which was both made mandatory and given a third tier. "4E Modern" would beat d20 Modern like a redheaded stepchild.

Also, the very notion of IP doesn't have much if any room in it for crunch. You can't copyright math. Not that this has stopped people from trying.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> and the RPGs with the most elegant rules would draw the most players.




Something I didn't address in the discussion of how both crunch and fluff reflect ideas was the role of uncertainty in gaming, and entertainment in general. Entertainment simulates something you would actually get a big kick out of doing but eliminates most of the risk. It'd be a real rush to take a skateboard to rollercoaster tracks but you get a decent approximation of that rush in the coaster without the risk of caving your skull in when the board jumps a rivet.

It's possible to make mechanics so comprehensive, which "collapse" to something elegant, that there isn't much room in them at all for uncertainty. In fact, the less uncertainty there is the more easily you can make something elegant. Why is mathematics full of talk of the 'elegant proof'? As a formal and abstract system there's nothing uncertain at all unless it's deliberately put there. 

But the resulting system of mechanics becomes like a modern art "chair" - nice to look at but not useful as a thing to sit in. It's satisfying to read and think about but you can't actually PLAY with it.



rounser said:


> Dragonborn warlords don't belong in the implied setting, and nor do eladrin or tieflings.




Actually, eladrin, dragonborn, and tieflings all solve common problems.

Eladrin: Okay, so somehow Galadriel is Legolas's mum and they live in an ancient towering mystic city perfectly attuned to the forest. Um, er. Eladrin are a way to remove this cognitive dissonance by separating elves into the two fundamental components of Sparkly Elves and Woodsy Elves, each of which do appropriately different things.

Dragonborn: You want to play a dragon? Okay, how about this guy. He's all covered in scales, he's got dragonbreath - pick your own flavor - and best of all he's a standard bipedal humanoid so I don't have to bother coming up with special dragon equipment or worrying about your gear progression.

Tiefling: You want to play a "good bad guy"? Okay, how about this guy. He's got giant demon horns, his name is "Misery", and when somebody hits him, he shouts "You DARE!" and backfists them. Eventually the backfist is _flamesplosive_. 

As ready answers to common problems, they ALL belong in the implied setting.



Mephistopheles said:


> I'm not so sure about that; just about every campaign I've played in has had its fair share of house rules to go with it. I've also played with a few DMs who were prone to making things up as they went along and so long as they were consistent it wasn't a problem.




"So long as they were consistent it wasn't a problem" - so if there were some standard guidelines so the DM wouldn't have to worry as much about consistency, wouldn't that be better?

Also, concerning house rules, they generally serve one of two purposes. Either they're a patch for some terrible problem in the rules that the DM has encountered in the past, or they're ideas the DM wants to try out which may have their own terrible problems in the future. In the former case it would be better if that problem never happened - in the latter, the DM would be well-served by a few "best practices" to help him realize his ideas with less worry that they won't survive exposure to the players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> The whole bit where you can talk about barbecuing burgers in your backyard and I understand what you mean kind of puts lie to this.




Are you suggesting that no one plays basketball without a shot clock?



> New Basketball didn't cost any more than Old Basketball to watch. It may have taken less time on occasion. It was actually more physically demanding on the players, who pounded up and down the court much more frequently. Unlike the McDonalds hamburger there aren't any obvious factors which would explain the rise of New Basketball, other than it actually worked better than Old Basketball.




If there is a paradigm shift, where one can easily find New Basketball to watch, but where one has difficulty finding Old Basketball to watch, it becomes very difficult to claim (with a straight face) that there is not a higher cost associated with seeking out Old Basketball.

Or, to put it this way, VHS wasn't necessarily the best format for viewing films on tape, but it was the most widely adopted.  Hence, if you want to watch a film on tape, your best bet to find it is on VHS, even if VHS is an objectively worse format than its competitor in terms of picture and price.



> "People have reasons for what they do" is never fallacious thinking.




No, but attempting to answer that often leads to fallicious thinking.  As I pointed out is true in the particular case of claiming that "more people play = objectively better" (which is, in a strange quirk of fate, objectively fallacious).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

La Bete said:


> As is _naturellement_, "older is better", and "not jumping on the bandwagon"...




This is absolutely true.  

In the case of an rpg, IMHO, the only criteria are (1) what does this game try to accomplish? and (2) how well does it do in the attempt?

If, in the case of (1), it is trying to accomplish something you place a high value on, you move on to (2).  If not, the odds are that you will not enjoy the game.  If, in the case of (2), the answer is "very well indeed", you are very likely to enjoy the game.  The less (2) is accomplished, the more you value (1), the less you are likely to enjoy the game.

(1) and (2) have probably at least semi-objective components.  How much you value (1) is not objective.  Very likely, both (1) and (2) have components that are not evenly remotely objective.


RC


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Fenes said:


> My question would be: Why value your choice in edition so highly as trying to prove it is "more right"?




Heh, ask me a hard one next time. 

I value my choice OF edition highly enough to spend 8 hours a week prepping and playing it. I'm betting you do too. But the only person I can ever prove it's "more right" to is myself. I'm like a guy pretending to hold a conversation with his dog because it helps him think, only everybody here is filling in for the dog.

Why stick my reasons out here? That's an easy one too. Lemme hit you with a little Karl Marx: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Pitting an idea against its opposite knocks the crud off of both of them and makes what remains stronger. And I want my idea to be strong, so that when my players pitch me a curveball I can be less "what do I do?! O mama! O papa!" and more "try to keep up. This is gonna be awesome."

Waving a spongy little equivocation out there is like saying that choice doesn't matter. Like saying my choice doesn't matter. 'course it matters! It's MY choice, and I made it for MY own reasons, so they'd better be GOOD ones! Yes, when other people make choices, they make them for THEIR own reasons, and I don't doubt that at least some of THOSE reasons are GOOD reasons for the person making that choice. But here's the thing: some of those other people's good reasons? They might be REALLY good reasons FOR ME to do something different, and if I don't get them out in the open how am I going to find them at all?

So you can hold back all you want. I'm 'a dive in and start swinging, and if it turns out I get cut down, then so be it. Better it comes out now then 10 years down the road when a flash of insight reveals a long trail of regrets.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Heh, ask me a hard one next time.
> 
> I value my choice OF edition highly enough to spend 8 hours a week prepping and playing it. I'm betting you do too. But the only person I can ever prove it's "more right" to is myself. I'm like a guy pretending to hold a conversation with his dog because it helps him think, only everybody here is filling in for the dog.
> 
> ...




The problem with your line of reasoning is that we're not comparing ideas, we're comparing taste. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference. And that's something that cannot be proven right or wrong.

If I say "I like chocolate, I dislike avocados" then no one can "prove" that I am wrong, or should like avocados. Same for movies, same for editions.

And personally, if you want to hear other reasons, you should not "start swinging" - it tends to cause peopole to clam up and stop reasoning, and start bickering. And then you have the whole edition war threads, and badwrongfun accusations.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Are you suggesting that no one plays basketball without a shot clock?




I dunno. The asphalt court down the block with the chain-link fence doesn't have a shot clock. The thing about the shot clock is, the guy who came up with it looked at games where players weren't being ball-hogging foul-drawing turtle-men and said "okay, 120 shots seems to make for a pretty exciting game, let's see what happens when you force that number". The shot clock isn't there to make the game MORE fun. Players can do that just fine on their own. It's to prevent the existence of things like win-loss records and championship trophies from having consequences that make the game LESS fun. 

In short, it prevents a degenerate but winning strategy.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If there is a paradigm shift, where one can easily find New Basketball to watch, but where one has difficulty finding Old Basketball to watch, it becomes very difficult to claim (with a straight face) that there is not a higher cost associated with seeking out Old Basketball.




It's a good thing I'm not making that claim, then.

My claim, she goes like this: when all there was was old basketball, players didn't have as much fun and fewer people watched than when all there was was NEW basketball. 

Of course, there could be other explanations then "it's the shot clock". The rules on fouls were slightly revised at the time as well. And who knows? Maybe alien social scientists from another planet dispatched secret operatives to talk up basketball at the same time New Basketball was debuting.

But my claim is: the shot clock made basketball a better sport *for league play*.

Yeah, that's a rider I should probably have attached earlier. Tons of people come to see the Harlem Globetrotters and they put the shot clock the same place they put the REST of the rule book.

Still though. If you want to challenge that claim, put up a compelling counter-argument.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or, to put it this way, VHS wasn't necessarily the best format for viewing films on tape, but it was the most widely adopted.  Hence, if you want to watch a film on tape, your best bet to find it is on VHS, even if VHS is an objectively worse format than its competitor in terms of picture and price.




Price doesn't matter if you can't buy what you want at all. And picture wasn't important enough for enough people to sink the extra money into buying another player.

Would you like to bring up Edison's record player? We can talk SO MUCH about Edison's record player.

Also, is DVD "better" than VHS, or just "more widely adopted"? 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, but attempting to answer that often leads to fallicious thinking.




No arguments are yellow.
No chocolate is yellow.
Therefore all arguments are chocolate! 
That's what I call fallicious.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As I pointed out is true in the particular case of claiming that "more people play = objectively better" (which is, in a strange quirk of fate, objectively fallacious).




Can we leave "fallacious" behind? It's a yellow flag for the educated to throw to protect the unwary, but we're all educated here. It's either right or wrong to have that equals sign there. If it's wrong, make that thing true on one side and false on the other. Don't just say "fallacious" and walk away.


----------



## Psion (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Okay, here's the thing. Legolas? Written by one dude. Conan? Written by one dude. How many dudes are sitting down at your gaming table? HINT: it is more than one.




Wait, what?

Did you miss where KM said:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What makes me choose D&D over these other toys is not "fun." It is a particular style of rarely-had fun that I very much enjoy: interactive, spontaneous storytelling.



?

So it appears he's not arguing against collaborative storytelling. Quite the contrary.

Indeed, it seems like his arguing against the extreme of "fun first" or "story first", and you're taking his statement to mean something totally different. I doubt that KMs game resembles the single-author style that gave us fantasy tales of old. But the fantasy tropes that those stories popularized gave D&D something to be _about_.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> There is no such quote in the 1E DMG, and that is not remotely the subject of the essay on hit points.




I never said it was from the essay on hit points. I just said it was in the 1e DMG.



			
				AD&D 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide said:
			
		

> Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the latter as the game-school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school...*As a realistic simulation of the realm of make-believe*, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, *it can be deemed only a dismal failure*.... Those who desire to creature and populate imaginary worlds.... who seek relaxation with fascinating game, and who generally believe that games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.




It is not intended to simulate the "reality" of a make-believe world. It's intended to be a game to play to have fun. That's why rules that are contradictory to reality (like hit points) exist.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Reynard said:


> (BTW, the quote The Little Raven was thinking about was the one in the first couple of pages where Gygax is saying that AD&D combat is not intended to be a simulation of historical combat -- that's it.  Not "AD&D isn't intended to be a simulation" -- especially since it very obviously was given the content of the DMG.)




No, it's not just about combat. The full quote addresses more than just a simulation of ancient/medieval warfare, as it also states the game isn't intended to simulate a make-believe world or ancient/medieval culture.

He flat out states that some games are into realism/simulation and others are gamist, and that AD&D is definitely gamist.


----------



## La Bete (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Can we leave "fallacious" behind? It's a yellow flag for the educated to throw to protect the unwary, but we're all educated here. It's either right or wrong to have that equals sign there. If it's wrong, make that thing true on one side and false on the other. Don't just say "fallacious" and walk away.




Dude, next you're going to have us drop "passive-aggressive", and what will we do then?


----------



## Reynard (Sep 12, 2008)

La Bete said:


> Dude, next you're going to have us drop "passive-aggressive", and what will we do then?




Oh?  You don't know?


----------



## Delta (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> It is not intended to simulate the "reality" of a make-believe world. It's intended to be a game to play to have fun. That's why rules that are contradictory to reality (like hit points) exist.




Heh. So now it's not about the hit point essay, but some other place. Of course, in your quoting from 1E DMG p. 9, I notice that you have ellided out the part that I use as my signature. 

In 1E, hit points are not contradictory to reality. They have a specific in-world-reality interpretation, as laid out on p. 82. They are, in fact, "the highest degree of realism" that didn't interfere with the flow of the game.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Psion said:


> So it appears he's not arguing against collaborative storytelling. Quite the contrary.
> 
> Indeed, it seems like his arguing against the extreme of "fun first" or "story first", and you're taking his statement to mean something totally different.




I'm taking his statement to be nonsensical, like a guy wondering whether he should eat just food or whether he should eat just vegetables. No matter what you're doing you're eating food!

Actually it's even worse than that and I'm not sure how to analogize it so here it is straight. There is no human fundamentally opposed to stories. There is no human fundamentally opposed to fun. Stories are what we tell to others and ourselves ALL THE TIME, and fun - or if you'd rather, satisfaction - is what we try to have ALL THE TIME. So being worried about whether you should try to tell a story or whether you should just try to have fun is completely at odds with the nature of a) stories b) fun c) humanity d) all of the above.

And the most important thing for telling a collaborative story in a manner that's fun for everyone involved is to have a common social contract with a specified means of conflict resolution, a.k.a. DA RULEZ.



Fenes said:


> The problem with your line of reasoning is that we're not comparing ideas, we're comparing taste. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference. And that's something that cannot be proven right or wrong.




Yes, but statements ABOUT your personal preference can very easily be proven right or wrong. If I say "you know what I hate more than anything else? Red. I would eliminate red from the face of this earth, had I the power" and then you follow me for a day and I wear a red shirt and red pants, drive a red car, wear red-tinted sunglasses, work in a red building with red walls and red carpets, and spend my entire day putting a second coat of red paint on things that have already been painted red just to make sure they're *really* red and the entire time I'm smiling, whistling and laughing, there are two possible conclusions: either that statement about my personal preference was wrong or we aren't sharing the same reality. Perhaps I am red-green colorblind and green is my favorite color in the world. And then you can ask me "what color is your shirt?" and clear up that confusion.



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> If I say "I like chocolate, I dislike avocados" then no one can "prove" that I am wrong, or should like avocados. Same for movies, same for editions.




But let's say I'm a chef and I cook with both chocolate and avocados. If I share my best chocolate recipe with you and you like the taste of it, is it somehow unreasonable to also offer you a bite of my best avocado recipe? Is it unreasonable for you to take it? After all, perhaps you don't like avocados because of the way they've been prepared, and perhaps you'll like them the way I can prepare them, and discover a new and delicious food! 

There are several things you can say that are reasonable, of course. "I'm violently allergic to avocados" so even one bite WILL be harmful. "I tried that recipe already" so this approach won't convince you. "That's what you said about the LAST best avocado recipe LAST week" so all my arguments are less credible.

But personal preference is based on experience, and all experience is limited.



> And personally, if you want to hear other reasons, you should not "start swinging" - it tends to cause peopole to clam up and stop reasoning, and start bickering. And then you have the whole edition war threads, and badwrongfun accusations.




I tend to follow more "love me or hate me, but spare me your indifference". Or if you really rather, I'm trying to figure out what things to say so that people become interested in having an argument with me, but don't get the impression that I'm trying not to argue in good faith. 

And if somebody does get that impression and respond in that way, that too is a lesson and I'm going to try to figure out what I said that prompted that distrust so I can figure out how not to do it again.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> And if somebody does get that impression and respond in that way, that too is a lesson and I'm going to try to figure out what I said that prompted that distrust so I can figure out how not to do it again.




Your claim that your choice of game/edition/playstyle is better.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> Heh. So now it's not about the hit point essay, but some other place. Of course, in your quoting from 1E DMG p. 9, I notice that you have ellided out the part that I use as my signature.



Clearly taking things in context is highly over-rated.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> Heh. So now it's not about the hit point essay, but some other place.




It never was about the hit point essay, because I never referenced the hit point essay until later in this (current) post.



> Of course, in your quoting from 1E DMG p. 9, I notice that you have ellided out the part that I use as my signature.




I didn't feel the need to point out an additional place where Gygax states that game concerns trump realism.



> They have a specific in-world-reality interpretation, as laid out on p. 82.




You mean the one where he explains that most hit points beyond the first handful primarily represent combat skill, luck, and magical forces, since he says it's ridiculous for even a fantastic fighter to take enough wounds to kill 4 warehouses?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Still though. If you want to challenge that claim, put up a compelling counter-argument.




One doesn't need to supply a counter-argument to note that an initial argument is flawed.  Thinking that one does is also a fallacy.

For example, were I to claim that the moon was made of cheese, it is immaterial to the rationality of that claim whether or not you could make a compelling counter-argument.  All you need to do is point out whatever makes my argument wrong.



> No arguments are yellow.
> No chocolate is yellow.
> Therefore all arguments are chocolate!
> That's what I call fallicious.




That is a poor syllogism.  

A syllogism that demonstrates 

A is B,
B is C,
Therefore A is C

is not flawed, except insofare that its initial premises (A is B, B is C) are flawed.  Following a flawed syllogism does, indeed, lead to fallicious logic.  However, following a flawed syllogism is not the only form of fallacy.



> Can we leave "fallacious" behind?





As soon as we leave the fallacious reasoning behind, we can stop pointing it out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> He flat out states that some games are into realism/simulation and others are gamist, and that AD&D is definitely gamist.




I would agree that he does say so, within the context of the time.  However, within the context of the time, that "gamist" is very, very simulationist.  The simulationism that D&D is a "dismal failure" when compared to is simply very, very, very, very simulationist.

If you think of it in terms of a number line, where 10 is utterly simulationist, and -10 is utterly gamist, then AD&D 1e was somewhere in the area of (say) +5, being compared against things that are intended to be in the +8 or +9 range.  3e might fall near the centre of the number line.  4e, IMHO, crosses into the negative numbers.

(You can reverse that, and make gamist the positive numbers, without appreciably changing the argument.)

By that light, both Mr. Gygax's statements in the 1e DMG, and the observations of those who regularly played/play the game (re: AD&D being more simulationist than, say 3e or 4e) are both true. 


RC


----------



## Delta (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> It never was about the hit point essay, because I never referenced the hit point essay until later in this (current) post.




Well, the discussion back in posts #151-153 was about hit points, so when you mentioned "that essay in the 1e DMG" you made it look that way. 



The Little Raven said:


> You mean the one where he explains that most hit points beyond the first handful primarily represent combat skill, luck, and magical forces...




Precisely. That is categorically not "don't think about it".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I'm taking his statement to be nonsensical, like a guy wondering whether he should eat just food or whether he should eat just vegetables. No matter what you're doing you're eating food!
> 
> Actually it's even worse than that and I'm not sure how to analogize it so here it is straight. There is no human fundamentally opposed to stories. There is no human fundamentally opposed to fun. Stories are what we tell to others and ourselves ALL THE TIME, and fun - or if you'd rather, satisfaction - is what we try to have ALL THE TIME. So being worried about whether you should try to tell a story or whether you should just try to have fun is completely at odds with the nature of a) stories b) fun c) humanity d) all of the above.




Cool.  Imagine the poor fool wondering if he should just eat whatever food is offered, or become a vegetarian.  There is no distinction, we are told, because both meat and vegetables are food.

Now, add into the mix the actual topic (i.e., mechanics-first or flavour-first design), and it gets truly wonky, because (obviously) this isn't a discussion where _anybody_ is suggesting that rpgs don't create stories, but rather a discussion about _what aspects_ of an rpg (specifically, focus on mechanics or flavour) work best toward that goal.

I.e., given the question, "Is mechanic-first or flavour-first the best way to structure an rpg to gain the greatest level of satisfaction?" the answer herein espoused is "They both tell stories, so there is no distinction."

Let's go back to Old and New Basketball.  Following the logic espoused above, not only does it become "wrong" to suggest that, say, New Basketball is better than Old due to the shotclock, but it is wrong to even suggest that there is an "Old" and "New" basketball.  Neither is fundamentally opposed to playing with a basketball on a basketball court, so if someone tries to discuss a distinction between the two, the point may be taken as nonsensical.

Colour me unimpressed by this line of reasoning.


RC


EDIT:  BTW, satisfaction and fun are not co-equal.  There are a great many things in life that might be fun without being satisfying, and likewise a great many that might be satisfying without being fun.  Judging everything on the basis of "fun" alone is likely to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 12, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Your claim that your choice of game/edition/playstyle is better.




Well, that's because it is.

For me.

And it's haaaaaaaaard  to go back and find all the places where I should have added that. Also as has been hinted at before I want responses, and I don't believe I will get them if I qualify my positions because it will look like I'm setting up defenses and fallback points.

Ideally what I want is for someone to say "well I'm using system Q to do events R and S and it works well for reasons T, U, V, and W" and somewhere in there is something I can shamelessly steal to increase my own fun. Hopefully they will also have been crafty enough to draw RSTUVW out of me and are contemplatively weighing their loot bag o' ideas.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would agree that he does say so, within the context of the time.  However, within the context of the time, that "gamist" is very, very simulationist.  The simulationism that D&D is a "dismal failure" when compared to is simply very, very, very, very simulationist.




What do you mean when you say gamist and when you say simulationist?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> What do you mean when you say gamist and when you say simulationist?




In this particular case, following what I believe TLR means (because I am quoting him), simulationist is an attempt to follow "in world" logic to simulate something external to the game itself, whereas gamist deals specifically with rules structure itself, in an attempt to create a game format that "works".

In Gygax's quoted bit in the DMG, what hit points are meant to represent is as close to simulationist as he can get without interupting the flow of the game, but they are a gamist construct in that the flow of the game is more important that accurate (or even close) representation.

"Hit points" in D&D are a construct of the game, which can be painted any flavour you like.  They have an objective rules meaning, but have no objective meaning within the the "in world" simulation that flavours the game (though they may take several subjective meanings).

Contrast this with the Wandering Prostitutes table at the back of the DMG.  On the surface, this may seem a purely gamist element (as some have claimed in this thread!).  However, the chart offers a variety that has no objective meaning within the rules of the game.  Only in the "in world" simulation element does any entry on that chart gain any meaning whatsoever.

To me (and YMMV), the degree of gamism vs. simulationism in 1e hit points and 4e hit points is quite drastically changed.  IMHO, 4e hit points are far more divorced from the simulationist aspects Gary described in the 1e DMG.  Whereas others think 4e hit points have solved simulationist problems, I think they have created far more problems than they have "solved" (and I don't see them as having really solved any).  Again, YMMV, based upon what you are looking for from the game.


RC


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In this particular case, following what I believe TLR means (because I am quoting him), simulationist is an attempt to follow "in world" logic to simulate something external to the game itself, whereas gamist deals specifically with rules structure itself, in an attempt to create a game format that "works".




I view it more as attempting to explain how the in-game "reality" works through the lens of the rules aka "rules as the physics of the game world".



> To me (and YMMV), the degree of gamism vs. simulationism in 1e hit points and 4e hit points is quite drastically changed.




The first handful of 1e hit points are a factor of potential physical wounds, while the rest are a factor of combat skill, luck, or magical power. This is according to the description of them given in the 1e DMG.

4e hit points are a factor of combat skill, luck, or magical power, and the negative hit points are more a factor of potential wounds. This is according to the description of them given in the 4e PHB.

The only drastic change I see between the two is the number of hit points, not their purpose or what they are supposed to represent.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Cool.  Imagine the poor fool wondering if he should just eat whatever food is offered, or become a vegetarian.  There is no distinction, we are told, because both meat and vegetables are food.




Isn't Glazius suggesting that we don't try to reason about being a vegetarian or not, but about the hows and whys?



			
				Glazius said:
			
		

> I value my choice OF edition highly enough to spend 8 hours a week prepping and playing it. I'm betting you do too. But the only person I can ever prove it's "more right" to is myself. I'm like a guy pretending to hold a conversation with his dog because it helps him think, only everybody here is filling in for the dog.
> 
> Why stick my reasons out here? That's an easy one too. Lemme hit you with a little Karl Marx: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Pitting an idea against its opposite knocks the crud off of both of them and makes what remains stronger. And I want my idea to be strong, so that when my players pitch me a curveball I can be less "what do I do?! O mama! O papa!" and more "try to keep up. This is gonna be awesome."
> 
> *Waving a spongy little equivocation out there is like saying that choice doesn't matter. Like saying my choice doesn't matter. 'course it matters! It's MY choice, and I made it for MY own reasons, so they'd better be GOOD ones! Yes, when other people make choices, they make them for THEIR own reasons, and I don't doubt that at least some of THOSE reasons are GOOD reasons for the person making that choice. But here's the thing: some of those other people's good reasons? They might be REALLY good reasons FOR ME to do something different, and if I don't get them out in the open how am I going to find them at all?*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> *The first handful of 1e hit points are a factor of potential physical wounds*, while the rest are a factor of combat skill, luck, or magical power. This is according to the description of them given in the 1e DMG.
> 
> 4e hit points are a factor of combat skill, luck, or magical power, and the negative hit points are more a factor of potential wounds. This is according to the description of them given in the 4e PHB.
> 
> The only drastic change I see between the two is the number of hit points, not their purpose or what they are supposed to represent.




Please note the part I bolded above.  Moreover, the way that they are used in the game has changed, rather drastically IMHO, what they represent.  In 1e, healing required either time or magic (ala a Robert E. Howard or a Edgar Rice Burroughs story).  In 4e, healing is a matter of potentially instantaneous zero-to-hero using non-magical means.  If 4e hit points are meant to represent the same type of damage as 1e hit points, they do a poor job of it.  I rather think that they represent something drastically different.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Isn't Glazius suggesting that we don't try to reason about being a vegetarian or not, but about the hows and whys?





Is he?

It seems to me that the answer is "sometimes Yes, sometimes No" with the "sometimes Yes" coming out when the holes in "sometimes No" are made obvious.

Specifically, he says that the question "Shall I eat food or shall I eat vegetables?" is nonsense, which it is not.  Because B is a subset of A doesn't make it nonsense to ask whether to eat A or B.  They are not co-equal.

Likewise, neither it is nonsensical to claim that relevant game elements are sacrificed on the altar of "fun".

Now, if he now agrees that these questions are sensible questions, then I obviously have no complaint on that basis!  


RC


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In 1e, healing required either time or magic (ala a Robert E. Howard or a Edgar Rice Burroughs story).




Aside from Second Wind (which I will concede is a big difference in the way healing functions, since it gives everyone a self heal), 4e healing requires time or powers (since we've moved beyond magic being the only source of powers). The difference is in the amount of time needed, or the source of the powers (though martial is the only non-magical power source, it is still obviously supernatural).



> In 4e, healing is a matter of potentially instantaneous zero-to-hero using non-magical means.




Gygax described HP as being a factor of combat skill... is it so jarring that a combat commander (Warlord) can restore points that represent that? Or that you can take a second to catch your breath and try and keep your "combat skill" strong (Second Wind)?

I would say that definition is even stronger in 4e than it was in 1e, since there's actually something to reinforce the definition as "combat skill."



> If 4e hit points are meant to represent the same type of damage as 1e hit points, they do a poor job of it.




The amount and types of healing available doesn't change what hit points represent. They represent the same thing they did in 1e (combat skill, luck, magical ability, and at the very end of your life, physical wounds).



> I rather think that they represent something drastically different.




Healing is different, I'll agree. What purpose hit points serve, and what they represent is still exactly the same.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Aside from Second Wind....




Here is, IMHO, the biggest difference.

In 1e, when you took a hit, you could immediately determine what it represented in-world on the basis of the damage taken vs. the character's remaining hit points.  Because you knew how long it would take to heal that wound, and how much it affected the character, you could peg it really, really closely.  You were, in effect, telling the story as it unfolded.

However, in 4e, when you take hit point damage, you cannot immediately tell what that damage represents in-world.  If you receive magical healing later, it might have represented real damage, but if the Warlord chooses to make it so, it might have represented battle fatigue or low morale.  The changes to hit points change them from representing something happening _now_ to something that only happens _later_ and is retroactively "true" in terms of the "in world" story.  You can no longer tell the story as it unfolds.

That is, to me, a very big change.  There are a number of things that turn me off 4e, but this is the biggest (ruleswise), and the hardest to simply houserule away.


RC


----------



## Spatula (Sep 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here is, IMHO, the biggest difference.
> 
> In 1e, when you took a hit, you could immediately determine what it represented in-world on the basis of the damage taken vs. the character's remaining hit points.  Because you knew how long it would take to heal that wound, and how much it affected the character, you could peg it really, really closely.  You were, in effect, telling the story as it unfolded.
> 
> However, in 4e, when you take hit point damage, you cannot immediately tell what that damage represents in-world.  If you receive magical healing later, it might have represented real damage, but if the Warlord chooses to make it so, it might have represented battle fatigue or low morale.  The changes to hit points change them from representing something happening _now_ to something that only happens _later_ and is retroactively "true" in terms of the "in world" story.  You can no longer tell the story as it unfolds.



I wonder if you've ever actually seen a movie, or read a story, or watched a fight, where one person gets beaten down, catches a second wind, and comes back to win the day.  But if you have... did catching a second wind close the person's physical wounds?  Or did it simply allow them to function despite their wounds?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2008)

Spatula said:


> I wonder if you've ever actually seen a movie, or read a story, or watched a fight, where one person gets beaten down, catches a second wind, and comes back to win the day.  But if you have... did catching a second wind close the person's physical wounds?  Or did it simply allow them to function despite their wounds?




Which is why, in 4e, you don't know if you've been wounded at the time of hit point loss, but rather only later, when you decide whether or not you get a second wind.

Or, to put it another way, I wonder if you've ever actually seen a movie, or read a story, or watched a fight, where one person gets beaten down, and you don't know whether or not that beatdown included actual wounds until twenty minutes later, when he either catches a second wind, or doesn't?

RC


----------



## Spatula (Sep 13, 2008)

You know you've been wounded when you lose HP.  You may receive a morale boost that allows you press on despite those wounds.  That does not remove the wounds or retroactively cause them to disappear.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 13, 2008)

Spatula said:


> I wonder if you've ever actually seen a movie, or read a story, or watched a fight, where one person gets beaten down, catches a second wind, and comes back to win the day.  But if you have... did catching a second wind close the person's physical wounds?  Or did it simply allow them to function despite their wounds?




The problem with claiming that the second winds are cinematic, is that second wind healing isn't temporary.

Sure, I've read stories, watched movies, and seen fights where people get that second wind.  And do you know what happens when that fight is over?  _They collapse_.  Because a burst of adrenaline is just that - a BURST.  It's not something _permanent_.

That's why, as Raven says, you don't know you lost HP.  Because you AREN'T wounded, unless of course that burst of adrenaline is *magic* adrenaline that causes your wounds to close magically.  But, well, it isn't magic adrenaline.  HP has gone from being vaguely abstract to being *completely* abstract, with no arguments available.  Second Wind doesn't work thematically as a PERMANENT source of HP healing.  And this is aside from the argument, but second wind also doesn't work thematically when it's a _constant and reliable_ source of energy.  Those second winds in movies work because they're _once in a movie occasions_.  If they happened every fight, they wouldn't be second winds.  They wouldn't even HAVE a name, other then "That part where the movie really started to suck."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 13, 2008)

> The problem with claiming that the second winds are cinematic, is that second wind healing isn't temporary.




Well, the bigger problem with claiming that second winds are cinematic is that this means that they are "flavor-first," which Hussar argues should be taboo. 

Of course, that's not a problem from where I'm sitting, because I don't think 4e without a constant reminder of what it was trying to evoke, and I think second winds evoke exactly what 4e was trying to evoke.

Now, this did muddle and confuse what hit points were trying to evoke. Some people don't mind it, some do.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> One doesn't need to supply a counter-argument to note that an initial argument is flawed.  Thinking that one does is also a fallacy.
> 
> For example, were I to claim that the moon was made of cheese, it is immaterial to the rationality of that claim whether or not you could make a compelling counter-argument.  All you need to do is point out whatever makes my argument wrong.




Okay then, put up or shut up. Let us say that I have just said the moon is made of cheese. Point out what makes that argument wrong WITHOUT, and this is important, making a counterargument. You are free to define "counterargument" however you wish, but be advised that MY definition is "persuasive discourse intended to contrast, oppose, or refute other persuasive discourse" and you must state yours or I will apply mine.

While you're working on that, let me talk about tautologies. Tautologies are statements of equivocation. Here are some examples.

F = ma

the number of ways to pick N objects from a set of M, order unimportant = M! / N! (M - N)!

systems within a society = adaptation, goal-seeking, integration, latency

If you accept a tautology and you know that one side of the equation is true, you know that the other side of the equation is also true. Tautologies work with ideas other than equations too. For example:

The cities in Ohio are a subset of the cities in the United States.

For all statements A, B, and C: If "if A and B are true, then C is true" is true, and "A and B are true" is true, then C is true.

In fact if you buy modern cognitive research people are actually bang on about the set/subset relationship and the whole system is really built of set/subset relationships. Equivalence is just a way of saying that each side of the equation is a subset of the other side, for example.

Tautologies don't necessarily work all the time. For example, if you know a city is in the United States then you know nothing about whether it's in Ohio or not. But often they can be way to get more knowledge out of the same amount of information. Want some knowledge? 'course ya do.

For tautologies to be useful, several things have to hold. First, you must understand what the operational parts of the tautology represent - what the "F", "m", and "a" stand for and what those words mean. Second, you must map parts of the tautology onto the stream of information and get enough from it so you can apply the tautology to the rest. Third, and most importantly, you must accept that the tautology applies to at least some things that you do not currently know.

Done with that not-counterargument yet? No? Have an interlude.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Following a flawed syllogism does, indeed, lead to fallicious logic.  However, following a flawed syllogism is not the only form of fallacy.




Riddle me this, Bat-nuisance: if you were to make a portmanteau of the words "fallacious" and "delicious", what would it be?

And we'll pick up after this message from our original poster.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As soon as we leave the fallacious reasoning behind, we can stop pointing it out.




For tautologies to be useful, they must deal in some part with things you do not know. Is the most useful tautology one that deals with everything you do not know? Well, "everything is everything" is a tautology, but it doesn't provide any new knowledge as such. Once you have ascertained that something is a part of everything, this tautology tells you that... it is a part of everything. Thanks, tautology. That's real helpful there.

No, the most useful tautology is one that takes knowledge you can get and turns it into knowledge you want. 

I won't go over all the ways to try and make those kinds of tautologies here, but some easy examples of starter tautologies include: something that is true now will be true forever; something that is true now has always been true; what is true for several objects is true for some category to which they belong in common; truths applying to some category of objects are themselves a category with some thing in common. 

Note: starter tautologies. When you form a tautology which includes things you do not already know, you can never entirely prove it true until you know everything it might encompass. But you can very easily prove it false, by presenting true information to the tautology and showing that it produces false results. And then you abandon your tautology as no longer useful, or you split it into two tautologies - an amended version of the original and one about the conditions under which the original failed - and try to make them both as useful as possible.

And of course, because you are human, you will attempt to learn things from other people, including their tautologies. Including the conditions under which they fail. Including the conditions under which yours fail. Two people each putting up one proto-tautology and learning about the differences in their results and the conditions under which they fail - now that's an argument.

Now I know this may come as a surprise to you, but humans are not entirely rational creatures. Sometimes they do pursue rational goals in rational ways. Other times they use rationality to further the pursuit of subjective goals - and can ask other people to check their rationality even if they disagree on their goals. Sometimes they follow tradition, doing things for no reason other than they have been done that way, and not willing to examine them. Other times they follow their emotions. 

Some of the things humans can do don't help themselves or other people learn about tautologies and failure conditions. They can be irrational, in which case they don't feed into tautologies. They can be irrelevant, in which case they have no relation to the tautologies in the argument. Or they can be unuseful, in that while they do relate to the tautologies in the argument, applying them to said tautologies does not result in more useful tautologies.

And because people were seeking useful tautologies, they began to classify these unhelpful statements. The they in this case is a line stretching back from Aristotle, and they gave the classifications names to help people remember them. 

These classifications, like all tautologies, are not perfect. "But yesterday you killed a man with your bare hands!" while of the form of an attack on character, can also be an attempt to request more specifics on the statement "I have always believed all human life is sacred and should be treated with respect." "More people like it!" while of the form of an appeal to the populace, is also a legitimate response to "why should we renew this program for another year of broadcast, instead of its midseason replacement?"

But they do provide useful guidelines. For example, appealing to authority is citing an acknowledged sound position, but without attempting to connect it to the argument at hand. With no connection the citation is irrelevant and unhelpful.



Raven Crowking said:


> Cool.  Imagine the poor fool wondering if he should just eat whatever food is offered, or become a vegetarian.  There is no distinction, we are told, because both meat and vegetables are food.




Yes. There is no distinction between meat and food, or between vegetables and food, or in fact between food and food. At least, no innate distinction. Someone wondering, with no prior convictions, whether to eat food or eat vegetarian, is indeed a poor fool, because he is trying to make a decision that does not mean anything. But if our someone here has prior convictions, then the distinction has meaning. If, for example, he wishes to pursue a vegetarian philosophy, then obviously he can be much more sure of following his philosophy if he eats vegetables than if he eats any food, and this is because only eating vegetables is consistent with his philosophy. Or perhaps he is the son and grandson of hunters, to whom "food" means "every part of the animal" but has been advised by his doctor to eat more vegetables. Unlike most people, he does not classify vegetables as food, and so the decision means something to him.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, add into the mix the actual topic (i.e., mechanics-first or flavour-first design), and it gets truly wonky, because (obviously) this isn't a discussion where _anybody_ is suggesting that rpgs don't create stories, but rather a discussion about _what aspects_ of an rpg (specifically, focus on mechanics or flavour) work best toward that goal.
> 
> I.e., given the question, "Is mechanic-first or flavour-first the best way to structure an rpg to gain the greatest level of satisfaction?" the answer herein espoused is "They both tell stories, so there is no distinction."




Today has been a day of jumping to step 2 and watching it work so much so that I have often forgotten step 1.

Here is step 1. "Mechanic-first" or "flavor-first" is not a generally useful distinction to make. The important factor is ideas: both mechanics and flavor consist of ideas structured in relationships to each other. They are not identical structures, of course, but all of them are composed of ideas. 

Now, I am assuming that people are equally apt at getting ideas out of the mechanics and flavor. Some people have a poor head for understanding numbers. Others are not so good with extracting ideas from text. I am also assuming that the mechanics and flavor are both equally amenable to having ideas extracted from them, though both can be obfuscatory - the mechanics we call "unintuitive", the flavor "unclear", and this does not refer necessarily to an innate failing of either but to an inability to pull the ideas out from them. It may well be that there is no idea underneath, that the mechanics are nonsensical or the flavor meaningless. But this is not true of all mechanics or all flavor.

The difference between mechanics and flavor is one of relationships. Mechanics are more often about equivalence or numerical comparison. Flavor is more often about the primal relationships, sets and subsets. And I do not doubt that different people use these relationships in different ways to tell different stories!

What I have to say is this - I find it easier to make up primal relationships, sets and subsets, than deeper ones, equivalences and ratios and the sort. I believe it is easier for humans in general, so a system written to best help a general audience would be well-served to have solid mechanics and leave flavor malleable. Why not present a solid flavor? Because then personal choices of flavor are subject to a meaningful appeal to authority.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Let's go back to Old and New Basketball.  Following the logic espoused above, not only does it become "wrong" to suggest that, say, New Basketball is better than Old due to the shotclock, but it is wrong to even suggest that there is an "Old" and "New" basketball.  Neither is fundamentally opposed to playing with a basketball on a basketball court, so if someone tries to discuss a distinction between the two, the point may be taken as nonsensical.
> 
> Colour me unimpressed by this line of reasoning.




...uh, well, yes. You suggested that new basketball was not better than old due to the shot clock. You suggested that there was no old or new basketball, and that neither were opposed to playing with a basketball on a basketball court. And I'm pretty sure you're suggesting, right now, that the point should be taken as nonsensical. And then you declare yourself unimpressed with your own line of reasoning? 

Or is that *my* line of reasoning? I'm sorry, I can see the antecedent stretching back from the 'this', looking for something to hook onto, but I can't see where it lands. 

In the hopes that perhaps you are some mad absurdist genius and the entire point of this exercise was to elicit the few paragraphs that follow, I will be as explicit as possible, and then brace myself for my perceptions to shift as the electrodes are lifted from my head and I realize I am just a brain in a jar of Tang.

Let us consider basketball in the abstract. There is nothing there. There is nothing real until we make it so.

So: let us consider minimalist basketball: one-on-one, three-on-three, five-on-five, on an asphalt court with only enough uniform for one side to tell itself from the other. No scoreboard, no timer, people playing for the fun of it. What purpose does the shot clock have here? None. But we can do something important - we can see how often they take shots. Often it is fast. Very fast. The shot is the uncertainty, that moment of tension and trust where the ball is out of everyone's hands. And even as people cling to the familiar they crave uncertainty. This is the point of a game - any game. Uncertainty without the risk that accompanies it. It does not matter to the player that shot whether he hit or missed, but whether he was satisfied with the shot. If we place the shot clock beside the court and hire a referee to enforce it, it will likely serve no purpose, resetting before it even gets halfway. How can I comment on the timing of the shot clock with such certainty? Because the people who set the rules for the shot clock made these observations, of specific games of basketball all falling under the category of minimalist. 

But now, let us introduce risk. Let us put time limit on the play, an end to the game. Let us keep score. Let us say: it is important whether your team's score is higher or lower than the other team's. The people who live in your town will care, and they will applaud you when it is higher and denounce you when it is lower. Perhaps you know some of them. Do you want them denouncing you? You will be paid to play this game, to spend your time in practice so that your team's score will be higher. Perhaps you will be paid more if you win. Perhaps if you lose it will be considered that money is wasted on you, and you will not be paid any more at all. Why is it meaningful to consider these things? Because these are the conditions of "professional basketball". 

But with this risk, uncertainty becomes less attractive. When your team leads you will hold onto the ball rather than take a shot - why risk the lead? When your team trails you will try to foul the opposing team - they can only gain 1 point on the foul shot but you may gain 2 if you can seize on the foul shot to take the ball and score. Motivated not by the thrill of uncertainty but the fear of risk, the choice of what to do is already made for you. And the people watching you - they are there to live through your uncertainty, to empathize with you and feel it for themselves. It is not that they will not step in for you, they can not - you are paid to practice this game and they are not. If you are mired in risk, then this is all they feel. Why can I say these things when I was not there? Because the people who were there said them. It is written down in a book by a sports historian named Terry Pluto, and as a matter of record for the sports pages of 1954.

To this game dominated by risk - a paradox! Risk was supposed to have bled out of the game! - add the shot clock. The shot clock is not uncertainty or risk. The shot clock is a fact. If you do not surrender the ball to uncertainty within the next XX seconds, you will lose it. This is not up for debate. No longer is there an obvious choice. No longer can you mitigate the risk of losing by holding onto the ball. No longer is it a good idea to take a chance on a foul to get the ball back  - this was the purpose of the foul, to discourage these chances, but that has been ignored - because the shot will happen, and then you will have a real chance. And the people watching - now they can feel the chances you take again, now they get their uncertainty back. Is the risk gone? The risks associated with losing the game may as well be. Unless you do something truly terrible there are too many people making too many choices to be sure of the impact you had. There is the risk that you will turn out to be unfit for your job and be replaced, but this is because of the nature of jobs, not the nature of basketball with the shot clock. Players making meaningful choices and having fun within the game, and more fans enjoying watching the game. This is basketball after the shot clock.

The shot clock does not fundamentally alter the nature of basketball. But a game is more than its nature - it is also its own groundwork for smooth interactions between the players. If one player plays fairly by rules other than the shot clock, but is more focused on winning the game than having fun, the shot clock will ensure that the steps he takes to win the game will not result in less fun for everyone else.

In the best case, the shot clock does not matter. In the worst case, it helps enormously. So, the shot clock is a net improvement to basketball, especially pro basketball, especially when considered as a spectator sport. 

Why did I not just say this in the first place?

Haha, "just".  I chose to use this time to explain my reasons, but it is a lot of time, and because this is so long it may be hard to read in places. I usually choose to answer in short sharp statements not only to save time but to practice making a good, persuasive statement in a small amount of time. And of course, it will be more instructive to anyone who can take the things I say and from them get the ideas underneath from them, since they will be making the journey there via their path instead of mine and thus will remember it better.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  BTW, satisfaction and fun are not co-equal.  There are a great many things in life that might be fun without being satisfying, and likewise a great many that might be satisfying without being fun.  Judging everything on the basis of "fun" alone is likely to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction.




So let's try short and punchy again. Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Perhaps this is your basis? At bottom food, warmth, shelter; at top belonging, commitment, affection. Top depends on satisfying bottom. At peak, self-actualization, the greatest good. It depends on satisying all others.

Fun is extra satisfaction. It comes from making meaningful choices. Choices like how to be satisfied in all the layers but the topmost. The topmost is having the power to make all those choices.

The hierarchy is not absolute. Force of will can make you believe you are satisified when you are not. People can ignore food to the point of starvation for any reason or none at all - but if you have starved to death, you are dead and as far from self-actualized as you can be. Using force of will at other layers has other consequences - less dire, perhaps, but it has them. 

When someone says "you are having too much fun" they mean "you are acting satisfied but you should not be". They may be wrong, but that is the argument they make.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In 1e, when you took a hit, you could immediately determine what it represented in-world on the basis of the damage taken vs. the character's remaining hit points.  Because you knew how long it would take to heal that wound, and how much it affected the character, you could peg it really, really closely.  You were, in effect, telling the story as it unfolded.
> 
> However, in 4e, when you take hit point damage, you cannot immediately tell what that damage represents in-world.




I don't understand why you say this.

In 4E, you can recover from any blow that doesn't kill you outright unaided with 5 minutes' rest, assuming you have enough healing surges. This means that over the course of combat any damage you take cannot reflect injuries that would take more than 5 minutes' rest to heal.

This is why I say that when your hit points go negative, you pass out from the sudden shock rather than because you've been too badly damaged to remain fundamentally conscious. Healing surges reflect your ability to shake off shock and recenter yourself - when they run out, it's not that you're hurt any worse off than you were before, it's that you've tapped out your ability to recover from that shock, but with a good rest you're refreshed. 

Could there be ways to regain that ability other than rest? Yes, though many of them that you could think of are not explicitly allowed. You could drink from a stream and be refreshed enough to regain 2 healing surges. Why? Well, you can decide that. Perhaps your character is part merfolk, perhaps the stream flows from the fountains of the Bright City, perhaps it has been infused with vital energy. The default setting assumes that such springs do not exist, so if one does it would be because of DM fiat. But if a DM is planning an extended dungeon dive then scattering such springs through would be a means of giving the characters the ability to recover without having to worry about where they stop to rest for 6 hours.

At least one way is spelled out. When a deadly trickster pulls off his epic trick he regains all hit points and healing surges. So whatever the epic trick includes, it must also completely refreshes him as though he has rested. Perhaps he points the other way and, while Time is distracted, picks its pockets of 24 hours for himself.

But somewhere in the point between fighting fit and unconscious, you do become obviously wounded - when you pass from about 50% hit points to 50% or below, and become bloodied. Here are the characteristics of the wound you have suffered when you are bloodied: it does not slow you down; it does not weaken your attacks or make them less inaccurate; it does not on its own reduce your hit points any further; it does expose you to certain kinds of environmental damage and effects that a non-bloodied person would not be exposed to; it does signal to enemies, allies, and casual observers that you are wounded; it does signal to yourself that you are wounded; and if you take the few seconds to use your second wind you can tend to it so that you are no longer wounded. 

What is the second wind? It's a single moment of clarity that you can seize on to refocus and recover, just as if you were resting after the fight was over. Why can't you use it more than once per combat? Combats are fast and confusing and you can only muster that concentration once, barring special effects such as divine intervention. Try to grab it again and it won't work. It also won't work if you've been battered around so much during the day that all your ability to recover is gone.

If it's important for you to describe damage to your character, you can now imagine many "bloodied-type" wounds your character could suffer, depending on the source of damage, element of damage, and possibly location on the body. As you take damage in combat, think about these wounds. The strike that puts you into bloodied status could inflict one of them, but so could any single strike you take before then - the wound won't just become obvious until you drop to 50% hit points. (This is for cases where you have 50 hit points, a dragon bites you for 24, and then its kobold cutter minion dings you for 3. It is fine to say that the obvious wound came from the dragon bite and you were suppressing it with force of will until the minion rattled you and broke your concentration.) 

Why is it okay to think about such things beforehand? Because describing damage to your character is satisfying for you, or because it will be one element in a story that you are enjoying telling with the other people at the gaming table. It gives them something real to bounce a hook off of - they can tend to that wound with first aid or have somewhere to lay on hands. But considering the game as writen, there is no other reason. There is nothing in the mechanics of the game to suggest that it matters what sort of wound it is that bloodied you. So, you are free to decide it for yourself, to your own satisfaction.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here is, IMHO, the biggest difference.




It doesn't change what hit points represent, though. If, like Gygax wrote, 1e hit points represent "combat skill" as one factor, then Second Wind is just a refinement of his original concept, as it's a representation of a hero refocusing his "combat skill."



> In 1e, when you took a hit, you could immediately determine what it represented in-world on the basis of the damage taken vs. the character's remaining hit points.




Okay, let's say you're the 85 hp fighter from the 1e DMG example, and you take 10 damage... what does that represent in-world when those hit points are considered "combat skill" or "luck"? Probably as a glancing blow, or a flesh wound, or a near-miss. How is that any different from 4e?



> The changes to hit points change them from representing something happening _now_ to something that only happens _later_ and is retroactively "true" in terms of the "in world" story.




You're confusing sources of healing with what hit points represent. The 1e DMG is very clear that the majority of hit points are *NOT* physical wounds, so that means the majority of 1e healing is not actually healing wounds, but restoring "combat skill" or "luck" or "magical factors."



> That is, to me, a very big change.  There are a number of things that turn me off 4e, but this is the biggest (ruleswise), and the hardest to simply houserule away.




You seem to be dead set on the idea that "non-magical healing" means that hit points are something completely different from previous editions because they don't always represent physical wounds, despite the fact that previous editions spelled out that they didn't always represent physical wounds.

Just because your options from healing went from "magic" and "time" to "powers" and "time" doesn't mean that hit points represent something different, when their description and use is the same.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Sure, I've read stories, watched movies, and seen fights where people get that second wind.  And do you know what happens when that fight is over?  _They collapse_.  Because a burst of adrenaline is just that - a BURST.  It's not something _permanent_.




Read the Princess Bride. Inigo is dying. Flat out dying. He sees the ghost of his father and his teacher, cursing him for coming this far just to die like a chump. He overcomes his wound by shoving his fist into it, kills the Six-Fingered Man, helps Wesley escape, and never once collapses after his "Second Wind."



> HP has gone from being vaguely abstract to being *completely* abstract, with no arguments available.




The 1e DMG on HP: "A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."

The 4e PHB on DMG: "Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. 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."

A small amount of physical wound mixed in with a bunch of skill, luck, and other factors like resolve, magic, divine providence, and whatnot.



> If they happened every fight, they wouldn't be second winds.  They wouldn't even HAVE a name, other then "That part where the movie really started to suck."




Die Hard movies are full of John using Second Wind during almost every single fight, because he takes a beating and keeps going when a normal man would just stop and die. The reason he's always so covered with blood from head to toe by the end of any of the movies is because he doesn't stop, or collapse, or anything. He propels himself forward despite all odds.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

Spatula said:


> You know you've been wounded when you lose HP.  You may receive a morale boost that allows you press on despite those wounds.  That does not remove the wounds or retroactively cause them to disappear.




Excepting, of course, that if this was true you'd still need healing after you pressed on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I don't understand why you say this.




Clearly.

And from your post just previous to this one, it is equally clear that you don't understand what I am talking about in terms of logic.

If you claim that the moon is made of cheese, all that is required to refute that position is to demonstrate that your reasons for making that claim are fallicious.  It doesn't mean, of course, that the moon _*isn't*_ made of cheese -- that hasn't been proved.  All that has been proved is that _your reasoning does not logically arrive at your conclusion_.  IOW, if your conclusion is correct, and your reasoning is fallicious, your conclusion isn't correct for the reasons that you think it is.  Instead, it is merely coincidentally correct.

No counterargument is required.  One doesn't have to know what the moon is made of to refute a claim that it is made of cheese.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Read the Princess Bride. Inigo is dying. Flat out dying. He sees the ghost of his father and his teacher, cursing him for coming this far just to die like a chump. He overcomes his wound by shoving his fist into it, kills the Six-Fingered Man, helps Wesley escape, and never once collapses after his "Second Wind."




You know, one might suggest that this is supernatural healing.  And, if this is the sort of "second wind" going on several times in each battle then it borders on the absurd.....Rather as parts of The Princess Bride are meant to.

If we were to assume that John from Die Hard fought day after day on his second winds -- as 4e characters can potentially do, no matter how savage the beating each day -- the Die Hard franchise would be far across the borders of absurd and into the regions of the ludicrous.



> The 1e DMG on HP: "A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."
> 
> The 4e PHB on DMG: "Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. 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."




Sure, this is what they say, but in actual play:

1e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  He is now down to 2 hp.  The player has a pretty good idea of exactly what sort of condition his character is in, and the DM has no difficulty describing the blow causing that damage within the context of the 1e paradigm.

4e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  This might be a wound, or it might not be.  Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.

In the 1e paradigm, the in-world story is never required to change based on later PC or NPC actions.  The in-world story unfolds as the story is played at the game table.

In the 4e paradigm, the "past" of the in-world story is frequently required to change based upon "present" PC or NPC actions.  Or, as in quantum mechanics, the story stays in a curious state of indeterminancy until after all wounds are healed, magically or otherwise.  Only then do we know whether they are "real" wounds or not.  The in-world story only unfolds retroactively, after all events at the game table are known.

Which, if that's your cup of tea, is fine.  It is not my cup of tea.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure, this is what they say, but in actual play:
> 
> 1e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  He is now down to 2 hp.  The player has a pretty good idea of exactly what sort of condition his character is in, and the DM has no difficulty describing the blow causing that damage within the context of the 1e paradigm.




1e: Hit points define something in-world.  You can't change what they mean in-game; if you are hit, you are physically wounded.



Raven Crowking said:


> 4e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  This might be a wound, or it might not be.  Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.




4e: Hit points define only how much staying power a character has.  You can change what they mean in-game, based on the situation.  A hit might be a wound, it might not be, _based on what the players want it to mean at the time._



Raven Crowking said:


> In the 1e paradigm, the in-world story is never required to change based on later PC or NPC actions.  The in-world story unfolds as the story is played at the game table.




Nor can the players change the meaning of hit points; a hit point is a hit point is a hit point, regardless of whether or not it works best for describing what's happening in the game world at that moment in play.



Raven Crowking said:


> In the 4e paradigm, the "past" of the in-world story is frequently required to change based upon "present" PC or NPC actions.  Or, as in quantum mechanics, the story stays in a curious state of indeterminancy until after all wounds are healed, magically or otherwise.  Only then do we know whether they are "real" wounds or not.  The in-world story only unfolds retroactively, after all events at the game table are known.




That is not true.  I can say that a Fighter gets hit for 2 hp at the start of the day, when he's fresh with all his surges, and describe it as a brutal wound to his gut.

That wound can stick around as long as I want it to.  If I don't feel like describing the wound magically healing via a second wind, healing surge via a short rest, I don't have to.  In other words, the wound is there if I say it is, and it's not there if I say it's not.

What the hp mechanics tell me is how much fight someone has left in them.  They don't dictate anything else, and I'm glad for that.  I can use them in whatever way works best in my game, in my world, in my story.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 1e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  He is now down to 2 hp.  The player has a pretty good idea of exactly what sort of condition his character is in, and the DM has no difficulty describing the blow causing that damage within the context of the 1e paradigm.




One of the unusual - and paradigm breaking - parts of 1e is then how healing interacts with such wounds. It's one thing which I believe 4e does far better with its healing surges (no matter how such are acquired).

Consider a 1st level fighter with 8 hp. He takes a fairly major blow for 7 hp, reducing him to within sight of death at 1 hp. Then the cleric casts a _cure light wounds_ spell on him and restores him to full hit point. By the implied flavour of the spell, then it was surely a minor wound.

However, a 10th level fighter with maximum of 75 hp and then reduced to 1 hp has that self-same spell cast on him, and isn't even close to being fully healed. Indeed, given the monsters he is fighting, he's very, very close to death.

Bizarrely, if those two fighters, both reduced to 1 hp, then require bed rest to heal, the first requires only 7 days to be restored to full health, whilst the other requires 38 days! I'm tougher, more beloved of the gods... but I take longer to heal?

####

Returning to 4e, may I suggest the following way of looking at 4e damage, using a comparison with 3e Star Wars - Hit points in 4e are Vitality Points. Healing Surges are Wound Points.

A character who is out of healing surges is very close to death. Wounds are real wounds. I've seen it several times in my campaigns, and the behaviour of the players changes significantly when they're down to 2 or fewer surges. At that stage, they've taken several possibly life-threatening hits, and only the grace of the gods and/or their own skill and training have allowed them to continue.

A character with healing surges who has been reduced to 0 hp has been hurt - enough to render them unconscious - but the players and DM don't know exactly how hurt until they recover or die. The blow _looked_ significant, certainly, but was it fatal? Perhaps it was just a glancing blow, or maybe not.

In ASL, there's a similar mechanic: tanks may end up under "shock", which basically stuns them for a couple of rounds. However, a random die roll at the beginning of each extra round may have them recover or be eliminated. Why is this mechanic in there? It's because it actually simulates real warfare: in WW2, soldiers couldn't tell if they'd actually "killed" the tank or not and so kept firing at it long after everyone aboard was dead.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> 4e: Hit points define only how much staying power a character has.  You can change what they mean in-game, based on the situation.  A hit might be a wound, it might not be, _based on what the players want it to mean at the time._




And what it is remains in force until future actions invalidate the "in world" logic of what it once was.  It _was_ a gut wound, because that's what I wanted it to mean at the time, then I had a healing surge, so now it was never a gut wound.



> That wound can stick around as long as I want it to.  If I don't feel like describing the wound magically healing via a second wind, healing surge via a short rest, I don't have to.  In other words, the wound is there if I say it is, and it's not there if I say it's not.




Going back, again, to my point that hit points in 4e are more gamist than in previous editions, because they are no longer linked _at all_ to what has taken place in terms of the "in world" story.

You can't have it both ways.



MerricB said:


> One of the unusual - and paradigm breaking - parts of 1e is then how healing interacts with such wounds. It's one thing which I believe 4e does far better with its healing surges (no matter how such are acquired).




In 1e, the names of the curative spells might have flavour problems for you, but that doesn't mean that the hit point rules themselves do.



> Bizarrely, if those two fighters, both reduced to 1 hp, then require bed rest to heal, the first requires only 7 days to be restored to full health, whilst the other requires 38 days! I'm tougher, more beloved of the gods... but I take longer to heal?




Sorry, but I'm not seeing this the same as you are.  In 1e, the 1st level fighter simply isn't as good as the 10th level fighter.  Both characters are healed enough to take a sword thrust at the same time.  The 10th level fighter, though, has more finely tuned reflexes, etc., that make his tip-top condition _better_ than that of the 1st level guy.  They reach the same point at the same time; the 10th level fighter simply has the potential to gain more from more rest.



> Returning to 4e, may I suggest the following way of looking at 4e damage, using a comparison with 3e Star Wars - Hit points in 4e are Vitality Points. Healing Surges are Wound Points.




So, basically, you are saying that I consider that a character gets wounded when he uses a healing surge?  Wouldn't that make the determination of when hit point loss represents a wound take place at the time of healing?  Isn't that exactly what I was just saying/complaining about?

If that floats your boat, I'm glad for you.  Really.  But it doesn't float mine.  I prefer a game in which the rules provide representation for unfolding _in world_ events in real time.  4e provides excellent representation for unfolding _game table_ events.  These are two different animals.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In 1e, when you took a hit, you could immediately determine what it represented in-world on the basis of the damage taken vs. the character's remaining hit points.  Because you knew how long it would take to heal that wound, and how much it affected the character, you could peg it really, really closely.  You were, in effect, telling the story as it unfolded.



In AD&D, when you deliver a hit, you do not know what it represents in-world unless you know the hp remaining of your target. Contrast this with RM and RQ, in which you (or actually the dice) are telling the story as it unfolds.

Hit points have always been a mechanic with a degree of fortune-in-the-middle.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And what it is remains in force until future actions invalidate the "in world" logic of what it once was.  It _was_ a gut wound, because that's what I wanted it to mean at the time, then I had a healing surge, so now it was never a gut wound.




No.  It still is a gut wound.

Let's say I take that 2hp wound.  I describe it as a gut wound.

I use a healing surge.  I _still_ describe my PC as having a gut wound.

This is all possible from what constraints the mechanics give us - namely, that my PC no longer has as much staying power as before.



Raven Crowking said:


> Going back, again, to my point that hit points in 4e are more gamist than in previous editions, because they are no longer linked _at all_ to what has taken place in terms of the "in world" story.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.




They are given as much in-world meaning as I wish, with the one exception: my PC's staying power is reduced.

More gamist?  Yes.  Less sim?  No.  (For certain values of gamist and sim.  )  Fidelity to the game world?  Yes, as much as I want them to have.

They do not have an objective meaning in the game world - I as a player must give them meaning.  That doesn't mean I _can't_ give them meaning.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

pemerton said:


> In AD&D, when you deliver a hit, you do not know what it represents in-world unless you know the hp remaining of your target. Contrast this with RM and RQ, in which you (or actually the dice) are telling the story as it unfolds.





Excepting, of course, that the DM _does_ know how severely damaged the target is, and can describe it to the players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> They are given as much in-world meaning as I wish, with the one exception: my PC's staying power is reduced.




This is the equivilent of saying that Bob's fighter is more damaged because Sue's cleric ran out of cure spells.



> Less sim?  No.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They do not have an objective meaning in the game world




And, therein lies the flaw in your argument.  When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics.  The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.

And, again, if that makes a satisfying game for you, that's what counts at your table.  But it doesn't make a satisfying rpg for me.


RC


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You know, one might suggest that this is supernatural healing.




And one might be wrong, as it's spelled out to be sheer force of will propelling Inigo up and back into the fight. There's no cleric chanting over him, nor spirits healing him. It's his hand in his gut stopping the blood, and his will to get his vengeance that restores him to effectiveness.



> And, if this is the sort of "second wind" going on several times in each battle then it borders on the absurd.




It only happens once. And Second Wind in 4e is once per encounter, too, so I don't see the point in bringing that up.



> If we were to assume that John from Die Hard fought day after day on his second winds -- as 4e characters can potentially do, no matter how savage the beating each day -- the Die Hard franchise would be far across the borders of absurd and into the regions of the ludicrous.




Die Hard IS pretty ludicrous, just like most American action movies are.



> Sure, this is what they say, but in actual play:




So, let's just ignore what they say because... it doesn't fit the argument? What the books say is the utmost importance, because the set the standard for the game. If the book says they represent that, then they represent that, because the book would be a higher authority on the subject than someone else.



> 1e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  He is now down to 2 hp.  The player has a pretty good idea of exactly what sort of condition his character is in, and the DM has no difficulty describing the blow causing that damage within the context of the 1e paradigm.




Yeah, his condition is "unaffected by wounds at all," since being wounded doesn't have any impact on your condition until you're unconscious or dead. Being that hit point loss doesn't result in any change in fighting condition until the point of no return, the 1e fighter losing 8 hp is just the same as the 4e fighter losing hp: his skill turned a potentially lethal blow into a lesser one.

And here's a counter...

1e: Fighter with 85 hp takes 10 hp damage. He is now down to 75 hp. The cleric casts cure light wounds on him, despite the hp loss not actually representing wounds by the definition in the book, and the wound that doesn't actually exist gets healed. So, the in-game story runs into a serious conflict where one system states that the character is not actually physically wounded, while the healing effect is a magical wound closer.

So, if a Second Wind is problem with the "is it really a wound" question, then 1e has that same problem with it's "skill, luck, or magical factors" explanation for hit points, since you can't cure wounds that don't exist, right?



> Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.




Not true. Since hit points represent things like skill, luck, resolve, and the like, you could easily describe it as a wound, and a Second Wind represents ignoring the wound and pushing yourself beyond your normal limits... or it could represent you plugging the wound... or the classic Bruce Lee wiping the blood from his wound, licking it, then coming back in for more.



> In the 1e paradigm, the in-world story is never required to change based on later PC or NPC actions.  The in-world story unfolds as the story is played at the game table.




Not according to the discrepancy between the "skill, luck, or magical factors" explanation for hit points, and the fact that magical healing is described as closing and mending wounds. How can a spell to close and mend your wounds be effective when the hit point less doesn't represent wounds?


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Excepting, of course, that the DM _does_ know how severely damaged the target is, and can describe it to the players.




And as "damaged" in 1e didn't always mean "physically wounded," according to the book, there's no real difference. A person suffering hit point loss is using his skill to turn a solid blow into a glancing one, or luck favors him and has the blade turned by his helmet... until he takes a solid blow that drops him.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, therein lies the flaw in your argument.  When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics.  The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.




Therein lies the flaw in your argument : you assume that a game mechanic must either directly simulate some element of the game world or serve no other purpose than as a game play construct. Mechanics can also serve to reinforce the ongoing narrative without necessarily being directly reflective of the physics of a game world.

I would argue that hit points in 4e are a narrative mechanic. While they might not directly represent the physical condition of a character, they do reflect the amount of adversity a character can withstand before that character's player must cope with the mortality of that character. I think that simulates a great deal more than the game itself. It simulates a character's toughness, grit, and damn cussedness, and I consider those elements pretty important to simulate.  

I realize that such an explanation might not satisfy you, but I think it's pretty fundamental to why people like me and LostSoul are more satisfied with 4e than we were with prior editions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

It was 5:50 when he [Inigo] staggered from the room, heading he knew not where or for how long, but hoping only that whoever had been guiding him lately would not desert him now....

.....

However, this was before Inigo's wound reopened; .....


EDIT:  Those are quotes from the book, btw.  It is NOT spelled out that Inigo's ability to ignore the wound was from sheer force of will.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

Campbell said:


> Therein lies the flaw in your argument : you assume that a game mechanic must either directly simulate some element of the game world or serve no other purpose than as a game play construct. Mechanics can also serve to reinforce the ongoing narrative without necessarily being directly reflective of the physics of a game world.





ED:  I'm starting a new band, and I need a guitar player.

BOB:  Have you asked Patty?

ED:  Patty doesn't play guitar.

BOB:  Therein lies the flaw in your argument:  you assume that because Patty doesn't play guitar that she cannot play the tuba.

ED:  No, I said Patty doesn't play guitar.



RC



EDIT:  Also, may I point out that the word "directly" is something you added in there?  And then you followed up with an argument that 4e hit points are a simulation of something "in world"?  The problem being, of course, that once you start making the claim that 4e hit points are simulationist, the problems with the simulation (already pointed out many, many times) are readily apparent.  IMHO, of course.

Since the answer to the problems pointed out is nearly universally "they don't correspond to anything", and the answer to pointing out that they don't correspond to anything is nearly universally "yes they do", I'm going to chalk this up to willing blindness.  Because, there are problems either way, at least in terms of what I am looking for from a game.  They might be narrativist, but like a whole lot of 4e gamist elements, they are only narrativist if you are willing to let the game table narrative take precedence over the in-world narrative.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Not according to the discrepancy between the "skill, luck, or magical factors" explanation for hit points, and the fact that magical healing is described as closing and mending wounds. How can a spell to close and mend your wounds be effective when the hit point less doesn't represent wounds?




You are aware, I hope, that a glancing blow can cause a physical wound without being the same thing as a sword through your gut?  And, because of the way both combat and healing mechanics work in 1e, it is very easy to describe any minor wound as a minor wound.  No retcon is ever needed, because the wound will never simply close up because Bruce got a second wind.

I mean, if I got hit and took a secondary effect (level drain, say) in 1e, then it meant I was hit.  In 4e, what does it mean if you were hit, poisoned, but then lost that damage (but not the secondary effect) in a second wind?  Were you really wounded?  If not, how were you poisoned?  If so, where did the damage go?

Surely you didn't find this at all difficult in 1e, if you can master Schrödinger's wounding in 4e without a hitch?  Me, I guess I'm dumb, because I have no desire to play around with quantum superpositions every time someone takes "damage".

And, here's a prediction -- either 5e or 6e is going to "correct" the Schrödinger's damage problem, and then (and only then) 50% of the people claiming the problem doesn't exist _now_ will be clamouring about the obvious need for a fix _then_.  After all, that's exactly what happened with every problem anyone (myself included) ever pointed out about 3e.


RC


----------



## Delta (Sep 14, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> And as "damaged" in 1e didn't always mean "physically wounded," according to the book...




Not so. 1E DMG p. 82:



> Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm... our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.




Each hit scored causes some amount of actual physical harm. Possibly only a small amount. That's the key thing about hit points that has apparently changed from 1E -> 4E.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 14, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Yes, 1 HP from negative bloodied a PC can roll a natural 20 on a death save and get back up. And if the PC has three more healing surges it can be running around and bodychecking orcs into the undergrowth in 5 minutes, like nothing ever happened. This is something that can and probably will happen according to the extant mechanics.
> 
> You have two options: either you don't accept that that much recovery can occur in that little time, or you don't accept that being 1 HP away from negative bloodied actually represents a fundamental injury that the PC cannot recover from in 5 minutes. As I understand things, you have chosen option 1 and I have chosen option 2, and the difference between option 1 and option 2 is that option 1 requires you to also not accept the rules.
> 
> I am wondering, what's so bad about option 2?



I think you have only looked at one side of the coin, take the blinkers off for the moment. Lets look at option two, 1 hp from "Dead!" having been attacked continuously by the pointy end so as to be unable to immediately get up - he's unconscious. Now if I roll a 20 then I'm back into the frey as you say, OR I duff my 3 saves and my character is dead 18 seconds later. 18 seconds from death having been whaled upon by "damaging" blows. Now this guy is not some novice shop keeper who can't stand the sight of blood, he is a professional, veteran hero. He is a hero possibly 18 seconds from death, and possibly a short rest away from full health. I'm struggling to think of a physical condition for my hero that can be reconciled with this.

You say that being 1 HP away from negative bloodied can represent a fundamental injury that the PC can recover from in 5 minutes. Fine, but not one that could also have a veteran hero 18 seconds from death. Option 2 does not jive with my sense of realism as it applies to a fantasy game and it does not fit within the context of the game where my hero has just engaged in deadly combat to find himself in that 1hp from death condition. If my veteran hero is 1 hp and possibly 18 seconds from dead, then no, I'm not expecting him to get up from such a condition, completely unaided as if nothing happened to him. If you're happy handwaving that, then as I stated earlier, cool for you. I'm not. To me, it represents a situation where the game mechanic has over-ruled flavour to its detriment.

Having said that though, I still enjoy 4E, I'll still continue to play it despite a couple of handfuls of "irregularities". 3E wasn't perfect either as my 1st post stated and I still enjoyed that too. Imagine though D&D 5E where the game mechanics are so elegant, that they perfectly mimic the flavour they are trying to represent. Gaming nirvana that will have the entire D&D community on board without having tonnes of people feeling like they need to defend one edition or the other of the game. It ain't gonna happen is it?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 14, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> He is a hero possibly 18 seconds from death, and possibly a short rest away from full health.




Full health implies you have all your healing surges.

A character with 30 hp and 10 healing surges in D&D 4e has effectively 330 hp. However, in the space of an encounter, you can wear them down enough so that they are exhausted and make a fatal mistake.

I think there are a lot of people who don't appreciate that Healing Surges need to be taken into account when you're discussing the health of a character. What does 1 hp and 0 healing surges mean?

The one utterly gamist part of 4e where it departs simulation entirely is in regaining _all_ your health overnight. For those who want a more realistic view of healing, allow only one healing surge to be regained per night of rest (and curative rituals or total rest/tending to return more).

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I mean, if I got hit and took a secondary effect (level drain, say) in 1e, then it meant I was hit.  In 4e, what does it mean if you were hit, poisoned, but then lost that damage (but not the secondary effect) in a second wind?  Were you really wounded?  If not, how were you poisoned?  If so, where did the damage go?




The last time I checked, a spider bite from a Redback Spider could kill you, but you'd take no appreciable damage in D&D terms. You can get killed from a minor scratch that infects you with tetanus.

In D&D terms, and - as Gygax wrote - a killing blow is turned by a hero into a glancing blow, inflicting perhaps only a bruise or a scratch. However, poison? Yes, it could well affect the character from that scratch.


----------



## rounser (Sep 14, 2008)

> And, here's a prediction -- either 5e or 6e is going to "correct" the Schrödinger's damage problem, and then (and only then) 50% of the people claiming the problem doesn't exist now will be clamouring about the obvious need for a fix then. After all, that's exactly what happened with every problem anyone (myself included) ever pointed out about 3e.



"I'm just....a little...out of breath....give me a moment."
"Your arm's off!"
"Trick of the light.  Feeling much better now."
"But...it came clean off at the elbow!"
"Only a little bit.  Needed to remind myself that I could do it, and that together we could do anything.  Now, attack in that way I showed you before...."
"Eh?  Says who?"
"I'm a warlord."
"Then where's your soldiers, where's the war?  I know how to fight better than you do, you're not going to order me around.  Back in your box you...whatever you are."
"A dragonborn."
"Okay....right............wake me up for 5E, please."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Full health implies you have all your healing surges.




What page is that on?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

rounser said:


> "I'm just....a little...out of breath....give me a moment."
> "Your arm's off!"
> "Trick of the light.  Feeling much better now."
> "But...it came clean off at the elbow!"
> ...





Obviously, the black knight in Quest for the Holy Grail was using 4e healing surges......


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

MerricB said:


> The last time I checked, a spider bite from a Redback Spider could kill you, but you'd take no appreciable damage in D&D terms. You can get killed from a minor scratch that infects you with tetanus.
> 
> In D&D terms, and - as Gygax wrote - a killing blow is turned by a hero into a glancing blow, inflicting perhaps only a bruise or a scratch. However, poison? Yes, it could well affect the character from that scratch.





So, your basically okay with Erac's Cousin gettng bitten by a rattlesnake, being poisoned thereby, having the poison stopped by an antidote, and then having the wound miraculously disappear.  If that is the case, then that's good for you, because you've got a game that does that.

It is not something I find satisfying.

And, again, here's a prediction -- either 5e or 6e is going to "correct" the Schrödinger's damage problem, and then (and only then) 50% of the people claiming the problem doesn't exist now will be clamouring about the obvious need for a fix then. After all, that's exactly what happened with every problem anyone (myself included) ever pointed out about 3e. 

(Of course, which folks are going to be singing a different tune will only be known when we have a chance to look in the box, but if I put ten names into a sealed envelope right now, I bet I'd have at least seven winners.)


RC


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, again, here's a prediction -- either 5e or 6e is going to "correct" the Schrödinger's damage problem, and then (and only then) 50% of the people claiming the problem doesn't exist now will be clamouring about the obvious need for a fix then. After all, that's exactly what happened with every problem anyone (myself included) ever pointed out about 3e.
> 
> (Of course, which folks are going to be singing a different tune will only be known when we have a chance to look in the box, but if I put ten names into a sealed envelope right now, I bet I'd have at least seven winners.)
> 
> ...




I have seem to have noticed this as well. It is only a perception and could easily be colored by how i perceived things have come about. But  from my view of things, i kind of feel that issues people were hating in 2E that 3E 'fixed' are now the bugbears of 3E.

As I said it could be that I was not really a fan of 3E or 4E and see the things that i want to.


----------



## Andor (Sep 14, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Read the Princess Bride. Inigo is dying. Flat out dying. He sees the ghost of his father and his teacher, cursing him for coming this far just to die like a chump. He overcomes his wound by shoving his fist into it, kills the Six-Fingered Man, helps Wesley escape, and never once collapses after his "Second Wind."




You might want to reread the last paragraph. 

To my mind the change that 4e makes to HP is this: Full HP no longer means 'uninjured.' It means 'unhindered by your injuries.'

No one thinks (I hope) that all your injuries close and heal fully after 5 minuetes as though every character is Wolverines natural son. Instead the idea that I take away from these rules is that after 5 minutes of rest and bandaging and field stitches the PCs are able to soldier on at full capacity. This is certainly heroic and I like it. Unfortunately carried to it's logical conclusion at the end of a long multi-encounter day the PC should be looking like a horror movie mummy but are still bouncing around like acrobats and taking swords to the spleen with barely a flinch.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 14, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Full health implies you have all your healing surges.
> 
> A character with 30 hp and 10 healing surges in D&D 4e has effectively 330 hp. However, in the space of an encounter, you can wear them down enough so that they are exhausted and make a fatal mistake.
> 
> ...




WHile you have a good point about healing surges, they are still difficult to map to in-world events. If you dont spend a healing surge then the damage is real, if you do not spend a surge, it is not, is the type of issue that people like RC are having issues with.

I think HP have changed more than just in a quantitative fashion compared with earlier editions. The quantitative changes (healing surges and heal all damage overnight) have IMO created a definite qualitative difference in how they relate to game-world events. You are never truly injured in a way that resembles any form of reality that we are used to. This doesnt mean earlier editions were great at this but there was a closer connection between hps and physical damage to the character.

Whether they are a problem or not depends if you like this or not. I dont particularly like them in the context of the game they designed but understand that they perfectly suit the design goals (a game where we can have a series of linked encounters where all characters are close to full effectiveness most of the time)

I think HP are now a far more gamist construct than they have been. They are also a more narrativist construct but i feel they fall short of good narrativist mechanics as well.

I would have rathered them go full bore narrativist and be more similar to somethign like TSOY. Since HP have only a small overlap to real in-game meaning to physical damage, many things should result in HP damage as it is now a gamist/story mechanic and not really an game-world mapping injury mechanic. HP are now gamist/narrativist mechanics which really only determine how long your character can partake in the adventure. All failures in conflicts should end up doing HP damage making skill checks far more tension filled. Of course this might totally throw them off their design goals and many would not like this direction.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 14, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> WHile you have a good point about healing surges, they are still difficult to map to in-world events. If you dont spend a healing surge then the damage is real, if you do not spend a surge, it is not, is the type of issue that people like RC are having issues with.



The damage is always real.  Some effects allow characters to ignore that damage and fight on despite it.  They still have physical wounds on their body, those wounds just have no further game effect (aside from the fact that they cost the character healing surges).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

Andor said:


> No one thinks (I hope) that all your injuries close and heal fully after 5 minuetes as though every character is Wolverines natural son. Instead the idea that I take away from these rules is that after 5 minutes of rest and bandaging and field stitches the PCs are able to soldier on at full capacity. This is certainly heroic and I like it. Unfortunately carried to it's logical conclusion at the end of a long multi-encounter day the PC should be looking like a horror movie mummy but are still bouncing around like acrobats and taking swords to the spleen with barely a flinch.




Imagine, then, what they must look like at the end of a week......


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2008)

Spatula said:


> The damage is always real.  Some effects allow characters to ignore that damage and fight on despite it.  They still have physical wounds on their body, those wounds just have no further game effect (aside from the fact that they cost the character healing surges).




It is amusing to read folks claiming that the game damage maps to "in world" story damage, and yet make claims like the above.  You can have hit point loss but no wounds, and wounds but no hit point loss, but the two map.  

Riggghhhhtttttt......


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 14, 2008)

Andor said:


> No one thinks (I hope) that all your injuries close and heal fully after 5 minuetes as though every character is Wolverines natural son. Instead the idea that I take away from these rules is that after 5 minutes of rest and bandaging and field stitches the PCs are able to soldier on at full capacity. This is certainly heroic and I like it. Unfortunately carried to it's logical conclusion at the end of a long multi-encounter day the PC should be looking like a horror movie mummy but are still bouncing around like acrobats and taking swords to the spleen with barely a flinch.




Or looking like John McClaine ala _Die Hard_, and sighing that he's too old for this *, yet still kicking the BBEG's ass in the final fight.  This visualization works for me.

(*I know, that was Danny Glovers line in _Lethal Weapon_, but the point is the same.)


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 14, 2008)

Spatula said:


> The damage is always real.  Some effects allow characters to ignore that damage and fight on despite it.  They still have physical wounds on their body, those wounds just have no further game effect (aside from the fact that they cost the character healing surges).




The fact that it heals overnight makes me feel the damage is not real. Real damage does not heal overnight. 

If the second wind allowed you to temporarily negate damage and fight on, I would agree with you about how second wind works, but that is not what happens. It is a permanent curing of 'damage'. Which means the damage is not 'real' physical damage or that second wind is a magical effect. 

We can make up all sorts of reason why this can happen in the narrative but it really further divorces hp from 'physical damage'.

This doesnt make the earlier characterizations of HP a panacea, but i without a doubt feel that they map much closer to a character's physical damage.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And from your post just previous to this one, it is equally clear that you don't understand what I am talking about in terms of logic.




I'm wondering if *you* understand what you're talking about, in terms of logic.

Go back to wherever you learned about _ad ignorantiam_ and reread it carefully. It's a double-edged sword. You can't call something true because it hasn't been proven false, but you also can't call something false because it hasn't been proven true.

To get all AEIO about it, Sometimes True does not imply Never False, and likewise Sometimes False does not imply Never True.

For example:



Raven Crowking said:


> 4e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  This might be a wound, or it might not be.  Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.
> 
> In the 4e paradigm, the "past" of the in-world story is frequently required to change based upon "present" PC or NPC actions.  Or, as in quantum mechanics, the story stays in a curious state of indeterminancy until after all wounds are healed, magically or otherwise.  Only then do we know whether they are "real" wounds or not.  The in-world story only unfolds retroactively, after all events at the game table are known.




This is an example of a Sometimes False that you are trying to get a Never True from. You can't see how to build a model that works with the mechanics, so you take that as proof that no one ever can.



Raven Crowking said:


> When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics.  The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.




...you mean that the game mechanics work just like actual real-world mechanics? Like the ideal gas law or conservation of momentum or the law of gravity? They're just equations. They don't actually simulate anything, aside from the abstract relationships of mathematics. But when we plug enough values in them to activate The Power Of Tautology, then they do. And "plugging in" is just pretending with numbers.



Herremann the Wise said:


> 18 seconds from death having been whaled upon by "damaging" blows. Now this guy is not some novice shop keeper who can't stand the sight of blood, he is a professional, veteran hero. He is a hero possibly 18 seconds from death, and possibly a short rest away from full health. I'm struggling to think of a physical condition for my hero that can be reconciled with this.




I know this is going to sound stupid, but "death" doesn't mean exactly what you think it means either. The effects of death, under the rules, are pretty much unconsciousness plus: you can't spend your own healing surges, and nobody else can let you spend them as a free action either. There's still one round left where a high-test healing utility might be able to get you up and moving, but after that, no. You need to have a ritual performed on you before you can stand up again, and you'll have to deal with some lingering weakness until you shake all the cobwebs out. 

"Comatose" is also consistent with this. Or heck, if you get rocked into it by a psychic assault, you're a prisoner in your own mind. Cold damage? Hypothermia. 

Your soul may not have gone off to Asgard for parties with elf chicks in hot tubs warmed by the burning of unjust laws, but you're unreachable by anything short of ritual healing since your brain has jumped its tracks and can't get back on its own.

I said you only need to suffer one obvious wound, and that's when you're bloodied, but that's not entirely true - if you get down to -bloodied at some point there you have taken an apparently lethal wound, so that you haven't even got a chance to get up on your own. At least not usually.

If you wanted to pour in an extra mechanic you could probably say that if you get down to -bloodied, beyond the "death penalty" in the ritual you hop on a "disease track" type structure with a penalty to hit points or healing surges or something and need to make an Endurance check during an extended rest to shake that off. 

If we want to be all Princess Bride about it, you're only ever "mostly dead". And Inigo popped either an alternate level 22 or his destiny utility, from a destiny we haven't seen yet, to return to maximum hit points the turn after he was skewered by the six-fingered man, who was obviously some kind of rogue. But the utility lasted only until the end of the encounter, after which point he was either dying or dead.



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Imagine though D&D 5E where the game mechanics are so elegant, that they perfectly mimic the flavour they are trying to represent. Gaming nirvana that will have the entire D&D community on board without having tonnes of people feeling like they need to defend one edition or the other of the game. It ain't gonna happen is it?




Eh, probably not. The problem with mechanics is that you can pretty easily imagine counterexamples. I mean, consider an ice sculpture shaped like a plus sign, standing on end on a marble slab. Now imagine it slowly melting into a puddle of water on the slab. Now imagine that water rising up and refreezing into a five-pointed star.

Congratulations, you just violated the second law of thermodynamics with your brain. 

Any mechanic is going to limit the range of imagination consistent with that mechanic to some degree. That's just the way it goes. I'd rather have less limited imagination.

I mean, I can use the exact 4E mechanics to run a campaign based on the surface of a space tree. In space. Where metals are as rare and precious as gems, and everything is organic. Just change the names of money and gear, and give the powers with metal-based names different ones, and really I think that'd about do it.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, therein lies the flaw in your argument.  When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics.  The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.




The story is not divorced from the mechanics: the hp mechanism helps resolve conflicts.  It tells us when one party can no longer carry on the fight.

The in-game meaning is objective and it is derived from the mechanics.  We know that the characters involved lose more and more ability to fight as their hp are depleted.  _How_ that depletion occurs is subjective and I have to decide how to describe it in a way that works for me.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 14, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I know this is going to sound stupid, but...[some admitedly stupid sounding stuff]...



Yeah you might be able to convince your players of that, but I don't think I could get mine to go along with it. I prefer to use my imagination on the campaign at hand rather that trying to explain why death is only a simple ritual away. And in any case, my dead character's soul would be pissed at being taken away from that elven chick hot-tub thing.



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah... congratulations to me I think your pushing a little too hard on this one. My point in regards to this thread has been that
a solid mechanic that has a good symbiosis with the flavour it is trying to represent won't have hugely distracting counter-examples. It blends in with the fantasy trope well enough that it won't distract the players from what's going on around them, taking them out of the game world. 


			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> Any mechanic is going to limit the range of imagination consistent with that mechanic to some degree. That's just the way it goes. I'd rather have less limited imagination.



As I said previously, I prefer to pour my imaginative effort into DMing the campaign at hand rather than trying to find a "credible story" to explain a weird mechanic.


			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> I mean, I can use the exact 4E mechanics to run a campaign based on the surface of a space tree. In space. Where metals are as rare and precious as gems, and everything is organic. Just change the names of money and gear, and give the powers with metal-based names different ones, and really I think that'd about do it.



Right. I suppose you could. I prefer Dungeons and Dragons myself.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 14, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It means that your character is in a little bit of trouble. However, while I understand that you could interpret healing surges as you have, and that they are an important component of a character's health, it does not affect the point I was making in regards to a situation where a veteran heroic character could be 18 seconds from death, or a handful of surges away from being back to his best performance (just down a couple of healing surges meaning that he could most probably do the same thing again but he'd need an extended rest if he wanted to do it again after that). It is just a weird situation to be in and to try to explain to one's players. I just wish the mechanic was more  intuitive and in tune with the flavour it was representing.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The one utterly gamist part of 4e where it departs simulation entirely is in regaining _all_ your health overnight. For those who want a more realistic view of healing, allow only one healing surge to be regained per night of rest (and curative rituals or total rest/tending to return more).
> 
> Cheers!



That's a fair house rule. Our group's playing by the standard rules at the moment while we get a good grasp of everything that's going on. I dare say that a new campaign for our group will be house-ruled and your suggestion might go to the top of the class. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> WHile you have a good point about healing surges, they are still difficult to map to in-world events. If you dont spend a healing surge then the damage is real, if you do not spend a surge, it is not, is the type of issue that people like RC are having issues with.




But, and this is a big point, in 1e-3e, any "damage" a fighter took was also "not real" until they were actually rendered unconscious... a loss of hit points had no effect on how they fought, which one must admit is a very gamist construction.

Narratively, the actual definition of hit points in all editions has mostly been up to the individual DM. We assume most of them are fake damage: divine grace used up, minor scratches and bruising and the like. This hasn't changed in 4e.

I do agree with anyone who thinks all healing overnight completely ignores simulation in favour of gamist expedience - I'm not quite in favour of it myself, although I appreciate how it makes certain games (quest ones where a time factor is an issue) run smoother, especially when a cleric isn't available. I've been playing Star Wars Saga Edition recently, and the inability for non-Jedi characters to heal is a major problem in the game. If you get unlucky and get shot... well, it stops the ongoing game in its tracks.

Cheers!


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 15, 2008)

MerricB said:


> I do agree with anyone who thinks all healing overnight completely ignores simulation in favour of gamist expedience - I'm not quite in favour of it myself, although I appreciate how it makes certain games (quest ones where a time factor is an issue) run smoother, especially when a cleric isn't available. I've been playing Star Wars Saga Edition recently, and the inability for non-Jedi characters to heal is a major problem in the game. If you get unlucky and get shot... well, it stops the ongoing game in its tracks.
> 
> Cheers!



My experience of different game systems is far less than yours. Can you think of a game system that plies the middle ground in this regard? How does it work?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 15, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> It means that your character is in a little bit of trouble. However, while I understand that you could interpret healing surges as you have, and that they are an important component of a character's health, it does not affect the point I was making in regards to a situation where a veteran heroic character could be 18 seconds from death, or a handful of surges away from being back to his best performance (just down a couple of healing surges meaning that he could most probably do the same thing again but he'd need an extended rest if he wanted to do it again after that). It is just a weird situation to be in and to try to explain to one's players. I just wish the mechanic was more  intuitive and in tune with the flavour it was representing.




See my ASL example earlier. One of the points about D&D considered as a simulation is that we occasionally know things that we really shouldn't know. "Oh, I'm -4 hit points, so you have six rounds to heal me" from previous ediitons, for instance, which a bunch of DMs house-ruled to prevent negative HP totals from being revealed. 

I think you can say that whenever someone does go down, they've taken a blow that _looks_ potentially deadly to the observer (monsters and PCs). The wound is real, although its full effect is not actually known yet. People can go down from an arrow hitting them (shock), even though the actual wound isn't actually that much of a problem in the slightly longer term.

At the stage that they expend their healing surges (four of them to get back to full HP, which is normally a very large number of them), the wound is still there. In keeping with D&D's heroic mien, it doesn't affect their combat effectiveness. That they have full HP implies that the grace of the gods/personal skill has them at their full defensive power again.

Certainly, D&D 4e is modeling (as much as you can say it models anything) a heroic game. A more detailed system that places penalties on characters for wounds is feasible, although I'm not sure I'd want such myself - I'd be very, very worried about the death spiral effect.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Sep 15, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> My experience of different game systems is far less than yours. Can you think of a game system that plies the middle ground in this regard? How does it work?




I'm having trouble thinking of one. However, let's look at Rolemaster for a moment:

There are basically two types of wound in Rolemaster. You have your general "concussive hits" which fulfill the role of hit points in D&D. If you manage to lose all of them, you die. Until then, your combat effectiveness isn't impaired - that's if I remember correctly, for it has been quite a while since I've played Rolemaster.

However, more significant than CP are Critical Hits, which provide actual descriptions of the wounds you suffer. It's been observed that hitting people doesn't kill people in RM, crits kill people. It's an observation I agree with. So, you can get a "thigh wound" which reduces your movement by 25% until healed - either through rest or curative magic.

In RM, combat is a bit too deadly for my liking, and it certainly has the death spiral effect, where hits impair your abilities so much that you can't come back.

Iron Heroes used Reserve Points - basically an additional reservoir of hit points that refilled your HP between encounters. They fulfill exactly the same function of healing surges.

Damage in the Amber DRP game was entirely narrative - with no dice, it was pretty much all storytelling, and you quickly got a handle on how much the GM liked your character or not. 

In Star Wars d6, you had wound levels - either you were Unwounded, Lightly Wounded, Heavily Wounded, Incapacitated or Dead. Each would reduce your abilities, and healing was a pain. However, you tended not to be wounded that much, IIRC. Boy, it's been a while since I played it and my memory is fuzzy - and I played it for four years pretty solidly.

James Bond 007 (one of my favourite games) had a similar system, and you used Hero Points to avoid wounds altogether. First Aid could reduce the severity of some wounds, but mostly you needed to go to hospital if you were badly hurt.

In most of those systems, the effects of damage were pretty severe. The main point was that you needed to avoid being hit in the first place, and they'd give mechanisms to allow to you to do that: Hero Points in James Bond, really high Dodge scores and Force Points in Star Wars. If you got hit, you were actually hit.

D&D has a simpler system where the mechanism for avoiding being hit is also part of the hit point system. If you get "hit" for 40 hp - enough damage to kill a horse - and you still have 40 hp, then we say you weren't actually hit after all. Healing Surges are indeed confusing the issue, and the books don't actually provide guidance on how to handle the issue for those wanting a more narrative/simulated experience.

Cheers!


----------



## Greg K (Sep 15, 2008)

MerricB said:


> I'm having trouble thinking of one. However, let's look at Rolemaster for a moment:
> 
> There are basically two types of wound in Rolemaster. You have your general "concussive hits" which fulfill the role of hit points in D&D. If you manage to lose all of them, you die. Until then, your combat effectiveness isn't impaired - that's if I remember correctly, for it has been quite a while since I've played Rolemaster.!





Actually, you are impaired by hit point loss in RM.  Beginning at 50% hit point loss, you begin taking penalties.  -10% at 50% hp loss. - 20% at 25% hp loss.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> I'm wondering if *you* understand what you're talking about, in terms of logic.
> 
> Go back to wherever you learned about _ad ignorantiam_ and reread it carefully. It's a double-edged sword. You can't call something true because it hasn't been proven false, but you also can't call something false because it hasn't been proven true.




Go back and read what I wrote, because I said that.  It might coincidentally be true, but it isn't known to be true using your reasoning.  The moon might be made of cheese, but your reasoning gives no reason to believe so.



> I know this is going to sound stupid, but "death" doesn't mean exactly what you think it means either. The effects of death, under the rules, are pretty much unconsciousness plus:




No, death means pretty much what I think it means; in the 4e rules, death just doesn't mean the same thing.  Much like....well, far too many things.  

I lose track.  Are you intentionally making my points for me?


RC


----------



## MerricB (Sep 15, 2008)

Greg K said:


> Actually, you are impaired by hit point loss in RM.  Beginning at 50% hit point loss, you begin taking penalties.  -10% at 50% hp loss. - 20% at 25% hp loss.




Thanks, Greg!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> The in-game meaning is objective and it is derived from the mechanics.





Keep telling yourself that.  When 5e or 6e rolls around, and claims to "fix" the quantum wounding problem, we'll see what people think then.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Keep telling yourself that.  When 5e or 6e rolls around, and claims to "fix" the quantum wounding problem, we'll see what people think then.




So you're saying that hit points _don't_ tell you when someone stops fighting?


----------



## resistor (Sep 15, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Read the Princess Bride. Inigo is dying. Flat out dying. He sees the ghost of his father and his teacher, cursing him for coming this far just to die like a chump. He overcomes his wound by shoving his fist into it, kills the Six-Fingered Man, helps Wesley escape, and never once collapses after his "Second Wind."




Actually, I seem to remember the very last paragraph of the book noting that Wesley suffers a relapse and Inigo passes out from his wounds.  Nice try, though.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 15, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> The story is not divorced from the mechanics: the hp mechanism helps resolve conflicts.  It tells us when one party can no longer carry on the fight.
> 
> The in-game meaning is objective and it is derived from the mechanics. We know that the characters involved lose more and more ability to fight as their hp are depleted.  _How_ that depletion occurs is subjective and I have to decide how to describe it in a way that works for me.



That's the thing though and that's where the disconnect in the whole hit point thing is. The objective in-game meaning of the mechanic should mesh well enough with the flavour so that no subjective DM narration is required to explain it (the DM is still entitled to interpret things if they wish but the hope with an elegant mechanic is that the flavour follows the mechanic). By having hit points, "healing" surges and "damage", mixed in with the "dying" condition as well as the complete reset" mechanic after an extended rest, there is no obvious way to interpret all of this whilst maintaining an inner logic. That's where I think the mechanic has been let down by not easily relating to the flavour presented - or perhaps vice versa.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.



The mechanics simulate nothing _full stop_. Like the saving throw mechanics in 1st ed AD&D. They certainly do not simulate the game. They are (a part of) the game.

As to pretending - I don't see that as objectionable. The fundamental step in playing an RPG is pretending that something is the case in an imaginary world (indeed, some people regard this as the paradigm of roleplaying, that distinguishes an RPG from a boardgame).

In the case of 4e's hp/healing surge mechanics, they establish certain constraints on the what can be pretended to be the case in the imaginary world.



Campbell said:


> Therein lies the flaw in your argument : you assume that a game mechanic must either directly simulate some element of the game world or serve no other purpose than as a game play construct. Mechanics can also serve to reinforce the ongoing narrative without necessarily being directly reflective of the physics of a game world.



Agreed. As Lost Soul has repeatedly pointed ouot, the hp/healing surge mechanics establish certain constraints on what can (consistently with the rules of the game) be pretended to be the case in the imaginary world.



Herremann the Wise said:


> The objective in-game meaning of the mechanic should mesh well enough with the flavour so that no subjective DM narration is required to explain it



And that's the crux of the disagreement. Some players want mechanics that deliver the story. Others want mechanics that set the parameters for the story. 4e will not do the first job. (In my view neither did earlier versions of D&D, but they often didn't do the second job all that well either, or at least often weren't very clear about it. But that's a different matter.) 



apoptosis said:


> I think HP have changed more than just in a quantitative fashion compared with earlier editions. The quantitative changes (healing surges and heal all damage overnight) have IMO created a definite qualitative difference in how they relate to game-world events. You are never truly injured in a way that resembles any form of reality that we are used to. This doesnt mean earlier editions were great at this but there was a closer connection between hps and physical damage to the character.



I think earlier editions had problems (eg the Cure spells, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread). I agree also that 4e is qualitatively different in embracing the non-simulationist character of the hp mechanic.



apoptosis said:


> I would have rathered them go full bore narrativist and be more similar to somethign like TSOY. Since HP have only a small overlap to real in-game meaning to physical damage, many things should result in HP damage as it is now a gamist/story mechanic and not really an game-world mapping injury mechanic. HP are now gamist/narrativist mechanics which really only determine how long your character can partake in the adventure. All failures in conflicts should end up doing HP damage making skill checks far more tension filled. Of course this might totally throw them off their design goals and many would not like this direction.



I think 4e mixes slightly different mechanics together - intricate combat mechanics with comparatively rules-light mechanics for other conflicts. As hp belong to the former, it wouldn't fit with the current design to extend them to the latter. Whether the current mechanical mix ultimately makes sense is another matter, of course.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 15, 2008)

MerricB said:


> But, and this is a big point, in 1e-3e, any "damage" a fighter took was also "not real" until they were actually rendered unconscious... a loss of hit points had no effect on how they fought, which one must admit is a very gamist construction.
> 
> Cheers!




That is a valid counterargument and which is why i mentioned that earlier editions version of hp was not the panacea to those wanting an in-game to physical damage. But yes it definitely had some very gamist constructions in the regard of the dichotomous all or nothing physical condition.

My preference is closer to games that have limited hp that have larger penalties (BW, TSOY).  But the HP worked for what they did and they did have a correlational mapping to physical damage. I dont feel that 4E does do this. It is a really gamist mechanic.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, therein lies the flaw in your argument.  When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics.  The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.




Hang on a sec - maybe I'm just know seeing what you are saying.  Let me try to put it in my own words.

Hit points are pretty abstract; they don't have any objective meaning in the game world.*  Because they are so abstract, they don't define what is happening in the game world.  When I'm describing hit points - either loss or recovery - I'm just "pretending" to give them meaning.

I'm unclear on why you say "pretending".  There are no mechanics for whether or not my PC hates an NPC or not, so I'm just pretending that he is, but it's not like it has no meaning.  Maybe I'm not getting what you mean though.

* - Now I see they have a little, and that is that they determine how much staying power you have, how much fight you have left in you.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 15, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I think 4e mixes slightly different mechanics together - intricate combat mechanics with comparatively rules-light mechanics for other conflicts. As hp belong to the former, it wouldn't fit with the current design to extend them to the latter. Whether the current mechanical mix ultimately makes sense is another matter, of course.




I agree that my ideas would probably cause the game to fail to reach its design goals. I feel that 4E is a game first system and its mechanics are much tighter than previous editions with the goal of delivering tactical enjoyment in series of encounters. My ideas would probably interfere with that.

I tend to be a flavor first approach enthusiast while knowing that the mechanics need to be able to deliver the flavor without too much klunkiness. 4E is probably a good example, it has superior mechanics in terms of meeting its design goals comapred to earlier editions (i think it is well-designed) but fails to evoke a flavor that i find interesting.

While I could use the rules and have fun with them, other games will evoke the flavor I want better with either greater simulationism (rolemaster) or greater narrativism (some indie games)

I think earlier editions (1E and 2E) are probably mechanically inferior and much more klunky but the rules support a flavor of game I like (some of this also being nostalgia without a doubt, i honestly play D&D specifically to some extent as it brings forth some nostalgia).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2008)

MerricB said:


> There are basically two types of wound in Rolemaster. You have your general "concussive hits" which fulfill the role of hit points in D&D. If you manage to lose all of them, you die. Until then, your combat effectiveness isn't impaired - that's if I remember correctly, for it has been quite a while since I've played Rolemaster.
> 
> However, more significant than CP are Critical Hits, which provide actual descriptions of the wounds you suffer. It's been observed that hitting people doesn't kill people in RM, crits kill people. It's an observation I agree with. So, you can get a "thigh wound" which reduces your movement by 25% until healed - either through rest or curative magic.
> 
> In RM, combat is a bit too deadly for my liking, and it certainly has the death spiral effect, where hits impair your abilities so much that you can't come back.



In RM, concussion hits _do_ model the ability to withstand cuts, bruising etc. They are also what is lost from bleeding wounds (eg an arrow might cause bleeding of 3/round). Losing all concussion hits means unconsciousness; death comes when negative hits are equal to CON score (typically 60 to 100 for a PC). Starting hits for a PC are around 10 to 50, depending on class and edition, and maximum hits for a human are around 175 (usually achieved by a PC fighter somewhere between 10th and 20th level, depending on edition and the details of the character build).

So a character with 100 CON and 175 hits can take 275 hits before dying, about 3 times that of a typical starting PC (30 hits, 70 CON). But s/he can take many more hits than the low level PC before falling unconscious (about 9 times as many).

To get a sense of what these numbers mean, an average attack with a sword against an unarmoured person can easily deal 30 or more hits as well as fairly serious critical damage.

HARP uses a similar concussion hit mechanic to RM, although PC hit totals are likely to be slightly lower.

RQ uses hit points as a measure of physical toughness. It's been a while for me, but I think that hit points equals average of CON and SIZE, so will typically be somewhere between 10 and 16 for a starting PC. Weapons deal damage comparable to D&D, but armour reduces damage, so (for example) it is quite hard to hurt an armoured person with a dagger.

Most basic roleplaying systems (Stormbringer, Cthulhu etc) use a similar approach. In RQ, and unlike most of those other games, hit points are applied not only to the general pool but to particular locations, and when a location takes more than a certain amount of damage it is weakened or destroyed (and destroying the head causes death even if the character has hit points remaining).

These are the main simulationist damage mechanics that I'm familiar with. I think Chivalry & Sorcery and HERO use something similar to RQ but without the hit location, and I think both also distinguish lethal from non-lethal damage, which come from separate pools.



MerricB said:


> In most of those systems, the effects of damage were pretty severe. The main point was that you needed to avoid being hit in the first place, and they'd give mechanisms to allow to you to do that: Hero Points in James Bond, really high Dodge scores and Force Points in Star Wars. If you got hit, you were actually hit.



In RM you avoid getting hit by parrying. In RQ and HARP, by parrying or dodging. The difference between RM and HARP on the one hand, and RQ on the other, is that parrying involves a trade-off against attack (a little like 3E combat expertise) and thus requires the player to make choices round-by-round about the sorts of risks her or his PC will take.

In HARP there is also a Fate Point mechanic for increasing defence, or for reducing damage once a foe's attack has been resolved.



MerricB said:


> D&D has a simpler system where the mechanism for avoiding being hit is also part of the hit point system. If you get "hit" for 40 hp - enough damage to kill a horse - and you still have 40 hp, then we say you weren't actually hit after all. Healing Surges are indeed confusing the issue



A system that is quite non-simulationist in its action resolution mechanics is HeroWars - conflicts are resolved by the player and the GM each staking a certain number of "action points", and then gaining or losing these depending on the result of their die rolls, and only once one side has lost all its action points is the outcome known and any wound penalties to future conflicts accrued by the losing character. The rulebooks have good advice on how to narrate this conflict so that the narration doesn't foreclose future possibilities that the rules leave open. For example, it is always possible that a PC might come back from even a very serious action point loss, and so it would be a mistake to narrate that as a grievious wound until it is known that the battle is lost.

A comparison here is Frodo getting stabbed by the spear in Moria - we know that a heavy blow was struck by the orc chief, but we don't know what it's effect on Frodo was to the end, at which point we discovered that his mithril armour saved him.

So in 4e, as Herremann the Wise has pointed out, it is possible for a PC to be in a state where (according to the mechanics) either s/he is dead in 18 seconds, or s/he is up and fighting again in 6 seconds. How to narrate that? Not in a way that excludes either possibility - thus one might refer to the character having fallen with a spray of blood from her face, but only after the death saves have all been rolled and any healing surges applied does the narration firm up, either to "You see now that her skull has been staved in" or "Wiping from her eyes the blood flowing from the gash in her forehead, she gathers her resolve, stands and returns to the fray."

After a five minute rest, depending on whether or not the PC has healing surges to apply, we can then go further: either "The blood flow stops, but the cut is deep and will easily reopen" if she has no surges to apply and is therefore close to going down in the next fight, or "Some water washes the wound clean as the blood stops flowing. Luckily it was only a surface injury - with any luck it won't trouble her any more."

As to the main issue: is it an objection that the mechanics don't dictate to the players and GM exactly how the gameworld should be described? It depends what sort of experience you want out of playing an RPG. If you want the game to tell you a story, it probably is an objection. If you want to use the game to tell a story, then it's probably a virtue that the mechanics seed a story (via setting paramters) without dictating one.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 15, 2008)

pemerton said:


> SNIP...........
> 
> As to the main issue: is it an objection that the mechanics don't dictate to the players and GM exactly how the gameworld should be described? It depends what sort of experience you want out of playing an RPG. *If **you want the game to tell you a story, it probably is an objection. **If you want to use the game to tell a story, then it's probably a virtue that the mechanics seed a story (via setting paramters) without dictating one*.




As usual great analysis Pemerton of the hp spectrum from a variety of games.

I like your last paragraph as it hits the heart of the issue across the spectrum of games.


----------



## Delta (Sep 15, 2008)

pemerton said:


> If you want the game to tell you a story, it probably is an objection. If you want to use the game to tell a story, then it's probably a virtue that the mechanics seed a story (via setting paramters) without dictating one.




It's funny, because to me, gamism might be associated with "anti-narrativism", and therefore I'd prefer the former. But to other people gamism might be associated with "anti-simulationism", and therefore they'd prefer the latter.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 15, 2008)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> Is it an objection that the mechanics don't dictate to the players and GM exactly how the gameworld should be described?



Some comments on your question:
- Mechanics along with flavour should inform not dictate (scratch the unnecessary negative connotation).
- Exactness in even a rpg simulation is going a little far wouldn't you say? I'll settle for a good representation of the action that keeps my group happy - YMMV.
- Should be described or could be described? I think anything that aids the DM in describing what has happened is a good thing. 

Or if you invert the question and put the shoe on the other foot:

"Is it an objection that the mechanics inform the players and GM what has happened in the game?"

Let's take your example:



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> ...it is possible for a PC to be in a state where (according to the mechanics) either s/he is dead in 18 seconds, or s/he is up and fighting again in 6 seconds. How to narrate that? Not in a way that excludes either possibility - thus one might refer to the character having fallen with a spray of blood from her face, but only after the death saves have all been rolled and any healing surges applied does the narration firm up, either to "You see now that her skull has been staved in" or "Wiping from her eyes the blood flowing from the gash in her forehead, she gathers her resolve, stands and returns to the fray."



What happens if a character gets a closer look before the situation is resolved? I suppose you have to say "you're not sure but they don't look in a good way - they definitely need some help." Players will quickly understand in terms of mechanics what this means. However, what story are you left with at the end of the day?

[_*Our adventuring heroes Pemerton and Herremann gather around the evening campfire to discuss the day's adventuring*_]

*Pemerton*: Hard day today Herremann, how are you feeling after that axe to the head?

*Herremann*: Axe to the head? Is that what it was? I seem OK, I can still cast my spells fine. It must have been a grazing shot then.

*Pemerton*: Actually it looked pretty bad at the time. Blood sprayed everywhere.

*Herremann*: Really? Was it that bad? I suppose it must have been as it knocked me clean out.

*Pemerton*: I reckon you could have been seconds away from death actually.

*Herremann*: Surely not... I couldn't have been that bad because I'm fine now - just a little bit weary though... near my bedtime actually.

[_Herremann thinks for a moment reviewing his adventuring career with Pemerton before asking something he'd been meaning to for a while_]

*Herremann*: It's funny that.

*Pemerton*: What?

*Herremann*: I've never been seriously injured.

*Pemerton*: Never?

*Herremann*: Nope. Never. Just scratches and bruises; although my head is a little sore come to think about it. No gut openings, no broken legs. I mean look... I've still got all ten fingers.

*Pemerton*: Actually you're right come to think about it. I've never been seriously injured either.

[_Pemerton thinks hard and can't think of a time when a good night's rest hasn't done the trick_]

*Herremann*: Hmmm... must be something with the new deity around here that controls things.

*Pemerton*: New deity? Oh yeah that's right.

*Herremann*: I mean I like the old one, don't get me wrong but you hear stories of flayings and spells that can rip your guts out from the bad dudes that followed him. You don't get stuff like that with the new guy. I feel much safer actually.

*Pemerton*: I've heard stories about other deities that would curl your toes... then make them fall off along with your head. The world's a much safer place now.

*Herremann*: So it is... so it is. It might be interesting though.

*Pemerton*: What?

*Herremann*: It might be interesting to deal with a broken leg. Or even just a good gash that'll leave a big scar. Like the old days... you know?

*Pemerton*: Nuh, it'll never happen.

*Herremann*: Never?

*Pemerton*: I don't think so... unless of course you want to die from it. Then you can get a broken leg, a big gash right through your belly and maybe even a decapitation... all at once even.

*Herremann*: But only if I die?

*Pemerton*: That's the rules I think. Can't happen any other way.

[_Herremann shakes his head in wonder then gets up to pull out his spellbook and bedroll before retiring. He ponders the wonders of this new adventuring world_]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> However, what story are you left with at the end of the day?




The quality of the story depends on the players telling it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> It's funny, because to me, gamism might be associated with "anti-narrativism", and therefore I'd prefer the former. But to other people gamism might be associated with "anti-simulationism", and therefore they'd prefer the latter.




I think they don't have to be opposed. But maybe it's like in software
- functional
- cheap
- fast
Pick any two. 

For example, you could create a system that simulates combats with a high degree of detail and a "realistic" level of lethality. And then you add a gamist system that allows heroes to take away this lethality or at least control it better. The system can stay "gamist", or you pretend they actually represent something in the in-game world- maybe the characters extraordinary ability to manipulate the flow of quantum probabilities (A Torg-Like approach, and apparently also something the James Bond RPG used, if I read MerricB correctly). 

On top of that, you could add "narrative" powers that allow the player to narrate certain events in the game (be it the enemy moving into a position so that he can use his 5 pressure point exploding heart technique, or him deciding that he has a previously unestablished connection in the foreign place the party has to visit) - which again could be modifying quantum probabilities, or just a game mechanic with no attempt to simulate anything.


----------



## Delta (Sep 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And then you add a gamist system that allows heroes to take away this lethality or at least control it better...
> On top of that, you could add "narrative" powers that allow the player to narrate certain events in the game...




Yeah, I honestly don't see any difference in the way you describe those two cases. To me, they both look narrative. And so it goes.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 15, 2008)

I don't know how to put a strongly enough worded warning into this thread.  

Knock out the combative crap or the thread's over and you'll be taking a nice long vacation.  If you're unsure if this means you, chances are it does.  If you think you're skirting the borderline, don't.  Get this back to a civil discussion post haste or we're done here.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> Yeah, I honestly don't see any difference in the way you describe those two cases. To me, they both look narrative. And so it goes.




Well, they are a resource that have to be managed. A game like Torg relies heavily on managing your possibilities, and the real narrative aspects are usually relegated to subplot cards in the drama deck. That's why I consider such a mechanic more gamist. But maybe they are indeed a mix of both, because it gives the player influence over the game world and the power to narrate things differently then the "simulation" rules would suggest.


----------



## Delta (Sep 15, 2008)

Hmmm. And here I thought the thread had gotten noticably more civil over the last two days. Whatever.

MR, thanks for the reply, later.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> I agree that my ideas would probably cause the game to fail to reach its design goals. I feel that 4E is a game first system and its mechanics are much tighter than previous editions with the goal of delivering tactical enjoyment in series of encounters. My ideas would probably interfere with that.



It's interesting that people have quite different persepctives on the sort of pleasure that 4e is apt to provide. I don't think of it as offering tactical enjoyment per se - I can probably get that better from MtG or a wargame in the true sense - but rather flavour enjoyment in which the tactical play is part of that flavour (analogously to the violence in better super hero comics, which is not the represented, but rather the representer of/metaphor for conflict of some other, deeper sort).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> As usual great analysis Pemerton of the hp spectrum from a variety of games.
> 
> I like your last paragraph as it hits the heart of the issue across the spectrum of games.



Thanks.



Delta said:


> It's funny, because to me, gamism might be associated with "anti-narrativism", and therefore I'd prefer the former. But to other people gamism might be associated with "anti-simulationism", and therefore they'd prefer the latter.



I'm inclined to agree with Ron Edwards, that some mechanics are apt to suit either gamist or narrativist play, because they give the players a degree of metagame control which can be used either to display skill (by gamists) or to control the story (by narrativists).

RQ and Classic Traveller are the purist simulationist systems that I know - even character build is determined entirely by dice which model in-world likelihoods of various career paths - and I can't imagine getting much gamist satisisfaction out of either of them. And any narrativism with them would have to be very vanilla, I think.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Iyou could create a system that simulates combats with a high degree of detail and a "realistic" level of lethality. And then you add a gamist system that allows heroes to take away this lethality or at least control it better. The system can stay "gamist", or you pretend they actually represent something in the in-game world- maybe the characters extraordinary ability to manipulate the flow of quantum probabilities (A Torg-Like approach, and apparently also something the James Bond RPG used, if I read MerricB correctly).



But are the Fate Points a gamist system? Or a narrativist one? Or neither? It depends on what the players want to do with them and how the reward system works. If you have gamist players, however, then there is a good chance that they will become a desirable currency, and that will certainly put the robustness of the system to the test!

In HARP, Fate Points are earned in a metagame fashion, for clever ideas, good roleplaying and spectacular stunts. This is a hard system to play in a gamist fashion, and in fact probably best-suited to a sort of high-concept simulationism - if you play your PC in a genre-appropriate fashion, you get Fate Points. In this rules variant for HARP in the Guild Companion, I suggested a way of making Fate Points the primary reward currency in HARP, which would make them more of a narrativist device - being earned for achieveing player-defined PC goals, and being able to be spent in the pursuit of such goals. Still hard to play (and break) in a gamist fashion, I think.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> On top of that, you could add "narrative" powers that allow the player to narrate certain events in the game (be it the enemy moving into a position so that he can use his 5 pressure point exploding heart technique, or him deciding that he has a previously unestablished connection in the foreign place the party has to visit) - which again could be modifying quantum probabilities, or just a game mechanic with no attempt to simulate anything.



Your "narrative powers" sounds like my "fortune in the middle". This is not unique to narrativist play - as I've repeatedly noted, 1st ed AD&D uses this approach for saving throws - but it is particularly well-suited for narrativist play. In hardcore gamist play players are likely to drop the narration, at which point the game may come close to morphing out of an RPG and into a tabletop wargame/boardgame with a bit of fantasy flavour.



Herremann the Wise said:


> Or if you invert the question and put the shoe on the other foot:
> 
> "Is it an objection that the mechanics inform the players and GM what has happened in the game?"



The answer is - perhaps, if the players and GM want the mechanics to set parameters while leaving them freedom. See my remarks above about RQ or Classic Traveller as an example of games in which the mechanics do a lot of the work, in a way that some players may not like.



Herremann the Wise said:


> *Herremann*: I've never been seriously injured.



To an extent this is true of any edition of D&D in which a PC has never died, as in any such game the PC became conscious reasonably quickly and had no serious performance
penalties (even in 1st ed AD&D a week's rest was enough to get back to full performance). Certainly in AD&D the action resolution mechanics will never lead to a weapon permanently maiming or severing a limb unless a sword of sharpness is wielded.

How to handle this? I think it's best written off as a genre convention. If you want satisfactory genre play, it's helpful for the PCs to not "break the 4th wall" and comment on these conventions (which, for example, superheroes don't do in comics). Conversely, if you don't want these conventions then play RQ or RM or C&S or . . .  D&D has never been for grim and gritty play of that particular sort.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> The quality of the story depends on the players telling it.



Yep.
So you must make certain that the mechanics you choose can keep up with the quality the players establish.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

pemerton said:


> The mechanics simulate nothing _full stop_.




That works for me, although I disagree with your statement about the saving throw mechanics in 1st ed AD&D (or any edition D&D).




> As Lost Soul has repeatedly pointed ouot, the hp/healing surge mechanics establish certain constraints on what can (consistently with the rules of the game) be pretended to be the case in the imaginary world.




If, and only if, you are either willing to accept Schrödinger's Wounding.  Or, as you put it:



> Some players want mechanics that deliver the story. Others want mechanics that set the parameters for the story. 4e will not do the first job.




and



> I agree also that 4e is qualitatively different in embracing the non-simulationist character of the hp mechanic.




Again, while I disagree with your comments about 1e, the above shows that you understand what I am saying.  The only difference is, of course, that I am claiming specifically that the 4e mechanics _interfere with_ setting the parameters for the story, _if and only if_ you wish to be able to tell the story in real time.  I.e., to tell the story in real time, for the sort of gaming I enjoy, you must be able to determine what the mechanics mean in real time.  As with Schrödinger's cat, I can only tell what hit point loss means in the game world after I have looked into the box -- and I cannot look into the box until after the hit point loss is restored.

Obviously, if Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't bother you (and, for some, it may rock the boat), then there is no problem (for you).

But I predict that this, and things like it, cause a significant enough problem for a significant enough fraction of the gaming populace that either 5e or 6e will claim to fix it.

I could be wrong.  Time will tell; it always does.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Hang on a sec - maybe I'm just know seeing what you are saying.  Let me try to put it in my own words.
> 
> Hit points are pretty abstract; they don't have any objective meaning in the game world.*  Because they are so abstract, they don't define what is happening in the game world.  When I'm describing hit points - either loss or recovery - I'm just "pretending" to give them meaning.
> 
> ...





Not quite.  In order to understand what I am saying, you have to disentangle the game from the game world for a moment.  "Hit points" have no objective meanining in the game world (they do in the game).  

Hit points, in previous editions of D&D, _represent_ something that has objective meaning in the game world in real time.  This means, when I take a hit, I can compare it against my remaining hit points, and I can determine what it represents.  Despite the apparent controversy over the naming conventions of cure spells, no future events within the game force me to decide between altering my description of the wound I took (on one hand) or claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning (on the other).

Conversely, in 4e, when I take hit point damage, I don't know what it represents at the time I take it.  If I declare it is an actual wound, and I use a healing surge later, I am potentially stuck with either (a) my wound having disappeared without having actually been healed, or (b) claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning.  If, on the other hand, I declare that it represents no wound, and I have magical healing later, I am potentially stuck with the healing of a wound that doesn't exist.

Compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out.  And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound.  Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie.  He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again.

That just doesn't work for me.

I'm not saying that, if it does work for you, you should stop playing the game.  Obviously not.  If it works for you, it does work for you.  But I am saying that, when one claims that it doesn't work for him, and gives you the above reasons, that they are valid reasons.  

It is one thing to say, "Yes, this happens, but it works for me" and another to say "No, that doesn't happen".  When people pointed out problems with 3e, other people said "No, that doesn't happen"....until WotC pointed out the same problems.  Then, many of those folks agreed that it was obvious that it happened, and were happy that 4e was going to "fix" those problems.

I didn't say that the game was wrongbadfun and that you shouldn't play it.  I said that these elements cause this problem, and that this problem makes the game unsatisfying for me.  It is a real problem.  All game systems have real problems.  Those who enjoy a game system usually do so because the problems the system has are easy for them to ignore.  

And that's a good thing, btw, when playing at the table.  

Pretending that the problems don't exist when they are being discussed in an open forum, OTOH, is not.  IMHO at least.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But I predict that this, and things like it, cause a significant enough problem for a significant enough fraction of the gaming populace that either 5e or 6e will claim to fix it.



You might be right, but one thing I find notably - it really seems only to be a problem if you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. And in most games, I just don't. All this discussion about narrative vs simulation vs gamist has usually proven meaningless at the game table - I just don't think in any of that terms when I am playing the game. I don't dissect all the rules. 

What gets in the way far more often are "clunky" mechanics - mechanics that take long to resolve or cause the DM or the players headaches. Or "unfair" mechanics, that put one participant (NPC or PC) in extreme favor and make the contribution of the other meaningless. 
Or mechanics that limit how an adventure can unfold, or what kind of characters are "required" for effective play.

So, if a revised hit point / healing surge mechanic will really stand high on the 5E/6E agenda, I suspect it will be because the head-aches and the imbalances have gone for the most part. Maybe 4E is already there. I certainly hope so, since the designers definitely tried to address all these issues. But nothing is ever perfect.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 15, 2008)

If they revise the hit point paradigm, I just don't want them to move to the Death Spiral where whomever hits first will win because the first one hit starts taking penalties that will keep them from being as effective as the undamaged attacker.  Does it strain believability that the PCs don't have to go to a medical facility after a combat (or at least a combat where they are wounded badly)?  Sure.  But an abundance of medical facilities with modern efficacy in a fantasy world strains credulity as much as the Magical WalMart in every hamlet.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 15, 2008)

Delta said:


> Hmmm. And here I thought the thread had gotten noticably more civil over the last two days. Whatever.
> 
> MR, thanks for the reply, later.




Delta--

1.  If you have a question about moderation, go to the Meta Forum and send an e-mail.

2.  We don't get to read every thread every day.  This one just got reported, so I came in and reviewed posts over the past couple pages, where things were unpleasant.  "More civil" than the slapfight earlier, does not mean maintaining an appropriate tone.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:


> If they revise the hit point paradigm, I just don't want them to move to the Death Spiral where whomever hits first will win because the first one hit starts taking penalties that will keep them from being as effective as the undamaged attacker.





I agree, and as I am working on a free OGC version of the game for my own use (and any who might want the same sort of game I do), this part of the thread has given me a lot to think about.  

I do think that decoupling hp during an encounter from overall hp is an idea with a lot of merit.  At first, I considered using a VP/WP system ala UA and SW, but I've been convinced that this isn't the way to go.

What I am considering is a system whereby, based on class & level, a certain amount of damage can be automatically "shaken off" after a rest.  I.e., when a hit is taken, you still know whether or not it is something that will stick around in the long run, so that you can describe it now, because you know how much damage you can "shake off" after each combat.  However, there is still always a real potential that you have damage going forward from any given combat that won't (necessarily) simply disappear overnight.

I've yet to come up with the exact numbers, as this just occurred to me last night as a good compromise.

(I am currently working on the skill system so that the DC to notice a stealthy ambush predator, say, can be "set" by the GM, and doesn't have to vary by monster CR.)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You might be right, but one thing I find notably - it really seems only to be a problem if you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. And in most games, I just don't.





Exactly so.  The more interest you have in a particular part of the game, the more problems with that part will be dissatisfying.  Whereas, if you never (or rarely) think about part of the game, then even large problems can be glossed over without any major loss of satisfaction.

It all depends upon what you are looking for from a game, and how well the game achieves its design goals.  As I said much earlier.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not quite.  In order to understand what I am saying, you have to disentangle the game from the game world for a moment.  "Hit points" have no objective meanining in the game world (they do in the game).




Okay, with you so far...



Raven Crowking said:


> Hit points, in previous editions of D&D, _represent_ something that has objective meaning in the game world in real time.




Still with you.  



Raven Crowking said:


> Conversely, in 4e, when I take hit point damage, I don't know what it represents at the time I take it.  If I declare it is an actual wound, and I use a healing surge later, I am potentially stuck with either (a) my wound having disappeared without having actually been healed, or (b) claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning. (c) If, on the other hand, I declare that it represents no wound, and I have magical healing later, I am potentially stuck with the healing of a wound that doesn't exist.




This is where I lose you.  I don't see why you can't describe the wound in whatever way you want, even at the moment you take it.

I'm thinking of something like Lancelot's wound.  He gets hit in his fight to defend Guinevere's honour.  He describes it as a bad wound at the time.

He takes an extended rest - on the character sheet, the character is back to full effectiveness.  But the player wants to address a specific theme, so he describes Lancelot as never quite healing.

In later fights, when he gets hit, he describes that old injury acting up again, instead of describing new wounds.  This all works with the constraints the mechanics give us.

Maybe our difference is that doing so is acceptable to me.  Would I be wrong if I said that you need to have that wound represented in the game mechanics as long as the wound exists or else it does not "feel real"?

Maybe what would help is an example of play that shows what you're talking about.  A hypothetical example is cool.



Raven Crowking said:


> That just doesn't work for me.




That's cool.  I know you're not saying it's wrong to like 4e.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Exactly so.  The more interest you have in a particular part of the game, the more problems with that part will be dissatisfying.  Whereas, if you never (or rarely) think about part of the game, then even large problems can be glossed over without any major loss of satisfaction.



My "working theory" is that it is an "off-the-table" problem. During the game, you'll never bother about this, because you are too busy figuring out the monster tactics, plot twists and PC/NPC motivations. 
It is not the kind of "in-the-face" problem recalculating several combat statistics can be, or the fact that you are "sitting out" because your character is useless in the current encounter. Or that you just can't figure out how a mechanic is applied correctly, despite having done it several times.

I tend to think that has been the guiding principle of 4E - all problems in "using" the game have to be addressed. Problems on a more "philosophical" level are irrelevant if they get in the way of the other aspects. 

Of course, maybe another year of polishing could have also fixed the rest. Or maybe not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> This is where I lose you.  I don't see why you can't describe the wound in whatever way you want, even at the moment you take it.




If you don't understand what I am getting at, I can think of no further way to describe it.  



> Would I be wrong if I said that you need to have that wound represented in the game mechanics as long as the wound exists or else it does not "feel real"?




Possibly.  I'm fine with descriptive elements, such as scarring (for example) not having a mechanical effect.  I'm fine with broken bones occurring in-world, even if there are no mechanical means to break them.  I am fine with a player claiming his character is bothered by an old wound, and role-playing it rather than having a mechanical equivilence.

What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away.  I prefer a game in which action has consequences.  It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.

Again, compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out. And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound. Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie. He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again.

However, I'll grant that Schrödinger's Wounding is certainly consistent with mechanics that allow you to kill your foes when you miss.  



> That's cool.  I know you're not saying it's wrong to like 4e.








Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> My "working theory" is that it is an "off-the-table" problem. During the game, you'll never bother about this, because you are too busy figuring out the monster tactics, plot twists and PC/NPC motivations.




Trust me.  This sort of thing bothers me quite a bit at the table.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2008)

By the way, I'm not saying that it's wrong to dislike 4e.  I just don't understand why I can't describe the effect of the wound as it happens, or that hit point loss doesn't have consequences.



Raven Crowking said:


> What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away.  I prefer a game in which action has consequences.  It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.




The wound only "goes away" if the player (well, DM in 4e) describes it going away.  He doesn't have to.  All we know is that his staying power is reduced.  Any colour that we describe must stay true to that, but that's our only constraint.

Can you tell me - or give me a hypothetical example - where in play I'd be forced to describe a wound going away?  Or any quantum wounding situation?

There are consequences to the action - he got hit, he lost hit points, he used a healing surge.  Granted, those consequences go away after an extended rest, but this is D&D we're talking about.

How does this not count as a consequence?

What's most interesting for me is to take those mechanical consequences and turn it into something colourful and flavourful.  That's what Lancelot's player is doing.  Take away his ability to describe hit points how he likes - make them _objective_ in the game world - and you lose that ability to give the loss of a few hit points/healing surge into a dramatic wound with thematic meaning.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away.  I prefer a game in which action has consequences.  It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.




I think it comes down to choice really. If you've chosen to make an unbelievable situation, then well, it's probably not going to be believable to you.

To me, Lance takes the hit, looks down and sees the blood. maybe he's even forced to his knees, a moment of shock... Then he glances over and sees his friends. They need him- he has to fight on. With a mighty groan, Lance struggles to his feet, cracks his joints, and grips his weapon. The blood is still there, the wound just isn't as bad as he thought. (Maybe he even does that wound tie off thing with his teeth action movie guys do all the time...)

Now granted had I already chosen to view the above situation as unbelievabe, it would be unbelievable. Since I didn't I can find a way to make it work.

I'm also firmly (and always have been) in the camp of hit points representing the amount of actual damage you can take is silly. The only hit that really "matters" game wise / damage wise is the last one. The one that kills you. Everything else can be described however we please.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm also firmly (and always have been) in the camp of hit points representing the amount of actual damage you can take is silly. The only hit that really "matters" game wise / damage wise is the last one. The one that kills you. Everything else can be described however we please.




Though this begs the question why you cant you second wind after you are "dead". Using both gamist and narrativist thinking, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to and I dont think it is particularly a bad idea either.

Of course not being able to allows you to ratchet up the tension a bit (gamist perspective) so that deciding when to use it could be a critical tactical choice.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Though this begs the question why you cant you second wind after you are "dead". Using both gamist and narrativist thinking, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to and I dont think it is particularly a bad idea either.
> 
> Of course not being able to allows you to ratchet up the tension a bit (gamist perspective) so that deciding when to use it could be a critical tactical choice.




Depends. You can and you can't. From the game system's point of view, you're dead once you reach negative bloodied, or 3 failed death saves. 

From the narrative point of view, you can "die" at any point therein.

I see it as sort of an improve theater thing... Narrative is the story we tell, the lines we come up with, the actions we take... The game system is the general outline we're given by the director.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Trust me.  This sort of thing bothers me quite a bit at the table.



I could accuse of not having interesting enough stories or challenging enough combats to keep your players busy, but I think I'll prefer to trust you on that.  There is a reason this continues to be discussed.

I think one "fix" for the healing surge approach would be to make it not "retroactive". Instead of using a surge to heal damage you have already taken, spend a surge to reduce damage you are in the progress of being taken. This way, you decide the moment you're hit how bad it is. I suppose I don't need to tell anyone reading my posts regularly that's this is how Torg does it? 

Of course, the current approach to Surges and Healing doesn't work well with that approach. But maybe a clever rewording of rules and keywords could create such a system?


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, death means pretty much what I think it means; in the 4e rules, death just doesn't mean the same thing.  Much like....well, far too many things.
> 
> I lose track.  Are you intentionally making my points for me?




I agree 4E has some vocabulary problems. But IIRC as was said about 3E some of the vocabulary choices are as a result of an attempt to maintain or reflect gaming culture. If they renamed hit points "concussion points" and healing surges "recovery surges" and called dead characters "beyond help", even though those names IMO contribute to a better mental model of the damage, the charge could be made that this was change for the sake of change, deliberately unfamiliar. And as far as it goes, that would be true. "Hit points", "healing", and "death" are part of a common vocabulary, however applicable or accurate their use is.



Herremann the Wise said:


> Yeah you might be able to convince your players of that, but I don't think I could get mine to go along with it. I prefer to use my imagination on the campaign at hand rather that trying to explain why death is only a simple ritual away.




Well, Raise Dead is the "ritual healing" I'm talking about. It works on any character with "dead" status.

It makes no practical distinction between these two characters:

- the fighter the fire giant boss killed by golfing him into an obsidian pillar -- he was aiming for the archway but lifted his head during the downswing -- who collapsed on the ground, tried to get himself up, and in the end just lay still. He is still breathing and his body may twitch reflexively but none of the healing powers the characters have work on him. He has "dead" status, and only Raise Dead can get him up and running again, though he'll have to shake the kinks out: he's at -1 to a lot of rolls until 3 milestones go by.

- the rogue the fire giant boss killed after she landed on his back to deliver a vicious stab between his shoulderblades. Before she could jump away he exploded in flames -- free action when first bloodied -- and she dropped like a stone into the lava. Did I mention the boss was standing in lava? He's a fire giant, they do that. Anyway, all the rest of the party could recover after the battle was a mostly melted boot, sole-up in a rough cone of obsidian they chipped away after the wizard dropped an _ice tomb_ on the general area. They hope her ashes are somewhere inside. She also has "dead" status, and only Raise Dead can get HER up and running again, in a ritually reconstituted body she'll have to get used to: same penalty, same duration.

It does so more for metagame reasons: if it's more costly or risky or carries larger penalties to bring someone back to life from scattered remains than from a mostly intact body, that could present the uncomfortable choice between dying in a recoverable fashion and surviving -- or helping the party survive e.g. "GO! I'll hold them back!" -- but in a way that risks or even assures less recoverable death. The game is built to encourage risk-taking.



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> As I said previously, I prefer to pour my imaginative effort into DMing the campaign at hand rather than trying to find a "credible story" to explain a weird mechanic.




Well, then, give the players my handful of guidelines and tell them they're responsible for describing wounds to their own characters. I mean, it's their story too, right? You can describe the monsters as getting beaten up however you like since they generally don't have to worry about recovering.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What gets in the way far more often are "clunky" mechanics - mechanics that take long to resolve or cause the DM or the players headaches. Or "unfair" mechanics, that put one participant (NPC or PC) in extreme favor and make the contribution of the other meaningless. Or mechanics that limit how an adventure can unfold, or what kind of characters are "required" for effective play.




Lemme hit you with a little human information processing theory. Shannon and Weaver propose a unit of information called the "bit", which is equal to the negative log, base 2, of the probability of an occurrence. If there are four equally likely events, say, notification that one of them has happened contains 2 bits of information. Experimental research into reaction times and the like tends to show that the human brain, even from an exceptionally intelligent person, is about a 2 Hz processor (2 bits per second) with a working memory of perhaps 3 bytes -- 24 bits. It's frankly pathetic, but it's coupled with a crazy mad wonderful information storage and retrieval system, which is where most of the difference comes in. 

Going freeform is slow because you've got to call up possibilities for what could happen next, and they take time to consider - unless you're working with mental scripts which tend to have the next step happen with a high probability, but if you go off-script things get slow again. A way to speed it up is to predetermine certain things, giving them a probability of 1 and effectively zero processing time. But that can become too predictable, so most systems with predetermined mechanics tend to incorporate random variety and lookup tables.

Systems that go too far down that road tend to hit not only processing gap but overload working storage - and Rolemaster is a great example of this. It's a way to basically experience page faults in real life. Some of my best times hacking and slashing, though, were in an online MUD with basically a Rolemaster engine - GemStone III and IV, if anyone's heard of those. The computer does the math and I absorb the results, and it worked out pretty well. Even the stuff that happened during special GM-intervention events was scripted to some degree - and I still remember 2 times when I think I actually dumped some severely unintended behavior into a script and "broke the game" by trying to introduce a narrative. If anybody's interested, I can spill.

I think a good middle ground is a system that gives you the guidelines to predetermine your own stuff ahead of time, like how you describe wounds or what the monsters look like and how they act. That way it doesn't have to overload processing and memory by trying to simulate all things to all people but still passes on an awful lot of processing savings to the end users. 

And here's a special gift to Herremann: a Bugbear Legbreaker!

melee attack "Gentle Persuasion" (standard; recharge 56) +10 vs. AC, 1d12+4 damage and make a secondary attack: +10 vs. Fortitude, inflicts "Kneecapped".

Kneecapped - level 9 "disease", Endurance DC improve 19 worsen 14.

The character is cured
^
The character's speed is reduced by 1.
^ v
*Initial State:* The character is slowed.
^ v
The character loses 2 healing surges; these cannot be recovered until the character improves.
v
*Final State:* Whenever the character is first bloodied, he immediately falls prone. He cannot run or charge, and if he spends a move action to walk he falls prone again at the end of his turn (save ends)


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you don't understand what I am getting at, I can think of no further way to describe it.




From what your posts have been thus far, I think this is what I see.

1) Damage can be either wounding or concussive.

2) Only Divine-sourced healing powers can remove wounds. (alternately, Martial-sourced healing powers cannot remove wounds.)

3) Therefore, damage can have been wounding only if Divine-sourced healing powers are used to remove it.

Is that about right? The real problem I have is that I don't know why step 2 is valid. Maybe it's a setting thing for you.

In which case, let me offer a slight modification that might help you resolve the Schroedinger's problem: 

3a) The power source for all healing effects is the affected character's power source.

4a) Therefore, martial characters only take concussive damage (and at bloodied are breathing hard or favoring one side) while divine and arcane characters take wounds normally (and they close with divine/arcane energy).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think one "fix" for the healing surge approach would be to make it not "retroactive". Instead of using a surge to heal damage you have already taken, spend a surge to reduce damage you are in the progress of being taken. This way, you decide the moment you're hit how bad it is. I suppose I don't need to tell anyone reading my posts regularly that's this is how Torg does it?
> 
> Of course, the current approach to Surges and Healing doesn't work well with that approach. But maybe a clever rewording of rules and keywords could create such a system?




That's a possible solution, but it would take some significant reworking of the rules, IMHO, because 4e really is pretty well crafted in terms of its gamist parts.  If you change one, there will be other dominoes shifting (and perhaps falling) down the line.

Of course, some vocabulary/wording changes would also help (quite right, GlaziusF!), so that you don't end up killing folks you miss with your attack, for example.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, some vocabulary/wording changes would also help (quite right, GlaziusF!), so that you don't end up killing folks you miss with your attack, for example.




Out of curriousity did you also house rule out people taking 1/2 damage from spells even though they made their save?


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, some vocabulary/wording changes would also help (quite right, GlaziusF!), so that you don't end up killing folks you miss with your attack, for example.




Well, if you look at it as shorthand for "if you miss, this is what happens" it kinda makes sense but it shows up on every power, even the ones where if you miss, you, uh, miss.

Maybe just put a *Graze:* entry on those sorts of powers, and then you can reword evasion to say like "if you're grazed by a close or area attack, take no damage".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Out of curriousity did you also house rule out people taking 1/2 damage from spells even though they made their save?




No.  You?

EDIT:  You are aware, I hope, that we are talking here about the poor choice of wording, so that something is both described as a "miss" and deals damage (or other effect).  It would have been simplicity in itself to say, for example, "Make an attack roll.  In the event that your roll would normally miss, your attack instead...."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Well, if you look at it as shorthand for "if you miss, this is what happens" it kinda makes sense but it shows up on every power, even the ones where if you miss, you, uh, miss.
> 
> Maybe just put a *Graze:* entry on those sorts of powers, and then you can reword evasion to say like "if you're grazed by a close or area attack, take no damage".




My apologies, btw.  I wrote a nice reply to your previous post, but it got eaten by the EN World imps.

I'll try to get back to it later.

RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> No.  You?




Nope.  (Unless they had some sort of power to do so.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Though this begs the question why you cant you second wind after you are "dead". Using both gamist and narrativist thinking, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to and I dont think it is particularly a bad idea either.



From memoery, most epic PCs can in effect do this, by drawing on one of their epic destiny features. So the game has chosen to give this particular mechanic a special meaning within the context of the gameworld - it marks someone out as a fulfiller of an epic destiny.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But I predict that this, and things like it, cause a significant enough problem for a significant enough fraction of the gaming populace that either 5e or 6e will claim to fix it.
> 
> I could be wrong.



I don't really know. As I'm sure you know, Ron Edwards has expressed the view that one obstacle to the mainstreaming of RPGs is "simulationist-by-habit" rules and play. I infer from the design of 4e that the WoTC team agree with him - as this seems the best explanation for the rebuilding of D&D as a gamist/narrativist oriented system. (Such a rebuild does not come about simply as a result of inadvertance to the issues.)

I don't talk to enough non-gamers about RPGs to have a sense of whether you or Edwards/WoTC is correct. I do find it plausible, however, that more people would enjoy a narration-type game with mechanics to set the parameters, than would enjoy a game in which somewhat arcane mathematical processes tell you what is happening in the game you are playing. However, this is only a necessary condition for the mainstreaming of RPGs, not a sufficient one.



LostSoul said:


> There are consequences to the action - he got hit, he lost hit points, he used a healing surge.  Granted, those consequences go away after an extended rest, but this is D&D we're talking about.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What's most interesting for me is to take those mechanical consequences and turn it into something colourful and flavourful.  That's what Lancelot's player is doing.  Take away his ability to describe hit points how he likes - make them _objective_ in the game world - and you lose that ability to give the loss of a few hit points/healing surge into a dramatic wound with thematic meaning.



Once again a very good post - thanks Lost Soul.

This Lancelot example also suggests another way of drawing the contrast between the simulationist and the narrativist approaches. In the simulationist approach, I (as a player) get to control the sort of wounds my PC takes only by controlling my PC's actions leading up to the combat - roughly, if I play cleverly then I might not be subjected to attack. Once I get into combat it is very much a case of all bets being off. Hence the emphasis, in 1st ed AD&D, of clever players avoiding combat. Many RM players also take this approach to play.

I think that the appeal of this sort of play is limited to a rather narrow section of the potential gaming public.

The narrativist approach, on the other hand, doesn't particularly penalise the player whose PC gets into combat. In fact it offers rewards, because it is at this point that the sorts of thematic/dramatic opportunities that Lost Soul is talking about emerge. And the player is able to exercise as much control over what happens to her/his PC as her imagination permits, provided that it is consistent with the parameters set by the mechanics (which ensure that everyone at the table is on the same page as far as conflict resolution is concerned).

On this approach, "good play" (in the sense of play that goes with, rather than against, the grain of the system) does not mean 1st ed AD&D clever play, but rather thematically and dramatically imaginative narration which builds upon the foundation established by the action resolution mechanics. I find it easy to believe that this is an approach to play which is likely to have a wider appeal to the potential gaming public (though not necessarily to the actual gaming public, given the pre-eminence of "simulationism by habit").


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hit points, in previous editions of D&D, _represent_ something that has objective meaning in the game world in real time.  This means, when I take a hit, I can compare it against my remaining hit points, and I can determine what it represents.  Despite the apparent controversy over the naming conventions of cure spells, no future events within the game force me to decide between altering my description of the wound I took (on one hand) or claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning (on the other).




But what game meaning does the hit point total have in 1E, or in 3E?

Let's say in 3E I normally have 100 hit points.  But I've taken 4 points of Con damage, so while I'm unwounded, I have 80 hit points.  But I've got a False Life cast on me, so I have 20 temporary hit points.  What condition am I in?

Now I take 60 points of damage from a psionic blast.  What condition am I in?

I get healed back up to 80, but then I get hit with a sword for 20.  Am I wounded?  I get another False Life cast on me, so I'm still down 20 from my max, but I have 20 temporary hit points as well.  Am I still wounded?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Let's say in 3E I normally have 100 hit points.  But I've taken 4 points of Con damage, so while I'm unwounded, I have 80 hit points.  But I've got a False Life cast on me, so I have 20 temporary hit points.  What condition am I in?




You are unwounded, but below your peak physical condition because of the Con damage.



> Now I take 60 points of damage from a psionic blast.  What condition am I in?




You are injured from the psionic blast.  This is probably holistic damage; there is no "wound" to see, but you are incrementally damaged all over.



> I get healed back up to 80, but then I get hit with a sword for 20.  Am I wounded?




Yes.



> I get another False Life cast on me, so I'm still down 20 from my max, but I have 20 temporary hit points as well.  Am I still wounded?




Yes (without checking the specifics of the spell).  And if second wind was temporary in 4e, you would be wounded then as well.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes (without checking the specifics of the spell).  And if second wind was temporary in 4e, you would be wounded then as well.




So I'm wounded, but I'm effectively at max hit points (20 points of damage, 20 temporary hit points).  Does the wound have any mechanical effect in game?  I can still take 80 points of damage before keeling over, just as I could if I were unwounded but didn't have the THP.  I'm not taking any penalties on attacks, defenses, movement, carrying capacity, actions per round, etc.

So isn't the choice of whether I describe the character as "Favouring the leg where the sword wound still oozes blood slowly, but pressing on with the extra vitality of the wizard's spell", or "Back in action as the wizard's spell knits the edges of the wound together, grinning despite the admonition that the healing is but a temporary thing", entirely a flavour choice?

The presence or absence of the wound on his leg when we film this scene makes no difference whatsoever to how effective he'll be in combat, nor to how long he'll last in a fight.

So if a wound that has zero mechanical effect can be present even though he's effectively at full hit points (via the THP), why can't a wound that has zero mechanical effect can be present even though he's _actually_ at full hit points?  Why does "actually at full hit points" have to mean "no blood anywhere", when "effectively at full hit points" can have blood showing?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So I'm wounded, but I'm effectively at max hit points (20 points of damage, 20 temporary hit points).  Does the wound have any mechanical effect in game?




Tak 80 points of damage, step into an antimagic field and find out!  


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Tak 80 points of damage, step into an antimagic field and find out!




But that will have the same effect whether I describe False Life as temporarily knitting the wound closed (the wound heals, as if CLW had been cast, but when the spell expires the injuries reappear - for cinematics, see for example the X-Men movie when Rogue leeches Wolverine's healing factor, and his wounds reopen), or as giving extra vitality despite the wound.

Either is a reasonable flavouring for the THP, wouldn't you say?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> But that will have the same effect whether I describe False Life as temporarily knitting the wound closed (the wound heals, as if CLW had been cast, but when the spell expires the injuries reappear - for cinematics, see for example the X-Men movie when Rogue leeches Wolverine's healing factor, and his wounds reopen), or as giving extra vitality despite the wound.
> 
> Either is a reasonable flavouring for the THP, wouldn't you say?
> 
> -Hyp.




If (and only if) subsequent events cannot change the reasonableness of your description, sure.  Especially, as in your example, because magic is involved.

But note that we are talking about a temporary fix here.  If second win were temporary, the Inigo explaination would work in 4e (for me).  Or are you arguing that second wind is a magical ability in 4e?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But note that we are talking about a temporary fix here.  If second win were temporary, the Inigo explaination would work in 4e (for me).  Or are you arguing that second wind is a magical ability in 4e?




No, I'm arguing that since someone in 3E could adventure on 1 hit point out of 80 for three weeks in the Underdark, with little chance to rest and no access to healing, and be _just as effective in every way_ as someone on 80 out of 80 for as long as they don't lose that last hit point, the cinematic depiction of wounds is a flavour conceit, not a mechanical one.

In 3E and 4E, someone falls over when their hit points drop below a threshold... and until that threshold is reached, the number doesn't need to correlate exactly to the cinematic description, because the cinematic description has no in-game effect.

One person might argue that the 80-hit-point fighter taking a 40-damage critical from the orc's greataxe must have a deep gaping wound, because he just lost half his hit points in a single hit!  Another person might argue that it's just a scratch, because the fighter still has ten times as many hit points as the average commoner.  Does it matter which we pick, since either way, his combat capability is unimpaired, and whether we describe him as soldiering on through the red haze of agony from the vicious laceration, or laughing off a flesh wound, the next round will still play out identically from a mechanics perspective?

-Hyp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 16, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Well, Raise Dead is the "ritual healing" I'm talking about. It works on any character with "dead" status.



That's obviously cool for you. In the games I have played over the decades though, we have always treated resurrections of any description as special - it's just how our group likes to play such things and how I think we'll continue to play things in 4E, even though as you say, it can be viewed as mechanically just a healing spell that can take even the most severely damaged creature/blob back to running around. As I tried to indicate before, my players are stuck in their ways and would not view dead as just a worse condition than dying. 


			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> The game is built to encourage risk-taking.



I agree and I think this is a good thing in the 4E games I am playing. The price of failure is not as great as in previous versions or other games - you can normally dust yourself up and get back into the fray without too many hinderances. In case you hadn't noticed from previous posts/threads of mine, I actually like 4E, I like a lot of the things WotC have done with the game. Our group's enjoying it although we do have a handful of quibbles here and there. What edition of D&D has not produced such quibbles within a group?

Going right back to my first post in this thread, I have just tried to present a couple of mechanics relating to hit points/damage/healing in 3E and 4E that I think produce anomalies because the mechanics don't mesh well enough with the flavour they are trying to present. 



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> Well, then, give the players my handful of guidelines and tell them they're responsible for describing wounds to their own characters.



Fine but as I have said, the mechanics of the game don't inform the players very well how to do this - and while your guidelines work for you, they leave several ramifications that do not mesh with my group's play style. The style of game our group plays, the players more look to the mechanics and DM to define what is going on in the game. Your style of play is different (no better, no worse, just different).



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> Lemme hit you with a little human information processing theory. Shannon and Weaver propose a unit of information called the "bit", which is equal to the negative log, base 2, of the probability of an occurrence. If there are four equally likely events, say, notification that one of them has happened contains 2 bits of information. Experimental research into reaction times and the like tends to show that the human brain, even from an exceptionally intelligent person, is about a 2 Hz processor (2 bits per second) with a working memory of perhaps 3 bytes -- 24 bits. It's frankly pathetic, but it's coupled with a crazy mad wonderful information storage and retrieval system, which is where most of the difference comes in.
> 
> Going freeform is slow because you've got to call up possibilities for what could happen next, and they take time to consider - unless you're working with mental scripts which tend to have the next step happen with a high probability, but if you go off-script things get slow again. A way to speed it up is to predetermine certain things, giving them a probability of 1 and effectively zero processing time. But that can become too predictable, so most systems with predetermined mechanics tend to incorporate random variety and lookup tables.
> 
> ...



That is one solution to the problem. Or you could have a mechanic that produces a result that can be quickly interpreted because the mechanic is clean and elegant and meshes well with the flavour it is representing.

Let's say for example that hit points only represented physical damage (the wherewithal to keep fighting, turn serious damage into grazing blows, luck, divine favor and all the other stuff is handled by other mechanics - AC, Defenses etc.). You have 10 hit points and can go all the way down to -10 hit points before dying. However, at zero hp or less, injuries are quite severe (involving a tracking system like you have with the Legbreaker! - which I'll comment on below).

You take 2 hit points of damage (still have 8 left). Enough to make you bleed but you can obviously suck it up (you could take 3 more of those puppies before they start to really hurt). You keep fighting taking a few bruises but your fighting resolve is still OK and you're health is obviously good enough to keep going. You then take 12 hit points of damage. Yep, that one really hurt, takes you to -4 and you're rolling on an injury track to see what's happened. You roll so-so, broken leg but you're still conscious but obviously badly wounded. Your situation is easily interpreted from the mechanics/processes involved. The player can immediately roleplay the situation knowing exactly what state, their PC is in. They don't have to worry about conveying misinformation.

A different but I think equally valid solution to the processing gap/overload you describe. The one thing human's are very good at doing is judging a situation quickly. Give them easily interpreted variables and I think most people are OK.



			
				GlaziusF said:
			
		

> And here's a special gift to Herremann: a Bugbear Legbreaker!
> 
> melee attack "Gentle Persuasion" (standard; recharge 56) +10 vs. AC, 1d12+4 damage and make a secondary attack: +10 vs. Fortitude, inflicts "Kneecapped".
> 
> ...



Well done! I think injury tracks like the disease tracks already given are an excellent idea - not to all players tastes mind you but heh. In terms of the narrative of the game, it would fill a gap that is there as my previous little scenario tried to demonstrate. Thank you very much for the detailed input.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> No, I'm arguing that since someone in 3E could adventure on 1 hit point out of 80 for three weeks in the Underdark, with little chance to rest and no access to healing, and be _just as effective in every way_ as someone on 80 out of 80 *for as long as they don't lose that last hit point*, the cinematic depiction of wounds is a flavour conceit, not a mechanical one.



I've bolded the pertinent part here. The question as to are they really as effective is the interesting one though? The stipulation given that they not lose that last hit point is interesting but under the context given improbable.

Is the underdark full of flowers, petals, sugar, spice and all things nice or is it full of things that are going to try to take away that last hit point (and have a good chance of doing it)? Is the chance of the 1 hit point guy surviving the same as the 80 hit point guy under these circumstances? In terms of the context you have presented is the 1 hp guy as effective in surviving for 3 weeks as the 80hp guy? Chances are the 1hp guy (heavily injured) is going to skulk around trying to find a way out or if confronted is going to make a heroic (and likely expedient) last stand. The 80hp uninjured guy under the same context perhaps has a few more options - I mean hey, he's uninjured. So while mechanically, they are just as technically able to begin an encounter, how they finish that encounter (and thus their effectiveness) is most likely going to be different. The mechanics have had an effect on how the player is most likely going to play the character (if of course they wish the character to try and survive).




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In 3E and 4E, someone falls over when their hit points drop below a threshold... and until that threshold is reached, the number doesn't need to correlate exactly to the cinematic description, because the cinematic description has no in-game effect.



True. It is the context of healing or restoring this damage/vitality etc. where the two editions have diverged. The first has a basketful of anomalies whilst the latter muddies the situation as I have previously described to the point where as you say, the cinematic description can be what you want it to be, as long as it makes sense that you could recover from it rapidly. 

I was hoping with 4E and then Pathfinder that they would find a mechanic for damage and it's recovery that was elegant, streamlined, provide verisimilitude and would work well in a game. A tall order I suppose. While I'm enjoying what both of the previous are presenting, I'm still left waiting on this gaming nirvana I have in my head. I suppose it's impossible otherwise surely someone would have come up with it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> No, I'm arguing that since someone in 3E could adventure on 1 hit point out of 80 for three weeks in the Underdark, with little chance to rest and no access to healing, and be _just as effective in every way_ as someone on 80 out of 80 for as long as they don't lose that last hit point, the cinematic depiction of wounds is a flavour conceit, not a mechanical one.




And I would argue that the difference effects how those players play their characters.  In actual gameplay, they are not equally effective, because the mechanics reward the 1 hp character to play his character as though he were not eager to take more punishment.

EDIT:  As has already been pointed out.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And I would argue that the difference effects how those players play their characters.  In actual gameplay, they are not equally effective, because the mechanics reward the 1 hp character to play his character as though he were not eager to take more punishment.




But that's another flavour issue.  

The character who is played cautiously because he is low on hit points could do so because he is injured, or because he is tired, or because he is demoralised, or because it's in his nature.

The character who is played aggressively since he still has a lot of hit points could do so _despite_ being injured _because it is necessary_, or regardless of being tired because he never gives up.

And similarly, the player might choose to have the low-hit-point PC act aggressively _despite_ being injured _because it is necessary_... and until he actually takes some damage, he'll be exactly as effective as the high-hit-point character played the same way, because the lack of hit points has no mechanical effect except for determining "Has he fallen over yet?"

Low hit points doesn't have to mean "Look, I can see the bone!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> But that's another flavour issue.





I don't think so.  Or, at least, not if you intend to imply that it is _just_ or even _just largely_ a flavour issue.  The mechanics of a game directly inform the "win conditions" of the game, as has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently through games theory.  In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).




But does whether or not we can see bone drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win"?

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Low hit points doesn't have to mean "Look, I can see the bone!"




Of course not, but then that doesn't answer the problem I am describing, either.  Schrödinger's Wounding occurs because, should you happen to describe low hit points in any given case as "Look, I can see the bone!" you are only one healing surge away from having to retcon your description, unless you are willing to accept absurd "in world" events.

What hit point damage in 4e ultimately means cannot be described until how it is 'healed' is determined.  Magical healing?  Musta been a wound.  Second wind?  Guess it wasn't a wound.  Or maybe magical healing doesn't actually heal wounds, and characters never actually get injured, no matter how often they are struck by blunt or pointy objects.  Again, an absurd result.

The solution you suggest above amounts to saying that there need be no correspondance between hit point damage and events in the game world (a point I made long ago, except I said there _is_ no correspondance), therefore describe them however you like.  

This certainly removes Schrödinger's Wounding, but it doesn't remove the problem of no reasonable mapping between game table and in-world events.  Which is not to say that this is a problem if you don't care.  I, for one, am not impressed with Wound Particle Duality either.  I am not looking for a game that simulates quantum mechanics.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I don't really know. As I'm sure you know, Ron Edwards has expressed the view that one obstacle to the mainstreaming of RPGs is "simulationist-by-habit" rules and play.





I prefer "simulationist-by-preference" rules and play.

As I am sure you know, mainstreaming something is very often good for increasing profits, but very seldom makes something actually better.  


RC


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 16, 2008)

While somewhat related to the thread please excuse this if it is on too much of a tangent.


Raven Crowking said:


> I do think that decoupling hp during an encounter from overall hp is an idea with a lot of merit. At first, I considered using a VP/WP system ala UA and SW, but I've been convinced that this isn't the way to go.



What about the VP/WP system do you think is flawed? Are the flaws something that can be fixed or are they too intertwined with the mechanic/flavour itself?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course not, but then that doesn't answer the problem I am describing, either.  Schrödinger's Wounding occurs because, should you happen to describe low hit points in any given case as "Look, I can see the bone!" you are only one healing surge away from having to retcon your description, unless you are willing to accept absurd "in world" events.




What's absurd, though?

I don't understand why it's absurd that if someone has just been described as having a rapier open up a wicked gash along their ribs, they can recover a quarter of their hit points with a healing surge _while still having an open gash along their ribs_.

I watch a Van Damme movie.  In the final fight, he's getting beaten down, his eyes are blackened, his nose is bloodied, he's on the floor... and then the bad guy picks the wrong thing to say.  Van Damme's head snaps up, his eyes flash, and he leaps up and pummels the guy to a pulp.  Does his bloodied nose miraculously clean up?  Do his eyes unblacken?  No - he's still showing those effects, but he's back in the fight.

I watch Desperado.  Cristos is annihilating Right-Hand's cousin, including breaking his shin.  The cousin is down... and then he jumps up and breaks Cristos' neck with a spinning kick.  He gets a cast put on the leg, and the next day he's fine - walking with a limp and a 'clink', but otherwise unimpeded.  Same movie, the mariachi gets shot, get stuck with assorted knives, he's bleeding... he gets the bullet holes sewn up, he ties rags around the stab wounds, he's good to go.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy gets shot in the arm.  Blood splashes; the German sergeant punches him in the arm, he screams.  He gets dragged behind a truck for a bit... climbs back up, knocks the guy out of the truck, carries on driving.  That night, he's complaining that everything hurts... but it didn't slow him down, and it doesn't slow him down for the rest of the film.

Van Damme is still cut and bruised.  The mariachi has stab wounds.  Indy has a bullet hole.  But that doesn't mean they can't be back up to full hit points after a rest - _even though those wounds can still be seen_.  Recovering the hit points doesn't have to mean the evidence of the wounds disappears.  It's just that they don't have a mechanical effect on the subsequent action.

So in 4E, I get hit with an axe, and I lose 15 hit points, taking me down to 5.  "The blade bites deep into your leg," the DM states.  On my turn, I spend a healing surge to recover 10 hit points, and then an action point to take a standard action of my own.  "Regdar screams as the axe strikes home," I say.  "But he blocks out the pain through force of will, and smashes the orc backwards with his shield, limping relentlessly after him."

After the combat, during the short rest, I spend another two healing surges to bring Regdar back up to full hit points.  "Regdar pulls the bandage tight, and gingerly sets his weight onto his injured leg.  He hisses - the pain of the fresh wound is still sharp.  But his companions will need him in the upcoming assault; there's no time for self-pity.  Clenching his teeth, he tries again... it hurts, but it's manageable.  'I'll be fine,' he bites out.  'Let's keep moving.'"

Regdar's at full hit points, but he's three healing surges down.  Why should "At full hit points" invalidate the description of him toughing his way through an injured leg?



> The solution you suggest above amounts to saying that there need be no correspondance between hit point damage and events in the game world...




I've got no problem with hit point damage corresponding to in-game events.  In the above example, the in-game event (Regdar's leg is cut) occurred at the same time as he took 15 damage.

The mechanical event "Regdar regains 10 hit points", however, doesn't have to be accompanied by the in-game event "The wound in Regdar's leg magically heals itself".  What it tells us is that if he gets hit for 6 damage, he isn't going to fall unconscious, whereas before the healing surge, he would have.

-Hyp.


----------



## Imp (Sep 16, 2008)

In movies where big sharp weapons are wielded you don't usually see somebody just get up after taking a substantial blow, usually it's one shot and down he goes, hero or otherwise, with some room for dying counter-strikes – sort of The Law Of The Size Of The Thing That Hits You. Inigo Montoya? Hit by a dagger. In D&D, adventurers are constantly being belted with spiky, flaming, poisoned metal things as big as they are, at least once they get to a certain level, and the "grit through the pain" rationale just turns it into high camp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Imp said:


> In D&D, adventurers are constantly being belted with spiky, flaming, poisoned metal things as big as they are, at least once they get to a certain level, and the "grit through the pain" rationale just turns it into high camp.




In D&D, adventurers get eaten by giant worms and cut their way out again, leaving muscular action to close the hole behind them.  They fall off cliffs and walk away.  They get burned by fire, by acid, by electricity; crushed, torn, hacked, and stabbed; they get picked up by devils and stabbed with a beard!; and they _never slow down until they're unconscious_.

What part of the hit point system from _any_ edition of D&D avoids the 'high camp' label?

-Hyp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> What part of the hit point system from _any_ edition of D&D avoids the 'high camp' label?



I'm struggling to think of one.
5E?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 16, 2008)

Just another point: how often does the Schrödinger's Cat form of wounds actually come into play? Precious few times.


----------



## Imp (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> What part of the hit point system from _any_ edition of D&D avoids the 'high camp' label?



Oh, I'm sorry, was I in particular claiming that hit points in whatever version were perfect? That the 200' cliff-jump-and-move-next-round maneuver wasn't also silly? No, I wasn't, chuckles. But so I suppose we should be using Dead Alive as our go-to movie reference from now on, instead of Die Hard, which has gotten pretty boring by now.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Imp said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, was I in particular claiming that hit points in whatever version were perfect?




Not at all.  But I don't feel that "It's campy" is a strike against healing surges, when D&D _without_ healing surges had the same problem.

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 16, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I was hoping with 4E and then Pathfinder that they would find a mechanic for damage and it's recovery that was elegant, streamlined, provide verisimilitude and would work well in a game. A tall order I suppose. While I'm enjoying what both of the previous are presenting, I'm still left waiting on this gaming nirvana I have in my head. I suppose it's impossible otherwise surely someone would have come up with it.



I think it is a tall order, for a few reasons.

Capacity to fight has at least two components: physical well-being and mental resolve. In a fantasy world it conceivably has further components, like spiritual strength and moral strength (ie the good are objectively more able to endure than are the evil).

Purist-for-system simulationist mechanics (I'm thinking of RM, HARP, RQ, Classic Traveller) tend to focus only on physical well-being. In those games the issue of mental resolve is always up to the player. Now that has two consequences: (i) PCs are always insanely brave; (ii) certain situations, like a PC collapsing due to lack of will and another PC talking that PC back into the fray, are excluded from the realm of game mechanics.

Some versions of Rolemaster do have a mechanism for spiritual damage, namely, life essence. I'll come back to that in a moment.

D&D 4e uses hit points to straddle three things, I think: physical well-being, spiritual strength and mental resolve. This is reflected both in the sorts of things that cause damage (eg both weapons, and a Deathlock Wight's horrific visage), and the various methods of healing (eg both clerics and warlords). The game mechanics don't attempt to distinguish them. This means that any given wound is apt to be narrated in multiple ways, and any given event of healing is apt to be narrated in multiple ways, and the consequence is what some players at least (eg Raven Crowking) find objectionable: PCs with real wounds (narrated as such) coming back into the fight after hardening their mental resolve (typical narration of warlord healing).

You could try and separate the physical, the mental and the spiritual each into a separate hit point pool. And then you could separate healing effects into different categories. Rolemaster does this, by separating Life Essence loss (caused by Undead) from physical injury. The net upshot, however, is that the mechanics become more complex and the game more dangerous unless the PCs have access to both sorts of healing. If this were done in 4e, it would undermine the design goal of "No need for a cleric, because any leader can do that job."

You also need to design all attacks in such a way as to make it clear what sort of damage they do. And this then puts mechanical limits on narration which might sometimes be felt as restricting (eg if my sword blow deals physical damage but not mental damage to the gobliln, then I have to describe the goblin as hurt but can't describe it as cowed - this is different from 4e as it currently stands, where 0 hit points can be narrated in a wide variety of ways), and takes us back to a mechanical need to distinguish real damage from various forms of morale-sapping subdual damage (as existed in 1st ed AD&D).

One non-4e game that fully integrates the various components of capacity to fight into a single unified mechanic for resolving conflicts is HeroWars/Quest. And in that system there is no easy correlation between the mechanics and the ingame state, as I indicated in an earlier post. 4e's hp and healing surge rules, and the narrative techniques that they require, resemble it in certain respects (though I think it's fair to say that the spiritual and moral components loom larger in HeroWars than in 4e).

So I guess the upshot of this discussion is that it is very hard to have a hit-point system that (i) is easily applied in a simulationist fashion, and (ii) brings the physical, the mental, the spiritual (and potentially the moral) components of capacity to fight under the ambit of the action resolution mechanics, and (iii) doesn't multiply mechanical subsystems, thus increasing complexity and making every sort of healer a necessity for the PCs, and (iv) permits an adequate degree of flexibility in narration.

On the other hand, if you're looking for a system in which hit points and other damage mechanics only correlate to physical injury, and therefore in which healing magic is the only way of quick recovery from injury, and which also incorporates a Fate Point mechanic to prevent PCs getting caught up in an ineluctable death spiral, then I suggest that you have a look at HARP (the quickstart rules are available here as a free download). If you wanted to, you could even give the Fate Point rules a simulationist reading, and treat them as representative of the mental/spritual/moral component (in this case, you might want to slightly vary the way in which they are earned).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> As I am sure you know, mainstreaming something is very often good for increasing profits, but very seldom makes something actually better.



I guess it depends on what counts as "mainstreaming" and what counts as "better". My personal taste is such that I think a lot of fantasy RPGs would be better if they were more in touch with mainstream thought in the humanities (one example which illustrates what I have in mind here is Rolemaster Companion VI, which deploys mainstream thought about literature, social theory and philosophy to offer what I regard as significant improvements to Rolemaster play).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Not at all.  But I don't feel that "It's campy" is a strike against healing surges, when D&D _without_ healing surges had the same problem.
> 
> -Hyp.





Sure, subsystems had problems.  But taking a relatively small problem, related specifically to subsystems (like falling damage) and turning it into a larger problem (instead of dealing with the subsystems) is, IMHO, like saying (in real life) that if a 20 foot fall can also kill you, you might as well go the full 200 feet.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

pemerton said:


> In those games the issue of mental resolve is always up to the player. Now that has two consequences: (i) PCs are always insanely brave;




Try playing in a campaign without encounters balanced by CR.  I guarantee you that (successful) PCs will not always be insanely brave.



> (ii) certain situations, like a PC collapsing due to lack of will and another PC talking that PC back into the fray, are excluded from the realm of game mechanics.




I also find that this happens, too.

So, basically, sandbox play handles this very, very well without requiring any changes to the hit point rules.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Just another point: how often does the Schrödinger's Cat form of wounds actually come into play? Precious few times.





Relevant question.  It comes into play every time that you take damage, and remains in effect until that damage is restored.  If you describe that damage in any way, you run the risk that subsequent events will require retcon.  This is true in the same way that, when one plays Russian Roulette, the bullet comes into play with every pull of the trigger, whether it is actually fired or not.

Or, I suppose, you could take the advice given earlier, and claim that some classes are always really wounded, while some classes are never wounded.  Of course, multiclassing might cause difficulties, and the results are absurd.



RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 16, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Just another point: how often does the Schrödinger's Cat form of wounds actually come into play? Precious few times.




I've never noticed a single instance of it in my games.

RC, do you have an example from a game where you ran into this problem?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Just another point: how often does the Schrödinger's Cat form of wounds actually come into play? Precious few times.




Each time I describe damage taken by a character as anything else than "you take 10 hp damage". I know in Star Wars revised with its VP/WP system, I take care to describe no real wounds when it's just VP "damage", and describe "hits" as near-misses that leave the character strained from dodging or with superficial if slightly painful effects.
In D&D 3E, I usually resort to small cuts or gashes, or bruises when detailing damage, until one gets dropped. It's not much of a problem in my 3E campaign since after a fight there's usually plenty of rest and magical healing to go around, we rarely do dungeon crawls with multiple fights.
Bt yes, if I'd describe some damage as a wound, my players react accordingly and wouldn't really roll with "it wasn't actually a wound since now you surged, sorry, just an illusion".


----------



## pemerton (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Try playing in a campaign without encounters balanced by CR.  I guarantee you that (successful) PCs will not always be insanely brave.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, basically, sandbox play handles this very, very well without requiring any changes to the hit point rules.



It does, but not via the action resolution mechanics (eg in classic D&D and AD&D PCs never make morale roles). It happens via freeform roleplaying. This is quite different from a game like (for example) HeroWars or The Dying Earth in which the mechanics treat "morale damage" and "physical damage" in the same way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I'm still left waiting on this gaming nirvana I have in my head. I suppose it's impossible otherwise surely someone would have come up with it.



Everyone is looking for the perfect system, but I suppose most game designers know that they don't exist, and they try just to make the best system for their audience (in many cases, that's the designer himself  ).



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> if I'd describe some damage as a wound, my players react accordingly and wouldn't really roll with "it wasn't actually a wound since now you surged, sorry, just an illusion".



Then don't do that. "You have a painful wound, but since you surged, you're soldiering on. You probably will still limp for a few days, but it doesn't matter - you _have_ to go on!"


----------



## pemerton (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> if I'd describe some damage as a wound, my players react accordingly and wouldn't really roll with "it wasn't actually a wound since now you surged, sorry, just an illusion".



I don't want to just repeat what Lost Soul and Hypersmurf have been saying, but I do feel compelled to ask: why does the wound have to be retconned away? Why can't the PC both be wounded, and be functional, because the healing surge is interpreted, on that occasion of surging, as an act of will to overcome the pain?

EDIT: Apparently I'm repeating Mustrum Ridcully as well!


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I don't want to just repeat what Lost Soul and Hypersmurf have been saying, but I do feel compelled to ask: why does the wound have to be retconned away? Why can't the PC both be wounded, and be functional, because the healing surge is interpreted, on that occasion of surging, as an act of will to overcome the pain?
> 
> EDIT: Apparently I'm repeating Mustrum Ridcully as well!




Because it strains my (and most likely my players') sense of immersion if someone gets wounded to within an inch of his life, then "overcomes the pain", then suffers the same fate again, then overcomes the pain again, and then gets even more wounds, overcoming them again. The mental picture is rather like the old "I took 20 arrows to the chest, but no worry, I still have HPs left, so I am fine". Some wounds you simply do not ignore for too long.

I am fine with "ignoring the pain" of an stab to the thigh for a single fight, but doing that for the rest of the day, without any treatment? And doing the same for the arrow to the side, the slash to the biceps, the dislocated shoulder and the broken femur?

As long as you call superficial cuts "wounds" it works, but once you enter actual serious wounds in your description - like when a wound drops a PC into negatives - and then a healing surge fixes them, I encounter problems. A smashed shoulder, a gut wound, a broken leg - those do not go away that easily just because you focus.

If I described such wounds, then my players would expect more serious consequences, barring the absence of magical healing, than a "and you ignore the pain and soldier on for the next week" handwave.

(And yes, IMC, all the swallowing critters usually die quite messily when a PC cuts himself free from their belly - none of that utterly stupid "muscle contractions close the hole".)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If I described such wounds, then my players would expect more serious consequences, barring the absence of magical healing, than a "and you ignore the pain and soldier on for the next week" handwave.




So what do you do in 3E when the 80 hit point fighter is dropped to 5 hit points and doesn't get any magical healing for a week, and can't rest the requisite 8 uninterrupted hours to recover hit points?

Do you impose penalties on him for being injured?  The system doesn't.  Can he soldier on at 5 hit points?  The system allows him to.

There are no mechanical consequences in the rules for being low on hit points... so if you described those 75 points of damage as a smashed shoulder, a gut wound, and a broken leg, then you need to introduce house rules to cover the effects of a broken leg.

And if you said "gut wound", assuming that the cleric would heal him in a round or two, and then the cleric dies before he has a chance, you're left with a fighter you've described as having a gut wound, and you either have to invent rules to cover the mechanical effects, or you have to let him soldier on for the next week, or you have to retcon the description.

How is that any better than the problems you have with 4E?

-Hyp.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2008)

A few notes:

I've always used the "minor cuts and bruises" explanation of hit point loss until you get down to the last half dozen or so (i.e. the same as a commoner would have, where it really does hurt when you lose 'em),  If nothing else, it gives meaning to the "cure xxx wounds" spells, and also makes it obvious if they've had any effect or not.

For heal-by-resting, the simplest system I've managed to come up with is this: a good night's rest gets you back hit points equal to 10% of your maximum (we call this a character's "Heal Rate"), rounding *all* fractions UP.  Thus, if you have 10 h.p. your HR is 1; if you have 11 HP your HR is 2.  That way, everyone heals at the same relative rate.  That said, we use a system very similar to the WP-VP idea from Star Wars which makes things more complicated, but the idea remains.

A quick fix to Second Wind might be to make it temporary.  You get back the hit points for the next half hour or so, but after that you go down to +1 and need to rest.

Lanefan


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So what do you do in 3E when the 80 hit point fighter is dropped to 5 hit points and doesn't get any magical healing for a week, and can't rest the requisite 8 uninterrupted hours to recover hit points?
> 
> Do you impose penalties on him for being injured?  The system doesn't.  Can he soldier on at 5 hit points?  The system allows him to.
> 
> ...




It may not be better for you, but it's better for me. I'd rather have a PC drink a potion and have magical healing than get some order from a warlord, and ignore wounds for a week.

If I describe wounds, and they do not get healed, then we roll with it, simple as that. If a PC has a broken leg, well, there's a broken leg. People know what it means, I don't need rules for it other than applying the appropriate modifier for some tests. 

If a PC is reduced to 5 hitpoints, and can't heal up, then he'll stagger around, hover near death, and probably have fever dreams and hallucinations while dragging himself to help - or dies when he loses his 5 hp from a goblin attack, or a fall down a small ledge, or some cold damage out in the open.

I surely do not have to "let him soldier on" as if nothing was wrong.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If I describe wounds, and they do not get healed, then we roll with it, simple as that. If a PC has a broken leg, well, there's a broken leg. People know what it means, I don't need rules for it other than applying the appropriate modifier for some tests.
> 
> If a PC is reduced to 5 hitpoints, and can't heal up, then he'll stagger around, hover near death, and probably have fever dreams and hallucinations while dragging himself to help - or dies when he loses his 5 hp from a goblin attack, or a fall down a small ledge, or some cold damage out in the open.
> 
> I surely do not have to "let him soldier on" as if nothing was wrong.




Fair enough.  So if you can introduce effects from outside the rules for wounds that are not healed magically in 3E, do the same in 4E.

In 3E, if you say "broken leg", he's got a broken leg, and you apply the appropriate modifier for some tests.

In 4E, if you say "broken leg", he's got a broken leg, and you apply the appropriate modifier for some tests.  If he uses a healing surge, he's got more hit points than he had a moment ago, and it will take three hits from a goblin instead of one to kill him.  But he's still got a broken leg, and you apply the appropriate modifier for some tests.  

The broken leg modifier is not an effect of the 3E hit point rules, it's something you've added in.  Similarly, it's not an effect of the 4E hit point rules, so the fact that he's regained some hit points doesn't have to cure his broken leg.



> In D&D 3E, I usually resort to small cuts or gashes, or bruises when detailing damage, until one gets dropped.




So the 80 hit point fighter who has 5 hit points left, and has not yet been dropped, is still only suffering small cuts and bruises?

Does that mean the _only_ time healing surges in 4E are actually an issue to you is when they change someone's status from negative to positive hit points?

-Hyp.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So the 80 hit point fighter who has 5 hit points left, and has not yet been dropped, is still only suffering small cuts and bruises?




It means that he has taken a very large number of small wounds. That's not something you shrug off with an act of will, at least not for longer than a few minutes. Blood loss alone will weaken you.



Hypersmurf said:


> Does that mean the _only_ time healing surges in 4E are actually an issue to you is when they change someone's status from negative to positive hit points?




No. They would be an issue each time they result in wounds getting healed. Given how few damage you seem to take in 4E, as opposed to the massive blows 3E can deal, that may not be an issue. But if I was playing 4E, I'd have to use the "you force him to dodge, straining himself" description far more often, especially if using the "the last blow that drops someone decides if it was real or stun damage" rules.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It means that he has taken a very large number of small wounds. That's not something you shrug off with an act of will, at least not for longer than a few minutes. Blood loss alone will weaken you.




But in 3E D&D blood loss _doesn't_ weaken you, unless there's a Wounding weapon or stirges involved, or you're in the negatives already.

In 3E D&D the fighter at 5 hit points will stay at 5 hit points indefinitely, as long as nothing hits him again.



> No. They would be an issue each time they result in wounds getting healed.




There's no reason a healing surge _needs_ to result in a wound getting healed.  A healing surge increases your hit points.  Whether or not the wound is healed is a separate issue.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> But in 3E D&D blood loss _doesn't_ weaken you, unless there's a Wounding weapon or stirges involved, or you're in the negatives already.
> 
> In 3E D&D the fighter at 5 hit points will stay at 5 hit points indefinitely, as long as nothing hits him again.




A fighter in 3E at 5 hitpoints _is_ weakened. He can't just spend a few healing surges, and is good to go for another dragged out fight - he is at 5 hitpoints, weak, and easy to kill.



Hypersmurf said:


> There's no reason a healing surge _needs_ to result in a wound getting healed.  A healing surge increases your hit points.  Whether or not the wound is healed is a separate issue.




The results of a healing surge, and what hit points represent, is the point of the last few pages. And that 4E hitpoints are not corresponding to anything concrete, especailly not concrete wounds, is what bugs a number of people.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> My apologies, btw.  I wrote a nice reply to your previous post, but it got eaten by the EN World imps.
> 
> I'll try to get back to it later.
> 
> RC




Have you had time to get back to it yet? 

I'm interested in seeing what you had to say.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 16, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> That's obviously cool for you. In the games I have played over the decades though, we have always treated resurrections of any description as special - it's just how our group likes to play such things and how I think we'll continue to play things in 4E, even though as you say, it can be viewed as mechanically just a healing spell that can take even the most severely damaged creature/blob back to running around.




Well, it is a ritual, and you do need to invest some money in it. Maybe it can also only be done in special places with the permission of the right people. As long as you're clear about that up front you can make it as special as you want it to be.



Herremann the Wise said:


> Fine but as I have said, the mechanics of the game don't inform the players very well how to do this - and while your guidelines work for you, they leave several ramifications that do not mesh with my group's play style. The style of game our group plays, the players more look to the mechanics and DM to define what is going on in the game. Your style of play is different (no better, no worse, just different).




Yeah, I seem to have lucked into a group of players who are okay with me being a lazy bastard and shifting most of the narrative impetus onto them. 

So if the DMG had included a wound resolution system, with, say, 1 Head 2-4 Arms 5-8 Chest 9-0 Legs (unless the GM gives you an obvious target, like ye legbreaker) and then random tables for each rough body location, with sample descriptions of normal concussive wounds, obvious but shallow wounds (bloodied), KO shots (0 hp), and apparently lethal wounds (-bloodied) that would be okay for your players? Let's say 20 wound samples and maybe 6 or 8 for the other types? Probably 6, it'd be easier to balance them in two columns that way.

Now, I'm not in the mood to write down 160 entries for a problem I don't have, but if it's severe enough to slow down play for your group, either through people trying to come up with ways to describe damage or carping on about how it's so unreasonable, maybe come up with 10/3/3/3 for one location and then see based on that if it's a reasonable time investment?



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> That is one solution to the problem. Or you could have a mechanic that produces a result that can be quickly interpreted because the mechanic is clean and elegant and meshes well with the flavour it is representing.




It'd be nice if anything like that could ever actually exist. 

Elegant proofs are elegant not because they can completely explain what they prove, even to the layman, but because to someone who already has the necessary mathematical knowledge to work a longer proof they can evoke it with a minimum of information. They are concentrated essential knowledge, just add water, but first you have to put the "water" in your head.



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> However, at zero hp or less, injuries are quite severe (involving a tracking system like you have with the Legbreaker! - which I'll comment on below).




Well, one of the problems with any kind of damage modeling is that it makes the "take damage" step of combat resolution take longer. 

Yeah, even the bugbear legbreaker with his 2 rolls per attack instead of 1, though you could probably speed up the condition resolution with, like, an index card with the states on it and a paper clip under "slowed". 



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> A different but I think equally valid solution to the processing gap/overload you describe. The one thing human's are very good at doing is judging a situation quickly. Give them easily interpreted variables and I think most people are OK.




Quickly and, generally, wrongly, if it involves any kind of conditional, negation, or multiple subsets. I've seen the research. You would not believe how bad even master's-level students are at fitting those kinds of relationships into the human mindset.

(And don't even get me started on assessing states with, and making predictions from, derivatives. That was the toughest thing to wrap my head around when I was learning to drive, and I was kicking calculus and taking names at the time!)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

pemerton said:


> It does, but not via the action resolution mechanics (eg in classic D&D and AD&D PCs never make morale roles). It happens via freeform roleplaying. This is quite different from a game like (for example) HeroWars or The Dying Earth in which the mechanics treat "morale damage" and "physical damage" in the same way.




I don't think so. The mechanics of a game directly inform the "win conditions" of the game, as has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently through games theory. In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Then don't do that. "You have a painful wound, but since you surged, you're soldiering on. You probably will still limp for a few days, but it doesn't matter - you _have_ to go on!"





IMHO, all game mechanics should follow the "arrow of time" as relates to in-world events.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> (And yes, IMC, all the swallowing critters usually die quite messily when a PC cuts himself free from their belly - none of that utterly stupid "muscle contractions close the hole".)




Amen.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Have you had time to get back to it yet?
> 
> I'm interested in seeing what you had to say.




No, I haven't, and I am not sure that it is worth the effort.  Well, for some it might be, but when the general response is "the disconnect doesn't exist at all", I doubt whether any further attempts at breaking down the disconnect will help.

If someone cannot determine that the mechanics of having 5 hp instead of 80 hp is going to directly affect how a character is played, and how effective that character is in a fight, what hope do any words of mine have?

I'm thinking of bowing out and coming back around 5e (possibly 6e) to say "I told you so".


RC


EDIT:  BTW, I am glad that they included rituals in 4e.  I posted several times during WotC's 3e era claiming that some spells should be rituals.  Every once in a while, it seems, they agree with me on something!  (Whether they know it or not, and whether or not they care.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, all game mechanics should follow the "arrow of time" as relates to in-world events.
> 
> 
> RC



They can. The arrow of time can hit you when you're ready to be hit - e.g at the conclusion of the adventure, or in any larger rest period within a "running" one. That's how it works in most stories. Jack Bauer is not indestructible, but his break-down comes at the end of the season, not during it. (Well, at least that's what happens in one season.) 

Maybe there is also a source of dissonance - I care more about the kind of stories I evoke then what might happen "realistically". Maybe that's the difference between "sim" and "narr"? 
I don't want the rules to dictate the flow of the story - I might want tools to manipulate the flow of it, but it's the DM and his groups decision when the party spends a week "off" to recover from broken limbs and gashing chest wounds.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> They can. The arrow of time can hit you when you're ready to be hit - e.g at the conclusion of the adventure, or in any larger rest period within a "running" one. That's how it works in most stories. Jack Bauer is not indestructible, but his break-down comes at the end of the season, not during it. (Well, at least that's what happens in one season.)





Um....The arrow of time refers to the fact that, in normal life, things progress from cause to effect along a linear progression.  The "cause" of a healing surge doesn't have an "effect" of making an earlier wound something else, for example.  IMHO, all game mechanics should describe effects happening in the game world at the time they occur.  You should not be dependent upon some later effect to determine what the event that happens now means, nor should some later event retcon what happens now.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Um....The arrow of time refers to the fact that, in normal life, things progress from cause to effect along a linear progression.



I associated the "Arrow of Time" with entropy. My bad, I suppose I read too much popular science books.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because it strains my (and most likely my players') sense of immersion if someone gets wounded to within an inch of his life, then "overcomes the pain", then suffers the same fate again, then overcomes the pain again, and then gets even more wounds, overcoming them again. The mental picture is rather like the old "I took 20 arrows to the chest, but no worry, I still have HPs left, so I am fine". Some wounds you simply do not ignore for too long.




Remember Boromir's death scene in Fellowship of the Rings?  That's cool.  I want my heros to be able to do that.  Get hit by an arrow, turn and fight off more and more orcs as effectively as if never hit.  

From a simulationist point of view, don't travel anywhere without a cleric, because without the magical healing--especially cure disease--any non-superficial cut will turn to blood poisoning, and you'll die.  There's a reason "sawbones" is a nickname for the doctoring profession.  Break a leg early in an adventure and your characters will sit out the rest of it waiting for it to heal--6 weeks, more or less.  Rolemaster's critical hit charts only partially solved this abstract/concrete issue because it has an amazing tendency toward leaving permanent wounds (at least ones that can't be dealt with without a high-level healer) littered around any fight.  Realistic, but not all that fun, at least for me.  That's why my groups have almost always gone with, "Wounds are abstract."  Well, that and a couple of my players will avoid movies with gratuitous gore.

The other real benefit (aside from taking away the constant reliance on the hit point battery--I mean cleric), is avoiding that death spiral.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:


> Remember Boromir's death scene in Fellowship of the Rings?  That's cool.  I want my heros to be able to do that.  Get hit by an arrow, turn and fight off more and more orcs as effectively as if never hit.




Boromir _died _at the end of that scene. He didn't just surge heal back to full in 5 minutes after Aragon got to him. In game mechanics, he ran out of hitpoints. In 4E mechanics, if he had had a healing surge left, he'd have survived. And suddenly, the arrows would not have been actual hits.

I don't want Boromir to soak up half a dozen arrows, then get a second wind, soak up half a dozen more, then get the next healing surge, and soak up 6 more arrows, then rest 5 minutes, and fight as good as new.

Getting to close to zero hitpoints by arrows, and keeping fighting is good enough for me. Afterwards, the human pincushion should require extensive magical or mundane treatment, not just 5 minutes of rest, to keep going.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Boromir _died _at the end of that scene. He didn't just surge heal back to full in 5 minutes after Aragon got to him. In game mechanics, he ran out of hitpoints. In 4E mechanics, if he had had a healing surge left, he'd have survived. And suddenly, the arrows would not have been actual hits.



Maybe he failed his death saving throws?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I associated the "Arrow of Time" with entropy. My bad, I suppose I read too much popular science books.





The arrow of time is associated with entropy.  Entropy is one of the factors that relies upon/causes perception of the arrow.  Interestingly enough, a recent Scientific American article described attempts to model a universe from simple basic principles.  You only get something that resembles our universe, apparently, if you include a presupposition of an arrow of time.  I.e., events run in one direction only.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe he failed his death saving throws?




You ignored the salient point:  "In 4E mechanics, if he had had a healing surge left, he'd have survived. And suddenly, the arrows would not have been actual hits."  Schrödinger's Wounding.  Suddenly that cool scene Dinkeldog wanted his heroes to be part of is rewritten; it never existed as he imagined it.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You ignored the salient point:  "In 4E mechanics, if he had had a healing surge left, he'd have survived. And suddenly, the arrows would not have been actual hits."  Schrödinger's Wounding.  Suddenly that cool scene Dinkeldog wanted his heroes to be part of is rewritten; it never existed as he imagined it.
> 
> 
> RC




No, he wouldn't have survived. You can die even if you have 100 % of your healing surges left. If you don't have a second wind or other way to trigger it, you have a high chance of dying. (You might stabilize)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The arrow of time is associated with entropy.  Entropy is one of the factors that relies upon/causes perception of the arrow.  Interestingly enough, a recent Scientific American article described attempts to model a universe from simple basic principles.  You only get something that resembles our universe, apparently, if you include a presupposition of an arrow of time.  I.e., events run in one direction only.



I am not sure if that recent article mentioned actually contained something new.  But you are right - Entropy grows in direction of the Arrow of Time, but that doesn't mean they are the same.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No, he wouldn't have survived. You can die even if you have 100 % of your healing surges left. If you don't have a second wind or other way to trigger it, you have a high chance of dying. (You might stabilize)



Indeed, a good way to die is to be a defender who has used his second wind already, out in the middle of nowhere amongst many bad guys, and no leader around to help.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed, a good way to die is to be a defender who has used his second wind already, out in the middle of nowhere amongst many bad guys, and no leader around to help.




The leader in question reached him before he died though.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The leader in question reached him before he died though.




One utter failing of most systems (not limited to specific D&D editions): No rule support for the "words of a dying man". Either you're unconscious and dying, or you're conscious and not dying.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> One utter failing of most systems (not limited to specific D&D editions): No rule support for the "words of a dying man". Either you're unconscious and dying, or you're conscious and not dying.




The bard "Knight" kit (don't recall exact name) from the 2E Complete Bard's Handbook had that support. If fighting for something your code supported, you fought even when reduced to negatives, then died after uttering final words.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> One utter failing of most systems (not limited to specific D&D editions): No rule support for the "words of a dying man". Either you're unconscious and dying, or you're conscious and not dying.




Rolemaster is good this way. You are conscious dying (and maybe sans limbs).

TSOY could do this as the stake setting could result in dying but conscious.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The bard "Knight" kit (don't recall exact name) from the 2E Complete Bard's Handbook had that support. If fighting for something your code supported, you fought even when reduced to negatives, then died after uttering final words.



I hope it wasn't a class ability used too often?


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Boromir _died _at the end of that scene. He didn't just surge heal back to full in 5 minutes after Aragon got to him. In game mechanics, he ran out of hitpoints. In 4E mechanics, if he had had a healing surge left, he'd have survived. And suddenly, the arrows would not have been actual hits.




Only if your group is okay with that sort of thing.  

If not: Boromir looks back at the hobbits and finds the courage to fight on.  The player decides that he's thrown away the temptation of the Ring and has changed, grown as a character.

Maybe that's not as good a story, but it's influenced by the mechanics.

(You can ask how he deals with those arrows that are still in him if you want.)


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> (You can ask how he deals with those arrows that are still in him if you want.)




_How _he deals with the arrows has been the point of this thread's last 6 pages or so.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> A fighter in 3E at 5 hitpoints _is_ weakened.



Not to sound snarky, but that depends on what your definition of _weakened_ is. 

I should start by saying healing surges don't bother me because the real "disconnect" is caused by the ablative hit point system itself --not by the way the 4e healing surge mechanic modifies it. When you get right down to it, injuries in D&D --whether they're scratches, solid hits from giant-sized mauls, thrown boulders to the face, full-body burns-- simply aren't _injurious_. They aren't debilitating. 

So a 3e fighter with 5 out 100 HP is "weakened" only in the sense that he's _close_ to being disabled. He suffers from _none_ of the other realistic effects of grievous injury; he can run sprints in plate armor, he isn't bleeding, he suffers no broken bones, isn't covered with leaking burns. His ability to perform strenuous physical activity is completely unimpaired.

So if the DM has been describing those lost 95 HP as serious wounds, you've still got a big disconnect. And if the DM hasn't, then the 'wounds' are nothing more than fatigue, lost morale, and grazes, which can easily be fixed by a rousing pep talk and a short rest.

Healing surges are as unrealistic as hit points are themselves.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Not to sound snarky, but that depends on what your definition of _weakened_ is.
> 
> I should start by saying healing surges don't bother me because the real "disconnect" is caused by the ablative hit point system itself --not by the way the 4e healing surge mechanic modifies it. When you get right down to it, injuries in D&D --whether they're scratches, solid hits from giant-sized mauls, thrown boulders to the face, full-body burns-- simply aren't _injurious_. They aren't debilitating.
> 
> ...




While you make good points RC issue is not just the necessary unrealistic issues involved but of retconning the narrative. He wants HP to be a real-time tracker of condition, with healing surges they are not.

I think he has a very valid point in this and that simulationist are not going to like this type of mechanic (simialr to not liking the heal everythign overnight phenomena).

Retconning the narrative does not necessarily bother me i and i think it can be a useful way to actually model some phenomena. i personally like the second wind  idea (though not necessarily its mechanical implementation).


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Healing surges are as unrealistic as hit points are themselves.




For you, not for me. Hit points strain my immersion less than healing surges do.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> _How _he deals with the arrows has been the point of this thread's last 6 pages or so.




He slumps to the ground and binds his wounds as best he can, or Aragorn heals him using his fancy magic, or he has some elf bread.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> While you make good points RC issue is not just the necessary unrealistic issues involved but of retconning the narrative.



Part of my point was simply that describing HP loss a serious wounding can be seen as a bad idea --since the rest of the system makes it clear you aren't modeling serious injury. If you avoid doing that then no 'retconning' is necessary. Think of HP as _morale_. 



> He wants HP to be a real-time tracker of condition, with healing surges they are not.



But they are a real-time condition tracker. It's just that the quantity they track can _increase_ as well as _decrease_. The only difference is that HP are no longer as strictly ablative. This is no different from a tiring runner getting a spurt of energy/speed at different points during a race. This happens even though, on the whole, the runner's energy level is decreasing. 



> I think he has a very valid point in this and that simulationist are not going to like this type of mechanic



OK. I but I think I have a valid point that simulationists shouldn't be overly fond of abstract, ablative hit point mechanics in the first place. 



> (simialr to not liking the heal everything overnight phenomena



This is a slightly different kettle of fish. To be honest I'm not sure how I feel about it... I'm waiting to see how it 'feels' during campaign play.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> For you, not for me. Hit points strain my immersion less than healing surges do.



It's more accurate to say that while both mechanics are unrealistic, one bothers you and the other doesn't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> While you make good points RC issue is not just the necessary unrealistic issues involved but of retconning the narrative. He wants HP to be a real-time tracker of condition, with healing surges they are not.
> 
> I think he has a very valid point in this and that simulationist are not going to like this type of mechanic (simialr to not liking the heal everythign overnight phenomena).
> 
> Retconning the narrative does not necessarily bother me i and i think it can be a useful way to actually model some phenomena. i personally like the second wind  idea (though not necessarily its mechanical implementation).





You seem to understand what I am saying exactly.

And, once more, for the record, if retconning the narrative doesn't bother you, then this isn't going to be a problem for you.  4e offers more than one problem for someone who prefers simulation.  Some of these can be fixed by rephrasing powers (so that you do not do damage on a miss), and some are more intrinsic to the system (healing surges, minion rules, aggro).  This doesn't mean that 4e is a _bad_ game; it means that 4e isn't the _right_ game for some folks.  Me included.

If the revised GSL resembles the OGL, I could see that a version of 4e could be put together that would solve the problems I have with it.  However, I am not holding my breath on that score.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> It's more accurate to say that while both mechanics are unrealistic, one bother you and the other doesn't.




I would say that it is more accurate to say that, while both mechanics are unrealistic, one is far more unrealistic than the other, and as a result it bothers me where the other does not.

Again, just because a 20 foot drop can kill you, it doesn't follow that a 20 foot drop and a 200 foot drop are co-equal.


RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> It's more accurate to say that while both mechanics are unrealistic, one bothers you and the other doesn't.




Please do not try to speak for me, or try to tell me what I feel. _My_ sense of immersion - which is highly subjective - is less bothered by hitpoints than by healing surges. That is a fact, no matter what you think I think or should think.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If someone cannot determine that the mechanics of having 5 hp instead of 80 hp is going to directly affect how a character is played, and how effective that character is in a fight, what hope do any words of mine have?




Maybe *anyone* can't, but, uh.

A character with 5 hp out of 80 is exhausted. Not status-effect exhausted, exhausted if you want to pose his mood. He has been warding off or absorbing blows for some time and doesn't know if he's up for another burst of that effort. He has taken one bloody wound, maybe a medium-deep graze on his arm or maybe his chainmail got shoved into his chest and he'd rather leave it there for the time being. If something actually connects solidly he's going to crumple, unless it couldn't back off a puppy to begin with or fate is feeling very kind. 

But he is not "slowed", he is not "weakened", he is not "dazed". (At least not inherently. He may have been tagged with one of these effects until the end of the encounter.) He can still move around the battlefield and deliver full-force swings, maybe pausing briefly to muster up the effort but either adrenaline or will or both is keeping him going. Just as long as he doesn't have to stop.

If he can catch his breath for a moment (has his second wind available and a healing surge to burn) he'll feel a little less put through the wringer, maybe able to stave off a couple more shots, but not up to worrying about the wound (the healing surge won't get him above bloodied). If he's been holding back any desperation moves (only usable when bloodied) then now is the time. And everyone can see or sense that he's wounded, so anything that affects bloodied characters differently affects him. 

If he receives another healing effect that takes him up above bloodied then he tends to his wound - bandages his graze or closes it through sheer force of flex, or finally essays to pull the chainmail out and winces for a moment, but it's not biting into his skin anymore. This also happens if he has time to take a short rest and has healing surges to spend.

If he's still at 5/80 after his short rest, then he just doesn't have anything left in reserve today. He doesn't get any worse while he rests, but he doesn't get any better either.

I suppose you could house-rule that anybody who was bloodied could clear that condition during a short rest but it would return as soon as they took damage.

Also, Boromir was probably using a feat, (likely paragon-tier, maybe even epic) utility, or path ability that let him keep going, dazed, past 0 hit points, but making death saves as per usual. Either that or the One Ring deals ongoing damage (save ends) to bloodied characters and Boromir couldn't shake that off before he passed out.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Please do not try to speak for me, or try to tell me what I feel. _My_ sense of immersion - which is highly subjective - is less bothered by hitpoints than by healing surges. That is a fact, no matter what you think I think or should think.



I wasn't talking about your sense of immersion, or what you felt. I was reiterating the point that both mechanics are unrealistic.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would say that it is more accurate to say that, while both mechanics are unrealistic, one is far more unrealistic than the other



I think at this point we've left the realm of logic and strayed into aesthetics. 



> Again, just because a 20 foot drop can kill you, it doesn't follow that a 20 foot drop and a 200 foot drop are co-equal.



I'm tempted to reply 'just because you include numbers in your argument doesn't lend it the strength of a mathematical proof'.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> OK. I but I think I have a valid point that simulationists shouldn't be overly fond of abstract, ablative hit point mechanics in the first place.
> 
> .




And you do. HP by themselves are far from the best simulationist mechanic. Rolemaster has a much better one as it is real-time, describes "real" injuries and the consequences of said injuries affect things mechanically.

IN general i think wound mechanics (such as BW has) are superior to HP mechanics for strong simulation of combat as they come closer to addressing what an injury is in "real life"

Of course in real life injuries can really suck.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> But they are a real-time condition tracker. It's just that the quantity they track can _increase_ as well as _decrease_. The only difference is that HP are no longer as strictly ablative. This is no different from a tiring runner getting a spurt of energy/speed at different points during a race. This happens even though, on the whole, the runner's energy level is decreasing.
> 
> 
> OK




For RC (please tell me if i am correct) i believe he wants HP to at some level model "real" injuries. While there are issues with previous editions (high level fighter HP vs low level fighter HP) he can more easily use the HP system to generalize true wounds. 

In pre-4E paradigm even if some of the HP damage a fighter takes is luck, skill etc. at some base level some of it is real injuries which is why it takes days to weeks to heal.

In the 4E paradigm none of the damage is necessarily real. Now you can narrate it however you wish (and this can be a strength) but it does not really map to "injuries" in a quasi-mechanical sense.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The leader in question reached him before he died though.



Two points:

1. The dying words can just be dramatic license.

2. Rangers aren't leaders, they're strikers.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1. The dying words can just be dramatic license.
> 
> 2. Rangers aren't leaders, they're strikers.




in 4E, Aragorn isnt a ranger (sorry had to say that)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think at this point we've left the realm of logic and strayed into aesthetics.
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to reply 'just because you include numbers in your argument doesn't lend it the strength of a mathematical proof'.




Obviously.  But there are similarities (again) to quantum mechanics.

The term "quantum" refers to the smallest possible amount.  It refers to, effectively, a scale for measurement.

When you say, in effect, that both are unrealistic, so no comparison between them about _how_ unrealistic they are is more than "aesthetics", you are effectively claiming that the "quantum" of realism is bipolar.  It is either yes/no.  This is exactly akin to ignoring the difference between a 20 and a 200 foot drop because, given the question "Can it kill you?" they are both answered "yes" in a bipolar, yes/no paradigm.  I do not subscribe to such a coarse measure of realism.  I think that the "quantum" of what can be defined in terms of realism is much, much finer than that.

Of course, you say that we have entered the realm of "aesthetics" as though that is a bad thing.  Of course we've entered the realm of aesthetics.  I said as much in my first post on this thread.  Whether or not something bothers you is entirely in the realm of aesthetics.  

Whether or not that something exists, though, is not.



RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> in 4E, Aragorn isnt a ranger (sorry had to say that)



But...but...he calls himself a ranger! How can the name of his character class not match his in-game description exactly??? You're breaking my brain!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> For RC (please tell me if i am correct) i believe he wants HP to at some level model "real" injuries. While there are issues with previous editions (high level fighter HP vs low level fighter HP) he can more easily use the HP system to generalize true wounds.
> 
> In pre-4E paradigm even if some of the HP damage a fighter takes is luck, skill etc. at some base level some of it is real injuries which is why it takes days to weeks to heal.
> 
> In the 4E paradigm none of the damage is necessarily real. Now you can narrate it however you wish (and this can be a strength) but it does not really map to "injuries" in a quasi-mechanical sense.




Moreover, should you find narration of effects at the time they occur to be desireable, any system that can allow future events to change that narration (or, if you refuse to change it, make it absurd within the new context) is problematic at best.

EDIT:  Some of the "mmoving people" powers in 4e suffer from this same problem.  In order to prevent absurd narration, some have already begun to suggest that the use of these powers should be taken to assume that the moved character was _already_ where the PC moved him to.  Needless to say, any sort of explaination that requires the in-world arrow of time to be violated is an explaination that I have no interest in.

Should that system also promote a condition that one finds absurd in-and-of-itself (such as healing from anything overnight, or conversely never suffering something that would be absurd to heal overnight, depending upon your narration), one is likely to find that system off-putting.  Unless, of course, one is looking for absurdity in their game.


RC


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, should you find narration of effects at the time they occur to be desireable, any system that can allow future events to change that narration (or, if you refuse to change it, make it absurd within the new context) is problematic at best.
> 
> EDIT:  Some of the "mmoving people" powers in 4e suffer from this same problem.  In order to prevent absurd narration, some have already begun to suggest that the use of these powers should be taken to assume that the moved character was _already_ where the PC moved him to.  Needless to say, any sort of explaination that requires the in-world arrow of time to be violated is an explaination that I have no interest in.
> 
> ...




While in general I support the reasons why you have an issue with the 4E paradigm oh hp mechanics, conversely an ablative HP system such as earlier versions of D&D have as the single measurement of injury is somewhat absurd to begin with. 

You are left with deadly wounds that have no impact on the character. He is in a dichotomous state of perfect working order or complete helplessness (unconsciousness or death)

I do think a different system would probably be better for you (like Rolemaster) if this type of simulationism is what you want to capture. Of course then you might have other issues to contend with.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> While in general I support the reasons why you have an issue with the 4E paradigm oh hp mechanics, conversely an ablative HP system such as earlier versions of D&D have as the single measurement of injury is somewhat absurd to begin with.





Perhaps.  But I find it far less absurd than 4e.  As I have pointed out now, several times, the mechanics inform play, so that an injured PC is almost never played as an uninjured PC.  At least IME.  Certainly anyone who understands the win conditions of the game will not wander around nearly dead as blithely as if he were at full hit points.

Earlier, it was said that a wounded PC is not dazed.  Certainly, he doesn't have the 3e "dazed" condition.  OTOH, he is not able to evade the killing stroke as he would be able to do were he fully alert and able.  That is what hit points represent.

Finally, at the very least, hit points don't violate the arrow of time.


RC


EDIT:  Here's anther way to look at it:

My nine-year-old daughter has no problem understanding hit points, and has no problem understanding how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game.  Yes, the hit point mechanic is not as detailed as some, and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail.  Yes, it is important to consider before adding subsystems (which, unfortunately, hasn't always been the case).  But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.

If the failing of the hit point mechanic is that it is not detailed enough for some tastes, the failing of problematic subsystems is that they add absurd elements into the game.  When characters can routinely fall 200 feet without injury, or get up from deadly injuries as routinely as Captain Jack Harkness, credulity is stretched to the breaking point.  There is a very large qualitative difference between "undetailed" and "results in absurd occurances in the game world", IMHO.

RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You ignored the salient point:  "In 4E mechanics, if he had had a healing surge left, he'd have survived. And suddenly, the arrows would not have been actual hits."  Schrödinger's Wounding.  Suddenly that cool scene Dinkeldog wanted his heroes to be part of is rewritten; it never existed as he imagined it.
> 
> 
> RC




But again, you're ignoring that this has nothing to do with the mechanics of the system, and everything to do with your having chosen to describe the healing surge as a physical recovery. If you set out to describe soemthing as unrealistic, chances are (barring lousey ability to describe things) you will succeed.

To me, what Hypersmurf suggested seems to make the most sense. It's not a sudden re-stitching of wounds, but the ability to "fight on."

In my opinion, it's even MORE unrealistic to say HP damage is a representation of physical wounds, as I've NEVER once seen a guy take multiple axe hits straigh to the chest/legs/arms/head/groin/etc and still be 100% able to attack back.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that the better you are at fighting the more axes you can take to the skull. 

If you DO really wan to use HP as a system for tracking physical injury then I think you also need a system to model lasting injuries. 

The system would then take into account lasting injury, and it's effects. perhaps it might also limit your ability to use a healing surge, or recover to 100% as well as other effects like attack and defence penalties. I think you would also need to impliment things like critical hit effects, and a chance of instant death.

Then you could say, get hit, check to see if it's a lasting injury, and then continue on with your description.

I think the best way to do thisi, n 4e at least, would be a combination of the disease track table, critical hits, and maybe link it to the bloodied state.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Oh, yes, all the "move powers". And I thought having a race with a short range teleport "at will" was going to be the biggest problem with movement 4E style.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, he is not able to evade the killing stroke as he would be able to do were he fully alert and able.  That is what hit points represent.




Ah!  Now here, I agree.

Our 80 hit point fighter takes 75 points of damage.  He is at 5 hit points, and we describe all manner of cuts and bruises appearing.

What does the 5 represent?  It represents how able he is to avoid a killing stroke.

He uses a healing surge, and regains 20 hit points.  What has increased?  His ability to avoid a killing stroke.  Does that mean his cuts and bruises all have to disappear?  No, it doesn't - those are not directly affecting his ability to avoid a killing stroke, so they can remain even though his ability to avoid a killing stroke has increased from 5 to 25.

A healing surge has been used, and no cuts and bruises have magically disappeared, because hit points don't represent cuts and bruises; hit points represent ability to avoid a killing stroke.

The healing surge doesn't alter the effects of the _last_ ten hits.  It alters the effect of the _next_ hit, which hasn't happened yet.  Time's Arrow is not violated, because the event _now_ (healing surge) has no effect on the past; it affects the _future_.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> In my opinion, it's even MORE unrealistic to say HP damage is a representation of physical wounds, as I've NEVER once seen a guy take multiple axe hits straigh to the chest/legs/arms/head/groin/etc and still be 100% able to attack back.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that the better you are at fighting the more axes you can take to the skull.





Good thing that is not, _and is explicitly not_, what hit points have ever represented, in any incarnation of the game.  So, yes, I'll agree that your hypothetical system is as bad as 4e's actual system, where my apparent "mistake" is either trying to describe hit point loss in-world or trying to describe hit point recovery in-world.

(Of course, when I said that 4e hit points didn't map to in-world events, I was told I was wrong there too.  Schrödinger's Arguement about Schrödinger's Wounding?  Man, that cat gets around!)


RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> The healing surge doesn't alter the effects of the _last_ ten hits.  It alters the effect of the _next_ hit, which hasn't happened yet.  Time's Arrow is not violated, because the event _now_ (healing surge) has no effect on the past; it affects the _future_.
> 
> -Hyp.




Unless of course he gets dipped into negatives. If he gets tended to and brought back, and uses a healing surge, he's back in shape. If he doesn't, he dies - somehow.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

I have no doubt that people have problems with the healing surge mechanic.
One "last-ditch-effort" approach might be: All healing is magic, just like martial powers are some kind of magic. In the world of 4E, the inspiring words of a leader can literally mend wounds.

Might sound bad, since it creates a very specific world, where no one is entirely mundane. Well, it worked for Earthdawn. 

But the previous hit point model, is it so different? 3E basically implied a big industry around selling Wands of Cure LIght Wounds to adventurers, and made religious warriors the only source of meaningful healing. Heck, even a character superbly gifted in the _Heal_ skill wouldn't be able to do what a simple magical spell would. Yes, true, there are non-magical heroes, but without magical aid, they are helpless. Maybe the worlds of previous editions "evolved" to the magical world of 4E? 

---

Ablative Hit Points Model facilitate a high combat density. Each individual combat and strike is unlikely to kill someone, so you get a high degree of predictability and can play each combat tactically. 
So, it's hard to get away from ablative hit points if you want to keep that. Do we want to keep that?
My personal answer is yes, we do. If you disagree, consider whether this is where this is the route you can see D&D going, too.

Even ablative hit points must be restored. The previous approach assumed that you could only use long rests or magic to heal. But this required you to have a magical healer in the group. The entire system rests on the availability of cleric and cleric-like characters. If you remove them, you change how the game can be played.
Do we want to change how the game is played entirely on "flavor" decisions which characters our setting or the party uses? 
My answer would be know. We'd like a robust system that does support each flavor equally well and facilitates similar gameplay. If you disagree, consider whether this is a route you think D&D is safe to ignore.

There are some other contraints I can think off:
- Ease of Play 
- Allowing threat of death per encounter, but still support multiple threatening encounters in a short timeframe. 

I think these (among many others) where constraints the 4E designers worked on. Do you disagree with the constraints? Then I don't feel the need to discuss further with you, since we're really going far apart in what we want to play when we play D&D. There's nothing wrong with it, but whatever you come up with for hit points system breaks constraints I don't want to go without. 
If you agree or can at least accept these constraints - What would you suggest, if we add the constraint: "At any point we want to be able to look a the characters statistics and determine whether he is injured, dying, bruised or fine."

Here's an idea of mine: 
A Wound/Vitality System. Forget the stupid stuff from Starwars Saga where criticals went to Wound. That's not what we want. But we want to distinguish between real injuries and morale/fatigue damage.
One idea: 
- Each time you're bloodied, you take a wound. This wound is superficial, if could grow worse, but if you go above bloodied before you reach 0 hit points or less, the wound is gone. (I don't want it to stay since you can go bloodied very often - you could do without this rule, or you could say that it only happens once per combat instead of the regeneration rule)
- Each time you're below 0 hit points, you take a wound. This one is real. It might stop bleeding and stuff, but it's still visibly there. if you go above 0 hit points, it stays, but you "soldier" on. 
- Each time you fail your death save, you take another wound, representing the wound growing worse. If you fail 3 times in a row, you die from that wound.
- If you have taken a number of wounds equal to your constitution score, you drop dying.
- After each extended rest, you can spend two healing surges that day to recover one wound. Using the Heal skill (DC 10 + number of wounds) allows you to regain two wounds instead (still only at two surges.) Since it happens after the extended rest, you have to go with less healing surges this day.
- In addition, create a ritual that uses the Heal Skill. Make a Heal Check. DC 10 heals 1 wound, DC 20 2 wounds, and DC 30 3 wounds, at the expense of one Healing Surge each.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Of course in real life injuries can really suck.



Speaking of... there was a thread around here -- I think-- about using/modifying the 4e disease progression track to represent serious injury (for use when a character goes below zero HP). 

I'll probably use something like that if my group wants a grittier/more sim-like treatment of damage in our new campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Our 80 hit point fighter takes 75 points of damage.  He is at 5 hit points, and we describe all manner of cuts and bruises appearing.
> 
> What does the 5 represent?  It represents how able he is to avoid a killing stroke.
> 
> He uses a healing surge, and regains 20 hit points.  What has increased?  His ability to avoid a killing stroke.  Does that mean his cuts and bruises all have to disappear?  No, it doesn't - those are not directly affecting his ability to avoid a killing stroke, so they can remain even though his ability to avoid a killing stroke has increased from 5 to 25.




(1)  I beg to differ about whether those cuts and bruises directly affect his ability to avoid a killing stroke.  I assume that you have never been seriously injured, or in a fight.  I spent 4 years in the US Army, and I can say with some degree of certainty that your injuries do directly affect your combat readiness.

(2)  If those cuts and bruises don't directly affect his ability to avoid a killing stroke, why does healing those cuts and bruises (by magic, for example) raise his hit points?  Shouldn't cure spells be merely descriptive?

(3)  What if the healing surge healed all damage he had taken?  What happend to those cuts and bruises then?  Or do the all manner of cuts and bruises we described earlier not map to hit points at all in this edition?  And if they do not, why did we describe them earlier?  Again, Schrödinger's Arguement to explain Schrödinger's Wounding.




> The healing surge doesn't alter the effects of the _last_ ten hits.  It alters the effect of the _next_ hit, which hasn't happened yet.  Time's Arrow is not violated, because the event _now_ (healing surge) has no effect on the past; it affects the _future_.




Within the context of the game itself, yes.  Within the context of narrating in-world events, no.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I have no doubt that people have problems with the healing surge mechanic.
> One "last-ditch-effort" approach might be: All healing is magic, just like martial powers are some kind of magic. In the world of 4E, the inspiring words of a leader can literally mend wounds.





To quote the 6th Doctor:  "In a word, _yuck_."



And it goes to show you how little thought was put into this subsystem (like the falling subsystem of earlier editions) that we already have several (IMHO) better methods of dealing with decoupling encounter hp from total hp and/or describing wounds in this thread.  I prefer the system I forked, as I have no desire for the extra bookkeeping that a "wound track" would have.

RC


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> In pre-4E paradigm even if some of the HP damage a fighter takes is luck, skill etc. at some base level some of it is real injuries which is why it takes days to weeks to heal.



I think a better way to put it is that pre-4e, HP damage one characteristic of real, physical injury, namely, "requiring weeks to heal", but at the same time lacked most the other important characteristics, like "impairment", "loss of physical capability" and "susceptibility to further injury via complication and infection". 

In my view that single shared characteristic doesn't make the prior edition's take on HP markedly more realistic.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think a better way to put it is that pre-4e, HP damage one characteristic of real, physical injury, namely, "requiring weeks to heal", but at the same time lacked most the other important characteristics, like "impairment", "loss of physical capability" and "susceptibility to further injury via complication and infection".
> 
> In my view that single shared characteristic doesn't make the prior edition's take on HP markedly more realistic.




Works for me and others though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think a better way to put it is that pre-4e, HP damage one characteristic of real, physical injury, namely, "requiring weeks to heal", but at the same time lacked most the other important characteristics, like "impairment", "loss of physical capability" and "susceptibility to further injury via complication and infection".
> 
> In my view that single shared characteristic doesn't make the prior edition's take on HP markedly more realistic.




My nine-year-old daughter has no problem understanding hit points, and has no problem understanding how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game. Yes, the hit point mechanic is not as detailed as some, and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail. Yes, it is important to consider before adding subsystems (which, unfortunately, hasn't always been the case). But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.

If the failing of the hit point mechanic is that it is not detailed enough for some tastes, the failing of problematic subsystems is that they add absurd elements into the game. When characters can routinely fall 200 feet without injury, or get up from deadly injuries as routinely as Captain Jack Harkness, credulity is stretched to the breaking point. There is a very large qualitative difference between "undetailed" and "results in absurd occurances in the game world", IMHO.

Of course, if you really think that the hit point mechanic is so terrible, you must find it annoying to have it continued, and made more terrible yet, in 4e, right?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But there are similarities (again) to quantum mechanics.



Stop it. You're making the Baby Max Planck cry.



> This is exactly akin to ignoring the difference between a 20 and a 200 foot drop because, given the question "Can it kill you?" they are both answered "yes" in a bipolar, yes/no paradigm.  I do not subscribe to such a coarse measure of realism.



Note that I never asked that question nor framed things that way. You did. I just said arguments about how real a fictional event seem are, invariably, arguments about art.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I prefer the system I forked, as I have no desire for the extra bookkeeping that a "wound track" would have.




Which one? (Did I miss that?)

Edit:
Did you mean this one? 

My objection is that you're effectively down to half hit points or less. It still works only with magical healing. Or if you base your entire game system (including expected monster damage and stuff) around it, you end up with the "typical state" of a character not being the baseline state of the character. A similar phenomena too 3E buff spells - you cast long-term buffs that effectively represent your typical character state (with enhancement bonuses to ability scores, or magical bonuses to AC and attacks), but your baseline character is lower. I am not a fan of this approach. I prefer to have the baseline state of your character (that might contain magical - or in some case cybernetic - enhancements, but they are all permanent/always on) and only modify it for short-term tasks. The alternative less transparency and makes predictability harder (for example - should CRs be based on the baseline or on the augmented statistics?)
Obviously, your mileage will vary.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Works for me and others though.



Oh don't get me wrong. Hit points in 1e-3e work fine for me too. I just make no claims about them being realistic, or simulationist, or whatever. 

This is probably why Healing Surges present no significantly difficulty for me, either.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Good thing that is not, _and is explicitly not_, what hit points have ever represented, in any incarnation of the game.




I agree, which is why I've never tried to map them to an acurate depiction of physical injury. 



> So, yes, I'll agree that your hypothetical system is as bad as 4e's actual system, where my apparent "mistake" is either trying to describe hit point loss in-world or trying to describe hit point recovery in-world.




The mistake is coming up with a situation that doesn't work, and then blaming the system for that mistake. 

You're saying that it's unbelievable that the wound stiches itself up. Yep it is! But where in the game does it indicate this is what happens? YOU are creating that aspect.

Thats the same as if I were to say: "The axe bites deep, causing you to drop to the ground dead" while your characetr has 50 hp left, and then saying dude this game is BUNK! How can you survive that axe hit I described as killing you???

You're describing an action in an unrealistic way and unhappy with the results of your own description.

Yes, sometimes the narrative of the game is directed in part by the rules of the game.  If I KNOW you have 50 hp left, I also know I cannot decribe a 10hp axe hit as killing you without ignoring the rules of the game.

I cannot say I jump over the yawning chasm, fail my jump check, and then complain shoedinger's cat shanked me.

In a similar fashion I cannot describe an effect of a hit without taking into account the rest of the rules of the game. If you do so, you're creating the problem, not finding one.

You must either:

1. Accept HP do not represent physical injury, and recovering HP does not represent healing physical wounds.

or

2. Accept HP represents physical wounds but avoid describing things as gaping wounds until the final death blow.

or

3. Be ok with wounds stiching themselves back up without the benefit of magic somehow.

All three are valid, depending on personal taste.



> (Of course, when I said that 4e hit points didn't map to in-world events, I was told I was wrong there too.  Schrödinger's Arguement about Schrödinger's Wounding?  Man, that cat gets around!)
> 
> 
> RC




This is because of the power of narrative. Really HP can map to whatever you want them to, you just have to be prepaired for the consequences of your own imagination, and how it interacts with the rules of the game. Some depictions will result in more situations that seem absurd.

Personally I long ago gave up mapping HP to real injury. It just never made sense. I've tried using injury tracking stuff, but it just gets cumbersome in my opinion. You might feel otherwise, and I don't fault you at all. For some it's fun, but in my games I've found it only leads to a lot of laying around waiting for broken bones to heal.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think a better way to put it is that pre-4e, HP damage one characteristic of real, physical injury, namely, "requiring weeks to heal", but at the same time lacked most the other important characteristics, like "impairment", "loss of physical capability" and "susceptibility to further injury via complication and infection".
> 
> In my view that single shared characteristic doesn't make the prior edition's take on HP markedly more realistic.




yes but your version is too verbose  

I agree with your pre-4E definition. It is on the mark.

How specific gamers feel about that characterstics ability to detail a good yarn, will vary greatly.

Certain subsystems (Torn-asunder, combat and tactics guide in 2E) did try ot incorporate those elements with a very subjective level of success.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> You must either:
> 
> 1. Accept HP do not represent physical injury, and recovering HP does not represent healing physical wounds.
> 
> ...




Must I?

If I accept hit points as representing physical wounds, how do I explain those hit points being completely restored following a healing surge?  Bob's magic adrenelin closed his nicks and cuts?  Or those nicks and cuts are suddenly no longer represented by hit points?

If hit points represent physical wounds -- to any degree -- then restoring all your hit points means that you have no more physical wounds.  "Physical wounds = hit point damage" implies "no hit point damage = no physical wounds".

So let's say that hit points don't represent physical wounds at all.  Good to go.  What are healing spells doing, though?  What exactly is killing you when that last arrow hits if not physical wounds?  What does "bloodied" mean if no blood has been drawn?

That leaves us with #3, which is unpalatable.

But then, this has all been said before.

RC


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> My nine-year-old daughter has no problem understanding hit points, and has no problem understanding how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game.



Congrats on having a smart daughter! (note: I'm not being snarky here. I didn't realize before this that you were a parent). 



> ... and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail.



Let's switch burden of proof to you for a moment. Do think the pre-4e D&D hit point mechanics are realistic? They work fine, but I don't think even EGG himself ever described them as 'realistic'. 



> But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.



The problem with the relative 'realism' of HP is that wounds can't impair you until they knock you unconscious and deposit on death's door. This fact causes some people --ie me-- to label hit points 'unrealistic'. Mind you, they're still perfectly serviceable as a game mechanic, they merely fail the 'realism test'. 



> Of course, if you really think that the hit point mechanic is so terrible, you must find it annoying to have it continued, and made more terrible yet, in 4e, right?



I don't find hit points terrible at all. I just don't find them realistic. Though I do prefer the Damage Save mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds --that's actually my favorite d20 game.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

So, whatever happens, don't describe any hit as deadly, until the target is actually dead? So, a blow that knocks a character into the negative won't be described as serious, up and until the charater dies, since he could recover and be as good as new thanks to a healing surge before that?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> So, a blow that knocks a character into the negative won't be described as serious, up and until the charater dies, since he could recover and be as good as new thanks to a healing surge before that?



Exactly.

"Your axe connects with the foes torso and he staggers backwards, bleeding and then falls to the ground."

Whether or not he gets back up remains to be seen. Honestly, haven't you ever seen an action movie or read a comic book? _Seemingly_ lethal injuries are par for the course.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Stop it. You're making the Baby Max Planck cry.




Can you stop him?  Baby Max Planck cries _*constant*_ly!  



> Note that I never asked that question nor framed things that way. You did. I just said arguments about how real a fictional event seem are, invariably, arguments about art.




Insofar, and only insofar, as fiction is art, yes.  



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Which one? (Did I miss that?)
> 
> Edit:
> Did you mean this one?




Yep.



> My objection is that you're effectively down to half hit points or less. It still works only with magical healing. Or if you base your entire game system (including expected monster damage and stuff) around it, you end up with the "typical state" of a character not being the baseline state of the character.




How so?

Because you know how much damage can be shaken off at the time damage is taken, you can describe it accurately at that time.  The arrow of time never need be in jeopardy.

I'm not following the problem with your "typical state" argument.  Want to jump into the other thread with me?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Congrats on having a smart daughter! (note: I'm not being snarky here. I didn't realize before this that you were a parent).




Oldest is almost 18 (boy), middle is 9 (girl), youngest is almost 2 (girl).



> Let's switch burden of proof to you for a moment. Do think the pre-4e D&D hit point mechanics are realistic? They work fine, but I don't think even EGG himself ever described them as 'realistic'.




There is no burden of proof IFAICT.  I wasn't asking anyone to "prove" that the 4e damage mechanics have no problems (an impossible task IMHO).

However, the hit point mechanic (regardless of edition, until subsystems are included) is reasonably realistic without getting in the way of the game.  It is easy to understand how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game, and this understanding imparts behavior on the part of players that simulates injury far better than, say, healing surges. 



> The problem with the relative 'realism' of HP is that wounds can't impair you until they knock you unconscious and deposit on death's door. This fact causes some people --ie me-- to label hit points 'unrealistic'. Mind you, they're still perfectly serviceable as a game mechanic, they merely fail the 'realism test'.




Yes, the hit point mechanic is not as detailed as some, and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail. Yes, it is important to consider before adding subsystems (which, unfortunately, hasn't always been the case). But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.

If the failing of the hit point mechanic is that it is not detailed enough for some tastes, the failing of problematic subsystems is that they add absurd elements into the game. When characters can routinely fall 200 feet without injury, or get up from deadly injuries as routinely as Captain Jack Harkness, credulity is stretched to the breaking point. There is a very large qualitative difference between "undetailed" and "results in absurd occurances in the game world", IMHO.


RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> "Your axe connects with the foes torso and he staggers backwards, bleeding and then falls to the ground."
> 
> Whether or not he gets back up remains to be seen. Honestly, haven't you ever seen an action movie or read a comic book? _Seemingly_ lethal injuries are par for the course.




I usually tell my players how their character is faring though. "Oh, btw, that hit you took 5 rounds ago was actually lethal, since you just died. If you'd have gotten up it would have been just a grazing blow" sounds a bit stupid to me.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Must I?




Yes. 

Nothing is going to break down your doors and put you in a head lock if you fail to do so, but you must do so in a similar way that I must accept that if I fail my jump check I fell into the yawning chasm of fluffy pink doom as opposed to jumping over it. 




> If I accept hit points as representing physical wounds, how do I explain those hit points being completely restored following a healing surge?  Bob's magic adrenelin closed his nicks and cuts?  Or those nicks and cuts are suddenly no longer represented by hit points?




If hit points represent physical wounds -- to any degree -- then restoring all your hit points means that you have no more physical wounds.  "Physical wounds = hit point damage" implies "no hit point damage = no physical wounds".[/quote]

No argument there! I think HP = real life wounds is silly! The point of 2 was if you want to describe them as physical wounds you have to account for the rest of the rules. Just like when you describe jumping over the cliff you have to account for the actual jump check.

If you describe them as physical wounds you need to be prepaired to account for the rest of the system. (Healing surges.) 

Otherwise you're doing the Shroedinger's Cat experiement but failing to account for the fact that you overrode the system and manually released the poison gas.



> So let's say that hit points don't represent physical wounds at all.  Good to go.  What are healing spells doing, though?




Restoring your ability to not be dead. Restoring your mojo. Or if you decouple narrative from the rules, restoring your ability to not be dead, while healing your physical wounds.

"Ugg I'm wiped. I don't know if I can keep this up much longer." "Peace be with you." "I'm good to go."



> What exactly is killing you when that last arrow hits if not physical wounds?  What does "bloodied" mean if no blood has been drawn?




The last arrow is the one that actualy gets through and kills you. I'm not saying characters never take physical damage. I'm saying HPs are a poor way to track that damage. 

That last arrow goes through your gut, or your eye or whatever. Your character no longer has anything to prebvent him from being dead. That shot killed him.



> That leaves us with #3, which is unpalatable.




Only if you intentionally put yourself there. If you chjoose to make something a game breaking problem, I can't really change your mind. I can only say that to me this is similar to saying the system is bad because you described the jump and then failed the check.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm not following the problem with your "typical state" argument.  Want to jump into the other thread with me?



Yes. See me over there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> No argument there! I think HP = real life wounds is silly! The point of 2 was if you want to describe them as physical wounds you have to account for the rest of the rules. Just like when you describe jumping over the cliff you have to account for the actual jump check.




Actually, prior to 4e, #2 was extremely simple and intuitive.  And, with the exception of 4e, it still is.  

So, I think that overall you are arguing IF you want to enjoy 4e, THEN you must accept X.  However, the converse is also true.  IF you cannot accept X, THEN you will not enjoy 4e.

I cannot accept X.

Simple as that.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes. See me over there.




I did.

I'll keep checking this thread, too, but I'll probably bow out of it (until 5e!) unless I have something to say that I can't simply say using cut & paste from any of a couple dozen previous posts.

Chiao!

RC


----------



## BryonD (Sep 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> The healing surge doesn't alter the effects of the _last_ ten hits.  It alters the effect of the _next_ hit, which hasn't happened yet.  Time's Arrow is not violated, because the event _now_ (healing surge) has no effect on the past; it affects the _future_.
> 
> -Hyp.



So an unwounded character can use a healing surge to gain HP before a fight?


----------



## Scribble (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Actually, prior to 4e, #2 was extremely simple and intuitive.  And, with the exception of 4e, it still is.
> 
> So, I think that overall you are arguing IF you want to enjoy 4e, THEN you must accept X.  However, the converse is also true.  IF you cannot accept X, THEN you will not enjoy 4e.
> 
> ...




Not really, as I always had issues with it equalling physical damage and always felt it was silly and insane to do so. It led to the I can take 20 axes to the head! effect. It's just again an issue of whether you choose to overlook inconsistencies or abstraction or not.

But yeah, if you want to play a game, sometimes you have to accept the rules of the game. When I first started playing 3e I disliked the idea of rolling initiative once. It felt too robotic. I tried house rulling it, but ultimately it caused more trouble then it was worth. I accepted the rule and moved on.

 You can modify rules that don't meet your personal taste if you really want to but it doesn't indicate the system is broken or poorly thought out... Just that it didn't meet your personal tastes. I've always dissociated HP from physical wounds (well for a long time not really ALWAYS) so I guess thats why healing surges work for me.

If ultimately you can't accept x... Right on. Who am I to tell you what you have to find entertaining? I can only offer suggestions to a fellow gamer as to how to approach the system in a way that I've found works for me. In the end though if it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> You can modify rules that don't meet your personal taste if you really want to but it doesn't indicate the system is broken or poorly thought out... Just that it didn't meet your personal tastes. I've always dissociated HP from physical wounds (well for a long time not really ALWAYS) so I guess thats why healing surges work for me.



I think that's what RC has been saying all along. 
It doesn't work for him (and others with similar preferences to him), but that doesn't make it a bad mechanic on a general level. Just for a certain set of preferences. 

Unless we can somehow change these persons preferences, we can discuss the reasons for why we like or dislike the mechanic, but we can't change the individual "verdict".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> When I first started playing 3e I disliked the idea of rolling initiative once. It felt too robotic. I tried house rulling it, but ultimately it caused more trouble then it was worth. I accepted the rule and moved on.




I houseruled it (d10, roll each round), and ultimately it caused more good feeling at the table and great moments in the game than the effort to houserule it had cost me.



> You can modify rules that don't meet your personal taste if you really want to but it doesn't indicate the system is broken or poorly thought out... Just that it didn't meet your personal tastes.




Perhaps.  But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through.

EDIT:  And I don't mean here that they produced a mechanically bad game.  A lot of problems could be resolved, as has already been said, by terminology.  If you accept that 4e is gamist before simulationist (i.e., that some things are simply meant to exist as game constructs without simulating anything) then it succeeds in its design goals phenomenally well.  If you argue that it is intended to simulate in-world events, then it is less successful (IMHO).  And the amount of erratta makes me suspect that 4.5 is a real possibility in 3-4 years.



> If ultimately you can't accept x... Right on. Who am I to tell you what you have to find entertaining? I can only offer suggestions to a fellow gamer as to how to approach the system in a way that I've found works for me. In the end though if it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing.




Absolutely.  And thank you for your courtesy!


RC


----------



## pemerton (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't think so. The mechanics of a game directly inform the "win conditions" of the game, as has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently through games theory. In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).





Raven Crowking said:


> If someone cannot determine that the mechanics of having 5 hp instead of 80 hp is going to directly affect how a character is played, and how effective that character is in a fight, what hope do any words of mine have?



No one that I've read in this thread is disputing that hit point totals affect player decisions. But this is not the same as saying that moral damage is inflicted via the action resolution mechanics. For example, AD&D draws a very clear and obvious difference in this respect between NPCs, who are subject to morale rules, and PCs, who are not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

pemerton said:


> No one that I've read in this thread is disputing that hit point totals affect player decisions. But this is not the same as saying that moral damage is inflicted via the action resolution mechanics. For example, AD&D draws a very clear and obvious difference in this respect between NPCs, who are subject to morale rules, and PCs, who are not.




Sure, because the DM doesn't necessarily have the same investment in any particular creature that the player has in his PC.  I have a hard time imagining anyone being successful in an even halfway challenging game where the action resolution mechanics don't directly affect PC actions in a way very consistent with "morale resolution".

Once more, with feeling, if you fail to understand how "win conditions" affect play, you fail to understand the game.  No matter what that game is.


RC


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Sep 16, 2008)

Im not reading 11 pages of replys. So I'll comment on the started topic.
Basically if you play a character such as the rogue and you twiddle your thumbs in the corner, your not playing the Rogue right. You arent using tactical movemnt and flanking you arent sneaking ahead and if your DM allows it your not using Skil tricks. The Rogue when played right can unleash his Sneak Attack every round. If you arent thats you and your parties fault. Players flaws, not the games.

I tell people off the bat with the ranger Im not telling them what enemies im throwing at them so tehy better be prepared to have useless Favored enemeies. And the Paladin andhis strict code can add some great roleplaying opportunities. Believe me, Ive seen it. A Paladin having to come to grips with working with evil characters is just plain fun. 

Flavor and mechanics at the same time.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I houseruled it (d10, roll each round), and ultimately it caused more good feeling at the table and great moments in the game than the effort to houserule it had cost me.




Yeah I was doing similar, but as we tended to play late on a thursday night, and my group consisted of 8 players... Oye... It just became a headache of keeping track of things. 




> Perhaps.  But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through.




A possibility... I don't agree though. I honestly think a lot of the failure to have x qualities is people taking small bits of information and inserting their own expectations, then being upset when their idea was incorrect. But shrug. Anything is possible.



> EDIT:  And I don't mean here that they produced a mechanically bad game.  A lot of problems could be resolved, as has already been said, by terminology.  If you accept that 4e is gamist before simulationist (i.e., that some things are simply meant to exist as game constructs without simulating anything) then it succeeds in its design goals phenomenally well.  If you argue that it is intended to simulate in-world events, then it is less successful (IMHO).  And the amount of erratta makes me suspect that 4.5 is a real possibility in 3-4 years.




Eh... I've never been a fan of the simmulationist/gamist thing. Admittedly I'm not an expert in it though. I can see the merrits in the idea, but I don't think you can really be too strict about the terms. 

But yeah sure, I'll give you it leans more towards the gamist side. I guess it works for me, because that's always been my way of running the game no matter what edition. (I don't need to know the exact workings of how the goblin shot the fireball, only that it did because 9 times out of 10 it won't matter. On the 10th time we'll figure it out.)

I guess I also preffer it because I think it seems more "real" to me. In real life there are countless variables that effect a situation (Go Dr Malcom!.) The gamist idea seems to allow for those variables without a bazillion tables and subset tables... 

As for errata... I get the feeling it's not much more then previous editions. It's just that they seem to be trying to stay on top of it. Probably since they've been accused of being too slow about it in the past.




> Absolutely.  And thank you for your courtesy!
> 
> 
> RC




If I've seemed any other way then for that I appologize. (It's most ikely because sometimes I'm posting here and also answering a bazillion work emails.)

I like to debate, and am always happy to debate about things I like (and sometimes things I dislike) but it's all in the name of fun. Especialy when it concerns a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Yeah I was doing similar, but as we tended to play late on a thursday night, and my group consisted of 8 players... Oye... It just became a headache of keeping track of things.




I count down initiative, and if you're not paying attention, you go when you notice your turn was passed (i.e., you held your action).  If you don't know what you want to do on your turn, you hold your action until you figure it out.  If a new round comes up, sucks to be you.



> Eh... I've never been a fan of the simmulationist/gamist thing. Admittedly I'm not an expert in it though. I can see the merrits in the idea, but I don't think you can really be too strict about the terms.




Well, yeah.  Sure.  More of a shorthand to help you think about things than something that is strictly defined.  Lots of grey and nebulous corners.

(Actually, almost all language is like that, if you examine it closely enough.)



> I guess I also preffer it because I think it seems more "real" to me. In real life there are countless variables that effect a situation (Go Dr Malcom!.) The gamist idea seems to allow for those variables without a bazillion tables and subset tables...






Whatever floats your boat is where you gotta dip your paddle, my friend!





> As for errata... I get the feeling it's not much more then previous editions. It's just that they seem to be trying to stay on top of it. Probably since they've been accused of being too slow about it in the past.




Perhaps.  Just seemed to be a lot of it, breathing down the neck of the initial release.  Seems rushed to me.  But I could be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Or the second.  Or the third.  



> If I've seemed any other way then for that I appologize. (It's most ikely because sometimes I'm posting here and also answering a bazillion work emails.)
> 
> I like to debate, and am always happy to debate about things I like (and sometimes things I dislike) but it's all in the name of fun. Especialy when it concerns a game.




Not a problem.  You didn't seem otherwise; I was contrasting to other threads, actually.  Even what little "snark" there has been in this thread seems minor to me.  I really, really appreciate that, and thought I should actually thank you for using the voice of reason.  Not that you are the only one!  Just sometimes that's something I forget to do -- tell someone how much I appreciate their reasonable approach to discussing something.




RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But I could be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Or the second.  Or the third.




I thought I was wrong once... but I was mistaken. 



> I really, really appreciate that, and thought I should actually thank you for using the voice of reason.  Not that you are the only one!  Just sometimes that's something I forget to do -- tell someone how much I appreciate their reasonable approach to discussing something.




It's why I originally stuck around these boards in the first place... People could dissagree without falling into insults and fighting. So I thank you for that as well!

Now lets stop bein all mushy fuzzy hug like an go kill some orcs!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Now lets stop bein all mushy fuzzy hug like an go kill some *moderators*!




For shame!


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 17, 2008)

Arashi Ravenblade said:


> Basically if you play a character such as the rogue and you twiddle your thumbs in the corner, your not playing the Rogue right. You arent using tactical movemnt and flanking you arent sneaking ahead and if your DM allows it your not using Skil tricks. The Rogue when played right can unleash his Sneak Attack every round. If you arent thats you and your parties fault. Players flaws, not the games.



You're talking 3.5 right? What about undead? Constructs? Oozes?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> One utter failing of most systems (not limited to specific D&D editions): No rule support for the "words of a dying man". Either you're unconscious and dying, or you're conscious and not dying.



Roger Musson's version of VP/WP (published as "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive" in an early number of White Dwarf) had support for dying words. So does Rolemaster. Both do it in a simulationist fashion, by allowing some words to be immediately incapacitating (without unconsciousness) and fatal after the expiration of a certain time period. I'm sure that there are modern fortune-in-the-middle mechanics out there that support it in a non-simulationist fashion.

EDIT: Apoptosis beat me to it on the Rolemaster point!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Deleted double post.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think I have a valid point that simulationists shouldn't be overly fond of abstract, ablative hit point mechanics in the first place.



I agree. When I post on the ICE forums and have arguments with Rolemaster fans about some of the more narrativist aspects of the HARP mechanics, that's one thing. But I do find it odd to have D&D's hit point mechanic being defended as adequately simulationist.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> RC issue is not just the necessary unrealistic issues involved but of retconning the narrative.



But Lost Soul, Hypersmurf and others have repeatedly made the point that no retconning is required - a wound is narrated, then a healing mechanic is used, and so the new narrative is along the lines of "wounded, but undaunted, the might hero struggles on".

And Mallus's point then becomes especially cogent - _this_ doesn't seem any more unrealistic then the generic carrying on in the face of greivous injury that has always been a consequence of D&D's hit points mechanic.

The overnight healing thing is a different matter again. As I said earlier, it's best seen (IMO) as a genre convention. If it bothers people too much, they simply need to ensure a longer period of gametime between episodes, so that it becomes more believable to envisage longterm injuries having healed up. (And extended rests within episodes can be dealt with under the "soldiering on" paradigm that has always been part of D&D.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I usually tell my players how their character is faring though. "Oh, btw, that hit you took 5 rounds ago was actually lethal, since you just died. If you'd have gotten up it would have been just a grazing blow" sounds a bit stupid to me.



Why would you narrate it in a way that sound stupid? First you'd say "You collapse, blood pouring from the gash in your forehead." Then 5 rounds later you'd say either "You die from the injury to your head" or else "You wake from your swoon and wipe the blood from your eyes. Despite the searing pain it was just a flesh wound. Do you rejoin the fray?" Of course the player knows that you would have said something different if the dice came out different, just as you would have said something different in the first place if the attacker's d20 rolled a miss rather than a hit. But that's pretty unobjectionable isn't it?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And it goes to show you how little thought was put into this subsystem





Raven Crowking said:


> But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through.



I don't think this is correct. Given the number of ways 3E came at healing mechanics over its lifetime (spells of various sorts, auras, temporary hit points, wands of CLW, reserve hit points, not to mention various d20/OGL mechanics) I think it's fair to say this area of the game has been very thoroughly explored.

I think the choice to adopt a healing surge mechanics was utterly considered and deliberate.

As as to the issue of taste vs fact: whether or not someone likes 4e is a matter of taste. But whether or not the retconning issue arises at the table - that is, whether or not narration has to be undone and re-narrated after the event - is a matter of fact. Is there any 4e player in this thread for whom the retconning issue arises? Lost Soul and Hypersmurf have both said that it does not arise for them - they don't narrate away the wound but rather allow the PC to narrate fighting on in spite of it.

It seems to me the real objection to healing surges isn't retconning/Schrodinger, but rather is an objection to narration of PCs fighting on in spite of injury. And I share Mallus's incredulity at this - for it has been a part of D&D since the beginning, being intrinsic to an ablative hit point mechanic.

Admittedly it is _more common_ in 4e, because the existence of second wind and related mechanics means that it is more likely for a PC to be close to collapse, and then to recover, than is the case in earlier editions, in which fighters with 5 hp left and who fought on regardless still had only 5 hp left.

But if this feature is objectionable, then once again the objection is not to retconning/Schrodinger - it is to a certain sort of gonzo consequence of the mechanics, of an Inigo Montoya moment in every encounter. It's fine to object to that, but let's be clear what the target of the objection is.

And by the way, the obvious way of eliminating the gonzoism is to make every encounter so important to the PCs - and so involving to the players - that an Inigo Montoya moment seems appropriate rather than gonzo. That is what Lost Soul seems to me to be talking about when he explains how a Boromir healing surge could be handled. Achieving this sort of play requires effort from both players and DMs. That 4e is set up to support it is why I describe it as a system with narrativist as well as gamist potential.



Raven Crowking said:


> I have a hard time imagining anyone being successful in an even halfway challenging game where the action resolution mechanics don't directly affect PC actions in a way very consistent with "morale resolution".
> 
> Once more, with feeling, if you fail to understand how "win conditions" affect play, you fail to understand the game.  No matter what that game is.



Right. And in a narrativist RPG the win conditions include the production, during play, of a thematically engaging story. And in an even halfway challenging narrativist game the action resolution mechanics will affect the _player_ actions. For example, when they narrate a wound, and then their PC is healed as per the action resolution mechanics, they will produce a thematically engaging narrative to explain how their PC is able to keep going. Their will be no retconning, no quantaum mechanics, no gonzoism, no problems. As Lost Soul has indicated in his posts.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> But Lost Soul, Hypersmurf and others have repeatedly made the point that no retconning is required




They have attempted to.  As repeatedly rebutted by myself and others, their points force you to accept other, equally problematical and absurd things, to solve the arrow of time problem.  Schrödinger's Argument to resolve Schrödinger's Wounding.  All they managed to do was demonstrate that the problem doesn't bother them, which was never in dispute.

Personally, I find the "the problem you experience doesn't exist" line of reasoning to be disingenious at best, and at worst indicates a set of blinders that renders the "reasoning" worthless.  This is exactly what occurred with what are now widely acknowledged problems with 3e.  

I eagerly await 5e (with luck) or 6e (without it) so that we can reopen this discussion with the advantage of hindsight.  Until then, I hope you don't mind if I ignore any further "but there is no problem!" posts.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> But if this feature is objectionable, then once again the objection is not to retconning/Schrodinger - it is to a certain sort of gonzo consequence of the mechanics, of an Inigo Montoya moment in every encounter. It's fine to object to that, but let's be clear what the target of the objection is.
> 
> And by the way, the obvious way of eliminating the gonzoism is to make every encounter so important to the PCs - and so involving to the players - that an Inigo Montoya moment seems appropriate rather than gonzo. That is what Lost Soul seems to me to be talking about when he explains how a Boromir healing surge could be handled. Achieving this sort of play requires effort from both players and DMs. That 4e is set up to support it is why I describe it as a system with narrativist as well as gamist potential.




4E though was made to focus on many combats, its strength is the tactical choices in combat which really only shines when you have many of them. The flipside to this is if you have many fights they each cant be Inigo Montoya moments. if you dont have many fights I think you are losing one of the strongest aspects of 4e.

TSOY, TRoS, BW are much better for games (IMHO) you should be playing if you want to have Inigo Montoya moments.

I might add Rolemaster as a good game for IM moments but that based on it being so deadly and debilitating when you get into combat.


I dont think retconning is a necessity at the table but to not retcon requires that that "in-game" reality of wounds are not resolved until after the player decides to or not invoke the second wind (or sleeps for the night etc.) or that hp damage is not connected to any injury.

If you say the hit that did 54 of your 55 points of damage was deadly is not known until after you use your second wind. If you decide to use your second wind then the wound was not critical, if you do not decide to use your second wind then the wound was critical. 

If you make this decision later on then the actual wound is retconned (or actually is indeterminate until you decide to invoke the second wind).

You can decide after the fact to describe it whatever way you wish but the "realness" of the injury is still unresolved until the time to use second wind is made (unless second wind it magical).

for instance...

Sammy is hit for 49 of his 50 points of damage. The options are:

1. He was not actually hit for any appreciable damage but the next hit will be fatal. In this case second wind is neither mystic nor retconning but hp damage is not mapped to physical damage (hp now just represent your characters narrative staying power..how long he can remain an active participant in the story)

2. He does not use his second wind and was hit for real damage and is on his on his last bit of blood.

3. He uses his second wind and the character's wound was not really a damaging blow just visually bloody.

This choice of narrative explanation is not made until the second wind power is invoked. 

So up until that happens the injury is either unresolved or the situation is retconned (you thought it was really injurious but really was just a surface wound).  This means that the narration that was initially done (it was a dangerous wound) is either a lie or is retconned.

Maybe i am missing an option though.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> They have attempted to.



Are you implying that they are not telling the truth about their play experiences? Or that they misunderstand what is happening at their game tables?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Are you implying that they are not telling the truth about their play experiences? Or that they misunderstand what is happening at their game tables?




I am not implying anything.

I am stating as a fact that their answers do not actually resolve the problem.  Certainly I believe that they are sincere in their posts.  See the post just above yours for a short summary in case you fail to understand the problem.  

(Well done apoptosis.)

But please do not try to bait me further with this sort of "mudslinging" post.  I do not appreciate it.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not implying anything.
> 
> I am stating as a fact that their answers do not actually resolve the problem.  Certainly I believe that they are sincere in their posts.  See the post just above yours for a short summary in case you fail to understand the problem.
> 
> ...





I am in the humorous position of defending your position though honestly i dont mind strongly narrative mechanics that allow you to fully retcon.

It is possible that i am missing an option and my argument goes up in a puff of smoke but at the moment i dont see a particular hole in my reasoning.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> I am in the humorous position of defending your position though honestly i dont mind strongly narrative mechanics that allow you to fully retcon.
> 
> It is possible that i am missing an option and my argument goes up in a puff of smoke but at the moment i dont see a particular hole in my reasoning.




This shouldn't seem unusual.  My position is based on something objective; whether it matters is subjective.  Recognizing the existence of something objective should be a matter of course.  

For example, I love the 1e DMG.  Still useful after all these years.  You might dislike it because it is disorganized.  The disorganization doesn't bother me, but is a fact.  Refuting that it is disorganized would just make me look foolish.  So, I would be in the same position you are in now:  bolstering your statement about the objective reality of the 1e DMG's disorganization while not being subjectively bothered by it.


RC


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I agree. When I post on the ICE forums and have arguments with Rolemaster fans about some of the more narrativist aspects of the HARP mechanics, that's one thing. But I do find it odd to have D&D's hit point mechanic being defended as adequately simulationist.



I don't think many people have suggested that any version of D&D's hps has been adequately simulationist (although some have mentioned tolerating it or saying that it does not break the game mood or some such). 

Perhaps I can bring a degree of clarity though on the issue if I'm lucky.

The interesting difference between the editions is the unaided back to full health aspect of a good night's rest in 4E. In 3.x if you were pushed into the negatives and you only had your own resources to survive, there was no way you were getting back to full health in one night unaided (unless strangely enough you were a high level wizard with an incredibly poor constitution score - heh I never said 3.x was perfect either).

The key difference here that compounds the situation is the role of divine healing. Such healing was practically required in 3.x (either through a cleric or a curing wand) for an active adventuring group. Combined with the above mentioned "slower" natural healing, this meant that dire injury could be more easily "explained" by the use of clerical healing because such wounds were usually quickly attended to. A huge ugly intestine splattering slash to the guts could be described by the DM because the cleric would quickly come to the rescue. Because of the prevalence of divine healing, the believability factor of the situation I suppose could be tolerated. [Funnily enough, I think there's a 3rd ed. version of the Schroedingly-Cat-thing in there if people look hard enough ].

However, because 4E has allowed the Cleric and Warlord to get on with their schtick (rather than feeling forced to subserviently at times provide healing for the "characters"), there is less willingness from the DM to describe rather heroically outlandish wounds unless the character unrealistically heals up the horrendous wound on their own without divine healing assistance (which is now quite possible). I think this is the issue I and some others have with the 4E overnight healing mechanic and it's effect on DMing and play (and certainly not with 4E in general which I am enjoying). Does this explain things more clearly?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 17, 2008)

Question for all here: have any of you ever come up with a functional rule or system whereby "dying words" scenes *can* be supported by the D+D game (any edition)?  I know there's been many a time where I've wanted to use a dying-words scene as an adventure hook, or an adventure climax, but couldn't; the party Cleric would just start casting cures and render the scene - if not entirely meaningless - a lot less dramatic.

Without such a system this is one instance where mechanics (ability to cure pretty much anything with spells) trumps flavour (in terms of in-game drama) in a very annoying way.

Lanefan


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 17, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> Question for all here: have any of you ever come up with a functional rule or system whereby "dying words" scenes *can* be supported by the D+D game (any edition)?  I know there's been many a time where I've wanted to use a dying-words scene as an adventure hook, or an adventure climax, but couldn't; the party Cleric would just start casting cures and render the scene - if not entirely meaningless - a lot less dramatic.
> 
> Without such a system this is one instance where mechanics (ability to cure pretty much anything with spells) trumps flavour (in terms of in-game drama) in a very annoying way.
> 
> Lanefan



[SIDENOTE]I bit the bullet about 4 weeks ago and started pencilling out a new version of D&D for my group that I called version 3.9repeater. We like 4E but we still wonder what 4E could have been if it had have followed more the design philosophy of 3.x. In it, I _think _I've managed to fix up the hp issues I have had with the various issues of D&D as well as a few other things.[/SIDENOTE]

As part of that, there were several important things that I think faciliatate what you are after:
- You don't automatically fall "unconscious" if you go into negative hit points (although you could be unconscious).
- Healing (magical, divine or otherwise) does not work if you are -10hp or below.
- You make a roll to determine how long it takes you to die (instantly, a round or maybe even half an hour of pain and agony).
- A high level spell/ritual can save a character under these circumstances.

This gives the opportunity for some last words or maybe even more as suits (but still with the chance that a character is just plain instantaneously dead).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 17, 2008)

Herremann, I forked us off to a new thread titled "Dying Words [...]"; I don't know how to link to it from here.  (note to mods - is there a way the system can put something in the mother thread to indicate it has been forked?)

Lanefan


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 17, 2008)

BryonD said:


> So an unwounded character can use a healing surge to gain HP before a fight?




Sure, assuming he's an unwounded character with less than his maximum hit points.

If he's an unwounded character with maximum hit points, the healing surge won't do anything.



Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  If those cuts and bruises don't directly affect his ability to avoid a killing stroke, why does healing those cuts and bruises (by magic, for example) raise his hit points?  Shouldn't cure spells be merely descriptive?




The attacks he suffered reduced his hit points.  That is the mechanical effect in the rules system.  The cuts and bruises were how we chose to narrate the cinematics of those attacks; we could have narrated them as hideous wounds, or we could have narrated them as near-misses that used up divine providence, or whatever.  The cuts and bruises are not rules-mechanical, they're flavour.

The Healing spell increases his hit points.  That is the mechanical effect in the rules system.  We can narrate the cinematic effect of the healing spell as closing his wounds, or as restoring vitality, or as renewing his connection to the divine hand of Fate.  The healing of cuts and bruises are not rules-mechanical, they're flavour.



> (3)  What if the healing surge healed all damage he had taken?  What happend to those cuts and bruises then?




Narrate it in the way that works for you.  If it's magical healing, say the cuts and bruises went away.  If it's the Warlord yelling at him, say they don't.  The mechanical effect of the healing is to increase the hit points.  Whether he has cuts and bruises after the healing is flavour, just like they were flavour when he took the damage in the first place.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Why would you narrate it in a way that sound stupid? First you'd say "You collapse, blood pouring from the gash in your forehead." Then 5 rounds later you'd say either "You die from the injury to your head" or else "You wake from your swoon and wipe the blood from your eyes. Despite the searing pain it was just a flesh wound. Do you rejoin the fray?" Of course the player knows that you would have said something different if the dice came out different, just as you would have said something different in the first place if the attacker's d20 rolled a miss rather than a hit. But that's pretty unobjectionable isn't it?




Because I, as a player, would want to know how serious my character was wounded as well. I don't like to be left in limbo. There's a place for such "you don't know if you made the save", but it shouldn't be the norm.

Is it so inconceivable that such mechanics are simply not liked by everyone? I mean, what's next, do I have to explain why I don't like playing a druid? Or don't like playing DSA? Or why I don't like Dungeon Crawls?

As was stated several times, if it works for you, good - but it simply doesn't work for everyone, because, imagine, not everyone shares your taste in game mechanic, flavor, fluff and playstyle.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> As repeatedly rebutted by myself and others, their points force you to accept other, equally problematical and absurd things, to solve the arrow of time problem.  Schrödinger's Argument to resolve Schrödinger's Wounding.  All they managed to do was demonstrate that the problem doesn't bother them, which was never in dispute.
> 
> Personally, I find the "the problem you experience doesn't exist" line of reasoning to be disingenious at best, and at worst indicates a set of blinders that renders the "reasoning" worthless.



I'm not saying there is no problem for those who don't enjoy narrativist play. I am saying that the problem does not take the form of retconning, and I am saying that because those who play 4e in a narrativist fashion, and are posting about it in this thread, are saying that at their tables retconning does not come up.

You don't play 4e as far as I can tell, so at your table the retconning issue doesn't come up (certainly, you haven't replied to Lost Soul's request for an example of actual play).

So who is having the retconning problem? No one, as far as I can tell from this thread.

I _think_ the problem for those who don't like 4e healing surges is that the sort of narration required as an alternative to retconning would be experienced as too gonzo by many non-narrativist players, especially those with what I would roughly call 1st ed AD&D tastes. But I'm not yet 100% sure of this.



apoptosis said:


> 4E though was made to focus on many combats, its strength is the tactical choices in combat which really only shines when you have many of them. The flipside to this is if you have many fights they each cant be Inigo Montoya moments. if you dont have many fights I think you are losing one of the strongest aspects of 4e.



Now this is a good point. I think it's possible to have lots of fights, with therefore many Inigo Montoya moments, without going gonzo (or without going intolerably gonzo). My evidence for this (other than my own RPGing experience, which is not public evidence) is mostly literary and cinematic: superhero comics are mostly a sequence of fight scenes, but (at least in the better versions of them) don't collapse into intolerable gonzo; Conan stories are chock-full of fight scenes, including scenes with recovery from inhuman levels of punishment, without going intolerably gonzo; the best John Woo movies (Hardboild, The Killer, Bullet in the Head) are full of fight scenes and incredible recoveries, without going intolerably gonzo; etc.



apoptosis said:


> TSOY, TRoS, BW are much better for games (IMHO) you should be playing if you want to have Inigo Montoya moments.
> 
> I might add Rolemaster as a good game for IM moments but that based on it being so deadly and debilitating when you get into combat.



Rolemaster has the trouble that wounds are so debilitating and it has no Fate Point or similar mechanics (eg SAs in TRoS).

Rolemaster can be played in a fairly combat-heavy fashion, especially at mid-to-high levels where parrying is effective and healing magic is available, and the tactical aspects of combat in that system help support certain aspects of the narrative. But they often won't be Inigo Montoya moments, and more like Lone Wolf and Cub moments.

I've got no doubt that there are other systems that overall are better than, and better for narrativist play than, 4e. But 4e has its own attractions nevertheless, both pragmatic (eg ease of getting a group together) and principled (eg combination of intricate combat mechanics and skill challenge mechanics in the one game system).



apoptosis said:


> I dont think retconning is a necessity at the table but to not retcon requires that that "in-game" reality of wounds are not resolved until after the player decides to or not invoke the second wind (or sleeps for the night etc.) or that hp damage is not connected to any injury.



This can be true to a degree. That's why I have compared 4e to HeroWars, where this is also true. But it needn't be the case all, or even most, of the time: see below.



apoptosis said:


> Sammy is hit for 49 of his 50 points of damage. The options are:
> 
> 1. He was not actually hit for any appreciable damage but the next hit will be fatal. In this case second wind is neither mystic nor retconning but hp damage is not mapped to physical damage (hp now just represent your characters narrative staying power..how long he can remain an active participant in the story)
> 
> ...



All of these options are available. None involves retconning. Option 1 seems to be GlaziusF's preference. Options 2 & 3 are the HeroWars way -  there is a degree of narrative indeterminacy while the conflict is still awaiting resolution, of the sort that many fortune-in-the-middle systems require. (Note, by the way, that there is no indeterminacy in the gameworld - only in the metagame, where the narration has not firmed up yet. This is pretty common in RPGs - many a GM has introduced a mysterious stranger in the inn, without as yet having fully determined the narrative surrounding that stranger. And sometime this indeterminacy is something that would not be in doubt for the PCs - eg the GM may not choose the colour of the NPC's shoes until a player asks some time down the track, even though the PCs would have know that from the get-go.)

And what about option 4: the player narrates an injury at the time of taking the damage, and then narrates an Inigo Montoya moment when the Second Wind is used? This is what Hypersmurf and Lost Soul are suggesting.

I would think that any given 4e table could use any of Option 1, Options 2/3, or Option 4 from damage roll to damage roll, as struck the fancy of the players.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> The interesting difference between the editions is the unaided back to full health aspect of a good night's rest in 4E. In 3.x if you were pushed into the negatives and you only had your own resources to survive, there was no way you were getting back to full health in one night unaided (unless strangely enough you were a high level wizard with an incredibly poor constitution score - heh I never said 3.x was perfect either).



This is a very different issue from the healing surge issue, I think. As I've said in a couple of posts above, I think that this is not about simulationism vs narrativism, but rather is about genre conventions.

One approach I suggested upstream, for those who don't like the genre convention, is to make sure that, between any 2 episodes within the game, there is a sufficient time gap to make the healing possible. And then, for those occasions when an extended rest is taken within an episode, narrate it as soldiering on after a few hours for the swelling to go down.



Herremann the Wise said:


> Funnily enough, I think there's a 3rd ed. version of the Schroedingly-Cat-thing in there if people look hard enough



I agree. Any wound from which a person can recover unaided, whether that takes 1 day or 1 year, is not a deadly one. Therefore, any narration that a PC has her/his intestines hanging out after the blow from the orc's axe is only going to work (edit: that is, work for the simulationist) if we assume that divine healing is about to be delivered.

In 3E any character has a chance to recover, unaided, from any wound that doesn't drop her to -10. Did this ever cause a retconning crisis at the table? Or did the ubiquity of clerical healing cover it up, as Herremann is suggesting?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Is it so inconceivable that such mechanics are simply not liked by everyone?



It's not remotely inconceivable. I really do believe that you don't like narrative uncertainty as to what your PC's wound is. And, therefore, I really do believe you wouldn't like using HeroWars or 4e combat and damage mechanics.

What I'm trying to work out is why people are saying that _retconning_ is the problem, or that other sorts of stupid narration are the problem (like "Oh, btw, that hit you took 5 rounds ago was actually lethal, since you just died. If you'd have gotten up it would have been just a grazing blow"), when the only actual play testimony that we have in this thread says that no retconning, or other stupid narration, is occurring.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> It's not remotely inconceivable. I really do believe that you don't like narrative uncertainty as to what your PC's wound is. And, therefore, I really do believe you wouldn't like using HeroWars or 4e combat and damage mechanics.
> 
> What I'm trying to work out is why people are saying that _retconning_ is the problem, or that other sorts of stupid narration are the problem (like "Oh, btw, that hit you took 5 rounds ago was actually lethal, since you just died. If you'd have gotten up it would have been just a grazing blow"), when the only actual play testimony that we have in this thread says that no retconning, or other stupid narration, is occurring.




Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:

Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
DM: "You can't tell."
Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
DM: "He's bleeding from a gash on his head."
Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."
DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.
DM: He might die without treatment!
Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
DM: Yes, you do!
Player: No, I am a warlord, not a cleric!
DM: The effect is the same!

and so on.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because I, as a player, would want to know how serious my character was wounded as well. I don't like to be left in limbo.




But should you know that? How well does a person in real life know how bad  wound is? How well do fictional persons usually know how bad it is? 

There are basically two things that are used to describe the issues with the healing surge mechanic:
1) Ret-Conning wounds. You claim that a wound is a gashing wound, but the character recovers to full hit points and fights as if nothing ever happened. Worst case scenario is the character drops unconscious and someone narrates it as him dying due to the gashing wound, but then he rolls a 20 on his death save and regains hit points, and can go on fighting. The wound couldn't have been that bad.

2) Schrödinger wounds. You don't know whether you are wounded or not until after you have "measured" it by expending a healing surge or dying. 

Pemertons point for 1 seems to be that you just should avoid narrations that make strong assumptions on the nature of wounds - maybe there is a lot of blood, but until the character dies or spends his healing surge, nobody knows how bad it is. 

This leads us to "Schrödinger" wounds. The severity of a wound is indeterminate until we spend a healing surge or the PC dies from them.

But is that really a problem? At what point do you know a wound is fatal or not? Sometimes (at least in movies  ) people die after they have been stabilized while in intensive care. How well could you judge a wound on the battle-field, covered in dirt and blood.

One example for a dying character to avoid death is that someone spends an action to make a Heal Check - if the check succeeds, he is stabilized, and can expend his second wind (not merely a healing surge). The check DC is only 10 (IIRC). Maybe we should interpret this not as trying to staunch any wounds (though we could), maybe it is just looking at the wound and saying "hey, it's just superficial - no major arteries hit! You should be fine."


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But should you know that? How well does a person in real life know how bad  wound is? How well do fictional persons usually know how bad it is?




My character, being knocked unconscious, wouldn't know. I as the player _want_ to know. And that's all the reason needed.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> One example for a dying character to avoid death is that someone spends an action to make a Heal Check - if the check succeeds, he is stabilized, and can expend his second wind (not merely a healing surge). The check DC is only 10 (IIRC). Maybe we should interpret this not as trying to staunch any wounds (though we could), maybe it is just looking at the wound and saying "hey, it's just superficial - no major arteries hit! You should be fine."




And of course, then I and some others would argue why there was a need for the heal check at all, if he was going to be fine anyway. Also, arterial bleeding, the sort that kills you in a short time, is often spectacularly gory, so it shouldn't require a heal check to spot.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:
> 
> Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
> DM: "You can't tell."
> ...



1) He could have made a Heal Check (yes, that costs an action) to discover that the wounds were in fact not fatal.
2) He could have used an Inspring Word to tell the character "Come on, it can't be that bad".
Result is always that the character can spend a Healing Surge and go on.

Maybe bringing us back to the "dying words" - don't narrate the character as fully unconscious when he drops if you know that would make the player decide not to try anything. (I think that is a very general approach to DM narrating scenes - don't do it in ways to accidentally mislead your players.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> And of course, then I and some others would argue why there was a need for the heal check at all, if he was going to be fine anyway. Also, arterial bleeding, the sort that kills you in a short time, is often spectacularly gory, so it shouldn't require a heal check to spot.




SO obviously it wasn't arterial bleeding, right? But maybe someone feared the worse, because it was covered by the characters own body or his clothing/armor and still looked nasty?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 1) He could have made a Heal Check (yes, that costs an action) to discover that the wounds were in fact not fatal.
> 2) He could have used an Inspring Word to tell the character "Come on, it can't be that bad".
> Result is always that the character can spend a Healing Surge and go on.
> 
> Maybe bringing us back to the "dying words" - don't narrate the character as fully unconscious when he drops if you know that would make the player decide not to try anything. (I think that is a very general approach to DM narrating scenes - don't do it in ways to accidentally mislead your players.)




So, he wasn't unconscious, yet unconscious. And again - if a word is enough to get him up, it wasn't a serious wound. But what about if there's a zone of silence? If can't hear the word, does he still get healed, since if he could hear the word the wound would not be serious at all, and it's just a game mechanic construct anyway? If the warlord spends the action and power, the PC should be fine, even if he can't hear it, that's just fluff, right?

Why shouldn't we instead use a system that suits our playstyle, so we do not have to jump through all those hoops just to avoid trouble we currently do not have at all?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> SO obviously it wasn't arterial bleeding, right? But maybe someone feared the worse, because it was covered by the characters own body or his clothing/armor and still looked nasty?




"Ah, so he twisted in the air from the blow that sent him back, and landed in a way we could not notice any blood pooling beneath him. Hey, DM, that's the third time this happened today, 12th time in this adventure, can we start training to fall in ways so our friends can see our wounds? Why can't we ever see how serious a wound is anyway? I mean, we never see any blood until we fail the save, else it wasn't bleeding at all..."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Why shouldn't we instead use a system that suits our playstyle, so we do not have to jump through all those hoops just to avoid trouble we currently do not have at all?




I agree entirely.



Fenes said:


> "Ah, so he twisted in the air from the blow that sent him back, and landed in a way we could not notice any blood pooling beneath him. Hey, DM, that's the third time this happened today, 12th time in this adventure, can we start training to fall in ways so our friends can see our wounds? Why can't we ever see how serious a wound is anyway? I mean, we never see any blood until we fail the save, else it wasn't bleeding at all..."




"Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"... then stop doing that."

If a mechanic makes for a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, but it has a couple of issues if you examine it too closely and ask certain questions which make it unfun, there are two options:
1. Stop having a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, or
2. Stop asking those questions.

Now, personally, I haven't found that it's an issue, because we haven't had enough people recovering from negative via healing surges for the "It wasn't as bad as it looked" scenario to be problematic in the way you describe.  But if it came up, and asking those questions looked set to spoil my fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, I'd pick option 2 - don't ask the questions!

But that's not for everyone.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If a mechanic makes for a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, but it has a couple of issues if you examine it too closely and ask certain questions which make it unfun, there are two options:
> 1. Stop having a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, or
> 2. Stop asking those questions.




There is also option 3: Use another mechanic that offers you a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience without causing troubles _for you_.



Hypersmurf said:


> Now, personally, I haven't found that it's an issue, because we haven't had enough people recovering from negative via healing surges for the "It wasn't as bad as it looked" scenario to be problematic in the way you describe.  But if it came up, and asking those questions looked set to spoil my fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, I'd pick option 2 - don't ask the questions!
> 
> But that's not for everyone.




Like the entire 4E system is not for everyone. I just wish people would accept that just as my playstyle - few combats, lots of social scenes, sandbox style, no exp points, no exact wealth - is not for everyone, 4E is not for everyone.

It really gets tiring to read the umpteenth "but if you do this, this, and stop doing this, and don't ask those questions, then 4E is perfect for you!" posts.

What about a bit more "Ok, I see why you are happier with another edition" posts? It cannot be so hard to understand that 4E is not perfect for everyone.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There are basically two things that are used to describe the issues with the healing surge mechanic:
> 1) Ret-Conning wounds. You claim that a wound is a gashing wound, but the character recovers to full hit points and fights as if nothing ever happened. Worst case scenario is the character drops unconscious and someone narrates it as him dying due to the gashing wound, but then he rolls a 20 on his death save and regains hit points, and can go on fighting. The wound couldn't have been that bad.
> 
> 2) Schrödinger wounds. You don't know whether you are wounded or not until after you have "measured" it by expending a healing surge or dying.
> ...



I've also suggested a 3rd option (or in fact have just reiterated Lost Soul and Hypersmurf's suggestion): narrate the wound, and then narrate any healing not as a curing of the wound, but as an Inigo Montoya moment.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But what about if there's a zone of silence? If can't hear the word, does he still get healed



For me, this doesn't raise the retcon issue, but what I've been calling the gonzo issue. The narration for this one is easy - "As you speak the word into his ear, he feels your breath despite the silence and his eyes flicker open" - but some might find it a bit much for their taste.



Fenes said:


> "Ah, so he twisted in the air from the blow that sent him back, and landed in a way we could not notice any blood pooling beneath him. Hey, DM, that's the third time this happened today, 12th time in this adventure, can we start training to fall in ways so our friends can see our wounds? Why can't we ever see how serious a wound is anyway? I mean, we never see any blood until we fail the save, else it wasn't bleeding at all..."



Of course, players who don't like to distinguish too much between game and metagame, who feel that if they don't know the state then the gameworld doesn't know the state, probably don't want to play with HeroWars-style fortune-in-the-middle.

This is not a problem of stupid narration, however. No one's table is actually producing the stupid narration. No one actually regards the stupid narration as tolerable in the game. The problem is a problem of some mechanics not suiting some playstyle preferences.



Fenes said:


> Why shouldn't we instead use a system that suits our playstyle, so we do not have to jump through all those hoops just to avoid trouble we currently do not have at all?



No objection. I'm not saying anything else. But I don't think the problem is stupid narration, or retconning, or even Schrodinger's wounds. I think it's that the narration to avoid those issues is experienced by some as too gonzo.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> What about a bit more "Ok, I see why you are happier with another edition" posts? It cannot be so hard to understand that 4E is not perfect for everyone.



Not at all hard to understand. I mostly play Rolemaster (and have mostly played Rolemaster for the past 18 years) and many, perhaps  most, RPGers regard that as an intolerable system.

What's making me buck up a bit is the suggestion that 4e play delivers (i) retconning, (ii) Schrodinger's wounds, and (iii) stupid narration, when in fact it doesn't. The reason this claim makes me buck up a bit is because it generates an implication that players of 4e are indifferent to (i) retconning, (ii) Schrodinger's wounds, and (iii) stupid narration, when in fact (to the best of my knowledge) many, perhaps most, are not.

Undoubtedly, 4e is not grim and gritty. Some might find the narration that makes sense of it a bit gonzo. Fair enough, though for the reasons I've given in posts upthread (again drawing on Lost Soul) I don't think this has to be the case.

But this is no basis for saying that fans of 4e are happy with silly things like retconning, Schrodinger's wounds or stupid narration.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Schrödinger wounds.



It occurs to me that one basic thing may not be clear here: "Schroedinger's wounds" implies that the GM fudges, or is vague or ambiguous, in narration, keeping information away from the players (this is the general tenor of Fenes's imagined conversations between players and GMs, for example).

But in HeroWars, and presumably if this technique is applied to 4e, it is taken for granted that it is the player who - understanding the mechanical parameters of the game - is taking a fair bit of responsibility for the narration. So the "indeterminacy" is not the GM keeping the player in the dark, but the player exercising her narrative freedom.

Non-vanilla narrativist play depends upon players who are active rather than passive in this particular fashion (for excellent examples of actual narrativist play using 4e, look at Lost Soul's "Emergent features" thread).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> There is also option 3: Use another mechanic that offers you a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience without causing troubles _for you_.



Sure, if you have such a system...

But for all I know, it's not like you're really interested in the "action-packed" part anyway, considering the low frequency of combat you described.  
Of course 4E is not a good fit for you then.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> What about a bit more "Ok, I see why you are happier with another edition" posts?




I just did that!  You said "Why shouldn't I use a system that suits my play style?" and I said "I agree entirely"!

-Hyp.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sure, if you have such a system...
> 
> But for all I know, it's not like you're really interested in the "action-packed" part anyway, considering the low frequency of combat you described.
> Of course 4E is not a good fit for you then.




Exactly because I have few fights I want the fights to be as action-packed as they can be. If not, why bother playing them out?

3E with Bo9S delivers the action I want - flashy combat with high-damage, spectacular moves and spells, all PCs going nova. No battlemap, no chess moves, no Tank/Healer/DPS mechanics. Conan meeting Wuxia, with everyone laying into the enemies.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> I just did that!  You said "Why shouldn't I use a system that suits my play style?" and I said "I agree entirely"!
> 
> -Hyp.




Then put "option 3: Use another system" in your post.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Like the entire 4E system is not for everyone. I just wish people would accept that just as my playstyle - few combats, lots of social scenes, sandbox style, no exp points, no exact wealth - is not for everyone, 4E is not for everyone.



It's great that you know 4E is not a system for you. But why are you spending the time complaining about the system, when you know it's not one you enjoy?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:
> 
> DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
> *Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.*
> ...




It seems to me that this is a problem with communication between a player and a DM, rather than a rules problem. The DM is making it perfectly clear that under the mechanics of the game, the player could heal his comrade, and the player is creating a fluff-reason not to do so.

If I was playing the character lying on the ground, I'd be pretty annoyed at this attitude, frankly.

As far as the discusssion on the overnight rest, I can fully appreciate why it's a problem for some people. It does seem odd that you can narrate a slashing blow to the head, drop a character to less negative hp and yet without any form of divine healing (just an Inspiring Word and some rest) that character is up and running around the next day at full hp. I can see that trying to narrate that sequence of events can be awkward if you want to sustain a feel of gritty realism.

At my table, I simply say that the character is a hero - a legend in the making, and that's how it works. Grim'n'gritty is not for me - I like tales of amazing feats that no ordinary pereson could manage.

Your Milage May, of course, Vary.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> There is also option 3: Use another mechanic that offers you a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience without causing troubles _for you_.
> 
> Like the entire 4E system is not for everyone. I just wish people would accept that just as my playstyle - few combats, lots of social scenes, sandbox style, no exp points, no exact wealth - is not for everyone, 4E is not for everyone.
> 
> ...




OK - I can entirely see why you're not happy with a particular 4e mechanic, as it's not working for you (and others in this thread).

I hope that you can, in turn, see why "if you stop worrying about it, it's not a worry" is a perfectly good answer for those of us that do like the system and are happy with it.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It's great that you know 4E is not a system for you. But why are you spending the time complaining about the system, when you know it's not one you enjoy?




Why are you spending the time trying to make people play a system they don't enjoy? 

This thread started as a discussion over game design. In the process, it ended up as a mechanics discussion. Of course that will incorprotate different mechanics. But we can do without the "If you play it right you'll enjoy it, really!" undertone.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> OK - I can entirely see why you're not happy with a particular 4e mechanic, as it's not working for you (and others in this thread).
> 
> I hope that you can, in turn, see why "if you stop worrying about it, it's not a worry" is a perfectly good answer for those of us that do like the system and are happy with it.




Oh, I see that. The problem is that too many try to tell me I could (or even should) just stop worrying, and it'd be fine for me, and seem unable to accept that it won't work.

In other words - I hope those others finally can accept that an answer good enough for them is not good enough for me, or RC.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Why are you spending the time trying to make people play a system they don't enjoy?



When did I do that?

No one's trying to make you play 4E. They're explaining ways in which your perceived problems with the mechanics are not problems to them.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> In other words - I hope those others finally can accept that an answer good enough for them is not good enough for me, or RC.



Sure, and vice-versa. It's abundantly clear that no agreement will be reached between the two "sides". One of them has to step up and say "You know what? I don't need to get the last word in on this one." That's the only way the back-and-forth will stop.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Exactly because I have few fights I want the fights to be as action-packed as they can be. If not, why bother playing them out?
> 
> 3E with Bo9S delivers the action I want - flashy combat with high-damage, spectacular moves and spells, all PCs going nova. No battlemap, no chess moves, no Tank/Healer/DPS mechanics. Conan meeting Wuxia, with everyone laying into the enemies.



Well, you think of "packing action" into one encounter per session, I think of packing action in multiple encounters per session. The system requires a different degree of robustness (both from a purely mechanical POV and from the character POV). 

This means:
- Each encounter must be challenging. Otherwise it doesn't feel action-packed.
- The party must have a reasonable (high) chance to go on after each encounter. (despite being challenged, e.g. facing character death)

I think this definitely explains why you don't need a different system.

The 3E system manages to do this only to a very limited extent - hit points after combat where no problem thanks to Cure Light Wound Wands, but this creates a high dependency on magic items or pm (divine) spellcasters - and since a lot of spells are needed in challenging encounters (as you say - going nova), you can't do it often. 

The high reliance on magical items might be a mere flavor issue - if you are fine with a strong economy around Wands of CLW or strong reliance on Clerics, you could ignore that and just "fix" the spellcaster problem. But the design team decided that wasn't what they wanted, because the "Magic Item Christmas Tree" and the difficulties of creating a low-magic campaign were discussed and criticized a lot.

Yet they still decided to keep hit points. (Maybe they believed it couldn't be D&D without them?). So they came up with healing surges. What other mechanics would work in this context?

---

The only remaining thing I have to say is that I doubt that you would have such big problems with the system in practice. 
1) You are already using Book of Nine Swords. So you are perfectly fine with "martial" characters using supernatural powers. All problems with Schrödingers hit points and ret-conning are gone if you just assume that it's sword magic.

2) The major instance where these problems come into play are during combat and assuming that some character drops to 0 hit points and is also increased beyond 0 hp. The party just has to avoid that ever happening. 

But of course, there is no need for a change if you're happy with what you've got.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Oh, I see that. The problem is that too many try to tell me I could (or even should) just stop worrying, and it'd be fine for me, and seem unable to accept that it won't work.



_You_ doesn't always have to refer to You specifically, but the figurative "you".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But is that really a problem? At what point do you know a wound is fatal or not? Sometimes (at least in movies  ) people die after they have been stabilized while in intensive care. How well could you judge a wound on the battle-field, covered in dirt and blood.





Although the potentially fatal wound that gets fully healed by a pep talk and a shot of adrenelin is particularly absurd, most people IRL know the difference between being winded and being wounded when it happens to them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
> "... then stop doing that."
> 
> If a mechanic makes for a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, but it has a couple of issues if you examine it too closely and ask certain questions which make it unfun, there are two options:
> ...





The problem is that, in this case "too closely" is defined as "even superficially".  As a result, the mechanic makes for a _dissatisfying_ play experience.


RC


EDIT:  I hope you realize, too, that the "Doctor, Doctor" bit you quoted is usually intended as a joke, where the butt of the joke is the doctor, because the answer doesn't address the complaint (or, if so, only does so on the most superficial level)?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Although the potentially fatal wound that gets fully healed by a pep talk and a shot of adrenelin is particularly absurd



Who talked about fully healed? For the purposes of the current story-line, the character is unimpeded. Once the story-line comes to a halt, he can still collapse.
But I agree with you that movie scenarios are often quite absurd. There are genre conventions at work that seem more interesting then reality.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 17, 2008)

Hey Fenes;

I know that 4e doesn't work for you.  That's cool.  What I'm arguing is that you don't have to get into the trap of retconning wounds and damage if you don't want to.

Let's look at the sample of play proposed and I'll tell you how I'd deal with it.  I'll bold the text I add.



Fenes said:


> Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
> DM: "You can't tell."
> Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
> DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
> ...




After the fight, X still has a big gash on his head; if he has any healing surges left, he can describe binding the wound (while the Warlord claps him on the back for some extra motivation), and a quick word or two: "How you feeling, X?"  "Well, my head feels like Bane's been using it as target practice, but not as bad as after you make your Hellfell Shadowspawn chili!".  Or if he doesn't have any healing surges left, and there's no other healing available, he might describe binding the wound and struggling on, weak and exhausted but ready to fight.

(You could even describe the wound in the same way in both cases, even if he's just down 4 healing surges and at full hp: dazed, weak, exhausted, but willing to carry on.)

Either way, the wound doesn't disappear, which might be important later on in the game (NPC: <points at the soiled bandage> "You look like you've been through hell.  I told you not to engage the enemy!").

* - The Unconcious condition means a few things, but going deaf isn't one of them, so we're cool there.  I could describe the PC going down and out, but I probably wouldn't do that often if there was a Warlord in the party; and even if I did, I'd say something like "Somewhere, deep in the blackness, a part of X hears your words.  His vision clears, your voice guiding him back to conciousness."

** - Warlords are a new addition to the D&D world/genre, so you have to make allowances.  Words are important in 4e and can sap the fight out of someone (psychic damage) and they can give someone the will to fight on (Inspiring Word, etc).  This might not be to everyone's taste, but it's a part of the 4e world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Now, personally, I haven't found that it's an issue, because we haven't had enough people recovering from negative via healing surges for the "It wasn't as bad as it looked" scenario to be problematic in the way you describe.  But if it came up, and asking those questions looked set to spoil my fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, I'd pick option 2 - don't ask the questions!





So far as I know, this sideline began because I pointed out that healing surges -- and the whole 4e take on damage -- were more gamist/less simulationist than those of previous editions.

If you can now see that examining what the mechanics mean in world (asking the questions) leads to an issue, do you agree with the original point?  Or do we continue to play Schrödinger's Argument?

PL1:  "Mechanic A causes problems.  It can be viewed in-world as X or Y.  If X, it causes problem Z.  If Y, it causes problem B."

PL2:  "Well, if you view it as Y it won't cause problem Z."

PL1:  "I know.  It causes problem B."

PL2:  "Then view it as X."

PL1:  "That causes problem Z."

(This exchange is repeated over and over again, with variations on wording, and different people jumping in repeating the same thing with variations on wording, none of which answers the original point, until PL1 is ready to pull out his hair.  Culminating in: )

PL2:  "Just don't view it at all."





RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> I hope that you can, in turn, see why "if you stop worrying about it, it's not a worry" is a perfectly good answer for those of us that do like the system and are happy with it.





Obviously.

If you can ignore a problem, within this context, it is not a problem for you.  That doesn't change the fact that the basis for the complaint, for those it does bother, is objective.

The basis of the complaint is objective; whether or not it bothers you is subjective.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Who talked about fully healed?




Regaining all hit points isn't fully healed?

There are a bunch of questions upthread, asked by several people, about this line of reasoning.

Healing surge doesn't actually heal?  Again, see upthread for unanswered questions pointing out problems with this approach.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Regaining all hit points isn't fully healed?



No.



> There are a bunch of questions upthread, asked by several people, about this line of reasoning.
> 
> Healing surge doesn't actually heal?  Again, see upthread for unanswered questions pointing out problems with this approach.



And see the above posts why this doesn't have to be the problem.
And the counter-arguments for that.
And the counter-arguments for that.
And...

You get it.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The 3E system manages to do this only to a very limited extent - hit points after combat where no problem thanks to Cure Light Wound Wands, but this creates a high dependency on magic items or pm (divine) spellcasters - and since a lot of spells are needed in challenging encounters (as you say - going nova), you can't do it often.




I never had a wand of cure light wounds in any game. With just one fight per day or session, most of the "healing damage problems" go away because I do not expect my players to be ready for another fight after the fight. I don't need clerics in the party at all, some potions are enough for emergencies, the rest of the damage can be cured "at home" by NPCs or rest. I can have PCs collapse after a battle, with their wounds needing treatment even though they might not have dipped below 0. I also can describe damage as wounds as I please, since the damage won't be healed without healing magic or extended rest.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The only remaining thing I have to say is that I doubt that you would have such big problems with the system in practice.
> 1) You are already using Book of Nine Swords. So you are perfectly fine with "martial" characters using supernatural powers. All problems with Schrödingers hit points and ret-conning are gone if you just assume that it's sword magic.
> 
> 2) The major instance where these problems come into play are during combat and assuming that some character drops to 0 hit points and is also increased beyond 0 hp. The party just has to avoid that ever happening.
> ...




4E has too much powers that require me to either be too vague, or use convulted explanations for them and their restrictions. Bo9S has not that many "Move the enemy somehow... it's magic!" powers, and its martial powers can be easily recharged, even in fight, and don't require me to explain why the fighter can't whirlwind twice in a fight. And 4E powers just feel bland and weak to me, unlike Bo9S moves.

In short, 4E requires me far too often to say "It's magic/plot" to explain stuff to be comfortable. Far easier to pick mechanics I like from it and implement them in my 3E game than trying to make it work for me - the type of game experience it was made for doesn't appeal to me anyway, and the 4e fluff so far doesn't appeal to me either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I never had a wand of cure light wounds in any game. With just one fight per day or session, most of the "healing damage problems" go away because I do not expect my players to be ready for another fight after the fight.



Yes. I know, I understand. That's why you don't need a different healing or resource management system at all.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Hey Fenes;
> After the fight, X still has a big gash on his head; if he has any healing surges left, he can describe binding the wound (while the Warlord claps him on the back for some extra motivation), and a quick word or two: "How you feeling, X?"  "Well, my head feels like Bane's been using it as target practice, but not as bad as after you make your Hellfell Shadowspawn chili!".  Or if he doesn't have any healing surges left, and there's no other healing available, he might describe binding the wound and struggling on, weak and exhausted but ready to fight.




My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him. If he was in danger of dieing, and needed immediate first aid, then it strains _my _suspension of disbelief that he'll be up and fighting after he got his healing surge. 



LostSoul said:


> (You could even describe the wound in the same way in both cases, even if he's just down 4 healing surges and at full hp: dazed, weak, exhausted, but willing to carry on.)
> 
> Either way, the wound doesn't disappear, which might be important later on in the game (NPC: <points at the soiled bandage> "You look like you've been through hell.  I told you not to engage the enemy!").




The fatal wound disappeared, or it would have been fatal.



LostSoul said:


> * - The Unconcious condition means a few things, but going deaf isn't one of them, so we're cool there.  I could describe the PC going down and out, but I probably wouldn't do that often if there was a Warlord in the party; and even if I did, I'd say something like "Somewhere, deep in the blackness, a part of X hears your words.  His vision clears, your voice guiding him back to conciousness."
> 
> ** - Warlords are a new addition to the D&D world/genre, so you have to make allowances.  Words are important in 4e and can sap the fight out of someone (psychic damage) and they can give someone the will to fight on (Inspiring Word, etc).  This might not be to everyone's taste, but it's a part of the 4e world.




Which is a big reason I am not part of the 4E world - too much is not to my taste, including warlords, both fluff and mechanics wise.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And see the above posts why this doesn't have to be the problem.
> And the counter-arguments for that.
> And the counter-arguments for that.
> And...
> ...




Oh, you mean

PL1: "Mechanic A causes problems. It can be viewed in-world as X or Y. If X, it causes problem Z. If Y, it causes problem B."

PL2: "Well, if you view it as Y it won't cause problem Z."

PL1: "I know. It causes problem B."

PL2: "Then view it as X."

PL1: "That causes problem Z."

(This exchange is repeated over and over again, with variations on wording, and different people jumping in repeating the same thing with variations on wording, none of which answers the original point, until PL1 is ready to pull out his hair. Culminating in: )

PL2: "Just don't view it at all."


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him.



Of out curiosity, how is this different from 3e (or 2e or 1e)? 

A 3e character with 50 HP is critically hit with an axe for 40 points of damage . He has 10 HP remaining. Fortunately for him, the fight ends.

Is the wound he took serious? Is he in any danger of dying? He's not _bleeding_, even though it's logical he _should_ be after being hit by a single blow from a presumably sharp, bladed weapon for more than %75 of his HP. 

According to the rules, there is no need to bandage him. He _can't_ bleed --unless he was hit by certain types of magic weapon. Neither can the wound get infected, neither is he impaired, etc.

So was that wound serious? 

BTW, I'm _not_ arguing that you or anyone else should enjoy 4e's modification to ye olde HP mechanics. My point is only that whether one does is strictly a matter of taste.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him. If he was in danger of dieing, and needed immediate first aid, then it strains _my _suspension of disbelief that he'll be up and fighting after he got his healing surge.




Ah.  In 4e - and this is a genre convention, probably new to this edition - the would would have been fatal _because he lacked the will to carry on._  Given the will to fight by his Warlord's Inspiring Words, he gets up and deals with it.

You can also describe popping back up from a Death Save in the same way; somewhere, deep down, he found the will to go on.  He won the fight with that part of himself that was saying, "Just let go, let it be, rest and be at peace."

I see it's not to your taste, and that's cool.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2008)

Wow, longest thread I have EVER started.  Yay me.  And, from what I've seen, amazingly civil as well.  Cookies for everyone.  

I admit, I've skipped the past few pages, so, if I'm repeating stuff, bear with me.  

All this discussion on the relative levels of abstraction of hit points misses a better question in my opinion.  It's quibbling really - does it really matter that one is more abstract than the other when both are abstract in the first place?

But, the better question in my mind is:  Why hit points at all?  There are all sorts of mechanics for determining combat effects.  Yet D&D's ablative hit points remains absolutely king in nearly every sort of game, both RPG and computer games.  The overwhelming majority of games which feature some sort of damage mechanic, from something like Diablo, to Mortal Kombat have exactly the same mechanics for hit points as D&D.  You're fine, you're fine, you're fine, you're dead.

And computers could easily handle the gruntwork that makes systems like GURPS combat fairly painful at the table.  But they don't.  And I think I know why.  Raven Crowking WAY back in the thread talked about how Gygax, when he created hit points, said that he went as far as he could with simulation without hurting gameplay.  ((Paraphrasing))

Think about the priorities there.  What's the most important thing there?  Gameplay.  How it works at the table.  While there are people who enjoy spending hours running through every second of a combat, I'm going to guess that most people don't.  And, a countdown mechanic is probably the most intuitive one you can find.

Just about every game where you can be knocked out, be it Poker or Monopoly, has the same thing.  You have a limited resource, that can be replenished, but when it's gone, you're out of the game.  There are so many games that work like this.

But, moving on from hit points for a second, let's look at how another mechanic developed over time based pretty much entirely on gameplay:  Initiative.  AD&D 1e initiative rules are... well... let's just say they're perhaps a little overcomplicated.  One of the big changes in 2e was streamlining initiative rules.  You go from d6 with all sorts of modifiers based on a large number of sources, to a d10 + speed (either spell casting time or weapon speed) - Dex bonus.  Reroll every round.

Then 3e steps up and streamlines it even further.  D20+dex rolled once.  But, they retained a few earlier concepts and so we had focusing things like that.  3.5 stepped even further down the line and streamlined it so that moving up in initiative order is pretty difficult.

Purely done for gameplay reasons.  Mechanically, any sort of initiative mechanics work.  AD&D 1e mechanics worked.  But, they were too complicated and confusing.  That hurt table play.  So, it get's slimmed down.  Then slimmed down further.  And then further still.

That's why I feel that game first mechanics are better.  Placing the first priority on at the table play is the most important consideration for any mechanic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Of out curiosity, how is this different from 3e (or 2e or 1e)?
> 
> A 3e character with 50 HP is critically hit with an axe for 40 points of damage . He has 10 HP remaining. Fortunately for him, the fight ends.
> 
> ...




At least one earlier edition (1e?  Holmes Basic?) included a rule requiring resting/bandaging after a fight.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, you mean
> 
> PL1: "Mechanic A causes problems. It can be viewed in-world as X or Y. If X, it causes problem Z. If Y, it causes problem B."
> 
> ...



Probably. Except that I of course am convinced that it's PL2 that is ready to pull out is hair because PL1 seems to miss a step of his argumentation. 

But whatever.  

Maybe we should close with 
PL_n_: "Let's accept that we're running in circles and agree to disagree."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Ah.  In 4e - and this is a genre convention, probably new to this edition - the would would have been fatal _because he lacked the will to carry on._  Given the will to fight by his Warlord's Inspiring Words, he gets up and deals with it.
> 
> You can also describe popping back up from a Death Save in the same way; somewhere, deep down, he found the will to go on.  He won the fight with that part of himself that was saying, "Just let go, let it be, rest and be at peace."
> 
> I see it's not to your taste, and that's cool.




This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written.  Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.

In LotR, in the fight in Balin's Tomb, Frodo is injured and knocked unconscious.  He finds the will to move on, but is noted to be injured later, and then rests in Lothlorien for an extended period of time.

If a healing surge lasted through (in effect) a scene, or even (in effect) a story, that would probably be fine.....although it would still need some descriptive changes to avoid Schroedinger's Wounding.  It is the day-in, day-out, permanent nature of the mechanic that makes it absurd.

IMHO, of course.


RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Of out curiosity, how is this different from 3e (or 2e or 1e)?
> 
> A 3e character with 50 HP is critically hit with an axe for 40 points of damage . He has 10 HP remaining. Fortunately for him, the fight ends.
> 
> ...




In my game, it would be serious, but not deadly (deadly would be a wound that dropped him below 0 hitpoints). He might be bleeding, but unless there are extraordinary circumstances, I'd assume he'll clean and treat the wounds and stop the bleeding (and prevent infections) after the fight, just as I assume characters go potty without the players having to tell me, or there being rules for the absence of such actions. 
If I want infections I can always add them, if say the character could not clean the wound properly, or enters terrain prone to infections with open wounds.
But my main point is I can, at the start, define the 40 points of damage as a specific wound, without having to redefine it afterwards. That allows the player and myself to add a bit more flavor to the fight description. The narrator in me prefers that possibility.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written.  Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.
> 
> In LotR, in the fight in Balin's Tomb, Frodo is injured and knocked unconscious.  He finds the will to move on, but is noted to be injured later, and then rests in Lothlorien for an extended period of time.
> 
> ...




One could use healing surges like hit points gained by the barbarian rage's con boost - they last some time, but then vanish, and if you went beyond your limits and don't get help, you can fall over dead after the fight. Which is also a very common movie convention/scene. And even the "realism before all" view could have real life examples to look at where people were carried through a fight on adrenalin despite sustaining lethal wounds, and dieing afterwards (or dieing later than they "should have" judged by the damage).


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> At least one earlier edition (1e?  Holmes Basic?) included a rule requiring resting/bandaging after a fight.



Now that you mention it, I think there was. 

But either way, whether it was an actual rule in a specific edition, the group's I played in usually did the obligatory rest/bandage bit after a big fight. So even if that wasn't required by the rules it was certainly part of the praxis. This points to my idea that whatever 'realism' or sim elements existed in D&D -- pick an edition -- where more the result of _how_ people chose to play the game, what they brought to the table, and not anything inherent in the rule set. 

And I'm sure my current group will do the same rest/bandage thing under 4e. It's everyone's job to add a realism to the game -- if that's what you're after.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> He might be bleeding, but unless there are extraordinary circumstances, I'd assume he'll clean and treat the wounds and stop the bleeding (and prevent infections) after the fight



I'd handle it the same way.



> But my main point is I can, at the start, define the 40 points of damage as a specific wound, without having to redefine it afterwards.



There is no need to redefine anything (or, heaven forbid, invoke Time's Arrow). In 4e it would -- or at least _should_ -- look like this.

1) Character receives serious wound -- say he take 40 HP
2) Character uses Healing Surge -- say he get's back 20 HP
3) The character is _still wounded_, but he's recovered a bit of his will to fight and his ability to soldier on.
4) Fight ends. The party takes a short rest and the character bandages and cleans his wounds. 

Aren't the assumption in 4) the same as the one's you make when running 3e?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> There is no need to redefine anything (or, heaven forbid, invoke Time's Arrow). In 4e it would -- or at least _should_ -- look like this.
> 
> 1) Character receives serious wound -- say he take 40 HP
> 2) Character uses Healing Surge -- say he get's back 20 HP
> ...




While it may look the same as long as the total damage taken doesn't exceed the character's hp, we differ as soon as the character would have dropped below 0 or even died without healing surges. Wounds that would have dropped him are not as serious thanks to the healing surge - and they stay that way, all day long, and during the next day. That sort of "will to fight" is too permanent for my taste.

I prefer it when adrenalin runs out, like rage does, or inspire greatness, or other temporary hitpoints. Less mental convulsions.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> While it may look the same as long as the total damage taken doesn't exceed the character's hp, we differ as soon as the character would have dropped below 0 or even died without healing surges. Wounds that would have dropped him are not as serious thanks to the healing surge.
> 
> I prefer it when adrenalin runs out, like rage does, or inspire greatness, or other temporary hitpoints. Less mental convulsions.




I'll put this in my mental "variant ideas for hit point mechanics" folder. Healing Surges spend while below 0 hit points are only temporary hit points (lasting no longer then one encounter/short rest). And then I'd add a "close wounds" ritual that requires 5 minutes to cast and heals any wounds and mends bones. 
I am afraid this mental folder is getting far bigger than necessary, as I will never use it!


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> While it may look the same as long as the total damage taken doesn't exceed the character's hp, we differ as soon as the character would have dropped below 0 or even died without healing surges. Wounds that would have dropped him are not as serious thanks to the healing surge - and they stay that way, all day long, and during the next day. That sort of "will to fight" is too permanent for my taste.



The way I look at it, your character's real hit point total _includes_ the amount from all his Healing Surges. The difference in 4e is that characters don't receive one big bag of hit points; they receive one relatively large bag and several smaller ones that they -- or others-- can open and use when certain conditions are met.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The way I look at it, your character's real hit point total _includes_ the amount from all his Healing Surges. The difference in 4e is that characters don't receive one big bag of hit points; they receive one relatively large bag and several smaller ones that they -- or others-- can open and use when certain conditions are met.




I think that's too needlessly complicated for my game. It seems to stem from the need to allow multiple challenging encounters per day, which leads to dividing the total hitpoints into encounter-hit point pools that refresh in a limited manner between or during the encounter.

I do not need nor want that. I could use some "second wind" mechanic, for those "getting up despite being battered" moments and scenes, but I don't want to have the uncertainity and permanence the 4E mechanic brings with them. So, temporary hitpoints that fade after a time, like the hp gains from a barbarian's rage, would suit me much better.

The question is, how best to implement that.

In the terms of the OP, I want a certain flavor - the "get up with a second wind/on adrenalin, fight on, then collapse after the fight ends" scene. I don't want the "get up with a second wind, and keep going all day after the fight ends" mechanic since that would ruin the flavor I want. So I need a different mechanic to capture the flavor I want.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I
> 
> All of these options are available. None involves retconning. Option 1 seems to be GlaziusF's preference. Options 2 & 3 are the HeroWars way -  there is a degree of narrative indeterminacy while the conflict is still awaiting resolution, of the sort that many fortune-in-the-middle systems require. (Note, by the way, that there is no indeterminacy in the gameworld - only in the metagame, where the narration has not firmed up yet. This is pretty common in RPGs - many a GM has introduced a mysterious stranger in the inn, without as yet having fully determined the narrative surrounding that stranger. And sometime this indeterminacy is something that would not be in doubt for the PCs - eg the GM may not choose the colour of the NPC's shoes until a player asks some time down the track, even though the PCs would have know that from the get-go.)
> 
> ...




What if the conflict is over (we killed the monster) and wow it looks like you killed the beast before he killed you (you had 1 hp left) he did some some vicious damage to you though (ie you had 1 hp left). Given that you had only 1 hp left you and the DM narrate it as a gaping deadly chest wound.

An hour later you decide to use the second wind. Now that vicious damage is no longer existent.

So your choices in narrative are (if hp map to physical injury):

The damage wasn't that bad you just thought it was. Which means the original narration was not correct, so you are retconning the narration.

Second wind magically healed the damage.


*EDIT
Actually it was not an ideal example as you could say that in the hour a team member stitched him up. If he did during a LONG battle maybe that would be a better example.*

Other narrative actions further uncouple hp from physical injury.

The IM moment permanently cures the damage. Which is not that same as soldiering on (which is continuing while still having the damage). You go to sleep at night and the next day you are undamaged.

The narrative resolutions you came up with (which I think are absolutely fine when I play) still do not get by one of these objections if you want a tighther coupling of hp and physical damage.

Once again, maybe i am missing something from what you are saying and will gladly give up my argument if it becomes evidently faulty.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But is that really a problem? At what point do you know a wound is fatal or not? Sometimes (at least in movies  ) people die after they have been stabilized while in intensive care. How well could you judge a wound on the battle-field, covered in dirt and blood.
> 
> One example for a dying character to avoid death is that someone spends an action to make a Heal Check - if the check succeeds, he is stabilized, and can expend his second wind (not merely a healing surge). The check DC is only 10 (IIRC). Maybe we should interpret this not as trying to staunch any wounds (though we could), maybe it is just looking at the wound and saying "hey, it's just superficial - no major arteries hit! You should be fine."




Some issue with this though is the question about the veracity of in-game narration. 

Some people have issues if in game narration is false. That what is said at the table (not character speech but the words of the universe so to speak) is not true.

Obviously this can happen when illusions or trickery is involved int he scenario but in general some types of gamers really want in-game narration to be truthful.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Now this is a good point. I think it's possible to have lots of fights, with therefore many Inigo Montoya moments, without going gonzo (or without going intolerably gonzo). My evidence for this (other than my own RPGing experience, which is not public evidence) is mostly literary and cinematic: superhero comics are mostly a sequence of fight scenes, but (at least in the better versions of them) don't collapse into intolerable gonzo; Conan stories are chock-full of fight scenes, including scenes with recovery from inhuman levels of punishment, without going intolerably gonzo; the best John Woo movies (Hardboild, The Killer, Bullet in the Head) are full of fight scenes and incredible recoveries, without going intolerably gonzo; etc.
> 
> .




You are correct there are definitely enough literary serial versions of IM moments (and since i really like Conan stories should have thought this through more). Though it would seem to lose its punch if it keeps happening (it is big deal in Princess Bride, it is more ho-hum in Conan)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Some issue with this though is the question about the veracity of in-game narration.
> 
> Some people have issues if in game narration is false. That what is said at the table (not character speech but the words of the universe so to speak) is not true.
> 
> Obviously this can happen when illusions or trickery is involved int he scenario but in general some types of gamers really want in-game narration to be truthful.




The problem with that being, very few of us actually have any real experience with sucking chest wounds or fighting with swords against really big lizards.  We narrate the scene based on what we know, and, generally, what we know is about as scientific as Star Trek.

I can understand not wanting narration to suddenly undergo radical reversal after the fact.  So, wouldn't the solution be to not describe the scene in such a way that you cannot later change it?  In other words, since hit points are abstract (in any edition), what good is it to try to ascribe concrete descriptions to combat wounds?

Fenes - I realize that you have a specific playstyle.  But, since your playstyle is pretty much 90 degrees to most people's game, don't you think assuming that the game should cater to your style is a bit much?  I mean, 3e certainly doesn't support the one fight/day thing either.  You've just made casters absolutely king in that scenario.  I have no reason not to blow every spell at my disposal if I know that I'm only going to face one fight per day.

How do you keep non-casters relavent?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I think that's too needlessly complicated for my game.



Needlessly complicated?! It's just, you know, a conceptual thing. You don't need to _do_ anything with it during play. 



> It seems to stem from the need to allow multiple challenging encounters per day, which leads to dividing the total hitpoints into encounter-hit point pools that refresh in a limited manner between or during the encounter.



That's a part of it, though I think the Healing Surge mechanic has more to do with locating the source of most healing in the injured characters themselves. Now all classes have some control over their own healing, former 'medic' classes are can now perform other actions while still filling the medic role, and healing can now come from an assorted of in-game triggers, which increases the number of tactical choices involved in healing the PC's. 



> So, temporary hitpoints that fade after a time, like the hp gains from a barbarian's rage, would suit me much better.



Now this seems needlessly complicated to me. 



> I don't want the "get up with a second wind, and keep going all day after the fight ends" mechanic since that would ruin the flavor I want.



See, this is no different for me than the situation in the previous editions where character took supposedly massive _physical_ wounds then kept going all day like the Engergizer Bunny  -- until they _finally_ went below 0 HP.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written.  Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.




That's what happens after the encounter.  They give him some medical attention so that he doesn't keel over and die.  They bind that gash in his head.  Maybe this represents more Healing Surges being used; maybe not.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> That's a part of it, though I think the Healing Surge mechanic has more to do with locating the source of most healing in the injured characters themselves. Now all classes have some control over their own healing, former 'medic' classes are can now perform other actions while still filling the medic role, and healing can now come from an assorted of in-game triggers, which increases the number of tactical choices involved in healing the PC's.




I should mention that I _hate _the idea of healing in mid-fight.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 17, 2008)

So a character with 50 hitpoints and 10 healing surges gets hit by a sword for 4 points of damage.  So what if I say "you have a cut on your arm now."  Who cares?  He uses a healing surge and gets all of his hitpoints back, the cut is still there.  I don't know how a cut on his arm would affect him, but I didn't know that in 1E either.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 17, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> You go to sleep at night and the next day you are undamaged.




I think this is where the system lends itself to the most possible absurdity; you can describe wounds all you want and deal with it, but you end up with a PC _covered_ in banadges, sword gashes, arrows sticking out of him, etc.

Oh well.  I suggest a Skill Challenge to deal with this if it's important to you.  Healing up at night.  Failures mean you lose Healing Surges, total failure means you don't refresh any Healing Surges.  If you don't have any left to spend and you should lose one, I guess you die.  Gritty.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> I think this is where the system lends itself to the most possible absurdity; you can describe wounds all you want and deal with it, but you end up with a PC _covered_ in banadges, sword gashes, arrows sticking out of him, etc.
> 
> Oh well.  I suggest a Skill Challenge to deal with this if it's important to you.  Healing up at night.  Failures mean you lose Healing Surges, total failure means you don't refresh any Healing Surges.  If you don't have any left to spend and you should lose one, I guess you die.  Gritty.




Honestly,

I think some simulationists-heavy players should try a game like TSOY.

Damage in that game is on 1-damage tracker (7 slots) and physical, mental and social damage can fill up your tracker.

The penalties for each slot of the tracker filled ipenalizes you in the specific realm (physical, social, mental) but if you take a bunch of social damage, the next physical damage you take will be worse than if you had been undamaged as the farther up on the tracker the worse the penalties.

I am sure i just did the absolute worst job of describing this but hopefully the idea came through.

It really changes perception (at least for me) of what damage is in terms of game and story.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I should mention that I _hate _the idea of healing in mid-fight.



Even in 1e/2e/3e when it came at the hands of a clerc/druid/paladin? Healing mid-fight has been around since the earliest days of D&D.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Even in 1e/2e/3e when it came at the hands of a clerc/druid/paladin? Healing mid-fight has been around since the earliest days of D&D.




I dimly recall having seen one cleric in a 2E party once, for a couple adventures. We played from 1991 to 2000 weekly in several campaigns without any cleric that could heal. After 2000, in 3E, we had a bard as "Main Healer", but mid-fight healing was rare (no concentration, no armor, bow user made for less than ideal mid-combat healer anyway). In one 3E campaign we've got a cleric, but he's more into casting other spells.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> You are correct there are definitely enough literary serial versions of IM moments (and since i really like Conan stories should have thought this through more). Though it would seem to lose its punch if it keeps happening (it is big deal in Princess Bride, it is more ho-hum in Conan)




Plenty of REH stories include characters needed substantial time to recover from major injuries, though.  Including Conan stories.  When Conan is crucified, he doesn't get up the next day and start killing things.

The same happens in ERB.  In the Mars stories he includes special healing (Martian salves), but lasting wounds can and do happen.  In Tarzan the Untamed, Tarzan is dying of hunger and thirst while crossing a desert.  He uses what might be described as a "second wind" to kill Ska (the vulture) for food.  It is not permanant:

And there he slept, after eating of what remained of Ska, until the morning sun awakened him with a new sense of strength and well-being.

[The above is the second sleep after killing Ska; Tarzan does not recover overnight.  He emerges from the desert, still hurting from his ordeal; rain and food have allowed for some "real" healing, but he is far from recovered.]

Three days the ape-man spent in resting and recuperating, eating fruits and nuts and the smaller animals that were most easily bagged, and upon the fourth he set out to explore the valley and search for the great apes.​
In point of fact, this sort of thing is _explicitly_ too gonzo for either Conan or Tarzan.  There are no instances where, given a major wound, those wounds simply vanish.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  REH, in particular, was a careful writer with this sort of thing.  Conversely, there are times when REH specifically has Conan (or other characters) incapacitated by their wounds and forced to rest before being fully healed.

These sorts of things are not too gonzo for comic books, granted.  But, frankly, I don't want my game to play like The Flash or Spiderman.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> So a character with 50 hitpoints and 10 healing surges gets hit by a sword for 4 points of damage.  So what if I say "you have a cut on your arm now."  Who cares?  He uses a healing surge and gets all of his hitpoints back, the cut is still there.  I don't know how a cut on his arm would affect him, but I didn't know that in 1E either.




Sure you did.  In this case, the cut on the arm affected him by giving him 4 points of damage.  They tracked, 1-to-1.  If the hit points were restored (rest, magic), the wound was healed.


RC


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Plenty of REH stories include characters needed substantial time to recover from major injuries, though.  Including Conan stories.  When Conan is crucified, he doesn't get up the next day and start killing things.
> 
> The same happens in ERB.  In the Mars stories he includes special healing (Martian salves), but lasting wounds can and do happen.  In Tarzan the Untamed, Tarzan is dying of hunger and thirst while crossing a desert.  He uses what might be described as a "second wind" to kill Ska (the vulture) for food.  It is not permanant:
> 
> ...




That is true (well as consistently as REH wants to be).

But i think the issue is the "fighting on" vs the "not injured"

The IM moment does not depict no injury it depicts "fighting on"

I think the second wind is a gamist device which allows the players to determine how they want the narrative to explain the mechanical effect which is why this uncoupling issue arises.

It gives more power to the player (or narrator) at the expense of less in-game world consistency.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I dimly recall having seen one cleric in a 2E party once, for a couple adventures. We played from 1991 to 2000 weekly in several campaigns without any cleric that could heal. After 2000, in 3E, we had a bard as "Main Healer", but mid-fight healing was rare (no concentration, no armor, bow user made for less than ideal mid-combat healer anyway). In one 3E campaign we've got a cleric, but he's more into casting other spells.



I think your experiences were uncommon, to say the least, especially at higher-level play.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:




Fenes I'll say again what I said before. If you're intentionally setting out to make a situation not work, you'll probably accomplish that goal. The situation you set up is intentionally ignoring elements that will effect the situation in order to prove the situation doesn't work. You're starting from a this doesn't work mindset and creating a situation to prove an already decided idea.

As I said to RC if ultimately you dislike a game, who am I (or anyone else on this board) to say that you're wrong. But if you're posting on a message board about an issue you're having with the game, that we are not having, then obviously we'll offer our opinion on what we think you're missing. We're not saying we're right and you're wrong. We're just trying to offer advice to other gamers. 

My fiance doesn't like red wine. The other day while out tasting, the person pouring put some salt on a plate and had her taste the salt, then drink the red wine. Suddenly she said, "WOW that tastes good!" The woman explained that when a lot of people say they dislike red wine, what they're actually having an issue with is the taste of tanins. Salt takes away the "edge" of the tannins and allows you to taste the fruit of the wine. This is why red wines go with certain foods because those foods tend to be seasoned with more salty seasonings. 

She wasn't saying salt would be the right answer, and if my fiance didn't agree she was wrong; she was just offering an idea that might help.

That said here is my idea: 

Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
_This player is asking for a game element hint. How many HP does he have and can he use a healing surge?_

DM: "You can't tell. He's bleeding and on the ground, but still appears to be breathing."
_The DM knows X is at negative HP, but does have a healing surge left._

Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"

DM: "You have to spend an action to check. Again he's bleeding, but still appears to be breathing. You just can't get an idea of the full extent of the injury unless you really check. It might be really bad, but he might also just be in shock."

Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
_Player is being persnikety, trying to get more info without having to act. _

Player X rolls his death save failing it.

DM: "Like I said, he's bleeding pretty bad, but it could just be superficial. You have to check if you want to be sure. He did just make a groaning noise."
_Cluing him into the fact that he's not yet dead, and there are game options available._

Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."

DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him. If it's not serious enough to kill him, hearing you might just amp him enough to pull through.

Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.

DM: Again you're not completely sure of the extent of his injury. he might just be in shock and hearing you might snap him out.

Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.

DM: Nope not magic just amping him up really.

Player: (Rethinks his decision to attack.) Ok I'll try: "Get up you lazy sack of Orc Droppings! You still got fight in you, walk it off like a man!" 

DM: X groans but opens his eyes looking at you, confused.

Player: "That's right barmaid, no time for sleeping! Do your share to help fight, and quit laying around!"

DM: Glaring at you, X struggles to his feet clutching the wound in his side.

Player X: With a grunt I push away the pain of the wound in my side and grip my ax tighter. "I gotta handle everything huh?"

and so on.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Fenes I'll say again what I said before. If you're intentionally setting out to make a situation not work, you'll probably accomplish that goal. The situation you set up is intentionally ignoring elements that will effect the situation in order to prove the situation doesn't work. You're starting from a this doesn't work mindset and creating a situation to prove an already decided idea.




Scribble, in case you didn't get it: I prefer a certain flavor to my game. 4E's mechanics, as you just laid out so nicely, destroy that flavor. 

My players (at least some of them) trend to rip holes in some gameist devices.

Now, unless you want to tell me you know better than I do how my game plays like, and how my group acts, I suggest you stop trying to second-guess me, and stop trying to calim I intentionally myke something not work when I can see things that bother me.

Once again, and for the last time: You have no issues with this description you just did; I do. I also have issues with the warlock's powers, as an aside. And please stop trying to feed me your views.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I think your experiences were uncommon, to say the least, especially at higher-level play.




Of course they are uncommon. I doubt anyone else plays like I do. But my playstyle suits me just fine, even if it means - which some people do not get at all - that most of 4E doesn't suit me, being too focused on elemnts I dislike, and not providing the flavor and mechanics I want.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Now, unless you want to tell me you know better than I do how my game plays like, and how my group acts, I suggest you stop trying to second-guess me, and stop trying to calim I intentionally myke something not work when I can see things that bother me.




Here I'll post the rest of what I wrote:

*As I said to RC if ultimately you dislike a game, who am I (or anyone else on this board) to say that you're wrong. *But if you're posting on a message board about an issue you're having with the game, that we are not having, then obviously we'll offer our opinion on what we think you're missing. *We're not saying we're right and you're wrong. We're just trying to offer advice to other gamers. *



> Once again, and for the last time: You have no issues with this description you just did; I do. I also have issues with the warlock's powers, as an aside. And please stop trying to feed me your views.




You're posting on a message board thats been long viewed as the number one place to goto online for advice and ideas about D&D. I'm trying to offer advice, and yes, using a way that it works for me.

If you're just looking for someone to say "yeah man that sucks!" that's your perogative, but I'd appreciate you not attacking me for offering up an idea. Thats what this board is for as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> That is true (well as consistently as REH wants to be).
> 
> But i think the issue is the "fighting on" vs the "not injured"
> 
> ...




I just answered Mustrum_Ridcully in another thread, and I think that answer is valid here:

Indeed, sandbox play requires reasons for reasonable delay in order to maintain any form of verisimilitude. Decoupling encounter hit points from total hit points is nice; decoupling encounter hit points from any meaning within the context of the world is damaging.

Or, if you look at the thread I forked from: Outside of sandbox play, the DM can easily impose arbitrary limits that mimic actual healing, even in 4e. Inigo's wounds can reopen, and the DM can simply handwave, declaring that the next adventure starts a week (or month, or year) later. If each adventure is "discrete", like episodes of a television series, or films in a franchise, this can make sense.

Within the context of a sandbox, though, players will wonder why, if there is no game reason not to, they can't simply press on. A sandbox requires the players' willingness to allow time to elapse, and the rules must support them in that willingness. That willingness must feed into the "win conditions" of the game.​

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Once again, and for the last time: You have no issues with this description you just did; I do. I also have issues with the warlock's powers, as an aside. And please stop trying to feed me your views.



This might be obvious to you, but I'll say it anyway
As long as you keep the discussion alive, you will get suggestion, advice, berating, and what-else. You have to stop answering or changing the topic.

BTW, the topic was originally not related directly to healing surges. I don't believe we will get back to the original stuff, but I think we have discussed healing and hit points long enough to shy away everyone else.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In Tarzan the Untamed, Tarzan is dying of hunger and thirst while crossing a desert.  He uses what might be described as a "second wind" to kill Ska (the vulture) for food.  It is not permanant:
> And there he slept, after eating of what remained of Ska, until the morning sun awakened him with a new sense of strength and well-being.
> 
> [The above is the second sleep after killing Ska; Tarzan does not recover overnight.  He emerges from the desert, still hurting from his ordeal; rain and food have allowed for some "real" healing, but he is far from recovered.]
> ...




...so Tarzan passed his "survive through the desert" skill challenge by making Endurance and Nature checks, with a combat in the middle of it.

The DMG in fact explicitly calls out wilderness survival as a prolonged skill challenge, where failing some checks need not fail the challenge but will cause you to lose healing surges, which need not be recovered until the challenge is over, much as you can't just take a nap to restore healing surges in the middle of a fight. It also explicitly says that if a combat breaks into the "wilderness survival" skill challenge it can start with the PCs down a representative number of hit points instead of down healing surges.

If you want to model grievous wounds that deal lasting damage you can use the same repurposed disease track mechanism I used earlier in the thread. Characters will recover from those wounds in a method consistent with the narrative of spending multiple days laid up.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure you did. In this case, the cut on the arm affected him by giving him 4 points of damage. They tracked, 1-to-1. If the hit points were restored (rest, magic), the wound was healed.
> 
> 
> RC




I did?  No, I think it's not as clear, but as I meant to say before, I think a person can rationalize anything after 20 years of getting used to it so maybe 4E needs that kind of thought.  The hits didn't track 1-1 in the case of lycanthropy IIRC.  Also, a cut on your arm never affected your chance to hit anything.  Bunches of little cuts strained credulity anyway IMO.  Basically, I'm surprised anyone views hitpoints in earlier editions as anything simulationist.

So why not say they're injured when they take 4 hp damage in 4E?  Then they use a healing surge later, but they still have that cut on their arm even though they're at full hitpoints.  Frankly, since it never affected your combat ability in any version of the game, then it always was just a "how close am I to getting killed" measurement.  NONE of the physical effects of being wounded are ever simulated on the character - you just lose "hitpoints" and the only thing about hitpoints is that when you have none left you're dead.  Hitpoints IMO never provided a realistic simulation of being wounded so why this is a problem suddendly in 4E I just don't see.

So how about this - say a PC has 32 hitpoints and 10 healing surges.  Treat him like a 1E character with 112 hitpoints.  On top of that, if the healing rate is bothersome, just say you recover 1 healing surge per day (as someone already suggested I think).  I think that situation then maps 1-1 to the earlier edition situation and you should be able to use all of the same reasoning/descriptions.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> In point of fact, this sort of thing is _explicitly_ too gonzo for either Conan or Tarzan.  There are no instances where, given a major wound, those wounds simply vanish.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  REH, in particular, was a careful writer with this sort of thing.  Conversely, there are times when REH specifically has Conan (or other characters) incapacitated by their wounds and forced to rest before being fully healed.
> 
> These sorts of things are not too gonzo for comic books, granted.  But, frankly, I don't want my game to play like The Flash or Spiderman.  YMMV.




Oh well. I suggest a Skill Challenge to deal with this if it's important to you. Healing up at night. Failures mean you lose Healing Surges, total failure means you don't refresh any Healing Surges. If you don't have any left to spend and you should lose one, I guess you die. Gritty.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Oh well. I suggest a Skill Challenge to deal with this if it's important to you.





I suggest a different game system.  There are too many of these "quantum" things (healing surges being just one) in 4e for my tastes.

GlaziusF, I picked that example because I am currently rereading Tarzan the Untamed.    I would have modelled killing the vulture as a Survival check rather than a combat, though.    I could quite easily have grabbed an REH book and found a combat example where long-term healing is explicitly required.  My point was simply that Conan, Tarzan, etc., aren't gonzo like high-level 3e (or any-level 4e) are.  Even being able to kill a lion with a knife with a loincloth for armour doesn't make you regenerate like Wolverine.

Comic book heroes?  Yes.  But even Conan has to recuperate from major injuries, unlike Bob the 1st level 4e fighter.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> I did?  No, I think it's not as clear, but as I meant to say before, I think a person can rationalize anything after 20 years of getting used to it so maybe 4E needs that kind of thought.





Funny how I understood hit points so easily, from no wargaming or rpg experience, right out of the box.  The Holmes Blue Box, that is.  Funny how I never met anyone who had trouble visualizing them IRL, even if they happen to be 9 years old and it's their first time playing.

Equally funny how the problems with 4e healing surges come up with almost anyone I talk to about them.

I guess it's like some of 3e's problems; few people want to admit they exist while the system is "hot".  Again, wait until 5e.



RC


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 17, 2008)

So:



Raven Crowking said:


> PL1:  "Mechanic A causes problems.  It can be viewed in-world as X or Y.  If X, it causes problem Z.  If Y, it causes problem B."
> 
> PL2:  "Well, if you view it as Y it won't cause problem Z."
> 
> ...




And then:



apoptosis said:


> for instance...
> 
> Sammy is hit for 49 of his 50 points of damage. The options are:
> 
> ...




And then I invented time travel and went back to say:



GlaziusF said:


> Maybe *anyone* can't, but, uh.
> 
> A character with 5 hp out of 80 is exhausted. Not status-effect exhausted, exhausted if you want to pose his mood. He has been warding off or absorbing blows for some time and doesn't know if he's up for another burst of that effort. He has taken one bloody wound, maybe a medium-deep graze on his arm or maybe his chainmail got shoved into his chest and he'd rather leave it there for the time being. If something actually connects solidly he's going to crumple, unless it couldn't back off a puppy to begin with or fate is feeling very kind.
> 
> ...




I am not sure how my model fits into any of the three stated options. Salient features of my model are, to wit:

All damage represents concussion or strain.

At bloodied you are obviously wounded but the wound is not impairing. If you heal over bloodied you tend to the wound so it is not obvious any more. The wound can be from the strike that bloodied you or from an earlier one that you aggravated.

At 0 you pass out.

At -bloodied you have taken an apparently fatal wound and need extraordinary measures to come back.

I am not saying that this is a universal damage model that everyone playing 4E must adhere to.

I am saying this is an example damage model consistent with both a desire for minimal cinematic effect and the mechanics as written. It is up to the players and DM to decide which damage model to use and who has responsibility for describing wounds in a fashion consistent with the damage model.

The mechanic is also consistent with this damage model: a wizard is surrounded by a glow of arcane power that resembles the runes he writes in his spellbooks. All damage is described as repulsed or averted by the runes. At bloodied the glow becomes less uniform as runes begin to wink out. At 0 the runes largely wink out and the wizard collapses, the occasional stray one still drifting around him.



Lanefan said:


> Question for all here: have any of you ever come up with a functional rule or system whereby "dying words" scenes *can* be supported by the D+D game (any edition)?  I know there's been many a time where I've wanted to use a dying-words scene as an adventure hook, or an adventure climax, but couldn't; the party Cleric would just start casting cures and render the scene - if not entirely meaningless - a lot less dramatic.
> 
> Without such a system this is one instance where mechanics (ability to cure pretty much anything with spells) trumps flavour (in terms of in-game drama) in a very annoying way.
> 
> Lanefan




Modify the description of "unconscious" to read "You cannot take standard, move, or minor actions. You may still take some types of free actions." This lets "unconscious" characters speak for cinematic effect. Since "dead" is just a rider on "unconscious" this also means characters and monsters who are technically beyond the reach of most healing powers may still be able to speak if the DM allows it.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 17, 2008)

Hussar said:


> All this discussion on the relative levels of abstraction of hit points misses a better question in my opinion



Several better questions, really.

To my mind one of them is: where D&D is concerned, aren't 'realism' and 'simulationism' things we bring to the table, rather than something we find reflected in the actual rules? 



> It's quibbling really - does it really matter that one is more abstract than the other when both are abstract in the first place?



Not to me. 



> Why hit points at all?



Tradition (and ease-of-use).



> There are all sorts of mechanics for determining combat effects.



My favorite is the Damage Save mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds (does True20 use it too?). The great thing about it --and this ties back to the original topic-- is that it's a sound mechanic that can impart almost diametrically opposite 'flavors' depending on how it's used. 

In M&M's default mode, it emulates Golden/Silver Age comics, but if you flip a small number of 'switches' -- lower starting PP totals, limit Impervious defenses, ban certain powers, don't use GM Fiat to save NPC's -- you end with a game that's much grittier than D&D, suitable for a far more realistic, or at least deadlier, sort of adventuring.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Funny how I understood hit points so easily, from no wargaming or rpg experience, right out of the box. The Holmes Blue Box, that is. Funny how I never met anyone who had trouble visualizing them IRL, even if they happen to be 9 years old and it's their first time playing.




Actually, it's not all that funny so I'll assume you're being sarcastic.  You don't leave me much of a choice other than to respond simply to what I think is going on here which is that you say you understand 1e hitpoints simply because you stopped thinking about them 15 years ago.  And now that the mechanics have changed it requires you to develop a new set of strategies and rationalizations.  But not knowing what you don't know is not the same thing as understanding.  (The Holmes Box that I started with was colored - it was the booklet that was monochrome blue.  Maybe that's our difference.)



Raven Crowking said:


> Equally funny how the problems with 4e healing surges come up with almost anyone I talk to about them.




Apropos to what exactly?  I didn't really "understand" 4e hitpoints when I first started - but when I thought about the vague rationalizations ("why doesn't my guy get to hit penalties for being wounded") that I used in the 1E days, I found that 4E hitpoints wasn't much different in philosophy, just in the specifics.  I started out not liking healing surges but I've come to develop a strategy where they fit as well as anything ever did, simulation wise, and actually make for a much better game experience mechanics wise on top of it.



Raven Crowking said:


> I guess it's like some of 3e's problems; few people want to admit they exist while the system is "hot". Again, wait until 5e.




I saw you say something like this before.  This is vaguely ad hominem in that it's really talking about people's judgement and stuff outside the scope of the hitpoints conversation.  I have no reason to not admit anything.  I'm not a 4E fanboy.  It makes sense to me, and I was being honest and if you want to presume to know my mindset then I'm sure you can convince yourself that you "understand" that as readily as anything else.  I'm inclined to think that such "understanding" is not of much value though.  

Understand this:  I never played DnD expecting a fine correlation between hitpoints of "damage" and actually injury on the character. There were so many places in all editions where the results and rules were inconsistent with regards to physical injury that I pretty soon gave up (in fact, gave up so long ago I don't remember).  And I don't care - combat simulation was never why I played the game anyway.  Heck, I can't understand how anyone who played through the 1-minute combat rounds of 1E would expect anything else.  In any case, it's entirely possible that 5E would have an even better hitpoint mechanic that 4E but that's almost irrelevant to what I'm saying.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Comic book heroes?  Yes.  But even Conan has to recuperate from major injuries, unlike Bob the 1st level 4e fighter.




My point with the Skill Challenge idea was that so does Bob, if you want him to.

We go along from fight to fight, describing harsh wounds, keeping the colour even when hp are full.

At night, the players joke about all their wounds.  "Damn," the DM says, "that's lame.  Let's have a Skill Challenge to deal with all those wounds you've accumulated.  You're not playing comic book heroes, after all!"  The players agree.

Added feature/flaw: we only have to deal with long-term wounds that need lots of rest when we want to.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> 4E has too much powers that require me to either be too vague, or use convulted explanations for them and their restrictions.




Interestingly, that's one of the things I'm liking _most_ about 4E - that the power descriptions are vague enough that the flavour can be reskinned just about any way you like.

I'm treating 4E like Mutants and Masterminds, in that respect - an effects-based system.  In M&M, Blast is the power that deals ranged damage.  Whether you describe it as a lightning bolt, a ray gun, a crossbow, or 100-foot arms that punch you from across the room, it doesn't matter.  Force Field is a power that makes it harder to hit you.  Whether you describe it as a literal force field, or a preternatural awareness that allows you to dodge out of the way at the last moment, or a flying remote droid that intercepts attacks, it doesn't matter.

So in 4E, I can describe a power in any way I like, and the mechanical effects occur.

If I'm a fighter with the Tide of Iron at-will, then as long as I'm holding a shield, I can make a Str-vs-AC attack that deals 1[W] + Str and pushes the opponent 1 square.  Being very vanilla, I can describe it as "I hit him with my sword, and shove him with my shield."  But I can also say "I flick a sweeping cut at his calf; off-balance and bleeding, he staggers back a pace."  Or "I hook his blade with the edge of my shield to create an opening, and hammer my boot into his chest to force him back."  And even in that last case, I'll still add my sword's proficiency and enhancement bonuses to the attack roll, and I'll roll damage as though I described hitting him with the sword.

And if I lose my shield?  Then I won't be able to flick a sweeping cut at someone's calf, sending them staggering back a pace off-balance and bleeding.  Because I can only use the Tide of Iron power when I'm holding a shield.  I don't have an issue with that, because the whole off-balance thing is merely the cinematics I'm using to narrate the mechanical effect of the power.



Mallus said:


> And I'm sure my current group will do the same rest/bandage thing under 4e. It's everyone's job to add a realism to the game -- if that's what you're after.




Exactly.  I get hit for 8 damage, and the DM says "blah blah opens a cut on your arm blah blah", and shortly afterwards the warlord uses a "And all adjacent allies can spend a healing surge".  I finish the fight at full hit points.

And during our post-encounter rest, I describe getting the cut on my arm bandaged, and cursing the elf for a fumble-fingered lackwit when he pulls the bandage too tight around the still-fresh wound, and flexing my fingers and declaring "It'll do".  Why should being at full hit points stop me doing any of that?

-Hyp.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 17, 2008)

2Fenes:
Did you look at Raven Crowkings suggested 3.5 house rule regarding "shaking off damage"? I am not exactly a fan of his solution, but maybe it works for you. 

Alternatively, Star Wars Saga edition also has a nice mechanic for that. 

If you don't like the idea of regaining "real" hit points, using temporary hit points that disappear after a short rest should (5 minutes, 1 minute, or whatever you chose). You could even allow the "Second Wind" to be triggered by other people (maybe after successful Diplomacy or Intimidate check?), similar to the temporary hit points granted by the Bards Inspire Greatness ability. 

I am assuming you want a mechanic that can be called in during combat, not one that just makes healing faster (which is why RCs house rule might not work for you).


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Here I'll post the rest of what I wrote:
> 
> *As I said to RC if ultimately you dislike a game, who am I (or anyone else on this board) to say that you're wrong. *But if you're posting on a message board about an issue you're having with the game, that we are not having, then obviously we'll offer our opinion on what we think you're missing. *We're not saying we're right and you're wrong. We're just trying to offer advice to other gamers. *
> 
> ...




No, I am looking for people who can understand that they said their piece, and can agree to disagree, and argue without trying, for the nth time, to push their well-known, well-discussed and well-refused proposals up again.

I read your arguments in many forms before in this thread, and they do not work for me. No need, no point to bring them up again.

Is that clear now? 

As I said, I am not looking for ways to play 4E, I am looking for the best way to have a healing surge _that is not permanent healing_ in 3E. The best way I thought of was temporary hitpoints, who vanish after a short bit of time, like rage effects.

Advice on that is appreciated. But please stop trying to push permanent healing by surge on me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> No, I am looking for people who can understand that they said their piece, and can agree to disagree, and argue without trying, for the nth time, to push their well-known, well-discussed and well-refused proposals up again.





Sorry.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 2Fenes:
> Did you look at Raven Crowkings suggested 3.5 house rule regarding "shaking off damage"? I am not exactly a fan of his solution, but maybe it works for you.
> 
> Alternatively, Star Wars Saga edition also has a nice mechanic for that.
> ...




I don't want it triggered by others at all. Just the "I am not dead yet" effect of a seriously wounded character pulling himself together, lashing out at the enemy, and then, once the fight is over, collapsing, will to fight gone with the fight.

I'll Check Raven's house rules. (And, Raven, I didn't mean you, you were just explaining why you have a problem, not why other should or shouldn't have a problem, or why everyone should play like you do.)


----------



## Scribble (Sep 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As I said, I am not looking for ways to play 4E, I am looking for the best way to have a healing surge _that is not permanent healing_ in 3E. The best way I thought of was temporary hitpoints, who vanish after a short bit of time, like rage effects.




Well my apopologies... Your use of concepts and classes from 4e confused me. I thought you were talking about a 4e game, and not something for a 3e game.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 17, 2008)

I mean, seriously, can't we focus on what we have in common, instead of trying to convert people who already play D&D? Better spend that energy converting more people who don't play D&D yet.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 18, 2008)

When I first saw this topic, I thought to myself "this is gonna be one of topics that blow up into a 10 page plus topic."  

I had no idea that half of it would turn into another HP war.  

Hey Fenes, how about allowing a character to spend a healing surge to prevent the healing surge's value in damage the next time they get hit?  It would go like this.

Fighter spends a healing surge.
Fighter gets hit for 14 damage from monster.
Since fighter spent a healing surge he prevents 10 of the damage (with a healing surge value of 10) so he only take 4.  

As for the flavor/mechanics issue, ask yourself this; would you rather hear people complain that the rules suck or that the game makes no sense?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 18, 2008)

double post.... sorry about that


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:


> When I first saw this topic, I thought to myself "this is gonna be one of topics that blow up into a 10 page plus topic."
> 
> I had no idea that half of it would turn into another HP war.



I would not label it a war. It has been a debate which has been on the whole pretty civil. I don't think anyone has disrespected anyone else on either side of the fence here. If anything, I think respect has been garnered for those with opposing views - with the general concensus being to agree to disagree; some interesting points having been shared.


			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Hey Fenes, how about allowing a character to spend a healing surge to prevent the healing surge's value in damage the next time they get hit?  It would go like this.
> 
> Fighter spends a healing surge.
> Fighter gets hit for 14 damage from monster.
> Since fighter spent a healing surge he prevents 10 of the damage (with a healing surge value of 10) so he only take 4.



This would make an interesting power - representing a fighter's ability to just "suck it up" while they do something suitably heroic (such as dash through some flames, or try to get through a hail of arrows). However, it fits in firmly with the 4E Black Box ethos and so does not really help groups who don't play that way. 



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> As for the flavor/mechanics issue, ask yourself this; would you rather hear people complain that the rules suck or that the game makes no sense?



To be honest neither or more specifically, somewhere in the middle. All editions have had rules that suck or that make no sense, and get suitably house-ruled or ignored as suits. However, 4E as a whole has extracted a lot of simulation out of the game. It has been a deliberate attempt to err on the side of "that doesn't make sense" rather than "that kinda sucks" gameplay-wise. That does not jive with a lot of people who like their gameworld to make sense though. I think that's pretty much the lay of the land at present.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> My favorite is the Damage Save mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds (does True20 use it too?). The great thing about it --and this ties back to the original topic-- is that it's a sound mechanic that can impart almost diametrically opposite 'flavors' depending on how it's used.




Just as a counterpoint, I really, really detested that mechanic from M&M when I played it. Mind you, I found the "balance" of M&M extremely problematic.

Cheers!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Other narrative actions further uncouple hp from physical injury.
> 
> The IM moment permanently cures the damage. Which is not that same as soldiering on (which is continuing while still having the damage). You go to sleep at night and the next day you are undamaged.
> 
> ...



I think that it is helpful to decouple hit points from physical damage, as this frees up the narration.

I also think that it is unhelpful to describe any non-fatal injury as a gaping chest wound, as that it absurd narration.

But I think a non-fatal but large dose of hit point loss could be described as a serious slash to the chest, and/or the breaking of ribs - the second wind would then be soldiering on which didn't cure the wound, but relieved the PC of the burden of the wound (ie s/he can act as if unwounded).



Raven Crowking said:


> This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written.  Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.
> 
> In LotR, in the fight in Balin's Tomb, Frodo is injured and knocked unconscious.  He finds the will to move on, but is noted to be injured later, and then rests in Lothlorien for an extended period of time.
> 
> If a healing surge lasted through (in effect) a scene, or even (in effect) a story, that would probably be fine.....although it would still need some descriptive changes to avoid Schroedinger's Wounding.  It is the day-in, day-out, permanent nature of the mechanic that makes it absurd.



This suggests to me that the problem is the gonzo issue that I diagnosed.

As to the "day in, day out", as I've said multiple times upthread, just make sure there is a large passage of time between episodes, and narrate this as the time in which broken bones knit etc. As long as everyone at the table agrees that this is the most sensible path for the narrative to take, there is no need for the mechanics to deal with it.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> I think this is where the system lends itself to the most possible absurdity; you can describe wounds all you want and deal with it, but you end up with a PC _covered_ in banadges, sword gashes, arrows sticking out of him, etc.
> 
> Oh well.  I suggest a Skill Challenge to deal with this if it's important to you.  Healing up at night.  Failures mean you lose Healing Surges, total failure means you don't refresh any Healing Surges.  If you don't have any left to spend and you should lose one, I guess you die.  Gritty.



As I've been saying, another solution is just to have everyone agree that sufficient time passes between episodes. Extended rests within episodes can then just be narrated in the same fashion as a short rest.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> But i think the issue is the "fighting on" vs the "not injured"
> 
> The IM moment does not depict no injury it depicts "fighting on"
> 
> ...



I'd agree with this except for the suggestion of inconsistency. Why is the gameworld inconsistent because some hp loss representes physical injury and some hp restoration represents renewed resolve? There is no simulationism in such mechanics, but there is no inconsistency in the gameworld that I can see.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> As I've been saying, another solution is just to have everyone agree that sufficient time passes between episodes. Extended rests within episodes can then just be narrated in the same fashion as a short rest.





If your players are cool with having you dictate when they can take the initiative and investigate that creepy old house on the hill, then this could potentially work to a degree.  In a game where players are allowed to make those choices, this would not, unless by some miracle the players all decided to have their characters rest months between doing things.  Not something that happens without both solid game-rules and in-world reasons, IME.

And, again, although this limits the gonzoness of "1-20 in 2 game years" and limits the gonzoness of "incredible healing all the time, anytime", that limitation is only as solid as the "episodes" are short.

I guess what I enjoy during actual play is "Player decisions and in-world events drives action; narration is the result of those decisions".  Narration as a sort of commercial break where the DM tells the players their characters rest for X time seems, to me, to be the DM taking decisions upon himself that are not his to make.

IMHO, the game itself should present "win conditions" where the desired action occurs as a natural part of playing the game, rather than something forced upon the players by an external agency.  The game should make the players _want_ to rest when they are injured.

I think that 4e was designed to present "win conditions" where the desired action occurs as a natural part of playing the game BTW; I just think that the designers had radically different ideas than I do about what the "desired action" is.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

Fenes said:


> (And, Raven, I didn't mean you, you were just explaining why you have a problem, not why other should or shouldn't have a problem, or why everyone should play like you do.)




No worries.  It was just my pathetic attempt at humour.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:


> how about allowing a character to spend a healing surge to prevent the healing surge's value in damage the next time they get hit?  It would go like this.
> 
> Fighter spends a healing surge.
> Fighter gets hit for 14 damage from monster.
> Since fighter spent a healing surge he prevents 10 of the damage (with a healing surge value of 10) so he only take 4.




Actually, that isn't a bad idea.    At the very least, this would remove the problem of Schrödinger's Wounding, because how much damage was "not real" could be known at the time of the injury.  In this case, rename the mechanic "adrenelin surge".  Even the pep talk now makes sense, and injuries don't magically disappear because Joe Bob said some inspiring words.

Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full.  The lack of replies was deafening.  I should have realized then that silence meant that there was something interesting in the question.

Of course, the damage prevention would have to be used during the same encounter as the surge, or it is lost.

That's the best fix, IMHO, anyone in this thread has come up with yet.

Kudos.

Now can you solve 4e's other problems and rewrite the books so that the flavour doesn't bite?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 18, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Just as a counterpoint, I really, really detested that mechanic from M&M when I played it. Mind you, I found the "balance" of M&M extremely problematic.



Out of curiosity Merric, how come? My group found that the Damage Save worked very well in play. Then again, my group has a knack for making things work that admittedly could cover for flaws in the mechanics.

Was your balance problem the same kind you find in any broadly-inclusive superhero game ie, the players need to be self-limiting?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full.  The lack of replies was deafening.




Hmm... am I misremembering?  The question I remember was "Can an _unwounded_ character use a healing surge?", and I gave an answer to that one.

-Hyp.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full.  The lack of replies was deafening.  I should have realized then that silence meant that there was something interesting in the question.




I must have missed that, too.  Do you have a hypothetical example of play for that?  I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Was your balance problem the same kind you find in any broadly-inclusive superhero game ie, the players need to be self-limiting?




I've played a number of superhero games (Marvel, DC, V&V and M&M), and of them all I found M&M the most problematic. M&M is actually a level-based system which tries to masquerade as a point-buy system. If you *don't* max-out your powers/defences, you're going to be in terrible, terrible trouble.

It gets worse with certain powers (Mind Shield, Forcefield) which basically say to the lesser characters, "You can't hurt me at all". The less said about Ability Drain the better - a more broken power I'm not aware of, especially when a Con Drain will just kill someone outright.

The damage system, in my experience, tended to be "you didn't hurt them at all", "you didn't hurt them at all", "they're down" depending on the die rolls. I found it just too swingy.

Cheers!


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 18, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I think that it is helpful to decouple hit points from physical damage, as this frees up the narration.
> 
> I also think that it is unhelpful to describe any non-fatal injury as a gaping chest wound, as that it absurd narration.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2008)

On the whole natural healing issue.

Here's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about with game first mechanics.   How often, in any game of D&D, in any edition, have you had PC's heal damage entirely through natural healing?  

I'm thinking that the number is vanishingly small.  Clerics, healing potions, whatever, generally are going to be in use far more often than sitting around for any length of time.

So, at the end of the day, at the table, who cares how long it takes to heal your PC?  What difference does it make?  Since very, very few people ever actually use natural healing, the numbers simply don't matter.

Sure, you can talk about verisimilitude all you like, but, let's face it, a rule that is never used might as well not exist.  So, 4e changes the rules to make natural healing actually a viable option at the table.  Pre 4e, you waited maybe one day and the cleric healed you.  The end result between editions is pretty much the same:

Wait one day, you are fully healed.

Why not hard code that into the rules so now you are no longer forced to have a cleric in the group?


----------



## MerricB (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Actually, that isn't a bad idea.    At the very least, this would remove the problem of Schrödinger's Wounding, because how much damage was "not real" could be known at the time of the injury.  In this case, rename the mechanic "adrenelin surge".  Even the pep talk now makes sense, and injuries don't magically disappear because Joe Bob said some inspiring words.




It's a good solution only for those who want what damage means to be absolutely clear... it is an awful mechanic as far as the game goes.

What is the actual effect of this? Well, it just gives the characters more hit points per encounter. Oh. That's not actually what Healing Surges mean in the game. The _primary_ use of healing surges is to provide healing _between_ encounters.

That's rather important. Consider a character who could use all of their healing surges in the one combat. 9 surges, 40 hp. That means the character effectively has 400 hp... all of which get spent in one encounter, but that's specifically against the design intent of healing surges, which is to work against the "5-minute" day, and also provide the ability for a group without clerics to play more than one encounter per day.

One unusual factor about healing surges is that they are, in fact, limited in number. You can't just keep going and going. That clerical healing often just adds onto an existing healing surge is very interesting. Think about the implications of that: a cleric is no longer limited by how many spells they can prepare, but instead by how much someone can actually heal in a day. (There's a few fantasy settings that models rather well, actually).

Cheers!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If your players are cool with having you dictate when they can take the initiative and investigate that creepy old house on the hill, then this could potentially work to a degree.  In a game where players are allowed to make those choices, this would not, unless by some miracle the players all decided to have their characters rest months between doing things.  Not something that happens without both solid game-rules and in-world reasons, IME.



If the handling of Healing Surges is a problem for the entire group, why wouldn't the group agree that these "rest periods" are a necessary part to create a believable role-playing experience. 

In fact, even if the characters never took any significant damage, there might still be a role-playing reason why they don't want to get into the next potentially violent conflict. 

There are many aspects in a role-playing world that are not described in the rules. Character motivations. Rules for falling in love, or feelings like hatred, annoyance, compassion. And yet, player characters can act on such emotions. (Heck, there isn't even a rule for what is a "creepy" old house). Why shouldn't they also act on the idea that there characters have injured that, while they managed to overcome them in face of adversity, they need and desire to heal?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't want it triggered by others at all. Just the "I am not dead yet" effect of a seriously wounded character pulling himself together, lashing out at the enemy, and then, once the fight is over, collapsing, will to fight gone with the fight.
> 
> I'll Check Raven's house rules. (And, Raven, I didn't mean you, you were just explaining why you have a problem, not why other should or shouldn't have a problem, or why everyone should play like you do.)




If you don't want it to be triggered by others, but during combat, RCs rules will only provide a starting point.

But I think the simplest solution is to say that a character can, once per 5 minutes (or encounter, if you can live with that "metagame" term), get temporary hit points equal to half his hit points, but only if he has less then half his hit points (and isn't dead yet, unless you want someone to stand up after a finger of death  ). These temporary hit points do not stack (same source rule). They disappear after 5 minutes*. 

Note though that if the discussion has been going into a direction you didn't like, it was because we talked on "different levels" - from a general game design concept to a specific discussion on hit point mechanics to you actually hoping for clear suggestions on how to implement a second-wind mechanic in your game. Nobody can hope for sensible answers if the other side is actually not aware of his questions.

*) What did Robert DeNiros character in _Ronin _say after he helped Jean Reno stiching him up? "If you don't mind, I'll pass out now." (?)


----------



## Fenes (Sep 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you don't want it to be triggered by others, but during combat, RCs rules will only provide a starting point.
> 
> But I think the simplest solution is to say that a character can, once per 5 minutes (or encounter, if you can live with that "metagame" term), get temporary hit points equal to half his hit points, but only if he has less then half his hit points (and isn't dead yet, unless you want someone to stand up after a finger of death  ). These temporary hit points do not stack (same source rule). They disappear after 5 minutes*.
> 
> ...




Half the hitpoints seems too much, especially compared to the barbarian's rage.

And I wasn't annoyed at the discussion going into a direction I didn't like - I was annoyed at the discussion going _nowhere_. To use a cooking metaphor: Our likes and dislikes are well known, we need no more posturing about eating meat or going vegan, but the sharing of recipes and cooking tips instead, and adapting them to the prefered meals.


----------



## Delta (Sep 18, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Why not hard code that into the rules so now you are no longer forced to have a cleric in the group?




IMO, that's exacerbating the flavor-error. I would prefer a fix to the problem you identify (and I agree with), such as (a) reduce clerical healing, or (b) make a reason why clerical healing only works within hours of a "fresh" injury (first-aid), or (c) get rid of clerics entirely (as I did in my Diminutive d20 rules), etc.

There's fixes to be had in AD&D and what came after. The gentlest fix is usually best. I find that post-3.0, a WOTC fix is usually the most clumsy and ham-handed alteration that I could imagine.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Half the hitpoints seems too much, especially compared to the barbarian's rage.



Well, pick what you like.  I would suggest basing it on hit points or level, but you could choose a fixed or ability score dependent number, too. Maybe 2d6+CON. Or maybe "[HIGHEST HIT DICE]"+CON+1/2 level. So, a Barbarian5/Fighter5 with Con 15 would get 1d12+7 hit points. 



> IMO, that's exacerbating the flavor-error. I would prefer a fix to the problem you identify (and I agree with), such as (a) reduce clerical healing, or (b) make a reason why clerical healing only works within hours of a "fresh" injury (first-aid), or (c) get rid of clerics entirely (as I did in my Diminutive d20 rules), etc.
> 
> There's fixes to be had in AD&D and what came after. The gentlest fix is usually best. I find that post-3.0, a WOTC fix is usually the most clumsy and ham-handed alteration that I could imagine.



I don't know, your solution doesn't look like anything that makes Clerical Healing less important (you just need it even faster), and it doesn't seem to solve any gameplay problems of having to run challenging encounters with characters at different (unpredictable) hit point conditions.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> 4E as a whole has extracted a lot of simulation out of the game. It has been a deliberate attempt to err on the side of "that doesn't make sense" rather than "that kinda sucks" gameplay-wise. That does not jive with a lot of people who like their gameworld to make sense though.



The first sentence I agree with. The last sentence I strongly want to dispute - a gameworld with 4e healing surges might be a bit on the gonzo side, but there is nothing about it that doesn't make sense (ie there need be no retconning, nor any stupid narration). It is this suggestion that 4e players are tolerating nonsense in their gameworlds that makes me buck up a bit.

Again, I want to emphasise that I _strongly_ agree with the first sentence, and think therefore that those who prefer simulationist play should avoid 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If your players are cool with having you dictate when they can take the initiative and investigate that creepy old house on the hill, then this could potentially work to a degree.  In a game where players are allowed to make those choices, this would not, unless by some miracle the players all decided to have their characters rest months between doing things.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I guess what I enjoy during actual play is "Player decisions and in-world events drives action; narration is the result of those decisions".  Narration as a sort of commercial break where the DM tells the players their characters rest for X time seems, to me, to be the DM taking decisions upon himself that are not his to make.



I never said that the GM would decide. I said that "another solution is just to have everyone agree that sufficient time passes between episodes." Everyone agreeing means everyone, not the GM.



Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, the game itself should present "win conditions" where the desired action occurs as a natural part of playing the game, rather than something forced upon the players by an external agency.  The game should make the players _want_ to rest when they are injured.



The last sentence here seems to assume that the players' principal motivation is their PCs' motivation. That is, it seems to propose a weak game/metagame distinction, and a very high degree of immersion at all decision-points in the game. That is, it seems to presuppose non-narrativist play.

In narrativist play the win-conditions, as I said above, are production during the course of play of a thematically compelling story. The players, in narrative play, act in accordance with this win condition. Therefore they will, if they think it produces a more compelling story, agree to the sorts of passage of time that I've mentioned. They will then impute to their PCs the requisite motivations to have this make sense in the gameworld, and the GM will narrate those elements of the gameworld under her/his control so as to be accomodating of those motivations (ie metagame priorities will drive the ingame situation - this is the essence of narrativist play).



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If the handling of Healing Surges is a problem for the entire group, why wouldn't the group agree that these "rest periods" are a necessary part to create a believable role-playing experience.



Exactly. _Everyone agrees_ has nothing to do with GM dictation.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There are many aspects in a role-playing world that are not described in the rules. Character motivations. Rules for falling in love, or feelings like hatred, annoyance, compassion. And yet, player characters can act on such emotions. (Heck, there isn't even a rule for what is a "creepy" old house). Why shouldn't they also act on the idea that there characters have injured that, while they managed to overcome them in face of adversity, they need and desire to heal?



I agree. It is this very thought that is underlying the suggestion that everyone might agree to let a degree of time pass between episodes, so as to maintain some desired degree of verisimilitude in the narrative.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> I have become more interested in the decoupling (love TSOY for that very reason) but if you like the coupling then 4E more narrative mechanics is a step backward.



I agree that if you like a coupling between hp and injury at every point then 4e won't work - warlord healing will make little sense, for example.

And as RC's posts show, it's worse than that: 4e makes it possible to narrate a given episode of hp loss as an injury, and then to narrate the healing of that very loss as merely moral/spiritual/mental recovery (eg via warlord healing or second wind). So a given quantity of hp changes it's ingame meaning between being suffered and being healed. Even if one is prepared to allow that some hp loss is sometimes non-physical, _this possibility_ might be too much to come at, as it allows a given bundle of hp to cross the categories in a non-simulationist fashion.

That's why I think simulationists probably shouldn't play 4e. But I don't think it means that 4e has to lead to retconning or stupid narration (putting to one side the gonzo issue, which is quite properly a matter of taste).



apoptosis said:


> I am becoming a fan of either true decoupling (past what 4E does) or more of wound system where damage results in true wounds (either specific or details generated by narrative).



I have done a hell of a lot of your second option, playing Rolemaster. I think HARP and TRoS show that this sort of approach can be coupled with overall narrativist play. But I find the 4e approach intriguing because of its narrative flexibility.

By "true decoupling" I assume you mean a system where all conflict is resolved via the ablation of "hit points"/"action points" (choose whatever terminology you like), and thus physical combat isn't handled in a mechanically different fashion from other conflict. HeroWars would be like this; 4e is not, because of the great difference between combat and skill challenges.

Assuming I'm interpreting you correctly, what I like about the 4e approach - the refusal to fully decouple - is that it gives combat a special status in conflict resolution (like superhero comics do, for example) which itself can serve a particular thematic/aesthetic purpose. In this respect it resembles Rolemaster or HARP, which treat combat in a mechanically very different fashion from other situations of skill use. For some reason (psychopathology? slightly infantile taste? too many John Woo movies? too many X-Men comics?) I find this aesthetically appealing.

EDIT: The 4e "refusal to fully decouple" does make it a little hard to carry over the consequences of conflict resolved via combat into a skill challenge, and vice versa (interestingly, RM allows at least the first direction of carry over, because crits can give a bonus on next roll, and next roll need not be an attack). Inspired by some of the actual play examples Lost Soul has been posting, I think that the way to do this is to apply +2 or -2 circumstance modifiers as the carryover.


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 18, 2008)

ahem. Could someone summarize or point me to the place in the thread where it was made clear how the 3.x HP was anything but a gamist construct? It seems that it is argued to be a simulationist concept, which has me kind of confused.

I don't want to restart an argument, just want a summary of the arguments, as i find it interesting. Just not interesting enough to wade through 20 pages of the thread.

much abliged


----------



## Fenes (Sep 18, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> ahem. Could someone summarize or point me to the place in the thread where it was made clear how the 3.x HP was anything but a gamist construct? It seems that it is argued to be a simulationist concept, which has me kind of confused.
> 
> I don't want to restart an argument, just want a summary of the arguments, as i find it interesting. Just not interesting enough to wade through 20 pages of the thread.
> 
> much abliged




It wasn't made clear. What was made clear is that for some players who like a more simulationist game, hitpoints without healing surges are kind of more acceptable than healing surges.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> ahem. Could someone summarize or point me to the place in the thread where it was made clear how the 3.x HP was anything but a gamist construct? It seems that it is argued to be a simulationist concept, which has me kind of confused.
> 
> I don't want to restart an argument, just want a summary of the arguments, as i find it interesting. Just not interesting enough to wade through 20 pages of the thread.
> 
> much abliged




Hit points like they are in 3E are a gamist mechanic, yes, but for a "simulation"/"immersion" perspective, you have the benefit that every time you take damage, you can decide what it represents in the game-world. If a 80 hp character is hit for 75 points of damage, you can describe that as a slashing wound. You don't take any penalties for it (which would make the situation more believable), but you can always stick with this description.
If the character is then hit for 10 more points of damage (bringing him to -5), you can describe this as a stab wound with strong bleeding. The only way for the character to overcome this wound is 
1) stabilizing (representing the bleeding to stop) and slowly healing over the next day or days. 
2) magical healing removing the wound.

The Healing Surge mechanic allows you to "overcome" any wounds you have described, but there is a little more going on then that: 
1) You can be fully unimpeded by wounds you might have narrated previously. Inspiring Words or Second Wind doesn't close your wounds. While 3E might not give penalties, the wounds still impede your activity since you must avoid taking more hits.
You may still describe your character as covered in bandages after the encounter, but you could go on fighting for another 6 weeks if you wanted.

2) If you drop below 0, there is a realistic chance of dying per RAW. This invites us to describe the wound taken as something like in 3E - heavy arterial bleeding or something like that. But if you take a second wind or the Warlord inspires you to stand up, you're back in the game at regular capacity. This means that either you magically regenerated, or that the wound wasn't as bad as it seemed. But this means that you are unable to create descriptions for hits that are definite. You must stay vague, providing description that can be interpreted either way, since what "really" happened is only decided once you spend a healing surge or die.

Is this good enough for a summary? I hope I didn't misrepresent any position.
---

I think the mechanic is in either case motivated by gamist concerns, but one mechanic supports a more simulationist approach (look at your character sheet to see how bad things are and base your further decisions on that), while the other a more narrativist approach (allows you to spend a game resource to decide how bad things are). 

---

A side question for RC and Fenes: How do you deal with temporary hit points in 3E? Theoratically, a character dropped to -1 hit points (bleeding) in 3E could be inspired by a Bard to gain a 2(d8+CON) temporary hit points - does this only work because in the end, it is still magic? Or did you never think about this specific case, and object to it, too?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A side question for RC and Fenes: How do you deal with temporary hit points in 3E? Theoratically, a character dropped to -1 hit points (bleeding) in 3E could be inspired by a Bard to gain a 2(d8+CON) temporary hit points - does this only work because in the end, it is still magic? Or did you never think about this specific case, and object to it, too?




I require people to hear a Bard to get inspired by him or her, so unconscious people don't get inspired. All other sources of temporary hit points I can think of right now are of magical origin, so they can temporarily staunch a wound.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I require people to hear a Bard to get inspired by him or her, so unconscious people don't get inspired. All other sources of temporary hit points I can think of right now are of magical origin, so they can temporarily staunch a wound.



Makes sense. (Though aren't there some classes or feats that allow you to stay conscious while below 0 hit points? _Diehard_ and _Frenzied Berseker_? Of course, I will not count the latter in any reasonable discussion on 3E hit points.  )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Hmm... am I misremembering?  The question I remember was "Can an _unwounded_ character use a healing surge?", and I gave an answer to that one.
> 
> -Hyp.




I must have missed that.  What was your answer?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

MerricB said:


> It's a good solution only for those who want what damage means to be absolutely clear... it is an awful mechanic as far as the game goes.




Design so that adrenelin surges are "one per encounter", while keeping the per day limit.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Makes sense. (Though aren't there some classes or feats that allow you to stay conscious while below 0 hit points? _Diehard_ and _Frenzied Berseker_? Of course, I will not count the latter in any reasonable discussion on 3E hit points.  )




Well, in those cases, I'd rule that they are "held together" by sheer act of will (and some help from the gods), but their wounds are neither healing nor closing. They are effectively dieing still, just taking a few seconds longer.
I would also rule that a bard's song couldn't keep them going once the actual reason for staying conscious (frenzy for example) stops working.

As I stated, my problem is not really with the concept of healing surges allowing people to get a second wind, I have issues with the healing being permanent, lasting longer than the fight they are used in, and not temporary. I just don't see adrenalin and sheer willpower being able to keep someone who should be down going all day.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Is this good enough for a summary? I hope I didn't misrepresent any position.




It is an excellent summary.  



> A side question for RC and Fenes: How do you deal with temporary hit points in 3E? Theoratically, a character dropped to -1 hit points (bleeding) in 3E could be inspired by a Bard to gain a 2(d8+CON) temporary hit points - does this only work because in the end, it is still magic? Or did you never think about this specific case, and object to it, too?




It works because it represents exactly what Inspiring Word or Healing Surges are said to represent.  The character gets up with a spurt of adrenelin, but the wound is still there, and when the adrenelin is gone the character collapses again.  Actually, this is exactly what happens to Inigo in The Princess Bride.

It should be noted that, in 3e, you can gain temporary hit points while at full.  This is because these temporary hit points are not "healing".  They are adding capacity, beyond what you can normally do.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is an excellent summary.



I aim to please. 

Was it good enough for cwhs01?


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full.




Originally I ignored it because it seemed like a nonsensical question, like a football coach trying to use one of his timeouts during pre-game warmups. 

There's nothing in the rules explicitly preventing it, of course, but I don't feel obliged to try to make narrative sense out of nonsensical player decisions.

There are four things I can think of that could cause players to lose healing surges when they're at full HP. 


Worsening effects of a disease after an extended rest.
Being affected by a power that reduces healing surges but not hit points.
Taking "environmental damage" during a long-term skill challenge.
Drinking a potion that requires you to spend a healing surge. Potions in the PHB all restore hit points, but there are several that have other effects, such as elemental resistance, in the Adventurer's Vault.
In all cases these represent weakening, exhaustion, or draining that doesn't directly affect combat staying power but does hurt your ability to recover.



Raven Crowking said:


> There are no instances where, given a major wound, those wounds simply vanish.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  REH, in particular, was a careful writer with this sort of thing.  Conversely, there are times when REH specifically has Conan (or other characters) incapacitated by their wounds and forced to rest before being fully healed.




Mulling this over, I may have hit on something here.

Conan doesn't get hamstrung by an assassin with a curved serrated dagger because REH rolls a 96 on the Random Narrative Events table. Nor does REH then think "Aw man! In the next scene I was gonna have Conan fight a running battle on the rooftops with the serpent cultists! What am I gonna do now?"

Conan's wounds are part of the plot, either because they were conceived as part of the outline before REH sat down to write, or because the idea came to him as he was writing and he thought he could work it in. More importantly, if the idea does come to him to injure the Cimmerian, REH can take the time to think about how to work it into the plot without it detracting from your enjoyment of the book Xty years later.

Trying to put lasting wounds into a the universal random conflict resolution system *does* bring up the "what am I gonna do now" problem. I don't know of anybody who makes up even a simple proto-story expecting that at any time it could be interrupted because the character involved had his spleen ripped out by a Kobold Stickpicker.

That's why, if you wanted to put a "lasting wound" system into 4E, I would argue that it should go one level up - the DM should either bestow lasting wounds by plot fiat, or decide to place monsters that could cause them a la the Bugbear Legbreaker. Randomness can still adjudicate whether they happen and how quickly the characters recover, but the DM will - or should - consider the possibility the characters will want to recover more carefully than if it could happen with a low probability at any time.

But as it is, hit points don't model lasting wounds, and I think I've outlined a good reason why not.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 18, 2008)

MerricB said:


> If you *don't* max-out your powers/defences, you're going to be in terrible, terrible trouble.



I think M&M2e is a wonderful toolkit, but it would really benefit from a better explanation of how those tools should be used. 



> The damage system, in my experience, tended to be "you didn't hurt them at all", "you didn't hurt them at all", "they're down" depending on the die rolls. I found it just too swingy.



It can be pretty swingy, especially if the GM isn't consistently doling out Hero Points. The GM is supposed to award Hero Points throughout the adventure. This is the way the system should be used, and I don't think that's made clear anywhere in the base book.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Originally I ignored it because it seemed like a nonsensical question, like a football coach trying to use one of his timeouts during pre-game warmups.




That's sorta what I meant earlier, about why I should have noted it then.  A question that seems nonsensical can, quite often, lead to innovations of thinking.  

If "healing surges" really do represent morale and adrenelin bursts, having an additional boost of morale when you are unhurt isn't a "nonsensical player decision", provided that it is supported by the game rules.



> Mulling this over, I may have hit on something here.
> 
> Conan doesn't get hamstrung by an assassin with a curved serrated dagger because REH rolls a 96 on the Random Narrative Events table. Nor does REH then think "Aw man! In the next scene I was gonna have Conan fight a running battle on the rooftops with the serpent cultists! What am I gonna do now?"
> 
> ...




If you had just read the 1e DMG you could have saved yourself the bother.  I believe that, when Gary describes why hit points provide the best simulation without getting in the way of the game, he has already made your point for you.

REH was actually a quite careful plotter, much maligned by the handling others have given his characters over the years.  If you really want to read something that seems to include "wandering encounters" ala D&D, you should try Edgar Rice Burroughs.

That said, I personally think that the DM should avoid thinking "Aw man! In the next scene I was gonna have the PCs fight a running battle on the rooftops with the serpent cultists! What am I gonna do now?"  The more the DM forces events to follow his encounter order/plot line, the less the players are allowed to actually accomplish.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If "healing surges" really do represent morale and adrenelin bursts, having an additional boost of morale when you are unhurt isn't a "nonsensical player decision", provided that it is supported by the game rules.




You do get a +2 bonus to all your defenses when you use your Second Wind...

Healing surges really _can_ represent morale and adrenalin bursts, but they're not the only way to go.  A Diplomacy or Endurance check might work as well.  Some temp hp on success, and maybe you lose a healing surge and suffer a -2 penalty to attacks for the next encounter on a failure.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If "healing surges" really do represent morale and adrenelin bursts, having an additional boost of morale when you are unhurt isn't a "nonsensical player decision", provided that it is supported by the game rules.RC



I see them as more a way to keep fighting through the pain of injury. Thus the presence of pain is a necessary precondition. Also, even adrenaline surges require a trigger. The pre-heat of battle isn't usually a good substitute for the heat of battle.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That said, I personally think that the DM should avoid thinking "Aw man! In the next scene I was gonna have the PCs fight a running battle on the rooftops with the serpent cultists! What am I gonna do now?"  The more the DM forces events to follow his encounter order/plot line, the less the players are allowed to actually accomplish.



But there is also the player perspective.
"Huh, I had this 2 page background for my character, and now he died due to some random Kobold encounter! I so hoped for exploring what happened to my mentor!"
"Okay, we would prefer to find the Treasure Vault of King Leorna, but since Bobs Fighter has just contracted Mummy Rot, we need to find a healer first that casts Remove Disease on him. If Jack would have played a Cleric, we wouldn't have this problem!"
"We have only 2 days to stop the ritual! But Bob took a critical hit and we can't go on without him. We have to rest another day!"

It's not only about DM rail-roading the party into a specific plot. It is about avoiding anything but the players (which include the DM) decide their pacing and the directions they want to go. Yes, there should be penalties for failures (and a sense of "failure"), but they need a certain DM and/or player control.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> It can be pretty swingy, especially if the GM isn't consistently doling out Hero Points. The GM is supposed to award Hero Points throughout the adventure. This is the way the system should be used, and I don't think that's made clear anywhere in the base book.



pp. 122-124.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 18, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> pp. 122-124.



Thanks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I see them as more a way to keep fighting through the pain of injury.





But that also presuposes injury, which is where the Schrödinger's Wounding problem comes in.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> But that also presuposes injury, which is where the Schrödinger's Wounding problem comes in.



But I think that whole Schrödinger's Wounding thing is nonsense, RC. I don't accept that 4e necessitates narrating damage in that fashion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But there is also the player perspective.
> "Huh, I had this 2 page background for my character, and now he died due to some random Kobold encounter! I so hoped for exploring what happened to my mentor!"




Tough.  You fought some kobolds and you died.



> "Okay, we would prefer to find the Treasure Vault of King Leorna, but since Bobs Fighter has just contracted Mummy Rot, we need to find a healer first that casts Remove Disease on him. If Jack would have played a Cleric, we wouldn't have this problem!"




Tough.  You fought a mummy, and there were consequences.



> "We have only 2 days to stop the ritual! But Bob took a critical hit and we can't go on without him. We have to rest another day!"




Tough.  You either go on without Bob, or drag his critical-hitted person along with you, or you don't stop the ritual.



> It's not only about DM rail-roading the party into a specific plot. It is about avoiding anything but the players (which include the DM) decide their pacing and the directions they want to go. Yes, there should be penalties for failures (and a sense of "failure"), but they need a certain DM and/or player control.




Sorry, but this is exactly what I mean about real accomplishment.  You describe player goals, and then things that can derail those goals.  Well, things that can derail those goals are part of the game.  It is only when one of two things occurs that there is a problem:

1.  The DM sets up a scenario wherein if the PCs do not do X, Y will happen....and she can't accept Y happening.  Solution:  If you can't accept Y happening, don't set it up as a consequence of failure.

2.  You are playing Candyland and calling it D&D.


IMHO, of course.  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2008)

> Tough. You either go on without Bob, or drag his critical-hitted person along with you, or you don't stop the ritual.




So, you support the idea that the mechanics of the game should encourage players to become spectators?

Sorry, but, watching D&D can be fun and all, but, sitting on my butt for three hours doing nothing while the rest of the group plays sucks.  And, sure, I could run the NPC, if there was one, or I could run the monsters, whatever, but, at the end of the day, I came to play my character.

If stripping away a smidgeon of simulation, which was the thinnest veneer anyway, allows the players to play all the time (or at least the vast majority of time) then I say strip away.  Full Monty.



> 1. The DM sets up a scenario wherein if the PCs do not do X, Y will happen....and she can't accept Y happening. Solution: If you can't accept Y happening, don't set it up as a consequence of failure.
> 
> 2. You are playing Candyland and calling it D&D.




Yes, because any deviation from your chosen playstyle is wrongbadfun and must be stamped out.  

Holy crap, talk about unbelievably arrogant.  These are the ONLY two choices?  There is no middle ground?  Either suck it up or you're playing wrong?  Gimme a break.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That's sorta what I meant earlier, about why I should have noted it then.  A question that seems nonsensical can, quite often, lead to innovations of thinking.
> 
> If "healing surges" really do represent morale and adrenelin bursts, having an additional boost of morale when you are unhurt isn't a "nonsensical player decision", provided that it is supported by the game rules.




Healing surges are how much recovery capacity you have. You can strain it or have it drained from you by things that aren't strictly injury, or have it tapped into in combat more than during just your one moment of clarity when others use a divine spark or a trained insight to get it out of you. 

Action points and magic item dailies model your capacity to overcharge your gear or do "extra" things. They're orthogonal to hit points - even if you're still banged up, you could still get a burst of adrenaline and do something extra, but if you don't try to recover you'll be just as worse off after it passes.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 18, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> That's why, if you wanted to put a "lasting wound" system into 4E, I would argue that it should go one level up - the DM should either bestow lasting wounds by plot fiat, or decide to place monsters that could cause them a la the Bugbear Legbreaker. Randomness can still adjudicate whether they happen and how quickly the characters recover, but the DM will - or should - consider the possibility the characters will want to recover more carefully than if it could happen with a low probability at any time.
> .




Some games do this to an extent. I know i bring up TSOY a lot but that is one advantage to stake setting. 

The stake could be...(DM) crazy bugbear breaks your leg vs (Player) you knock crazy bugbear out.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 18, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, you support the idea that the mechanics of the game should encourage players to become spectators?
> 
> Sorry, but, watching D&D can be fun and all, but, sitting on my butt for three hours doing nothing while the rest of the group plays sucks.  And, sure, I could run the NPC, if there was one, or I could run the monsters, whatever, but, at the end of the day, I came to play my character.
> 
> ...





I have always been at war with these two competing ideologies in the game:

1. You want to feel like your actions/decisions are meaningful - if no matter what all characters make it to the evil ritual to stop it regardless of past failures and situations then the idea that the choices i made are meaningful seems an illusion

2. Having players not play the game due to Bob being decapitated on the way to to the ritual...

I used pretty extreme positions for these but in essence these have alwasy been at odd with me as to which one should occur. It tends to switch depending on the game and current mood. This is of course completely connected to simulationist/gamist/narrativist approaches


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I must have missed that.  What was your answer?




An unwounded character can use a healing surge, as long as he is an unwounded character below his maximum hit point total.  If he is an unwounded character who is also at maximum hit points, on the other hand, the healing surge will be of no benefit, since the function of a healing surge is not to heal wounds; it is to restore hit points.

If the restoration of hit points includes a narration of wounds healing, well and good.  If it does not, also fine.



Hussar said:


> Holy crap, talk about unbelievably arrogant.  These are the ONLY two choices?  There is no middle ground?  Either suck it up or you're playing wrong?  Gimme a break.




Er, read it again.  He said "If one of these two things is happening, there is a problem", not "These are the only two things that can happen".

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> I have always been at war with these two competing ideologies in the game:
> 
> 1. You want to feel like your actions/decisions are meaningful - if no matter what all characters make it to the evil ritual to stop it regardless of past failures and situations then the idea that the choices i made are meaningful seems an illusion
> 
> ...




Thanks; I wouldn't have seen those comments if you hadn't quoted them.  

I support the idea that, if there are no meaningful consequences in the game, you might as well be sitting out.  Of the choices between (1) and (2), above, (2) is far more preferable, even if it means scheduling an irregular game without Bob so that he can be back in full swing on the next regular game.  It might even be possible for Bob to play a one-shot NPC or retainer for that play session.

It may be no fun to miss that irregular session, and it may be less fun to play a one-shot NPC than playing your beloved character, but doing it any other way results in a game that is so much less satisfying that, as a player, I wouldn't want to play.  Simply put, if my actions don't determine the consequences of game events, there is no point in deciding what to do at all.

I have no interest in playing Candyland.

I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.

Now, I realize that there are a lot of folks who never had the opportunity to play D&D as it was intended to be played by its creators, Lo these many years ago.  And, not having had the experience, I guess that can sound like crazy talk to you.  

How can a game where you don't always get what you want be better than a game where you do?  

The answer is, simply, that success is sweeter when you know failure is a real option.  And both success or failure (not just to stop the ritual, but also to be there to try to stop the ritual) are both far more meaningful -- and satisfying -- when you know that they are the direct result of your choices, interaction with a game world that doesn't change just to meet some predetermined outcome, and the luck of the dice.

*I realize that this style of play isn't for everyone*, but, well run, it is surprising how many people enjoy it.  Again, my nine-year-old daughter seems able, not only to grasp that death means death, but to grasp _why_ death means death makes the game better.  Or any other consequence that might occur.  Most adults I have met seem able to grasp the same with little or no difficulty.  Heck, we certainly had no difficulty with the concepts when I was a teenager.

Indeed, understanding that you can and will have to deal with the consequences that arise in game play tends, IME, to make better players.  It also tends to make players who find themselves better able to avoid sitting out due to bad decisions.  "Bad decision + get what you want anyway" tends to reinforce bad decision making, in the game or out.  It is very easy to make bad decisions.  Making good decisions requires effort.  Only a paradigm where it is necessary to make good decisions to get what you want promotes good decision making.

IMHO, it was this attitude toward gaming, more than anything, that made D&D a success.  I would argue that the strength of the D&D brand is built, more than anything, on the echoes of that approach, coming down to us from OD&D on, that keep the game on top.  The game is never advertised as one in which, if you fail, the DM artificial props you up.  It is adverted as a game in which your decisions _matter_.

Again, I know that this isn't for everyone.  2nd Ed specifically tried to promote that "artificial propping" playstyle beause there are some people who wanted it that way.  Making good decisions is ultimately _hard_.  Dealing with the results of bad decisions isn't _fun_.  Figuring out how to swing the action to account for unintended consequences isn't easy for a lazy DM.

3rd intentionally emulated 1e to save the hobby from where 2nd Ed had left it.  Don't think so?  Go back and read the Dragon articles, look at the designers' statements, and then flip through a copy of the 3e DMG while flipping through the 1e DMG.  Does that dungeon look familiar?  Some of those pictures?  That play example?  "Back to the dungeon" was specifically a call back to play where the players made choices, and the dice fell where they would.  And it did very, very well.

But they didn't kill the 2nd Ed "scaled world" meme, and it is back with a vengeance.  

When I look at the 3e books, I see them as an intentional analogue to 1e.  When I look at the 4e books, I see an unintentional analogue to 2e.  Even some of the modules contain the same contrivances, where opponents act in illogical ways in order to protect the PCs and maintain the story.

Anyway, I wouldn't have ranted so long if the question hadn't been asked.  

Do I support the idea that the mechanics of the game should encourage players to become spectators?

No, but I support the idea that, should the actions of the players cause them to become spectators, then that is what happens.  I absolutely support the idea that the mechanics should allow for that possibility, and that the possibility should be transparent enough that the players know it.  When their characters win, it should have meaning.  When they lose, it should have meaning.  Satisfying is more important than fun.

I have been pretty clear that I don't feel that "any deviation from [my] chosen playstyle is wrongbadfun and must be stamped out."  

But I do have a strong sense, having played with a great many people since Christmas 1979, in several US states and in two countries, having had players look me up years later to tell me how much fun they had, having been paid to run games, and having heard about how players described my games from third parties (who did not know that they were speaking to the DM in question), I have a pretty strong feeling that I understand what will make a satsifying game to the average gamer.

That doesn't mean that it's for everyone, or that you never end up unhappy about dealing with the consequences of your actions.  That doesn't mean that it's always great fun.

But it does mean that (for the average person) it's always satisfying, and that its never Candyland.  

But then, I don't describe myself as a "lazy DM", and I've never been in a position where I might be laughed off the table for setting the parameters of a campaign world.  Quite the opposite, actually.  So maybe what I prefer wouldn't work for everyone, even if they would find it satisfying.  I suppose that can make one a bit arrogant as the years roll by.  


RC


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I aim to please.
> 
> Was it good enough for cwhs01?




Pretty much

But even with the explanation, i don't really get why people accept HP without healing surges and don't accept HP with healing surges.

i get it that the 3.x hp model, you can describe wounds as they are being dealt (5 HP is a shallow wound to a 100 HP fighter, a deep stab in the gut for a low con wizard etc.). But if the aim is realism/believability, why then ignore any game mechanical penalties? If the wound is lifethreatening, shouldn't it incur penalties beyond the PC expressing a wish to have his character flee from combat? even a wound that wasn't lifethreatening could reasonably be expected to affect the character. 

IMO HP are problematic unless you accept it as a gamist construct, and narate HP loss as minor cuts and bruises until the final HP loss that kills the character. And IMO its a small step from accepting that PC's don't ever get severely wounded until they get killed, and to accepting that they have gods watching over them/luck/willpower/moxie enogh to soldier on despite being heavily wounded. Which could happen if a 4e character getting up after being hit into the negatives and rolling a 20 on the death save. This, coupled with acceptance that we aren't attempting to model anything but DnD fantasy, should be enough to accept any HP model of any edition. IMO etc


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> . . . I have no interest in playing Candyland. . .




Then you probably won't ever be qualified to be President. I guess it depends on what your opinion towards _Chutes & Ladders_ is?


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have no interest in playing Candyland.
> 
> I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.




I don't think that all the talk of "fun" means "sacrificing satisfaction" as you describe it - or good "Gamist" play as I would call it.



Raven Crowking said:


> The answer is, simply, that success is sweeter when you know failure is a real option.  And both success or failure (not just to stop the ritual, but also to be there to try to stop the ritual) are both far more meaningful -- and satisfying -- when you know that they are the direct result of your choices, interaction with a game world that doesn't change just to meet some predetermined outcome, and the luck of the dice.




That's a good summary of "Gamist" play.



Raven Crowking said:


> When I look at the 3e books, I see them as an intentional analogue to 1e.  When I look at the 4e books, I see an unintentional analogue to 2e.  Even some of the modules contain the same contrivances, where opponents act in illogical ways in order to protect the PCs and maintain the story.




Here's where I disagree.  I think that 4e is geared to provide gamist "fun" (or satisfaction).  I don't think it provides the same techniques for Exploration (what people have called "making sense") though, and it doesn't make Exploration the main priority.  I think that's why it fails to support Simulationist play.

What elements of the 4e modules are you talking about, by the way?


----------



## Delta (Sep 18, 2008)

(Re: RC's last post) And there was much rejoicing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> Pretty much
> 
> But even with the explanation, i don't really get why people accept HP without healing surges and don't accept HP with healing surges.
> 
> ...



It is not a matter of achieving perfection with the system. It is just a point where things go too far for some. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Tough.  You fought some kobolds and you died.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I expected such a counter-point, but I didn't feel a way to better express myself.

I agree that there must be consequences. I am not playing Candyland.
I agree that if I don't want a certain consequence, I shouldn't even allow it. But why should this mean I can't use, say a Mummy? Why do the mechanics have to get in the way of what I want? 

A problem of accepting any consequence defined by the rules is that you often end up in such situations that aren't "believable" or at least feel strange.
For example, using raise-dead to recover dead team members. It cheapens death, and creates a bizarre world - I think the world is stranger then having a few Inigo Montoya moments.
Or some random stranger arrives just close to the very dungeon where you just have lost a friend, and he is so trustworthy and willing to help you that he will become part of your party and goes on monster and treasure hunting. 

Yes, this is all because we didn't want some consequences to happen. Maybe that makes it a "candyland" world, but it is the only way the game can actually work - you don't want to roll up new characters every time another PC dies, and you certainly don't want to go through all the hoops again to introduce that PC in the campaign and the party. 

The consequence of failure in combat can be imprisoment, retreat, or just having three characters out of five rolling their death save and barely survive. The tension of facing death is there. This doesn't feel like a win. *
If I later want to say that, after enduring such hardship, the characters want to rest instead of immediately stumbling to the next adventure, then this is a consequence the player decided, not one the rules forced on them. 

*) And it's not really as if the tension would be more meaningful if characters _really_ die. You can still roll up a new character at any time. You are not out of the game forever, especially since there is no rule saying: "If a players character dies, he _has_ to sit at the side-lines and watch so he can reflect about his failures and how he can learn from the consequences." That's just something that happens because it takes too long till we find a "believable" entry point for the new PC, or until we "role-played" us to the position where we can raise the dead character.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 19, 2008)

Quick note: I've killed three PCs so far in 15 sessions of D&D 4e play. All died due to HP loss, and they all had healing surges left.

I completely reject any notion that 4e isn't a deadly system if you run the encounters right. Consequences? The system has them. (Just check the disease rules, and the potential of killing someone when trying to cure them!). 

The design that healing surges mean that a party can continue for longer _without_ a cleric is something that has been embraced by my players and myself.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2008)

RC said:
			
		

> But I do have a strong sense, having played with a great many people since Christmas 1979, in several US states and in two countries, having had players look me up years later to tell me how much fun they had, having been paid to run games, and having heard about how players described my games from third parties (who did not know that they were speaking to the DM in question), I have a pretty strong feeling that I understand what will make a satsifying game to the average gamer.




I find the above quote very funny, considering that many people in this thread have exactly as much or even more experience DMing as you do, with equally, if not more people in more places than you do, yet, you claim to know what is satisfying to the average gamer implying that others don't.

And, please, don't drag in other conversations that are completely off topic.  I know how hard it is to argue against an idea and not the person, but, ad hominem attacks are really beneath you aren't they?

See, you simply say, "Tough noogies" and move on.  I disagree with that point.  Not because I never kill PC's or because I'm playing in Candyland, but because I realize that forcing all sorts of very strange elements into the game, as Mustrum_Ridcully rightly points out - ressurection, "Oh, you look a trustworthy sort" style introductions of new PC's - is not a very good answer.

The funny thing is, you've quoted EGG twice now with:



> If you had just read the 1e DMG you could have saved yourself the bother. I believe that, when Gary describes why hit points provide the best simulation *without getting in the way of the game,* he has already made your point for you.((Bold mine))




EGG himself places gameplay ahead of simulation.  The primary concern is play at the table over simulation.  If it's good enough for someone who "had the opportunity to play D&D as it was intended to be played by its creators", why is it not good enough for you?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I expected such a counter-point, but I didn't feel a way to better express myself.




Happens to me all the time.



> I agree that there must be consequences. I am not playing Candyland.
> I agree that if I don't want a certain consequence, I shouldn't even allow it. But why should this mean I can't use, say a Mummy? Why do the mechanics have to get in the way of what I want?




If by "mummy" you mean "creature that causes mummy rot", you've got a problem.  But, if you don't want to accept mummy rot as a consequence, you shouldn't include mummies _that cause mummy rot_.  The game is malleable; you can set up the challenges you want.

(Under the OGL, this was more true for 3rd party products than it is under the GSL as we have it.  I guess you could just publish an adventure using "koboldics" instead of "kobolds" when you want to change stats.....?)



> A problem of accepting any consequence defined by the rules is that you often end up in such situations that aren't "believable" or at least feel strange.
> 
> For example, using raise-dead to recover dead team members. It cheapens death, and creates a bizarre world - I think the world is stranger then having a few Inigo Montoya moments.




Agreed.  If you allow the rules to dictate the world, you can have some extremely bizarre things happen.  However, if the world dictates the rules, this doesn't have to be so.  If you don't want the consequence of dead people being raised, excise it from the game.

I could keep responding, but I don't really think we have any real disagreement here.



MerricB said:


> Quick note: I've killed three PCs so far in 15 sessions of D&D 4e play. All died due to HP loss, and they all had healing surges left.
> 
> I completely reject any notion that 4e isn't a deadly system if you run the encounters right. Consequences? The system has them. (Just check the disease rules, and the potential of killing someone when trying to cure them!).





Cool.  I killed quite a few PCs (and had quite a few of my own die as well) in 2e, despite the fact that TSR was invested in the "prop 'em up" meme at the time.  What is going on with the game designers isn't necessarily what's going on at your table.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> What elements of the 4e modules are you talking about, by the way?




This is something to discuss over pints at the pub, if you really can't find any examples of "these monsters never aid those monsters, no matter what."


RC


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 19, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough (although remember I'm talking about 4E as a whole here rather than just the hp mechanic). Rephrase the last sentence to:

That does not jive with a lot of people who prefer "that kinda sucks" gameplay-wise over "that doesn't make sense".

An example of such a player/DM would be Celtavian on "that" thread who argued why he thought many of the features of 4e felt artificial to him.

For myself, I'm really enjoying our 4E campaign but there are a few purely gamist elements of 4E that give it a different feel to previous campaigns our group has played. While these elements bother my "that does not make sense" reflex, I can appreciate why Mike Mearls and others have taken the game in the direction they have.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Calithena (Sep 19, 2008)

In retrospect, I think this may be a false dichotomy for RPGs. Certainly a hard topic though. I think I'm a 'flavor first' person through and through, but it all depends on some difficult issues. Another thread for me I think.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The Healing Surge mechanic allows you to "overcome" any wounds you have described, but there is a little more going on then that:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



You did leave out various options that simulationist players would probably reject, from Intigo Montoya - _despite_ my otherwise mortal wound, I get up and continue the fight - to Aragon in the Two Towers movie - a dream of my destiny wakes me from my swoon - to all other sorts of possible narration - eg the Warlord's Inspiring Words attract the attention of Kord, who staunches my bleeding and raises me to my feet.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I support the idea that, if there are no meaningful consequences in the game, you might as well be sitting out.



I think most players agree. But not all players agree that meaningful consequences for them are utterly coextensive with meaningful consequences for their PCs.



Raven Crowking said:


> Tough.  You fought some kobolds and you died.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Normally it would be the PC who died, or fought the mummy. But it is the player who suffers consequences (eg having to sit out of the game) and who presumably is aiming at accomplishments. It is possible to have consequences and accomplishments for the player without those real-world consequences and accomplishments corresponding to any particular fictional consequences or accomplishments that accrue to a PC in the gameworld.



Raven Crowking said:


> I have no interest in playing Candyland.
> 
> I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.
> 
> ...



I buck up a little in response to the suggestion that those who prefer narrativist to 1st-ed style play are playing Candyland and can't make hard decisions. The point of metagame mechanics isn't to "prop up" those who can't cope with a certain sort of gamist play. It's to provide the mechanical tools to achieve a different goal of play.

There's also something else a bit bizarre going on here. I'm prepared to accept that there is a fairly evident sense in which the typical firefighter is tougher than the typical playwright. But I can't really take seriously a rhetorical tone that suggests that a person who wants to play 1st-ed style AD&D is more courageous, in some admirable or virtuous sense, than is a person who wants to play an RPG with narrativist goals in mind.



Raven Crowking said:


> my nine-year-old daughter seems able, not only to grasp that death means death, but to grasp _why_ death means death makes the game better.



My daughter is more comfortable eating with cutlery than with chopsticks. I'm not sure that anything very definite can be inferred from the fact that a child shares the tastes and/or habits of her parent.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Simply put, if my actions don't determine the consequences of game events, there is no point in deciding what to do at all.




Bob is playing a fighter.

Bob's fighter is charged by an orc with a greataxe.

The orc rolls a natural 20, critting Bob for 51 damage.

Bob fails his Fort save.

If you like, replace "orc with a greataxe" with any one of the many spells from the 3E compendium that may as well read "save or die", from _color spray_ on up. 

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, my nine-year-old daughter seems able, not only to grasp that death means death, but to grasp _why_ death means death makes the game better.



Much of this post was very condescending. What's the point of the above comment? That *even a child *can see your preferred playstyle is better? Where does that leave those who disagree with you?

Children believe a lot of things to be true that simply aren't. At that age they also often need to see the world in terms of right or wrong, good or bad. Shades of grey are more difficult to comprehend. As in, some people might prefer it one way, but it doesn't mean that way "makes the game better." Different strokes for different folks, as they say.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.



I don't understand this at all. I believe most people who play games find fun to be satisfying.

Or is this a "D&D...serious business" type of deal?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2008)

Glazius - I would point out that your post has been repeated many, many times in many many threads, and it will never, ever get a satisfactory answer.  You are apparently at fault for getting anywhere near combat at all, despite the game focusing on combat.  It's a strange sort of conceptualization.

In an attempt to wrench this topic away from this sidebar, I pose the following question to all and sundry:

Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e?  If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e.  2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e.  Yet, 3e is far and away more popular.  What accounts for this success?

To my mind, it's because 3e actually took a look at what was happening at the table and designed to that.  3e was routinely criticised as being flavourless - all crunch, no fluff and so on and so forth.  But, the reason for this was because the designers were trying to build a game that works at as many tables as possible.

Another big criticism of 3e was the disempowerment of DM's.  The rules do take away a great deal of power from DM's compared to earlier editions. But, they don't give that power to the players.  The rules keep the power for themselves.  Why would the designers do that?  Because having transparent baseline mechanics that everyone knows makes for better play at the table.  Less chance of "Oh, no, you cannot possibly swim in armor, you drown" moments.

And yes, I do think that makes for a better game.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 19, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e?



I think most groups were ready for the change. 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e. 2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e. Yet, 3e is far and away more popular. What accounts for this success?



There is a difference here between flavour of the supplement variety, and mechanics that perhaps more accurately represent the flavour they are trying to. I think 3E was more successful at the latter than 2E - YMMV and vice versa with the former. Getting away from Thac0's and tables was a step in the right direction.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Another big criticism of 3e was the disempowerment of DM's. The rules do take away a great deal of power from DM's compared to earlier editions. But, they don't give that power to the players. The rules keep the power for themselves. Why would the designers do that?



I disagree to a degree. I think power was taken by players who soaked up the rules. This meant that the "rules-power" as it were was held by the DM mainly but also with certain players as well. There was a sense by those players that a sucky DM's call wasn't going to ruin their gaming day (as could sometimes happen in 2E). However, in some groups with players that did not wish to study their PHB in between sessions, I think you could get a certain disenfranchisement for those players. They were now outsiders, at the mercy of those who knew what was going on.

4E has looked to include these players by focusing on exceptions based design. As long as you have an idea on the basics, everything you really need to know is on your character sheet/power cards. All players can now focus on the adventure at hand rather than fixating on the rules or how things work. In this regard, while it has sacrificed a lot of simulation, it has cleaned things up for groups that may have had issues in this regard with 3E.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In an attempt to wrench this topic away from this sidebar, I pose the following question to all and sundry:
> 
> Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e?  If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e.  2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e.  Yet, 3e is far and away more popular.  What accounts for this success?



I think because 3E is a more coherent game than 2nd ed AD&D.

When I read 2nd ed material, it's full of remarks like "Don't let the rules trump the fun." This implies that the rules, as written, aren't apt to produce fun of the sort the game is aiming at. Which is to imply that they are bad rules.

2nd ed material also has a strong tendency towards railroading by the GM. This is linked to the point above - the rules aren't apt to produce the intended result in play, and instead of new rules that allow the players to make choices that will deliver that result, the GM is encouraged to impose it, despite the rules, in a unilateral fashion.

I think 3E was a success mostly because its rules (i) were more apt to produce what was wanted in play (eg clearer encounter-buidling guidelines, more access to healing etc) and (ii) transferred power from the GM to the players (eg much more intricate character-building rules, which in turn provided input into mouch more intricate and robust action-resolution mechanics).

To the extent that 2nd ed supported a playstyle, it seemed to be a type of high-concept simulationism (the GM fiating and railroading to ensure the delivery of an appropriate high fantasy adventure) with mechanics that pushed in quite a different direction (and therefore had to be frequently ignored).

To the extent that 3rd ed supports a playstyle, it seems to be a curious hybrid of purist-for-system simulationism (let the mechanics tell us what the world looks like) and gamism (let's push the mechanics as far as we can go!) - the inherent incompatibility of these two playstyles is expressed in the conflicts we see on messageboards between those who love the flexibility and variety of all the classes, races, feats, spells etc, and those who call themselve optimisters and are often labelled by others as munchkins.


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It is not a matter of achieving perfection with the system. It is just a point where things go too far for some.





I'm pretty convinced by now, that the "perfect game" doesn't excist

What i don't get is that people seem to accept HP either without questioning it, or ignoring any flaws in the mechanics wrt sim play, as long as you don't add healing surges to it. IMO with or without healing surges, the HP mechanics carries with it so many bizarre and suspension of disbelief (tm) shattering conotations, that you just have to accept it as a gamist and narativist device.

I don't get it that "it has gone to far" in 4e. I don't really see a difference in the need to ignore the ingame-reality for the HP mechanics in either edition.

If you get what i'm getting at?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 19, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> I'm pretty convinced by now, that the "perfect game" doesn't excist
> 
> What i don't get is that people seem to accept HP either without questioning it, or ignoring any flaws in the mechanics wrt sim play, as long as you don't add healing surges to it. IMO with or without healing surges, the HP mechanics carries with it so many bizarre and suspension of disbelief (tm) shattering conotations, that you just have to accept it as a gamist and narativist device.
> 
> ...




I don't want healing surges to permanently heal damage taken, since that just doesn't work well with my playstyle, narrative style and flavor expectations. That's all.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e?  If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e.  2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e.  Yet, 3e is far and away more popular.  What accounts for this success?



Because 2e had become a bloated mess by the time 3e came out.  Same thing happened to 3e by the time 4e came out.  Lather, rinse, repeat for 5e, I'm guessing. 


> To my mind, it's because 3e actually took a look at what was happening at the table and designed to that.  3e was routinely criticised as being flavourless - all crunch, no fluff and so on and so forth.  But, the reason for this was because the designers were trying to build a game that works at as many tables as possible.



And to a certain extent, they did.  However, to make it work you had to play it the way the designers wanted, because it had been made so much harder to tinker with than earlier editions.  It's the same argument I have with a frighteningly large amount of modern technology: it is exceptionally good at doing what *it* wants, but may or may not in fact do what *I* want.  Perfect example: Vista, which I'm in process of trying to force into doing what I want and failing miserably. 

On the other issue here, of whether Bad Things should happen either as consequences for bad actions or bad luck, of course they should.  Any game such as this that is based somewhat on random chance is going to have great highs, but at times will also be extremely cruel to its characters and - by extension - players.  It goes with the territory.

That said, I can't recommend highly enough having henches, cohorts, second characters, etc. in the party to tide you over when one of your characters dies or goes south for a bit.

Lanefan


----------



## MerricB (Sep 19, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> That said, I can't recommend highly enough having henches, cohorts, second characters, etc. in the party to tide you over when one of your characters dies or goes south for a bit.




Absolutely. 

If there's one thing I'm not happy about 4e about, it's the deemphasis on this sort of play.

Cheers!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2008)

Merric and Lanefan, I tend to go the opposite way. That is, I'm not a big fan of henchmen, cohorts etc as substitute PCs, and prefer mechanics and play that can make them unnecessary for that purpose.


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 19, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't want healing surges to permanently heal damage taken, since that just doesn't work well with my playstyle, narrative style and flavor expectations. That's all.





This is probably the best argument i've heard yet


----------



## MerricB (Sep 19, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Merric and Lanefan, I tend to go the opposite way. That is, I'm not a big fan of henchmen, cohorts etc as substitute PCs, and prefer mechanics and play that can make them unnecessary for that purpose.




I prefer to have both options.

Cheers!


----------



## Fenes (Sep 19, 2008)

As far as consequences go, I am in the "death is boring and counter-productive" camp. There's lots more to consequences of failure than death (aka "get raised after a time out" or "you get to change your build now, including name!").


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2008)

Fenes said:


> death (aka "get raised after a time out" or "you get to change your build now, including name!").



I enjoyed this - especially the second alternative rebadging!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> I'm pretty convinced by now, that the "perfect game" doesn't excist



Perfection doesn't exist. Yet we will always strive for it.  

I know that some people on these boards (Raven Crowking and GnomeWorks) for example are considering or trying to come up with "their" perfect system. While trying to do so, it would be wiser to set intermediate goals and identify "priorities" and then continually raise the bar and expand. I suppose at least RC is trying that (in the forked thread "shaking it off", he says he is aiming to facilitate sandbox play). I would set very different priorities and and intermediate goals as him, but that doesn't make his attempt doomed... 



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> As far as consequences go, I am in the "death is boring and counter-productive" camp. There's lots more to consequences of failure than death (aka "get raised after a time out" or "you get to change your build now, including name!").



I agree, and I wish to subscribe to your synonym newsletter.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Bob is playing a fighter.
> 
> Bob's fighter is charged by an orc with a greataxe.
> 
> ...





You know, I have never ran nor played in a game of D&D where a character was charged by an orc with a greataxe without making any decisions that got him to that spot.

Bob should have picked a better DM.



RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You know, I have never ran nor played in a game of D&D where a character was charged by an orc with a greataxe without making any decisions that got him to that spot.
> 
> Bob should have picked a better DM.



Are you getting a little nit-picky here, or do you thing there is no difference between deciding to open a door to see what is making the noise (and if you can't kill it and take their stuff) and between making a tactical decision in combat that leads you to be the receiving ends of your enemies nastier (or just more numerable) attacks?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Are you getting a little nit-picky here, or do you thing there is no difference between deciding to open a door to see what is making the noise (and if you can't kill it and take their stuff) and between making a tactical decision in combat that leads you to be the receiving ends of your enemies nastier (or just more numerable) attacks?




Given

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?​
I have to assume that Bob took no other action.  If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.

Pick one.

If (1), then Bob should suck it up.  If (2) then Bob should have picked a better DM.  Or run the game himself.

Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game.  You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own.  If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again.  As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."

Yes, there can be consequences other than death.  Yes, you can enjoy other playstyles.  But if you go back to the  post, to which I was responding, what you see is some whining about having to sit out due to in-game consequences which, generally speaking (at the very least), are the results of the players' choices.  IOW, "I took a risk, it didn't work out, and now I want my fighter to be able to go stop that ritual with you!  Why should I have to sit out?"  Contingent on that attitude is the idea that, having chosen to take a risk, you shouldn't have to accept the consequences of taking that risk...which you knew or reasonably should have known before taking it.

Exploring old ruins is dangerous.  Hunting orcs is dangerous.  Or at least these things can be dangerous, and players should have reasonable means to access that danger beforehand (rumours, gather information, divination spells, scouting, clues left by the DM).  Crying about it afterwards is simply childish.

And, yes, my nine-year-old daughter understands that consequences make for a better game, and understands why.  This isn't to "prove" that any particular set of consequences is the "bestest" or that there is only one way in which consequences appear.  However, the game where your decisions have no consequences strips your decisions of meaning, and I would say that game would not only be unpalatable, but I question whether it would be a "game" at all.

If you don't want death as a consequence, set up a game where you can't die.  House rule it.  But don't tell your players that they face death, while fudging all the dice behind your screen.  Players have a right, IMHO, to expect that their decisions are meaningful.

Set up the game that is satisfying to you by all means (and satisfying is not co-equal to fun), but once you've set up that game, and once you are playing in it, you really shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your whining about how unfair it is that you don't win at everything, all the time.

If you want to win at everything, all the time, Candyland is designed that way.  You can dress it up however you like, but it's still Candyland.

(And, of course, it should go without saying that if you prefer Candyland, hey, that's cool too.  Whatever your gaming preference happens to be is what it is, and that's okay.  Just don't try to turn my game into your game.)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Given
> 
> The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?​
> I have to assume that Bob took no other action.  If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.
> ...




You seem to assume there are only extremes. There is a room for death in every game. The goal is to avoid sudden, uncontrolled death. And yes, an Orc critting a healthy Bob and dropping is the kind of extreme that I want to avoid. And game mechanics can do that. 

The hit points role in a way is to provide predictability. Bobs player knows that he can open a door with some noise behind it because whatever there is, it can't kill him in the first round. But it might be able to do so in the second round, but he can react and maybe he does the right thing (close the door, run away, or ask Galstaff to cast Wall of Force between him and the opponent)
If he expected it could, he would look for precautions to avoid them. If there are no such precautions, then there is no real challenge - it's just "ignore or face a chance of random death". It might be realistic, but I say it is not good for the game. There is neither character nor player skill involved in such situations, it's just blind luck.

Heck, I remember an experience from Shackled City that went like this. My character was just "_Magic Jar_ed" and stolen, and I got a replacement character (an NPC Deva or something like that). She had just told the PCs what was going on, and we were still in the room of the "body-napping". The Bard decided that he should check out those vases in the room - and triggered a trap that killed two characters, including my temporary replacement. (Save or Die)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You seem to assume there are only extremes.




Not at all.  I was responding to an extreme example, where the only action, apparently, was an orc critting Bob out of the blue.  The action was divorced from any context.  Either there was context that it was divorced from (in which case Bob made choices) or there was not (in which case Bob made no choices, and the DM probably will end up lonely and frustrated  ).

If "an Orc critting a healthy Bob and dropping is the kind of extreme that [you] want to avoid" you shouldn't be using mechanics that provide for that sort of extreme.

However, if you choose to use mechanics that provide for that sort of extreme, it is childish to complain about that sort of extreme occurring.  Not childish to examine, not childish to discuss, not childish to modify more to your liking.  I feel certain you understand the difference.

And, having been on EN World long enough, you should know that there are people out there whose games do not include a room for death.


RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, having been on EN World long enough, you should know that there are people out there whose games do not include a room for death.




4E did something for the "raise dead means we can't really kill anyone" "raise dead means we can just raise the king, and ask who killed him" "without raise dead the game is too lethal" "with it it's too surreal" Debate.
The "Only those with a destiny, aka PCs, can be raised" rule is a neat way to allow PCs to come back from the dead, yet avoids the "why don't you just raise your dead wife" or even "let them kill the hostages, we'll true ress them afterwards" problems.

Thatr's a good example for a mechanic that solves a game problem - safety net for PCs - and avoids flavor trouble (no one can be killed for real!) for the setting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Fenes said:


> 4E did something for the "raise dead means we can't really kill anyone" "raise dead means we can just raise the king, and ask who killed him" "without raise dead the game is too lethal" "with it it's too surreal" Debate.
> The "Only those with a destiny, aka PCs, can be raised" rule is a neat way to allow PCs to come back from the dead, yet avoids the "why don't you just raise your dead wife" or even "let them kill the hostages, we'll true ress them afterwards" problems.
> 
> Thatr's a good example for a mechanic that solves a game problem - safety net for PCs - and avoids flavor trouble (no one can be killed for real!) for the setting.




That's not inconsistent with what I said.  

There are still people out there who simply don't want PC death in their games, period.  They don't want anyone raised.  Or they want PC death to only be possible when the player agrees.  Or a whole host of other things.

This is far different from "I was in a game where I knew there was mummy rot, I knew death and other bad things happen, I fought a mummy and got mummy rot, now I have to get cured instead of going on to the next dungeon like I wanted to, woe is me!"


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not at all.  I was responding to an extreme example, where the only action, apparently, was an orc critting Bob out of the blue.  The action was divorced from any context.  Either there was context that it was divorced from (in which case Bob made choices) or there was not (in which case Bob made no choices, and the DM probably will end up lonely and frustrated  ).
> 
> If "an Orc critting a healthy Bob and dropping is the kind of extreme that [you] want to avoid" you shouldn't be using mechanics that provide for that sort of extreme.



Hence me preferring 4E over 3E, obviously. 

Of course I lost track - how did we end up here?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hence me preferring 4E over 3E, obviously.
> 
> Of course I lost track - how did we end up here?




"All roads lead to Rome."

Or, in this case, "All roads lead to _*play what you prefer, but don't whine about what you're playing*_."


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is something to discuss over pints at the pub, if you really can't find any examples of "these monsters never aid those monsters, no matter what."




I expected there to be the examples of illogical monster behaviour contrived to protect the PCs and further the story, but I didn't find anything on a quick scan through.  (I've played through it - finished last night - but I didn't always follow what the module said.)  Let's go over things closer:

[sblock=Spoilers for KotS]
On the Road: Kobold Brigands: Not really possible here; the monsters are not acting illogically because there's no one else to ask for help.
A1: Kobold Ambush: It might be a little forced, the kobolds always finding the evidence of the PCs and ambushing them; but if you assume the module writers know the movements of the kobolds they will come across evidence of the PC's battle with the brigands.
A2: Kobold Lair, Outside: Here's the first example of some crap.  "The first and second wave do not leave the cave except to pursue fleeing characters."  (Talking about kobolds in the lair coming out to fight.  I had them come out in my game.)  Hey, if the kobolds are winning, Irontooth comes to clean up.  If the kobolds are losing, they shore up their defenses.  Makes sense.  Maybe it's not the best tactical choice for them, but Irontooth only has Int 8.
A3: Kobold Lair, Inside: Irontooth needs 3 rounds to get ready.  Maybe he needs to put on his armour or wake up or something.  If they were warned by A2, he is ready.
A4: Burial Site: All good.
Area 1: Goblin Guard Room: "Once a third goblin falls, the survivor runs to Area 2 or 3 (whichever is closer) for help."
Area 2: Torture Chamber: Doesn't say either way. (It's not explicit that they run for help, but it's not explicit that they don't, either.)
Area 3: Excavation Site: Doesn't say either way.
Area 4: Cheiftan's Lair: Balgron flees and will rally any survivors to ambush the PCs.  Otherwise it doesn't say.
Area 5: Crypt of Shadows: The zombies remain inanimate until a rune is triggered.  They're zombies!
Area 6: Hidden Armoury: -
Area 7: Skeletal Legion: This is a stupid encounter, though it could be fun to fight it out.  The best explanation is that they crumble to dust if they leave the room, Orcus' power drained from them.
Area 8: Sir Keegan's Tomb: -  If I were to play this again, I'd run the Skill Challenge side-by-side the combat encounter.
Area 9: The Maze of Caves:  The dumb thing is that the ooze and rats fight together.  It doesn't say they fight together, but it doesn't explicitly say they fight each other (as it does elsewhere in the module).
Area 10: Kuthrik Lair: It makes sense that these guys would not help anyone out.
Area 11: The Water Cave: Why would he want to leave his home?
Interlude Three: The Dead Attack: It talks about responding to this encounter based on what the PCs do/have done.
Area 12: Doesn't say either way. 
Area 13: "...the creatures wait for 5 minutes and then follow the PCs, attacking the adventurers in the middle of another encounter when they are unprepared to deal with more enemies."
Area 14: "If the alarm sounds, they watch to see if intruders enter the area... then leap forth in ambush."
Area 15: This is where it explicitly says the monsters will eat each other.  Which is kinda stupid I guess, but then, so is a gelatinous cube.  Nothing here has the brains or desire to help other monsters out - it would be stupid if it did.
Area 16: -
Area 17: "The clay scout flees to warn Kalarel of the situation."  "The creatures of this area, if not disposed of, pursue the PCs..."  Huh.  It even talks about how they interact with the traps in Area 16, and how the mindless zombies will ignore the danger but the ghoul will run around them.
Area 18: These guys are holding back the PCs until Kalarel can finish his ritual.  That's either stupid or not depending on how things have turned out.
Area 19: There's no description of what happens when Kalarel finishes the ritual, or what holding the PCs back will mean.  So that's kinda stupid.
[/sblock]

There are a few bad spots, but aside from the Irontooth encounter (and that's not illogical, not any more than Irontooth is) there aren't any examples of "these monsters never aid those monsters, no matter what."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> What elements of the 4e modules are you talking about, by the way?




This is a question that I may be able to answer because a situation (from such a module) came up during our last session. 

Our party was on the way to investigate a bandits camp and we found ourselves near a river. There were light woods and rough terrain all around a clearing next to the river. A short way upstream was a waterfall. We detected some movement through the trees and moved up to ivestigate. 

The clearing, in front of the waterfall was populated with a bunch of bad guys. They heard us moving closer and a battle began. The battle raged for quite awhile before one of the bandits  fled toward the waterfall. My cleric chased him down and managed to finish him off a few feetin front of that waterfall. 

After finishing off my opponent I noticed that I could see clearly through the waterfall to a chamber beyond. There were, of course, more bandits inside able to see me quite as clearly as I saw them. As a matter of fact, the whole clearing and the battle taking place there was quite visible from that vantage point. 

I hurried back to my companions who were mopping up the last bad guys to tell them to hurry up so we could run. I quickly relayed the threat I detected (that had certainly seen us all) and suggested we vacate the area quickly. 

We took a captive and retreated a few miles, made camp, and waited for the pursuit. It didn't come. We rested and interrogated the captive who had little of value to share other than the name of his leader. 

I talked, out of game to the DM after  the session ended and asked what was up with that setup. He said the encounter was structured that way as written. The 2nd group will not aid the first group even if they see them getting butchered right outside  Had the fleeing bandit made it through the waterfall the others would have been "triggered".

.................W   T   F  

Thats a prime example of game world events being dictated (as written) for the sake of game mechanics, in this case the "encounter" format. The consequences of what would (and should) logically happen are suspended in an artificial manner (and VERY visible to the character as well as the player) for the sake of gamist convention. 

Had the other group come out it would have been a TPK most likely if we were not able to outrun them but that would have been preferable to what happened.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> After finishing off my opponent I noticed that I could see clearly through the waterfall to a chamber beyond.




In the module, you cannot see through the waterfall.  (Otherwise Stealth would not be an option in A3.)

If your DM decided to make it transparent, that's cool, but it's not a failing of the module.

edit: It also says that they will pursue fleeing characters.  So they should have chased after you, if the DM was running the encounter as written.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thats a prime example of game world events being dictated (as written) for the sake of game mechanics, in this case the "encounter" format. The consequences of what would (and should) logically happen are suspended in an artificial manner (and VERY visible to the character as well as the player) for the sake of gamist convention.
> 
> Had the other group come out it would have been a TPK most likely if we were not able to outrun them but that would have been preferable to what happened.




I hate the encounter format.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I hate the encounter format.




I dislike the "and we split the enemy up in several groups, so the players can have several battles" way of running adventures.
If the PCs would not defend a keep, dungeon or town like this, then the NPCs shouldn't do it either.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> In the module, you cannot see through the waterfall. (Otherwise Stealth would not be an option in A3.)
> 
> If your DM decided to make it transparent, that's cool, but it's not a failing of the module.
> 
> edit: It also says that they will pursue fleeing characters. So they should have chased after you, if the DM was running the encounter as written.




I can't say with certainty what was written because I have not read it, and since it seems that you have I shall take your word for it.  A perception roll was made to see beyond the water.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Given
> 
> The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?​
> I have to assume that Bob took no other action.  If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.




DM: So what's Bob up to today?
Bob: Heading to Glaverston to find out what the hell this strange rock is I picked up.
DM: Okay, cool.  It's a few days away.  You travel blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.  Around noon on the third day, you come over the crest of a gently sloping hill and spot an orc guarding a bridge.
Bob: How far away is he?
DM: <checks map> About 100 feet.
Bob: I get my axe ready.
DM: Yeah, he's in no mood for tea and small talk; let's roll init.
Bob: 19.
DM: He charges at you, screaming and yelling.  Critical hit!  You take... 42 damage.
Bob: I die.  I guess I should have stayed in bed.

edit: I'm assuming that Bob's part of a party of PCs, and that the DM is using a random encounter (with a map).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> DM: Yeah, he's in no mood for tea and small talk; let's roll init.




Hell, most of the best DMs I know are very fond of starting a game with "Here are two sentences that describe where the PCs are... roll initiative!"

It's hard to go wrong opening a game with a fun combat.  But there is always the possibility for that accidental PC death in round 1, especially in 3E.  The only decision made was for the player to sit down at the table... if the DM is a "Let the dice fall" proponent, it's not really his fault that he rolled a 20 and a 19, followed by near-maxed damage...

-Hyp.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 19, 2008)

> DM: He charges at you, screaming and yelling. Critical hit! You take... 42 damage.
> Bob: I die. I guess I should have stayed in bed.




If that was a one shot-kill, I'd say that the encounter was badly tuned.

This is a problem with 3E, though, with 3x (and even 4x crits), and very large possible bonuses to damage.

On the other hand, this is partly a problem of players not really thinking through the possibilties of an encounter.  If you are facing off with a strong looking dude with a x3 critical damage weapon, you should be afraid, and should be ready to run away.

This brings up yet another problem with 3E (and I don't think that 4E has really fixed it; I don't consider the damage nerf to be a proper fix).  That is, that the encounter format pushes players to engage, and has them rely on the game master to ensure that the encounter is balanced.  There's isn't much in the encounter format where each side sizes each other up, nor are there easy spots to disengage.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Hell, most of the best DMs I know are very fond of starting a game with "Here are two sentences that describe where the PCs are... roll initiative!"
> 
> It's hard to go wrong opening a game with a fun combat.  But there is always the possibility for that accidental PC death in round 1, especially in 3E.  The only decision made was for the player to sit down at the table... if the DM is a "Let the dice fall" proponent, it's not really his fault that he rolled a 20 and a 19, followed by near-maxed damage...
> 
> -Hyp.





If you can't accept PC death as a consequence of starting this way, you shouldn't do it.  Or, conversely, you should ensure that the combat is such that the PCs cannot die.

Or, put it another way:  If you sat down at the table, knowing the DM likes to start campaigns that way, and you know that there is a chance your character will die in that first scene, then you've made your decision when you sat down.  If fate hands you the opportunity to make a new character, whining about it won't help the game, nor is it a particularly mature thing to do.

In LostSoul's account, let's for a moment ignore the idea that a gently sloping hill yields an initial encounter distance of 100 feet.  Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game. You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own. If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again. As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."

If Bob doesn't like the type of game he's playing, he should find (or make) a new one.  If no at the table (DM included) likes the idea that a PC dies under these circumstances, they should find a new game or houserule to prevent that consequence.

That seems pretty bloody obvious to me.


YMMV.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If Bob doesn't like the type of game he's playing, he should find (or make) a new one.  If no at the table (DM included) likes the idea that a PC dies under these circumstances, they should find a new game or houserule to prevent that consequence.




Yeah, I agree.  I don't have a problem when this happens in 3e; it's part of the game, you know it can happen, you deal with it if it does.

The example is just to show that the DM can be a good DM and that Bob doesn't have to make any stupid choices for him to die.

Then again... when I play I usually get the Rogue or Ranger to move 30 feet ahead, Silently and Stealthily (a level of Barbarian helps for fast movement so you don't slow down the party).  In this case he'd have crept up to the crest of the hill and the orc would have to beat his Hide and Move Silently checks.  So maybe there was something Bob could have done.  Huh. 

(I'm imagining the orc encounter is on the random encounter table to show how the orcs in this region of our sandbox are getting more and more blatant in their ability to harass travel; they leave an orc to guard a bridge (maybe there are a few more orcs lounging under the bridge out of the hot sun).)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

tomBitonti said:


> On the other hand, this is partly a problem of players not really thinking through the possibilties of an encounter.  If you are facing off with a strong looking dude with a x3 critical damage weapon, you should be afraid, and should be ready to run away.




Not to mention the bad luck of the whole party losing init, or if they did not, not having reach weapons to gain an AoO or three before the orc closed.  Or not scouting ahead along the road.  Bob:  "Hey, isn't the road to Glaverston usually more heavily travelled than this?  Don't we usually meet people coming from Glaverston that we can get news from?  Something must be happening on the road....better be more cautious!"



> This brings up yet another problem with 3E (and I don't think that 4E has really fixed it; I don't consider the damage nerf to be a proper fix).  That is, that the encounter format pushes players to engage, and has them rely on the game master to ensure that the encounter is balanced.  There's isn't much in the encounter format where each side sizes each other up, nor are there easy spots to disengage.




Very true.  This is something I intend to address in my own all-or-mostly OGC ruleset.

Hot Pursuit is a nice package, though, for running chase scenes in 3e, if that helps.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> In the module, you cannot see through the waterfall.  (Otherwise Stealth would not be an option in A3.)





Is that explicit?  Can you quote?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, I agree.  I don't have a problem when this happens in 3e; it's part of the game, you know it can happen, you deal with it if it does.
> 
> The example is just to show that the DM can be a good DM and that Bob doesn't have to make any stupid choices for him to die.
> 
> ...




Exactly so.

But if you look at the post (Hussar's) I am responding to with my "Maybe you should try Candyland" post, it is, essentially, a bunch of whining about consequences getting in the way of your fun, even though you should have known those were real possibilities when you decided to do whatever they were consequences of.

By all means, play a game that gives you consequences you want.  But don't whine about the game you've chosen to play.  IMHO, if you are whining about the game you've chosen to play, it is appropriate to suggest another game.  


RC


----------



## Fenes (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> By all means, play a game that gives you consequences you want.  But don't whine about the game you've chosen to play.  IMHO, if you are whining about the game you've chosen to play, it is appropriate to suggest another game.




Or just house rule it until it works for you. I don't really get why people complain about something they can easily change - especially with now 4 editions and their sub-editions to mine for ideas and mechanics.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I agree that there must be consequences. I am not playing Candyland.
> I agree that if I don't want a certain consequence, I shouldn't even allow it. But why should this mean I can't use, say a Mummy? Why do the mechanics have to get in the way of what I want?



Have either of you actually played Candy Land? 

It sounds like you either forgot what it was like or didn't. Ever get stuck in Molassas Swamp?

Please stop insulting Candy Land.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Or just house rule it until it works for you. I don't really get why people complain about something they can easily change - especially with now 4 editions and their sub-editions to mine for ideas and mechanics.




I considered making that explicit, but I thought it just rolled into "play a game that gives you consequences you want".  Also, I've mentioned houseruling/changing rules so much already in this thread, and exampled so many houserules on EN World, that I just figured that would be a given.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Starbuck_II said:


> Have either of you actually played Candy Land?
> 
> It sounds like you either forgot what it was like or didn't. Ever get stuck in Molassas Swamp?
> 
> Please stop insulting Candy Land.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> DM: So what's Bob up to today?
> Bob: Heading to Glaverston to find out what the hell this strange rock is I picked up.
> DM: Okay, cool. It's a few days away. You travel blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Around noon on the third day, you come over the crest of a gently sloping hill and spot an orc guarding a bridge.
> Bob: How far away is he?
> ...




This may not be everyone's style. Whats wrong with tea and small talk?
[sarcasm off] 

Ok this does bring up a fine point. Assuming the party did parley with the orc, and the conflict came to combat, the same thing could happen.

In a flavor vs game sense D&D is supposed to be a game with (hopefully) some flavor. If we see hit points as an abstraction and "hits" taken as a gradual wearing down of moxie and not wounds per se, then WHY do we need critical HITS!

Because they are FUN!!? 

I don't think critical hits or bloated hit point totals are needed for fun gameplay. 

As far as "save or suck" effects go, thier impact on having fun is proportionate to the time it takes to play out a combat.

If the combat takes the whole friggin session because everything has a ton of HP of course its unfun to rendered "ineffective" for the fight.

If combats are resolved in thirty minutes of real time or less, being held, paralyzed, ect for a good portion of that fight isn't so terrible and its FUN to be able to do the same to the bad guys.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is that explicit?  Can you quote?




Nope.  I think it's a pretty safe assumption, though.

"If the situation looks dire, the slinger shrieks, "Irontooth must be warned!" and runs into the lair to alert those within.  If the PCs are unable to kill the kobold before it enters the lair, the slinger succeeds at warning the kobolds inside."

If he needs to get into the lair to warn them, I don't think they can see or hear through it.

I did miss the box that says that "The creatures inside the lair ... do not emerge to engage the PCs, believing the outside guards can handle them."  It goes on to say that they will attack if PCs enter.

This doesn't seem too stupid to me; I can buy it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Or just house rule it until it works for you. I don't really get why people complain about something they can easily change - especially with now 4 editions and their sub-editions to mine for ideas and mechanics.




I still don't know how we could here, anwayway. It's obvious that 3E is to lethal for some, hence they prefer 4E.

But how did flavour first vs game first or healing surge mechanics play into this? Or how does this play into that?

I am confused, but I can't shake off the feeling it's my own fault.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> This may not be everyone's style. Whats wrong with tea and small talk?
> [sarcasm off]
> 
> Ok this does bring up a fine point. Assuming the party did parley with the orc, and the conflict came to combat, the same thing could happen.
> ...





You might want to check out my free, all-or-mostly OGC game when it's done.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Nope.  I think it's a pretty safe assumption, though.




But it _is_ an assumption.



> "If the situation looks dire, the slinger shrieks, "Irontooth must be warned!" and runs into the lair to alert those within.  If the PCs are unable to kill the kobold before it enters the lair, the slinger succeeds at warning the kobolds inside."




Nice of the slinger to shriek a warning to the PCs so that they know what is expected of them.  You're right, nothing artificial here.   



> If he needs to get into the lair to warn them, I don't think they can see or hear through it.




So, they can neither see nor hear through the waterfall, no matter how loud the combat, no matter how loud the shrieking slinger (who the PCs, presumably, can automatically hear).  Again, nothing artificial here.  

Moreover, knowing that they cannot see or hear through the waterfall, they have no one stationed to alert them as soon as something happens?    I miss the days when orcs used gongs to warn the complex of approaching enemies, and then took appropriate steps to defeat them/run away.  



> I did miss the box that says that "The creatures inside the lair ... do not emerge to engage the PCs, believing the outside guards can handle them."  It goes on to say that they will attack if PCs enter.




So, the creatures inside the lair believe that the outside guards can handle the PCs, and also do not know about the PCs?



Maybe not so safe an assumption after all.....



> This doesn't seem too stupid to me; I can buy it.




Whatever floats your boat, man.  But that sounds very 2e-modulish to me.

RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You might want to check out my free, all-or-mostly OGC game when it's done.
> 
> RC




Sounds good. I am working on my own system too.  I am taking the Basic D&D engine and going to town playing with it. Maybe we can fork this over to a " Design your own D&D" thread where folks can discuss reworking game mechanics and getting feedback on ideas? Any interest?


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sounds good. I am working on my own system too.  I am taking the Basic D&D engine and going to town playing with it. Maybe we can fork this over to a " Design your own D&D" thread where folks can discuss reworking game mechanics and getting feedback on ideas? Any interest?




I'm all for that!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sounds good. I am working on my own system too.  I am taking the Basic D&D engine and going to town playing with it. Maybe we can fork this over to a " Design your own D&D" thread where folks can discuss reworking game mechanics and getting feedback on ideas? Any interest?




Dude, it's an entire forum - D&D House Rules!  I'd suggest working more goal-oriented. If you start with "Design your own D&D", you'll never agree on anything. At least a mission statement, like "Goal of this thread is to discuss a "simulationist/tactician" variant of D&D that features short, possibly dangerous combats. 

That would warn people like me: "Oh, short combats? I like combats! How am I supposed to fill an entire session with so many combats? No thanks...". And don't be afraid to do shameless plugs, if topics like this come up and you identify people of your mind, link to your thread/blog...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sounds good. I am working on my own system too.  I am taking the Basic D&D engine and going to town playing with it. Maybe we can fork this over to a " Design your own D&D" thread where folks can discuss reworking game mechanics and getting feedback on ideas? Any interest?




Link it when you do it.  


Oh, and due to a forked thread by MerricB, just to be clear:

I am not sure how what I said turned into the "startling suggestion that 4e has been designed so that characters won't die". 

I certainly said that I don't find healing surges to be a good mechanic, due to simulation problems, and I offered some alternatives. And I certainly responded to Hussar's outrage that he should have to have his "fun" abrogated by the consequences of his decisions.

Saying that the game he seems to want seems to be Candyland =/= saying 4e is Candyland.

If you examine my posts concerning the 4e combat system, even going back before the release, based upon what was revealed as it was revealed, you will see that I have said that I expect (once the initial shine of 4e wears off) that it will be deadlier than 3e. This is because the shift in paradigm narrows the window of what a "challenging" fight is. Once players get used to the system, they are bound to see that anything outside that window is meaningless in terms of the game, pushing the DM to create ever more deadly encounters to engage them.

Conversely, 4e hasn't gotten rid of the "prop the players up" meme that appeared in 2e. Like 3e, the design paradigm seems to have goals that are sometimes in conflict with each other. The result is that it is quite easy (in either system) to create games that offer no real challenge to the players.

The binary nature of "Really deadly or really easy" is made worse by a move away from the attrition-based paradigm, which limits the amount to which less dire consequences than death affect the PCs. Likewise, clear-cut encounters (as opposed to the chance of wandering monsters extending an encounter beyond PC expectations) limit the amount to which less dire encounters affect the PCs. 

Ultimately, I believe that once the "shine" has worn off 4e, it will tend to produce campaigns that are either overwhelmingly deadly or overwhelmingly safe. The design seems (IMHO) to offer very little middle ground between these extremes.

Of course, I may be wrong. The future will tell. It always does.


RC


Oh, yeah, and Aaarrrr!  It be talk like a scurvy pirate day, ye boyos!


----------



## Mallus (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I certainly said that I don't find healing surges to be a good mechanic, due to simulation problems... snip



Let me ask you this RC...

What are you simulating with D&D? (should we fork this?)

Personally, when I play RPG's, I'm simulating the world inside certain kinds of fiction/film/television. The kind full of high adventure, ass-kicking, and wild contrivance. So Healing Surges -- in all there John McClane glory -- actually allow me to simulate the thing I'm trying to simulate _better_.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hot Pursuit is a nice package, though, for running chase scenes in 3e, if that helps.





And, it only costs a $1 for the pdf  (as does it's companion, Hot Pursuit:On Foot!).  Great stuff. Although, I am disapointed that Adamant has decided to discontinue these items rather than update these products to be OGL as the books are useful in other d20 based games.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 19, 2008)

tomBitonti said:


> On the other hand, this is partly a problem of players not really thinking through the possibilties of an encounter.  If you are facing off with a strong looking dude with a x3 critical damage weapon, you should be afraid, and should be ready to run away.




No, you shouldn't.

You might be, but you shouldn't.

Why?

What are the odds the orc's going to roll a 20, confirm the crit, and do enough damage to drop you? 

1/32? 1/64? 1/128? To be generous?

On the other hand what are the odds he won't?

Back to HIP. The orc has a pretty much 0-bit chance not to drop you and a 6-bit, 7-bit chance to? So thinking about the consequences for what might happen if the orc drops you is going to start with 3 or 4 seconds of speculation - in fact, it's so rare that you may already have moved on to other trains of thought by the time you figure out how rare it is. 

People are bad at dealing with and planning for long odds. That's why they react so much better to their character's critical hits than critical fumbles (or enemy critical hits) - neither one is something they explicitly planned for, and a pleasant surprise is better than an unforseen complication. 

If something bad has a rare chance of happening, it's better to make sure it can be easily dealt with, because many people won't even consider the possibility, and those who do will have to grind mental gears for a while to give it proper weight. 

As far as Irontooth goes, well, the waterfall covers sight and the spray covers sound, and it's perfectly reasonable for the kobolds to be taking 10 on perception and completely failing to make anything out. That's why the guards are out there - Irontooth believes they're either capable enough to back off intruders or at least survive to warn him, and if somebody interrupts his skull-bashing practice for another damn stray horse he's going to use THEIR skull next.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 19, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Personally, when I play RPG's, I'm simulating the world inside certain kinds of fiction/film/television. The kind full of high adventure, ass-kicking, and wild contrivance. So Healing Surges -- in all there John McClane glory -- actually allow me to simulate the thing I'm trying to simulate _better_.




That might be the difference. I'm not trying to simulate John McClane and, every time I hear John McClane (or Inigo Montoya) mentioned, I cringe.  There's nothing wrong with wanting that style, but it is something I might only tolerate for a specific d20Modern campaign. I just don't want it when playing DND.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nice of the slinger to shriek a warning to the PCs so that they know what is expected of them.  You're right, nothing artificial here.




Maybe.  I can buy it that the slinger would shout.  It makes sense for his character; it's not artificial.



Raven Crowking said:


> So, they can neither see nor hear through the waterfall, no matter how loud the combat, no matter how loud the shrieking slinger (who the PCs, presumably, can automatically hear).  Again, nothing artificial here.




There's a roaring waterfall and they're in a cave behind it.  It doesn't say "They can't hear" so if you think they should get a Perception check, give them one.



Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, knowing that they cannot see or hear through the waterfall, they have no one stationed to alert them as soon as something happens?




That's what the slinger is there for.



Raven Crowking said:


> So, the creatures inside the lair believe that the outside guards can handle the PCs, and also do not know about the PCs?




They do, that's why they left guards there.  If there's trouble, the slinger comes in and they decide to hang out in their lair where they believe they have the advantage.  That makes sense to me, even if it's not the best tactical move on their part (and maybe it is).  Irontooth only has 8 Int, after all.

All I see in this encounter is NPCs acting in character.  If you want to modify their decisions, that's cool, but I don't think it makes no sense if they do what's written in the module.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Let me ask you this RC...
> 
> What are you simulating with D&D? (should we fork this?)





My interest lies more in the earlier pulp fantasy works than in John Woo or comic-book style fantasy.  I prefer an exploration-style game as well.  I am defnitely not looking to simulate the "action hero ala superhero" genre.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> All I see in this encounter is NPCs acting in character.  If you want to modify their decisions, that's cool, but I don't think it makes no sense if they do what's written in the module.




You have made it work for you, but I note you have done so by substantially altering what the module actually says.

But, again, this is a better discussion over pints than over computers.  I really don't care if anyone agrees with me on this or not.  As with 3e problems, I know I'm going to have to wait until the next edition before anyone wants to admit they exist.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> As far as Irontooth goes, well, the waterfall covers sight and the spray covers sound, and it's perfectly reasonable for the kobolds to be taking 10 on perception and completely failing to make anything out. That's why the guards are out there - Irontooth believes they're either capable enough to back off intruders or at least survive to warn him, and if somebody interrupts his skull-bashing practice for another damn stray horse he's going to use THEIR skull next.





Fair enough, so long as we remember that this is _not_ what the module actually says.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Fair enough, so long as we remember that this is _not_ what the module actually says.




The module, no. But the DMG does say that creatures default to "ready" - weapons in hand, no impairments to Perception - instead of "alert" - taking up combat positions and making active checks every round - and certainly imply if not outright state that non-"alert" creatures should be using their passive Perception (10+bonus) instead of rolling for it. 

If the DM ad hocs a penalty to see/hear through the waterfall instead of making it impenetrable he should be aware that it also applies to the kobolds taking 10 on the other side and not make it so easy to see into the cave that the kobolds wouldn't even need an outside guard.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> My interest lies more in the earlier pulp fantasy works...



Okay, but I still see those as falling into the categories of fiction I was describing (or meaning to describe).



> ... or comic-book style fantasy.



See for me, AD&D is comic-book style fantasy. Then again, my groups used Unearthed Arcana...



> I am defnitely not looking to simulate the "action hero ala superhero" genre.



Can you describe what you _are_ trying to simulate in more detail?

So both of us are interested in simulating adventure stories, we just differ on which ones (tone), eh?


----------



## MerricB (Sep 20, 2008)

"*Waterfall:* Water cascades from a cliff high above, _concealing_ the entrance to the kobold lair." - _Keep on the Shadowfell_

My emphasis. You can't see through it.

As to why guards don't leave the cave... well, that's basic tactics. The cave is a better defensive position than out in the open.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You have made it work for you, but I note you have done so by substantially altering what the module actually says.
> 
> But, again, this is a better discussion over pints than over computers.  I really don't care if anyone agrees with me on this or not.  As with 3e problems, I know I'm going to have to wait until the next edition before anyone wants to admit they exist.
> 
> ...




This is the second time (I think) you've said this.  The problem is, the problems you perceive with 3e, are not the problems other people perceive.  I had no problems with 3e's flavour ever, yet you constantly went on and on about how earlier edition flavour was superior.

I complained about how 3e combat was too lethal years before 4e was released.  You completely denied, and still deny, that there is any problem.

Your issues with the game are most certainly not the same as other people's.  Some other people's perhaps, but, not most people's.

On the waterfall thing - Umm, how exactly can you see through a waterfall?  Or hear?  Waterfalls are LOUD and pretty opaque.  

/edit - just read MerricB's post.  Oh, gee, that pretty much answers that then doesn't it?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 20, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I would not label it a war. It has been a debate which has been on the whole pretty civil. I don't think anyone has disrespected anyone else on either side of the fence here. If anything, I think respect has been garnered for those with opposing views - with the general concensus being to agree to disagree; some interesting points having been shared.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Your right, this wasn't a war.  Can I call it a "police action?"
Seriously, people are being civil.  Everyoen should pat themselves on the back for not being jerks.  It's just that HP discussion has been done so much, it's pratically a trope (as in TVtropes).



Raven Crowking said:


> That's the best fix, IMHO, anyone in this thread has come up with yet.
> Kudos.
> Now can you solve 4e's other problems and rewrite the books so that the flavour doesn't bite?




No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.  The whole reason we're here is to put our heads together in order to make our gaming better.  Someone out there has to have awesome 4e flavor, and another has to have the answers to your problems.

Or you could just buy it.  Patherfinder has a pretty cool world from what I hear.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2008)

MerricB said:


> "*Waterfall:* Water cascades from a cliff high above, _concealing_ the entrance to the kobold lair." - _Keep on the Shadowfell_
> 
> My emphasis. You can't see through it.
> 
> As to why guards don't leave the cave... well, that's basic tactics. The cave is a better defensive position than out in the open.




I hope you realize that, in the real world, because it is darker behind the waterfall, it is entirely plausible for a waterfall to conceal the area behind it, while someone behind it can see through.

This is like a window in the country when your lights are on.  You can't see outside because the light reflects off the glass, but you can certainly be seen from outside.  Or, heck, consider some tinted windows on cars.

RC


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I hope you realize that, in the real world, because it is darker behind the waterfall, it is entirely plausible for a waterfall to conceal the area behind it, while someone behind it can see through.
> 
> This is like a window in the country when your lights are on.  You can't see outside because the light reflects off the glass, but you can certainly be seen from outside.  Or, heck, consider some tinted windows on cars.
> 
> RC




I don't really think it would be remotely possible to see through a waterfall if the water was even slightly turbulent.  If the water was very slow moving and fell as a flat sheet, instead of cascading down in a white froth(? yeah, yeah, my knowledge of the english names for waterfall water is slightly rusty...), it might work. But i don't think you ever find this situation in nature. 

I certainly think it okay to assume you can't see through the waterfall. I don't find it reasonable to assume you can see through, unless it was spelled out in the text.


----------



## Walknot (Sep 20, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I'm not a fan of tacked on flavour and can smell it a mile away. I think to be done right, there needs to be a neat/elegant symbiosis between mechanic and flavour. Coming up with a cool mechanic and then shopping around for flavour to tie it to just seems backward in my opinion. At the same time, having a chosen "flavour" and then trying to match a mechanic to it is not always easy, elegant or even playable. I think in the end, one has to guide the other and vice versa.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




suppose that is true, the middle ground usually is.  but take it from a staid fanatic of "flavor first", you can be assured that given a solid fulcrum of  rationalization and long enough lever of credulity, you can reconcile the most divergent of mechanic / flavor.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2008)

The whole waterfall sidebar really illuminates people's approaches to the game IMO.

RC is basically standing by the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed.  In very limited circumstances, you can see through a waterfall, therefore, you should be able to see through it in this circumstance thus the module designers were out to lunch.

I take a totally different approach.  I always look at the DM first.  Looking at so many rules discussions, "user error" is probably the number one suspect for problems.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but, I think it does nicely illustrate why so many conversations here grind to a halt.  We're just coming from polar opposite assumptions.  I always assume the DM is wrong first.  Because, quite honestly IME, it is the DM who misread, misunderstood or was just plain wrong far more than the mechanics or modules.

I think it boils down to whether or not you've had the joy of playing with really, really bad DM's in the past.  

To me, the idea that you can see through a waterfall, on either side, is pretty remote.  Unless, as cwhs01 points out, the water is falling perfectly straight, there will be lots of white water and you cannot see through it, and likely you won't hear through it either.  Since the module advises that those behind the waterfall won't come out unless specifically contacted, which do you think is more likely?  The water is falling perfectly and allows people to see through it, or the water is a typical waterfall, loud and opaque?

To me, I'd go with the latter because, given the context of the adventure, it makes the most sense.


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 20, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The whole waterfall sidebar really illuminates people's approaches to the game IMO.
> 
> RC is basically standing by the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed.  In very limited circumstances, you can see through a waterfall, therefore, you should be able to see through it in this circumstance thus the module designers were out to lunch.
> 
> I take a totally different approach.  I always look at the DM first.  Looking at so many rules discussions, "user error" is probably the number one suspect for problems.





I guess its a case of glass half-full/half-empty


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



All of this presupposes a type of player-PC identification (ie that the risks the player is taking correspond more-or-less exactly to the risks her PC is taking) which is precisely what is up for grabs in non-simulationist play.



Raven Crowking said:


> If Bob doesn't like the type of game he's playing, he should find (or make) a new one.  If no at the table (DM included) likes the idea that a PC dies under these circumstances, they should find a new game or houserule to prevent that consequence.
> 
> That seems pretty bloody obvious to me.



Is the thought here that it's pointless to discuss the merits and demerits, for various playstyles, of various published RPGs, because we should all be designing our own games? That seems a bit unreal to me, for any number of reasons.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you examine my posts concerning the 4e combat system, even going back before the release, based upon what was revealed as it was revealed, you will see that I have said that I expect (once the initial shine of 4e wears off) that it will be deadlier than 3e. This is because the shift in paradigm narrows the window of what a "challenging" fight is. Once players get used to the system, they are bound to see that anything outside that window is meaningless in terms of the game, pushing the DM to create ever more deadly encounters to engage them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The result is that it is quite easy (in either system) to create games that offer no real challenge to the players.



Provided that there is no strict equivalence between "easy for the PCs" and "easy for the players" then what you predict need not come to pass.

Non-simulationist mechanics make this lack of equivalence more probable - the challenge to the players is deploying the various mechanical devices in the right sorts of combination that bring it about that the encounter is non-challenging for the PCs.

This is a fairly frequent feature of combat in Rolemaster, because of the capacity of various of its mechanics (parrying, sustaining adrenal moves, spell overcasting, etc) to be metagamed by the players. It keeps RM combat interesting. At this stage I don't see that 4e need be different.

EDIT: To elaborate and try to make the above more concrete - RM differs a lot from RQ in this respect. In RQ there are really no metagamable mechanics, and the difficulty of an encounter is more or less dependent on the numbers of the PCs and their foes, with nothing but dice rolling and non-mechanically-driven tactics to decide the combat. (AD&D is also a bit like this. 4e obviously is not.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Is the thought here that it's pointless to discuss the merits and demerits, for various playstyles, of various published RPGs, because we should all be designing our own games? That seems a bit unreal to me, for any number of reasons.




I imagine that you haven't read through the thread, because I thought I answered this already.  There's a difference between discussing the merits of a game system -- which may well be a necessary component of choosing/modifying to your taste -- and agreeing to play a game, then whining about the obvious potential consequences thereof.

Also, Hussar, I wish you would stop ascribing opinions to me.

I most emphatically do not stand by "the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed".  I stand by the idea that the module is poorly designed, as a consequence of the design parameters of the game it is designed for.  When using a poorly designed module, IMHO, the DM has both right and obligation to change them until they are no longer poorly designed.

Which you should know is my position on poorly designed modules, considering our prior discussion of the WLD, where I told you how much work I'd have to do to put the module into running order.

I am not a lazy DM, nor do I advocate lazy DMing.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Sep 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, Hussar, I wish you would stop ascribing opinions to me.



That sounds familiar.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I most emphatically do not stand by "the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed". I stand by the idea that the module is poorly designed, as a consequence of the design parameters of the game it is designed for. When using a poorly designed module, IMHO, the DM has both right and obligation to change them until they are no longer poorly designed.



 But the DM changing stuff made it seem poorlyt desihgned when the module made perfect sense.
You cannot see through or hear through a waterfall. Thus they had to warn the people inside.
The Slinger was a guard for outside.

It would be like complaining that a Holy Avenger is too low level when your DM changed it to level 1 item.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2008)

BryonD said:


> That sounds familiar.




I assume you are claiming that I am being hypocritical, rather than agreeing that you have asked Hussar to do the same.  Fair enough.  



Starbuck_II said:


> But the DM changing stuff made it seem poorlyt desihgned when the module made perfect sense.
> You cannot see through or hear through a waterfall. Thus they had to warn the people inside.
> The Slinger was a guard for outside.
> 
> It would be like complaining that a Holy Avenger is too low level when your DM changed it to level 1 item.




I don't think so.

Well designed would be:  We're hiding inside a waterfall, so we put sentries outside to slow invaders while having other sentries (plural) whose job is to alert us immediately when there is trouble.  The sentries to alert should be in hidden positions, close to the waterfall where they can immediately step inside and warn us.  Or they should be on ledges higher up with something, such as big horns or drums, that can easily be heard over the waterfall.

"We don't go out no matter what" doesn't make sense.  Full stop.

"We wait to make sure we are losing to get help" doesn't make sense.  Full stop.

Justify it however you like, but this is not good design.


RC


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 22, 2008)

Walknot said:


> suppose that is true, the middle ground usually is.  but take it from a staid fanatic of "flavor first", you can be assured that given a solid fulcrum of  rationalization and long enough lever of credulity, you can reconcile the most divergent of mechanic / flavor.



You're most probably right. In two years time, I'll most likely look at the 4E healing overnight thing and go "yeah, that used to grate but I suppose I'm over it now", similar to how I view the plethora of 3.x HP issues.

I suppose when the mechanic and its flavour is fresh, you just end up thinking "but why oh why could they not have done that differently?" as if you could have changed it in some way. The buzz of transition and improvement (or lack of) is still in the air.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I assume you are claiming that I am being hypocritical, rather than agreeing that you have asked Hussar to do the same.  Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, instead of Schrodinger's Hit Points, it's Schrodinger's waterfall?  

These are kobolds, not crack military units.  They aren't the brightest things in the world.  They put a guard outside the waterfall to warn them if trouble comes, then go back inside and rest.  

Like this never happens?  Where did they get the horn?  They made it?  Bought it?  Same as the gong?  There's some kobold metalsmith back there that made it for them?  Oh, wait, no there isn't.  So they had to find that gong or horn somewhere.  

That's more realistic than "Hey, Churtle, you're the smallest and stupidest, get your scaley butt outside and warn us if anything comes."?

Because, y'know, kobolds would NEVER do something like that.

Heck, at least they HAD guards outside.  There are loads of modules that don't even have that.

The situation is perfectly reasonable - not terribly intelligent humanoids post a lone guard outside a waterfall.  Wow, never, ever could see that happening.

Now, if these were hobgoblins, then you'd probably have a point.  But they're not.  They're kobolds.  Wis and Int not so high.  Making tactically stupid decisions is not unrealistic.

See, the thing is RC, I know you stated you'd have to do all this work to make the WLD work.  But, that's you.  That's not true of everyone.  The modules in the WLD are, by and large, workable.  ((With some notable exceptions))  That you think they are poorly designed doesn't make them so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> You're most probably right. In two years time, I'll most likely look at the 4E healing overnight thing and go "yeah, that used to grate but I suppose I'm over it now", similar to how I view the plethora of 3.x HP issues.
> 
> I suppose when the mechanic and its flavour is fresh, you just end up thinking "but why oh why could they not have done that differently?" as if you could have changed it in some way. The buzz of transition and improvement (or lack of) is still in the air.
> 
> ...




Seems wise to me.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "We wait to make sure we are losing to get help" doesn't make sense.  Full stop.
> 
> Justify it however you like, but this is not good design.



Let's put to one side bigger issues of fantasy story design, such as "Is the successful passage of Frodo and Sam through the pass of Cirith Ungol poorly designed, because it depends upon an authorial conceit of the guards all killing one another over the treasure?"

Just focus on waiting to make sure we are losing to get help - isn't this plausible for a unit motivated by (i) honour or (ii) overwhelming fear of superiors?n At least one of the above is plausible for most D&D humanoids, isn't it?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Let's put to one side bigger issues of fantasy story design, such as "Is the successful passage of Frodo and Sam through the pass of Cirith Ungol poorly designed, because it depends upon an authorial conceit of the guards all killing one another over the treasure?"
> 
> Just focus on waiting to make sure we are losing to get help - isn't this plausible for a unit motivated by (i) honour or (ii) overwhelming fear of superiors?n At least one of the above is plausible for most D&D humanoids, isn't it?




Aw crap.  Now you've done it.  Don'tcha know that invoking the Professor is just like waving raw meat to the lions.   



Spoiler



((Heh, I wonder how this plays out since I'm pretty sure RC still has me on ignore and won't see my little prediction.  I predict a rather lengthy spiel on how it's perfectly reasonable for Tolkien to do this and is the epitome of excellent writing.  Let's watch shall we?))


----------



## Fenes (Sep 22, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Just focus on waiting to make sure we are losing to get help - isn't this plausible for a unit motivated by (i) honour or (ii) overwhelming fear of superiors?n At least one of the above is plausible for most D&D humanoids, isn't it?




It just seems that most of the "dungeon crawl" adventures are designed in similar "don't let enemies help each other" ways, be it from foes living next to each other to morals that sound like "honor dictates we let our vanguard die" or "we're evilllll, mwahahaha, we like to watch our people die!!!!"


----------



## Fenes (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not a lazy DM, nor do I advocate lazy DMing.




Well, I am a lazy DM, and advocate lazy DMing - if done in a smart way, aka "don't waste your time on stuff your game does not need". (Even wrote a blog entry about it.)

But it's because I am a lazy DM that I dislike bad modules, too much work to make them work, even more to make them fit the group/campaign/player desires.

Not much of the published stuff meets my group's and my own falvor expectations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It just seems that most of the "dungeon crawl" adventures are designed in similar "don't let enemies help each other" ways, be it from foes living next to each other to morals that sound like "honor dictates we let our vanguard die" or "we're evilllll, mwahahaha, we like to watch our people die!!!!"



Yes, that seems too often the case. At least in "classic" dungeons.

Keep on the Shadowfell seems to attempt making a good reason for all this, as do the later H series modules as far as I have seen. 

But still, I can't shake off the feeling that often it would be better to avoid the entire large dungeon paradigmn. Keep them smaller so that you can cover your dungeon with one large encounter, or make it so big that there is enough room between potential or actual allies that they can't be alerted that easily.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But still, I can't shake off the feeling that often it would be better to avoid the entire large dungeon paradigmn. Keep them smaller so that you can cover your dungeon with one large encounter, or make it so big that there is enough room between potential or actual allies that they can't be alerted that easily.




The "large dungeon" itself might have come as flavor after the mechanic (a way to have several smaller fights in the same place) was set.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I assume you are claiming that I am being hypocritical, rather than agreeing that you have asked Hussar to do the same.  Fair enough.



No, sorry.  I've been in plenty of debates with Hussar and needing to repeatedly request that he stop putting words in my mouth and radically changing things I said is a standard part.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 22, 2008)

Greg K said:


> That might be the difference. I'm not trying to simulate John McClane and, every time I hear John McClane (or Inigo Montoya) mentioned, I cringe.  There's nothing wrong with wanting that style, but it is something I might only tolerate for a specific d20Modern campaign. I just don't want it when playing DND.



You know, its kinda funny.  In no prior edition of D&D did anyone ever suggest that you *couldn't* do John McClane.  To the contrary, 4E just seems to have moved a slight step further away as I see it.  

The cliche example is the cut feet and then all better.  In no prior edition of D&D has being hurt impaired a character as McClane was.  In any prior edition the wound had no slowing effect.  To be like McClane, you simply had to play it up.  (which is fine)  But in any edition, the character will be going fine in the next scene, even without healing, because the wounds don't hamper him.  However, in any edition prior to 4th, the character will eventually need medical care (typically magical in D&D), just like McClane.  4E is the first game to allow total full recovery with no consideration of why or how at all.

Either all wounds short of the killing blow are not really injury, they are just loss of mojo that can be brought back with a deep breath, which I find unsatisfactory, or all characters can close all wounds with enough lamaze technique, which is I find unsatisfactory.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, that seems too often the case. At least in "classic" dungeons.





I dunno.  Look at Keep on the Borderlands.  Each enclave has guards that are expected to give effective notice; notes are given on how monsters might aid each other.

Indeed, one of the things we were told about 4e was that we were going to go back to hordes of humanoids, and away from the 1-room/1-encounter methodology where it made no sense.

Also, @ pemerton, by the time Sam rescues Frodo, the nature of the orcs is so well established (in Mordor and Out) that Tolkein's work makes sense.  Nor is what happens without consequences to the storyline.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

BryonD said:


> No, sorry.  I've been in plenty of debates with Hussar and needing to repeatedly request that he stop putting words in my mouth and radically changing things I said is a standard part.




Sorry to hear that.

I'll readily admit that, in trying to better understand someone's point, I'll reword it as a kind of double-check.  If they agree with what I'm saying with the rewording, I assume I understood the original.  So, that could easily be seen as putting words into someone's mouth.  Especially when my rewording demonstrates that I have failed to understand the original point.  

And this can happen to anyone.  MerricB started a thread based on the idea that I think 4e isn't lethal (whereas, I think that it is either very lethal [when challenging] or not lethal [and not challenging]).  This is a misunderstanding; I would never ascribe malice to MerricB!  And, based on his thread, once I had corrected the initial idea ascribed to be, I have discovered that I am not alone in thinking this.

However, I have had the same experience as you have in this particular case, far too often.  Thanks for sharing your condolences.


RC


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There's a difference between discussing the merits of a game system -- which may well be a necessary component of choosing/modifying to your taste -- and agreeing to play a game, then whining about the obvious potential consequences thereof.




But as I've said upthread, death and failure are not obvious potential consequences. If they were, they wouldn't be such poor surprises.

People are terrible at processing and thinking about long odds. Not terrible in the sense of "they generally don't do it enough", terrible in the sense of "trying to do something beyond human capability".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> But as I've said upthread, death and failure are not obvious potential consequences.





If they are not obvious potential consequences to you, we probably differ too much in our experiences to draw a consensus.

RC


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 22, 2008)

It looks like the thread nearly swerved into unhelpful terrain (commenting about other peoples posting styles that someone doesn't get on with). It looks as though we've moved away from that which is great - please continue to concentrate on the issue rather than personalities.

Thanks!


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If they are not obvious potential consequences to you, we probably differ too much in our experiences to draw a consensus.
> 
> RC




Really?

Okay, let me probe some then.

Consider the orc-with-a-greataxe example. There were three events the players could not control there:


the orc's attack roll including confirmed crit
the orc's damage roll
the save vs. massive damage
To you, what are the acceptable boundaries for the odds that events players cannot control will lead to death or failure?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Really?
> 
> Okay, let me probe some then.
> 
> ...




To begin with, I don't accept this premise, as it relates to actual game play.  Only by pulling this example out of any sort of reasonable context can you create an example in which the player has no input.

I note that some games begin with a combat, in which the players have no input.  This is, IMHO, pulled out of reasonable context (although it is generally given context later), and it is incumbant upon the DM to limit lethality accordingly.

That said, I will agree that at some point _every encounter_ can narrow down to a point in which the player(s) no longer have meaningful choices.  Once the orc's turn is up, and the axe is swinging, for example.  And it is in this context that I answer the next bit.



> To you, what are the acceptable boundaries for the odds that events players cannot control will lead to death or failure?




Eventually, if a character dies, the odds have narrowed down to 100%.  If they did not narrow down to 100%, the character would not be dead. 

This is acceptable, to me, if the DM has been fair, and the death or failure is simply a matter of odds.  If you had a chance to Gather Information and you didn't, or the clues were laid out and you didn't see them.  If the DM isn't _trying_ to kill you.  (You can't beat a DM who is trying to kill you, after all.)  There may, of course, always be issues of competence in designing/running encounters.  But such issues have little to do with the general idea that it sucks that curing mummy rot keeps you from leaping into the next dungeon, IMHO.

It is never okay to throw a tantrum at the table.  It is always okay to seek (or devise) a game more in line with what you enjoy.

Did that answer your question?


RC


EDIT:  And here's a question of my own:  Do you actually believe that, in a system wherein success is determined in whole or in part by random factors that failure is not an obvious potential consequence of that system?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There may, of course, always be issues of competence in designing/running encounters. But such issues have little to do with the general idea that it sucks that curing mummy rot keeps you from leaping into the next dungeon, IMHO.
> 
> It is never okay to throw a tantrum at the table. It is always okay to seek (or devise) a game more in line with what you enjoy.




Very well said. For an example of bad adventure/ encounter design, check out this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...tpk-warning-keep-shadowfell-spoiler-info.html


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> To begin with, I don't accept this premise, as it relates to actual game play.  Only by pulling this example out of any sort of reasonable context can you create an example in which the player has no input.
> 
> I note that some games begin with a combat, in which the players have no input.  This is, IMHO, pulled out of reasonable context (although it is generally given context later), and it is incumbant upon the DM to limit lethality accordingly.
> 
> ...



We running into the problem of complaining about a system that doesn't suit our needs, but here is the deal with this "Orc Axe Killer behind door": 
In one moment, you are in an entirely non-combat situation. Then you decide to risk getting into a combat situation by opening the door. But this not just triggers the combat situation, but all ready the end-effect of combat - someone ends up dead (your character). There is no time to react and to acknowledge the risk of combat. You moved from a likelihood of combat occuring to the fact of death occuring before you can intervene in anyway. And thanks to the entire ablative hit point concept, the system also gave you the illusion of having a protection against it - and usually, it _does_. I personally think this is more then just a "you're playing the wrong game". The game design itself is wrong due to an inconsistency of how risks are managed. 

Other games are more open-front about lethality (or-non-lethality). Warhammer is a deadly system - if you face superior odds, chances of getting seriously hurt or killed are not low. Though - even if it happens, you can spend a fortune point and stay alive, but knocked out. If you added this step of spending some game resource - karma, fortune, possibilities - to negate "Death of Random Critical" or "Death of Failing a Saving Throw", the game would be perceived differently - even if the character doesn't get to react, the player does.

In a combat where your hit points are continually whittled down, you don't need such a system - you have a far tighter control on the risks, and thus all risks are well calculated.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In a combat where your hit points are continually whittled down, you don't need such a system - you have a far tighter control on the risks, and thus all risks are well calculated.




Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death. 

The value of balance is very subjective. If an entire group places the same value on balance (whatever it may be) it becomes a much happier group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> We running into the problem of complaining about a system that doesn't suit our needs, but here is the deal with this "Orc Axe Killer behind door":




Please note that I am responding to a request for elaboration on a simpler point:  If a chance of failure and/or death are not obvious potential consequences to you, we probably differ too much in our experiences to draw a consensus.

I am not telling anyone to play in the way I do.


RC


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 22, 2008)

Re: Having an axe killer behind a door.  I actually had close to this scenario, with a gorillion waiting behind a door.  The character opened the door, right in the face of the gorillion.  The character ended up being attacked with all four claw attacks flat-footed.  I think there were 3 hits including 1 critical, plus the rend damage for having a pair of attacks hit.  That took down over 75% of the players hit points all before the player could react.

The scenario made sense: The party was blasting its way through the gorillion's lair, and the gorillion was defending its nest.  The gorillion, quite sensibly, was hiding behind a door, having made it's listen check.  The players were already in initiative when the door was opened.

But the scenario was very unfun for the character, and it gave the player a very strong aversion to taking additional risks.

---

In terms of what does this scenario tell us, I don't know.  But what it taught me was to be very clear to convey to the characters the sense of danger that their players should realize given their level.  They players can ignore me, but at least I tried.  (If one of my players ever tried to wade through lava, I would check their wisdom, and unless there were exceptional circumstances, tell them what damage to expect and whether they were likely to get burned to death.)

How does this inform the current discussion: I'm not sure.  I think that a scenario such as this one, and, generalizing to encounter design, shows the importance of encounter staging to player immersion.  Are we trying to convey a feeling of the player's characters exploring their environment?  Are we OK with going into a special "encounter mode" where the parts between encounters are a kind of glue that gets us to an artificial (but well tuned) battlefield?  How far are we willing to go to "bend" the environment to make it more playable?


----------



## Stoat (Sep 22, 2008)

With regard to the "Orc with a Greataxe" question, it occurs to me that two separate issues are being discussed here.

The first is the proximity between the choice made by the player and the fatal consequences of that choice.  Every PC death is ultimately the result of a choice made by the player.  However, the more remove between the choice and the consequence, the more players are likely to object.  This issue frequently hinges on the players' knowledge of the threats their characters might face.

The second is the players' opportunity to avoid the consequences of the fatal choice once the extent of those consequences is known to the player.  In other words, after the plaintiff realizes the trouble he's in, does he have a chance to get out?  

As an example, consider two encounters between a party of sixth level characters and a Medusa.

In the first case, the DM makes use of random encounter tables and wandering monsters.  The players are aware of this fact.  During the characters' travels, the DM rolls on the encounter table and generates a medusa, a very rare monster for this area.  A random roll determines that the encounter begins at a distance of less than 30'.  The Medusa beats the 6th level Wizard's initiative and uses her gaze attack against him.  The Wizard fails his save and turns to stone.

In the second case, an NPC reveals to the players that the MacGuffin is in the possession of a certain medusa.  Additional research and divination yields the approximate location of the medusa's lair.  The players travel to the location and observe the petrified remains of the medusa's prior victims.  They press on and meet the medusa.  The Wizard wins the initiative and uses a mirror to target the Medusa with a spell.  The medusa survives and retaliates with her gaze attack.  The Wizard fails his save and turns to stone.

In the first case, there is considerable distance between the player's death and the decision that lead to the death.  Presumably, the player knew that the DM would use random encounters.  It was reasonable for the player to assume that some random encounters would be deadly.  However, the player is unlikely to know exactly what monsters might be randomly encountered in a given area, and he has no way to know what specific monters will appear during a given adventure.  Arguably, the fatal decision is made when the player sits down to play.  Further, the player has little, perhaps no chance to act and avoid death (or at least petrification), once the medusa appears on the scene.  He gets an initiative check and a fortitude save -- two essentially passive dice rolls.  

In the second case, the fatal outcome comes close behind the fatal decision.  The players press on despite knowing that they are close to the medusa's lair.  In addition, the petrified player has some chance to affirmatively act to avoid death.

The issue of proximity between choice and consequence is largely one of playstyle.  Proximity decreases when the players can gain intelligence through research, investigation and divination.  Proximity increases when encounters are random and, therefore, unpredictable.  Some rules (Gather Information checks, the Augury spell) facilitate intelligence gathering, but overall I think its mostly up to the players and the DM to reach a consensus on how to handle this issue.

The ability of players to avoid the consequences of their bad decisions is more tightly wired to mechanics.  In 3E it could be particularly difficult.  Save or die effects were relatively common.  Monsters could do large amounts of damage in a singe round.  Attacks of opportunity made withdrawing from a losing fight difficult.  4E makes it easier to live to regret a bad decision by nerfing save or dies and lowering monster damage.

Any individual's preference is, as always, idiosyncratic and beyond debate.  However, it seems to me that these it is preference regarding these two variables that's really driving this discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2008)

Stoat said:


> With regard to the "Orc with a Greataxe" question, it occurs to me that two separate issues are being discussed here.





Good post.

It occurs to me that, if a medusa lived in the area, there would be evidence of her existence, and that a simulationist would include that evidence on his encounter tables.  For example, were I running the game, it is likely that the encountered medusa would be a specific individual, currently away from her lair (which has a location on the map).  If the medusa was a rare encounter in the area, the statuary remains of her victims would be far more common.

Consider this story (http://www.danieljbishop.ca/valley_of_song.pdf).  Originally, this was designed as part of a scenario taking place in the World of Greyhawk, utilizing giant spiders, harpies, and a medusa.  The details changed a lot in writing the story, but the description of the valley works very well for the sort of thing one might find in an area with a medusa.

(The email address in the "About the Author" section no longer works.)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.
> 
> The value of balance is very subjective. If an entire group places the same value on balance (whatever it may be) it becomes a much happier group.




I think the trick is finding a "happy medium". In 4E, you don't arrive at the end of your hit point total at the end of combat. You arrive in the middle of it. (Or even more often). The sense of risk and challenge comes from having to manage your ways to heal the party members during combat (and to ensure that you take down your opponents before you run out of healing and hit points). This can involve a lot of factors - are you near enough (can you get nearer if you are slowed, have to cover challenging terrain, or if the Cleric is knocked prone or immobilized...)


----------



## Delta (Sep 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.
> 
> The value of balance is very subjective. If an entire group places the same value on balance (whatever it may be) it becomes a much happier group.




Well put. I'd also add that it's important for a game system's "risk of sudden death" to be balanced with the game system's "ease of making a new character".


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 22, 2008)

Delta said:


> Well put. I'd also add that it's important for a game system's "risk of sudden death" to be balanced with the game system's "ease of making a new character".



Interesting thought. 3E is bettered by earlier editions there. (Excluding 4E only because the risk of instant death is much less in that edition.)


----------



## MerricB (Sep 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.




Indeed.

Mind you, the one thing that 4e doesn't have is skyrocketing HP totals, certainly in comparison to 3e! (for PCs at least). Once you remove the Con bonus as a component of HP, it's amazing to see how low the totals become.

###

With regard to "instant death", compare Call of Cthulhu and Rolemaster...

Cheers!


----------



## Scribble (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game. You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own. If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again. As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."





Not sure if this is a valid/fair comparrison.

Yes, in Monopoly sometimes chance dictates bad things happen to you. Sometimes you need to spend resources (Money) on things that don't benefit you. (paying rent, paying the banker, etc...)  Sometimes you end up loosing a turn or two through bad luck. (You pull the go to jail card.)

Same as in D&D. Soemtimes you have to spend resources (actions, healing surges, potions, powers, etc) just countering a negative effect.

Bad luck + negative consequences should play a part in any game. I agree.

However, in Monopoloy I think you might hear a LOT more complaints if there happened to be a card or two that simply said- You loose. 

"Oh great, I drew the you loose card again. Lame."

The various unhelpful events you can have happen to you can be annoying, and can help contribute to your loss of the game overall sure, but none of them equate to an instant "you're now out of the game" effect that you cannot change.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2008)

Scribble said:


> "Oh great, I drew the you loose card again. Lame."







I don't equate dying or failing in D&D with losing the game.

YMMV.



RC


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Eventually, if a character dies, the odds have narrowed down to 100%.  If they did not narrow down to 100%, the character would not be dead.
> 
> ...
> 
> Did that answer your question?




No, not at all. Boundaries. Upper and lower. Unless you want to say "0% to 100%". In which case, yes.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  And here's a question of my own:  Do you actually believe that, in a system wherein success is determined in whole or in part by random factors that failure is not an obvious potential consequence of that system?




Yes, actually, I do.

Consider orc with greataxe vs. 30th-level fighter.

The orc can still instakill the 30th-level fighter, if he rolls a 20, then a 20 to confirm, then over 50 damage (let's say that happens 1 time in 100), then the fighter rolls a natural 1 on his fort save.

That's... 800,000 to 1 odds. 

Do you think the fighter regards his death at the hands of the orc as an obvious potential consequence? I don't.

Ad hoc probability calculations, such as you might perform in your head at the table, only have about 3 bits of precision (because ad hoc probabilities are constructed from "sample outcomes" rather than computed, and you can consider maybe 8 sample outcomes at a time) meaning you can just about break down probability in 1/8 increments. 

So anything with probability less than about 1/8 is going to get ignored, either because it's rounded down, or because it's rounded up and people learn through experience that it's really not that high.

In short: Yes, in a system where success is influenced by random chance, there are some probabilities of failure so low that people may acknowledge them as theoretically probable but they will not consider them to be practically possible. They will not, then, be obvious.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> No, not at all. Boundaries. Upper and lower. Unless you want to say "0% to 100%". In which case, yes.




I don't have inflexible upper and lower boundaries.  



> Do you think the fighter regards his death at the hands of the orc as an obvious potential consequence? I don't.




Nor do I consider death by hangnail an obvious potential consequence.  But our fighter, going into dark and dangerous places, damn well ought to consider the possibility of there being more than an orc to deal with.



RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't equate dying or failing in D&D with losing the game.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> ...




Be that as it may, the point still stands.

If your goal is to bring a character from level 1 up to level whatever you want to end at- instant death is as significant as a "you loose" card in monopoly. It's a jarring halt to your plan through no action of your own other then playing the game.

You might enjoy a game where instant death occurs true, just like some might enjoy a monopoly with a "you loose" card. 

I'm just saying I don't think the negative parts of monopoly are a fair equal to the negative parts of instant death D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2008)

1st ed AD&D had virtually no action resolution mechanics outside of combat. 2nd ed AD&D had a little bit more, but not much. 3rd ed had more again, but the combat mechanics are still the majority of the action resolution mechanics. The same is true of 4e (which uses the comparatively abstract skill challenge system as a catch-all for non-combat action resolution).

This suggests that combat is intended to be a significant part of the game.

Given that, I think it is does not really get to the heart of the matter simply to suggest that a player whose PC ends up confronting an orc with a greataxe, losing initiative, and dying to a critical hit has suffered the proper consequences of a meaningful choice (to go into places full of orcs).

If that suggestion were correct, it would appear to follow that there was nothing meaningful to be said about whether AD&D, 3E or 4e was the better-designed dungeon adventure roleplaying game - that the potentially one-shot lethality of the orc with the greataxe, which is a feature of 3E far more than of AD&D or 4e, was not up for grabs as an example of good or bad design.

In fact I think that that question is up for grabs, and I think that removing that potential oneshot lethality improves the design of a dungeon adventure roleplaying game, by ensuring that where lethality is encountered it is a genuine consequence of a sequence of choices that the player experienced as being meaningful and under his/her control (other than the choice to have his/her PC go on an adventure, which is - given that we are playing a dungeon adventure RPG - not really a choice at all).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Either all wounds short of the killing blow are not really injury, they are just loss of mojo that can be brought back with a deep breath, which I find unsatisfactory, or all characters can close all wounds with enough lamaze technique, which is I find unsatisfactory.



Or, as I have pointed out numerous times, eveyone at the table can agree to have sufficient time pass between episodes to satisfy their demand for verisimilitudinous healing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 23, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Be that as it may, the point still stands.




No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to _ignoring_ that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing.  There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can _make a new character.  _If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived.  And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 23, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Or, as I have pointed out numerous times, eveyone at the table can agree to have sufficient time pass between episodes to satisfy their demand for verisimilitudinous healing.



You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution. Why have this period of time when the game allows you to heal up (unbelievably as it were) overnight? Do the players or DM just decide that "hey, my healing surges don't work because I have a bad injury". I mean, how do you even determine if you have a bad injury? You guys spent so much time trying to convince me that 1hp away from negative bloodied wasn't that bad before. The question then is: so when _do_ I then say that a serious injury has been incurred? 

My interpretation of this (and the whole reason why I introduced the whole hp thing to the thread way back when) is that flavour has been sacrificed for a game mechanic that keeps the game running more smoothly and keeps all characters involved for longer by reducing the healing workload of the Cleric. A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude. YMOV.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Delta (Sep 23, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Interesting thought. 3E is bettered by earlier editions there. (Excluding 4E only because the risk of instant death is much less in that edition.)




Yes, I agree.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, @ pemerton, by the time Sam rescues Frodo, the nature of the orcs is so well established (in Mordor and Out) that Tolkein's work makes sense.  Nor is what happens without consequences to the storyline.
> 
> 
> RC





Oh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease.  Someone please quote my last post without the sblock tags so RC can see it.  That's just way, way too funny.

Oh, and guys, I love you too.  



> No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to ignoring that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing. There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can make a new character. If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived. And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.




How is character death, or at least permanent character death, not losing?  Sure, you can make a new character.  You can play Monopoly again.  You still lost.  

What about in the case of the entire party dying?  Is that a "loss"?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

Ahem.  Sorry, just had to point that out.

I was reading my PHB 2 this morning and came across an interesting sidebar that I think really sheds light on why these discussions are so difficult, why we tend to talk past each other so often.  

In the section on retraining, on page 194, there is the following sidebar:



			
				PHB 2 said:
			
		

> In general, retraining is assumed to be a background activity, just like normal level increass are.  However, if you DM's campaign requires the PC's to spend time and/or money to improve their skills (etc)... (DMG 197) the DM can apply similar requirements when the characters use the retraining rules presented in this chapter.  The table below shows some suggested tie and gp costs... These costs are purely optons; *the game works perfectly well without them, just as it works without requiring downtime in order to attain higher levels*




Now, personally, I agree with the bolded part.  The game works with or without them, so you choose.  I think the problem comes is that some people don't think the game works perfectly well without these elements.  Fundamentally, this is the break here.  How much is actually needed.

Look at some of these quotes:



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Either all wounds short of the killing blow are not really injury, they are just loss of mojo that can be brought back with a deep breath, which I find unsatisfactory, or all characters can close all wounds with enough lamaze technique, which is I find unsatisfactory.




compared to this:



			
				Herriman said:
			
		

> My interpretation of this (and the whole reason why I introduced the whole hp thing to the thread way back when) is that flavour has been sacrificed for a game mechanic that keeps the game running more smoothly and keeps all characters involved for longer by reducing the healing workload of the Cleric. A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude. YMOV.




Where you come down on the issue depends a great deal, I think on how much you are willing to sacrifice for the game.  My personal tastes are pretty flexible.  I don't get too fussed about systems too often so long as they work.  Otherwise, I feel it's the DM that makes the game, not the system.  I use D&D because I like it and I feel comfortable using these mechanics, not because I think these mechanics are the absolute best for my tastes.

Sorry, had a point, but I think I lost it somewhere back there.  :/


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

A little while later.

In my mind, there needs to be a definite heirarchy in game mechanic design.  To me, the priorities should look like this:

1.  Does it work at the table?  If it doesn't work at the table, or it causes the game to come to a screeching halt, the mechanic is bad.  Doesn't matter how good the flavor is, or how interesting it is, it's bad.

For me, a perfect example of this is Living Imagination's Broadsides!! rules.  Absolutely the best IMO, naval combat supplement that I've read for 3e.  Chock full of flavor, interesting to read, really captures the idea of two (or more) ships going at each other on the high seas.  In play?  Boring.  About as interesting as watching paint dry.  Far too detailed for a group game.  Might work as a two player game, but, for D&D?  Nope.  Bad.  

2.  Flavor.  (You didn't think I was totally anti flavour did you?)  - Yes, the mechanics need flavor.  Flavorless mechanics are boring, regardless of how well they work at the table.  You do need to capture the feeling of what you are trying to do.  But, again, this takes a far back seat to point one.

3.  Ease of implementation - now this one is trickier in a game like D&D which we all like to use for so many different styles.  But, there has to be some thought given as to how this can be added to the game without causing huge upheavals in existing games.  

4.  Genre emulation.  - This one I put in the very back seat.  D&D is a poor genre simulator and IMO, always has been.  It's always been the "kitchen sink" game where you take whatever, from whereever and chuck it in.

What about you?  How would you prioritise things?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In my mind, there needs to be a definite heirarchy in game mechanic design.  To me, the priorities should look like this:
> 
> 1.  Does it work at the table?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure these really *can* be prioritized as neatly as this.  Every design element is going to have elements of all four, plus there's a fifth one to consider:

5.  Simplicity.

That said, if something passes the test for 2,3,4 and 5 (particularly for 2,3 and 5) then by default it's going to pass the test for 1, or can be made to.

I really begin to think that the root cause for many of these discussions is we all have different ideas about what '1' represents, as what works just fine at one table might not work at all at another.  Let's take simple initiative as an example.  Some think group initiatives rolled once per combat work just fine.  Others think individual turn-based initiatives are the way to go.  Others see re-rolling each round as the answer.  Never mind the question of what die size to use... 

Yet there's a flavour component even in such a mechanical thing as initiative.  Re-rolling each round is more realistic, thus maintaining flavour and believability, but takes more time; rolling once sacrifices said flavour in the name of saving time (in 3e, it saves a lot of time!).  And each of us has our own way of doing it that works at our table...because we make it work.

I guess what I'm saying is that if this game-vs.-flavour issue can affect even something as simple as initiative, on the larger scale this might be a no-win discussion.  The designers build what works for them; we tweak it until it works for us.  Then we argue about it. 

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to _ignoring_ that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing.





Exactly so.




Herremann the Wise said:


> You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution.





Also exactly so.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to _ignoring_ that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing.  There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can _make a new character.  _If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived.  And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.




So, how does one lose in D&D? When the world is destroyed? 

Or maybe you're right. You can't really lose D&D, just as you can't win it. But you can certainly win or lose a fight. You can lose a character (which is, of course, a different meaning from the "losing a fight). You can lose "fun" if you have to face with the fact that the next hour or so, you will watch the other players have a thrilling combat while you roll up a new character or wait for them to get the time to raise your character.

To use a sport analogy - you don't lose the World Soccer Championship by losing just one game. But that doesn't mean you did not lose. You just didn't lose everything.

So maybe he isn't ignoring it because you can't lose a game. Death in combat is a loss in the context of the encounter - not in the context of the adventure or the campaign maybe, but still losing.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 23, 2008)

If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But you can certainly win or lose a fight. You can lose a character (which is, of course, a different meaning from the "losing a fight). You can lose "fun" if you have to face with the fact that the next hour or so, you will watch the other players have a thrilling combat while you roll up a new character or wait for them to get the time to raise your character.




All far more analagous to going to jail in Monopoly than a "You Lose" card in the Community Chest.  Which is what is being ignored, as ProfessorCirno correctly points out.



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.




If forced to choose between fun and satisfaction, my goal is satisfaction.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

> If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.



I agree. 



Raven Crowking said:


> All far more analagous to going to jail in Monopoly than a "You Lose" card in the Community Chest.  Which is what is being ignored, as ProfessorCirno correctly points out.



I disagree. Unless you're usually in jail in Monopoly for an hour of game-time, getting no chance to do anything at all. I haven't played Monopoly more then once or twice at best, so I don't know, but I am _almost _certain that's not how it works. 

Of course, there is also a second problem - who claims that Monopoly is a good game and that going to jail therefore doesn't become a "you-lose" situation? A lot of stuff is successful despite flawed aspects. There might be a reason why I don't play Monopoly, Skat or a phletora of other games that are still considered common or even successful. 



> If forced to choose between fun and satisfaction, my goal is satisfaction.



What's the difference?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Where you come down on the issue depends a great deal, I think on how much you are willing to sacrifice for the game.



I don't understand how my quote fits in your post.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What's the difference?





Have you ever seen _The Deerhunter_, _Deliverance_, or Brendan Fraser's _Journey to the Center of the Earth_?

The first two are satisfying without being fun.

The third is fun without being satisfying.

D&D ultimately should be both, but when there is a choice between the two to be made, satisfying wins (for me; YMMV) every time.  (Same with film & literature, for that matter!)


RC


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I disagree. Unless you're usually in jail in Monopoly for an hour of game-time, getting no chance to do anything at all.



If part of monopoly was simulating a real fear of being imprisoned, then the rules as they stand would suck.

I want my fantasy rpgs to do a vastly better job of creating the feel of facing threats of harm and the appropriate consequences than monopoly does of simulating real estate finances and white color crime.

To have something happen that *should* take a character out of play, but have the rules intervene and keep the character going is so obviously contrived and directly contrary to the cause and effect of the setting I desire, that it is anti-fun.  It is much more fun to "sit and suck" in an engaging game story that makes sense, than to keep fighting knowing that the only reason you are going is that the effect that hit you was modified away from what it should be for a completely non-story purpose.

Of course you would rather make your save and stay involved.  But the fun does not start and end there.  On a scale of 1 to 10, when engaged in a 3e style system: 10, when "sit and suck" in a 3E style system: 7, when engaged in a 4e style system knowing that cause and effect doesn't work the way it should: 5.   Sit and suck is less fun than play, but still more fun than the world not working right. 

I've got no dispute with someone claiming it isn't that way for them.  But it most absolutely is for me and my group.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Have you ever seen _The Deerhunter_, _Deliverance_, or Brendan Fraser's _Journey to the Center of the Earth_?
> 
> The first two are satisfying without being fun.
> 
> ...




Can't say I have seen anyone of those. However, when it comes to games, if a game is not satisfying, then it's not fun for me, and if a game is not fun it's not satisfying for me.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

BryonD said:


> I don't understand how my quote fits in your post.




You said that these mechanics are not doing it for you.  You don't like them.  Thus, this is something you are not willing to sacrifice.  Unless I'm misquoting you, and I don't mean to, or I'm misunderstanding, which is entirely possible.  You find the mechanics too intrusive (is that the right word?)

Again, it comes down to what I said, you are not willing to sacrifice your point of view on what is the right way for hit points and healing to work in order to make the game work.   And that's perfectly fine.  I'm saying that some people are a bit more flexible with what doesn't work and aren't quite a fussed about what boils down to a flavor issue if it actually works better at the table.

I look at the hit point thing like this:  at the end of the adventuring day, the cleric is going to heal up the party anyway.  At most, you spend one day resting.  Natural healing doesn't enter into the equation in the vast majority of cases.  So, why screw around about it?  Why not build that right into the game?  If we're going to play that way anyway, just add it in and be done with it.  

Since it works out the same at the end, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.  Obviously there's some variation in mileage going on here.  



> If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.




Absolutely true.



> I guess what I'm saying is that if this game-vs.-flavour issue can affect even something as simple as initiative, on the larger scale this might be a no-win discussion. The designers build what works for them; we tweak it until it works for us. Then we argue about it.




Also absolutely true.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> All far more analagous to going to jail in Monopoly than a "You Lose" card in the Community Chest.  Which is what is being ignored, as ProfessorCirno correctly points out.




Actually, going to Jail in Monopoly is a _good_ thing if what you want to do is win the game (instead of roll dice, move your guy around, and pay out rent).  Even when you are in jail, you are still actively participating in the game.

If the card said, "Go watch TV until the Banker says you can come back", that might be more like D&D death.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Have you ever seen _The Deerhunter_, _Deliverance_, or Brendan Fraser's _Journey to the Center of the Earth_?
> 
> The first two are satisfying without being fun.
> 
> ...




Like Fenes, I have seen neither of them. 

I suppose I am using the term "fun" in the sense of "entertaining" or "enjoyment. I can't see how a movie that was fun to me wasn't satisfying.

Have you seen _Death Race_? Paperthin plot, "unrealistic" premise. Still very fun and thus satisfying to me.

_The Dark Knight_ - Complex plot, interesting characters, a somewhat unrealistic premise, all in all a movie that brought me fun and satisfied me (and certainly more so then Death Race  ). I wouldn't find myself able to distinguish between fun and satisfaction here, and I can't certainly think of any kind of definition of "fun" that wouldn't leave me some satisfaction.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> You said that these mechanics are not doing it for you.  You don't like them.  Thus, this is something you are not willing to sacrifice.  Unless I'm misquoting you, and I don't mean to, or I'm misunderstanding, which is entirely possible.  You find the mechanics too intrusive (is that the right word?)



 It seems to me you are saying that I like soccer, but your version doesn't allow contact with the ball and I'm not willing to "sacrifice" actually touching the ball in order to keep playing.  The word sacrifice just doesn't fit.  



> Again, it comes down to what I said, you are not willing to sacrifice your point of view on what is the right way for hit points and healing to work in order to make the game work.   And that's perfectly fine.  I'm saying that some people are a bit more flexible with what doesn't work and aren't quite a fussed about what boils down to a flavor issue if it actually works better at the table.



I don't see that as a fair assessment at all.  I could turn your buzz words on their head and say that 4E fans are not flexible enough to deal with the reasonable cause and effect to play in a game the works right.  But that wiuld be just as unreasonable as your characterization of my position.  The bottom line is that we want very different things.

It is not a flavor thing.  It is a mechanics things.  I wasn't describing the flavor, I was making a simple analogy for how it actually works out.  It is a mechanics thing, and it works vastly worse at the table.



> I look at the hit point thing like this:  at the end of the adventuring day, the cleric is going to heal up the party anyway.  At most, you spend one day resting.  Natural healing doesn't enter into the equation in the vast majority of cases.  So, why screw around about it?  Why not build that right into the game?  If we're going to play that way anyway, just add it in and be done with it.
> 
> Since it works out the same at the end, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.  Obviously there's some variation in mileage going on here.



But it doesn't work out the same in the end.  And it is a million miles apart on how it works out along the way toward the end.

Natural healing has nothing to do with my issue.  (I guess it could, but the presumption that the cleric will take care of it I do agree with). 

I'm frustrated with the very question of why not just build it into the game.  I mean, 9 time out of 10 the characters win, so why not just build that into the game?  You don't build fighters spontaneously healing their own wounds into the game because fighters do not spontaneously heal wounds.

Why not give orcs a 1 in 10 chance of bursting into flame every round?  After all, the wizard is going to fireball them eventually.  It works out the same in the end.  I'm not flexible enough to accept this change.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Can't say I have seen anyone of those. However, when it comes to games, if a game is not satisfying, then it's not fun for me, and if a game is not fun it's not satisfying for me.




I believe RC is trying to say that an RPG must be more meaty than simply fun.

Again, it's totally a mileage may vary sort of thing.  I love the crap out of fun movies.  While I'm not against something like The Deerhunter, or Deliverance, given the fact that i'm going to be doing this every week for several hours at a time, I'll go with fun over substance.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I want my fantasy rpgs to do a vastly better job of creating the feel of facing threats of harm and the appropriate consequences than monopoly does of simulating real estate finances and white color crime.




Now here we have a bit of a disconnect.  I feel that it's the DM's job of creating the feel of the game.  The mechanics are just tools for resolving actions, nothing more.  If the tools don't allow me to resolve the actions without forcing a player to go watch TV for three hours, then those tools are not good.

Heck, I added AP's to my Savage Tide game specifically for this.  Then tied the AP's to the character's backgrounds (referencing background gains you AP's) to ensure that a particular feel was kept.  So long as you have AP's in my game, you cannot die.  Any attack that takes you below -10 costs you all your current AP's and leaves you stable at -9.  It is possible to die, but, difficult.  And certainly far more difficult than standard 3e which I find way too lethal.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 23, 2008)

I think I might have to quote out of order to see if I get where you're coming from.  Maybe I'm off-base; if so, sorry about that!



BryonD said:


> To have something happen that *should* take a character out of play, but have the rules intervene and keep the character going is so obviously contrived and directly contrary to the cause and effect of the setting I desire, that it is anti-fun.  It is much more fun to "sit and suck" in an engaging game story that makes sense, than to keep fighting knowing that the only reason you are going is that the effect that hit you was modified away from what it should be for a completely non-story purpose.




How do you define what _should_ happen?

Should I die right away when poisoned?  What if I'm hit with a Finger of Death or Disintegrate?  What if the hit point mechanics say that, if the magic killing ray doesn't drop me to -x hit points, I'm not dead?  Does that mean the magic ray didn't work the way it should, or that I wasn't actually hit by it?



BryonD said:


> I want my fantasy rpgs to do a vastly better job of creating the feel of facing threats of harm and the appropriate consequences than monopoly does of simulating real estate finances and white color crime.




Maybe that's it: you want the game system to make _you_ feel the fear that your character does.



BryonD said:


> ...when engaged in a 4e style system knowing that cause and effect doesn't work the way it should: 5.   Sit and suck is less fun than play, but still more fun than the world not working right.




I still don't see why cause and effect doesn't work the way it should.  I think the game is abstract enough so that the players can make cause and effect or the world work for them.

What it doesn't do is put the player in the mind of the character.  There's an extra step there, when you use the mechanics.  You still have to describe what the hell just happened in the fiction.  Maybe that extra step is what's off-putting about 4e.



BryonD said:


> I've got no dispute with someone claiming it isn't that way for them.  But it most absolutely is for me and my group.




That's cool.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Maybe that's it: you want the game system to make _you_ feel the fear that your character does.



I know everyone feels and acts differently, but I know that in my group, that just will never work. If a game becomes to deadly and uncontrolled, we just stop seeing a character as important. We would distance ourselves from them. They become nothing more than a game piece with no "emotional" attachment. 

"Oh, look, my character just died. Hmm. Didn't look like the Monk/Sorcerer build worked. I think we need a real Wizard more. so I'll make an Evoker next - who cares for Illusions or Enchantments anyway. So - standard 25 point buy and wealth by level? Entry level my last characters level -1 as usual halfway to next level as usual?"


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm frustrated with the very question of why not just build it into the game. I mean, 9 time out of 10 the characters when, so why not just build that into the game? You don't build fighters spontaneously healing their own wounds into the game because fighters do not spontaneously heal wounds.




They do in 4e.   

BTW, what buzz words did I use in my post.  Look, I know you're pretty hostile right now, but, honestly, taking it down a few notches might help.  I posted a pretty reasonable question I thought.  If I got it wrong, show me how.

Also BTW, I never referenced 4e and don't play 4e, so, characterizing me as some 4e fanbois isn't really helping.

Building autowins into the game would be boring, so, my whole Game First approach would nix that automatically.  There's no fun in playing in God Mode, so, that's why we don't do it.

But, forcing groups to have a cleric isn't all that much fun.  ((Or relying on cure light wounds wands as a bandage fix))  So, change the mechanics so you don't need clerics.  Thus, all classes can heal themselves and, since it's the way most tables play anyway, a full nights rest cures all hit point damage.   There, game first approach.

One option I considered in 3e was allowing all clerics to cast cure minor wound at will.  Or just allowing all cantrips to be cast at will.  Would have the same effect in the end.  I decided that it was a trifle too powerful to go that far.  But, again at the end of the day, how is that any different than a cure light wounds wand?  After each fight, everyone is going to get healed to full anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I know everyone feels and acts differently, but I know that in my group, that just will never work. If a game becomes to deadly and uncontrolled, we just stop seeing a character as important. We would distance ourselves from them. They become nothing more than a game piece with no "emotional" attachment.
> 
> "Oh, look, my character just died. Hmm. Didn't look like the Monk/Sorcerer build worked. I think we need a real Wizard more. so I'll make an Evoker next - who cares for Illusions or Enchantments anyway. So - standard 25 point buy and wealth by level? Entry level my last characters level -1 as usual halfway to next level as usual?"




That's precisely what happened in my last 3e game.  1 PC death every 3 sessions.  Far and away too lethal.  Nobody gave a toss about their characters towards the end.  Just numbers on a paper.

Fun but, not for very long.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

To figure out if something should be "build in", in the example of healing it is simple:
- If the party survives, what will stop them from using their Cure Light Wound Wands and Cleric spells to heal themselves up to full hit points? The answer is usually very little.
- If the party is in combat, what stops them from using their Cure Light Wound Wands and Cleric spells to heal all damage taken during the found? The answer is usually a lot. 

Automatic full regeneration during combat is hard (or impossible) to pull off. After combat - not really.

So, keep the part that is apparently challenging (the part where you don't regenerate), but remove the part that isn't. That's the "gamist" approach - keep the part that are challenging, remove the parts that are automatic/boring (and often enough, simple system mastery) 

A similar thing happened to "pre-combat" buffing. In 3E, it was standard operating procedures to stack up buff spells of various sorts, ensuring things like +4 enhancement bonus to all relevant statistics, Greater Magic Weapons/Magic Vestments running on armors, Barkskins distributed among the front-liners, immunity to Fear and Poison from Heroes Feat, Overland Flight for the caster. Once you got to the point where you have figured out that this is a smart thing to do, there is no longer any challenge. It's just performing a "Buff Macro". 

So, that's gone in 4E, too. Pre-Combat buffs are basically non-existent. If you want to buff, do it in the middle of combat. 

Going back to our flavor first vs game first - I don't know if people wanted the flavor of pre-buffing in their games. If it is something that made them feel like in a "believable" world, or a world to immerse themselves in. But from a gamist point of view, the rules leading there were irrelevant. They didn't provide any challenges, and just made the game more complicated, because you suddenly had to stack different modifiers and effects, and if you'd ever be hit by a Dispel Magic, you end up re-doing your character stats. From a gamist point, a "debuff" that causes you to take a -4 penalty to attacks and defenses could achieve the same. Of course, if you no longer describe this effect as a "dispel" (because there is nothing to be dispelled), you need to come up with a different flavor. Maybe it is the Warlocks "Curse of Albon" spell, or the Wizards "Bigby's Disrupting Hand" spell. Or the Fighters "Painful Strike" exploit.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 23, 2008)

Buffing was greatly reduced in our campaign even before the advent of 3.5.


----------



## Stoat (Sep 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Buffing was greatly reduced in our campaign even before the advent of 3.5.




Could I ask why?  We didn't have much pre-combat buffing in my 3.X game, but it was because we had a weird mix of PC's:  Sorcerer, Fighter, Fighter/Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Buffing was greatly reduced in our campaign even before the advent of 3.5.



I think you have very well established that "your campaign" is nothing like mine - and I tend to think like most others, too. You're playing D&D in ways I can only applaud or even envy, but it is totally so not standard that I will never use it as an example for how D&D 3E worked or was supposed to worked.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 23, 2008)

Stoat said:


> Could I ask why?  We didn't have much pre-combat buffing in my 3.X game, but it was because we had a weird mix of PC's:  Sorcerer, Fighter, Fighter/Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.




I don't like buff spells as a whole, especially the straight stat boosters. I feel they cheapen character stats and abilities, and add nothing to the game. As I said to the players "you boost your stats, I boost the NPC stats, and we're back at the status quo ante. So, why not drop the buffing right away?"


----------



## Mallus (Sep 23, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution.



All pemerton is saying is "if fast healing bothers you, play a different way'. 



> Why have this period of time when the game allows you to heal up (unbelievably as it were) overnight?



Presumably because the default (unbelievable) healing rules bother you? 



> Do the players or DM just decide that "hey, my healing surges don't work because I have a bad injury".



Yes. The players and DM agree that it takes more time to heal the PC's. This could come in the form of a house rule, a whole new homebrewed severe injury system, or a simple agreement between the players. In the end they amount to the same thing. 



> I mean, how do you even determine if you have a bad injury?



Going below 0 HP seems an obvious choice.



> A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude.



So agree to play differently. It seems easy to fix.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't like buff spells as a whole, especially the straight stat boosters. I feel they cheapen character stats and abilities, and add nothing to the game. As I said to the players "you boost your stats, I boost the NPC stats, and we're back at the status quo ante. So, why not drop the buffing right away?"



An observation the designers of 4E seemed to share. But when designers find something useless, they rip it out of the entire game system. Players just ignore that part of the rules. 

(Of course, beware: Higher level monsters might be based on the assumptions that you use some of your spell potential for buffing. But on the other hand, if you run only one encounter per day/session, it might not matter, since you can put your high level spells to good use.  )


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 23, 2008)

Mallus said:


> All pemerton is saying is "if fast healing bothers you, play a different way'.





A possible houserule: 
* Going below your bloodied value - you can't heal above bloodied with healing surges until after an extended rest or magical healing has been aplied.
*going below 0 HP - You can't heal to more than the bloodied value (or 1/4 total HP?) until after a total of 5 (pick a number, any number or roll a d20) extended rests, or applications of magical healing.

Add wands of cure light wounds to the campaign, and you're practically playing 3.5e again... 

But me personally i don't care and find the 4e system to be good enough.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to _ignoring_ that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing.




It' not devoted to ignoring anything. It accepts that while *RC* does not consider dying in D&D loosing, dying in D&D does not equate to simply going to jail or paying the banker in Monopoly.  It's a much larger consequence then the above.



> There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can make a new character.




Yes by traveling to a large city, and paying 5,450gp to a priest willing to cast Raise Dead. It's a SIGNIFICANT hurdle.

It's a large chunck of your money/time that needs to be allocated towards other resources. 

Such a significant hurde it seems most people forgo it (at least until higher levels) and instead opt to roll up a new character.

If your goal is to take a character from level 1 - X dying ends that goal. 

If your goal is to win the game of monopoly, drawing the you loose card ends that goal. Going to jail does not.   





> If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived.  And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.




Personal preference is great. Everyone has their own. Some like super deadly D&D some don't. Some like spicey food, some don't. Some people get attached to their PCs some don't. But the point isn't about being attached, or any sort of personal preference. 

The point is about the two consequences of two games not being equivalent. One is a much bigger burden on the player then the other.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> A possible houserule:
> * Going below your bloodied value - you can't heal above bloodied with healing surges until after an extended rest or magical healing has been aplied.
> *going below 0 HP - You can't heal to more than the bloodied value (or 1/4 total HP?) until after a total of 5 (pick a number, any number or roll a d20) extended rests, or applications of magical healing.
> 
> ...



Rules Change: You recover 1 quarter (minimum 1) of your healing surges per extended rest. 

New Ritual

Heal (Heal)
Level: 1
Casting Time: 1 hour
Duration: Instantenous
Component Cost: 10 gp
You cast this spell on up to 6 creatures, including yourself. At the end of the casting time, the creatures regain all hit points. 
Special: You can cast this ritual as part of an extended rest. It does not affect creatures that have been under it effects in the past 12 hours.

Nearly the same end effect as in 4E, as long as you have at least one person capable of casting the ritual. (Which can even be the Wizard!). But "flavour" of 3E - you use magic at the end of each day to bring you up to full health.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2008)

Scribble said:


> It' not devoted to ignoring anything. It accepts that while *RC* does not consider dying in D&D loosing, dying in D&D does not equate to simply going to jail or paying the banker in Monopoly.  It's a much larger consequence then the above.




How long does an average game of Monopoly last? How long an average game of D&D?  If you were playing a Monopoly "campaign", then I would agree with you.  



> Such a significant hurde it seems most people forgo it (at least until higher levels) and instead opt to roll up a new character.
> 
> If your goal is to take a character from level 1 - X dying ends that goal.




Not everyone thinks that failing to meet a goal damages the game.  Indeed, I am of the opinion that if you cannot fail to meet a goal, that inability damages the game -- and strips the meaning from any goal you do achieve.  YMMV.

That you can fail, or even die, doesn't make the gaem "super deadly D&D".



RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> How long does an average game of Monopoly last? How long an average game of D&D?  If you were playing a Monopoly "campaign", then I would agree with you.




Too long. 

Really to make a fair comparison you would have to either compaire D&D to a monopoly tournement, or compaire a signle shot adventure to a game of monopoly. 



> Not everyone thinks that failing to meet a goal damages the game.  Indeed, I am of the opinion that if you cannot fail to meet a goal, that inability damages the game -- and strips the meaning from any goal you do achieve.  YMMV.




I'm not arguing for or against the ability to die. My comment was only regarding the level of consequences being compaired.

The more consequences something has to the player, the more something that can bring it about needs to be considered.  




> That you can fail, or even die, doesn't make the gaem "super deadly D&D".




Not in my opinion, no. I was only stating that some people have different opinions about what they like, and what they don't like. Not about what makes something super deadly D&D.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't have inflexible upper and lower boundaries.




So there's no random outcome you don't think is too outlandish to be implicitly accepted by sitting down to play, and no chance however small that you don't think people will consider it?

Cognitive research puts lie to the second one in a big way. Tversky's work on human perception of probability, for example. 



> Nor do I consider death by hangnail an obvious potential consequence.  But our fighter, going into dark and dangerous places, damn well ought to consider the possibility of there being more than an orc to deal with.




So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?


----------



## Delta (Sep 23, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?




You know, the people I played 3E with were bothered at the prospect of ever _not_ being able to kill someone with one blow. They demanded we use the DMG "Variant: Instant Kill" rule (20-20-hit = autodeath; about 1:800 chance on any attack I figure).

It did memorably save the PCs from a TPK once.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 23, 2008)

Delta said:


> You know, the people I played 3E with were bothered at the prospect of ever _not_ being able to kill someone with one blow. They demanded we use the DMG "Variant: Instant Kill" rule (20-20-hit = autodeath; about 1:800 chance on any attack I figure).
> 
> It did memorably save the PCs from a TPK once.



What works well with NPCs doesn't always work on PCs.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Sep 24, 2008)

Seems easy enough to make that rule apply only to NPCs/monsters, though. 

If you're comfortable with "PCs get special treatment", of course, although I'd argue that because PCs are the only characters who have a player driving them, by definition they're already a special case, so no biggie.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 24, 2008)

Mallus said:


> All pemerton is saying is "if fast healing bothers you, play a different way'... Presumably because the default (unbelievable) healing rules bother you?... Yes. The players and DM agree that it takes more time to heal the PC's. This could come in the form of a house rule, a whole new homebrewed severe injury system, or a simple agreement between the players. In the end they amount to the same thing... Going below 0 HP seems an obvious choice... So agree to play differently. It seems easy to fix.



I would prefer just sucking it up, thinking "oh well, the rule does not make complete sense" and move on rather than trying to house rule a ruleset that my group is still getting used to. Generally, I prefer to run games in "rules as written" mode - I don't want to have to worry about weird unforeseen consequences of my fiddling with a ruleset. I mean sure, of course I can house rule things, I just wish I did not have to. I just wish that they had have picked a mechanic that achieved it's aim without sacrificing some of the flavour in the process.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB (Sep 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I would prefer just sucking it up, thinking "oh well, the rule does not make complete sense" and move on rather than trying to house rule a ruleset that my group is still getting used to. Generally, I prefer to run games in "rules as written" mode - I don't want to have to worry about weird unforeseen consequences of my fiddling with a ruleset. I mean sure, of course I can house rule things, I just wish I did not have to. I just wish that they had have picked a mechanic that achieved it's aim without sacrificing some of the flavour in the process.




The funny thing is that it's something you only notice if you _don't_ have a cleric or warlord in the group. Without a source of actual healing, getting back all of your healing surges just seems wrong.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> So there's no random outcome you don't think is too outlandish to be implicitly accepted by sitting down to play, and no chance however small that you don't think people will consider it?




Not sure how you got to this.....?

In any event, my determination of what is acceptable is based upon whether it makes sense within the context of the game world, not what chance my PCs have to survive it.



> So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?




Why not?


RC


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To figure out if something should be "build in", in the example of healing it is simple:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> keep the part that is apparently challenging (the part where you don't regenerate), but remove the part that isn't. That's the "gamist" approach - keep the part that are challenging, remove the parts that are automatic/boring (and often enough, simple system mastery)



I liked this post. Thanks.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution. Why have this period of time when the game allows you to heal up (unbelievably as it were) overnight? Do the players or DM just decide that "hey, my healing surges don't work because I have a bad injury". I mean, how do you even determine if you have a bad injury?



The game rules say that all healing surges are restored after an extended rest. The game rules are silent on whether this means that all wounds are healed, or the PC is able to ignore those wounds, or . . . (In the same way, the game rules are silent on what damage taken corresponds to what sort of injury on a PC, except that "bloodied" means bloodied.)

My suggestion is that if all the players at the table are agreed in disliking the notion that all physical injury is restored with an extended rest, they can simply agree that a verisimilitudinous amount of time passes between episodes in the game. When an extended rest is taken within the context of a given episode, then it can be narrated no differently from a short rest - the PCs bind wounds, take the weight of their injuries for a few hours, then resolutely return to the fray.



Herremann the Wise said:


> A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude. YMOV.



Well, I'm just offering a suggestion that permits verisimilitude to be preserved without changing the mechanics. The verisimilitude still involves a potentially gonzo element, of much gritting of the teeth and pressing on regardless, but I think no more than has always been inherent in D&D. The gonzo aspects to one side, it is entirely within the power of a gaming table to regain verisimilitude, simply by (i) agreeing to the suggested break between episodes, and (ii) narrating extended rests within episodes as mental/moral recovery rather than physical recovery.

(Btw, exactly the same technique can be used by those who don't like the idea of PCs going from 1st to 30th level in a single game year or less.)

Of course, if the players feel that they are obliged to play their PCs as if the game mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, with hit points and healing surges mapping directly to physical injury and its recovery (eg they will not interpret the extended rest rules as anything but "all non-mortal injuries, however severe, heal overnight") then they will not like my suggestion. But for such resolutely simulationist players, 4e is probably the wrong game system. Likewise if you are playing a game in which the notion of "episodes" makes no sense (eg it is a sandbox game in which the entire game world is on stage all the time) then I think that 4e is probably not the right game for that sort of play.



Mallus said:


> All pemerton is saying is "if fast healing bothers you, play a different way'.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This could come in the form of a house rule, a whole new homebrewed severe injury system, or a simple agreement between the players. In the end they amount to the same thing.



I am suggesting "play a different way." I'm also suggesting that this can be done without changing the mechanics at all. All it requires is agreement at the table to let a sufficient amount of ingame time pass between episodes.

The advantage of doing it the way I am suggesting (ie by metagame agreement with no change of the mechanics) is that there is no danger of the unfolding of events _within_ an episode being derailed by the need for lengthy healing periods. In my approach, lengthy healing periods only occur when everyone at the table agrees to let the time pass. When events are in motion, extended rests are simply narrated as a resolute gritting of teeth in the face of pain and injury.



Herremann the Wise said:


> I would prefer just sucking it up, thinking "oh well, the rule does not make complete sense" and move on rather than trying to house rule a ruleset that my group is still getting used to.



I hope I've made it clear that I'm not suggesting any sort of change to the mechanics. I'm just suggesting a certain metagame agreement to increase verisimilitude.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?





Raven Crowking said:


> Why not?



GlaziusF, my memory of the last time I saw this come up (on a 30+ page pre-4e thread about encounter powers, a sort of pre-echo in time of this thread) is that RC did not concede that there is any important difference between an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds in a sequence of dice rolls in which the player cannot intervene (eg the orc with the greataxe) and an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds over a sequence of dice rolls in which the player is a participant.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2008)

pemerton said:


> GlaziusF, my memory of the last time I saw this come up (on a 30+ page pre-4e thread about encounter powers, a sort of pre-echo in time of this thread) is that RC did not concede that there is any important difference between an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds in a sequence of dice rolls in which the player cannot intervene (eg the orc with the greataxe) and an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds over a sequence of dice rolls in which the player is a participant.




I believe that there are times when the die has been cast; where the choices have been made, and all that remains is determining the outcome.

I don't believe (in actual game play) in "I made no choices" scenarios.

RC


----------



## Delta (Sep 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What works well with NPCs doesn't always work on PCs.




And yet my players demanded the "Variant: Instant Kill" for both. 

They wouldn't have imagined being comfortable with "PCs get special treatment".


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 24, 2008)

Hello Pemerton, I appreciate the extended response and despite the fact that I'm not jiving with what you're saying, you're getting some XP from me - for what it's worth.

However, some points that you may or may not find useful.

- You have introduced the idea of episodic play vs. sandbox style play. Our group is definitely in the sandbox camp rather than episodic. 4E still works for us though - not perfectly (no edition of D&D has done that yet), we still have issues but we're giving it a good go.

- You have introduced the idea of a metagame "rest". This is an unsatisfactory solution for our group. We expect the game to tell us that our character needs healing as in "you have been critically injured; no words from Mr Warlord over there are going to help this time; a bandage and a kiss equally is not going to cut it; see Mr Cleric of Pelor over there [Mr Cleric gives a little wave], you're going to need HIS help now, otherwise you're going to be in a world of pain for some days to come." It should not be as part of some weird, metagame player accord. It should have been in-built.

Unfortunately the game does not tell us this. I find this jarring. I find this as I have said before, mechanics-first at the expense of a little bit of flavour. I can suck it up and move on wishing that it was different but accepting that this part of the game was not going to make complete sense. Our group will "battle on" so to speak.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> I hope I've made it clear that I'm not suggesting any sort of change to the mechanics. I'm just suggesting a certain metagame agreement to increase verisimilitude.



And this I think illustrates the issue that I have with your suggestion. You are suggesting an out-of-game agreement to assist with in-game verisilitude. By its nature, I find this kind of wonky. The in-game mechanics should be informing me of this, not some made up player (that is non-character) accord.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> The advantage of doing it the way I am suggesting (ie by metagame agreement with no change of the mechanics) is that there is no danger of the unfolding of events _within_ an episode being derailed by the need for lengthy healing periods. In my approach, lengthy healing periods only occur when everyone at the table agrees to let the time pass. When events are in motion, extended rests are simply narrated as a resolute gritting of teeth in the face of pain and injury.



But shouldn't a serious injury affect what happens in game? "Hey, this guy needs a cleric or some divine assistance. Has anyone got a healing potion? No, well where's the nearest surgeon, this guy needs help and fast. And the Princess that needs rescuing? She's gonna have to wait - I hope we don't run out of time?" 



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> Of course, if the players feel that they are obliged to play their PCs as if the game mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, with hit points and healing surges mapping directly to physical injury and its recovery (eg they will not interpret the extended rest rules as anything but "all non-mortal injuries, however severe, heal overnight") then they will not like my suggestion.



You're overstating the case here. Hit point loss does not have to map directly to damage taken. But some of it should, surely? When is a character damaged to the point where a good nights rest isn't going to have them back in working order the next day? I simply believe there should be provision in the rules for this circumstance - when divine healing is required to keep going.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> But for such resolutely simulationist players, 4e is probably the wrong game system.



Again, I think you're over-stating the case. Surely you don't have to be a died-in-the-wool simulationist to find this element of the game quirky?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I believe that there are times when the die has been cast; where the choices have been made, and all that remains is determining the outcome.
> 
> I don't believe (in actual game play) in "I made no choices" scenarios.
> 
> RC




It is not possible for the average human to give realistic weight to any probability outside of the realm of about one in 8. Maybe you could get down to one in 16, one in 32, with a lifetime of training. 

When somebody is making a choice with unpredictable consequences they will not be able to accurately account for a probability this low. Putting multiple decision points that result in an overall probable outcome of 800,000 is different from a single decision point with this same outcome because at some point in the multiple decision chain someone can actually give the probability a realistic weight, at the point before it becomes inevitable.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 24, 2008)

Scribble said:


> If your goal is to take a character from level 1 - X dying ends that goal.
> 
> If your goal is to win the game of monopoly, drawing the you loose card ends that goal. Going to jail does not.



What if my goal is to *play* the game rather than win it?  In a D+D sense, that means my goal is to see the campaign through...see how the story comes out in the end...in full knowledge and acceptance of the fact (and it is a fact, believe me) that the characters I start out with will not be the characters I finish with.

In other words, my goal is not necessarily to take a character from 1 - X* but to see the party go from 1 - X...if my characters happen to do well in the process, that's a bonus. 
* - side note: I find this an amusing way of putting it since in our house system notation 'X' means 'dead'. 

Lanefan


----------



## MerricB (Sep 24, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> * - side note: I find this an amusing way of putting it since in our house system notation 'X' means 'dead'.




Cool. That means for one of my players, we had 1-X,X,X,X,X... 

Cheers!


----------



## Fenes (Sep 24, 2008)

Also remember that not everyone plays the "Dungeon Way". In my campaign, the party is regularily split three-ways, for long times. (Currently one PC is off infiltrating the palace, another is working with rebels trying to topple the tyrant, and the third is dealing with a fiend trying to kidnap an NPC under the party's protection, and those are just the main plots).
In such a game, where the DM is used to split screen time regularily, being "dead" (or unconscious) and waiting to revive is not taking a time out, it can be filled with "dream episodes" or visions, conversations with ancestor spirits, messengers from god, whatever suits the character and campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> It is not possible for the average human to give realistic weight to any probability outside of the realm of about one in 8. Maybe you could get down to one in 16, one in 32, with a lifetime of training.




And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20.  Weird.   



> When somebody is making a choice with unpredictable consequences they will not be able to accurately account for a probability this low. Putting multiple decision points that result in an overall probable outcome of 800,000 is different from a single decision point with this same outcome because at some point in the multiple decision chain someone can actually give the probability a realistic weight, at the point before it becomes inevitable.




Again, so?

Unless the scenario you are describing is the Kobayashi Maru (sp?), then the scenario has (1) multiple decision points, and (2) in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow.  If you choose to  play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so.  I, for one, do not play with people who whine about the consequences of their actions within a game.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20.  Weird.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a terrible example: Imagine how your world is impacted if, say your uncle died in a sudden car accident, or if your uncle died after a year of chemo therapies from his cancer. Both are situations nobody would want to be in, and I wouldn't want you to decide which you "prefer" more. But do you see the difference? In the first scenario, the "decisions" that lead to it might be that your uncle decided to drive a car. In the second, decisions were made regarding what doctors to consult, which therapy to choose, when to visit your uncle, how to support him, and, overall, you had some time to consider the fact that in fact, your uncle might die. 

To get back to less terrible examples: 
The point is that the mental decision tree of many players "resets" when you enter combat. You made countless of decisions that got you into that combat, but for now, you're mindset is "Now I am in combat. I am no longer in my exploration mindset." And just the moment you have switched your mindset, your character is gone. Maybe not every players mind works this way



> And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Weird.



Being able to logically comprehend the numbers, write them down is not the same as instinctually getting the difference between having to roll a 15 or a 16. And I think that's what GlaziusF is talking about. I can describe "infinity" in many words, but do I "get" it, can I really envision it, or instinctually get what something infinite would be?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2008)

Folkways, by William Graham Sumner, 1906, p. 20:

There was an element in the most elementary experience which was irrational and defied all expedient methods.  One might use the best known means with the greatest care, yet fail of the result.  On the other hand, one might get a great result with no effort at all.  One might also incur a calamity without any fault of his own.  This was the aleatory element in life, the element of risk and loss, good or bad fortune.  This element is never absent from the affairs of men.​
I not only expect this aleatory element in a fantasy rpg, I have no interest in a fantasy rpg that fails to evoke it.  IMHO, fantasy (novels, films, short stories, or games) is interesting specifically _because_ it can evoke the more primitive, fundamental aspects of our minds....what lies below rationality....and then give it meaning within a framework that our rational minds can comprehend.  

I _expect_ a fantasy game to allow me to step outside modern modes of thinking, at least to some degree, and gain a wider appreciation not only of the rational process that created the game, but of the "mythic universe" as well.  Likewise, I don't want a game that treats magic like technology; I want a game that treats magic like an extension of a universe that is rife with consciousness and will.

Anything less seems sterile to me.

(And note, that I am talking about fantasy rpgs here.  I have different criteria for science fiction and superhero games.  But, whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is _*always*_ among my list of criteria.)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (And note, that I am talking about fantasy rpgs here.  I have different criteria for science fiction and superhero games.  But, whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is _*always*_ among my list of criteria.)
> RC



What? No whining? We always have at least one playing the role of the dedicated whiner! (Unfortunately, the two players best at it are no longer in the area and thus can't play with us too often. I am trying the best to compensate...). The Whiner ("Damn! Again, 5 rounds in a row with no roll above 5!") and the Vulture ("Ah, dead body, I want the sword!") are two important non-combat roles in our games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What? No whining? We always have at least one playing the role of the dedicated whiner! (Unfortunately, the two players best at it are no longer in the area and thus can't play with us too often. I am trying the best to compensate...). The Whiner ("Damn! Again, 5 rounds in a row with no roll above 5!") and the Vulture ("Ah, dead body, I want the sword!") are two important non-combat roles in our games.





I should say, no _*actual*_ whining.  Whining for entertainment value is another thing entirely.  (Rather like not playing with people who threaten other people at the table; it's a rule about actual threats, not fun-n-games.)


RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 24, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> What if my goal is to *play* the game rather than win it?  In a D+D sense, that means my goal is to see the campaign through...see how the story comes out in the end...in full knowledge and acceptance of the fact (and it is a fact, believe me) that the characters I start out with will not be the characters I finish with.
> 
> In other words, my goal is not necessarily to take a character from 1 - X* but to see the party go from 1 - X...if my characters happen to do well in the process, that's a bonus.
> * - side note: I find this an amusing way of putting it since in our house system notation 'X' means 'dead'.
> ...




There aren't any loosers as long as we're having fun eh? 

The game is setup in a way that promotes and rewards you for continuing to keep your character alive by defeating obstacles and challanges. It's setup in a way that promotes the idea that part of the fun is trying to get your character up to the end of the camapign.

If this isn't your goal, that's cool. I'm not in any place to tell someone how to enjoy the game. But the game itself is setup to promote trying to get a character up to the top level.

What's really the point I'm trying to make is that death is not equivalent to going to jail in monopoly. Death in D&D has a much higher consequence to the game and more importantly to the player then going to jail does in monopoly. 

I'll admit, a "you loose" card was probably too drastic on my part.   I'm thinking it would be more equivalent to having to pay ALL of your money to the banker, or forces you to give up all properties.

I agree death is part of the game, and I won't argue it shouldn't be. Inability to die would be silly. What I AM saying is that the things that cause death shouldn't be taken as lightly as a random chance.

If I'm considering entering a combat situation, there are things that I rely on to determine if it's a good idea or not. How many HP do I have left? How many cure potions do I have? Does this thing look like it can take a lot of hurtin, or dish it out, etc... If these things look to be good enough that if I start having a run of bad luck I'll still be able to pull myself out of the situation, then it's go time. If not, rethink time. If I misjudge my abilities, or make a poor choice, I will probably die. 

With a random die roll I can't prepaire. The only way to counter it is not to play. And as Johnathan said... Strange game.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20.  Weird.




So, none of these people were ever surprised when they rolled a 20, or dismayed when they rolled a 1 (or the opposition rolled a 20), because in both cases it was something they'd planned for?

I'm betting no.

It's one thing to understand the math, and another to actually use it. Absent external aids or extensive training you cannot *practically* understand probabilities that low.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow.  If you choose to  play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so.




You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800000 shot. You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800 shot. You _can_ practically accept, serially, five consecutive 1-in-10 shots and then a 1-in-8 shot, because all those odds are at least at or near the effective threshhold. You can, in fact, take actions between the various random events which could take them into account, as you could not do with two consecutive 1-in-100 shots and then a 1-in-80 shot.



Raven Crowking said:


> I not only expect this aleatory element in a fantasy rpg, I have no interest in a fantasy rpg that fails to evoke it.  IMHO, fantasy (novels, films, short stories, or games) is interesting specifically _because_ it can evoke the more primitive, fundamental aspects of our minds....what lies below rationality....and then give it meaning within a framework that our rational minds can comprehend.
> 
> I _expect_ a fantasy game to allow me to step outside modern modes of thinking, at least to some degree, and gain a wider appreciation not only of the rational process that created the game, but of the "mythic universe" as well.




I have probably been incautious with my words, using "rationally" when what I really meant was "realistically" or "practically". The brain is no different from what it was 1000 years ago. What's changed is the culture, and the process of acculturation; the knowledge we have and its relationship to other things we know. We do not think differently, but we do think about different things. "Rational thought" is just a coat of paint slapped on top of various peculiars of set theory. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise, I don't want a game that treats magic like technology; I want a game that treats magic like an extension of a universe that is rife with consciousness and will.
> 
> Anything less seems sterile to me.
> 
> (And note, that I am talking about fantasy rpgs here.  I have different criteria for science fiction and superhero games.  But, whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is _*always*_ among my list of criteria.)




Well, there's your problem. You can't have rules for magic and not treat it like technology, because that's what technology _is_ - rules. Reliable transformations of one thing into another. 55 miles is one hour by car, that's technology. The majestic Danube River is 900 megawatts of hydroelectric power, that's technology. A human being's effort for one hour is 55 T-shirts but with this gizmo we can get it up to 70 - that, too, is technology. Rules that introduce a random element just turn magic into *unreliable* technology.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 25, 2008)

Do you know what occurs when there's a one in a million chance of something happening?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 25, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> So, none of these people were ever surprised when they rolled a 20, or dismayed when they rolled a 1 (or the opposition rolled a 20), because in both cases it was something they'd planned for?
> 
> I'm betting no.




You do know that, even if you understand that there is a 5% chance of rolling a 20, and a 5% chance of rolling a 1, that doesn't mean that you don't respond to that event when it happens?  You also understand that, even with a 50% chance, you can be happy you got heads in any given case?  



> It's one thing to understand the math, and another to actually use it. Absent external aids or extensive training you cannot *practically* understand probabilities that low.




I question the conclusions of the study you cited.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Sep 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> the scenario has (1) multiple decision points, and (2) in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow.  If you choose to  play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so.  I, for one, do not play with people who whine about the consequences of their actions within a game.





Raven Crowking said:


> whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is _*always*_ among my list of criteria.



Who is whining at the table? Last time I checked this is a messageboard thread discussing the merits and demerits, for various styles of play, of various rules mechanics.

I think the point of the orc-with-greataxe example is to generate an intuition that a game which is meant to evoke certain responses in play, via a combination of (i) the player identifying with a particular ingame element (the PC), (ii) the player making meaningful choices with respect to that ingame element (playing the PC) and (iii) having combat be a significant portion of the ingame activity (as evidenced by its dominant place in the game rules), is not well-served by having an excess of instant-death rules.

It seems that the designers of AD&D shared that intuition to a significant extent, by making instant death upon entering combat more-or-less impossible for any melee combatant PC of higher than 1st level facing a typical threat for their level.

3E increased the danger posed to PCs by low-level humanoids by (i) increasing the damage dice of many melee weapons, (ii) letting low-level humanoids add STR bonuses to damage, (iii) giving low-level humanoids fairly good STR bonuses, (iv) increasing the STR damage bonus from two-handed weapons, (v) arming many low-level humanoids with two-handed weapons and (vi) introducing critical hit rules which greatly increase the maximum damage possible from some of those weapons.

As far as D&D is concerned, the orc-with-greataxe is a phenomenon unique to 3E.

The question is, does the introduction into the game of this phenomenon improve or undermine the quality of the play experience? Purely abstract discussion of whether or not risk of PC death is important to the play experience doesn't answer that question, because such abstract discussion doesn't get to the details of the different phenomena that result from the differences of mechanics between AD&D and 3E (and 4e, which more closely resembles AD&D than 3E in this respect). And telling people not to whine is irrelevant also. People may play D&D for many reasons. It doesn't follow that, by choosing to play it, they are precluded from expressing the view that the game would be better if the 3E orc-with-greataxe phenomenon were not part of the game.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 25, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Hello Pemerton, I appreciate the extended response and despite the fact that I'm not jiving with what you're saying, you're getting some XP from me - for what it's worth.
> 
> However, some points that you may or may not find useful.
> 
> ...



I may have overstated the case. I continue to think that 4e is not especially well-adapted to sandbox, simulationist-oriented play - but if your group is doing it, that shows it can be done.

As for how simulationist you have to be to find this element of the game quirky - well, your instincts are sufficiently simulationist that you don't like the introduction of a healing requirement via narration and metagame agreement rather than mechanics.

Different editions of D&D have made different choices between narration and mechanics for various parts of the game. For example, in AD&D (especially 1st ed) morale of NPCs and monsters is a mechanical matter. In 3E and 4e it is largely a narration matter under the GM's control (the intimidation skill and various spells play a mechanical role, but it is a comparatively minor one). At least in some 3E games I imagine that there is a metagame agreement (implicit, perhaps) that evil foes fight to the death, thus removing from the game the moral problem that would be raised of how to deal with evil prisoners of war (a problem notoriously and particularly difficult for players of paladins). So I don't think that what I am suggesting is an outrageous departure from conventional ways of playing D&D.

But I fully agree it is not simulationist - it is not looking to the game mechanics to tell us what is going on in the gameworld.



Herremann the Wise said:


> But shouldn't a serious injury affect what happens in game? "Hey, this guy needs a cleric or some divine assistance. Has anyone got a healing potion? No, well where's the nearest surgeon, this guy needs help and fast. And the Princess that needs rescuing? She's gonna have to wait - I hope we don't run out of time?"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I simply believe there should be provision in the rules for this circumstance - when divine healing is required to keep going.



I think this is a slightly different issue. No edition of D&D has ever had provision for wounds that are not mortal and cannot heal naturally (unless some curse such as mummy rot is in effect). Even in the 1st ed DMG it is possible to bind the wounds of a character who is unconscious but not yet dead and have them regain consciousness in fairly short order, and then begin healing naturally after a week of rest.

So I don't find 4e any different from earlier editions in this particular regard - unless your point is that 4e allows more rapid non-magical healing than earlier editions. This is true, but (as Hypersmurf, Lost Soul and I have suggested upthread) such "healing" is easily narrated not as a healing of the wound, but as an exercise by the PC of resolve in the face of injury.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 25, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I think this is a slightly different issue. No edition of D&D has ever had provision for wounds that are not mortal and cannot heal naturally (unless some curse such as mummy rot is in effect).



Actually, vile damage in 3.x was a case of this, however, that's not what I was trying to say.


			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> But shouldn't a serious injury affect what happens in game? "Hey, this guy needs a cleric or some divine assistance. Has anyone got a healing potion? No, well where's the nearest surgeon, this guy needs help and fast. And the Princess that needs rescuing? She's gonna have to wait - I hope we don't run out of time?"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I simply believe there should be provision in the rules for this circumstance - when divine healing is required to keep going.



By required to keep going, I mean required to get the guy up and about in working order with enough hit points so as not to be a passenger in the next combat in a handful of minutes. This required immediate healing of usually a divine nature. Natural healing was a slow process. Now, healing surges do the trick - making you question whether the wound was actually serious at all, to the point where you can guarantee that it wasn't that bad; and could not have been that bad. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> So I don't find 4e any different from earlier editions in this particular regard - unless your point is that 4e allows more rapid non-magical healing than earlier editions. This is true, but (as Hypersmurf, Lost Soul and I have suggested upthread) such "healing" is easily narrated not as a healing of the wound, but as an exercise by the PC of resolve in the face of injury.



There are some injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth. My point is/was that these types of injuries obviously don't happen anymore - see my dialogue between the heroes Pemerton and Herremann - unless of course you die from them. Thus the easy narration you are talking about is missing a huge chuck of dramatic death defying injuries.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Thus the easy narration you are talking about is missing a huge chuck of dramatic death defying injuries.




But when did these dramatic death-defying injuries ever come up in 3E?

Someone can go from two hundred hit points down to one hit point, and carry on exactly as they were before... so obviously this doesn't cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.

Someone could be dropped negative, and then two Cure Minor Wounds orisons might bring them back up to one hit point... at which point they can carry on exactly as they were before.  So either healing two hit points of damage can cure injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth... or going negative did not cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.

When did dramatic death-defying injuries ever show their face in 3E?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2008)

I was rereading some of my Dragon magazines and came across an interesting reply from the editor regarding a letter sent in about an article in a previous issue on firearms.  The letter was (very rightly) complaining about the reloading times and rules of the firearms in the article.  They were way, way too fast.  Inhumanly fast.  The response, in my mind, is very enlightening:



			
				Matthew Sernett said:
			
		

> The fact did occur to us, but if we required players to use more realistic reload times, we would have contradicted the DMG.  The DMG gives guns such a short reload time because gunpowder weapons can't be as deadly as they are in real life.  Firearms came to prominence because when tehy could be fired accurately, they penerated all avalable armors. Besides, a single shot to the head or torso can easily kill someone, even if that someone is the size of an elephant. You can't amke firearms that deadly in D&D without making the game less fun (or making guns so expensive it's unrealistic), so you have to make them deal damage like all D&D weapons.  Having made that choice, the designers of the game gave gns a shorter load time.  After all, why spend 3 to 5 rounds reloading a weapon that deals 1d8 points of damage when the game allows characters to fire a longbow a couple of dozen times in the same period?




And this gets back to the point I was trying to make about what you are willing to sacrifice to make the game work?  How far are you willing to go to make things function at the table?

Take a separate issue that most people don't get too fussed about - facing.  1e and 2e had facing rules; the shield rules came into effect depending on where the baddies were.  3e despite being far more minis dependent than earlier editions, ejected facing.  And, for the most part, I think people weren't too worried about it.  At least, I missed any large kerfuffle about facing.  You were assumed to be turning about many times during your round and that was good enough.

Only, it wasn't.  Because, while there were no mechanical facing rules, you still had long and narrow, or short and fat base sizes.  Horses being a prime example.  Having bases that were not regular shaped meant you suddenly had facing again.  Not too many DM's were going to let you charge you horse sideways so you could block the enemies better.  Yet, if there was no facing, no "front or back" then I should be able to do that.

3.5 got rid of the whole thing and went to square bases.  And, the problems started.  People were willing to eject facing rules, but, a number of people were not willing to sacrifice the idea that long, skinny creatures should have long, skinny bases.  You saw a fair number of complaints over the years on this exact issue.  You cannot have the massed charge, that sort of thing.

And that's what it comes down to.  Where is your threshold for what can be abstracted away?  At what point does sacrificing for gameplay become less fun?  This is something we're not going to agree on.  For some, very little can be sacrificed.  There is a very low tolerance to hand waving.  For others, gameplay is more important and lots can be abstracted away.

That's how I'm starting to view this anyway.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 25, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> But when did these dramatic death-defying injuries ever come up in 3E?
> 
> Someone can go from two hundred hit points down to one hit point, and carry on exactly as they were before...



Provided they make their massive damage save (which has a whole heap of issues as well - I'm certainly not trying to imply that 3E was all sugar and spice and all things nice).


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> so obviously this doesn't cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.



Again the massive damage mechanic was the "patch" for this "bug".



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Someone could be dropped negative, and then two Cure Minor Wounds orisons might bring them back up to one hit point...



Ah, but without this divine aid, or even any aid, chances are the character is more than likely dead (although your chances of surviving at -1 are significantly better than surviving at -9).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> at which point they can carry on exactly as they were before.



But as I answered you previously, while they can start an encounter the same as someone at full health, chances are they won't finish that encounter as "successfully" as the guy that was at full health - chances are that any serious encounter will leave them dead.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So either healing two hit points of damage can cure injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth... or going negative did not cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.



Again, 3.x has its issues in not separating physical damage from all the other things that hit points are supposed to represent. As such, the 2 hit points of divine healing you are talking about is not an absolute measure. If they "heal" a 100hp fighter at 98hps 2 hit points, they have had almost no effect on his health. For a fighter at -1(dying), those same two orisons are the difference between consciousness and a possible trip to the afterlife. The orisons were far more "powerful" in the latter circumstance than the former.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When did dramatic death-defying injuries ever show their face in 3E?
> 
> -Hyp.



In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.

If the same thing happened in 4E (bolt through the eye is described by the DM, dropping him to -7 to -9 unconscious), then it would feel kind of weird to make my save, surge up after the combat and be back to full operation (as in my guy has a similar chance of surviving another encounter as the uninjured fighter over there). No divine assistance, just a little bit of heroic grit. I'd ask my DM about the whole bolt through the eye thing to which he'd most likely have to say - "nah, it was just a flesh wound". I'd roll my eyes, think of the Black Knight, chuckle at the game rules and then continue on.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And that's what it comes down to.  Where is your threshold for what can be abstracted away?  At what point does sacrificing for gameplay become less fun?  This is something we're not going to agree on.  For some, very little can be sacrificed.  There is a very low tolerance to hand waving.  For others, gameplay is more important and lots can be abstracted away.
> 
> That's how I'm starting to view this anyway.



Funnily enough, I saw more facing arguments around than square base ones. I gather one's perception of the problems is equally affected by one's perspective on those problems.

As for the whole abstraction thing, you've got it exactly right. It comes down to why people play roleplaying games. Personally, I love entering the worlds of the books I enjoy reading (Feist, Martin, Erikson, Vance, etc.) and having fun with the stories our group creates. If too many "gamey" things come up, it takes away from the narrative we end up creating. Mechanics that disconnect too far from the flavour they are trying to represent take away a little of the fun for me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2008)

> In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.




But, what happens if your roll your 10% stabililization check?  Now you're concious,  Do you still have a bolt sticking out of your eye?  Do you need to get that eye replaced?  After all, even Heal won't replace lost body parts.  Is an eye a body part?

I would have a problem with the DM describing things this way, because it opens up a whole can of questions that are not going to get answered.  I'd much prefer, "The crossbow bolt slams into you, lifting you off your feet and you fall on the ground, bleeding."  Now, I don't need to retcon anything ever.  Second wind works, or just a cure light wound - either way, I still have two eyes and no mechanical effects.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But, what happens if your roll your 10% stabililization check?  Now you're concious...



No you're not. If left to your own devices (that is no one to aid you), you are stabilized but not yet conscious. You then have to start making 10% chance hourly checks to regain consciousness - losing a hit point each time if you fail. On your own, chances are you're not going to make it - and if you do, it was a ***miracle. In a group situation with a cleric, curing wand or potion, you are going to be getting this divine healing. You aren't going to have people go, "hmmm... let's leave him for a bit and see if he gets better". The bolt in the eye character is going to get the healing and no one's sense of verisimilitude has been upset (providing that such miraculous healing is possible in your game).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, I don't need to retcon anything ever.



and thus why none of the character's in the games you have played suffered anything worse than an injury that they can "grit it out", walking around soon after unimpeded. I think 3E offers you a little more variety in this regard. It is far from perfect but heh...

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

***Such a miracle has never yet happened in a game that I have personally played in. I read a thread over on Paizo where an abondoned -6hp character survived such an occurence (the rest of the party were killed). He came back into town several days later having somehow survived. The circumstance was such that a legend was born. Many whispered that the gods themselves must have got involved.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Provided they make their massive damage save (which has a whole heap of issues as well - I'm certainly not trying to imply that 3E was all sugar and spice and all things nice).
> 
> ...
> 
> Again the massive damage mechanic was the "patch" for this "bug".




Massive Damage assumes they lost those 199 hit points all at once (or at least in big chunks).

But Massive Damage also doesn't address the issue you described with 4E - that there are no grievous injuries except those that kill you.  Because Massive Damage in 3E... kills you.  So again in 3E, you're either dead, or you aren't suffering a grievous injury.



> The bolt in the eye character is going to get the healing and no one's sense of verisimilitude has been upset (providing that such miraculous healing is possible in your game).




But if Cure Minor Wounds can fix a bolt in the eye, why is Regenerate a 7th level spell in 3E?  If the DM has described a ruined organ, then the spell that fixes ruined organs should be required to fix it.  If he wants the wound to be fixable by Cure Minor Wounds, he shouldn't describe a ruined organ...

-Hyp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 25, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Massive Damage assumes they lost those 199 hit points all at once (or at least in big chunks).



I thought that was what you were implying, not a heap of minor wounds and effort expended in reducing mortal blows to flesh wounds.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But Massive Damage also doesn't address the issue you described with 4E - that there are no grievous injuries except those that kill you.  Because Massive Damage in 3E... kills you.



True. I was just inserting a qualification to make what I thought you were saying correct - that they would carry on as before provided that they saved against massive damage (if applicable). 







			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So again in 3E, you're either dead, or you aren't suffering a grievous injury.



Not true. I think if you go from the positives down to about -7 to -9, the DM can start going to town with their gory/vivid descriptions without worrying too much about whether the rules are going to contradict the description. In such situations, death is probable without healing of a divine nature.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But if Cure Minor Wounds can fix a bolt in the eye, why is Regenerate a 7th level spell in 3E?  If the DM has described a ruined organ, then the spell that fixes ruined organs should be required to fix it.  If he wants the wound to be fixable by Cure Minor Wounds, he shouldn't describe a ruined organ...



Fair enough, although remove deafness/blindness would work equally as well as Regeneration - a capricious priest might suggest only the latter but any forthright cleric who knows their salt will know the 2nd level spell would serve equally. And again, you know how every so often in the papers you see someone who's suffered a nailgun accident with a nail through the eye socket that misses every major piece of artery, organ and brain [there was one here in Sydney about 4 years ago from memory - and a fence javelin through the underside of the jaw exiting through the eye socket before that], well take my bolt example and apply the same circumstances. Cure minor wounds would obviously assist - at least in terms of stabilizing. I wouldn't feel too bad though if the DM used such description and then said that the group would have to cough up a remove blindness/deafness spell on the morrow. I think that would be within the DM's license to do as such.

So yeah, I think 3E (at least how my group plays and interprets it) gives the DM a little more freedom in this regard to go to town with the guts on the floor - if such is your cup of tea.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## BryonD (Sep 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And this gets back to the point I was trying to make about what you are willing to sacrifice to make the game work?  How far are you willing to go to make things function at the table?




And that gets back to the issue that you are forcing assumptions down other peoples' games that don't apply.

Different people can have widely different preferences and therefore the very concept of "function at the table" can vary wildly.  You are strongly implicating that people who don't see it as you do simply are "inflexible" and unwilling to "go" "far" enough.  But that is closed minded.  It may be that people who disagree with you are willing to go even further.  They just find a competely different direction to be more rewarding.

I'm perfectly content with the abstract nature of HP.
If someone presents an injury system that works, I'm interested in that as well.
The whole firearms quote above seems, if any, a deep discussion of the obvious.  Of course a real shot to the head is deadly.  So is being run through by a sword.  Whichever way you go with it, there needs to be a consistency between the fucntion of the two.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I question the conclusions of the study you cited.




Well, it's really several studies. You can pick a bone with whichever one you choose.

It starts with GA Miller's seminal presentation on the limits of human working memory, "The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two", originally published in the 1956 _Psychological Review_.

From there is the notional expansion of working memory capacity via chunking, as seen in Chase and Simon's study "Perception in Chess", issue 4, page 55, of _Cognitive Psychology_ 1973

Most of Tversky's body of work develops the notion that humans judge probability by making mental sets. There's some good work in "[SIZE=-1]Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness", published in 2003, particularly Tversky and Kahneman's chapter, "Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability". Tversky never got much professional recognition for his work with Kahneman, who received a Nobel Prize in Economics for explaining seemingly irrational economic decisions, 6 years after Tversky's death in 1996. 

[/SIZE]But the research that most directly supports my statements on human judgments of probability is probably Hertwig et al's "Decisions From Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice", from the 2004 run of _Psychological Science_, volume 15, issue 8, pp 534-539. In brief, when people are confronted with the possibility of rare events they tend to overestimate their frequency when working from textual descriptions and, more practically, underestimate their frequency when working from real experience of them.


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 25, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> So yeah, I think 3E (at least how my group plays and interprets it) gives the DM a little more freedom in this regard to go to town with the guts on the floor - if such is your cup of tea.





Are you saying that 3.x is a good ruleset because you don't follow the rules? Fair enough, but i guess this could be true (in your case) for 4e as well


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2008)

BryonD said:


> And that gets back to the issue that you are forcing assumptions down other peoples' games that don't apply.
> 
> Different people can have widely different preferences and therefore the very concept of "function at the table" can vary wildly.  You are strongly implicating that people who don't see it as you do simply are "inflexible" and unwilling to "go" "far" enough.  But that is closed minded.  It may be that people who disagree with you are willing to go even further.  They just find a competely different direction to be more rewarding.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I'm writing.  Tone is difficult I guess.  I'm most certainly not stating that one form is superior to the other.  I'm saying that where each person draws the line will be different.

Any value judgement you derive from that statement is purely your own.

For myself, and I think a number of others, the line can be drawn further down the road than for others.  Again, this is not saying I'm right and you're wrong.  We're talking about what people enjoy, so, right and wrong don't really enter into it.

I thought I had defined "function at the table" the beginning of this thread.  

Game First: The designer looks at how the game is being played at the table and creates mechanics to best facilitate that. Flavour is then added afterwards to justify the mechanics.​
Now, you are right that some groups will fall outside of this.  However, function at the table simply means that the mechanics don't cause the game to come to a grinding halt.  

What I find interesting is that there are very, very few actual mechanical issues being discussed here.  Almost entirely it's flavour issues - how to connect hit points to wounds for example is a flavour issue.  No one has come out and said, "Healing surges don't work" because they do work.  Healing overnight does work, in the context of the game.

What people are complaining about is that something like healing overnight is too far down the road and past their individual cut off line for acceptable abstractions.  Mechanically, it's fine.  It works and doesn't cause any problems at the table.  In fact it solves the problem of requiring a healer/cleric in the party.

But, like unrealistic reload times for firearms, it's something that people don't want to sacrifice for the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 25, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> But the research that most directly supports my statements on human judgments of probability is probably Hertwig et al's "Decisions From Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice", from the 2004 run of _Psychological Science_, volume 15, issue 8, pp 543-539. In brief, when people are confronted with the possibility of rare events they tend to overestimate their frequency when working from textual descriptions and, more practically, underestimate their frequency when working from real experience of them.




Thanks for citing sources.  I'd have to examine the setup of the experiment(s) as well as the data to know whether or not I would accept its conclusions at face value.    As I am sure you know, not every experiment demonstrates what its creators believe it demonstrates.  In many cases, the creators are choosing from a set of potential interpretations of the results, and in other cases they are making broad assumptions from narrow parameters where doing so does not necessarily make sense.

And, of course, sometimes they are good experiements whose conclusions are solid.

In this case, though, I would suggest that it is prossibly true that the test subjects didn't understand the variables, and were thus unable to predict the odds correctly, rather than being unable to understand the odds themselves.  


RC


----------



## Delta (Sep 25, 2008)

The research that Glazius is citing is pretty much rock-solid. People in general royally suck at handling probability.

But that doesn't mean that long odds shouldn't be part of a game. If anything, it argues more strongly that long odds _should_ be part of a game, where people can play/ practice/ experience it in a "safe" limited context. 

I'm a professor of probability & statistics and I feel that my entire intuition about probability (proven pretty solid over time) has come out of playing pen-and-paper D&D for about 30 years.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 25, 2008)

It isn't that hard to judge probabilities. 1 in 20 swings is a 20. With 4 attacks, and 2 "full rounds" per fight, every 2 to 3 fights you'll roll a 20. If you use the 20+20=dead rule, then you've got a roughly 2% chance to land such a blow in a fight.


----------



## GlaziusF (Sep 25, 2008)

Delta said:


> But that doesn't mean that long odds shouldn't be part of a game. If anything, it argues more strongly that long odds _should_ be part of a game, where people can play/ practice/ experience it in a "safe" limited context.




As far as that goes I agree. After all a game is intended to let you experience the same sort of struggle you might face in real life but with the consequences taken out. 

However 4E is also intended to be more improv-friendly, explicitly giving tips to the DM based on tenets of improv theater (always say yes). In that case, having something that could derail your "performance" is worse if it happens at long odds, because in practical terms you're not even considering it could happen. 

That's why I would argue that aggregate long odds are better than single-shot long odds, because at least as the aggregate wears on you can become slowly more aware of what's happening and maybe have something ready to go if it finally hits.


----------



## Delta (Sep 25, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It isn't that hard to judge probabilities. 1 in 20 swings is a 20. With 4 attacks, and 2 "full rounds" per fight, every 2 to 3 fights you'll roll a 20. If you use the 20+20=dead rule, then you've got a roughly 2% chance to land such a blow in a fight.




Admitedly, the vast majority of the population cannot do what you just did. I expect D&D players would test much, much better at probability than the population-at-large.

Scene: I'm teaching a class. I finish a problem and come up with, say, 75%. I now know that I have to ask "Is that good bet or a bad bet?" Half the class says "Good bet!" Half the class says, "What, why is that? How can you tell?"

Teaching is nonstop amazing to me like that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 25, 2008)

Delta said:


> Admitedly, the vast majority of the population cannot do what you just did.




Not my experience.

But I may just be lucky (statistically speaking) that way.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Sep 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I'm writing.  Tone is difficult I guess.  I'm most certainly not stating that one form is superior to the other.  I'm saying that where each person draws the line will be different.
> 
> Any value judgement you derive from that statement is purely your own.



I'm not going to play word games with you.
If you can't find the tone in your clear statements that there is a requirement for "willing to sacrifice to make the game work", then I don't have anything to say.
I reject that that line of thinking plays into the issue.  _~ don't get personal please - PS~_


----------



## Scribble (Sep 25, 2008)

BryonD said:


> I'm not going to play word games with you.
> If you can't find the tone in your clear statements that there is a requirement for "willing to sacrifice to make the game work", then I don't have anything to say.
> I reject that that line of thinking plays into the issue.




I'm not Hussar, but I think the issue is that he probably shouldn't have used the word "sacrifice." It's a fitting word, but it has implications beyond what I think he meant.

I think he meant: Some stuff in games requires a level of abstraction. Everyone has their own level of how much abstraction they find acceptable in a game.

Sometimes, even though the rules might function perfectly fine mathwise, to do so, they've created a level of abstraction  beyond which some find acceptable.

I think that's a perfectly fair/valid thing to say...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 25, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.
> 
> If the same thing happened in 4E (bolt through the eye is described by the DM, dropping him to -7 to -9 unconscious), then it would feel kind of weird to make my save, surge up after the combat and be back to full operation (as in my guy has a similar chance of surviving another encounter as the uninjured fighter over there). No divine assistance, just a little bit of heroic grit. I'd ask my DM about the whole bolt through the eye thing to which he'd most likely have to say - "nah, it was just a flesh wound". I'd roll my eyes, think of the Black Knight, chuckle at the game rules and then continue on.




One of the things that I really loved about RQ2 was that hit points were not abstract - they were used to "model reality".

If the heavy crossbow impaled you in the abdomen, you were probably either  dying or dead unless you had some really tough armour on. If the mad axeman hacked you in the arm and took your arm to -6hp then you'd lost your arm...

The trick in RQ was that although your hp rarely increased, your protective armour (whether real or magic) and your ability to not be hit (parrying) did increase - thus making more experienced characters more durable.

I still really like less abstracted mechanics, because I find that there are less 'jarring' situations which have to be explained away IMO.

Cheers


----------



## Delta (Sep 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not my experience.
> 
> But I may just be lucky (statistically speaking) that way.




Are you testing the "general population" or are you testing "people interested in gaming"? Because my point is that they're not the same.

(I feel like I'm going down a path that's previously gotten me censured on ENWorld, but nontheless...)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 25, 2008)

Delta said:


> Are you testing the "general population" or are you testing "people interested in gaming"? Because my point is that they're not the same.
> 
> (I feel like I'm going down a path that's previously gotten me censured on ENWorld, but nontheless...)




I think I'll leave it at "not my experience" and admit that I may simply have had statistically anamolous experiences.  I certainly don't want to argue the point too strenuously with people who have studied the subject more thoroughly than I!  

RC


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think I'll leave it at "not my experience" and admit that I may simply have had statistically anamolous experiences.  I certainly don't want to argue the point too strenuously with people who have studied the subject more thoroughly than I!
> 
> RC




I used to develop molecular diagnostics in oncology and had to explain to doctors what probabilities were given certain results of a test in relation to general disease prevalence. I realized pretty quickly that most people dont have a nice intuitive grasp of statistics and probability even those who are very well educated.

Apoptosis


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2008)

Ahh, now I see the problem.  "Sacrifice" is the issue?  Umm, not sure what other word works to be honest.  We all do it.  Sacrifice to me means giving up something we want in order to gain something else.  We sacrifice realism for game all the time - the entire combat system in any edition speaks to that.

"Give up", "Accept as a loss"?  Help me out here.  I thought I'd made my point very clear and the fact that everyone else seems to get it makes me think that I have.

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem with the terminology.  When we use D&D hit points, we accept that combat is going to be abstract.  When we use leveling instead of point buy, we accept a certain level of abstraction.  When we use a grid instead of protractor and string, we accept a certain level of abstraction.

The difference being, where does that level of abstraction become unacceptable?  For some, it's healing overnight.  For others, not so much.  It's not meant as an "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of thing.  It's simply calling attention to the fact that we do like different things.

Going from 3e to Basic D&D, I'd have to accept the abstraction that race=class.  That each and every elf is mechanically identical.  From a realism standpoint, that's ridiculous.  Makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer.  However, if I want to play Basic D&D, I have to accept that as true.  All elves are mechanically identical is a sacrifice I'd be willing to make in order to play Basic D&D.

Again, I'm not really sure how sacrifice is a problem.  It's simply giving up something in order to gain something else.  To go to Basic D&D, I sacrifice character options in order to play a much simpler, and quite honestly faster, game of D&D.  

So, one more time, any value judgements you see are entirely your own.  Sacrifice, giving up, not letting it bother you, take your pick.  They all mean the same thing.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm not Hussar, but I think the issue is that he probably shouldn't have used the word "sacrifice." It's a fitting word, but it has implications beyond what I think he meant.
> 
> I think he meant: Some stuff in games requires a level of abstraction. Everyone has their own level of how much abstraction they find acceptable in a game.
> 
> ...




Exactly right.  Thank you.  What connotations am I missing that would make sense in this context?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Always the worst way how to start a question







			
				cwhs01 said:
			
		

> that 3.x is a good ruleset because you don't follow the rules?



No I'm not. That seems a silly question - a little insulting actually.

How much of this thread have you read or been involved in? Do you understand the context of my statement above? Do you understand that I have not compared rulesets as a whole nor judged rulesets as a whole? Did you realise that I have been discussing the problems with hit points in 3.x and 4E as it relates to mechanics versus flavour, and the various compromises that have been made to one or the other (but mostly flavour sacrificed for the mechanic)? Nobody seems to have an issue with the problems I've discussed with the 3.x mechanics for hps/damage/healing but as for the 4E problems, a lot of people have felt the need to arm the shield and start defending. Neither version is perfect. Personally, I think a lot of the issues would go away if they separated physical damage from all the other things hps are meant to represent. [This of course changes the nature of play and thus why the compromise has been made].

Specifically, with the above is the comparison of having the DM describe a grievous wound and whether such description is going to be compromised later on (based upon the rules for healing/dying/regaining hit points in 3E and 4E). I really don't want to have to go through it all again in this post. If you want to discuss in a positive way, why don't you go back to page 5 where I started the comparison and read from there.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.
> 
> If the same thing happened in 4E (bolt through the eye is described by the DM, dropping him to -7 to -9 unconscious), then it would feel kind of weird to make my save, surge up after the combat and be back to full operation (as in my guy has a similar chance of surviving another encounter as the uninjured fighter over there). No divine assistance, just a little bit of heroic grit. I'd ask my DM about the whole bolt through the eye thing to which he'd most likely have to say - "nah, it was just a flesh wound".





Herremann the Wise said:


> If left to your own devices (that is no one to aid you), you are stabilized but not yet conscious. You then have to start making 10% chance hourly checks to regain consciousness - losing a hit point each time if you fail. On your own, chances are you're not going to make it - and if you do, it was a ***miracle. In a group situation with a cleric, curing wand or potion, you are going to be getting this divine healing. You aren't going to have people go, "hmmm... let's leave him for a bit and see if he gets better". The bolt in the eye character is going to get the healing and no one's sense of verisimilitude has been upset (providing that such miraculous healing is possible in your game).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ***Such a miracle has never yet happened in a game that I have personally played in. I read a thread over on Paizo where an abondoned -6hp character survived such an occurence (the rest of the party were killed). He came back into town several days later having somehow survived. The circumstance was such that a legend was born. Many whispered that the gods themselves must have got involved.



What I'm getting from this is that you have no objection to non-divine-healing-generated recovery - as it is possible in 3E, as per the example you give from the Paizo boards - but that you don't like the idea that it is ordinary rather than miraculous. (I'm not sure I agree that 3E makes it miraculous - the DC to stabilise someone with a non-magical Heal check is only 15, after all - but that's another matter.)

If that is correct then there is a way of handling it in 4e without the retconning/Black Knight-isms. But it does require divorcing ingame causation and probability from the rules.

The way is this: narrate the use of a healing surge in such a situation as a miracle. Of course, the mechanics don't make it especially improbable. But that doesn't mean that it can't be treated as miraculous in the gameworld.

If this sort of narration isn't carefully handled it does run the risk of the gonzo-ism I've discussed above. I think that this lurking threat of gonzo is inherent to 4e. It's not at all oriented towards gritty, I don't think.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I find interesting is that there are very, very few actual mechanical issues being discussed here. Almost entirely it's flavour issues - how to connect hit points to wounds for example is a flavour issue. No one has come out and said, "Healing surges don't work" because they do work. Healing overnight does work, in the context of the game.
> 
> What people are complaining about is that something like healing overnight is too far down the road and past their individual cut off line for acceptable abstractions. Mechanically, it's fine. It works and doesn't cause any problems at the table. In fact it solves the problem of requiring a healer/cleric in the party.




I don't really know what you are talking about in terms of sacrifice for the game but the experiences at the table with 4E so far have not delivered gameplay that I am looking for in terms of flavor or speed of play. 

My largest issue with the system is very mechanical. When you gain a level your character doesn't grow or develop, he returns to the playdoh powers pump factory to be reborn as a new collection of abilities and powers. There is no continuity or substance because everything has to be perfectly blandly balanced at each and every level. Seeing a character grow and develop in ability is quite different than getting a "power up"

We have replaced the powers of this adventurer with folgers crystals. Lets see if he notices. 

While this may "work" to balance the powers at a given level its the major factor that makes its so much a boardgame to me.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Going from 3e to Basic D&D, I'd have to accept the abstraction that race=class.  That each and every elf is mechanically identical.  From a realism standpoint, that's ridiculous.  Makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer.  However, if I want to play Basic D&D, I have to accept that as true.  All elves are mechanically identical is a sacrifice I'd be willing to make in order to play Basic D&D.



This is a bit of a tangent - but your comment reminded me of a point made by one of the OD&D/Classic D&D posters on this board (perhaps R Fisher, or Philotomy Jurament). It is only the case that PC elves are mechanically identical. The ruleset doesn't preclude non-PC-standard NPC elves (just as 4e doesn't preclude non-PC-mechanically-standard NPCs).

This is a difference from 3E, which - via rules like NPC wealth by level and NPC classes - generates a very strong implication that NPCs are to be built in more-or-less the same manner as PCs.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Personally, I think a lot of the issues would go away if they separated physical damage from all the other things hps are meant to represent. [This of course changes the nature of play and thus why the compromise has been made].





Plane Sailing said:


> One of the things that I really loved about RQ2 was that hit points were not abstract - they were used to "model reality".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I still really like less abstracted mechanics, because I find that there are less 'jarring' situations which have to be explained away IMO.



As a long-time RM player I have a certain fondness for non-abstract damage mechanics. But, as Herreman points out, this does change the nature of play. For example, in RM the mechanical implementation of a Deathlock Wight's Horrific Visage would be a lot more clunky than it is in 4e: it couldn't be modelled in the same fashion as a physical attack (because it would not actually damage the body, only the spirit), and the push (which I take it is meant to model the victim recoiling in fear) would be very hard to implement, because RM has no morale mechanics that apply to PCs.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> My largest issue with the system is very mechanical. When you gain a level your character doesn't grow or develop, he returns to the playdoh powers pump factory to be reborn as a new collection of abilities and powers. There is no continuity or substance because everything has to be perfectly blandly balanced at each and every level.



I think this is an example of what Hussar is calling a "flavour issue", although I'm not sure I think his phrase is the right one.

It is quite possible to shape a story of PC development around the 4e character advancement rules. It's equally the case that those development rules do not, in and of themselves, dictate such a story. Those who are happy to use mechanics as a device for setting the parameters of narration won't be worried by this. Those who want the mechanics to deliver the story (roughly, simulationists) will.

I think that the issue here is of the causal relationship (if any) that players want between game mechanics and ingame events - or, if you prefer, the causal relationship (if any) between mechanics and flavour.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 26, 2008)

pemerton said:


> What I'm getting from this is that you have no objection to non-divine-healing-generated recovery - as it is possible in 3E, as per the example you give from the Paizo boards - but that you don't like the idea that it is ordinary rather than miraculous. (I'm not sure I agree that 3E makes it miraculous - the DC to stabilise someone with a non-magical Heal check is only 15, after all - but that's another matter.)



I suppose if miracles keep on happening, they stop being miraculous. However, you raise one of the big things I detested in 3E in terms of the heal check. After laughing about this "heal check" a couple of times (our group had a few "I shove his guts back in the holes I think they came out of - is he stabilized?" moments) and very quickly, we just stopped doing it - it just seemed ridiculous - and it wasn't always guaranteed of working either. Far better to have the cleric/paladin come over with some divine healing, the rogue give a blast of his wand or someone else with a potion to get the job done. It just does not seem right that you can stabilize someone with a 6 second simple heal check.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> If that is correct then there is a way of handling it in 4e without the retconning/Black Knight-isms. But it does require divorcing ingame causation and probability from the rules.
> 
> The way is this: narrate the use of a healing surge in such a situation as a miracle. Of course, the mechanics don't make it especially improbable. But that doesn't mean that it can't be treated as miraculous in the gameworld.



After the 3rd time that day though, it pretty soon stops becoming miraculous. I suppose you could build up a group as being "overseen" by the gods themselves and thus why they can do such things - but that would get a little tired if used for every campaign. The paizo example was a good one because the probability of it happening was so low. It was in its way, miraculous.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> If this sort of narration isn't carefully handled it does run the risk of the gonzo-ism I've discussed above. I think that this lurking threat of gonzo is inherent to 4e. It's not at all oriented towards gritty, I don't think.



Well as I said, we're trying to make it bend to our playstyle. We're having fun with 4E despite a few gonzo moments as you describe - and in the end that's the main thing. HPs/damage/healing have always been a bugbear for me though with D&D, and I suppose they always will. Luckily, the rest of the game and the group of guys I game with more than compensates.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2008)

Herremann the Wise said:


> IWell as I said, we're trying to make it bend to our playstyle. We're having fun with 4E despite a few gonzo moments as you describe - and in the end that's the main thing. HPs/damage/healing have always been a bugbear for me though with D&D, and I suppose they always will. Luckily, the rest of the game and the group of guys I game with more than compensates.



Herremann, this is not at all intended as a "You shouldn't be playing D&D" post - but just out of curiosity, I'm wondering whether your group has played more mechanically gritty/realistic games (eg C&S, RM, HARP, RQ). If so, how did you find them?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 26, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Herremann, this is not at all intended as a "You shouldn't be playing D&D" post - but just out of curiosity, I'm wondering whether your group has played more mechanically gritty/realistic games (eg C&S, RM, HARP, RQ). If so, how did you find them?



Not really. We had fun with traveller, and even a d20 modern campaign but none of the one's you mention (although I was invited to a RM campaign, but couldn't make it regularly enough with a different group and so declined).
No, for us, it's been D&D and I suppose you could say forcing square pegs into round holes here and there - but on the whole, the game is flexible enough to cope with that. While I think 4E has reduced that flexibility somewhat (Mustrum Ridcully has a really good analogy which I might sig. later), there's still enough flexibility there that our group will still hum along regardless.

Historically, I think this has been due to the availability and support for D&D versus other games - particularly here down under. It's only really been the last decade where other options have become easily available (and I suppose my group is set in its ways now).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't really know what you are talking about in terms of sacrifice for the game but the experiences at the table with 4E so far have not delivered gameplay that I am looking for in terms of flavor or speed of play.
> 
> My largest issue with the system is very mechanical. When you gain a level your character doesn't grow or develop, he returns to the playdoh powers pump factory to be reborn as a new collection of abilities and powers. There is no continuity or substance because everything has to be perfectly blandly balanced at each and every level. Seeing a character grow and develop in ability is quite different than getting a "power up"
> 
> ...






pemerton said:


> I think this is an example of what Hussar is calling a "flavour issue", although I'm not sure I think his phrase is the right one.
> 
> It is quite possible to shape a story of PC development around the 4e character advancement rules. It's equally the case that those development rules do not, in and of themselves, dictate such a story. Those who are happy to use mechanics as a device for setting the parameters of narration won't be worried by this. Those who want the mechanics to deliver the story (roughly, simulationists) will.
> 
> I think that the issue here is of the causal relationship (if any) that players want between game mechanics and ingame events - or, if you prefer, the causal relationship (if any) between mechanics and flavour.




Pemerton nails it in one.  Your issues have nothing to do with the mechanics really.  The mechanics aren't causing the problems.  The flavor that you want the mechanics to promote is causing the problem.  Again, it gets back to what you are willing to sac.. errr... forego in order to have a functioning game.

Apparently, for you, the idea that standardizing classes is too far.  It makes the game not enjoyable for you.  And that's fair.  It doesn't make the mechanics bad, but, rather simply not for you.  

Now, I disagree to the level to which ExploderWizard claims that the classes are entirely identical.  I think that he's engaging in a bit of hyperbole here.  But, I do get the point that he doesn't like it.  To me, I think that having a flat playing surface improves the game.  I think it's up to the players and the DM to come up with what makes your character unique and interesting, not the rules.

Note, I didn't always think this way.  But, i was also seriously leaning this way before 4ed was released as well.  I've always hated the idea that every archetype needs it's own class, distinct from every other class.  Swashbuckler indeed.    So, sacr... errr... giving up some mechanical diversity in order to have balanced classes is a good thing to me.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I think it's up to the players and the DM to come up with what makes your character unique and interesting, not the rules.



Agreed, though if the rules can help, let 'em.







> Note, I didn't always think this way.  But, i was also seriously leaning this way before 4ed was released as well.  I've always hated the idea that every archetype needs it's own class, distinct from every other class.  Swashbuckler indeed.    So, sacr... errr... giving up some mechanical diversity in order to have balanced classes is a good thing to me.



Thing is, you can keep some mechanical diversity and still have somewhat balanced classes...just look for different ways to balance them, if that's your goal.  One relatively easy option is to go back to the 1e idea of having classes advance at different speeds...if a particular class seems overpowered, slow its advancement down a bit.  Another is to use wealth as a balancer...if a class seems overpowered, come up with some in-game reason for it to not accumulate much wealth. (I've never seen it in play, but from what I gather the Vow of Poverty in 3e did this to the point of overkill...there must be a better way)  Things like this give you more room to play with the "mechanics" to build the class you want.

Lanefan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 26, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed, though if the rules can help, let 'em.



Assuming they don't "hurt" somewhere else. 

That's the kind of sacrifice you have to do in all design - not just role-playing games. Certain attributes are interconnected, and you have to make trade-offs. 

Like in Software Engineering: 
- Fast
- Good
- Cheap
pick any two.

Of course "pick any two" is simplified, but you have accept if you get a "better" software (more functions, better usability, higher precision) that also works faster, the price will go.

These kind of trade-offs exist in game design, too. That's why there is no perfect game. You have to make your picks. And it is not that you just don't care about either of the 3 attributes. (Maybe in RPGs, one such "trio" is GSN, but there might be others - software engineering knows more then these 3 above, too, as a short internet search for "pick any two" will reveal). But you have to choose priorities every time, whether you like to or not.


----------



## cwhs01 (Sep 26, 2008)

Sorry. I was obviously and unfortunatly trying to hard to make a point and failing miserably. I'll cut down on snark now, hopefully not to late.




Herremann the Wise said:


> Always the worst way how to start a questionNo I'm not. That seems a silly question - a little insulting actually.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I've always hated the idea that every archetype needs it's own class, distinct from every other class.  Swashbuckler indeed.



And lo, this too shall come to pass in The Fourth Age.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2008)

((Posting after a party, so, if this is incomprehensible, blame the beer.  ))

I think Mustrum Ridcully has the right of it.  You can't really have it all.  You have to choose between elements and whatever choice you make will restrict other elements.  As Lanefan says, balancing classes by xp requirements is a possibility, although, in practice, I'm not sure that it really worked out all that well.  At worst, you're a level behind the other PC's.  If your class is more powerful than 1 level of difference, then the math is borked.  That would be very, very difficult to balance I think.  1e, IME, did a very poor job of it.

To give an example, which I hope doesn't piss anyone off, because, honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, look at mass combat rules in D&D.  At one time, you had Battlesystem.  A neat little minigame that was fairly decent at simulating a mass battle from a fairly high altitude.  The PC's couldn't affect the outcome very much.  But, it did do mass battle reasonably well.

Compare that to Heroes of Battle.  In HoB, you have cinematic battle scenes where the battle between two forces (or more I suppose) is pretty much controlled by DM fiat.  It's simply the backdrop for the PC's actions.  The entire focus is on the PC's.  So, the PC's can affect the outcome of the battle greatly, but, the rules are very poor at emulating a mass battle.  

So, it comes down to a choice.  Which one works for you?  Now, I most emphatically, completely, totally, 100%, want to concretely state that whichever choice you make is NOT WRONG.  There is NO WRONG CHOICE.  I am NOT, 100% not, completely not, emphatically not, trying to tell people that if the choice they make is different from mine, that they are wrong.  I AM NOT SAYING THAT.  

There, with that disclaimer in place, hopefully I can forestall any further antagonism with people I have previously pissed off.  Sorry I pissed you off in the past.  But, I'm really not trying to piss you off this time.  Honest.

Anyway, back to my point.  The choice you make depends on what you want to gain.  Do you want mechanics that detail the outcome of the battle, or do you want mechanics that detail the PC's interactions within the battle?  You can't have both.  THat doesn't work.  Where you draw the line is entirely right for you.  For me, I'd go with Heroes of Battle, because I don't care about what happens outside of the player's actions.  The campaign is about the PC's IMO.  So, mechanics that shift the focus away from the PC's are bad, for me.

YMMV and all that.

To me, I prefer mechanics that focus on game play at the table.  Herreman the Wise has raised serious points about healing in 4ed.  Fair enough.  My response would be to shift the focus.  In 3e, the DM could narrate wounds if he wanted to.  In 4e, he can't.  That's the point of giving narrative control to the players, in the form of Healing Surges.  It becomes the player's problem.  Have the player's narrate the effects of a serious wound.  After all, it's the player in 4e who is going to determine whether or not the wound is in fact serious or not.  If the player uses a healing surge to negate the wound, then it's up to the player to present a logical, reasonable representation of the action.  The DM doesn't need to be involved.


----------



## haakon1 (Sep 27, 2008)

Delta said:


> Short reply: In my opinion, definitely, ideally _both_. The best games are where the designer came up with a mechanic that is simultaneously very playable and conjures the flavor of the in-game situation.
> . . .
> Regarding D&D, in my opinion OD&D/1E was a nice balance. 2E went too far into "flavor only" and I skipped it. 3.0 swung back in the middle and I liked it. 4E over-swung into "game only" and I'll avoid that, too.




Ah, yup, I agree completely.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Herreman the Wise has raised serious points about healing in 4ed.  Fair enough.  My response would be to shift the focus.  In 3e, the DM could narrate wounds if he wanted to.  In 4e, he can't.  That's the point of giving narrative control to the players, in the form of Healing Surges.  It becomes the player's problem.  Have the player's narrate the effects of a serious wound.  After all, it's the player in 4e who is going to determine whether or not the wound is in fact serious or not.  If the player uses a healing surge to negate the wound, then it's up to the player to present a logical, reasonable representation of the action.  The DM doesn't need to be involved.



I agree with this.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 1, 2008)

I've just picked up Mouseferatu's _Advanced Player's Guide_, and what should I find there but "Lingering Damage Rules", which seem to address a lot of the concerns that Herremann the Wise has with the system.

A brief description here of how they work:

The DM chooses at what point a PC takes a lingering wound (the choices range from "Slightly Deadly" through to "Are you Mad?!"). When that wound is taken, you make a saving throw to determine the severity of the wound. Further wounds increase the severity of your wounds by 1 or 2 steps (depending on further saving throws).

Lingering Wounds are then treated as a disease; you make Heal/Endurance checks after long rests to improve on the track, and they have ongoing effects on you, such as reducing your healing surges, defenses and rolls. A new 8th-level ritual allows speedier healing of these wounds.

For myself, I'd probably choose the Slightly Deadly trigger point (0 hp and half healing surges remaining), whilst Herremann might prefer the Somewhat Deadly triggerpoint (first time reach 0 hp). Are You Mad!? (first bloodied or take critical) is enough to have a very, very deadly campaign. Ari suggests using only the first two.

The system isn't quite perfect - under the basic triggerpoints, it only occurs on the _first_ time you reach the condition after a basic rest, but it may be enough of a starting point for Herremann to clear up a few issues he's been having with 4e. 

Cheers!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 1, 2008)

MerricB said:


> The DM chooses at what point a PC takes a lingering wound (the choices range from "Slightly Deadly" through to "Are you Mad?!").




This makes me want to rename them "Hey, Not Too Rough", "Hurt Me Plenty", and "Ultra-Violence" 

-Hyp.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 1, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> This makes me want to rename them "Hey, Not Too Rough", "Hurt Me Plenty", and "Ultra-Violence"
> 
> -Hyp.




Funny, I feel exactly the same way! 

Cheers!


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 1, 2008)

MerricB said:


> I've just picked up Mouseferatu's _Advanced Player's Guide_, and what should I find there but "Lingering Damage Rules", which seem to address a lot of the concerns that Herreman the Wise has with the system.



Sounds interesting. This is something I was looking at picking up anyway - I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on the book. 

If criticals worked how they did in 3.x, I think that would be a good option but the 4E mechanics for criticals make this "Ultraviolence". Yeah, I'd go for Hurt me Plenty... I mean Somewhat Deadly. I'd also go for certain situations that would warrant such attention (falls from greater than 30ft. for example).

Good stuff Ari!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> This makes me want to rename them "Hey, Not Too Rough", "Hurt Me Plenty", and "Ultra-Violence"




Was that the gameplay settings for Castle Wolfenstein (or the original Doom)?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 2, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Was that the gameplay settings for Castle Wolfenstein (or the original Doom)?




Doom.

-Hyp.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 2, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Doom.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hours and hours of gameplay goodness. 

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2008)

Wow.  I just have to say that this is the longest thread I've ever spawned and, probably other than myself, one of the most civil.  To bring it around to Doom just sweetens the deal.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 2, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  I just have to say that this is the longest thread I've ever spawned and, probably other than myself, one of the most civil.  To bring it around to Doom just sweetens the deal.




Yeah. Nothing says "I love you" like being attacked by a bunch of demon-possessed marines. 

What was the original topic of the thread, anyway?

Cheers!


----------



## Allister (Oct 2, 2008)

rre: Healing as a narrative construct.

Strange...I personally love 4e's healing surges since it at least models some type of fiction, namely John McClane/Indy etc. (I know some people hate that...)

However, the pre 4E model where people after battle lined up and took shots from the crack pipe that was the Cure Light Wounds?

Um, which fiction does this even model? Even D&D fiction doesn't use it, yet the game makes it so that the "best" method of HP recovery is the ubiquitous wand of either Lesser Vigor or CLW. Honestly, f we're going to discuss about narrative-simulation effects of healing, shouldn't we also discuss how it is actually used by the players?

I think one should separate a mechanic from how it READS and AFFECTS the game world from how it PLAYS and AFFECTS the characters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 2, 2008)

Allister said:


> rre: Healing as a narrative construct.
> 
> Strange...I personally love 4e's healing surges since it at least models some type of fiction, namely John McClane/Indy etc. (I know some people hate that...)
> 
> ...



The flaws of previous editions does not excuse the flaws of the new one. 

From a "simulation" perspective, 3E rules can still relatively easily mapped to an in-game world. People are really using these CLW. It is a failure to model a world like we find in most fiction, but not a failure to model a specific world. I think that is the difference i this case.

The simulation approach might be to remove stuff like Wands of CLW and similar cheap healing effects. But I think the fundamental flaw is that you can't support the typical D&D paradigmns this way. D&D assumes lots of combat. And even if there are not a few groups that focus less on combat, the standard model still assumes a lot of combat. And every group that wants to play D&D to enjoy the tactical combats would hate a system where the consequences of combat would always result in several day long rests.

The only alternative is probably to go a route where "dodging" attacks gets significantly easier, leaving behind the concept of ablative hit points or adding a layer of "fatigue hit poitns" that heal very fast and take the majority of damage. 

So, in the end you will still have a 4E like game play effect, but the mechanics map closer to the fictional game world. But here I say: WHY? Why go a more complicated route to achieve exactly the same igameplay effect? Where is the real benefit at the game table? Players have to juggle more numbers and effects and still play the game mostly the same way? 

Is it really harder to play-pretend and guesstimate or schrödinger your wounds (together with pretending to be an elf or pretending to fight a dragon, only armed with a sword and a shield), then to do each step of the more "advanced" system to get a closer model of the game-world? And be honest - you go through the numbers every attack, every hit, every round of a combat. But the "play-pretend" - you do that only occassionally, when it feels meaningful, like when you drop a foe, bloody him (4E D&D only), or when you make a critical hit, whenever something special happens.


----------



## Delta (Oct 2, 2008)

Maybe we should just bite the bullet and rename the game "Die Hard d20" (given all the John McClane this, John McClane that, that seems like the primary justification for 4E rules changes, good grief).


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Oct 2, 2008)

WOW!!!! This is an extremely long thread... no way that I can sit and read 29 pages of discussion goodness.  

Re: The original post.

Very good points... I also prefer a flavor driven game.  From your post we are very much in a Catch 22.  If a game is too open with the rules then the classes may lack definition to make them stand out.  However, to make something unique you have to give it "Things" that make it different from other classes.  Those defining traits may make it best suited to only specific situations.  *Improved focus means a sacrifice of versatility. * 
You mention the Paladin and the Ranger.  There is no reason you couldn't have a Fighter who as a part of flavor has a background as a knight of a holy order or learned his fighting skills in the wilderness combating the creatures he encountered.  With a Fighter you don't have the focus of a Paladin or Ranger but you make up for it in the versatility to handle more diverse situations.

I think it boils down to working with the DM to create your character.  A good DM should work with their players to ensure that each has a chance to shine at least once per session.  There should be a trap to disable for the rogue, undead to turn for the Cleric, etc.  
If a player states that they want to create a character that will become a Knight of the Chalice the DM should inform them if it is a wise choice in their setting.  I don't think a DM should be forced to change their game because a player is dead set on making a character with irrelavant abilities.  If I have a game that doesn't involve demons at all I shouldn't be forced to incorporate them because a player wants his Knight of the Chalice.  If you want to be a Ranger and your DM suggest that you take Goblinoids as your favored enemy there is probably a good reason for it.  If you take Fae as your favored enemy despite the DM's advice don't go badmouthing the DM because you never got to use your favored enemy bonus.

The DM is an ally, not an enemy of the player.  If the DM advises for or against something don't take it as taking away your creativity.  Work with the DM to compromise on something that will work for both of you.


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 2, 2008)

Delta said:


> Maybe we should just bite the bullet and rename the game "Die Hard d20" (given all the John McClane this, John McClane that, that seems like the primary justification for 4E rules changes, good grief).




Pff. Die Hard is way too talky to be anything like 4E.


----------



## Delta (Oct 2, 2008)

GlaziusF said:


> Pff. Die Hard is way too talky to be anything like 4E.




That xkcd always makes me think of "The Chase", the 90 minute all-car-chase movie: The Chase (1994)


----------



## Allister (Oct 3, 2008)

Delta said:


> Maybe we should just bite the bullet and rename the game "Die Hard d20" (given all the John McClane this, John McClane that, that seems like the primary justification for 4E rules changes, good grief).




Heh...personally, I originally saw Healing Surges most closely resembling Indiana Jones.

Remember the 1st Indy movie where he gets worked over during the day and then has a night of passion but the very next day, he's right as rain? To me, that mapped effortlessly onto healing....

Another of my friends argued it was more akin to the aura effect that anime shonen heroes tend to display where they take massive shots and everything yet they only have a little scratch...

Personally, the suggestion of lingering wound is even more of a non D&D element. I really, REALLY, think Death spiral mechanics are so not D&D given my experiences in other games like Alternity and SR.

Death Spiral mechanics tend to make melee guys very unpopular AND the mechanic iself vastly changes how the game is played.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> /snip
> 
> So, in the end you will still have a 4E like game play effect, but the mechanics map closer to the fictional game world. But here I say: WHY? Why go a more complicated route to achieve exactly the same igameplay effect? Where is the real benefit at the game table? Players have to juggle more numbers and effects and still play the game mostly the same way?
> 
> Is it really harder to play-pretend and guesstimate or schrödinger your wounds (together with pretending to be an elf or pretending to fight a dragon, only armed with a sword and a shield), then to do each step of the more "advanced" system to get a closer model of the game-world? And be honest - you go through the numbers every attack, every hit, every round of a combat. But the "play-pretend" - you do that only occassionally, when it feels meaningful, like when you drop a foe, bloody him (4E D&D only), or when you make a critical hit, whenever something special happens.




Bingo!  This is exactly the point I was trying to make.  Thank you for saying it better than I've been able to.  In a "game first" model, look at the results, rather than the method.  Since the results are the same, why use a more complicated system?




Delta said:


> Maybe we should just bite the bullet and rename the game "Die Hard d20" (given all the John McClane this, John McClane that, that seems like the primary justification for 4E rules changes, good grief).




Die Hard is a good example because everyone (or at least most people) have seen it.  But, can you honestly say that you've never seen the same effect in pretty much EVERY action movie?  If Die Hard bothers you, then go with Lethal Weapon.  Or Rambo.  Or any Jackie Chan movie you care to name.  or or or.  Let's face it, it's a pretty standard trope in action movies. 

And, stories as well.  People have pointed to various narratives where the hero needs extended rest to come back.  But, what works in stories doesn't work in the game.  Conan never, not once, suffers a debilitating wound that prevents him from carrying on with the plot.  And, despite fighting with hundreds of opponents, never suffers from a permanent wound.  

In Steven King's Gunslinger series, the protagonist Roland loses a couple of fingers.  Ok, but, why?  The point of him losing the fingers is to force him to seek help from the other characters, thus drawing everyone together.  His loss of fingers is a plot point.

Loss of hit points in D&D is never a plot point.  Trying to mix the two is very difficult.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Oct 3, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Bingo!  This is exactly the point I was trying to make.  Thank you for saying it better than I've been able to.  In a "game first" model, look at the results, rather than the method.  Since the results are the same, why use a more complicated system?



Just dropped into read the last post and noticed this little error.  In an RPG, there are no rules for the Players to remember (and therefore slow down play).  It's all just description of the world.  Sometimes abstract, but still just description.  A 5-year-old can play an RPG.  They just need to know how to role-play.  There is never a need to know rules from a Player POV.  Rules are for the DM/Referee to help operate the world.  They are the ones who use as few or as many rules as necessary.

That's why d20 is a rule-playing game, like Chess, Poker, or any kind of board game.  The players operate almost exclusively inside the rules.  You cannot play the game without thinking inside of them, so why not force everyone to know them?  As if somehow memorizing rules makes one a good role-player (vs. a good game player). 4E's advancement over 3E is "allowing" little excursions outside of this closed system to be ruled upon thereby giving the DM greater influence over the game than the designers alone (unlike a boardgame).  

It's an inversion of an RPG.  Instead of playing people in a hypothetical place with rules assisting a DM/Referee to unbiasedly extrapolate the consequences of PCs n the world, we now have the world, and even play, as result of the rules.  Many rule-playing games are now designed to force players to role-play in certain manners vs. allowing them to choose how to role-play for themselves (i.e. "hybrid" games).


----------



## GlaziusF (Oct 4, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> Just dropped into read the last post and noticed this little error.  In an RPG, there are no rules for the Players to remember (and therefore slow down play).  It's all just description of the world.  Sometimes abstract, but still just description.  A 5-year-old can play an RPG.  They just need to know how to role-play.  There is never a need to know rules from a Player POV.  Rules are for the DM/Referee to help operate the world.  They are the ones who use as few or as many rules as necessary.




Haha, wow. So sweet, so green, so naive.

All games have rules. That's why they're games - there's a way to resolve disputes that doesn't involve arguing or beating the other party unconscious. Sure, I guess all rules could reside in the central rules depository, but then at the first sign of contention the game would turn into an elaborate farce on "Mother May I" where the rules arbitrator is asked for a judgment on absolutely everything. 

That's why people learn rules, you know? So they don't have to ask what they are whenever they want to do something that not everybody agrees on.


----------



## Delta (Oct 4, 2008)

Hussar said:


> And, stories as well. People have pointed to various narratives where the hero needs extended rest to come back. But, what works in stories doesn't work in the game...




Oh, please. In the 1E DMG under "Monsters and Organization", the base assumption was that a party would attack once, and then retreat and regroup for _one full week_ before attacking again. 2 pages and 6 examples were devoted to helping the DM decide what the monsters might do in the meantime.

I want that kind of gaming experience back, and I want rules that directly support it. Not an action movie, not a plotted story. And I can find such rules for D&D that do support that in numerous places: OD&D, BECMI, 1E, C&C, my own DimD20 rules, etc.

Frankly, one of my primary griefs in the 3.5/4E era is that D&D seems to have been taken over by people who, while liking the idea of killing monsters with swords & spells, really actively disliked D&D to a large extent.



> Examples of the responses of six different types of monsters follow. The situation will be the same in each example: The "party" (whose composition and levels are unimportant for the example and would obviously vary in each situation anyway) will be attacking the monsters in the examples in two situations. SITUATION 1 (S1) is where encounter occurs for the first time, and while the party inflicts casualties upon the monsters, victory is denied; the party then leaves with its wounded, regroups, and returns one full week later to finish the job. SITUATION 2 (S2) is where the party, rested, healed, and ready for action, has now re-encountered the monsters in question. In both situations the response of the monsters concerned will be detailed so you can use the examples in handling actual play.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 4, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> Just dropped into read the last post and noticed this little error.  In an RPG, there are no rules for the Players to remember (and therefore slow down play).  It's all just description of the world.  Sometimes abstract, but still just description.  A 5-year-old can play an RPG.  They just need to know how to role-play.  There is never a need to know rules from a Player POV.  Rules are for the DM/Referee to help operate the world.  They are the ones who use as few or as many rules as necessary.




You might be describing role-playing, but not an RPG (Role-Playing *Game*).


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 4, 2008)

Delta said:


> Oh, please. In the 1E DMG under "Monsters and Organization", the base assumption was that a party would attack once, and then retreat and regroup for _one full week_ before attacking again. 2 pages and 6 examples were devoted to helping the DM decide what the monsters might do in the meantime.
> 
> .




THIS actually is one of the reasons why I think both 3e and 4e are definitely better designed games. They actually consider what happens at the table and not just "how it should be".

Your example of taking a full week to recover was something that never occured in our games and I have a hunch didn't happen in MOST games either.

What would ACTUALLY happen was a) players take one day, cleric blows all spells on healing and then, we're good to go.

So by the day after, the players  were ready to go and most situations, the den of the evil enemies wouldn't have time to change... 

It's the same thing with the healing for me....Pre 3E, healing was EXTERMELY slow as a way to make it seem flavourful that adventuring and combat was dangerous.

The result though of this rule? Either the downtime was handwaved away thus not giving the players any sense of time being spent OR the more likely fact that almost every party HAD to have a cleric thus actually forcing a player to take a class (or having the DM to provide one) just for the game to function...


----------



## Delta (Oct 4, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> THIS actually is one of the reasons why I think both 3e and 4e are definitely better designed games. They actually consider what happens at the table and not just "how it should be"....
> 
> The result though of this rule? Either the downtime was handwaved away thus not giving the players any sense of time being spent OR the more likely fact that almost every party HAD to have a cleric thus actually forcing a player to take a class (or having the DM to provide one) just for the game to function...




And that's why I think 3E and 4E are, in that regard, much worse designed games.  They don't take into account what happens in the game world, and believe that game world and at-table experiences should be unrelated.

Look, in OD&D/ Basic clerics had no spells at first level. From OD&D -> 2E, clerics had no healing spells in the 2nd or 3rd level slots. The breakdown you describe is one of the backfiring results of 3E not thinking through its implications.

If you believe that earlier editions had similar problems, then my solution would be to not exacerbate the breakdown or capitulate to it, but step back further to OD&D-level healing levels. Or even back to the Chainmail milieu where there were no clerics at all! (As I did in my DimD20 rules.)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2008)

Delta said:


> And that's why I think 3E and 4E are, in that regard, much worse designed games.  They don't take into account what happens in the game world, and believe that game world and at-table experiences should be unrelated.
> 
> Look, in OD&D/ Basic clerics had no spells at first level. From OD&D -> 2E, clerics had no healing spells in the 2nd or 3rd level slots. The breakdown you describe is one of the backfiring results of 3E not thinking through its implications.
> 
> If you believe that earlier editions had similar problems, then my solution would be to not exacerbate the breakdown or capitulate to it, but step back further to OD&D-level healing levels. Or even back to the Chainmail milieu where there were no clerics at all! (As I did in my DimD20 rules.)




Yes, but in AD&D, 1e forward, my 1st level cleric had THREE cure light wounds spells per day.   A week of healing?  For 1st level characters?  Why?  You only, at best, have about 12 hit points.  Maybe 14 if you're really, really lucky (or cheating   )  Even if you had three characters down to negatives, the longest it would take to heal is a couple of days.  A week?  Gimme a break.

Never mind if your group has two clerics.  Or, y'know, a friendly cleric in the Keep who might heal you.  Or any number of other sources of healing.  And that's just at 1st level.  

Sure, you don't have 2nd and 3rd level healing spells, but the PC's have considerably less hit points as well.  You're not dealing with double digit levels very often.  50, 60 hit points is a lot for a 1ed character.  By 4th level, the cleric has 3 base spells, +2 for a 14 wisdom (not a big stretch for a cleric), giving 5 cures per day.  No group needs a full week to rest.  Or certainly not very often.

Never minding all the stories of EGG's groups actually resting in the dungeon as well.  How could they possibly do it if they were taking a week to heal.

This is what bothers me the most about these sorts of conversations.  The schizophrenic nature of 1e.  The DMG says one thing but actual play is almost completetly different - keep the PC's poor but we'll make modules with tons and tons of gold for the taking - combat is incredibly lethal but the monsters only do 1d6 points of damage and have a hard time hitting you on and on.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 6, 2008)

Delta said:


> And that's why I think 3E and 4E are, in that regard, much worse designed games.  They don't take into account what happens in the game world, and believe that game world and at-table experiences should be unrelated.



Quibble: 3e and 4e assume that the game world and at-table experience are _less rigorously_ related. 

And no edition of D&D supported a rigorous relationship between the game table and the fictional in-game world, at least, not with an enormous amount of work from the people playing, usually in the form of rationalization and apology.


----------

