General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is. Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play. Requiring constant redefinition of such makes the game a "playing of the system" instead of a playing of the role. It removes the exploration / education a player has within that role and leaves absent that portion of the system the game element was designed to simulate in the first place.
Why don't you just say narrativist play is badwrongfun? Its much more concise.
Roleplaying does not require precise world-physics/game-rule correspondence. I find that games with such an occurrence to be hijacked by players who want to set themselves up as kings in a faraway desertl and because the found a decanter of endless water. Give me an interpreted game and I can come up with some awesome stuff.
Edit: And let me expand on that. This very much reminds me of 2E sensibilities, for example: constructing magic items. They took a fairly concrete system in the prior edition, snipped it out, and said, "you can do anything you want, it's up to your imagination!". Quote from 2E DMG:
2E only adds the Fantastical Method as an alternative or something to be mixed with the Practical Method.
1E had the Practical Method as its approach. The DM still has to come up with a list of ingredients and a recipe to create each item.
For a role-playing game specifically, it is the confinement of the player to actions real people are capable of when actually in the roles.
This is where I think you are utterly wrong and narrow-minded in what constitutes role-playing. A role-playing game does not require you to play out actions of real people. At least not as it relates to real world people. The game defines what a "real person" is in the simulated world. Wizards are people that can hurl fire, Superhero games define real people as having extraordinary abilities, and the action-adventure genre defines real people as being able to take incredible amounts of punishment but keep going (see Die Hard, Rambo, etc.)
4E is definitely encamped in the action adventure/fantasy camp. Martial character can take massive amounts of punishment and keep going. They ARE real people as defined by the genre.
If you do not like roleplaying the action adventure genre, then you won't like 4E. To each his own.
But to claim that 4E is not "as much" rpging as other games is ludicrous at best. It smacks of claims of badwrongfun.
Why don't you just say narrativist play is badwrongfun? Its much more concise.
That's not what I said at all, please don't attribute such an attitude with me. I'm saying narratively playing a role-playing game is awkward unless you use the second definition of the term (theatre acting). Trying to tell a story while in an Army role-playing scenario in the woods or when role-playing a conflict mediation for divorce court judges is as much a misunderstanding of the term role-play as would be to play Poker as if the object of the game was to lose money.
Quote:
Roleplaying does not require precise world-physics/game-rule correspondence. I find that games with such an occurrence to be hijacked by players who want to set themselves up as kings in a faraway desertl and because the found a decanter of endless water. Give me an interpreted game and I can come up with some awesome stuff.
Actually, role-playing under it's original definition is the testing of one's abilities in a role one isn't. The idea is not for the Referee to tell a story, but for the Players to excel strategically and thereby learn the role. In most cases this was to prepare for real life assumption of the role. Running a role-playing game with any intent other than to unbiasedly present the world as it is confounds designers' intent. Essentially, it is an honest telling of riddles and wondering why players are responding by continuing with a story rather than an attempted solutions. The players are misunderstanding the riddle to be a story they are collaboratively telling. (That is not just a metaphor, it's identical to what is happening when RPGs are misread as narratives. You could just as easily redefine all riddles as narratives where players are expected to guess what the teller wants them to do.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd
This is where I think you are utterly wrong and narrow-minded in what constitutes role-playing. A role-playing game does not require you to play out actions of real people. At least not as it relates to real world people. The game defines what a "real person" is in the simulated world. Wizards are people that can hurl fire, Superhero games define real people as having extraordinary abilities, and the action-adventure genre defines real people as being able to take incredible amounts of punishment but keep going (see Die Hard, Rambo, etc.)
4E is definitely encamped in the action adventure/fantasy camp. Martial character can take massive amounts of punishment and keep going. They ARE real people as defined by the genre.
If you do not like roleplaying the action adventure genre, then you won't like 4E. To each his own.
But to claim that 4E is not "as much" rpging as other games is ludicrous at best. It smacks of claims of badwrongfun.
Narrow-minded, huh? I think I may not be posting clearly enough. You are right about the healing and hit point system. It simulates the cinematic hero like John McClane in Die Hard and Rambo in Rambo II. I'm talking about other elements of the game world that are not well modeled by the rules. I should have made that clear. Encounter power mechanics are one example. I'm not looking for a dispute. I think most folks recognize these aren't meant to be simulations.
And yes, I do like action adventure games, but prefer more realism when knowing what is going on in the game world matters. For instance, I find mysteries require mechanical similarity that is knowable and assumable by the Players to a unrealism they must guess at. Otherwise it becomes difficult to determine what's going on beyond what you're told. Essentially you need Knowledge Checks to be told what is happening at certain points.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Last edited by howandwhy99; 15th November 2008 at 07:02 AM..
Actually, the more I read these threads, the more I think the issue comes back to this:
What level of fantasy do you want in your game?
Do you play gritty, low fantasy games with long healing times?
or
Do you play action packed, high fantasy games with healing times hand waved to be more like Bruce Willis/Bond characters?
I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.
Narrow-minded, huh? I think I may not be posting clearly enough.
I apologize if I am just misreading you. Even so, I want to be clear that my comment was only directed towards my understanding of your views on the hp system, not a general statement of your mind-set.
I apologize if I am just misreading you. Even so, I want to be clear that my comment was only directed towards my understanding of your views on the hp system, not a general statement of your mind-set.
Hey, no problem. I'm not trying to incite other folks here either (as dull and pedantic as my posts may read )
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Nice analogy. It's a solvable problem for most groups.
I suppose one question is, do the benefits gained make it worth the trouble of solving or avoiding the problem?
Another question is, could the system have been designed to give the benefits without creating a possible problem?
The problem only arises if you care about narrating the damage. The mechanical effects of damage are defined - you're fine until 0, but at half hit points you become obviously wounded, or "bloodied", and certain things will affect you differently. Gnolls will turn into tiny furry landsharks and attempt to rip your flesh, et cetera.
How you narrate these mechanical effects is something you're left without guidance for. I would argue deliberately, because it can be rather an open-ended question, and studies have shown that presenting even sketchy examples of a creative solution is enough to pretty much determine the thought process.
Keep in mind, the problem explicitly arises from:
Caring enough to narrate damage
Being specific enough to paint yourself into a corner when it comes to the effects of healing
Not being able to see any way to avoid painting yourself into said corner
Quote:
Originally Posted by pemerton
I don't quite agree with the analogy, because it's not a problem to be solved so we can get on with the game - rather, narrating events in the gameworld that fit with what the mechanics tell us is part of the point of playing the game, part of what counts as getting on with the game.
Yes, and coming up with a model that sees Schroedinger's Wounding coming and turns down the other street is a problem to be solved ahead of time so you can get on with narration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by howandwhy99
Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is.
What's this "during play", kemosabe? You can come up with a damage model for your character completely independent of the game table.
I mean, unless you use some avant-garde definition of "play" that encompasses all moments you are aware of a system's existence.
I prefer the more realistic hit point style of 4E because it is a more simlationist depiction of the effect of shock (and the recovery from the same). People don't die in static, predictable ways.
__________________ ENworld OAF (Old-school Admirer of 4th edition)
I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.
How often does magic get involved in healing in your game?
If you're like most people, the answer is, "All the time, multiple times per day. Magic healing happens continuously."
Which is fine and all, but I don't think its compatible with "low fantasy." That's high fantasy. I think "low fantasy" is much more compatible with the idea of hit points representing not physical wounds, but simply how far you are from falling unconscious in a sort of nebulous sense.
Enjoy what you enjoy, I guess, but I don't think that making magical healing of sucking chest wounds into a multiple-times-per-day occurrence makes your game "low fantasy."
You've demonstrated that you can construct a damage model for a character which exhibits "Schroedinger's Wounding" - one in which regaining hit points has different physical effects depending on the power source of the healing.
Actually that's not quite correct. I should know since I invented the theory of quantum hitpoints as they applied to 4e back in March.
Basically, the quantum theory of hitpoints states that the actual physical effects of hitpoint damage to a 4e character exists in an indeterminate quantum state until the damage is recovered from, or the character dies.
So "Schrodinger's Wounding", as the term has come to be called, doesn't mean that regaining HP has different effects depending on the source of the healing.
What it means is that the nature of the original hitpoint damage (i.e. actual wounds vs. fatigue vs. morale) sustained by a character cannot be determined until those hitpoints are recovered by a character. It is the source of the hitpoint recovery that determines the original nature of the damage sustained.
For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.
Therefore if the DM had described that damage as wound damage when it occured, the DM would be proven wrong if the PC is then healed by an ability such as Inspiring Word. This would result in a retroactive time paradox because the DM would then have to revise their prior description of the source of the damage. Otherwise known as a "retcon".
To avoid such game "reality" paradoxes, HP damage can only exist in an indeterminate quantum state until the damage is recovered from, at which point the quantum wave function collapses and the DM can now accurately describe the original damage based on the nature of the recovery.
Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is. Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play.
But I think in the context of role-playing games, it doesn't have to be a problem. It can in fact be something players enjoy, especially if it grants particular freedoms that a harder game-rule/game-world mapping can't provide.
If you are free to interpret certain game mechanics in different ways, you avoid the problems of rules that can become too complex. If you try to have a rules framework that allows you to map any (or at least a large enough subset) conceivable gameworld actions into rules, your rules might become to complex. You might, for example, want to have a rule for called shots, the difference between an uppercut and a bashing attack, the rules for fighting (and perceiving) with or without a helmet, and so on. All these can be things to describe in the game world and probably would matter in it - but we don't always want to bother also applying rules for this. I think the goal of rules is not just to provide a way to resolve situations at all, but to resolve them in interesting ways without requiring to much of our mental efforts.
Maybe this is just a "gamist" approach, but I think rules complexity should be geared towards providing a certain "tactical" element - how do I solve a problem? That is basically the same thing we do outside the rules framework: "How do we free the captured slaves? How do we navigate through this dungeon?"
One of the disadvantages of matching game rules and game world to close is that you think constantly in rule terms. You can't just freely narrate what your character does, you have to describe everything accurately in the rules. But that's not really how your character would think - he just does his thing. When you're swinging a sword, you probably don't think about skill checks, DCs, weapon hardness, handedness and what-else the game rules offer. And removing the rules a little more from this strictness means you can operate more freely on the descriptive level, and still have all the fun of using the rules in a clever way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonblade
Actually that's not quite correct. I should know since I invented the theory of quantum hitpoints as they applied to 4e back in March.
Basically, the quantum theory of hitpoints states that the actual physical effects of hitpoint damage to a 4e character exists in an indeterminate quantum state until the damage is recovered from, or the character dies.
So "Schrodinger's Wounding", as the term has come to be called, doesn't mean that regaining HP has different effects depending on the source of the healing.
What it means is that the nature of the original hitpoint damage (i.e. actual wounds vs. fatigue vs. morale) sustained by a character cannot be determined until those hitpoints are recovered by a character. It is the source of the hitpoint recovery that determines the original nature of the damage sustained.
For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.
Though maybe words of encouragement make you willing to go on despite painful or nasty-looking wounds? That would bring us back to "Schroedingers hit points" - we don't know what the hit points you currently have represent - do you have all those hit points due to experience, training and a good health? Or is it because you're still highly motivated?
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Actually, the more I read these threads, the more I think the issue comes back to this:
What level of fantasy do you want in your game?
Do you play gritty, low fantasy games with long healing times?
or
Do you play action packed, high fantasy games with healing times hand waved to be more like Bruce Willis/Bond characters?
I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.
It is comments like these that add feul to the fire are are unnecessary.
I didn't read any offense in what Zustiur said. Don't stress too much about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd
One could more politely say:
I prefer low fantasy...where healing takes longer...etc.
Its not a matter or miracles that PCs heal in 4E, its just faster than your preference.
Hmmm...the rate of healing in 4E does seem pretty miraculous; at least when compared to the "real" world. With the rules as written, you can go from death's door to premium grade health in about a day without any outside assistance. I would not myself be offended by someone calling this timespan miraculous - 4E characters are heroic aren't they?
I believe looking at the RAW, the quantum wounding/healing situation does exist - see Dragonblade's post. For some players, this is just going to be a complete non-issue and completely irrelevant to their fun at the table. For others (combined with the quicker than realistic hit point recovery, as well as their more "traditional" concepts of what hit points are), this is going to be a source of awkwardness that pops up more than just occasionally. I can't see why both sides of the fence don't just agree to disagree. To put up the hand and so "yes" or "no" this does/doesn't affect how our group plays, we're still having fun or whatever.
For me, the biggest problem with hit points is that they are generally trying to account for physical damage as well as other aspects such as skill, divine favor, inner power, the will to go on and so on. If hit points were split into their constituent parts (physical damage-hit points; and everything else-combat points), then I think you would find that almost all the hit point anomalies go away, and people are free to interpret the non-physical damage however they wish. But that is a subject of another thread I started here.
Anyway, peace people. There have been lots of great ideas expressed here, be it imaginitive interpretations for hit points and how they are roleplayed, or the sharp analysis of the 4E RAW.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
I believe looking at the RAW, the quantum wounding/healing situation does exist - see Dragonblade's post. For some players, this is just going to be a complete non-issue and completely irrelevant to their fun at the table. For others (combined with the quicker than realistic hit point recovery, as well as their more "traditional" concepts of what hit points are), this is going to be a source of awkwardness that pops up more than just occasionally. I can't see why both sides of the fence don't just agree to disagree. To put up the hand and so "yes" or "no" this does/doesn't affect how our group plays, we're still having fun or whatever.
I don't really know, but some "positive" motivations I'd like to offer:
- They want to really understand the other side. How do they come to experience the problem or not to experience it? What thought processes do they follow?
- They want to see if there is a mechanic that works good for both sides. Maybe, if we discuss it long enough, someone will have a genius idea that will satisfy both sides.
Maybe these motivations are hopeless. I sure never had the impression we got closer to achieving either end (certainly not to satisfy any of the still involved posters...)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Enjoy what you enjoy, I guess, but I don't think that making magical healing of sucking chest wounds into a multiple-times-per-day occurrence makes your game "low fantasy."
QFT. Every time I've seen a complaint that the 4E hit point and healing system isn't realistic, the alternative is usually the CLW wands and magic, magic magic. If hit points never equal physical damage, than surges don't equal physical healing... its kinda simple.
But I think all this discussion of D&D's hit point has convinced me to go back to THE real gritty system... I'm dumping my books for RoleMaster! We need herbal healing and months of game time healing those broken bones and internal organ damage.
QFT. Every time I've seen a complaint that the 4E hit point and healing system isn't realistic, the alternative is usually the CLW wands and magic, magic magic. If hit points never equal physical damage, than surges don't equal physical healing... its kinda simple.
But I think all this discussion of D&D's hit point has convinced me to go back to THE real gritty system... I'm dumping my books for RoleMaster! We need herbal healing and months of game time healing those broken bones and internal organ damage.
Totally. My sense of wonder is destroyed unless I require seventeen weeks of bed rest attended by a character with the correct combination of skills in order to recover from a mace injury to the left clavicle.
__________________ Formerly known as Dr. Awkward
When you get to be a certain age, everything that is cool seems to be a lot of nonsensical, idiotic jibberish. The music that blares from the pimp rides makes no sense; it all sounds like a man with severe autism halfheartedly explaining human sexuality to a parrot, while in the background a dangerously unqualified Caribbean contractor rhythmically installs an automatic garage door opener. Bollocks.
--Jeffery Rowland
wigu.com
The D20 NPC Wiki needs YOU to post your characters! Try my non-asian, non-hocus-pocus martial artist class, the bruiser! While you're at it, also try my vitality/wound point system, intended to eliminate the "15 minute adventuring day." Number of posters so far added to my ignore list due to the enormity of their spelling and grammar: 6
Though maybe words of encouragement make you willing to go on despite painful or nasty-looking wounds? That would bring us back to "Schroedingers hit points" - we don't know what the hit points you currently have represent - do you have all those hit points due to experience, training and a good health? Or is it because you're still highly motivated?
Indeed. Game physicists everywhere continue to seek answers to this quantum quandry.
I believe looking at the RAW, the quantum wounding/healing situation does exist - see Dragonblade's post.
It's an issue if you assume that a decrease in hit points of X, followed by an increase in hit points of X, returns the character to the identical cinematic state he was in prior to the two events.
In Doom, your health is expressed as a percentage... and there's a little picture of your face at the bottom of the screen. At 100%, you look fine. At 50%, you show some a bloodied nose. At 20%, there's more blood, and one eye is blackened and swollen. (Numbers are vague and approximate!)
If you pick up a health pack and go from 20% to 50%, some blood disappears, and your eye unblackens and unswells. When you go from 50%, to 20%, to 50% again, your cinematic representation is identical before and after the -30, +30 sequence. If 30% damage meant "More blood, black eye", then 30% healing means "Heal the eye, wipe some blood".
If you treat 4E hit points the same way - "I said that when he lost 6 hit points, that was a shallow slice along his ribs, and when he lost 12 hit points, it was a club to his face that broke his nose" - then healing must reverse the cinematic effects of damage. When you heal him 12 hit points, his nose becomes unbroken. When you heal him another six, the gash along his ribs disappears.
And this is where Quantum Wounding appears.
But if you don't require an increase in hit points to cinematically reverse exactly the effects of the decrease in hit points, Quantum Wounding doesn't occur. If 6 damage can be a slice in the ribs, but then 6 points of healing can represent a reinvigoration of fighting effort? Then after the cycle, you are not returned to an identical cinematic state (you still have a slice in your ribs, but it's not impairing you); thus it's not necessary for you to know the form of the healing before cementing the form of the damage.
It's only when you assume that healing reverses not only the hit point loss, but exactly reverses the cinematic description of the effect of the hit point loss, that Quantum Wounding rears up.
So I don't make that assumption, and it's not a problem.
Indeed. Game physicists everywhere continue to seek answers to this quantum quandry.
Maybe the new Goblin collider can solve this issue. Where the hell is that link....
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!" One of my rituals is soon to be published in Goodman Games's Book of Rituals... Yey...
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
