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

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

Who needs to know?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

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


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


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

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

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

[dnddays]

Originally Posted by Delta

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

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



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

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

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

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

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

Me too.

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

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

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


RC

[dnddays]

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

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

Le sigh.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by dnddays

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

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

Oooooookkkkkkakaaaayyyyyyyy.

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

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

Keep telling youself that.



RC

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

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

How does Fred examine Bob?

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

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

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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

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

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


RC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dnddays]

This argument never gets old. lol.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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

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

[dnddays]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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

Oooooookkkkkkakaaaayyyyyyyy.

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



Keep telling youself that.



RC

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

[Lacyon]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

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

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

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

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

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

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

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

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

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

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


RC

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Derren

You don't die from a lack of will.

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

Originally Posted by Derren

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

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

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

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

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Lacyon

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

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

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


RC