Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

Hussar said:

Really? Two minor changes and that's all it takes to get what you want.

Sure, if they stick healing surges and whatnot into a module, I'll accept that.

Would you accept the other way though? Your preferences in the module with healing surges as the default? Because, I get a strong sense that you wouldn't. That if your way isn't the default, it's a non-starter.

Click to expand...

If HS and 4e power are in the core, no I probably wouldn't make the switch. I just see it as more work to port them out than port them in. Like i said HS are built on top of HP, so it is a lot easier to us Hp as the base system. But I have to ask why it is such a bad thing for me to want the game to exclude aspects of the previous edition I strongly disliked? I mean would you want overpowered wizards as core if they could be optionally removed?

One thing i can say that may help explain my position to hussar is I am not a loyal D&D cutomer at this point. 4e really hurt the brand for me. It was such the opposite of what I wanted that I started focusing a lot more on toher games ( i had always played other games but till then D&D was my group's standard). So now I am not just automatically going to buy the next edition of the game or play it. I treat it like any other game out there, which means i am only going to invest the time and money into it if it has strong appeal to me and suits my preferences.

Look, can we all just get over the idea of trying to explain to people who like healing surges why the fluff of them doesn't really work, and explain to people who don't like healing surges how to "rethink" things so that they do? THERE'S NO POINT IN IT.

Constantly trying to provide examples how someone can "think differently" doesn't do anything... ESPECIALLY when they've stated time and time again they have NO DESIRE to "think differently".

If they wanted to play the game in that way THEY WOULD.

You know what? I couldn't resist.
* Frankly, I just wanted a name that would rhyme with "surge", and now I have this image of a monster who's the personification of 5e as the "unity" edition. He's probably a chimera.

Falling Icicle said:

..The idea of the frail 1st level wizard that can be slain by a house cat ...

Click to expand...

I just want to say I've seen feral "house" cats in Australia and I can totally see how they could kill someone. And we let these little monsters in our homes. Will someone please think of the children!

Anyway, carry on...

Hussar said:

Really? Two minor changes and that's all it takes to get what you want.

Sure, if they stick healing surges and whatnot into a module, I'll accept that.

Would you accept the other way though? Your preferences in the module with healing surges as the default? Because, I get a strong sense that you wouldn't. That if your way isn't the default, it's a non-starter.

Click to expand...

I know I'm probably intruding into a priveate discussion, but anyway.

I want healing surges and stuff into a module, not because I hate them or feel like they disrupt my vision of the fluff (which I do and have my reasons), but rather because they are such a global-affecting mechanic it would be disruptive otherwise. If healing surges and generally speaking high healing are the baseline and default assumption then removing them to make use of a module (or to acomodate a player that really wishes to play a healbot for all that is worth) then you are taking things from the players, if the opposite happens then it is just easier, no player feels robbed of things the core grants when you want to play without surges, and groups that want surges can just put them in. It isn't the same with feats for example, if they are baseline and somebody wants to opt out of it, he /she just erases them of his/her sheet or never picks them in the first place and goes ahead, it doesn't disrupts the game flow, the same is impossible with the healing system as it is interactive by default, no player can just opt out of the system used by the group, if a player wants surges in a non-surges group then that player will be unable to benefit from the healing the group is using and will get isolated from the rest. In the other hand a non-surge player in a surges group won't make it beyond an encounter or two unless he/she is a healer and uses up all of his/her resources just to stay alive, and then he/she just gets isolated from the group too as that means he/she isn't contributing to the battle but rather keeping himself/herself alive and not being of much use to the rest of the group as a healer as he/she isn't compatible with their healing system, and the healer role is moot anyway in such a group.

To put it in less confussing words additive modules=good, substractive modules = bad unless they have only individual consecuences. Healing surges have global consecuences and are additional complexity. The most important part of the new edition for me is to have an enjoyable game that is simple to learn and teach and which can be played with more people, if I have a core that is too complex and which I don't enjoy/have to go out of my way too much to enjoy and can't easilly be thaught to other people, then Next sure has failed for me and I'll have to go back at trying to teach Pathfinder to others.

So, to further best this horse... I agree with the original poster. I've argued this point a number of times including against some real WotC debs and designs, and ultimately things probably won't change for number of reasons. I'm ok with that; as the OP stated, it does work mechanically very well for HP to be ambiguous, and as others have said, it first within the traditions of DD mechanics that hit points be ambiguous in their meaning.

The real problem with hit points isn't that they are an admixture of physical damage, mental resolve, and stain, but that the terminology involved in their loss implied physical damage. When you roll, you roll "to hit", not "to cause a near miss". When you actually succeed, you are said to "hit" not to "cause strain". When you roll for the affect, you roll "damage" not "fatigue" or "loss of morale". The words used to describe the combat help create the narrative of that combat; even though we KNOW that real combat is misses and parries and shield blocks and weapons sliding off of armor, we seldom describe D&D combat that way, instead simplifying it down to hits and misses. Not everyone does this, but I think it's probably ok to say that the majority of us don't describe every combat round in exacting detail.

The combat narrative as it is spelled out with rules is a binary hit or miss with a hit causing a roll for damage, and e subsequent loss of hit points based on that damage. This creates a narrative where the damage the ax inflicts is the loss of hit points, IE physical damage. If a priest heals that damage, it's the divine power closing the wounds. I a warlord does it.... What happens? The guy realizes that wound isn't as deep as the thought and just shakes it off?

That doesn't work for me, but the alternatives are worse; if you want HP to be more than physical, then weapons and combat need new terms to remove the implied physicality of their usage into something that reflects that accurately. If you want HP as damage only, then you close off a lot of options mechanically... It's tough to decide.

Oh, some one mentioned the idea that hit points had to be mental because of various mind affecting spells that delt damage... To me, that's where 3rd Ed's nonlethal damage worked nicely; psionics and fatigue could go play with nonlethal, no leave HP to the swords and fireballs.

dkyle said:

And I appreciate that 4E brought consistency to how HP operate.

Click to expand...

Consistency in 4E?

So I guess that assassin just poisoned your morale?
And your luck is bleeding you to death?
4E is at least as inconsistent as previous editions because there is clearly physical damage in the game which still can be shouted away.

If you want consistency (I do) then you need either have only one type of damage (morale or physical) with no exceptions or a clear way to differentiate between the two types. (See the older Star Wars D20 for an example with Vitality and Wounds).

Derren said:

Consistency in 4E?

So I guess that assassin just poisoned your morale?
And your luck is bleeding you to death?
4E is at least as inconsistent as previous editions because there is clearly physical damage in the game which still can be shouted away.

Click to expand...

Fiction is rife with characters overcoming poisons through sheer force of will, and not medical intervention. Why shouldn't a Warlord be able to bolster that force of will?

Ongoing damage could easily logically represent growing fatigue or loss of focus, and Warlord inspiring his ally to take a moment to snap out of it. Just because HP can represent Luck doesn't mean that luck must be a possible logical interpretation of any and all HP loss.

Also, bear in mind that just because a point of HP lost is physical, doesn't mean that points of HP gained have to be physical. HP is abstract and represents many things. There's no reason a character couldn't start out a combat at full HP, with them representing 50% Health, and 50% Morale, and end the combat at full HP, but with them representing 20% Health and 80% Morale. Even 0 HP doesn't necessarily mean 0% Health; it could be 20% Health, and -20% Morale.

If you want consistency (I do) then you need either have only one type of damage (morale or physical) with no exceptions or a clear way to differentiate between the two types. (See the older Star Wars D20 for an example with Vitality and Wounds).

Click to expand...

HP in 4E are consistently abstract. What you desire is concreteness, not consistency. Systems where HP are always abstract, and systems where HP always represent physical damage, are equally consistent. The former is simply more abstract than the latter.

The inconsistency in previous editions was that HP appeared to be abstract when it came to damage, but concretely physical when it came to healing. 4E treats them as consistently abstract (and as they've always been described), whether they're increasing or decreasing.

Falling Icicle said:

Cleric healing is more believable because it's magic. Magic, by its very definition, is a supernatural power which breaks the laws of our reality. Can you honestly look me straight in the face and say that there's no difference in believability between a magical spell that makes someone's injuries disappear vs. a person just speaking mundane words of encouragement to accomplish the same effect?

Click to expand...

Yes I can look you straight in the face and tell you that magic is never believable. That is why many people (my father for one) refuse to watch fantasy movies and mock elves and wizards, but will happily watch various modern action heroes enact impossible feats. There is a whole movie based on the idea that if the hero stops running and moving he will die. In those movies, the heroes injuries usually manifest as flesh wounds and smears of blood only. There are also standard tropes wherein the hero is jolted back into action by encouragement, by memory of a loved one, by anger. I find action movies almost entirely unbelievable as well, but for some reason many people can accept them before they will ever enjoy the Lord of the Rings.