The Healing Paradox

Crazy Jerome said:

some of us have talked in the past about how you can't make the Burning Wheel mechanism work in D&D very well, because there really isn't any incentive for risking failure.

Click to expand...

Like I said upthread, I really think that this is such a sticking point for so much of what D&Dnext is trying to achieve - not just healing, for example, but it's idea of "fiction engaging" stat checks as the default action resolution mechanic - that I think it should be tackled head on.

That said, it seems more likely than not that it won't be.

Crazy Jerome said:

So how about combining a death spiral wound system with bonuses to some positive thing?

<snip>

The more you suffer from the wounds, the more you are likely to get fate points. And critically, these fate points don't reset at the end of an adventure. They are a special kind of reward explicitly for pushing on in the face fo the death spiral--and they help you in ways that deal with being in a rough spot--whether you got there by pushing on or stumbled into it later.

Click to expand...

This is interesting.

The easiest version of Fate Points is as a +X bonus to any d20 roll, or to AC against one attack (+3 is probably a nice bonus).

Alternatively, if you want them to be of use only when in a tough spot, you might say that they can be used only to grant a +X bonus to AC (+4 might be a nice number) or to negate disadvantage on one d20 roll, or to negate up to -X of penalties (again, up to -4 of penalties might be a good number).

Then the question is, how are they earned? For succeeding at a certain sort of check while wounded? For attempting a certain sort of check while wounded? Or some other way?

pemerton said:

Part of what creates the pressure towards healing in D&D, in my view, is not just the relative lack of reward for pushing on, but that the consequences of failure are generally so brutal. I think that if D&Dnext revisits the issue of consequences for failure, it could help address many issues: healing; making players more willing to use a range of stats in action resolution; making balancing PCs across the 3 pillars more viable; combining with flatter math to make more story elements more viable at more levels.

Click to expand...

That is tough one.

BW's engine is built around dramatic and narrative logic, so failures can simply be plot detours. By its nature, one is likely to love it or hate because it is strongly geared towards specific styles of roleplaying.

D&D is at it core a war game with enough mechanical flexibility to allow for many kinds of roleplaying. The default logic baked into the game is "failure = death". Getting away from there requires building a lot of infrastructure from scratch. This screams "module" because many old time players would despise it for many obvious reasons.

pemerton said:

Second, even when dealing with living, reactive enemies, a day or two is often neither here nor there. Suppose that Han and Luke had taken an extra two days to rescue Leia - would it have made a big difference? Instead of being held prisoner for N days, she's held prisoner for N+2.

Click to expand...

Actually, in the movie, according to C3PO, she's "scheduled to be terminated." [sblock]7:50 into the clip:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDGDazSOVJk&feature=related]Star Wars IV-A New Hope (Part 5/8) - YouTube[/ame][/sblock]

Missing those two days would reshape the next couple movies. You're right, of course -a day or two is often neither here nor there. Sometimes, though, that day or two makes a huge difference. I like downtime in my games (travel time, recovery, etc.) because of the setting evolution (living world) and in-game pacing that it produces.

pemerton said:

Within the confines of a genuine living world, as opposed to a very tightly constructed RPG scenario, I think that it is actually quite hard to make time matter to within a day or two (as opposed perhaps to weeks or months).

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Oftentimes, it doesn't matter too much. I just like the collective effect of 2 days here, 5 days there, 2 weeks here, 5 days there, etc. It adds up, and it makes a difference.

Individually, it may not make a big difference a lot of the time. I mean, sometimes it will, and it can be huge (see your Star Wars example as a great way to show that), but it could very often go unnoticed.

pemerton said:

Which suggests a much more obvious solution, for those who do want time to matter within a living world - make the recovery period (for spells, hit points, surges etc) a week, or a month, rather than a day. Then the PCs will have to tackle the adventure on a single set of resources.

Click to expand...

I could see this. That's why I do support dials on recovery time. I think the best way to handle it might be to present multiple options for recover time (HP and non-HP included), and let people choose, rather than having a default. I know I like slower recovery for the in-game pacing and setting evolution it naturally produces. As always, play what you like

Crazy Jerome said:

So how about combining a death spiral wound system with bonuses to some positive thing? Let's say "fate points" for this example, and leave exactly what they do for later discussion. Suffice for now to say that having them is unmistakenly a good thing, but you only get them when you are suffering from the wounds (from the death spiral or otherwise). The more you suffer from the wounds, the more you are likely to get fate points.

Click to expand...

I had written about a similar system using 4e's action point system.

Regardless of the mechanic, I came to the same conclusion. If you expect mechanics to encourage a player to play while hurt, then mechanically he has to feel as badass or even more badass when wounded than he does normally.

Ridley's Cohort said:

That is tough one.

<snip>

D&D is at it core a war game with enough mechanical flexibility to allow for many kinds of roleplaying. The default logic baked into the game is "failure = death". Getting away from there requires building a lot of infrastructure from scratch. This screams "module" because many old time players would despise it for many obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

I think you're right that a lot of old time players would despise it for the obvious reasons.

But I'm not sure that it needs a lot of infranstructure to be baked in. Quite a bit can be done just in terms of advice on scenario design and action resolution. (Attempts of this sort, albeit somewhat half-hearted, were made in 4e in relation to skill challenges.)

pemerton said:

Then the question is, how are they earned? For succeeding at a certain sort of check while wounded? For attempting a certain sort of check while wounded? Or some other way?

Click to expand...

My rough draft goes this way, because I'd like the wounds and fate points to work well and seemlessly together, but also work independently:

• Wounds cause damage to ability scores (as discussed earlier in this topic).
• Fate points are earned by failing certain ability score checks badly, when it really matters.

Maybe "fate points" would really be "karma points" in such a system. You get them when things go bad, and then you get to use them to turn later, worse things into less bad things.

Note that as written, this means that you can also gain points by having a bad stat and then trying to use it. Doesn't really matter if you got the bad stat from assigning it, rolling for stats, getting wounded, magically drained, etc. It's just that when used, the wounds will be the most common reason why points get earned.

To keep it somewhat reasonable on handling time, you need some kind of filter on getting points, so that they can be ignored on most rolls:

1. Roll a 1 or 2 on a d20 check.
2. Fail the check by 15.
3. Get hurt and/or pick up some bad condition or circumstance.

Meet all three, get a fate point. The first one is in there to cull out a lot of rolls, with brute force. The second one is in there to discourage fishing for fate points on the moderate rolls that make up the heart of a game. The last one is where the DM gets to say you get the point or not. You might not for failing badly to jump over a pit when you only take 2 points of damge. You might qualify when the botched dipomacy check means the duchess hates you now.

Note also that you could use both wounds and fate points in a game, and the players could choose to not push on much. That's ok, as the point of a feedback system is to let the players find their level of comfort. Playing cautious means you don't get fate points to handle things when you slip up. So you continue to play cautious. Playing loose means you do get points, but you'll need them. Somewhere in the middle is probably optimum for most groups.

pemerton said:

But why would we not just rest, recover that -1 penalty from resting, and memorise the Bless spell to get a further +1 buff?

In other words, where does the reason to keep going come from?

Click to expand...

For me, the only reasons to continue to risk your character's life are dramatic or personal. Mechanical benefits rarely pass the sniff test for me, and as you said, don't provide enough incentive on their own. Tying in something serious such as XP might make players feel like they have to keep going.

I was more looking for acceptable penalties, the sort that players would feel are annoying, but not enough to give up on. Not having enough HP (I'd say the psychological threshold is about 2/3rds) and you can see their attitude to combat and within combat changes right away. A penalty to hit annoys them, but they keep going. Being easier to hit? That might be too much.

Have you worked through the math? A penalty to hit is pretty severe and will likely result in enemies getting an extra round or two. Which means more opportunities for those enemies to cause damage. Which means your players will likely end up resting sooner. Which means you get no benefit out of it whatsoever... except longer combats, that are potentially more deadly. And players forced to rest because they really can't go on.

The best outcome you can hope for is that players keep pushing on, but avoid combats. This is a great outcome, but it's not obvious by handing out penalties. A better way to do this is to make sure your players understand that they can get XP for avoiding the encounter instead of engaging in it.

I mean... if the players come up with a great plan to avoid combat and they succeed... reward them as if they beat the encounter. It's a very different game, then, but hey... at least they pushed on just like you wanted.

As for the healing paradox... I'll never understand why it makes such a difference to people whether healing happens quickly or slowly... but I think the real problem is DMs that kind of force their players to enter into combat instead of letting their players be rewarded for avoiding them.

Lalato said:

As for the healing paradox... I'll never understand why it makes such a difference to people whether healing happens quickly or slowly...

Click to expand...

It's a campaign/story pacing issue. That makes it a win-lose, though. If healing is handled one way, it dictates pacing. So, another point were 'modularity' becomes key - the problem is how to keep it all working smoothly. Right now, Healing is embedded in classes and themes, making it hard for the DM to pick rate of healing that'll give him the pacing he wants without banning or house-ruling player options, a module to do so would have to include detailed changes in general and specific rules. If healing were pulled into a single sub-system, modules could alter or swap it out more easily.

but I think the real problem is DMs that kind of force their players to enter into combat instead of letting their players be rewarded for avoiding them.

Click to expand...

The idea of rewarding exp for avoiding a combat is nothing new. 4e doesn, I'm pretty sure 3e did, and AD&D at least intimated some award might be appropriate. When I ran AD&D, I gave half experience for avoiding a monster. If you later killed it, you got the other half. If you later avoided it again, you got 1/4....

Ideally, D&D would be mostly neutral about combat. I say only "mostly," because if it is going to err, it needs to assume that combat is at least somewhat acceptable. The risks of combat are great enough that you need a reward inline with those risks.

That is, the problem with the operational play postively rewarding you for avoiding combat is ... some people like combat. So it's tricky to hit this fine line where combat has some advantages and disadvantages to it. If you fight the dragon, kill it, and take his treasure, you get one set of rewards. If you outsmart the dragon and take his treasure, you get a slightly different set of rewards. If you avoid the dragon altogether, that has something else attached to it.

So it's difficult enough to get the rewards right (for a wide range of playstyles) when the party is all healed up and loaded for dire bear. Most DMs can get some sense from the players on how they want to work it, and make it happen. Throw in enough damage and other depleted resources, the calculus changes.