The Healing Paradox

[Stalker0]

A blow that is turned into a miss ("full plot protection") vs a blow that is turned into an inconsequential contact that causes no long term injury is a distinction that really doesn't matter at the end of the day, does it?

The only case where this might come up is secondary effects on the attack, such as poison, knockdown, level drain etc.

The question is, if that hp damage means I didn't take any "real" damage from the blow, then how did I get poisoned?


Personally, I can handwave these corner cases my self, but it is a sticking point for some.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only case where this might come up is secondary effects on the attack, such as poison, knockdown, level drain etc.

The question is, if that hp damage means I didn't take any "real" damage from the blow, then how did I get poisoned?


Personally, I can handwave these corner cases my self, but it is a sticking point for some.

The ready answer I had for that question back in the 80s, when I was still trying to defend AD&D, was: "make a poison/death save."

If you felt you needed to know whether the wound was 'real' or purely a psuedo-hit, you make that save. Dovetails nicely, really. If a poison doesn't give a same, it must be a 'contact' poison or something, and even though the weapon didn't break the skin, you still got exposed to it. Not that far beyond the pale when you consider how toxic some mythological poisons, like that of the basilisk, could be.

 

[Hussar]

In my mind, why does it have to be 100% all the same thing all the time? A hit with a poisoned weapon breaks the skin. A hit with a non-poisoned weapon might break the skin or might just dent your shield or might just make you step back and twist your ankle.

Heck, a hit with a poisoned weapon where you made your save is no different than a hit with a non-poisoned weapon.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], next you'll be singing the praises of fortune-in-the-middle mechanics!

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], next you'll be singing the praises of fortune-in-the-middle mechanics!

Honestly, for me, I find fortune in the middle makes the most sense. Or, perhaps a better way to put it, it's the most versatile. If you put fortune at either end, then you can only have one explanation ever for any event. To me, that's not what good resolution mechanics should do. Good resolution mechanics should never dictate the fiction beforehand.

And, really, in my mind, D&D has always worked like this. At least mostly. You state an intent, you roll the dice, you get to the next step and roll the dice again to determine the outcome of that event. That's how combat has always worked. I can state, "I am going to stab him as hard as I can" all you like, but, until damage is rolled, you cannot really, with any certainty, say that that is what's going to happen.

In any skill check, you state your intent, then roll to actually attempt whatever it is you are trying to do. And that die roll determines your level of success. Frequently it doesn't even determine the entire event. A climb skill check only allows you to move a certain speed up the wall. If you haven't reached the top, you need to check again to continue climbing and it's the dice that determine your actions, not any statement by the player.

So, no, I don't want the mechanics to say, absolutely, one way or the other. If HP=Meat then you must resolve and narrate everything, one specific way. If HP=Plot Protection, you must narrate everything in one specific way. By leaving it vague and saying, "pick whichever you like and the table likes" you get the most flexiblity.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So, no, I don't want the mechanics to say, absolutely, one way or the other. If HP=Meat then you must resolve and narrate everything, one specific way. If HP=Plot Protection, you must narrate everything in one specific way. By leaving it vague and saying, "pick whichever you like and the table likes" you get the most flexiblity.

Wouldn't it be nice though if the resolution mechanic that is suppose to resolve something, actually resolves something? Wouldn't it be good if the resolution mechanic separates these two aspects so the player and DM know an attack wounds the target or that a non-wounding attack is avoided by the target? Knowing one way or the other allows you the freedom within each of these situations to describe what you want. While describing a genuine wound might pin you down somewhat, the loss of non-wounding hit points/plot protection can be described any which way the player or DM feels is most appropriate. Separating the two (Wounds and Non-wounds) solves every single anomaly and problem hit points has had and would seemingly allow each side of this debate to play the style that they wish.

Just saying. Again.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

Wouldn't it be nice though if the resolution mechanic that is suppose to resolve something, actually resolves something?

<snip>

Just saying. Again.

In the same spirit, I'll quote (again) a key passage written by Ron Edwards, in his "Gamism - Step On Up" essay:

Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship, but it's hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid non-Simulationist game play . . .

f Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se. ​

When you look at that list, you see all the features of 4e that generate so much hostility:

*Author stance to set up the "arena for conflict" (ie players make choices for their PCs not because they are "playing their PCs" but because they think this will produce an interesting situation for play), and more generally a downplaying of "exploring" the fanatsy world for its own sake. A simple example is that the game takes for granted that players won't have their PCs try to use their Decanter of Endless Water to make money in the desert).

*FitM, and the negotiation of the details of the fiction more generally in a casual fashion within parameters/constraints set by the mechanics, rather than reading them off the mechanics. This is exactly what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is talking about. 4e is very overt about this, and extends it to active abilities (powers etc) as well as the more traditional passive ones (hp, saves).​

It is not crucial to RPGing that the mechanics actually determine, at every point of play, what is happening in the fiction (or, in Herremman's words, that the action resolution mecahnics actually resolve something). It can be sufficient that the mechanics settle parameters for subsequent narration.

Some of these repeated proposal for simulationist "fixes" to 4e, and to FitM and similar mechanics more generally, seem to be motivated by a genuine surprise that anyone might prefer, at least sometimes, or for some RPGing purposes, a game that plays in the way that Edwards describes. But it is true.

A simple recent example from my 4e game: the dwarf PC was having his dwarven engineers and artisans reforge Whelm (a dwarven thrower hammer) as Overwhelm (a mordenkrad). I was resolving this as a skill challenge. The PC wizard had succeeded in containing the magical forces (Arcana success). The dwarf had made sure the engineers had the right equipment (Dungeoneering success) and he was keeping them focused on the task as the magical forces grew in intensity (Diplomacy success). He said prayers to Moradin, but these weren't enough (Religion failure). As I described the dwarven artisans having trouble getting a solid grip on the hammer head, so that they could beat it into shape, the player of the dwarf asked "Can I stick my hands in and hold it - making an Endurance check?" (his Endurance skill bonus is a lot better than his Religion bonus!). I answered that he could, though it would probably hurt his hands quite badly. So he did, he made the Endurance roll, with the dwarf steadying Whelm with his bare hands in the forge the artisans were able to get a firm grip with their tongs, and Whelm was reforged. (And the wizard used Remove Affliction to try to alleviate some of the damage from the burns.)

This is the sort of thing which is easy to do in a fortune-in-the-middle system in which the relationship between fictional content and mechanical outcomes is negotiated in a casual fashion using the system for inputs and constraints. Whereas resolving it in a simulationist system would be much harder, because apart from anything else they tend not to have well-developed systems for resolving non-humanly-possible but non-magical heroic action (there is no way this could be done in Rolemaster, Runequest or Burning Wheel without spellcasting, for example).

I'm not saying that this laid-back approach to resolution is everything. It depends, for example, upon a robust and shared sense of genre limitations around the table. 4e has a lot of features to help deliver this: D&D traditions, plus the default world, plus the tiers of play, etc. (So the player of the dwarf in this example would have accepted a "No, you can't do that!" answer back in heroic tier.)

But the fact that it's not the be-all-and-end-all doesn't make it anything less than a completely viable way of RPGing.

(As I posted in the other thread, a Wound/Vitality system has the additional weirdness that it keeps FitM and loose narration for part of the system - hp loss - but not the rest of the system - wounding. I don't really understand the reason for this sort of split personality - I want to go one way or the other.)

 

[Mercutio01]

It is not crucial to RPGing that the mechanics actually determine, at every point of play, what is happening in the fiction (or, in Herremman's words, that the action resolution mecahnics actually resolve something). It can be sufficient that the mechanics settle parameters for subsequent narration.

Can be, and is for some games. I don't like it in my D&D.

surprise that anyone might prefer, at least sometimes, or for some RPGing purposes, a game that plays in the way that Edwards describes. But it is true.

I do like those. But again, not in my D&D. I even really like Dungeon World (haven't had a chance to play it yet, though), but I approach it differently than I do D&D. I resent being forced to change my playstyle to play the same game I've been playing for 24 years. When I desire a change in playstyle, I will play a different game. I don't think that's so hard to grasp. And I don't get why that's so hard for 4E fans to understand.

The feel of the game is created in large part by the mechanics, and the mechanics of 4E changed so drastically from previous editions that the feel of the game also changed. So when I say that by playing 4E, I don't feel like I'm playing D&D, that's what I mean.

I play other games. I like to play other games. I enjoy reading about game design. I do not think that Forge theory necessarily is correct for all games. I can point to several games on my shelf where Forge theory application would change the game way too much to feel like the game on the title.

 

[LostSoul]

Honestly, for me, I find fortune in the middle makes the most sense. Or, perhaps a better way to put it, it's the most versatile. If you put fortune at either end, then you can only have one explanation ever for any event. To me, that's not what good resolution mechanics should do. Good resolution mechanics should never dictate the fiction beforehand.

While I agree with your analysis, I don't agree with this. Fortune at the End can produce different explanations for any Intent, based on success/failure of said actions, though that comes down to specific implementations of resolution systems.

What I'm really interested in, though, is good mechanics. I can't argue with your preferences; all I can do is share mine. What I believe good resolution mechanics do is change the situation. I believe that, when you enter a conflict-charged situation, engaging with the mechanics should produce an interesting change to the situation without creating a conflict of interest for players.

(Leaving aside the aspect of creating a conflict-charged situation for the moment...)

The interesting change is often the most difficult part to get right, because it relies on many different factors: suspension of disbelief, genre conventions, and others. What good mechanics should do is allow players agency in how those factors tie into the reward system, and have the interesting change reflect changes to the characters and how they interact with the game world; and furthermore, by those changes make the characters more interesting and their relationship to the game world more complex: i.e. a reward system.

I believe that engaging a resolution system should engage the players with the reward system; and a reward system should factor in how the game deals with suspension of disbelief, genre conventions, etc. (And, of course, what the interesting material in the game world is; that is, Creative Agenda/GNS.)

The conflict of interest for players is pretty well covered by the "Czege principle"; I'll let Eero take it for me here:

...a proposition by Paul Czege that it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. It’s not a theorem but rather an observation; where and how and why it holds true is an ongoing question of some particular interest.​

*

Now, all that said, when one considers a design with Fortune in the Middle or at the Beginning, I think you have to look at these things: how the Situation is set up (Characters + Setting, and how they interact); how player agency interacts with the resolution system; and how the reward system responds.

Either method can produce the results that I'm looking for: as long as you get players influencing the reward system through their choices (assuming you have a decent reward system!), FitM vs. FatE is a difference of technique; either one suits some designs and not others.

Fortune at the Beginning is an interesting aside: I'm thinking of Wandering Monsters + Reaction Rolls in B/X. Monsters roam around, the mythic underworld is full of them; they don't have much treasure (so little XP) or much else to offer PCs. The Reaction Roll offers PCs a way out of this dangerous situation, since the Hostile result is rare; and, of course, players can reduce the number of Wandering Monster checks through efficient dungeon exploration. This seems to set up a situation where the player's choices suddenly and radically change, and one where player choice can make the outcome work for the PCs (savvy diplomacy or e.g. leading unintelligent monsters into a fight with the monsters in another room) or lead to disaster (1d8 HP for Fighters!).

So what you have there is player agency leading to an interesting change in the situation, and player agency feeding back into the reward cycle. Well done, and that's FitB.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But the fact that it's not the be-all-and-end-all doesn't make it anything less than a completely viable way of RPGing.

This is very important to highlight (I can't quite XP you again for a little while I think). While our current gaming preferences are on opposite ends of the spectrum (not entirely but I think you know what I mean), I fully support the passion you have for the style of game you enjoy and embrace. It kind of makes me think it would be a shame if the big 5e tent thing fails and many of the important voices on ENWorld such as yours slowly drift away. The shame would be magnified when you look back at all the time spent by people bickering on this forum over the past few years about such small things; rather than appreciating and celebrating the diversity of thought and ideas expressed. So in essence, the more you post the more I learn, and for this I thank you very much.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise