How many hit points do you have?

[pemerton]

If you disarm the hobgoblin's staff, does he lose his implement for shocking?

My reading of this is that it is up to the GM. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] gives one answer (treating the *implement* power the same as for a PC). If a GM chose to take the view that it is an implied prerequisite of the hobgoblin's power that a staff be wielded, I think that would be fine too. The players can learn via successful knowledge checks (perhaps History or Arcana in this particular case). The general tenor of 4e is to leave this sort of stuff in the hands of the GM - who is expected to adjudicate by reference to (i) challenge, (ii) fun pacing and (iii) fairness (eg allowing knowledge checks to work).

How do the PCs "know" to spend 10 minutes or not differentiating the useful magical loot from the useless loot that were merely implemental to their owners?

The PCs will, except in unusual circumstances, be taking a short rest (5 minutes or so). The game rules indicate that in that time it is possible to determine whether or not a given item is magical (the precise means of identification is not specified, as best I recall; in my game we assume that it is the wizard and sorcerer analysing for magical properties, and/or the power evident in the items themselves, such as was the case for the knives the hobbits took from the barrow wight).

What do treasure parcels imply is happening in the fiction, or is it merely uninteresting to the story? I'm curious, because it seems to mirror the hit point self-awareness angle as well.

I personally don't like or use treasure parcels; I like the game to be about the characters more than their equipment, so I use inherent bonuses + rare and powerful items on occasion that scale with the party + fun/interesting stuff. This lowers the optimization ceiling in my game, but means neither my players nor I need to screw around with gear.

A treasure parcel doesn't look like anything in the fiction - the question is a bit like asking "what does a random dungeon stocking table look like in the fiction?" Treasure parcels are an accounting device to guide the GM in the placement of treasure: rather than random treasure generation as per D&D tradition, there is a per-level target for treasure placement, and you (as GM) inject it into the game as seems appropriate to the fiction and as is necessary to meet the guidelines.

In my game, I don't use inherent bonuses (though in any future 4e games I think that I would). But nor do I place a great deal of loot. Most of the magic item awards in my game take the form of upgrades to existing items (as per the option canvassed in Adventurer's Vault), which in the fiction are characterised as divine blessings, infusions of other-planar energy, etc. Some items are rewards from NPCs. Some are looted in the classic D&D sense, either from abandoned tombs or strongholds, or from former owners.

At least in my case, the fact that the treasure parcel system is about "treasure acquired per unit of character progression" rather than "treasure acquired on the basis of particular in-game interactions" means that treasure awards are often worked out on a somewhat ad hoc basis as the game progresses. Forinstance, I may have had a conception that such-and-such an item would turn up in location X, but then it ends up that the PCs are not in X but in Y at that particular level, and so the item turns up in Y instead. In Gygaxian play that would be a type of cheating by the GM - players are expected to use their cleverness and resources (eg wands of metal and mineral detection, potions of treasure finding) to locate the pre-placed loot. But 4e dispenses with that sort of exploration-oriented divination magic, and is more oriented towards improvisational GMing world-creation along those sorts of lines.

If 4E embraces the metagame, then the player doesn't need any "permission" to roleplay the PC within the rules. One way or another, the story will follow. In that case, I think this poll is rather irrelevant.

<snip>

I guess I don't appreciate blindspots in the fiction so much. I don't like 4E if it gives me blindspots with treasure parcels and bloodied conditions and martial healing and such.

I think "blindspots" are inevitable in adventure fiction where it is expected that the same character will undergo an essentially endless series of trying adventures.

Gygaxian D&D, which correlates PC level to player skill, can perhaps avoid some of these genre blindspots because it is not taken for granted that any given character will undergo an essentially endless series of adventures. Starting again at 1st level is expected to be fairly common (although the DMG canvasses starting experienced players as high as 3rd level). But I think very few D&D players play in that style any more. The popularity of adventure paths is testament to that.

If the alternative to genre blindspots is (near-)fatalities at something like a real-world rate, followed by magical patching of the injuries, then I am with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] in preferring the genre blindspots, super-hero style.

(On bloodied: I don't think that's much of a blindspot. I take it for granted, and generally narrate, "bloodied" as a drawing of blood. With psychic damage that is sometimes tricky, though there is always the old "bleeding from the ears" trope.)

 

[Dungeonman]

I think "blindspots" are inevitable in adventure fiction where it is expected that the same character will undergo an essentially endless series of trying adventures.

Oh for sure. I accept some/certain blindspots in fiction as inevitable. I just don't appreciate them.

 

[Celebrim]

Gygaxian D&D, which correlates PC level to player skill, can perhaps avoid some of these genre blindspots because it is not taken for granted that any given character will undergo an essentially endless series of adventures. Starting again at 1st level is expected to be fairly common (although the DMG canvasses starting experienced players as high as 3rd level). But I think very few D&D players play in that style any more. The popularity of adventure paths is testament to that.

Even though I'm running something of an adventure path right now, I've not succeeded in keeping PC's alive. With 6 current PC's and players, I also have 9 former PC's in the dead folder and only 1 PC that has managed to stay alive since 1st level.

I think that PC death is still alive and well in D&D as it is commonly played. I think what has gone out of fashion is restarting from 1st level. I haven't restarted characters from 1st level in like 25 years, mostly because players who are forced to restart from 1st (hardcore) can easily become really discouraged - which isn't fun for anyone. I usually restart characters about a level behind the rest of the party, enough that its a bit painful (equivalent to a raise dead), but not so much that the player becomes really discouraged.

 

[pemerton]

I think that PC death is still alive and well in D&D as it is commonly played. I think what has gone out of fashion is restarting from 1st level.

<snip>

I usually restart characters about a level behind the rest of the party, enough that its a bit painful (equivalent to a raise dead), but not so much that the player becomes really discouraged.

This approach - which I used for a long time GMing Rolemaster, and whch I suspect is pretty widespread - gives rise to another point of genre-blindnes: that a friendly, level-and-motivation-apporiate person turns up just and only when such a character is greatly needed (because a previous ally was killed).

 

[pemerton]

I regard hit points as roughly a victory/momentum marker.

This is a nice and fairly clear explanation of how you see the meaning of hit points translating into the game world, but is it not essentially saying, as I did, that the character has a nuanced understanding of his or her hit points and can make decisions based on them?

<snip>

It would seem to me that this suggests the first option in the poll

I was thinking more about your post this morning.

Momentum towards victory is, perhaps, a quantity. But it is not a pool into which quantities of momentum are added or subtracted. I think the principal reason I still incline towards the third poll answer is because layers' knowledge of hit points is knowledge about a pool, and whether it is full or empty. The character's have no conception of any such pool, even if they do have a conception of which way the tide of victory is running.

 

[Henry]

I've always played as #2 - general idea of injury, but it wouldnt make sense to willingly let someone stab you with a knife. I DID have a level 15 PC who once chose to jump off a 100 foot cliff, but to be fair the group was cornered by an entire regiment of troops, but it was either certain death, or ALMOST certain death, so we chose the latter.

 

[Celebrim]

This approach - which I used for a long time GMing Rolemaster, and whch I suspect is pretty widespread - gives rise to another point of genre-blindnes: that a friendly, level-and-motivation-apporiate person turns up just and only when such a character is greatly needed (because a previous ally was killed).

Given that level appropriate characters and even allies flow around the PC's at most times, I think the biggest genre-blindness is less that the character turns up when needed, but rather that he sticks and within a session or three after meeting the other PC's manages to become a fully trusted partner of the other PCs - who otherwise are so untrusting. Although technically, it's taken about 20 sessions for the party to finally officially welcome the newest PC into their company, literally let her sign up, and promise her a full share of the treasure. For this whole time it's been something of a running gag how the PC has had barely a copper piece to her name, because she was just a stranger seeking the parties help and not actually a member of the party. In fact, she'd been repeatedly reduced to begging from the other PC's or panhandling to have enough money to feed her pet bear.

Although I can foresee the simply showing up being a problem as well, I haven't yet had to replace a PC in a circumstance where it was unusual that someone else was around. Now, later, when the PC's are lost in a steaming jungle miles from civilization, if I have a death its going to represent a problem replacing that character and I'm already fretting about how I'm going to play that eventuality. It was much less of a problem waiting to a dramatically appropriate moment to replace a character in an urban adventure, for example. With a session or two there was always a nice insertion point.

To a certain extent this is lampshaded in game without breaking the 4th wall, because it is an open trope of the campaign that the parties many coincidental experiences aren't coincidences at all but things that have been arranged by the gods and that they are pawns in a divine game. In fact, it's something that the villains have repeatedly taunted them with during monologues. Further, the PC's all have destiny points and particularly for the PC's with a relationship to the divine, using these destiny points is always given the in game color of direct subtle intervention by the deity - the deity yanking them physically out of harms way, or sheltering them in some fashion, or causing a 'coincidence' to occur.

In prior games where I was a player myself, the replacement of PC's was usually done by promotion of NPC associates - henchmen, retainers, and allies - to PC status. These characters had adventured with us before, it was just a matter of them being around even more often. The reverse has happened in this game, a PC was demoted to NPC status after the player moved away. This actually created I think more difficulty for an observer of the narrative to observe the mechanics underlying the narrative. Unless you could actually see outside the text, you wouldn't necessarily be able to guess or always guess correctly who was a PC and an NPC by who was in the party.

All this raises a question for me what exactly is meant by 'genera blindness'. At what point of awareness is it no longer 'blind'?

 

[Dungeonman]

All this raises a question for me what exactly is meant by 'genera blindness'. At what point of awareness is it no longer 'blind'?

I was watching Marvel Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and a character said "I thought there was a 97% chance we were going to die". If she wasn't genre blind she'd assume closer to a zero percent chance (they're both main characters whose death at that point would be meaningless and random to at least two developing subplots.) Even if she didn't break the fourth wall entirely, if she was rational and self aware, she'd at least recognize that the team's survival rate has been extraordinary.

I think that characters aren't "blind" if their range of possible motivations/actions is not collapsed to suit conventions for the readership or audience.

For example, comic Batman's range of motivations/actions (including his no-kill code) is constrained to conform to the serial comic format requirements of recurring villians. If Batman questioned whether his no killing and his no gun philosophy was warranted balanced against the untold suffering and death in Gotham caused by villians that have escaped over and over and over and over and over, then perhaps his range of motivations would expand. He might follow a police code of sorts when it comes to shooting. He might kill The Joker dead and incinerate his body and dissolve the ashes in acid and then toss the DNA fragments into a volcano. He might pour his wealth into funding better security for Arkham Asylum and lobbying for the death penalty. Seriously, though, instead of pouring a gazillion dollars into Bat toys, just use that money to turn Arkham Aslyum into the best prison in the world with execution facilities, and no one will have to be physically and mentally tortured by the likes of The Joker again.

But I do love what you wrote about divine providence and destiny tokens. You're allowing the characters to be rational and consider the implications of events around them. If there was a series of "coincidences", the players are free to have their characters be aware of that possibility. Even if their range of actions is collapsed to suit D&D conventions, at least the characters have a fuller rational range of motivations, and so they're more relatable to me than a character whose motivations are utterly slave to the genre or other tropes.

 

[Celebrim]

I was watching Marvel Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and a character said "I thought there was a 97% chance we were going to die". If she wasn't genre blind she'd assume closer to a zero percent chance (they're both main characters whose death at that point would be meaningless and random to at least two developing subplots.) Even if she didn't break the fourth wall entirely, if she was rational and self aware, she'd at least recognize that the team's survival rate has been extraordinary.

Though I do get your point, I'm not sure that given the writer/producer of the series that random unexpected death of characters is out of the question.

I haven't seen the show and I don't know the context of the quote, but I do know that in generic superhero movies its usually established that in general, the superheroes act as if they had a 0% chance of dying early on in the movie. These scenes establish the heroic competence of the characters, that they know they outclass the opposition and really have nothing to fear from normal threats and dangers. Captain America jumps casually out of an airplane without a parachute while continuing friendly banter about the fact he isn't dating anyone, for example.

Later in the story line we generally establish that these same characters have become fearful, and this establishes the competence of the villains and that the stakes have become higher. I'm not entirely convinced that a character saying, "I thought there was a 97% we were going to die", isn't in fact the character's awareness that their survival rate has been extraordinary. Whether or not the characters have reason to be fearful is a different question, but to the extent we are talking about D&D I think there are strong parallels. There have been several times in the campaign where the players expected to die with what was a higher level of probability than the actual odds of death, and they have certainly said things like, "I thought there was a 97% chance we were going to die". The odds of death weren't 0%, but they weren't 97% either, however the players assessed the chance of death as high because I the story teller was pushing them to do so in order to make the players fearful of the death of their characters through that make the characters act as if they were fearful of their own deaths. The real odds were probably closer to a 25% chance a character would die.

At the same time there have been times that the players underestimated the threat, like the time the player decided to try to pick the lock on a door with a death trap on it despite me hanging some big drapes on the scene that should have indicated to them that this was a puzzle trap (that they had two different ways of solving, neither or which was explored). The result was a dead PC that hit them completely out of the blue. Fortunately, the cleric had just taken a Heal skill related feat that gave her a small chance of resuscitating a character that had just died and she rolled well on her Heal check, leaving the character stable -9 life. After receiving the benefit of the cleric's cure serious wounds, the same player had his character solo charge the enemy necromancer in the room despite knowing that the necromancer had been alerted to the parties presence and would have had time to prepare and the fact that as an injured Sidhe rogue he's got almost no hit points. The result, one vampiric touch later, was the character dead again. Again, the cleric rolled to resuscitate, this time initially failing - but spending a destiny point to get a reroll - and another lucky set of rolls later having her Goddess bring the character back to life. This set of events allowed the player of the Sidhe rogue to retake what is a coveted title at my table - "Character who has come closest to death and improbably lived."

I'd assess the long term probability that a character dies in my game at close to 100%, which incidentally is the same chance I'd assess to some character dying a meaningless random death in a Josh Wheldon story. I'm not sure that the players or their characters are in any sense blind to whatever the conventions of my story are.

For example, comic Batman's range of motivations/actions (including his no-kill code) is constrained to conform to the serial comic format requirements of recurring villians. If Batman questioned whether his no killing and his no gun philosophy was warranted balanced against the untold suffering and death in Gotham caused by villians that have escaped over and over and over and over and over, then perhaps his range of motivations would expand.

No, I think you are entirely wrong in all of that. Batman certainly killed in his earliest incarnations, and yet had reoccurring villains anyway. And many characters in DC comics have no qualms or at least no explicit qualms about killing foes and yet face reoccurring villains. Batman's no-kill moral code has been justified in story in two or three ways, and has been explicitly something that Batman is forced to wrestle with and is something that his reoccurring villains causing the death and suffering explicitly taunt him with. Batman's no-kill moral code is justified by (what I find to be) a superficial understanding of what makes violence depraved that reoccurring is presented in fiction of all sorts as being commitment to purity and higher good. This is mostly based without much reflection on memes that ultimately have evolved out of Christian ethics regarding priests - what you might call the Christian Pacifist line of thought. Secondly, Batman's no-kill moral code in later years (say since the 1980's) has been justified by the fact that Batman himself knows that the line between himself as a costumed vigilante and the villains he fights is thin, and that his own dedication borders on mental illness and indeed may even be a sort of mental illness. Thus, Batman maintains a sharp bright line because he knows that if he crosses it, he personally won't be able to distinguish between himself and the people he fights. This all occurs out in the open in the comics, movies, and so forth and is continually challenged by the writers. Batman is continually questioned about the fact that he doesn't kill, and must repeatedly justify it to himself and others and with them the reader.

 

[Lanefan]

This approach - which I used for a long time GMing Rolemaster, and whch I suspect is pretty widespread - gives rise to another point of genre-blindnes: that a friendly, level-and-motivation-apporiate person turns up just and only when such a character is greatly needed (because a previous ally was killed).

A few things to note here:

1. In no way are the PCs the only levelled entities in the world, nor are they the only adventurers, so finding a replacement character isn't that much of a stretch - in town. In the field, yes, sometimes things are entirely too coincidental; but I can live with it. What I just can't imagine is a game world where the PCs are the only adventurers, though I know some people play it that way.

2. In most cases the PCs are among the more successful of adventurers, thus it only makes sense that others would want to join their group assuming the party has been in the area long enough to build any reputation. If they lose their Thief, say, and recruit in town for another (or approach a guild, whatever) they'll often end up turning down a few people but - for the game's sake - will take in the new PC Thief. Usually.

3. I chuck adventuring NPCs into the party now and then, so characters coming and going is a normal thing anyway. Other times theparty go out and actively recruit such - everyone's happy with the characters they're playing but the party still doesn't have a Thief, so they go and recruit an NPC.

Lanefan