Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I don't get the dislike of healing surges
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5697707" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>Cool, looking forward to the civil discussion, and ready to call it a day with, "agree to disagree" whenever you feel it's appropriate <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Possibly, but I honestly think it's more because I find the oddities can detract from fun. Responding as I read the post, though, so let's see if I'm right.</p><p></p><p></p><p>First of all, I'd consider even the most simulationist game to be very, very abstracted. I mean, you have to heavily abstract things in order to make any game. You definitely have different levels of abstraction, no doubt, and some are much more simulationist than others, but to truly account for details without heavy abstraction is pretty much impossible. That is, really, because you have to leave the description open, and the more ways you can describe something, the more abstracted it is.</p><p></p><p>So, a system without a called shot system is more heavily abstracted than a called shot system that merely increases your damage, which is more heavily abstracted than a called shot system that disables certain body parts, which in turn is more heavy distracted than a system that describes the type of attack ("you get down on one knee, lunging forward as you duck under your enemies swing, your right first slamming into their gut, knocking the wind from them), which is less abstracted than other systems could be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with you about including the roots of realism only to a point. I do think it's done because it's so hard to get away from. Many, many people have a problem feelings immersed in a game when there's no connection to what they know. I have a player who prefers to play humans when possible, actually, because they feel that trying to get into an alien mindset causes them to lose immersion because he constantly have to ask himself if it would be okay to act this way (this is reasonable to a certain extent to me, since I felt alignments did the same thing).</p><p></p><p>However, immersion is the goal of my group because it's fun. However, immersion isn't the goal for some people. They want strongly narrative play, including director and author stance. These people can definitely appreciate and enjoy immersion, but by setting themselves up to be in a position where they aren't taking a first-person stance on things, they end up losing a lot of potential for true, deep immersion. And there's nothing wrong at all with that type of game. I like it in games like Mutants and Masterminds.</p><p></p><p>The point, however, is that the game is about immersion to my group because it's fun, but it's not as much fun for other groups to feel as limited as an immersion-first approach can make you. It can really limit your options as a player, and a lot of people want to put the story first, and be really hands-on with it. I can totally understand why that is.</p><p></p><p>Both approaches, however, tend to include many, <em>many</em> nods towards realism. Gravity nearly always works. Things can be created or destroyed. People die. RPGs tend to be nods to realism, tweaked by design focus and sprinkled with genre expectations. Realism is the base for most RPGs, in my experience, though not the goal for most. Is it simply because it's "fun, exciting, and interesting"? Maybe, but I suspect it's much easier to do than changing all aspects of realism, and I suspect it's because it gives the players a base for the game right away.</p><p></p><p>That's not to say that a realistic base cannot involve gravity being different, making all matter in the universe indestructible, and all creatures immortal. It can definitely have that as the base of the game. And while that universe would look drastically different from ours, there would be so many other similarities to ours that it's truly staggering. Just the assumption of sleep, for example. Things like emotions. These things will make massive changes to the game world, and it's much more logistically sound to say, "here's the base, and here's how it's different from the base" than to say, "there's no basis for things, here's how things are."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally, I've run campaigns without any magic users in my 3.X-based RPG system. Where everyone is healing wounds naturally (and I slowed down 3.X's healing system!). They didn't have a problem with it. It's going to depend on the group. If your group has a problem waiting for two weeks if you just got really injured, then it'll be a problem. I figure a lot of groups do, but I think people would like to see that as an option in the narrative. By eliminating that option, you can't have a hero be incapacitated for a while, healing up while the bad guy advances his plans, and pushing on <em>only</em> if it's completely necessary.</p><p></p><p>That's one of my problems with the "healing to full" rules of some systems, and something I tie slightly into healing surges (I don't know if I should, honestly). But, by doing so, you don't have a situation where your hero is injured and unable to participate while the setting progresses (or story, for the narrative-minded). I like that style of play. It's one reason (though not the main reason) that I eliminated long distance travel magic (well, for free, anyways). If you have to walk, ride, fly, or swim everywhere, time passes. You get to see the setting evolve, enemies fall before you reach them, new enemies rise around you, friends get married, have children die of old age, and the like. I'm sure you see the upsides to it. There are also downsides, though. It prevents people from being constantly in the action. It makes them vulnerable to attacks, and less mobile. Considerable, real downsides to consider.</p><p></p><p>To that end, though, I think the option of "consistently quick healing by adding an element (via a cleric, or whatever)" or "consistent quick healing at all times (via extended rests or healing surges)" means you've just eliminated a style of play in the name of narrativism. This sort of baffles me, as your story-first approach just eliminated a common type of story from unfolding. I mean, The Princess Bride can't happen now, because Wesley can't be that injured. If you're going to embrace a narrative approach, at least let The Princess Bride be possible!</p><p></p><p>Seriously, though, I think it is a style issue. Your group didn't like the recovery time, and wasn't sad to see it go. I would be, and indeed was. I also prefer gritty fantasy games, though, so I have more of a niche taste in that regard, in all likelihood.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, this, and logistically speaking it's a lot harder to create a game where realism isn't the base. But this is definitely a factor in my mind.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is why I support two pools of abstraction: physical, and "other" (fatigue, luck, fate, skill at dodging, etc.). Keep the physical HP pool relatively small, and keep the other HP pool bigger, and you eliminate a lot of this issue. Now, if you're getting an adrenaline burst, or heroic surge, or whatever, you're recovering your "other" HP pool, which makes perfect sense: it was never physical wounds to begin with.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep, still in favor of the two pools. This is you getting your breath back. That's part of the fatigue from the "other" pool. The "other" pool sets it up for so many different possible abstractions: fatigue ("you're catching a second wind"), luck ("his sword is going to connect, but your footing buckles, and you slip, falling out of the way before his sword hits you"), fate ("as the arrow comes in directly towards your face, you flinch, closing your eyes as blood and feathers spray you... wait, feathers? Yes, a bird flew into the path of the arrow."), skill at dodging ("you deftly dodge out of the way, stopping what would be a sure strike against a lesser warrior"), or even plot protection ("his weapons doesn't work on you, because you're Rand and it has no chance of hurting you!").</p><p></p><p>This separation of pools leaves an incredibly amount of narrative abstraction at the table, and it also addresses people who have the problem of physical wounds only sometimes being bad, maybe. It prevents things like falling damage (which would just bypass the "other" HP pool. Step off that 80' cliff? Well, too bad it bypasses most of your hit points. Splat.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I don't like them for HP as it stands now, but I have a feat in the game I created that allows you to restore your THP (temporary hit points) as a move action. THP in my game is more fatigue than anything else, so it's taking a moment to catch your breath. This makes sense to me, and I wouldn't be against a healing surge mechanic where you get 25% or that HP back or whatever. I'm against it's current implementation, but not it's goal whatsoever.</p><p></p><p>And, yes, it's a relatively minor issue. Healing surges definitely don't make or break the game for me, or for you, but they definitely augment the play experience one way or the other, depending on the poster <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>That makes sense to me, and I'm glad you like it. I'm not sure if it'll get implemented. I think we'll see even more abstracted mechanics, if the new skill system is the track they're on. Personally, I didn't like Monte's skill system, but I know a lot of people do. It's too abstract for me. Then again, I like narrow skills and skill points, so tastes vary!</p><p></p><p></p><p>I see that, and agree that's D&D tends to be more gamist than a lot of other games I've read about (same for Pathfinder). And I get your feelings on healing surges, and they're valid.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would too, if they separated the HP pools like I've said, or something similar. I think it'd win over a lot of people. At any rate, thanks for the discussion. And, as always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5697707, member: 6668292"] Cool, looking forward to the civil discussion, and ready to call it a day with, "agree to disagree" whenever you feel it's appropriate :) Possibly, but I honestly think it's more because I find the oddities can detract from fun. Responding as I read the post, though, so let's see if I'm right. First of all, I'd consider even the most simulationist game to be very, very abstracted. I mean, you have to heavily abstract things in order to make any game. You definitely have different levels of abstraction, no doubt, and some are much more simulationist than others, but to truly account for details without heavy abstraction is pretty much impossible. That is, really, because you have to leave the description open, and the more ways you can describe something, the more abstracted it is. So, a system without a called shot system is more heavily abstracted than a called shot system that merely increases your damage, which is more heavily abstracted than a called shot system that disables certain body parts, which in turn is more heavy distracted than a system that describes the type of attack ("you get down on one knee, lunging forward as you duck under your enemies swing, your right first slamming into their gut, knocking the wind from them), which is less abstracted than other systems could be. I agree with you about including the roots of realism only to a point. I do think it's done because it's so hard to get away from. Many, many people have a problem feelings immersed in a game when there's no connection to what they know. I have a player who prefers to play humans when possible, actually, because they feel that trying to get into an alien mindset causes them to lose immersion because he constantly have to ask himself if it would be okay to act this way (this is reasonable to a certain extent to me, since I felt alignments did the same thing). However, immersion is the goal of my group because it's fun. However, immersion isn't the goal for some people. They want strongly narrative play, including director and author stance. These people can definitely appreciate and enjoy immersion, but by setting themselves up to be in a position where they aren't taking a first-person stance on things, they end up losing a lot of potential for true, deep immersion. And there's nothing wrong at all with that type of game. I like it in games like Mutants and Masterminds. The point, however, is that the game is about immersion to my group because it's fun, but it's not as much fun for other groups to feel as limited as an immersion-first approach can make you. It can really limit your options as a player, and a lot of people want to put the story first, and be really hands-on with it. I can totally understand why that is. Both approaches, however, tend to include many, [I]many[/I] nods towards realism. Gravity nearly always works. Things can be created or destroyed. People die. RPGs tend to be nods to realism, tweaked by design focus and sprinkled with genre expectations. Realism is the base for most RPGs, in my experience, though not the goal for most. Is it simply because it's "fun, exciting, and interesting"? Maybe, but I suspect it's much easier to do than changing all aspects of realism, and I suspect it's because it gives the players a base for the game right away. That's not to say that a realistic base cannot involve gravity being different, making all matter in the universe indestructible, and all creatures immortal. It can definitely have that as the base of the game. And while that universe would look drastically different from ours, there would be so many other similarities to ours that it's truly staggering. Just the assumption of sleep, for example. Things like emotions. These things will make massive changes to the game world, and it's much more logistically sound to say, "here's the base, and here's how it's different from the base" than to say, "there's no basis for things, here's how things are." Personally, I've run campaigns without any magic users in my 3.X-based RPG system. Where everyone is healing wounds naturally (and I slowed down 3.X's healing system!). They didn't have a problem with it. It's going to depend on the group. If your group has a problem waiting for two weeks if you just got really injured, then it'll be a problem. I figure a lot of groups do, but I think people would like to see that as an option in the narrative. By eliminating that option, you can't have a hero be incapacitated for a while, healing up while the bad guy advances his plans, and pushing on [I]only[/I] if it's completely necessary. That's one of my problems with the "healing to full" rules of some systems, and something I tie slightly into healing surges (I don't know if I should, honestly). But, by doing so, you don't have a situation where your hero is injured and unable to participate while the setting progresses (or story, for the narrative-minded). I like that style of play. It's one reason (though not the main reason) that I eliminated long distance travel magic (well, for free, anyways). If you have to walk, ride, fly, or swim everywhere, time passes. You get to see the setting evolve, enemies fall before you reach them, new enemies rise around you, friends get married, have children die of old age, and the like. I'm sure you see the upsides to it. There are also downsides, though. It prevents people from being constantly in the action. It makes them vulnerable to attacks, and less mobile. Considerable, real downsides to consider. To that end, though, I think the option of "consistently quick healing by adding an element (via a cleric, or whatever)" or "consistent quick healing at all times (via extended rests or healing surges)" means you've just eliminated a style of play in the name of narrativism. This sort of baffles me, as your story-first approach just eliminated a common type of story from unfolding. I mean, The Princess Bride can't happen now, because Wesley can't be that injured. If you're going to embrace a narrative approach, at least let The Princess Bride be possible! Seriously, though, I think it is a style issue. Your group didn't like the recovery time, and wasn't sad to see it go. I would be, and indeed was. I also prefer gritty fantasy games, though, so I have more of a niche taste in that regard, in all likelihood. Well, this, and logistically speaking it's a lot harder to create a game where realism isn't the base. But this is definitely a factor in my mind. Which is why I support two pools of abstraction: physical, and "other" (fatigue, luck, fate, skill at dodging, etc.). Keep the physical HP pool relatively small, and keep the other HP pool bigger, and you eliminate a lot of this issue. Now, if you're getting an adrenaline burst, or heroic surge, or whatever, you're recovering your "other" HP pool, which makes perfect sense: it was never physical wounds to begin with. Yep, still in favor of the two pools. This is you getting your breath back. That's part of the fatigue from the "other" pool. The "other" pool sets it up for so many different possible abstractions: fatigue ("you're catching a second wind"), luck ("his sword is going to connect, but your footing buckles, and you slip, falling out of the way before his sword hits you"), fate ("as the arrow comes in directly towards your face, you flinch, closing your eyes as blood and feathers spray you... wait, feathers? Yes, a bird flew into the path of the arrow."), skill at dodging ("you deftly dodge out of the way, stopping what would be a sure strike against a lesser warrior"), or even plot protection ("his weapons doesn't work on you, because you're Rand and it has no chance of hurting you!"). This separation of pools leaves an incredibly amount of narrative abstraction at the table, and it also addresses people who have the problem of physical wounds only sometimes being bad, maybe. It prevents things like falling damage (which would just bypass the "other" HP pool. Step off that 80' cliff? Well, too bad it bypasses most of your hit points. Splat. Well, I don't like them for HP as it stands now, but I have a feat in the game I created that allows you to restore your THP (temporary hit points) as a move action. THP in my game is more fatigue than anything else, so it's taking a moment to catch your breath. This makes sense to me, and I wouldn't be against a healing surge mechanic where you get 25% or that HP back or whatever. I'm against it's current implementation, but not it's goal whatsoever. And, yes, it's a relatively minor issue. Healing surges definitely don't make or break the game for me, or for you, but they definitely augment the play experience one way or the other, depending on the poster :) That makes sense to me, and I'm glad you like it. I'm not sure if it'll get implemented. I think we'll see even more abstracted mechanics, if the new skill system is the track they're on. Personally, I didn't like Monte's skill system, but I know a lot of people do. It's too abstract for me. Then again, I like narrow skills and skill points, so tastes vary! I see that, and agree that's D&D tends to be more gamist than a lot of other games I've read about (same for Pathfinder). And I get your feelings on healing surges, and they're valid. I would too, if they separated the HP pools like I've said, or something similar. I think it'd win over a lot of people. At any rate, thanks for the discussion. And, as always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I don't get the dislike of healing surges
Top