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

[UngeheuerLich]

I totally agree, that the idea, what a power does should primarily powered by the narrative.
HP is adifferent matter.
You acidflask example is good. But a fighter with many hp uses his sword to deflect the flask and only some of it splashes on him. While someone with low hp is hit well.
A fighter that can´t defend is hit by a "coup de crace" and has to make a saving throw or suffer ill effects (like dying)

So in my opinion believeability can really be restored, if the coup de grace mechanic of 3e is taken to a new level:

Maybe some attacks should be able to do wounds, if you attack a helpless combatant. It however is a dangerous thing, as hp bypassing can spoil a lot of fun if it can be done during regular combat. On the other hand, not beeing able to bypass hp to a certain degree out of combat could be unfun too. A very difficult balance point.

I also want to stress, that if the healing surge mechanic returns (which i hope) i don´t want to revise my narrative, when someone heals hp with a martial healing power.
If i received a wound, I want them either be healed by time or magic.

Maybe martial healing powers could work like this:
spend a healing surge. Recover 1/4 of your hp. For the next week or until magcally healed, you have a -1 penalty to all rolls to represent your lasting wounds.

 

[CM]

I'm not going to disagree with the idea that 4e HP recovery via resting is quite rapid. I believe this was written this way intentionally to keep the action moving and avoid getting bogged down with lengthy rest periods. I think some of the complaints about recovery rates would have been removed with a few simple optional rules reducing the recovery rate of healing surges and eliminating the automatic recovery of all HP overnight.

In fact, I'm running a Fallout sci-fi game using 4e and to increase grittiness I did just that. After a full rest, characters recover 1+Con bonus surges (+1 if trained in Endurance), and (similar to 3e IIRC) recover 1HP/level or double if full bed rest). Usually this results in most of the party members being short a few surges at any given time, increasing tension on whether or not they should rest again or push on.

I don't want rapid HP recovery to get conflated with mundane warlord HP restoration, however. These are entirely separate issues. A non-magical healing class should be able to coexist with magical healing classes whether or not natural HP restoration is slow or rapid.

 

[Cadfan]

I like 1e,2e,3e version because it's unrealistic with 34 years of tradition. Regardless of how HPs were envisioned, the fact that it took weeks to get them back made them more like physical damage.
Being able to be magically healed makes MORE sense to me, than the 4e version. It's not perfect, but I find it MORE believable to be healed via magic which restores luck/physical wounds/fatigue than the 4e version where a good speech restores your luck/physical damage/fatigue.

Neither method is perfect, one is just more believable, to me, personally.

I understand what you're saying. I was actually writing in context of a conversation that occurred elsewhere between a couple of participants in this thread, in which everyone discussed the respective believability of healing from the brink of death via an overnight rest, versus healing from the brink of death via three overnight rests.

As for your position, I understand it. I appreciate that you acknowledge up front that you're giving up the possibility of low magic settings in exchange for your preferred healing rules.

 

[Tallifer]

Alot of people use the word "realism" when actually the word they should have used is "believable." Obviously, DnD is a fantasy game and there are things in it which are completely unrealistic like magic and dragons. But things can be fantastic and yet still be believable. A cleric channeling the power of the gods into a healing spell to heal you, that's believable. A warlord shouting at you and your wounds just disappearing because his words made you feel encouraged, not so much, at least not IMHO.

Your biases show. I do not believe in any sort of faith healing in life, so I do not think it is in any way believable in a fantasy game. That is why it is called fantasy. I always groan when I see the pulp heroes in action movies or on television shows get up and keep fighting, and even get stronger, after being beaten to a pulp. But it is a common and expected trope in many stories, therefore it is just as much a legitimate part of unbelievable fantasy as completely unbelievable faith healing and fireballs.

 

[Kannik]

Is it really slow? What model do we have regarding the speed of recovery of luck? Divine providence? Elan? Morale? Whatever else loss of hit points is meant to reflect? I don't think we do so how can we say it's unbelievably slow?

Natch, we have no model of recovery of luck or other esoteric factors, and stamina loss may be nebulous too. I withdraw the redonkulous. I continue to maintain that the slow rate of recovery was a large factor in the erroneous collapse of HP as physical wounds in our minds.

There's no objective way of deciding whether healing is too fast or too slow. There are just subjective ways we feel either helps or hurts in the pacing of the game and shaping the decisions of the players.

To whit that is what Gary chose, which was a level of healing that he felt was appropriate for his game, not based on simulation (explicitly stated in the 1e PHB/DMG).

For my preferred game styles this way of healing had some drawbacks: over reliance on clerics and the limitations on how the cleric could be played, longer downtimes than I would like, or a bag full of wands or potions.

Alternatively, maybe those hit points that were lost due to non-physical factors are the ones that heal first - the physical ones taking even longer to really start to heal?

Which was, I think, what the VP/WP system tried to introduce. I for one would be happy to see (as an option) HP split into two bits that give me the best of both worlds: a large HP pool (luck, skill, stamina, morale, magic protections, divine providence, etc) that rapidly recovers and can be recovered by warlords, clerics, and all else, and a smaller pool that takes damage only when all HP are depleted, represent more 'real' wounds, and can only be recovered through certain magics, potions, or natural healing.

That would be cool with me.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Cadfan]

Your biases show. I do not believe in any sort of faith healing in life, so I do not think it is in any way believable in a fantasy game. That is why it is called fantasy. I always groan when I see the pulp heroes in action movies or on television shows get up and keep fighting, and even get stronger, after being beaten to a pulp. But it is a common and expected trope in many stories, therefore it is just as much a legitimate part of unbelievable fantasy as completely unbelievable faith healing and fireballs.

I think what he's saying is that a cleric's channeling of the power of the gods is believable within the context of the story, in which gods are real and regularly channel their power through clerics. Meanwhile he finds the warlord shouting at someone to get back up and get into the fight to be unbelievable, because even if that much makes sense, there should still be lingering wounds remaining afterward once the adrenaline and determination wears off.

I'm of mixed feelings on the subject. I always just presumed that the game was assuming that part of taking a short or extended rest was putting bandages on your injuries and doing other miscellaneous first aid related activities. There's nothing against the tropes of fantasy for a barbarian to drag himself back to his feet after his best friend yells at him to get up off the ground and quit shaming his ancestors, and then after the fight, to bandage his wounds and continue onward.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I understand what you're saying. I was actually writing in context of a conversation that occurred elsewhere between a couple of participants in this thread, in which everyone discussed the respective believability of healing from the brink of death via an overnight rest, versus healing from the brink of death via three overnight rests.

As for your position, I understand it. I appreciate that you acknowledge up front that you're giving up the possibility of low magic settings in exchange for your preferred healing rules.

Only to a point, in your last comment. I am fine with using a heal skill, poultices, etc to heal some damage. I'll buy into a Warlord class healing someone to a point. Where I find myself checking out is when non-magically, someone goes from death's door to fully healed.

 

[Aenghus]

I think the other element to consider here is transparency, which is what I think 4e favoured over simulation and opaqueness. Some people have said they don't like transparency, which is weird to me as I vastly prefer it.

Basically separating effect from flavour for abilities makes it more likely that the ability will work as written all the time, and not be randomly nerfed or buffed by scenario specifics or the referee thinking Power A shoudn't work on a Tuesday.

The more opaque and subjective rules mechanics are, the more likely there will be genuine disagreements amongst the players and the referee as to how particular rules elements work, and particularly how they interact with each other.

The more subjective the rules are, the more I feel I have to play the referee not the game, and I hate it. I'm not good at it, and I want to play the game, not constantly find out my impression of the rules and setting is at odds with the referee or other players.

I don't like opaque rules which need interpretation and could be read in multiple ways , often with significant differences in outcome - I prefer transparent ones which do just what it says on the tin, to minimise the amount of special pleading with the referee that needs to be made to affect the game world.

I don't think abilities should be arbitrarily made useless or negated, something that happened in some D&D editions, to some classes more than others. I can see a place for weakening abilities somewhat in rare encounters, but too many global immunities and random nerfing can make lots of valid character concepts very unfun to play.

Obviously tastes differ, and if they differ too much maybe players won't collaborate well together. But the idea of the next edition is to be flexible enough to allow most players to coexist and mostly enjoy a game together.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry Hussar but the game matching my sense of believability (even if you disagree with it) is more important to me than what a rule achieves in term of game play because without the believability I can't get into the game. For me this has everything to do with my sense of believability and immersion. Granted we all have different threshholds, but believability issues are a chief complaint for 4e and I think that is because it crosses alot of peoples thresholds (everything from surges to mundane encounter and daily powers). you don't have to agree with me at all. You can think I am fool if you want, but lets stop with the implications that it is all "really about something else". Just take our critiques at face value move on. Because this is all in there with people saying our dislike of 4e is really about fear of change or a failure to understand 4e. I don't mean to single you out here, because even though we disagree, i usually get along with you just fine.

But, you failed to answer my question. Why does your sense of aesthetic get to trump mine? If the only issue here is aesthetic, then it's simply a matter of taste and, well, my taste is every bit as good as yours.

So, which one should the designer listen to? It's not like the simple majority game works, since, at least on En World, about 2/3rds of gamers play 4e. Certainly more than half. So, on simple numbers, my tastes win. Shouldn't you just suck it up? After all, that's what you expect me to do.

Or, could we burrow down a bit farther, try to find a way that both of our sense of aesthetic are satisfied?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, you failed to answer my question. Why does your sense of aesthetic get to trump mine? If the only issue here is aesthetic, then it's simply a matter of taste and, well, my taste is every bit as good as yours.

So, which one should the designer listen to? It's not like the simple majority game works, since, at least on En World, about 2/3rds of gamers play 4e. Certainly more than half. So, on simple numbers, my tastes win. Shouldn't you just suck it up? After all, that's what you expect me to do.

Or, could we burrow down a bit farther, try to find a way that both of our sense of aesthetic are satisfied?

I didn't answer because that isnt for me to decide. We each get to say what we want and the designers decide what to do. I doubt burrowing down will help we have seriously different preferences.surges are something i dont like and dont want in core 5e. You like them. My solution would be to include surges as an option that can be added in but not default. That way you can play the style D&D you want and so can i.