What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Garthanos]

And you've all missed the point too.

The problem is not with the term "hit points" (which is abstract). The problem is with the very poorly chosen term "healing surge", which is very specific.

Real world language use ..Spiritual healing is largely about morale and similar things... no impact on wounds but guess what it is called HEALING in real life. Faith healing "lets be kind" and call it inspiring them emotionally and via the power of suggestion to get there natural immunities to do there darnedest ... making both an abstraction called healing. Psychiatrists are members of a healing profession trust me... mental healing abstract enough for you? Healing doesnt even necessarily imply wounds in real life. And since hit points are not real wound the act of recouping them is not a variety of healing affecting wounds. You are circling around your self.

Spells recovering hit points all the way back were called curing light/heavy wounds even though the people doing the naming said hp were almost never about wounds and were ridiculous if assumed to be wounds. And many things in 4e still have naming conventions based on tradition and hit points are a perfect example.. Why HIT POINTS implies that it tells you something about whether you have been "hit" or not but it is such an abstraction that it doesnt do this in the slightest.(the reason saving throws were invented you cant tell if you scratched him and infected him with disease or poison even because doing x damage may mean you depleted his luck or made him tired while he desperately lurches out of the way.)

Damage is another game mechanic term it means losing hit points... not being wounded

I think I might prefer the term Heroic Reserves.(directly replacing healing surges)
and Hero Points for hit points it gives them a direct connection to one another that way.​

Quite honestly the 4e Powers for recovering that sloppy abstraction called hit points never mention wounds and frequently dont refer to healing either in there names (except in the mechanical description) for instance Inspiring Word and Majestic Word and the Second Wind. These are the part the characters instead of the players interact with. (not entirely true these can be named and described differently at player choice),... the cleric ability just like the real life priest calls what he does Healing.

The term bloodied while sounding problematic has various visualizations mentioned ranging from sweaty, shaken, winded or actually you just had your first hit and they have first blood... for a true tough guy barbarian this might include numerous superficial wounds or wounds of no real consequence that will heal on there own. Picture it based on your character.

 

[rounser]

Healing surges are abstract deep hitpoints...which by the way is a crappy name and we are only being forgiving because it is familiar as hell they could have called them hero points.

Nuh uh, attacking the old stuff to distract from the problem with the new stuff will not work. HP = abstract name. HS = distractingly and misleadingly specific name which doesn't convey intention or "game reality", and challenges suspension of disbelief. In other words, the specific yet misleading term "healing surge" is a poorer design than even the abstract "hit points". It's even more difficult to envision than hit points, which don't ask you to think about them except when damaged or healed.

 

[Garthanos]

Nuh uh, attacking the old stuff to distract from the problem with the new stuff will not work. HP = abstract name.

Both are describing abstract things... how in hell one describes a deeper reserve of the other. Perhaps hit reserve.

The way in which healing surges are typically used or present... is a sudden burst of renewed... vigor. Ther is another better term which could have been used in place of hit points.

Which deserves the attack because it does imply something which it doesnt do... it implies it tells you something about hitting and it doesnt have anything to do with it.

Hit points and healing surges are intertwined ... at some level represented being fatigued you could loose a healing surge or smaller quantities hit points.

 

[Garthanos]

And preists refer to spiritual healing all the time effectively meaning restoring morale (a component mentioned in our little abstraction) when real language is used in that way you are blowing smoke.
If you want healing to be heal wound.. you would call it heal wound.. if you want a "general" abstract heal you call it healing when it typically and normally occurs in a burst like a surge of vigor calling it a healing surge seems to work fine.

 

[rounser]

And preists refer to spiritual healing all the time effectively meaning restoring morale

Oh please. You're reeeeeaaaaaaaalllly stretching here. I think that speaks for itself.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, I don't say that Fourth Edition D&D is D&D. The NAME on the cover of the books says that. That, and only that, is the definition of whether a game is "D&D" or isn't.

The trademark is owned by WotC, but the identity of that trademark is not.

The trademark is valuable to WotC because it represents some meaning in the minds of consumers. When someone says "X is not D&D", they are not saying that the trademark has not been applied; they are saying it no longer falls within the meaning that the trademark previously represented.

Slapping "D&D" on something is not enough to make it "D&D".

Perception of the represented meaning is, of course, highly subjective. When one uses the term "D&D", they are really being no less vague than when they use the term "videogamey".

-----> WARNING! ATTEMPT TO BE FUNNY! MAY FALL FLAT! <---------

You should really be saying "D&D Trademarked Games of the 4th Edition" if you don't want to confuse people, and if you don't want anyone to be insulted by your characterization of the represented meaning of "D&D".

Otherwise, you might be mistaken for a troll.

 

[ST]

The idea of Healing Surges or Second Winds represents the idea that someone may be physically battered, bruised, and worn down, but can come back "from behind" and win a fight. It's present in pretty much any situation in a TV or movie where someone's losing a fight and comes from behind. In older editions of D&D, you might have modeled that same situation as one where someone was rolling poorly and then suddenly got a few crits. Either's a valid interpretation of this common situation.

Hit Points are a fundamentally unrealistic way to model injury. In real life, someone might pull through after a horrific injury, someone else might bleed out and die from a relatively small cut, or die horribly of an infection. We don't really make it a high priority to model injury realistically; people just look for vermilisitude. And people are so used to Hit Points, we typically don't even see them, they're just sorta there.

(I remember a 3.0 game where every single character was bald and had no body hair by the second session. We got hit by a lot of fireballs and lost a lot of HP; by the GM's description we had all been horribly burned, but pulled through because of healing spells. Healing spells don't grow your hair back, so we all looked like naked mole rats. There was no suspension of disbelief -- it was just plain dumb -- but because HP were being described as physical injury in that campaign, we were stuck with it.)

But when someone says something like "Healing surges ruin suspension of disbelief because human beings can't close cuts with their mind", it's a profound misinterpretation of how the rules about healing surges are written. They're described as specifically not being that in the book.

Everyone has the right to make their own minds up about what is a dealbreaker for them in terms of creative buy-in to a system. I get that such a system may feel unrealistic for you. But again, saying it is unrealistic, for everyone, is presuming other people's preferences for them.

Edit: Yeah, I think it's just a difficult topic because people like stuff for different reasons, and I know for myself, I might give a particular reason why I prefer X over Y, but there's more to it than that. So it's like, am I discussing this one particular rule? Or is it wrapped up in my feelings about things associated with that rule? It makes it dicey to talk about without appearing confontational or defensive.

 

[DanFor]

But when someone says something like "Healing surges ruin suspension of disbelief because human beings can't close cuts with their mind", it's a profound misinterpretation of how the rules about healing surges are written. They're described as specifically not being that in the book.

I have never played 4E, but I have no problem--in game terms--with the second-wind/healing surge mechanic (as I understand it). But, I must say that it is easier to suspend disbelief with the rest-or-magic method of restoring hit points vs. the healing surge mechanic. Of course, the healing surge mechanic was created to fix the 15-minute day adventure problem. I personally think there are better ways to do that, but apparently a lot of other people don't find the assumptions behind the healing surge mechanic to be a problem. Which is fine and dandy with me. That doesn't mean that the people who do have a problem with it should be summarily dismissed as trolls because they describe the mechanic as "videogamey" (i.e. artificial).

Everyone has the right to make their own minds up about what is a dealbreaker for them in terms of creative buy-in to a system. I get that such a system may feel unrealistic for you. But again, saying it is unrealistic, for everyone, is presuming other people's preferences for them.

I don't think one side is presuming the other side's preferences. I think both sides are being dismissive of the other.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Looks like we might be getting close to the point where we might as well close this thread, as it has drifted a long, long way from its original premise.

Unless you guys can demonstrate that it is worth keeping open?

Thanks

 

[JohnSnow]

Slapping "D&D" on something is not enough to make it "D&D".

Perception of the represented meaning is, of course, highly subjective. When one uses the term "D&D", they are really being no less vague than when they use the term "videogamey".

Since you seem to agree that the "represented meaning" is highly subjective, isn't each person then the final arbiter of what constitutes "D&D" to them? Would you therefore agree that trying to impose one's own definition on others is arrogant, presumptuous, and rude?

Personally, I feel the least confrontational position to take (i.e. the "don't be a jerk" position) is: "any game which says it's Dungeons & Dragons IS."

In the end: my argument comes down to this. What problem do people have with Dungeons & Dragons existing under a big tent where everyone's edition is included?

After careful consideration of this topic, I think whoever said it earlier is correct. In the end, Edition Wars are all about bragging rights. I imagine someone who was motivated could come up with a psychology Ph.D. thesis out of sussing out all the motivations involved. I have my theories, but as they're bound to offend someone, I'll keep them to myself. Maybe I'll use them if I ever decide to write that thesis myself.

So, after going round and round, we're back where we started. As usual.

Can't we all just get along?