Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[LostSoul]

And what it is remains in force until future actions invalidate the "in world" logic of what it once was. It was a gut wound, because that's what I wanted it to mean at the time, then I had a healing surge, so now it was never a gut wound.

No. It still is a gut wound.

Let's say I take that 2hp wound. I describe it as a gut wound.

I use a healing surge. I still describe my PC as having a gut wound.

This is all possible from what constraints the mechanics give us - namely, that my PC no longer has as much staying power as before.

Going back, again, to my point that hit points in 4e are more gamist than in previous editions, because they are no longer linked at all to what has taken place in terms of the "in world" story.

You can't have it both ways.

They are given as much in-world meaning as I wish, with the one exception: my PC's staying power is reduced.

More gamist? Yes. Less sim? No. (For certain values of gamist and sim. ) Fidelity to the game world? Yes, as much as I want them to have.

They do not have an objective meaning in the game world - I as a player must give them meaning. That doesn't mean I can't give them meaning.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In AD&D, when you deliver a hit, you do not know what it represents in-world unless you know the hp remaining of your target. Contrast this with RM and RQ, in which you (or actually the dice) are telling the story as it unfolds.

Excepting, of course, that the DM does know how severely damaged the target is, and can describe it to the players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They are given as much in-world meaning as I wish, with the one exception: my PC's staying power is reduced.

This is the equivilent of saying that Bob's fighter is more damaged because Sue's cleric ran out of cure spells.

Less sim? No.

<snip>

They do not have an objective meaning in the game world

And, therein lies the flaw in your argument. When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics. The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself. You just choose to pretend that they do.

And, again, if that makes a satisfying game for you, that's what counts at your table. But it doesn't make a satisfying rpg for me.


RC

 

[The Little Raven]

You know, one might suggest that this is supernatural healing.

And one might be wrong, as it's spelled out to be sheer force of will propelling Inigo up and back into the fight. There's no cleric chanting over him, nor spirits healing him. It's his hand in his gut stopping the blood, and his will to get his vengeance that restores him to effectiveness.

And, if this is the sort of "second wind" going on several times in each battle then it borders on the absurd.

It only happens once. And Second Wind in 4e is once per encounter, too, so I don't see the point in bringing that up.

If we were to assume that John from Die Hard fought day after day on his second winds -- as 4e characters can potentially do, no matter how savage the beating each day -- the Die Hard franchise would be far across the borders of absurd and into the regions of the ludicrous.

Die Hard IS pretty ludicrous, just like most American action movies are.

Sure, this is what they say, but in actual play:

So, let's just ignore what they say because... it doesn't fit the argument? What the books say is the utmost importance, because the set the standard for the game. If the book says they represent that, then they represent that, because the book would be a higher authority on the subject than someone else.

1e: Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage. He is now down to 2 hp. The player has a pretty good idea of exactly what sort of condition his character is in, and the DM has no difficulty describing the blow causing that damage within the context of the 1e paradigm.

Yeah, his condition is "unaffected by wounds at all," since being wounded doesn't have any impact on your condition until you're unconscious or dead. Being that hit point loss doesn't result in any change in fighting condition until the point of no return, the 1e fighter losing 8 hp is just the same as the 4e fighter losing hp: his skill turned a potentially lethal blow into a lesser one.

And here's a counter...

1e: Fighter with 85 hp takes 10 hp damage. He is now down to 75 hp. The cleric casts cure light wounds on him, despite the hp loss not actually representing wounds by the definition in the book, and the wound that doesn't actually exist gets healed. So, the in-game story runs into a serious conflict where one system states that the character is not actually physically wounded, while the healing effect is a magical wound closer.

So, if a Second Wind is problem with the "is it really a wound" question, then 1e has that same problem with it's "skill, luck, or magical factors" explanation for hit points, since you can't cure wounds that don't exist, right?

Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.

Not true. Since hit points represent things like skill, luck, resolve, and the like, you could easily describe it as a wound, and a Second Wind represents ignoring the wound and pushing yourself beyond your normal limits... or it could represent you plugging the wound... or the classic Bruce Lee wiping the blood from his wound, licking it, then coming back in for more.

In the 1e paradigm, the in-world story is never required to change based on later PC or NPC actions. The in-world story unfolds as the story is played at the game table.

Not according to the discrepancy between the "skill, luck, or magical factors" explanation for hit points, and the fact that magical healing is described as closing and mending wounds. How can a spell to close and mend your wounds be effective when the hit point less doesn't represent wounds?

 

[The Little Raven]

Excepting, of course, that the DM does know how severely damaged the target is, and can describe it to the players.

And as "damaged" in 1e didn't always mean "physically wounded," according to the book, there's no real difference. A person suffering hit point loss is using his skill to turn a solid blow into a glancing one, or luck favors him and has the blade turned by his helmet... until he takes a solid blow that drops him.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Campbell]

And, therein lies the flaw in your argument. When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics. The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself. You just choose to pretend that they do.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument : you assume that a game mechanic must either directly simulate some element of the game world or serve no other purpose than as a game play construct. Mechanics can also serve to reinforce the ongoing narrative without necessarily being directly reflective of the physics of a game world.

I would argue that hit points in 4e are a narrative mechanic. While they might not directly represent the physical condition of a character, they do reflect the amount of adversity a character can withstand before that character's player must cope with the mortality of that character. I think that simulates a great deal more than the game itself. It simulates a character's toughness, grit, and damn cussedness, and I consider those elements pretty important to simulate.

I realize that such an explanation might not satisfy you, but I think it's pretty fundamental to why people like me and LostSoul are more satisfied with 4e than we were with prior editions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was 5:50 when he [Inigo] staggered from the room, heading he knew not where or for how long, but hoping only that whoever had been guiding him lately would not desert him now....

.....

However, this was before Inigo's wound reopened; .....


EDIT: Those are quotes from the book, btw. It is NOT spelled out that Inigo's ability to ignore the wound was from sheer force of will.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Therein lies the flaw in your argument : you assume that a game mechanic must either directly simulate some element of the game world or serve no other purpose than as a game play construct. Mechanics can also serve to reinforce the ongoing narrative without necessarily being directly reflective of the physics of a game world.

ED: I'm starting a new band, and I need a guitar player.

BOB: Have you asked Patty?

ED: Patty doesn't play guitar.

BOB: Therein lies the flaw in your argument: you assume that because Patty doesn't play guitar that she cannot play the tuba.

ED: No, I said Patty doesn't play guitar.



RC



EDIT: Also, may I point out that the word "directly" is something you added in there? And then you followed up with an argument that 4e hit points are a simulation of something "in world"? The problem being, of course, that once you start making the claim that 4e hit points are simulationist, the problems with the simulation (already pointed out many, many times) are readily apparent. IMHO, of course.

Since the answer to the problems pointed out is nearly universally "they don't correspond to anything", and the answer to pointing out that they don't correspond to anything is nearly universally "yes they do", I'm going to chalk this up to willing blindness. Because, there are problems either way, at least in terms of what I am looking for from a game. They might be narrativist, but like a whole lot of 4e gamist elements, they are only narrativist if you are willing to let the game table narrative take precedence over the in-world narrative.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not according to the discrepancy between the "skill, luck, or magical factors" explanation for hit points, and the fact that magical healing is described as closing and mending wounds. How can a spell to close and mend your wounds be effective when the hit point less doesn't represent wounds?

You are aware, I hope, that a glancing blow can cause a physical wound without being the same thing as a sword through your gut? And, because of the way both combat and healing mechanics work in 1e, it is very easy to describe any minor wound as a minor wound. No retcon is ever needed, because the wound will never simply close up because Bruce got a second wind.

I mean, if I got hit and took a secondary effect (level drain, say) in 1e, then it meant I was hit. In 4e, what does it mean if you were hit, poisoned, but then lost that damage (but not the secondary effect) in a second wind? Were you really wounded? If not, how were you poisoned? If so, where did the damage go?

Surely you didn't find this at all difficult in 1e, if you can master Schrödinger's wounding in 4e without a hitch? Me, I guess I'm dumb, because I have no desire to play around with quantum superpositions every time someone takes "damage".

And, here's a prediction -- either 5e or 6e is going to "correct" the Schrödinger's damage problem, and then (and only then) 50% of the people claiming the problem doesn't exist now will be clamouring about the obvious need for a fix then. After all, that's exactly what happened with every problem anyone (myself included) ever pointed out about 3e.


RC

 

[Delta]

And as "damaged" in 1e didn't always mean "physically wounded," according to the book...

Not so. 1E DMG p. 82:

Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm... our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.

Each hit scored causes some amount of actual physical harm. Possibly only a small amount. That's the key thing about hit points that has apparently changed from 1E -> 4E.