Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

Congrats on having a smart daughter! (note: I'm not being snarky here. I didn't realize before this that you were a parent).

Oldest is almost 18 (boy), middle is 9 (girl), youngest is almost 2 (girl).

Let's switch burden of proof to you for a moment. Do think the pre-4e D&D hit point mechanics are realistic? They work fine, but I don't think even EGG himself ever described them as 'realistic'.

There is no burden of proof IFAICT. I wasn't asking anyone to "prove" that the 4e damage mechanics have no problems (an impossible task IMHO).

However, the hit point mechanic (regardless of edition, until subsystems are included) is reasonably realistic without getting in the way of the game. It is easy to understand how hit points work in terms of both game mechanics and the win conditions of the game, and this understanding imparts behavior on the part of players that simulates injury far better than, say, healing surges.

The problem with the relative 'realism' of HP is that wounds can't impair you until they knock you unconscious and deposit on death's door. This fact causes some people --ie me-- to label hit points 'unrealistic'. Mind you, they're still perfectly serviceable as a game mechanic, they merely fail the 'realism test'.

Yes, the hit point mechanic is not as detailed as some, and some claim that it is unrealistic because of that lack of detail. Yes, it is important to consider before adding subsystems (which, unfortunately, hasn't always been the case). But please note that it it the subsystem (falling damage; healing surge) that causes the problem, not the hit point mechanic itself.

If the failing of the hit point mechanic is that it is not detailed enough for some tastes, the failing of problematic subsystems is that they add absurd elements into the game. When characters can routinely fall 200 feet without injury, or get up from deadly injuries as routinely as Captain Jack Harkness, credulity is stretched to the breaking point. There is a very large qualitative difference between "undetailed" and "results in absurd occurances in the game world", IMHO.


RC

 

[Fenes]

Exactly.

"Your axe connects with the foes torso and he staggers backwards, bleeding and then falls to the ground."

Whether or not he gets back up remains to be seen. Honestly, haven't you ever seen an action movie or read a comic book? Seemingly lethal injuries are par for the course.

I usually tell my players how their character is faring though. "Oh, btw, that hit you took 5 rounds ago was actually lethal, since you just died. If you'd have gotten up it would have been just a grazing blow" sounds a bit stupid to me.

 

[Scribble]

Must I?

Yes.

Nothing is going to break down your doors and put you in a head lock if you fail to do so, but you must do so in a similar way that I must accept that if I fail my jump check I fell into the yawning chasm of fluffy pink doom as opposed to jumping over it.

If I accept hit points as representing physical wounds, how do I explain those hit points being completely restored following a healing surge? Bob's magic adrenelin closed his nicks and cuts? Or those nicks and cuts are suddenly no longer represented by hit points?

If hit points represent physical wounds -- to any degree -- then restoring all your hit points means that you have no more physical wounds. "Physical wounds = hit point damage" implies "no hit point damage = no physical wounds".[/quote]

No argument there! I think HP = real life wounds is silly! The point of 2 was if you want to describe them as physical wounds you have to account for the rest of the rules. Just like when you describe jumping over the cliff you have to account for the actual jump check.

If you describe them as physical wounds you need to be prepaired to account for the rest of the system. (Healing surges.)

Otherwise you're doing the Shroedinger's Cat experiement but failing to account for the fact that you overrode the system and manually released the poison gas.

So let's say that hit points don't represent physical wounds at all. Good to go. What are healing spells doing, though?

Restoring your ability to not be dead. Restoring your mojo. Or if you decouple narrative from the rules, restoring your ability to not be dead, while healing your physical wounds.

"Ugg I'm wiped. I don't know if I can keep this up much longer." "Peace be with you." "I'm good to go."

What exactly is killing you when that last arrow hits if not physical wounds? What does "bloodied" mean if no blood has been drawn?

The last arrow is the one that actualy gets through and kills you. I'm not saying characters never take physical damage. I'm saying HPs are a poor way to track that damage.

That last arrow goes through your gut, or your eye or whatever. Your character no longer has anything to prebvent him from being dead. That shot killed him.

That leaves us with #3, which is unpalatable.

Only if you intentionally put yourself there. If you chjoose to make something a game breaking problem, I can't really change your mind. I can only say that to me this is similar to saying the system is bad because you described the jump and then failed the check.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not following the problem with your "typical state" argument. Want to jump into the other thread with me?

Yes. See me over there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No argument there! I think HP = real life wounds is silly! The point of 2 was if you want to describe them as physical wounds you have to account for the rest of the rules. Just like when you describe jumping over the cliff you have to account for the actual jump check.

Actually, prior to 4e, #2 was extremely simple and intuitive. And, with the exception of 4e, it still is.

So, I think that overall you are arguing IF you want to enjoy 4e, THEN you must accept X. However, the converse is also true. IF you cannot accept X, THEN you will not enjoy 4e.

I cannot accept X.

Simple as that.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes. See me over there.

I did.

I'll keep checking this thread, too, but I'll probably bow out of it (until 5e!) unless I have something to say that I can't simply say using cut & paste from any of a couple dozen previous posts.

Chiao!

RC

 

[BryonD]

The healing surge doesn't alter the effects of the last ten hits. It alters the effect of the next hit, which hasn't happened yet. Time's Arrow is not violated, because the event now (healing surge) has no effect on the past; it affects the future.

-Hyp.

So an unwounded character can use a healing surge to gain HP before a fight?

 

[Scribble]

Actually, prior to 4e, #2 was extremely simple and intuitive. And, with the exception of 4e, it still is.

So, I think that overall you are arguing IF you want to enjoy 4e, THEN you must accept X. However, the converse is also true. IF you cannot accept X, THEN you will not enjoy 4e.

I cannot accept X.

Simple as that.


RC

Not really, as I always had issues with it equalling physical damage and always felt it was silly and insane to do so. It led to the I can take 20 axes to the head! effect. It's just again an issue of whether you choose to overlook inconsistencies or abstraction or not.

But yeah, if you want to play a game, sometimes you have to accept the rules of the game. When I first started playing 3e I disliked the idea of rolling initiative once. It felt too robotic. I tried house rulling it, but ultimately it caused more trouble then it was worth. I accepted the rule and moved on.

You can modify rules that don't meet your personal taste if you really want to but it doesn't indicate the system is broken or poorly thought out... Just that it didn't meet your personal tastes. I've always dissociated HP from physical wounds (well for a long time not really ALWAYS) so I guess thats why healing surges work for me.

If ultimately you can't accept x... Right on. Who am I to tell you what you have to find entertaining? I can only offer suggestions to a fellow gamer as to how to approach the system in a way that I've found works for me. In the end though if it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You can modify rules that don't meet your personal taste if you really want to but it doesn't indicate the system is broken or poorly thought out... Just that it didn't meet your personal tastes. I've always dissociated HP from physical wounds (well for a long time not really ALWAYS) so I guess thats why healing surges work for me.

I think that's what RC has been saying all along.
It doesn't work for him (and others with similar preferences to him), but that doesn't make it a bad mechanic on a general level. Just for a certain set of preferences.

Unless we can somehow change these persons preferences, we can discuss the reasons for why we like or dislike the mechanic, but we can't change the individual "verdict".

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I first started playing 3e I disliked the idea of rolling initiative once. It felt too robotic. I tried house rulling it, but ultimately it caused more trouble then it was worth. I accepted the rule and moved on.

I houseruled it (d10, roll each round), and ultimately it caused more good feeling at the table and great moments in the game than the effort to houserule it had cost me.

You can modify rules that don't meet your personal taste if you really want to but it doesn't indicate the system is broken or poorly thought out... Just that it didn't meet your personal tastes.

Perhaps. But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through.

EDIT: And I don't mean here that they produced a mechanically bad game. A lot of problems could be resolved, as has already been said, by terminology. If you accept that 4e is gamist before simulationist (i.e., that some things are simply meant to exist as game constructs without simulating anything) then it succeeds in its design goals phenomenally well. If you argue that it is intended to simulate in-world events, then it is less successful (IMHO). And the amount of erratta makes me suspect that 4.5 is a real possibility in 3-4 years.

If ultimately you can't accept x... Right on. Who am I to tell you what you have to find entertaining? I can only offer suggestions to a fellow gamer as to how to approach the system in a way that I've found works for me. In the end though if it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing.

Absolutely. And thank you for your courtesy!


RC