Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[pemerton]

I think I have a valid point that simulationists shouldn't be overly fond of abstract, ablative hit point mechanics in the first place.

I agree. When I post on the ICE forums and have arguments with Rolemaster fans about some of the more narrativist aspects of the HARP mechanics, that's one thing. But I do find it odd to have D&D's hit point mechanic being defended as adequately simulationist.

 

[pemerton]

RC issue is not just the necessary unrealistic issues involved but of retconning the narrative.

But Lost Soul, Hypersmurf and others have repeatedly made the point that no retconning is required - a wound is narrated, then a healing mechanic is used, and so the new narrative is along the lines of "wounded, but undaunted, the might hero struggles on".

And Mallus's point then becomes especially cogent - this doesn't seem any more unrealistic then the generic carrying on in the face of greivous injury that has always been a consequence of D&D's hit points mechanic.

The overnight healing thing is a different matter again. As I said earlier, it's best seen (IMO) as a genre convention. If it bothers people too much, they simply need to ensure a longer period of gametime between episodes, so that it becomes more believable to envisage longterm injuries having healed up. (And extended rests within episodes can be dealt with under the "soldiering on" paradigm that has always been part of D&D.)

 

[pemerton]

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.

Why would you narrate it in a way that sound stupid? First you'd say "You collapse, blood pouring from the gash in your forehead." Then 5 rounds later you'd say either "You die from the injury to your head" or else "You wake from your swoon and wipe the blood from your eyes. Despite the searing pain it was just a flesh wound. Do you rejoin the fray?" Of course the player knows that you would have said something different if the dice came out different, just as you would have said something different in the first place if the attacker's d20 rolled a miss rather than a hit. But that's pretty unobjectionable isn't it?

 

[pemerton]

And it goes to show you how little thought was put into this subsystem

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.

I don't think this is correct. Given the number of ways 3E came at healing mechanics over its lifetime (spells of various sorts, auras, temporary hit points, wands of CLW, reserve hit points, not to mention various d20/OGL mechanics) I think it's fair to say this area of the game has been very thoroughly explored.

I think the choice to adopt a healing surge mechanics was utterly considered and deliberate.

As as to the issue of taste vs fact: whether or not someone likes 4e is a matter of taste. But whether or not the retconning issue arises at the table - that is, whether or not narration has to be undone and re-narrated after the event - is a matter of fact. Is there any 4e player in this thread for whom the retconning issue arises? Lost Soul and Hypersmurf have both said that it does not arise for them - they don't narrate away the wound but rather allow the PC to narrate fighting on in spite of it.

It seems to me the real objection to healing surges isn't retconning/Schrodinger, but rather is an objection to narration of PCs fighting on in spite of injury. And I share Mallus's incredulity at this - for it has been a part of D&D since the beginning, being intrinsic to an ablative hit point mechanic.

Admittedly it is more common in 4e, because the existence of second wind and related mechanics means that it is more likely for a PC to be close to collapse, and then to recover, than is the case in earlier editions, in which fighters with 5 hp left and who fought on regardless still had only 5 hp left.

But if this feature is objectionable, then once again the objection is not to retconning/Schrodinger - it is to a certain sort of gonzo consequence of the mechanics, of an Inigo Montoya moment in every encounter. It's fine to object to that, but let's be clear what the target of the objection is.

And by the way, the obvious way of eliminating the gonzoism is to make every encounter so important to the PCs - and so involving to the players - that an Inigo Montoya moment seems appropriate rather than gonzo. That is what Lost Soul seems to me to be talking about when he explains how a Boromir healing surge could be handled. Achieving this sort of play requires effort from both players and DMs. That 4e is set up to support it is why I describe it as a system with narrativist as well as gamist potential.

I have a hard time imagining anyone being successful in an even halfway challenging game where the action resolution mechanics don't directly affect PC actions in a way very consistent with "morale resolution".

Once more, with feeling, if you fail to understand how "win conditions" affect play, you fail to understand the game. No matter what that game is.

Right. And in a narrativist RPG the win conditions include the production, during play, of a thematically engaging story. And in an even halfway challenging narrativist game the action resolution mechanics will affect the player actions. For example, when they narrate a wound, and then their PC is healed as per the action resolution mechanics, they will produce a thematically engaging narrative to explain how their PC is able to keep going. Their will be no retconning, no quantaum mechanics, no gonzoism, no problems. As Lost Soul has indicated in his posts.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But Lost Soul, Hypersmurf and others have repeatedly made the point that no retconning is required

They have attempted to. As repeatedly rebutted by myself and others, their points force you to accept other, equally problematical and absurd things, to solve the arrow of time problem. Schrödinger's Argument to resolve Schrödinger's Wounding. All they managed to do was demonstrate that the problem doesn't bother them, which was never in dispute.

Personally, I find the "the problem you experience doesn't exist" line of reasoning to be disingenious at best, and at worst indicates a set of blinders that renders the "reasoning" worthless. This is exactly what occurred with what are now widely acknowledged problems with 3e.

I eagerly await 5e (with luck) or 6e (without it) so that we can reopen this discussion with the advantage of hindsight. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I ignore any further "but there is no problem!" posts.

 

[apoptosis]

But if this feature is objectionable, then once again the objection is not to retconning/Schrodinger - it is to a certain sort of gonzo consequence of the mechanics, of an Inigo Montoya moment in every encounter. It's fine to object to that, but let's be clear what the target of the objection is.

And by the way, the obvious way of eliminating the gonzoism is to make every encounter so important to the PCs - and so involving to the players - that an Inigo Montoya moment seems appropriate rather than gonzo. That is what Lost Soul seems to me to be talking about when he explains how a Boromir healing surge could be handled. Achieving this sort of play requires effort from both players and DMs. That 4e is set up to support it is why I describe it as a system with narrativist as well as gamist potential.

4E though was made to focus on many combats, its strength is the tactical choices in combat which really only shines when you have many of them. The flipside to this is if you have many fights they each cant be Inigo Montoya moments. if you dont have many fights I think you are losing one of the strongest aspects of 4e.

TSOY, TRoS, BW are much better for games (IMHO) you should be playing if you want to have Inigo Montoya moments.

I might add Rolemaster as a good game for IM moments but that based on it being so deadly and debilitating when you get into combat.


I dont think retconning is a necessity at the table but to not retcon requires that that "in-game" reality of wounds are not resolved until after the player decides to or not invoke the second wind (or sleeps for the night etc.) or that hp damage is not connected to any injury.

If you say the hit that did 54 of your 55 points of damage was deadly is not known until after you use your second wind. If you decide to use your second wind then the wound was not critical, if you do not decide to use your second wind then the wound was critical.

If you make this decision later on then the actual wound is retconned (or actually is indeterminate until you decide to invoke the second wind).

You can decide after the fact to describe it whatever way you wish but the "realness" of the injury is still unresolved until the time to use second wind is made (unless second wind it magical).

for instance...

Sammy is hit for 49 of his 50 points of damage. The options are:

1. He was not actually hit for any appreciable damage but the next hit will be fatal. In this case second wind is neither mystic nor retconning but hp damage is not mapped to physical damage (hp now just represent your characters narrative staying power..how long he can remain an active participant in the story)

2. He does not use his second wind and was hit for real damage and is on his on his last bit of blood.

3. He uses his second wind and the character's wound was not really a damaging blow just visually bloody.

This choice of narrative explanation is not made until the second wind power is invoked.

So up until that happens the injury is either unresolved or the situation is retconned (you thought it was really injurious but really was just a surface wound). This means that the narration that was initially done (it was a dangerous wound) is either a lie or is retconned.

Maybe i am missing an option though.

 

[pemerton]

They have attempted to.

Are you implying that they are not telling the truth about their play experiences? Or that they misunderstand what is happening at their game tables?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you implying that they are not telling the truth about their play experiences? Or that they misunderstand what is happening at their game tables?

I am not implying anything.

I am stating as a fact that their answers do not actually resolve the problem. Certainly I believe that they are sincere in their posts. See the post just above yours for a short summary in case you fail to understand the problem.

(Well done apoptosis.)

But please do not try to bait me further with this sort of "mudslinging" post. I do not appreciate it.

 

[apoptosis]

I am not implying anything.

I am stating as a fact that their answers do not actually resolve the problem. Certainly I believe that they are sincere in their posts. See the post just above yours for a short summary in case you fail to understand the problem.

(Well done apoptosis.)

But please do not try to bait me further with this sort of "mudslinging" post. I do not appreciate it.

I am in the humorous position of defending your position though honestly i dont mind strongly narrative mechanics that allow you to fully retcon.

It is possible that i am missing an option and my argument goes up in a puff of smoke but at the moment i dont see a particular hole in my reasoning.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am in the humorous position of defending your position though honestly i dont mind strongly narrative mechanics that allow you to fully retcon.

It is possible that i am missing an option and my argument goes up in a puff of smoke but at the moment i dont see a particular hole in my reasoning.

This shouldn't seem unusual. My position is based on something objective; whether it matters is subjective. Recognizing the existence of something objective should be a matter of course.

For example, I love the 1e DMG. Still useful after all these years. You might dislike it because it is disorganized. The disorganization doesn't bother me, but is a fact. Refuting that it is disorganized would just make me look foolish. So, I would be in the same position you are in now: bolstering your statement about the objective reality of the 1e DMG's disorganization while not being subjectively bothered by it.


RC