Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because I, as a player, would want to know how serious my character was wounded as well. I don't like to be left in limbo.

But should you know that? How well does a person in real life know how bad wound is? How well do fictional persons usually know how bad it is?

There are basically two things that are used to describe the issues with the healing surge mechanic:
1) Ret-Conning wounds. You claim that a wound is a gashing wound, but the character recovers to full hit points and fights as if nothing ever happened. Worst case scenario is the character drops unconscious and someone narrates it as him dying due to the gashing wound, but then he rolls a 20 on his death save and regains hit points, and can go on fighting. The wound couldn't have been that bad.

2) Schrödinger wounds. You don't know whether you are wounded or not until after you have "measured" it by expending a healing surge or dying.

Pemertons point for 1 seems to be that you just should avoid narrations that make strong assumptions on the nature of wounds - maybe there is a lot of blood, but until the character dies or spends his healing surge, nobody knows how bad it is.

This leads us to "Schrödinger" wounds. The severity of a wound is indeterminate until we spend a healing surge or the PC dies from them.

But is that really a problem? At what point do you know a wound is fatal or not? Sometimes (at least in movies ) people die after they have been stabilized while in intensive care. How well could you judge a wound on the battle-field, covered in dirt and blood.

One example for a dying character to avoid death is that someone spends an action to make a Heal Check - if the check succeeds, he is stabilized, and can expend his second wind (not merely a healing surge). The check DC is only 10 (IIRC). Maybe we should interpret this not as trying to staunch any wounds (though we could), maybe it is just looking at the wound and saying "hey, it's just superficial - no major arteries hit! You should be fine."

 

[Fenes]

But should you know that? How well does a person in real life know how bad wound is? How well do fictional persons usually know how bad it is?

My character, being knocked unconscious, wouldn't know. I as the player want to know. And that's all the reason needed.

 

[Fenes]

One example for a dying character to avoid death is that someone spends an action to make a Heal Check - if the check succeeds, he is stabilized, and can expend his second wind (not merely a healing surge). The check DC is only 10 (IIRC). Maybe we should interpret this not as trying to staunch any wounds (though we could), maybe it is just looking at the wound and saying "hey, it's just superficial - no major arteries hit! You should be fine."

And of course, then I and some others would argue why there was a need for the heal check at all, if he was going to be fine anyway. Also, arterial bleeding, the sort that kills you in a short time, is often spectacularly gory, so it shouldn't require a heal check to spot.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:

Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
DM: "You can't tell."
Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
DM: "He's bleeding from a gash on his head."
Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."
DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.
DM: He might die without treatment!
Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
DM: Yes, you do!
Player: No, I am a warlord, not a cleric!
DM: The effect is the same!

and so on.

1) He could have made a Heal Check (yes, that costs an action) to discover that the wounds were in fact not fatal.
2) He could have used an Inspring Word to tell the character "Come on, it can't be that bad".
Result is always that the character can spend a Healing Surge and go on.

Maybe bringing us back to the "dying words" - don't narrate the character as fully unconscious when he drops if you know that would make the player decide not to try anything. (I think that is a very general approach to DM narrating scenes - don't do it in ways to accidentally mislead your players.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And of course, then I and some others would argue why there was a need for the heal check at all, if he was going to be fine anyway. Also, arterial bleeding, the sort that kills you in a short time, is often spectacularly gory, so it shouldn't require a heal check to spot.

SO obviously it wasn't arterial bleeding, right? But maybe someone feared the worse, because it was covered by the characters own body or his clothing/armor and still looked nasty?

 

[Fenes]

1) He could have made a Heal Check (yes, that costs an action) to discover that the wounds were in fact not fatal.
2) He could have used an Inspring Word to tell the character "Come on, it can't be that bad".
Result is always that the character can spend a Healing Surge and go on.

Maybe bringing us back to the "dying words" - don't narrate the character as fully unconscious when he drops if you know that would make the player decide not to try anything. (I think that is a very general approach to DM narrating scenes - don't do it in ways to accidentally mislead your players.)

So, he wasn't unconscious, yet unconscious. And again - if a word is enough to get him up, it wasn't a serious wound. But what about if there's a zone of silence? If can't hear the word, does he still get healed, since if he could hear the word the wound would not be serious at all, and it's just a game mechanic construct anyway? If the warlord spends the action and power, the PC should be fine, even if he can't hear it, that's just fluff, right?

Why shouldn't we instead use a system that suits our playstyle, so we do not have to jump through all those hoops just to avoid trouble we currently do not have at all?

 

[Fenes]

SO obviously it wasn't arterial bleeding, right? But maybe someone feared the worse, because it was covered by the characters own body or his clothing/armor and still looked nasty?

"Ah, so he twisted in the air from the blow that sent him back, and landed in a way we could not notice any blood pooling beneath him. Hey, DM, that's the third time this happened today, 12th time in this adventure, can we start training to fall in ways so our friends can see our wounds? Why can't we ever see how serious a wound is anyway? I mean, we never see any blood until we fail the save, else it wasn't bleeding at all..."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why shouldn't we instead use a system that suits our playstyle, so we do not have to jump through all those hoops just to avoid trouble we currently do not have at all?

I agree entirely.

"Ah, so he twisted in the air from the blow that sent him back, and landed in a way we could not notice any blood pooling beneath him. Hey, DM, that's the third time this happened today, 12th time in this adventure, can we start training to fall in ways so our friends can see our wounds? Why can't we ever see how serious a wound is anyway? I mean, we never see any blood until we fail the save, else it wasn't bleeding at all..."

"Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"... then stop doing that."

If a mechanic makes for a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, but it has a couple of issues if you examine it too closely and ask certain questions which make it unfun, there are two options:
1. Stop having a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, or
2. Stop asking those questions.

Now, personally, I haven't found that it's an issue, because we haven't had enough people recovering from negative via healing surges for the "It wasn't as bad as it looked" scenario to be problematic in the way you describe. But if it came up, and asking those questions looked set to spoil my fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, I'd pick option 2 - don't ask the questions!

But that's not for everyone.

-Hyp.

 

[Fenes]

If a mechanic makes for a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, but it has a couple of issues if you examine it too closely and ask certain questions which make it unfun, there are two options:
1. Stop having a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, or
2. Stop asking those questions.

There is also option 3: Use another mechanic that offers you a fun, action-packed, exciting play experience without causing troubles for you.

Now, personally, I haven't found that it's an issue, because we haven't had enough people recovering from negative via healing surges for the "It wasn't as bad as it looked" scenario to be problematic in the way you describe. But if it came up, and asking those questions looked set to spoil my fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, I'd pick option 2 - don't ask the questions!

But that's not for everyone.

Like the entire 4E system is not for everyone. I just wish people would accept that just as my playstyle - few combats, lots of social scenes, sandbox style, no exp points, no exact wealth - is not for everyone, 4E is not for everyone.

It really gets tiring to read the umpteenth "but if you do this, this, and stop doing this, and don't ask those questions, then 4E is perfect for you!" posts.

What about a bit more "Ok, I see why you are happier with another edition" posts? It cannot be so hard to understand that 4E is not perfect for everyone.

 

[pemerton]

There are basically two things that are used to describe the issues with the healing surge mechanic:
1) Ret-Conning wounds. You claim that a wound is a gashing wound, but the character recovers to full hit points and fights as if nothing ever happened. Worst case scenario is the character drops unconscious and someone narrates it as him dying due to the gashing wound, but then he rolls a 20 on his death save and regains hit points, and can go on fighting. The wound couldn't have been that bad.

2) Schrödinger wounds. You don't know whether you are wounded or not until after you have "measured" it by expending a healing surge or dying.

Pemertons point for 1 seems to be that you just should avoid narrations that make strong assumptions on the nature of wounds - maybe there is a lot of blood, but until the character dies or spends his healing surge, nobody knows how bad it is.

This leads us to "Schrödinger" wounds.

I've also suggested a 3rd option (or in fact have just reiterated Lost Soul and Hypersmurf's suggestion): narrate the wound, and then narrate any healing not as a curing of the wound, but as an Inigo Montoya moment.