Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Fenes]

It's great that you know 4E is not a system for you. But why are you spending the time complaining about the system, when you know it's not one you enjoy?

Why are you spending the time trying to make people play a system they don't enjoy?

This thread started as a discussion over game design. In the process, it ended up as a mechanics discussion. Of course that will incorprotate different mechanics. But we can do without the "If you play it right you'll enjoy it, really!" undertone.

 

[Fenes]

OK - I can entirely see why you're not happy with a particular 4e mechanic, as it's not working for you (and others in this thread).

I hope that you can, in turn, see why "if you stop worrying about it, it's not a worry" is a perfectly good answer for those of us that do like the system and are happy with it.

Oh, I see that. The problem is that too many try to tell me I could (or even should) just stop worrying, and it'd be fine for me, and seem unable to accept that it won't work.

In other words - I hope those others finally can accept that an answer good enough for them is not good enough for me, or RC.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why are you spending the time trying to make people play a system they don't enjoy?

When did I do that?

No one's trying to make you play 4E. They're explaining ways in which your perceived problems with the mechanics are not problems to them.

 

[Fifth Element]

In other words - I hope those others finally can accept that an answer good enough for them is not good enough for me, or RC.

Sure, and vice-versa. It's abundantly clear that no agreement will be reached between the two "sides". One of them has to step up and say "You know what? I don't need to get the last word in on this one." That's the only way the back-and-forth will stop.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly because I have few fights I want the fights to be as action-packed as they can be. If not, why bother playing them out?

3E with Bo9S delivers the action I want - flashy combat with high-damage, spectacular moves and spells, all PCs going nova. No battlemap, no chess moves, no Tank/Healer/DPS mechanics. Conan meeting Wuxia, with everyone laying into the enemies.

Well, you think of "packing action" into one encounter per session, I think of packing action in multiple encounters per session. The system requires a different degree of robustness (both from a purely mechanical POV and from the character POV).

This means:
- Each encounter must be challenging. Otherwise it doesn't feel action-packed.
- The party must have a reasonable (high) chance to go on after each encounter. (despite being challenged, e.g. facing character death)

I think this definitely explains why you don't need a different system.

The 3E system manages to do this only to a very limited extent - hit points after combat where no problem thanks to Cure Light Wound Wands, but this creates a high dependency on magic items or pm (divine) spellcasters - and since a lot of spells are needed in challenging encounters (as you say - going nova), you can't do it often.

The high reliance on magical items might be a mere flavor issue - if you are fine with a strong economy around Wands of CLW or strong reliance on Clerics, you could ignore that and just "fix" the spellcaster problem. But the design team decided that wasn't what they wanted, because the "Magic Item Christmas Tree" and the difficulties of creating a low-magic campaign were discussed and criticized a lot.

Yet they still decided to keep hit points. (Maybe they believed it couldn't be D&D without them?). So they came up with healing surges. What other mechanics would work in this context?

---

The only remaining thing I have to say is that I doubt that you would have such big problems with the system in practice.
1) You are already using Book of Nine Swords. So you are perfectly fine with "martial" characters using supernatural powers. All problems with Schrödingers hit points and ret-conning are gone if you just assume that it's sword magic.

2) The major instance where these problems come into play are during combat and assuming that some character drops to 0 hit points and is also increased beyond 0 hp. The party just has to avoid that ever happening.

But of course, there is no need for a change if you're happy with what you've got.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, I see that. The problem is that too many try to tell me I could (or even should) just stop worrying, and it'd be fine for me, and seem unable to accept that it won't work.

You doesn't always have to refer to You specifically, but the figurative "you".

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Although the potentially fatal wound that gets fully healed by a pep talk and a shot of adrenelin is particularly absurd, most people IRL know the difference between being winded and being wounded when it happens to them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"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.

The problem is that, in this case "too closely" is defined as "even superficially". As a result, the mechanic makes for a dissatisfying play experience.


RC


EDIT: I hope you realize, too, that the "Doctor, Doctor" bit you quoted is usually intended as a joke, where the butt of the joke is the doctor, because the answer doesn't address the complaint (or, if so, only does so on the most superficial level)?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Although the potentially fatal wound that gets fully healed by a pep talk and a shot of adrenelin is particularly absurd

Who talked about fully healed? For the purposes of the current story-line, the character is unimpeded. Once the story-line comes to a halt, he can still collapse.
But I agree with you that movie scenarios are often quite absurd. There are genre conventions at work that seem more interesting then reality.

 

[LostSoul]

Hey Fenes;

I know that 4e doesn't work for you. That's cool. What I'm arguing is that you don't have to get into the trap of retconning wounds and damage if you don't want to.

Let's look at the sample of play proposed and I'll tell you how I'd deal with it. I'll bold the text I add.

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's on the ground, in a deep fog, but he can still hear your words.*
DM: He might die without treatment!
Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
DM: But an Inspiring Word will allow him to stand up, shake his head clear of the cobwebs, and give him the strength to fight on!**

After the fight, X still has a big gash on his head; if he has any healing surges left, he can describe binding the wound (while the Warlord claps him on the back for some extra motivation), and a quick word or two: "How you feeling, X?" "Well, my head feels like Bane's been using it as target practice, but not as bad as after you make your Hellfell Shadowspawn chili!". Or if he doesn't have any healing surges left, and there's no other healing available, he might describe binding the wound and struggling on, weak and exhausted but ready to fight.

(You could even describe the wound in the same way in both cases, even if he's just down 4 healing surges and at full hp: dazed, weak, exhausted, but willing to carry on.)

Either way, the wound doesn't disappear, which might be important later on in the game (NPC: <points at the soiled bandage> "You look like you've been through hell. I told you not to engage the enemy!").

* - The Unconcious condition means a few things, but going deaf isn't one of them, so we're cool there. I could describe the PC going down and out, but I probably wouldn't do that often if there was a Warlord in the party; and even if I did, I'd say something like "Somewhere, deep in the blackness, a part of X hears your words. His vision clears, your voice guiding him back to conciousness."

** - Warlords are a new addition to the D&D world/genre, so you have to make allowances. Words are important in 4e and can sap the fight out of someone (psychic damage) and they can give someone the will to fight on (Inspiring Word, etc). This might not be to everyone's taste, but it's a part of the 4e world.