Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mallus]

Just as a counterpoint, I really, really detested that mechanic from M&M when I played it. Mind you, I found the "balance" of M&M extremely problematic.

Out of curiosity Merric, how come? My group found that the Damage Save worked very well in play. Then again, my group has a knack for making things work that admittedly could cover for flaws in the mechanics.

Was your balance problem the same kind you find in any broadly-inclusive superhero game ie, the players need to be self-limiting?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full. The lack of replies was deafening.

Hmm... am I misremembering? The question I remember was "Can an unwounded character use a healing surge?", and I gave an answer to that one.

-Hyp.

 

[LostSoul]

Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full. The lack of replies was deafening. I should have realized then that silence meant that there was something interesting in the question.

I must have missed that, too. Do you have a hypothetical example of play for that? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[MerricB]

Was your balance problem the same kind you find in any broadly-inclusive superhero game ie, the players need to be self-limiting?

I've played a number of superhero games (Marvel, DC, V&V and M&M), and of them all I found M&M the most problematic. M&M is actually a level-based system which tries to masquerade as a point-buy system. If you *don't* max-out your powers/defences, you're going to be in terrible, terrible trouble.

It gets worse with certain powers (Mind Shield, Forcefield) which basically say to the lesser characters, "You can't hurt me at all". The less said about Ability Drain the better - a more broken power I'm not aware of, especially when a Con Drain will just kill someone outright.

The damage system, in my experience, tended to be "you didn't hurt them at all", "you didn't hurt them at all", "they're down" depending on the die rolls. I found it just too swingy.

Cheers!

 

[apoptosis]

I think that it is helpful to decouple hit points from physical damage, as this frees up the narration.

I also think that it is unhelpful to describe any non-fatal injury as a gaping chest wound, as that it absurd narration.

But I think a non-fatal but large dose of hit point loss could be described as a serious slash to the chest, and/or the breaking of ribs - the second wind would then be soldiering on which didn't cure the wound, but relieved the PC of the burden of the wound (ie s/he can act as if unwounded).

I agree. I have become more interested in the decoupling (love TSOY for that very reason) but if you like the coupling then 4E more narrative mechanics is a step backward.

One thing that really pops up in the discussion is honestly how difficult HP as a game concept are. What is damage? What does HP actually mean?

Honestly I am becoming a fan of either true decoupling (past what 4E does) or more of wound system where damage results in true wounds (either specific or details generated by narrative).

 

[Hussar]

On the whole natural healing issue.

Here's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about with game first mechanics. How often, in any game of D&D, in any edition, have you had PC's heal damage entirely through natural healing?

I'm thinking that the number is vanishingly small. Clerics, healing potions, whatever, generally are going to be in use far more often than sitting around for any length of time.

So, at the end of the day, at the table, who cares how long it takes to heal your PC? What difference does it make? Since very, very few people ever actually use natural healing, the numbers simply don't matter.

Sure, you can talk about verisimilitude all you like, but, let's face it, a rule that is never used might as well not exist. So, 4e changes the rules to make natural healing actually a viable option at the table. Pre 4e, you waited maybe one day and the cleric healed you. The end result between editions is pretty much the same:

Wait one day, you are fully healed.

Why not hard code that into the rules so now you are no longer forced to have a cleric in the group?

 

[MerricB]

Actually, that isn't a bad idea. At the very least, this would remove the problem of Schrödinger's Wounding, because how much damage was "not real" could be known at the time of the injury. In this case, rename the mechanic "adrenelin surge". Even the pep talk now makes sense, and injuries don't magically disappear because Joe Bob said some inspiring words.

It's a good solution only for those who want what damage means to be absolutely clear... it is an awful mechanic as far as the game goes.

What is the actual effect of this? Well, it just gives the characters more hit points per encounter. Oh. That's not actually what Healing Surges mean in the game. The primary use of healing surges is to provide healing between encounters.

That's rather important. Consider a character who could use all of their healing surges in the one combat. 9 surges, 40 hp. That means the character effectively has 400 hp... all of which get spent in one encounter, but that's specifically against the design intent of healing surges, which is to work against the "5-minute" day, and also provide the ability for a group without clerics to play more than one encounter per day.

One unusual factor about healing surges is that they are, in fact, limited in number. You can't just keep going and going. That clerical healing often just adds onto an existing healing surge is very interesting. Think about the implications of that: a cleric is no longer limited by how many spells they can prepare, but instead by how much someone can actually heal in a day. (There's a few fantasy settings that models rather well, actually).

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If your players are cool with having you dictate when they can take the initiative and investigate that creepy old house on the hill, then this could potentially work to a degree. In a game where players are allowed to make those choices, this would not, unless by some miracle the players all decided to have their characters rest months between doing things. Not something that happens without both solid game-rules and in-world reasons, IME.

If the handling of Healing Surges is a problem for the entire group, why wouldn't the group agree that these "rest periods" are a necessary part to create a believable role-playing experience.

In fact, even if the characters never took any significant damage, there might still be a role-playing reason why they don't want to get into the next potentially violent conflict.

There are many aspects in a role-playing world that are not described in the rules. Character motivations. Rules for falling in love, or feelings like hatred, annoyance, compassion. And yet, player characters can act on such emotions. (Heck, there isn't even a rule for what is a "creepy" old house). Why shouldn't they also act on the idea that there characters have injured that, while they managed to overcome them in face of adversity, they need and desire to heal?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't want it triggered by others at all. Just the "I am not dead yet" effect of a seriously wounded character pulling himself together, lashing out at the enemy, and then, once the fight is over, collapsing, will to fight gone with the fight.

I'll Check Raven's house rules. (And, Raven, I didn't mean you, you were just explaining why you have a problem, not why other should or shouldn't have a problem, or why everyone should play like you do.)

If you don't want it to be triggered by others, but during combat, RCs rules will only provide a starting point.

But I think the simplest solution is to say that a character can, once per 5 minutes (or encounter, if you can live with that "metagame" term), get temporary hit points equal to half his hit points, but only if he has less then half his hit points (and isn't dead yet, unless you want someone to stand up after a finger of death ). These temporary hit points do not stack (same source rule). They disappear after 5 minutes*.

Note though that if the discussion has been going into a direction you didn't like, it was because we talked on "different levels" - from a general game design concept to a specific discussion on hit point mechanics to you actually hoping for clear suggestions on how to implement a second-wind mechanic in your game. Nobody can hope for sensible answers if the other side is actually not aware of his questions.

*) What did Robert DeNiros character in Ronin say after he helped Jean Reno stiching him up? "If you don't mind, I'll pass out now." (?)

 

[Fenes]

If you don't want it to be triggered by others, but during combat, RCs rules will only provide a starting point.

But I think the simplest solution is to say that a character can, once per 5 minutes (or encounter, if you can live with that "metagame" term), get temporary hit points equal to half his hit points, but only if he has less then half his hit points (and isn't dead yet, unless you want someone to stand up after a finger of death ). These temporary hit points do not stack (same source rule). They disappear after 5 minutes*.

Note though that if the discussion has been going into a direction you didn't like, it was because we talked on "different levels" - from a general game design concept to a specific discussion on hit point mechanics to you actually hoping for clear suggestions on how to implement a second-wind mechanic in your game. Nobody can hope for sensible answers if the other side is actually not aware of his questions.

*) What did Robert DeNiros character in Ronin say after he helped Jean Reno stiching him up? "If you don't mind, I'll pass out now." (?)

Half the hitpoints seems too much, especially compared to the barbarian's rage.

And I wasn't annoyed at the discussion going into a direction I didn't like - I was annoyed at the discussion going nowhere. To use a cooking metaphor: Our likes and dislikes are well known, we need no more posturing about eating meat or going vegan, but the sharing of recipes and cooking tips instead, and adapting them to the prefered meals.