Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

So there's no random outcome you don't think is too outlandish to be implicitly accepted by sitting down to play, and no chance however small that you don't think people will consider it?

Not sure how you got to this.....?

In any event, my determination of what is acceptable is based upon whether it makes sense within the context of the game world, not what chance my PCs have to survive it.

So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?

Why not?


RC

 

[pemerton]

To figure out if something should be "build in", in the example of healing it is simple:

<snip>

keep the part that is apparently challenging (the part where you don't regenerate), but remove the part that isn't. That's the "gamist" approach - keep the part that are challenging, remove the parts that are automatic/boring (and often enough, simple system mastery)

I liked this post. Thanks.

 

[pemerton]

You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution. Why have this period of time when the game allows you to heal up (unbelievably as it were) overnight? Do the players or DM just decide that "hey, my healing surges don't work because I have a bad injury". I mean, how do you even determine if you have a bad injury?

The game rules say that all healing surges are restored after an extended rest. The game rules are silent on whether this means that all wounds are healed, or the PC is able to ignore those wounds, or . . . (In the same way, the game rules are silent on what damage taken corresponds to what sort of injury on a PC, except that "bloodied" means bloodied.)

My suggestion is that if all the players at the table are agreed in disliking the notion that all physical injury is restored with an extended rest, they can simply agree that a verisimilitudinous amount of time passes between episodes in the game. When an extended rest is taken within the context of a given episode, then it can be narrated no differently from a short rest - the PCs bind wounds, take the weight of their injuries for a few hours, then resolutely return to the fray.

A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude. YMOV.

Well, I'm just offering a suggestion that permits verisimilitude to be preserved without changing the mechanics. The verisimilitude still involves a potentially gonzo element, of much gritting of the teeth and pressing on regardless, but I think no more than has always been inherent in D&D. The gonzo aspects to one side, it is entirely within the power of a gaming table to regain verisimilitude, simply by (i) agreeing to the suggested break between episodes, and (ii) narrating extended rests within episodes as mental/moral recovery rather than physical recovery.

(Btw, exactly the same technique can be used by those who don't like the idea of PCs going from 1st to 30th level in a single game year or less.)

Of course, if the players feel that they are obliged to play their PCs as if the game mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, with hit points and healing surges mapping directly to physical injury and its recovery (eg they will not interpret the extended rest rules as anything but "all non-mortal injuries, however severe, heal overnight") then they will not like my suggestion. But for such resolutely simulationist players, 4e is probably the wrong game system. Likewise if you are playing a game in which the notion of "episodes" makes no sense (eg it is a sandbox game in which the entire game world is on stage all the time) then I think that 4e is probably not the right game for that sort of play.

All pemerton is saying is "if fast healing bothers you, play a different way'.

<snip>

This could come in the form of a house rule, a whole new homebrewed severe injury system, or a simple agreement between the players. In the end they amount to the same thing.

I am suggesting "play a different way." I'm also suggesting that this can be done without changing the mechanics at all. All it requires is agreement at the table to let a sufficient amount of ingame time pass between episodes.

The advantage of doing it the way I am suggesting (ie by metagame agreement with no change of the mechanics) is that there is no danger of the unfolding of events within an episode being derailed by the need for lengthy healing periods. In my approach, lengthy healing periods only occur when everyone at the table agrees to let the time pass. When events are in motion, extended rests are simply narrated as a resolute gritting of teeth in the face of pain and injury.

I would prefer just sucking it up, thinking "oh well, the rule does not make complete sense" and move on rather than trying to house rule a ruleset that my group is still getting used to.

I hope I've made it clear that I'm not suggesting any sort of change to the mechanics. I'm just suggesting a certain metagame agreement to increase verisimilitude.

 

[pemerton]

So because the fighter ought to consider the possibility he might die, it's okay for an 800,000 to 1 shot to kill him?

Why not?

GlaziusF, my memory of the last time I saw this come up (on a 30+ page pre-4e thread about encounter powers, a sort of pre-echo in time of this thread) is that RC did not concede that there is any important difference between an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds in a sequence of dice rolls in which the player cannot intervene (eg the orc with the greataxe) and an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds over a sequence of dice rolls in which the player is a participant.

 

[Raven Crowking]

GlaziusF, my memory of the last time I saw this come up (on a 30+ page pre-4e thread about encounter powers, a sort of pre-echo in time of this thread) is that RC did not concede that there is any important difference between an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds in a sequence of dice rolls in which the player cannot intervene (eg the orc with the greataxe) and an 800,000 to 1 shot that unfolds over a sequence of dice rolls in which the player is a participant.

I believe that there are times when the die has been cast; where the choices have been made, and all that remains is determining the outcome.

I don't believe (in actual game play) in "I made no choices" scenarios.

RC

 

[Delta]

What works well with NPCs doesn't always work on PCs.

And yet my players demanded the "Variant: Instant Kill" for both.

They wouldn't have imagined being comfortable with "PCs get special treatment".

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Pemerton, I appreciate the extended response and despite the fact that I'm not jiving with what you're saying, you're getting some XP from me - for what it's worth.

However, some points that you may or may not find useful.

- You have introduced the idea of episodic play vs. sandbox style play. Our group is definitely in the sandbox camp rather than episodic. 4E still works for us though - not perfectly (no edition of D&D has done that yet), we still have issues but we're giving it a good go.

- You have introduced the idea of a metagame "rest". This is an unsatisfactory solution for our group. We expect the game to tell us that our character needs healing as in "you have been critically injured; no words from Mr Warlord over there are going to help this time; a bandage and a kiss equally is not going to cut it; see Mr Cleric of Pelor over there [Mr Cleric gives a little wave], you're going to need HIS help now, otherwise you're going to be in a world of pain for some days to come." It should not be as part of some weird, metagame player accord. It should have been in-built.

Unfortunately the game does not tell us this. I find this jarring. I find this as I have said before, mechanics-first at the expense of a little bit of flavour. I can suck it up and move on wishing that it was different but accepting that this part of the game was not going to make complete sense. Our group will "battle on" so to speak.

I hope I've made it clear that I'm not suggesting any sort of change to the mechanics. I'm just suggesting a certain metagame agreement to increase verisimilitude.

And this I think illustrates the issue that I have with your suggestion. You are suggesting an out-of-game agreement to assist with in-game verisilitude. By its nature, I find this kind of wonky. The in-game mechanics should be informing me of this, not some made up player (that is non-character) accord.

The advantage of doing it the way I am suggesting (ie by metagame agreement with no change of the mechanics) is that there is no danger of the unfolding of events within an episode being derailed by the need for lengthy healing periods. In my approach, lengthy healing periods only occur when everyone at the table agrees to let the time pass. When events are in motion, extended rests are simply narrated as a resolute gritting of teeth in the face of pain and injury.

But shouldn't a serious injury affect what happens in game? "Hey, this guy needs a cleric or some divine assistance. Has anyone got a healing potion? No, well where's the nearest surgeon, this guy needs help and fast. And the Princess that needs rescuing? She's gonna have to wait - I hope we don't run out of time?"

Of course, if the players feel that they are obliged to play their PCs as if the game mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, with hit points and healing surges mapping directly to physical injury and its recovery (eg they will not interpret the extended rest rules as anything but "all non-mortal injuries, however severe, heal overnight") then they will not like my suggestion.

You're overstating the case here. Hit point loss does not have to map directly to damage taken. But some of it should, surely? When is a character damaged to the point where a good nights rest isn't going to have them back in working order the next day? I simply believe there should be provision in the rules for this circumstance - when divine healing is required to keep going.

But for such resolutely simulationist players, 4e is probably the wrong game system.

Again, I think you're over-stating the case. Surely you don't have to be a died-in-the-wool simulationist to find this element of the game quirky?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[GlaziusF]

I believe that there are times when the die has been cast; where the choices have been made, and all that remains is determining the outcome.

I don't believe (in actual game play) in "I made no choices" scenarios.

RC

It is not possible for the average human to give realistic weight to any probability outside of the realm of about one in 8. Maybe you could get down to one in 16, one in 32, with a lifetime of training.

When somebody is making a choice with unpredictable consequences they will not be able to accurately account for a probability this low. Putting multiple decision points that result in an overall probable outcome of 800,000 is different from a single decision point with this same outcome because at some point in the multiple decision chain someone can actually give the probability a realistic weight, at the point before it becomes inevitable.

 

[Lanefan]

If your goal is to take a character from level 1 - X dying ends that goal.

If your goal is to win the game of monopoly, drawing the you loose card ends that goal. Going to jail does not.

What if my goal is to play the game rather than win it? In a D+D sense, that means my goal is to see the campaign through...see how the story comes out in the end...in full knowledge and acceptance of the fact (and it is a fact, believe me) that the characters I start out with will not be the characters I finish with.

In other words, my goal is not necessarily to take a character from 1 - X* but to see the party go from 1 - X...if my characters happen to do well in the process, that's a bonus.
* - side note: I find this an amusing way of putting it since in our house system notation 'X' means 'dead'.

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

* - side note: I find this an amusing way of putting it since in our house system notation 'X' means 'dead'.

Cool. That means for one of my players, we had 1-X,X,X,X,X...

Cheers!