Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[pemerton]

In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.

If the same thing happened in 4E (bolt through the eye is described by the DM, dropping him to -7 to -9 unconscious), then it would feel kind of weird to make my save, surge up after the combat and be back to full operation (as in my guy has a similar chance of surviving another encounter as the uninjured fighter over there). No divine assistance, just a little bit of heroic grit. I'd ask my DM about the whole bolt through the eye thing to which he'd most likely have to say - "nah, it was just a flesh wound".

If left to your own devices (that is no one to aid you), you are stabilized but not yet conscious. You then have to start making 10% chance hourly checks to regain consciousness - losing a hit point each time if you fail. On your own, chances are you're not going to make it - and if you do, it was a ***miracle. In a group situation with a cleric, curing wand or potion, you are going to be getting this divine healing. You aren't going to have people go, "hmmm... let's leave him for a bit and see if he gets better". The bolt in the eye character is going to get the healing and no one's sense of verisimilitude has been upset (providing that such miraculous healing is possible in your game).

<snip>

***Such a miracle has never yet happened in a game that I have personally played in. I read a thread over on Paizo where an abondoned -6hp character survived such an occurence (the rest of the party were killed). He came back into town several days later having somehow survived. The circumstance was such that a legend was born. Many whispered that the gods themselves must have got involved.

What I'm getting from this is that you have no objection to non-divine-healing-generated recovery - as it is possible in 3E, as per the example you give from the Paizo boards - but that you don't like the idea that it is ordinary rather than miraculous. (I'm not sure I agree that 3E makes it miraculous - the DC to stabilise someone with a non-magical Heal check is only 15, after all - but that's another matter.)

If that is correct then there is a way of handling it in 4e without the retconning/Black Knight-isms. But it does require divorcing ingame causation and probability from the rules.

The way is this: narrate the use of a healing surge in such a situation as a miracle. Of course, the mechanics don't make it especially improbable. But that doesn't mean that it can't be treated as miraculous in the gameworld.

If this sort of narration isn't carefully handled it does run the risk of the gonzo-ism I've discussed above. I think that this lurking threat of gonzo is inherent to 4e. It's not at all oriented towards gritty, I don't think.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What I find interesting is that there are very, very few actual mechanical issues being discussed here. Almost entirely it's flavour issues - how to connect hit points to wounds for example is a flavour issue. No one has come out and said, "Healing surges don't work" because they do work. Healing overnight does work, in the context of the game.

What people are complaining about is that something like healing overnight is too far down the road and past their individual cut off line for acceptable abstractions. Mechanically, it's fine. It works and doesn't cause any problems at the table. In fact it solves the problem of requiring a healer/cleric in the party.

I don't really know what you are talking about in terms of sacrifice for the game but the experiences at the table with 4E so far have not delivered gameplay that I am looking for in terms of flavor or speed of play.

My largest issue with the system is very mechanical. When you gain a level your character doesn't grow or develop, he returns to the playdoh powers pump factory to be reborn as a new collection of abilities and powers. There is no continuity or substance because everything has to be perfectly blandly balanced at each and every level. Seeing a character grow and develop in ability is quite different than getting a "power up"

We have replaced the powers of this adventurer with folgers crystals. Lets see if he notices.

While this may "work" to balance the powers at a given level its the major factor that makes its so much a boardgame to me.

 

[pemerton]

Going from 3e to Basic D&D, I'd have to accept the abstraction that race=class. That each and every elf is mechanically identical. From a realism standpoint, that's ridiculous. Makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer. However, if I want to play Basic D&D, I have to accept that as true. All elves are mechanically identical is a sacrifice I'd be willing to make in order to play Basic D&D.

This is a bit of a tangent - but your comment reminded me of a point made by one of the OD&D/Classic D&D posters on this board (perhaps R Fisher, or Philotomy Jurament). It is only the case that PC elves are mechanically identical. The ruleset doesn't preclude non-PC-standard NPC elves (just as 4e doesn't preclude non-PC-mechanically-standard NPCs).

This is a difference from 3E, which - via rules like NPC wealth by level and NPC classes - generates a very strong implication that NPCs are to be built in more-or-less the same manner as PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Personally, I think a lot of the issues would go away if they separated physical damage from all the other things hps are meant to represent. [This of course changes the nature of play and thus why the compromise has been made].

One of the things that I really loved about RQ2 was that hit points were not abstract - they were used to "model reality".

<snip>

I still really like less abstracted mechanics, because I find that there are less 'jarring' situations which have to be explained away IMO.

As a long-time RM player I have a certain fondness for non-abstract damage mechanics. But, as Herreman points out, this does change the nature of play. For example, in RM the mechanical implementation of a Deathlock Wight's Horrific Visage would be a lot more clunky than it is in 4e: it couldn't be modelled in the same fashion as a physical attack (because it would not actually damage the body, only the spirit), and the push (which I take it is meant to model the victim recoiling in fear) would be very hard to implement, because RM has no morale mechanics that apply to PCs.

 

[pemerton]

My largest issue with the system is very mechanical. When you gain a level your character doesn't grow or develop, he returns to the playdoh powers pump factory to be reborn as a new collection of abilities and powers. There is no continuity or substance because everything has to be perfectly blandly balanced at each and every level.

I think this is an example of what Hussar is calling a "flavour issue", although I'm not sure I think his phrase is the right one.

It is quite possible to shape a story of PC development around the 4e character advancement rules. It's equally the case that those development rules do not, in and of themselves, dictate such a story. Those who are happy to use mechanics as a device for setting the parameters of narration won't be worried by this. Those who want the mechanics to deliver the story (roughly, simulationists) will.

I think that the issue here is of the causal relationship (if any) that players want between game mechanics and ingame events - or, if you prefer, the causal relationship (if any) between mechanics and flavour.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What I'm getting from this is that you have no objection to non-divine-healing-generated recovery - as it is possible in 3E, as per the example you give from the Paizo boards - but that you don't like the idea that it is ordinary rather than miraculous. (I'm not sure I agree that 3E makes it miraculous - the DC to stabilise someone with a non-magical Heal check is only 15, after all - but that's another matter.)

I suppose if miracles keep on happening, they stop being miraculous. However, you raise one of the big things I detested in 3E in terms of the heal check. After laughing about this "heal check" a couple of times (our group had a few "I shove his guts back in the holes I think they came out of - is he stabilized?" moments) and very quickly, we just stopped doing it - it just seemed ridiculous - and it wasn't always guaranteed of working either. Far better to have the cleric/paladin come over with some divine healing, the rogue give a blast of his wand or someone else with a potion to get the job done. It just does not seem right that you can stabilize someone with a 6 second simple heal check.

If that is correct then there is a way of handling it in 4e without the retconning/Black Knight-isms. But it does require divorcing ingame causation and probability from the rules.

The way is this: narrate the use of a healing surge in such a situation as a miracle. Of course, the mechanics don't make it especially improbable. But that doesn't mean that it can't be treated as miraculous in the gameworld.

After the 3rd time that day though, it pretty soon stops becoming miraculous. I suppose you could build up a group as being "overseen" by the gods themselves and thus why they can do such things - but that would get a little tired if used for every campaign. The paizo example was a good one because the probability of it happening was so low. It was in its way, miraculous.

If this sort of narration isn't carefully handled it does run the risk of the gonzo-ism I've discussed above. I think that this lurking threat of gonzo is inherent to 4e. It's not at all oriented towards gritty, I don't think.

Well as I said, we're trying to make it bend to our playstyle. We're having fun with 4E despite a few gonzo moments as you describe - and in the end that's the main thing. HPs/damage/healing have always been a bugbear for me though with D&D, and I suppose they always will. Luckily, the rest of the game and the group of guys I game with more than compensates.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

IWell as I said, we're trying to make it bend to our playstyle. We're having fun with 4E despite a few gonzo moments as you describe - and in the end that's the main thing. HPs/damage/healing have always been a bugbear for me though with D&D, and I suppose they always will. Luckily, the rest of the game and the group of guys I game with more than compensates.

Herremann, this is not at all intended as a "You shouldn't be playing D&D" post - but just out of curiosity, I'm wondering whether your group has played more mechanically gritty/realistic games (eg C&S, RM, HARP, RQ). If so, how did you find them?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Herremann, this is not at all intended as a "You shouldn't be playing D&D" post - but just out of curiosity, I'm wondering whether your group has played more mechanically gritty/realistic games (eg C&S, RM, HARP, RQ). If so, how did you find them?

Not really. We had fun with traveller, and even a d20 modern campaign but none of the one's you mention (although I was invited to a RM campaign, but couldn't make it regularly enough with a different group and so declined).
No, for us, it's been D&D and I suppose you could say forcing square pegs into round holes here and there - but on the whole, the game is flexible enough to cope with that. While I think 4E has reduced that flexibility somewhat (Mustrum Ridcully has a really good analogy which I might sig. later), there's still enough flexibility there that our group will still hum along regardless.

Historically, I think this has been due to the availability and support for D&D versus other games - particularly here down under. It's only really been the last decade where other options have become easily available (and I suppose my group is set in its ways now).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

I don't really know what you are talking about in terms of sacrifice for the game but the experiences at the table with 4E so far have not delivered gameplay that I am looking for in terms of flavor or speed of play.

My largest issue with the system is very mechanical. When you gain a level your character doesn't grow or develop, he returns to the playdoh powers pump factory to be reborn as a new collection of abilities and powers. There is no continuity or substance because everything has to be perfectly blandly balanced at each and every level. Seeing a character grow and develop in ability is quite different than getting a "power up"

We have replaced the powers of this adventurer with folgers crystals. Lets see if he notices.

While this may "work" to balance the powers at a given level its the major factor that makes its so much a boardgame to me.

I think this is an example of what Hussar is calling a "flavour issue", although I'm not sure I think his phrase is the right one.

It is quite possible to shape a story of PC development around the 4e character advancement rules. It's equally the case that those development rules do not, in and of themselves, dictate such a story. Those who are happy to use mechanics as a device for setting the parameters of narration won't be worried by this. Those who want the mechanics to deliver the story (roughly, simulationists) will.

I think that the issue here is of the causal relationship (if any) that players want between game mechanics and ingame events - or, if you prefer, the causal relationship (if any) between mechanics and flavour.

Pemerton nails it in one. Your issues have nothing to do with the mechanics really. The mechanics aren't causing the problems. The flavor that you want the mechanics to promote is causing the problem. Again, it gets back to what you are willing to sac.. errr... forego in order to have a functioning game.

Apparently, for you, the idea that standardizing classes is too far. It makes the game not enjoyable for you. And that's fair. It doesn't make the mechanics bad, but, rather simply not for you.

Now, I disagree to the level to which ExploderWizard claims that the classes are entirely identical. I think that he's engaging in a bit of hyperbole here. But, I do get the point that he doesn't like it. To me, I think that having a flat playing surface improves the game. I think it's up to the players and the DM to come up with what makes your character unique and interesting, not the rules.

Note, I didn't always think this way. But, i was also seriously leaning this way before 4ed was released as well. I've always hated the idea that every archetype needs it's own class, distinct from every other class. Swashbuckler indeed. So, sacr... errr... giving up some mechanical diversity in order to have balanced classes is a good thing to me.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's up to the players and the DM to come up with what makes your character unique and interesting, not the rules.

Agreed, though if the rules can help, let 'em.

Note, I didn't always think this way. But, i was also seriously leaning this way before 4ed was released as well. I've always hated the idea that every archetype needs it's own class, distinct from every other class. Swashbuckler indeed. So, sacr... errr... giving up some mechanical diversity in order to have balanced classes is a good thing to me.

Thing is, you can keep some mechanical diversity and still have somewhat balanced classes...just look for different ways to balance them, if that's your goal. One relatively easy option is to go back to the 1e idea of having classes advance at different speeds...if a particular class seems overpowered, slow its advancement down a bit. Another is to use wealth as a balancer...if a class seems overpowered, come up with some in-game reason for it to not accumulate much wealth. (I've never seen it in play, but from what I gather the Vow of Poverty in 3e did this to the point of overkill...there must be a better way) Things like this give you more room to play with the "mechanics" to build the class you want.

Lanefan