Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[Raven Crowking]

That's what they call them in Iron Heroes, and that's a game that embraces the "mighty thews" genre of S&S fantasy. IH stole it from 3e Unearthed Arcana, who got it from Omega World, where it was a way to account for the lack of magic healing in the setting. Reserves are the "oh, I've been clobbered, but give me five minutes and I'll shake it off" mechanic, and healing surges are quite obviously a mutation of the concept.

Again, it isn't the concept that bothers me so much as the execution.

After all, I have a "shake it off" mechanic in RCFG, too!


RC

 

[Scribble]

No, but 4e is certainly a combat-focused game, so that the narrative meaning of hit points will come up at least as often as in previous editions.

Yep. Just like all editions of the game it's got lots of rules for combat, and what stuff does in combat.

Creativity isn't lame.

I agree. You're quoting a sarcastic comment. Creativity is why I play D&D.

Having to jump through hoops to narrate common occurances at the table is extremely lame.

It's even lamer when you make up a bunch of hoops to jump through so you can return to a message board and complain about all the hoops you had to jump through. My advice... If you don't want to jump through those hoops, stop putting them in front of yourself.

"Shroedingers Wounding" does not exist unless you create your own hoops and ignore the rules of the game. (IE you ignore healing surge level.)

Therefore, everything said by the OP is a creative ad-on. I REALLY like rules that can easily handle creative add-ons, and can inspire creative add-ons. In fact I think the BEST rules are the ones that serve that function, as opposed to locking you in to one strict interpretation.

 

[Derren]

At best, you start to talk like politicans while gaming.

DM: The Orc hits you for 12 damage.
Player 1: I might or might not have been mortally wounded. Yet my character decides to lay on the ground and to slowly stop being alive.
Player 2: I cast Healing Word.
Player 1: I can neither confirm nor deny that I have been healed, yet I now work within normal parameters again.


Having a agreement about not to talk about HP doesn't really solve anything. It is rather awkward and not being able to talk about wounds in a very combat heavy game is very restricting.
But then, the only thing which gets hurt by Schrödingers Wounds is versimilitude, and that isn't much a priority of 4E anyway and its not as if it would be the only problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yep. Just like all editions of the game it's got lots of rules for combat, and what stuff does in combat.

OK, then, let's look at other editions.

In any given edition, various character classes have level-based class abilities that are not particularly useful inside combat, but may be particularly useful outside of combat. We know that it was a design goal of 4e to "fix" this "problem" because we were told that it was.

I am thinking that, if I am given abilities that are specifically useful in non-combat situations, I am intended to engage in non-combat situations at least an amount of time roughly proportionate to the non-combat abilities I am specifically given.

Conversely, if you see this as a problem that needs fixing, it is because the game is intentionally more focused on combat.

And, given the sheer amount of time combat takes in 3e and 4e, it is understandable that WotC would want to make characters feel more useful during combat. If you have two non-combat encounters, and one combat encounter, but the combat encounter eats away 90% of the play time, having a non-combat focus -- or even strong non-combat abilities -- can be a problem.

IMHO, the solution should be to make combats run faster, and hence eat up less table time per combat. As this was a stated design goal, I suspect that WotC agrees. Their solution simply didn't solve the problem.

I also note that the more codified an activity is, the easier it is to balance it in terms of game design. Combat situations in every edition are far more codified than non-combat situations. Therefore, it is easier to balance combat. If you want a more balanced game, you should focus on combat. A more balanced game was also one of the stated design goals, and one that I think is undeniable achieved by 4e.

Finally, the 4e designers intentionally focused on what they believe is "fun". Clearly, Craft skills (for example) were not "fun". Nor were a whole host of non-combat spells.

I think it is more than justifiable to say that 4e is more combat-focused than previous editions. YMMV.

It's even lamer when you make up a bunch of hoops to jump through so you can return to a message board and complain about all the hoops you had to jump through. My advice... If you don't want to jump through those hoops, stop putting them in front of yourself.

"Shroedingers Wounding" does not exist unless you create your own hoops and ignore the rules of the game. (IE you ignore healing surge level.)

Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't exist if you choose not to have game terms have direct meaning in the narration (i.e., choose not to narrate damage or healing in this particular case). But that seems rather....lame.....to me.

Schrödinger's Wounding isn't a problem in episodic play, where the DM can narrate the players into extended rests to recover from damage that doesn't actually track to hit point loss.

The minute you get into the sandbox, though, Schrödinger's Wounding is there glaring at you.


RC

 

[Shadeydm]

I can sum up my problem with the whole 4E wounding/healing thing as follows.

IME of DMing and playing DnD for the past 25 years a successful roll to hit has always been a hit regardless of edition or campaign.

Similarly once one had successfully hit it always did some physical damage again regardless of edition or campaign.

Now apparently a hit is sometimes a miss and damage is often not at all physical.

This represents a very significant and edition specific change to the way I have always played the game. It is a change and one which for me is not welcome or appreciated. I think it’s great that some folk have taken the time to write paragraphs of text justifying how or why hits are now misses and damage isn’t damage but it doesn’t change the fact that this dramatically alters how the game is played/described.

Of course YMMV…etc…

 

[Scribble]

At best, you start to talk like politicans while gaming.

DM: The Orc hits you for 12 damage.
Player 1: I might or might not have been mortally wounded. Yet my character decides to lay on the ground and to slowly stop being alive.
Player 2: I cast Healing Word.
Player 1: I can neither confirm nor deny that I have been healed, yet I now work within normal parameters again.

Sure.

Once again provided you ignore elements of the rules in order to create a situation you can find fault with. (Which I guess IS kind of like politicians...)

Having a agreement about not to talk about HP doesn't really solve anything. It is rather awkward and not being able to talk about wounds in a very combat heavy game is very restricting.

So talk about wounds.

But then, the only thing which gets hurt by Schrödingers Wounds is versimilitude, and that isn't much a priority of 4E anyway and its not as if it would be the only problem.

Hrmmm lots of versimilitude (soooo sick of that buzz word) in my games... Wonder what you're doing difefrently? (Aside from ignoring rules elements in order to break versimilitude...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now apparently a hit is sometimes a miss and damage is often not at all physical.

Don't forget that a miss is now also sometimes a hit.


The ever-helpful RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hrmmm lots of versimilitude (soooo sick of that buzz word) in my games... Wonder what you're doing difefrently? (Aside from ignoring rules elements in order to break versimilitude...)

You know, I for one would like to see a transcription of a couple of actual games, to see if wounds are simply not being described, or exactly what is happening at the table.......Perhaps a podcast so that we can see/hear what is happening........Is that even in the realm of possibility?



RC

 

[Scribble]

And, given the sheer amount of time combat takes in 3e and 4e, it is understandable that WotC would want to make characters feel more useful during combat. If you have two non-combat encounters, and one combat encounter, but the combat encounter eats away 90% of the play time, having a non-combat focus -- or even strong non-combat abilities -- can be a problem.

IMHO, the solution should be to make combats run faster, and hence eat up less table time per combat. As this was a stated design goal, I suspect that WotC agrees. Their solution simply didn't solve the problem.

Man... did your professors ever write "wordy" on your essays in college?

My responce to this (outside of it doesn't really have anything to dow ith the shroedinger's wounding thing) is that your comments seem to imply starting from the idea that combat isn't fun.

Since combat has always seemed to take up a large percentage of room in the rules (in all editions) it's easy to infer combat is fun. (Or at least that the majority of D&D playes find combat in the game fun.)

Instead of making it shorter, why not make it more fun? I find 4e fights sometimes do take a long time to resolve, but I don't notice that time, because the fight was fun. It's not just the same thing over and over, and the "pace" of the action in the game is faster.

Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't exist if you choose not to have game terms have direct meaning in the narration (i.e., choose not to narrate damage or healing in this particular case). But that seems rather....lame.....to me.

This is untrue and exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. You're ignoring elements of the rules in order to force shroedingers wounding into happening.

Schrödinger's Wounding isn't a problem in episodic play, where the DM can narrate the players into extended rests to recover from damage that doesn't actually track to hit point loss.

The minute you get into the sandbox, though, Schrödinger's Wounding is there glaring at you.

No- it's not.

At most your issue is with the rate of healing. But this has nothing to do with a wound being either a wound or not a wound depending on whether or not an inspiring word or some other healing effect is used.

 

[Derren]

Once again provided you ignore elements of the rules in order to create a situation you can find fault with. (Which I guess IS kind of like politicians...)

So, what am I ignoring?
1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dying(I haven't said that this is the only hit he took)
2. Because this guy can recover by his own, can be shouted into action or can actually be healed by magic the nature of the hit he took can't be specified at this point.
3. Only after the the character got healed can you say how he was wounded based on the method of how he was healed. (But I wanted to use the sentence "can neither confirm nor deny" as joke).

Hrmmm lots of versimilitude (soooo sick of that buzz word) in my games... Wonder what you're doing difefrently? (Aside from ignoring rules elements in order to break versimilitude...)

Then we likely have different standards. As Raven said, when you run a sandbox, my prefered style of gaming, Shroedingers Wounds becomes obvious.
And if people wouldn't instantly dismiss any argument with "its fantasy with wizards" when I use the word "realism" I wouldn't have to use versimilitude