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

[SteveC]

This discussion is still going on. Wow. I guess the idea that "we've been arguing about Hit Points and what they represent for over 30 years," doesn't mean that folks still won't keep trying to sort them all out.

Last weekend I played in a couple of 4E games, which is fantastic because I am usually the poor soul who runs, and this problem didn't come up. Not even once. We had seven combat encounters between the two games, with some great narration in most of the cases, and not once did anyone complain.

I was thinking about this thread as we were playing, and took some time to talk to the GMs and the other players about it. The consensus, to a person, was that I was thinking about it too much. All of that leads me to this conclusion: hong is right. Sometimes we think about our pretending to be elves too much.

That isn't to say that if you're still on an earlier edition you're doing it wrong, but man, I had a great time pretending to be an elf once I stopped worrying about this issue. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but I'm out of this sort of debate.

--Steve

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Once, trying to clearly express an idea in unambiguous terms, I wrote several paragraphs. A classmate then summarized the same with three words.

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.

Combat can be fun. It isn't always fun. In 3e, as levels rise, combat becomes less and less fun, IMHO. In 4e, about the last third of any combat is a grind, and seriously unfun. Again, IMHO.

I tend to think that for combat to be fun, it has to be both fast-paced and over in a short amount of time. Any combat that takes more than 10-20 minutes of real time to resolve risks boring the participants.

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.)

I would say it infers that it is important in terms of adjudication, and lends itself easier to create clear rules for, than other aspects of the game which might, in point of fact, be more fun for the participants. Example: almost everyone I've ever played with enjoyed talking to monsters that actually embody a different point of view. There are few, if any, rules for this, both because they are not needed, and because they would be difficult (if even possible) to write well.

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.

I have issues about both.

Please do not presume to tell me what I have issues with!


RC

 

[The Little Raven]

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

Sandbox gameplay has nothing to do with this supposed "Schrodinger's Wounding" problem, so please stop trying to make these entirely separate concepts parts of the same issue. If you were running a linear adventure, you'd still have the problem you claim to have.

 

[Scribble]

So, what I am ignoring?
1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dieing(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).

What you're ignoring is the healing surge.

In 4e healing suges have been added as an element that works in tandem with hit points.

When you take a hit, and you get a healing word, you still have to spend a healing surge. This means you're down a healing surge, and are no longer at 100%

You're simply able to push on through whatever injuries you have.

There's no waiting or retconning involved. Describe the injury all you want.

Then we likely have different standards. As Raven said, when you run a sandbox, my prefered style of gaming, Shroedingers Wounds becomes obvious.

And this is something that really bugs me in these threads. When someone tries to dismiss what you're saying (which is based on the actual rules of the game) by devolving down to "Oh well you must just have low standards..."

Bull.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sandbox gameplay has nothing to do with this supposed "Schrodinger's Wounding" problem, so please stop trying to make these entirely separate concepts parts of the same issue. If you were running a linear adventure, you'd still have the problem you claim to have.

Not really. I can fully see the point LostSoul (and others) are making about disjoining the narration from the game mechanics, provided that this disjoining doesn't cause problems further down the line.

In episodic play, the DM can narrate a healing break between episodes, thus removing the problems that arise from this disjoining (unless the "episode" runs on for game days or game weeks, anyway).

In sandbox play, it is generally anathema for the DM to tell the players what they must do, so there is nothing enforcing an extended rest to allow the narration to rejoin with the game mechanics. You could change the rules to make it so, but then we wouldn't be discussing the 4e rules anymore. In having this discussion several times on a few threads, I have seen some pretty good house rules to deal with this problem. They might create other problems, though; I don't know for sure how any of these house rules are in terms of actual game play.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And this is something that really bugs me in these threads. When someone tries to dismiss what you're saying (which is based on the actual rules of the game) by devolving down to "Oh well you must just have low standards..."

Bull.

Please note that "different standards" does not mean "lower standards".


RC

 

[Scribble]

Once, trying to clearly express an idea in unambiguous terms, I wrote several paragraphs. A classmate then summarized the same with three words.

Shrug... It seems Gygax was your inspiration in more ways then one...

Great mind on the guy, but man... He too tended to be a bit on the wordy side.

Anyway I was just teasing, and hopefully not in an offending way.

Combat can be fun. It isn't always fun. In 3e, as levels rise, combat becomes less and less fun, IMHO. In 4e, about the last third of any combat is a grind, and seriously unfun. Again, IMHO.

I agree with the first part... The last part I say CAN sometiems happen, but it isn't a given. In my opinion. I think it has to do with how the DM sets up the battle, and the elements in that battle. (Including the terrain, the objects, traps, and how the monsters relate to the above.)

I tend to think that for combat to be fun, it has to be both fast-paced and over in a short amount of time. Any combat that takes more than 10-20 minutes of real time to resolve risks boring the participants.

I can respect your personal prefferece, but I dissagree. A long combat can be fun as long as there are different things happening. If it devolves into simply "I hit, you hit" then yeah... It gets old real fast.

I would say it infers that it is important in terms of adjudication, and lends itself easier to create clear rules for, than other aspects of the game which might, in point of fact, be more fun for the participants. Example: almost everyone I've ever played with enjoyed talking to monsters that actually embody a different point of view. There are few, if any, rules for this, both because they are not needed, and because they would be difficult (if even possible) to write well.

Maybe maybe not. A lot of people seemed to enjoy live action Vampire... The rules I remember for combat and such seemed to boil down to rock paper scissors... I'm guessing combat wasn't the part people who played the game thought was more fun. (But I could be wrong...)

I have issues about both.

Please do not presume to tell me what I have issues with!


RC

I'm not. What I meant was the only part I can see you having any basis in the reality of the rules would be healing time, as schroedingers wounding doesn't exist. You can still have an issue with it... But then you're having issues with soemthing that doesn't exist.

I have issues with the guy standing behind me about to chop me up with an ax... Pretty easy to solve that one thoug... since there isn't really a guy standing behind me with an ax.

 

[Shadeydm]

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

Well since we have switched to 4E I have noticed a glaring absence of hit/wound description, perhaps this is also related to the fact that our healer/leader is a warlord.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Shrug... It seems Gygax was your inspiration in more ways then one...

Great mind on the guy, but man... He too tended to be a bit on the wordy side.

Nah, I was wordy before I became familiar with the man's work. You can't blame Gary for my personal failings.

Anyway I was just teasing, and hopefully not in an offending way.

Don't worry.


RC

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I'd say that it takes a constant barrage of working to CREATE the problem, in the form of assigning impossibility to occurrences which the game itself does not declare or hint at being anything other than the status quo.

The game itself never states that for the protagonist heroes in its epic fantasy world, healing from any wounds short of fatal ones is not achievable by seemingly non-magical effects, or that it cannot happen in periods of time which would seem amazing in our non-fantastical real world.

The rules seem to support the opposite view, in fact. Thus, the game itself isn't creating a logical inconsistency or a gap in internal realism. It's just presenting a world which is apparently a bit TOO magically adventurous for you. The only contradiction, the only conflict which requires all of this "constant working" you refer to, is overlaid onto the game from the outside, from the pre-conceived ideas of gamers.

I have a pre-conception that people absolutely cannot shoot fireballs out of their hands. All of my experience agrees with this, therefore any world in which people CAN do this is obviously unrealistic. So if a game appears to allow for this absurdity, then the GAME ITSELF must be broken, and I need to "constantly work" to reconcile this disconnect so that the game world makes sense to me.

That sounds silly, right? Well, have you considered the possibility that you're doing the exact same thing?

You have the same pre-formed idea about how quickly and under what circumstances a wounded fantasy hero can heal physical injuries. The game doesn't support your idea, though, in rules OR in descriptive text. You're putting that contradictory concept into the game, yourself, and then saying that the game itself has this inner flaw which causes a narrative/gameplay disconnect. But it's your imagination, not the game.

Just accept the premise that the game itself clearly indicates, which is that real healing can come from a variety of sources, many of them not overtly "magical" in an Arcane or Divine sense, and that a protagonist HERO in this fantastical world can, in fact, be savaged to death's doorstep today, and be healthy as a horse tomorrow, even WITHOUT the glowy hands of a cleric getting involved.

All the problems go away at that point.

The rules also don't say that humans aren't purple with antennas and eat through giant nostrils. Maybe that is the way humans are in this world too. We all set different levels of abstraction from our real world when we set up and play in a campaign. From earlier discussions it is also apparent that some people also have issues with people shooting fireballs out of their hands and want to play in a low fantasy world.

Sure its possible that all living creatures heal super fast and recover all their wounds overnight. This is a perfectly valid parameter change from our real world to want to play in. The difference in this case is that all players are forced to play in this super healing world while not everyone is required to play purple antenna humans that eat out of giant nostrils. Most other fantasy aspects of the game are easy to change out if it goes against the type of fantasy they want to play. It is easy to remove Elves, or Dwarves, or Fireballs, it is allot harder to throw out super healing with this ruleset.