The "real" reason the game has changed.

[BryonD]

It is a rare game where mechanics don't infuence and/or even dictate playstyle and 4e certainly isn't one of them, then again neither was 3e. You are correct that taste is going to dictate your preference here.

I'm not talking about playstyle. You are correct there, but that is a completely different point.

I'm talking about the actual flow of events.

Role play defines events and THEN mechanics resolve the outcome

is very different from

Mechanics defines the events and THEN the player provides narrative to connect the dots.

 

[rounser]

But, 4E, for me, goes exactly the wrong direction. It says you are going to ignore this anyway, so we won't even bother to worry about it.

Yep, even the name is poorly chosen, given that no healing is involved so far as the explanations to explain it are concerned. The whole thing just comes across as a half-baked design convenience with only awkward mapping to real world concepts. And unlike movies, we can see the rules, which means suspension of disbelief is more easily broken by such gamist design conveniences.

It's arguably worse than the problem it sought to solve IMO, because at least you can "buy" the concept of natural or magical healing without contorted explanations requiring specific examples from other media forms which arguably don't even map to RPGs in terms of what each can get away with.

 

[fumetti]

Now earlier editions had lists as well, but the confines of those lists werent as constrictive because they didnt have a list for everything, as you listed of choices of "feats, skills, powers"...this isnt character growth but power growth.

I agree that 4E feels this way. The emphasis on feats and powers feels that character growth is gameplayed via power growth. I liken 4E to Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Morrowind in that regard.

Some will argue the opposite, that the many choices of feats and powers is actually an advancement in diversity of character and character growth (but that again is defining the character by its stats). And really, that shouldn't necessarily be the case.

So a big question as to why that sort of change, maybe people have moved away from telling the character story, and more to wanting a game for combat simulation, so the game offers that to them and has changed to become that. And no one can really deny the move more towards combat and that more people playing today prefer the combat

Ardent defenders of 4E seem to not see this, or just acknowledge it in their posts. Not sure why. The books and thrust of WOTC seem to support this in every way.

Nowhere have I found the 4E rulebooks suggest skipping past any part of conflict, as they have the non-combat activity.

Actually it isnt different, and the commitment is none different they make to their spouse.

If you can equate one's commitment to a game hobby to one's commitment to a marriage, then we live in completely different realities.

 

[fumetti]

This is an interesting one. I think 4e has some better rules for improvisation than 3e (page 42 etc.) BUT because the powers seem so codified and ingrained it might be hard for people to "go off script" as it were. I've certainly noticed, especially early on, that I had to remind players they were not limited to the actions spelled out on their power cards durring combat (they are in big letters, sometimes even in color).

Exactly what I've been trying to say, especially regarding new players. 4E Powers (and Spells especially) are written in combat encounter terms only and therefore appear useful only in that capacity.

It takes a seasoned gamer, who has experience playing editions that expressed these powers/spells more broadly, to see past this.

 

[fumetti]

OK to both, how well does the healing mechanics in 4th allow you and your players to tell a story? Would you expect anyone to be at a real threat and out of commission, or just wake up fresh as a daisy tomorrow?

Does health play a concern in your story telling?

I will let others fight over 3rd and 4th, I am just wondering about 4th specifically since it has been a while now that it has been out.

To me it just seems you have to shape the story around the mechanics more than other editions.

Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality. That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying. How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health? Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself? In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.

 

[Hussar]

You seem to be suggesting that this is something you could not have done in 3E. Is that what you are saying? And if so, why?
/quote

Sure, I could have done this in 3e. RAW would be over in the corner having a bit of a lie down, but, sure, I can ignore the rules in 3e completely. Let me rephrase that a little. It's something that probably would never occur to me to try in 3e since 3e mechanics are very strongly linked to the in game reality. Why use a heavily simulationist system if you're not going to simulate the ingame reality?

The difference is that in 4e, I can do it without actually violating any rules and actually do it completely in accordance with the spirit of the rules.

Nowhere have I found the 4E rulebooks suggest skipping past any part of conflict, as they have the non-combat activity.

I'd like to see an example of "skipping past conflict" in any edition. Why would you ever skip over a conflict? Isn't the entire point of sitting down at the table to overcome conflicts, either combat or not?

However, giving a new DM advice that says, "Hey, you really don't have to sweat the small stuff. No one really cares if you had pork and beans for dinner usually. If your group does, more power to you, but, as a rule of thumb, you can ignore this" is pretty darn good advice in my book.

Let's be honest here, do you actually play out what the characters ate at every meal? Do you insist on detailed accounting of cooking methodology? Do you require the PC's to get enough fiber in their diet?

Don't sweat the small stuff is pretty darn good general DMing advice.

 

[fumetti]

The difference between 4e and 3e on this front is an illusion. In 3e the cleric simply unloads all of his healing spells before a rest (or converts any spells left into healing etc.) and everyone rises "fresh as a daisy" as you put it - 4e merely took away the handwaiving.

I would say this is true for any campaign that has conveniently cast aside issues of timekeeping, resource management, and wandering monster encounters. Just say the days have passed and the cleric healed everybody up. With the large beginning HP in 4E, a 1st level cleric would otherwise need weeks to heal a badly wounded party.

As to being out of commission, the healing surge mechanic provides a way for the players to really feal threatened. I've been reading a lot of Robert E. Howard's Conan recently and the healing surge mechanic would actually do the storytelling justice. If nothing else, it FINALY separates healing from clerics and divine magic so the group does not have to be so reliant on the healer at any level worth mentioning.

I never feel threatened by having surges. They always bail me out. In fact, they encourage more reckless behavior because the loss of HP has less impact. I can simply regenerate them.

The best defense I can give surges is that HP now includes fatigue, and that the damage I took early in the encounter wasn't physical damage , it just drained my energy a few points. Thus, "second wind." But that then begs the question of types of damage and continuing damage. How can a "second wind" overcome the effects of poison, etc.?

 

[Hussar]

Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality. That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying. How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health? Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself? In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.

The problem here is that you have determined the narrative before you know the results. How serious was that wound you took when you lost 10 hit points? In D&D (and this is edition independent) you lose no capabilities as you lose hit points.

A character at 100% is just as effective as a character at 1% of hit points.

So, how wounded are your really? 4e takes the approach that the all wounds, save the one that kills you, are superficial. Which fits with the hit point mechanic nicely. You're an action hero, bleeding from lots of cuts, one eye maybe swollen shut and the next day, you're right back at it.

Earlier editions pretty much ignored the issue since most healing was done magically anyway. It was fairly uncommon to actually heal naturally IME. ((Yes, yes, in the back there, I know YOU always healed naturally, but, I think most groups sacrificed at least one player to the Cleric Grenade)) so it never really comes up.

I can understand not liking the approach. It's far less simulationist than earlier editions, but, it's not really all that different at the end of the day.

 

[Mallus]

How can a "second wind" overcome the effects of poison, etc.?

Why doesn't D&D combat in prior editions ever result in broken bones, limb loss, or even blood loss (unless a character is struck by a rare magic weapon, cf. sword of wounding)?

I believe the answers are related.

 

[Mort]

Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality. That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying. How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health? Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself? In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.

I strongly disagree with this!

1) Healing surges are essentially reserve hit points with narrative control going mostly to the players - this is a good thing and allows for the players to control the flow of the game a bit better.

2) Healing surges have finally divorced the party from absolute reliance on a cleric and/or other divine healing. Big boost for worlds where Divine is rare or non-existant.

3) Fatigue rules can actually be made not to suck! Fail endrance check - lose a healing surge - you may be at full hit points but still almost walking dead! Check out the DMG page 159 Starvation, Thirst and Suffocation - IMO best modeling of this in any eddition - possible because of healing surges.

4) Same for some rituals - love the rituals that cost the caster a healing surge - again a great way to simulate fatigue (knock for example actually has a tangible cost outside of just time and money).

5) Diseases are now workable and nasty - losing healing surges can be bad, very bad, even though the player is not out of commission.

Healing surges were one of the best inventions of 4e - heck when I do a 3e game I might try to figure out a way to port them in (probably not, the feel would be too off, but I'd be tempted).