Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[NewJeffCT]

The problem here is two-fold. If the healing surge is magical in nature; you get around the narrative problem, but suddenly the nature of the world is much different (characters all have this wierd innate magical healing power). If the healing surge is mundane (which is my take on most healing surges in 4E) then the character goes from having a serious wound to being instantly better because his leader said some reasurring words and he dug deep. This isn't a problem if your narrative is pretty abstract. But if you are like me and like to describe what the 15 points of damage means in terms of the PC getting cut it creates problems.

So, perhaps the question should be - are healing surges magical in nature, be they divine, arcane, psionic, martial or natural?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, perhaps the question should be - are healing surges magical in nature, be they divine, arcane, psionic, martial or natural?

For me, them being magical or non-magical both present problems (for my style and preferences). If healing surges work for other people, that is great. But I've had several years now to get used to the idea and have it explained to me in different ways. They just take more away from the game than they add for me.

 

[NewJeffCT]

For me, them being magical or non-magical both present problems (for my style and preferences). If healing surges work for other people, that is great. But I've had several years now to get used to the idea and have it explained to me in different ways. They just take more away from the game than they add for me.

I guess I don't see how they're different in combat, but that's just my opinion.

Out of combat, I'd agree that it's a lot easier to heal up in 4E without magic than in previous editions, especially 1E. Of course, in 1E/2E, it was also easier to stabilize a person without magic - an ally only had to reach the person and they were stabilized. In 3E/4E, you need to make a Heal check before you can stabilize them.

 

[Mark CMG]

To be fair I think the poster who used that example was just speaking casually. I can see a GM saying you have a fatal wound; where he is technically meaning to say you have a potentially fatal wound.

No doubt. Just having some fun with the language.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

What I tend to do, as player and as DM is to describe wounds differently depending on dropping, clear death, and not dropping a character or monster.

e.g I pretty much always assume bleeding out from -1 to -9. It's corrected by bandaging/a heal check/any magical healing at all and it's continuous damage that accrues over time.

I generally assume characters in this health bracket have a life threatening injury that can be corrected fairly easily. I'll answer the challenge with a couple of examples:

1. The troll's claws scrape across your wrist, opening up an artery. 15' spurts of blood jet out from the arm with each pump of your heart. You go down.

2. The troll pummels your head. Things go black, along with a trickle of blood coming out of your nose and eyes. There may be internal bleeding. It could be mitigated, perhaps by some repositioning, stuffing gauze into your nose, or some other factor.



That's generally how I narrate wounds at this level. If the troll killed the pc outright, it'd be more like: It rips your arms from your body; It turns your head into bloody pulp like a squashed orange; It picks you up and bites out your entrails.

And of course, regular (non negative) wounds are bruises, scrapes, cuts, sprains, contusions, lacerations, etc.




EDIT TO ADD:

Describing auto stabilizing.

1. You fall to the ground grotesquely, your body a marionette with suddently cut strings. The weight of your body falls upon your bleeding arm, but is not enough to staunch the flow of blood. (Then in two rounds they stabilize.) It seems the blood pooling under <the character> has ceased to expand at such an alarming rate...either they've bled out entirely, or by some miracle, the pressure on the arm, and the decreased blood pressure from so much loss has acted as a tourniquet, possibly allowing minimal clotting as well.

2. Each round you flop around, seizure-like, slow blood oozing from several orifices in your head. (Then in two rounds they stabilize.) Your flopping and siezing seem to have somehow repositioned your head or the musculature has pressed against the microtears in your organs, or perhaps inflammation has kicked in and closed the wounds. You got lucky this time. I woudn't go around banging my head against anything for a couple of weeks, though.


Describing healing to disabled:

1. You don't know how long you've been out. There's crusty blood on the floor below you. Your blood. Your arm has a giant scab on it, is still bleeding, albeit very slowly, and you feel very, very woozy. Anything more than the most timid and gentle actions could cause a fall, or could increase your heart rate and bleeding...and you're in no position to open up this wound or take any more blood loss.

2. Your eyes open. The splitting headache is painful and dizzying. Take it easy...sudden movements could cause another loss of consiousness...or worse. Whatever plug has stopped the internal bleeding could easily be loosened if you try much more than a slow walk.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Umm, no? That interpretation isn't supported by the 3e mechanics. The character has a pretty darn good chance of not dying, all on his own. If you describe the wound as being fatal unless this guy gets help, then you've gone beyond the mechanics until such time as he actually dies because no wound in 3e is automatically fatal unless you get help.

So, you can describe this as a potentially fatal wound, but, that's as far as you can go. After all, this guy can get better all on his own. And, in fact, has even odds of doing so.

Um, he doesn't have the odds of recovering on his own. According to Herremann, if you're at -5 and you've got five shots at stabilizing before death, then you've got a 41% chance of stabilizing. Okay, that's a sizable chunk. So, we'll be generous and say that you stabilize every three rolls (fail, fail, succeed). You've stabilized at -7. Yay, right?

According to RAW, this is what it looks like without help:

Recovering without Help
A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own.

A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing.

Even once he becomes conscious and is disabled, an unaided character still does not recover hit points naturally. Instead, each day he has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, he loses 1 hit point.

Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, he is no longer in danger of naturally losing hit points (even if his current hit point total is negative).

So, you roll each hour, with a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. I said every two rolls, so you wake up at -9. However, you're still at -9, and you still don't recover wounds naturally, you've still got to roll 10% chances. Which means, yes, you lose another hit point and die at -10.

So, yeah, it's supported by 3.X mechanics. Without help, that character will almost certainly die.

But, y'know what? I'm breaking my own rules. The point of all of this wasn't to critique every example. Herreman, you've given a pretty reasonable example, so, score one there.

Yay!

JC, I'm sorry, but your example is not supported by RAW. Trying to say that an infection is somehow not a disease is not accepted. Please try again.

I never saw that coming

No, nothing I've said has broken RAW. It's a grey area, and I can see your argument, but I'm also okay being wrong on it. And the reason why is because you're making the issue about descriptions of wounds, and not narrative paths from the wounds received. Substitute recovering from any serious wound with my infection in my example and you can see the difference.

Instead of an infection, substitute it with a club blow to the base of the skull and neck, or an axe that digs into the meat of their shoulder before the head it flat-bladed across their face, or a spear piercing your leg above the knee, and shock taking over while blood pools.

Yeah, you can have these descriptions in 4e, but you can't have the long term effects, which is what I've been saying in the thread that spawned this one. Go ahead and replace the "infection" I used in my example with nearly any other serious-sounding wound. It's not whether or not the description can be used in 4e that's in question, it's whether or not the wound can change the story like it could in 3.X.

In my example, you have a serious wound that takes five days to heal before magic (and about another eight without it), a party drops everything to care for that one character, moving each day to get him to safety and to a town. If he had stayed up, the story would have been them continuing on their quest. That long term wound changed the story, and that's where I'm saying 3.X has more narrative opportunities than 4e when it comes to wounds taken. If the wound would have healed overnight, the party picks it back up the next day and continues, in 3.X or in 4e. If he dies, they leave either way. If he's injured for a few days, they pack up, take off for a town, and come back when he's healed, and that's not possible with natural healing rules by RAW in 4e. Thus, 3.X offers more narrative paths than 4e when it comes to natural healing.

So far we have one example where the narrative space in 3e is larger than in 4e. Fair enough. The point of this exercise is to bury me in examples. if the narrative space is that much larger, then I should be getting tons of examples. We've got one pretty clear one. Let's get some more.

You're hunting for the wrong thing. You're saying, "there should be more narrative space, you said so!" I've clarified, saying that it's not about description, it's about how the long term wound can change the story. And, once again, it's "then why aren't I hearing tons of examples of descriptions available in 3.X that aren't in 4e?" Well, because that's not where I said 3.X had more narrative paths, that's why.

Name me as many different wound descriptions as you can that sound like they could be serious. You seem to think there are a lot that would work in 3.X or in 4e, so it shouldn't be hard. Plug the serious injury ones into my example, strip out the infection stuff, and track the story. If it differs from what 4e is able to offer by RAW on natural healing because it opens up a new path for the story to take, then I think 3.X offers more narrative paths in that context.

It keeps coming back to specifics of the wound, and that's sidestepping what we were talking about in the other thread (which, according to you, is what caused this spin-off). If you want to keep the topic the same, it's only fair that you don't sidestep what we were talking about, then somehow try to prove us wrong by pointing at stuff we never said as some sort of "gotcha".

I've mentioned it's not about realism, and it's not about specific wounds. It's about the effects the wounds (purely HP damage) have on the story. In this regard, I think 3.X has more narrative paths (healed overnight, dead, and healed in a couple days to a couple weeks) than 4e (healed overnight, dead). That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm not saying 4e is a bad system. I'd never say that about any system. I'm all for playing in a type of game you enjoy. It's not meant to be a value judgment, since some people like the feel of it, obviously. I was just pointing out that, for me and my group, we dislike the feel of it, and I'd like to see narrative paths open up. There was a debate on whether or not past editions allowed more narrative paths, and here we are.

Do you at least understand what I'm trying to communicate? I'm trying to civilly discuss what caused this entire thing. I'm trying to let you know -with clarity and civility- what I've been trying to say. I just feel like you're ignoring that to "win" something in this thread, and that's not something I'm very interested in. You're trying to "win" in regards to description, which isn't something I even commented on in the first place. As of yet, you haven't really acknowledged that you even know what I think myself or Herremann are trying to point out. I hope I'm not muddling it up somehow. As always, play what you like

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Again it is your context here. The character has been whacked into the negatives by a big troll, blood spurting everywhere and pooling under the character's unmoving skull. I think that qualifies as serious enough that the PC needs urgent attention otherwise they will die. If with that description, the character got up naturally at capacity, I think I'd feel entitled to feel a disconnect between what the DM is describing and what the mechanics are saying.

Umm, no? That interpretation isn't supported by the 3e mechanics. The character has a pretty darn good chance of not dying, all on his own.

No he doesn't. His chance of dying on his own is almost certain because he has to make a 10% roll to stabilise, followed by a 10% roll to become conscious followed by a 10% roll to actually heal naturally (It is this last one that is crucial). Only if he can jump through each of these hoops before he hits -10 (or negative con score in Pathfinder) will he survive on his own and that was what I was referring to by saying the PC was in great peril unless aided. If tended to with first aid (Heal check DC 15) then the probability of the situation reverses because if tended the PC is allowed to regain hit points naturally (where as if not tended they don't). The other rule of note here is the massive damage rule allowing a fort save that if failed results in instant death from massive damage. This rule of course has a heap of issues at higher levels though.

If you describe the wound as being fatal unless this guy gets help, then you've gone beyond the mechanics until such time as he actually dies because no wound in 3e is automatically fatal unless you get help.

I'd have to set it up in excel but I think you would find that the chance of survival on one's own at -5hp is less than 1%. So not certainly fatal but practically so. [An approximate calculation for this is an at best 0.499 % - that is slightly less than half of one percent or roughly a 1 in 200 chance of survival!]

So, you can describe this as a potentially fatal wound, but, that's as far as you can go. After all, this guy can get better all on his own. And, in fact, has even odds of doing so.

As I intimated above no. He most certainly does not have an even chance on his own, his chances are at best 1 in 200. I don't like them odds.

But, y'know what? I'm breaking my own rules. The point of all of this wasn't to critique every example. Herreman, you've given a pretty reasonable example, so, score one there.
So far we have one example where the narrative space in 3e is larger than in 4e. Fair enough. The point of this exercise is to bury me in examples. if the narrative space is that much larger, then I should be getting tons of examples. We've got one pretty clear one. Let's get some more.

It is easy to come up with countless examples of wounding descriptions that are "serious" wounds that would not be healed from in a day naturally. It would be nice if you could look at the "general" statements that have been made explaining why the narrative space for such descriptions has been decreased, rather than pestering people for specific examples that they most probably couldn't really care that much about to bother typing.

In short:
3E allows for fatal, serious and flesh wounds.
4E allows for fatal or flesh wounds.

[Get a group of high level 4e PCs together and have them ponder how many times a serious injury has stopped them adventuring the next day. "Well the DM kept describing them as bad but they kept on just being flesh wounds that I could heroically march on with ignoring while at full capacity). The funny thing is a group of high level 3e PCs would come to the same conclusion, except that they took serious wounds that were then magically (rather than the typically natural insta-healing of 4e) healed with a magic stick.

3E typically has magical healing which can "falsely" expand the narrative space.
4E occasionally has "warlord healing" which can reduce the narrative space.

However, both systems are not perfect. And in fact healing in 3e despite being slightly more palatable than 4e's insta-healing still has a whole heap of issues (one of them being that it is still too quick). As Saeviomagy points out with assistance (Heal check DC 15) you can speed someone's healing up to 4hps per level per day (complete bed rest round the clock).

The stupid thing with this is that the unhealthy 5th level wizard with negative con penalties can be fully healed within a day [which if you use a little bit of narrative trickery makes some sort of immediate (if not long term) sense as it can in 4e] while the hale 5th level barbarian who rolled big for his hit points and has a huge con bonus will take days to heal under similar optimum circumstances. This is obviously CRAP! but as I say, I don't like how any edition of D&D handles hit points, damage and healing and would LOVE it if they actually did something about it in 5e. Just because (I think) I have shown that the narrative space in 3e is larger than 4e for wound descriptions does not mean two nobs of goats poop in the larger picture that neither system supports the DM in reliably describing the damage done to the PCs in their game. It is purely up to the DM to make the best out of the (usually exciting if narratively confusing) mechanics they are provided with.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[NewJeffCT]

In short:
3E allows for fatal, serious and flesh wounds.
4E allows for fatal or flesh wounds.

3E typically has magical healing which can "falsely" expand the narrative space.
4E occasionally has "warlord healing" which can reduce the narrative space.

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s, and I can't recall a time a player has been left alone without access to any allies and/or healing for an extended period of time (falling down a pit, getting kidnapped, etc, can happen, but those don't involve extended periods, and kidnappers usually want their hostage alive). Sure, back in 1E days, somebody would have to spend a week in bed recovering from being dropped below 0, but the party cleric would be there to heal them when possible. In theory, a PC on their own without access to allies and/or healing can happen, but in practice, I can't recall a time when it happened.

In regards to the second part, to me, you can just as easily say:
3E has healing which can change the narrative
4E has healing which can change the narrative

And, 1E/2E have healing that can change the narrative, but not quite as dramatically as newer editions.

 

[billd91]

In regards to the second part, to me, you can just as easily say:
3E has healing which can change the narrative
4E has healing which can change the narrative

And, 1E/2E have healing that can change the narrative, but not quite as dramatically as newer editions.

I think there has to be a better way of defining "changing the narrative."

Magical healing post injury, which is what you have in 1e-3e, changes the narrative by adding to the narrative that's already in place. It's not really changing the narrative by replacing what was already there.

But people have been saying that 4e healing surges do change the narrative already put in place or at least make it hard to define a narrative until the potential for a healing surge has been resolved.

That may point to an answer of how 4e plays in a different groove than its predecessors. Don't over-narrate too early in 4e.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

4E has healing which can change the narrative

Actually that's a fair point. While I still maintain that there's a big hole where the "serious but not fatal injury" narrative used to be (and thus a limiting of the narrative spectrum regarding damage descriptions as per Hussar's thread premise), Warlord Healing is most certainly viable and legitimate and certainly opens up fun narrative options during combat.

For me the ideal system would be splitting capacity for action into both hit points and physical capacity for damage. A warlord's "healing capacity" should have a generous effect on a target's hit points (be that inspiring allies with hit point gains or demoralizing enemies with hit point losses). A warlord's words though should have zero effect on a PCs physical capacity for damage (only the mental attitude, toughness and capacity to deal with that damage).

The ideal becomes then that hit points are restored quickly while physical damage is healed naturally and slowly (unless of course divine magic is used to good effect). By doing things in this way, every damn corner case, issue, paradox or problem of conventional D&D hit points can be dealt with in one fell swoop.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise