Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[DEFCON 1]

To me D&D isn't all about the combat, but when combat occurs I like it to be consistent and plausible (not a physics engine however). So insta-mundane healing creates a problem for me.

Exactly. You pick and choose which parts of combat to consider consistent and plausible and which parts to consider inconsistent and implausible. Which is absolutely your right. If it works for you, you play the game, if it doesn't, you don't.

I just don't think you can blame Wizards for creating a game that has these supposed inconsistencies and implausibilities, which some folks in these threads seemingly have been prone to do. As though they were all set to play 'Dungeons & Dragons 4E', but now they can't because WotC had the gall to put in these rules they don't like. If you don't want to play 4E, no big deal. No skin off anyone's nose. But some folks come across as genuinely offended that they can't play 4E because WotC somehow screwed everything up.

Maybe I'm just reading way too much into the postings here. Could be. However based upon the vitriol many people seem to spew towards Wizards for ALL MANNER of reasons indicates to me that I probably ain't too far off. And that's what just boggles my mind... seemingly being actually upset that the game now includes rules that they just don't like.

EDIT: And that's where a lot of posts like mine are coming from. Trying to point out that perhaps that anger is a bit misplaced, because inconsistency and implausiblilty can be found everywhere within the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am not picking and choosing. Have criticisms of pre 4e as well. However they Were much less problematic for me than 4es healing surges and daily/encounter powers. Dont mistake my opinion for vitriol. 4e doesn't work for me with my assumptions and expectations of style. However they definitely made a game that appeals strongly to a core fanbase. I don't fault them for that. It is just that 4e isn't what I am looking for in D&D.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am not picking and choosing. Have criticisms of pre 4e as well.

You're not picking and choosing? So you're saying that certain parts of D&D combat (regardless of edition) are consistent and plausible as a matter of absolute fact? That no one's choosing to consider it consistent and plausible... it just is.

I suspect that if you were to present those parts that you deem as inarguably consistent and plausible... there will be plenty of us who will give all manner of examples why they aren't.

You might find certain parts consistent and plausible as an absolute... but that won't be true for all of us. And thus you will have chosen which parts to consider that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're not picking and choosing? So you're saying that certain parts of D&D combat (regardless of edition) are consistent and plausible as a matter of absolute fact? That no one's choosing to consider it consistent and plausible... it just is.

I suspect that if you were to present those parts that you deem as inarguably consistent and plausible... there will be plenty of us who will give all manner of examples why they aren't.

You might find certain parts consistent and plausible as an absolute... but that won't be true for all of us. And thus you will have chosen which parts to consider that way.

I don't believe I am. Like I said I have criticisms of 1e, 2e and 3e but for me those systems haven't presented as many problems for me. And the way healing worked prior to surges just never produced the glaring inconsistency of "what I just said happened to your character never happened." By no means do I think this is a universal or objective experience. I am sure there are people who find 4e plausible but take issue with elements of 3e. But like i've said before, played 2e and 3e for a decade each and founf them maneagable for my style. I was excited about the release of 4e because I did want more balance restored to the game, but the surges and the power strucutre just created too many inconsistencies for me. If you feel different about it or had a different experience that is totally valid. Not trying to tell anyone they are having badwrongfun.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But some folks come across as genuinely offended that they can't play 4E because WotC somehow screwed everything up.

Maybe I'm just reading way too much into the postings here. Could be. However based upon the vitriol many people seem to spew towards Wizards for ALL MANNER of reasons indicates to me that I probably ain't too far off. And that's what just boggles my mind... seemingly being actually upset that the game now includes rules that they just don't like.

I have not seen anyone genuinely offended ,spewing vitriol or upset in this thread so maybe you are best to aim such comments in a thread where such things do indeed happen; I'm sure you won't find it too difficult to find one or go somewhere different to EN World and start one that will. I have seen however vigorous discussion of ideas which hopefully has been entertaining and informative for people from both perspectives.

I understand completely that's not how most of you look at the game. Which is fine. I just don't really care.

If you don't care about what a large proportion of posters on this thread are saying then perhaps it might be best if you just back out of the thread and leave it to those who do care.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Pentius]

I don't believe games are novels either (in fact I hate when it is just me riding out the GMs "story"). But I do want continuity, consistency and believability as a player. Sure it is a game, but it isn't a game like pong or risk. For me D&D is a game where I take on the role of a hero and get immersed in a living world. Things that create inconsistencies in the setting or our party's history I find quite disruptive.

I don't see how the mechanics are preventing this. Maybe it's a differing assumption on what the mechanics are doing? For example, a previous poster used the example of an orc cutting a player open. The mechanics of D&D, any edition, have never told me "The orc's blade slashes across your abdomen and your guts spill out." They tell me that the orc's attack is successful and that the target loses HP(presumably to less than 0 of them). The narrative is up to the player(or the DM, in this case). That gives you enough rope to hang yourself, sure, but I wouldn't call it creating an inconsistency. 'Creating' is a much higher standard of responsibility than I think the mechanics bear here. I don't really see them doing much more than giving very basic outlines for a narrative("Did the orc get a hit in? Sure." "Is the character in fighting shape? No.")

And the way healing worked prior to surges just never produced the glaring inconsistency of "what I just said happened to your character never happened."

Why does this happen in 4e, then? That certainly isn't mandatory narration on non-magic healing. I could see maybe it coming up with an immediate interrupt healing power(which is actually more to do with immediate interrupt being an action type), but even then in practice the issue is solved by glancing at the player who has the power and asking if he wants to use it before you go all out on your narration. But beyond that, if you want to narrate that non-magic healing retcons the narrative, and you dislike the retconning of the narrative, then that sounds to me like a prime example of hanging yourself on that rope.

 

[Hussar]

I'd point something out too. Earlier on, I talked about how this is a fairly corner case that doesn't come up all that often. Then people told me that combat was very common in their games and if at least one PC didn't go into negatives every combat, it wasn't challenging enough.

But, now, D&D is being touted as not a game about combat. That D&D isn't actually about the combat, it's about exploration, and other things.

Which brings me right back around to my first point - that this is a pretty rare corner case that likely shouldn't come up all that often. Certainly not often enough that it would be a problem.

So, which is it? Is D&D a game with a lot of combat where you need this narrative space in order to narrate serious wounds? Or is it a game where combat is not the focus, in which case, why are you getting picky about narrating serious wounds?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

And the way healing worked prior to surges just never produced the glaring inconsistency of "what I just said happened to your character never happened."

Why does this happen in 4e, then? That certainly isn't mandatory narration on non-magic healing. I could see maybe it coming up with an immediate interrupt healing power(which is actually more to do with immediate interrupt being an action type), but even then in practice the issue is solved by glancing at the player who has the power and asking if he wants to use it before you go all out on your narration. But beyond that, if you want to narrate that non-magic healing retcons the narrative, and you dislike the retconning of the narrative, then that sounds to me like a prime example of hanging yourself on that rope.

And thus why it is simply easier to never describe a serious wound in 4e (not wanting to hang oneself on that rope) and thus you end up with a narrative different to what one may be used to ending up with in previous editions (except of course for the disconnect when you DO have a "narratively unexpected" fatality; a definite disconnect between mechanics and flavour for some playstyles).

I think previous posts pretty much answer in detail and with specific examples your question here. While this specific issue is easily enough addressed by a couple of simple house rules (including your glancing to the healing player suggestion) that erase the issues involved (giving an enhanced experience in my opinion over 3.x), if this situation is combined with other "gamist" elements of 4e (minions, relative DCs, non-magical dailies [which were also an issue in 3.x but not to the same degree], non-Euclidean movement, more granular/restrictive character options with hard-coded roles, and various others), then you may end up with groups of gamers who have played most editions of D&D not wishing to make the effort to bash 4e into some semblance of what they were used to doing. 4e certainly split our group down the middle and only those of us that embraced the "different style" of playing continue to play it regularly along with Pathfinder, 3.5 and Traveller.

And so it might seem fair to say that while this highly specific issue IS an issue for some groups, it is most likely just one of many such issues and thus why some people make a bigger deal out of it than perhaps makes sense for gamers whose playstyle is directly supported by the current D&D ruleset.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Bedrockgames]

To address Husar's question (a valid point imo), I should clarrify a bit. My prefered style of play is combat light but I like the few combats in a game to be potentially lethal. However I am in more than one gaming group and participate in more combat heavy campaigns. However often combat does occur, when it does happen it matters and going into negatives is always on the table (but going into negatives isn't the only time I describe wounds). To me this isn't an edge case because I find it seriously disruptive to my GMing style (as well as to the style of some of my fellow GMs). I can see how this might not be the case for you and that is fine. I know lots of gamers who don't have the problem I do with 4e hesling. However this is one of the more common complaints I hear from people who couldn't get into 4e, so I don't think it is an edge case. Enough people notice it and say it troubles them.

 

[Hussar]

BRG - how do you describe wounds when someone doesn't go into negatives though? I'll agree that in negatives, things get a bit wonky, but, before you drop someone, no hit point damage is ever remotely debilitating.