Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Bedrockgames]

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.

As i said before I am not after a physics engine, to me this is more about consistency and adhering to a bit of plausibility. So keep that in mind. If a fighter takes twenty points of damage I am fine saying he was sliced deep somewhere or bashed pretty hard. Wounded bad but not dying or anything. I find pre 4e I could do this with little problem (the damage is there until it is healed magically or healed over time--albeit faster than reL life--naturally). That twenty points doesn't vanish during combat through non magical means. So for me it represents something solid I can wrap my hands around narratively. Now it doesn't reflect an injury as well as a wound system (which i prefer over hp) but I am okay just having wounds vaguely correlate to lower hp. This is just my preference and style. It is how I've been playing since at least 91 or so.

 

[BryonD]

My point is, people's idea of "narration" was pretty much completely divorced from the mechanics anyway, so, how is this much different in 4e?

Looks like I picked a bad week to be swamped at work and not get in to ENWorld.

And, no, I haven't tried to catch up on a seven page thread, so my apologies if this has already been covered.

But having read the OP and the first few replies it seems completely obvious that the OP doesn't understand the issue of objection with surges and has substituted a different point that is not relevant.

It is certainly true that the mechanics and narration, collectively, are completely divorced from real world expectations. But to say that this makes those elements divorced from each other is simply wrong.

Forget games for a minute and look at TV shows and movies. The Die Hard / Jack Bauer point has been beat to death multiple times. But we don;t need that here. It is a highly common TV show cliche that a member of "the team" will get shot, car-bombed, run-over, what ever. You then have the dramatic pause that can be anywhere from a commercial break to a season finale cliffhanger. But by the end of that episode or the following episode, that character is sitting in a hospital bed laughing with friends. The episode after that they MIGHT wear a bandage or something, but it will have no impact whatsoever on their performance. The next episode the bandage is gone and all is back to exactly the way it used to be.

And this happens routinely. It is so common place that it is not even given a second thought. But nobody get hung up on whether or not it is realistic. Everyone, quite happily, accepts that the event and the story (aka the narration) are divorced from real world expectations.

But it would be stupid to claim that the events and the narration were divorced. The events are: (1) Damage occurs (2) External medical care is needed (3) External medical care is provided (4) Character returns to full strength with no long term consequences.

The narration is (1) Character is car bombed (2) Character receives wounds which require hospitalization (3) Character spends time in hospital and then (maybe) has a little post treatment recovery time (4) Character is at full heath.

The fact that anything remotely resembling an accurate mechanical description of the hospital treatment, or a remotely realistic recovery process, is completely absent, is completely meaningless to the narrative quality or the success of these types of events as popular entertainment.

And because that mechanical description is both completely unneeded and has been discarded, the actual details may as well be miracles which match the outcome they produced. The hospital is narratively no different than the cleric or wand of cures.

In 3E the broken bones, shot, stabbed, blown-up up conditions are all healed by hand-waved it worked by magic in exactly the same way as those conditions are healed by vastly larger than life medical heroics in tv shows.

The connection is the same in 3E as it is in those shows (and movies and books). Now, honestly, if you want to insist that they are divorce in those media, then fine. I don't care. Whatever works for you. But, the point remains that 3E works the same way as popular fiction.

4E does not.


If a 4E character got car bombed, he would NOT be in need of medical care. Every 4E character there is can surge away any and every wound. No 4E character ever goes to step (2) of the mechanical or narrative path above. Yes, you may choose to describe broken bones or other terrible wounds. But if you do you become obligated to describe a fighter not ignoring the wound but completely and fully surging it away. The broken bone mends then and there for no narrative reason.

Or you can choose to NEVER describe a serious wound. And, I do agree that a serious wound to Bryon is different than a serious wound to an action TV character. You do have *some* narrative space to work with. But you absolutely have less space because you MAY NOT describe any wound which requires outside medical treatment.

And, really, no one is claiming that the 3E system is perfect. I'm all for improving it. But "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" doesn't do this situation justice. You are throwing out the baby because the clean tap water was not Perrier.

Also, it is interesting that the focus of the OP is to "defend" 4E by trying to make everyone focus their attention on something other than 4E.

 

[billd91]

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?

I would call that a false dichotomy. Why does it have to be one or the other? If the game's about more than combat, why wouldn't you want combat to still have a significant effect on the narrative of the game?

 

[BryonD]

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.")

I completely agree with you here.

But the difference is, in previous games the mechanics could bear a higher standard of creativity.

In Pre-3E you had the option of describing any wound as superficial. And you had the option to describe any wound as much more serious.

The point is not that you can not come up with a story to describe the events that occur in any 4E game. I don't challenge that. You can.
But, you are required to choose from a smaller list of possible stories. And that list excludes any option for wounds which require medical aid. I'm not challenging the idea that this is acceptable for some.

But I'm stating that it is more than reasonable for that to also be unacceptable for some, particularly given that better systems for including serious wounds are readily available.

No one is claiming they don't get the LIKE of surges.

But there seems to be this entitlement attitude, for lack of a better word, that calling the differences in surges for what they are and deciding there is valid reason for disliking it that is somehow an offense against those that do like.

To me it is similar to the whole "people who don't like 4E just can't handle change" nonsense.

They are different. If you love it, then awesome. But can you not agree that there is a true fundamental difference?

 

[BryonD]

You're not picking and choosing?

I'll say that *I* am absolutely picking and choosing.
Bt the important thing to keep in mind is that I am picking and choosing with a consistent standard.

Every single issue with 3E hit points exists in 4E hit points. And I accept that with only minor complaint for 4E exactly as I accept them for 3E with only minor complaint. All-in-all hit points in 4E get a thumbs up B- from me. Same as they do in 3E.

Surges, on the other hand, bring a total new dynamic that has no equivalence in 3E base system. And, still by the same standard, it is completely unacceptable compared to other choices.

For reference, I LOATHE the regeneration rules in Pathfinder. I pick and choose there as well and that rule is out the window.

I kinda think that surges are to fundamental to the 4E design to as easily discard. But, I see surges as consistent with the same "math works" design constraint that I dislike about much of 4E (lack of skill ranks, everyone has the same BAB, minions, DC based on character not the item in question, etc...) All these elements flow from the same game expediency over narrative merit approach. I don't dislike 4E because of surges. I dislike 4E because of the approach and surges are a logical outcome of that approach.
And I'm not being critical of anyone who prefers 4E. But I will be critical of anyone who claims there is no important difference.

 

[Greg K]

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). "
.

And, yet in DMG 1, James Wyatt, in the section about narrating combat, tells the DM, that instead of just stating x hit points of damage, it is better to describe an attack doing 36 hit points of damage as a deep slash to the neck.

 

[D'karr]

If a 4E character got car bombed, he would NOT be in need of medical care. Every 4E character there is can surge away any and every wound. No 4E character ever goes to step (2) of the mechanical or narrative path above. Yes, you may choose to describe broken bones or other terrible wounds. But if you do you become obligated to describe a fighter not ignoring the wound but completely and fully surging it away. The broken bone mends then and there for no narrative reason.

Or you can choose to NEVER describe a serious wound. And, I do agree that a serious wound to Bryon is different than a serious wound to an action TV character. You do have *some* narrative space to work with. But you absolutely have less space because you MAY NOT describe any wound which requires outside medical treatment.

The TV Cliche doesn't have to worry about pacing at the table. It doesn't have to care about the characters. The TV Show, and the Game serve two entirely different purposes/audiences. The purpose of the TV Show is to tell a narrative that keeps the viewer involved. The purpose of the game is to provide an entertaining past time that keeps the players involved. The players are NOT the viewers of the show, the characters they play are the show. Seems like a lot of DMs are forgetting this.

In a TV Show with an ensemble cast, sidelining a character for a day, a week, or a season has no repercussions to the "writer". The actor might be bored as hell, or out of a job but that doesn't matter. It might even advance the "narrative". In a game, even though you have the "trappings" of an ensemble cast, each character is actually the main PROTAGONIST in his own show. Sidelining a character for a day, a week, or a season has a very distinct repercussion to the player that is playing that character.

Having Starbuck "die" and disappear for 4 episodes is not an issue for BSG the TV show. You still have "60" other characters to focus on and continue the "game". The purpose of the show is to entertain the outside viewer, not to be entertaining to Katee Sackhoff, the actress playing Starbuck. However, let's go in a different direction, how entertaining would The Dark Knight movie be, if Batman gets injured in the first 10 minutes of the movie and the only thing we see for the next 80 minutes is him on bed rest?

The game's purpose is to provide entertaining adventures to "go adventuring" in. When the characters are adventuring the needs of the players are being fulfilled by the main purpose of the game. When the characters are on bed rest, what purpose is being fulfilled? Because going adventuring is not it.

You mention that "TV show healing" is so common place that it is not even given a second thought.

Then what purpose is served by giving game healing a second thought? Realism? Or is it just to fulfill the narrative that the DM has thought about? The narrative the DM has thought about, hopefully, takes into account the needs of the players. Just as a TV Show writer is taking the needs of the audience into account.

If you are going to have "TV Show healing" in the background, why can't game healing be the same. You want to describe serious wounds go ahead. When are serious wounds taken care off? Off screen, off camera, in the background.

In 1e, according to the rules you had no option, you went to 0 HP or lower and you were out of commission for at least a week, even if brought up with magic, except for a heal spell. Any HP loss no matter how "severe", which is never defined, would be entirely "healed" in 4 weeks. Why 4 weeks? It was an arbitrary number, just like there were level limits for non-human characters. Probably because the game designer thought that getting the characters back to adventuring would be a good thing. Instead of the boring drag of watching him drooling at "General Hospital". He arbitrarily came up with the number 4 weeks. Why? Because the game designer thought that this made the game better.

In 3.x, the penalties for going to 0 HP and lower were removed. There was no longer a comma and a week minimum rest. The "accelerated" healing was completely dependent on magic, with magic being easily available within the assumptions of the game. What they did was shift the resource from one of time, to one of finances. If you could afford the potions, and/or the "heal stick" then the HP loss was simply a speed bump, and one that was not significant to any degree. They introduced a "mechanic" that allowed you to completely obviate the obstacle. Once again, why? Because the game designer thought that this made the game better.

4e simply decided to divorce healing from magic. Finally, we don't NEED to have a divine caster tied to the party, or a "heal stick". Honestly the "heal stick" did more to break my suspension of disbelief than anything else. The description of HP loss is just as it has always been entirely up to the DMs, and players to take care of. Instead of providing "perceived" obstacles that are not obstacles at all they decided to leave the option open. While you're adventuring you take damage. At the beginning of each extended rest you regain resources to keep adventuring (the purpose of the game). Why? Because the game designer thought that this made the game better.

The thing that 4e provides within the design space is ways to actually make long term HP loss mean something. IF the DM and players want to go that route.

What I find disingenuous is that some accuse 4e of removing this perceived "realism" from the game, when the game has never had this "realism" to begin with. Look at the actual description of Hit Points and try to ascribe any measure of "realism" to it, and you'll be hard pressed. What 4e finally did was acknowledge that HP are an esoteric, abstract resource that encompasses a measure of being able to "kick ass" due to the binary measure of D&D combat. Then the game provides a way to replenish this resource without resorting to magic. The DM and players can choose to make the game harder, or easier by very simple tweaks.

I've written extensively of this "historical" game issue and have even provided multiple ways for the DM to go back to putting "healing" obstacles in the game if he wants to. You can see additional thoughts here.

 

[Pentius]

I completely agree with you here.

But the difference is, in previous games the mechanics could bear a higher standard of creativity.

In Pre-3E you had the option of describing any wound as superficial. And you had the option to describe any wound as much more serious.

The point is not that you can not come up with a story to describe the events that occur in any 4E game. I don't challenge that. You can.
But, you are required to choose from a smaller list of possible stories. And that list excludes any option for wounds which require medical aid. I'm not challenging the idea that this is acceptable for some.

But I'm stating that it is more than reasonable for that to also be unacceptable for some, particularly given that better systems for including serious wounds are readily available.

No one is claiming they don't get the LIKE of surges.

But there seems to be this entitlement attitude, for lack of a better word, that calling the differences in surges for what they are and deciding there is valid reason for disliking it that is somehow an offense against those that do like.

To me it is similar to the whole "people who don't like 4E just can't handle change" nonsense.

They are different. If you love it, then awesome. But can you not agree that there is a true fundamental difference?

I don't agree with that, no. I agree that there are true, superficial differences. But I don't think pre-4e D&D bore a higher standard of creativity. I don't think it was any less ridiculous to describe HP damage that doesn't kill as debilitating wounds in those games than it is in 4e, that is, it is patently ridiculous to me in all of them. There are definitely better systems for modeling serious wounds than 4e right out of the box. I just don't think any of them say D&D on the front.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What I find disingenuous is that some accuse 4e of removing this perceived "realism" from the game, when the game has never had this "realism" to begin with. Look at the actual description of Hit Points and try to ascribe any measure of "realism" to it, and you'll be hard pressed. What 4e finally did was acknowledge that HP are an esoteric, abstract resource that encompasses a measure of being able to "kick ass" due to the binary measure of D&D combat. Then the game provides a way to replenish this resource without resorting to magic. The DM and players can choose to make the game harder, or easier by very simple tweaks.

.

Couple of things. I think it is great if someone feels divorcing healing from magic makes the game better. If that improves your experience at the table, that is wonderful and you should by all means play 4E. But some of us have problems with that change. This is due to a variety of reasons, including subjective interpretations of what HP means, how we've described wounds in our campaigns, etc. There is nothing wrong with taking issue with healing surges either...this is all preference.

However we had a pretty lengthy discussion about the definition of HP and damage in the thread on this (may have been the other one this forked from) and I don't think it was anywhere near conclusive. This is partly because parts of the rules and things some DMGs have said about damage have been contradictory at times, but also because it is pretty open to different interpretations. I think where most people agree is 4E moved it more definitively in the direction of abstracting physical damage. The key problem those of us who don't like surges experience is where before you had this thing that could mean something concrete and physical (I just took 20 points of damage and I either have to heal naturally or be healed instantly by magic to regain it) which could comfortably be described as a deep wound or other specific form of damage, no longer can be in 4E (because healing is divorced from magic). This may not be everyone's experience of surges. It is just ours. And I don't think there is anything disengenuous about explaining our experience with a mechanic.

I guess what I am having trouble understanding is why people just can't accept this mechanic doesn't work for us. We don't need to attack one another's playstyles just because someone on the internet dislikes out prefered edition (and this swings both ways, i've seen plenty of people who don't like healing surges do the same thing). I mean there are tons of systems and mechanics that don't work for a variety of people for any number of reasons. With D&D I was starting to lose interest in the direction of the game sometime during 3E (I just felt mechanics were becoming more important than flavor at a certain point), and 4E was kind of the nail in the coffin for me. There were just too many aspects of the game I didn't like. If others like the game, I am fine with that. I don't want everyone to share my opinion of the new edition. Not trying to convince anyone that my dislike of the system is the best way to go.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't agree with that, no. I agree that there are true, superficial differences. But I don't think pre-4e D&D bore a higher standard of creativity. I don't think it was any less ridiculous to describe HP damage that doesn't kill as debilitating wounds in those games than it is in 4e, that is, it is patently ridiculous to me in all of them. There are definitely better systems for modeling serious wounds than 4e right out of the box. I just don't think any of them say D&D on the front.

I don't think any edition has a monopoly on creativity. All editions require creativity and intelligence to play. Prefering 4E over 3E, or 1E over 4E, doesn't make you a "better gamer" in my mind. People just have preferences. With 4E, I found it harder to have a consistent experience of the setting between the surges and ecounters/dailies. Others have no such issue with these mechanics (and that is totally fine).