Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[BryonD]

The TV Cliche doesn't have to worry about pacing at the table. It doesn't have to care about the characters. <snip>

I completely accepted your issues.

I want MY game to feel like the story and the FUN comes from that. I'm not in any way suggesting that you find fun in the same things I do.

But I have characters die in my games all the time. And the "pacing issues" which do exist do not detract from the fun. The narrative break-down of surges however is simply WRONG for the experience I am seeking.

You seek your experience and I'll seek mine. But, please, don't try to make a major change to something hat does produce mine and then try to claim it is the same thing.

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.

How can a fighter surge "off-screen" in the middle of combat?
And that isn't even really the problem.
Even off-screen I require a narrative connection between the "being in need of medical care" state and the "has received medical care" state.

The fact that the TV shows do not ask you to sit through stretches of recover is irrelevant. If a character on a TV show was shot out in the woods and curled up to sleep under a tree at the end of one episode and woke up the next morning, at the start of the next episode, fully recovered, that would be stupid. The fact that it was "off-screen" has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem.

Game healing CAN be the same. But 4E healing isn't.

 

[BryonD]

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 agree that there ARE better systems than ANY D&D edition, including 3E/Pathfinder, for modeling wounds.

However, the point is that 4E has every issue 3E has and has the surge issue on top of it.

I find 3E's HP system to be acceptable and, more importantly, I find the 3E overall system, HP included, to be excellent.

If you were to take the 3E system and change nothing whatsoever but add surges, I would no longer be interested in the game system.* We are talking about surges here and they are a radical change to the system. And being ok with prior systems while still finding surges to go completely into an unacceptable place is an entirely reasonable opinion.

But to say you don't agree with the fundamental difference can only mean that you are unable to grasp the point being made, or you are simply unwilling to fairly discuss it. It is like saying that you can't see that 15 is bigger than 8 just because 23 is bigger than either. Or, IMO, it is like saying because a burger is a little overdone, pouring arsenic on it won't make it any worse. There are huge differences.

* - Yes, I would still play with good friends. But I'd know better options were out there. The point is purely about comparing systems.

 

[BryonD]

4e simply decided to divorce healing from magic.

Sorry to re-quote here, but a couple other things caught my eye.

I don't accept this point.
4E didn't *just* divorce healing from magic. It divorced healing from EVERYTHING. Fighters make any and every wound vanish.

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 presume you are being general and not referring to me here. Because I made at least two points clearly defining the distinction between "realism" and heroic fiction. I am NOT looking for a mechanical model of realism on this topic. I AM looking for a quality mechanical model of heroic fiction. 3E makes that. 4E, by design and intent, does not. And you describe and defend that very distinction at the start of your post when you talk about pacing not being a concern for TV shows so the game must be different.

I have no meaningful issues with pacing when characters die or are seriously wounded AND I maintain the narrative contact between wounds and healing as is expected, NOT in reality, but in heroic fiction. In this case I have my cake and eat it too. Though, honestly, before 4E came along I wasn't even aware that there was cake to go away.

 

[Pentius]

I agree that there ARE better systems than ANY D&D edition, including 3E/Pathfinder, for modeling wounds.

However, the point is that 4E has every issue 3E has and has the surge issue on top of it.

I find 3E's HP system to be acceptable and, more importantly, I find the 3E overall system, HP included, to be excellent.

If you were to take the 3E system and change nothing whatsoever but add surges, I would no longer be interested in the game system.* We are talking about surges here and they are a radical change to the system. And being ok with prior systems while still finding surges to go completely into an unacceptable place is an entirely reasonable opinion.

But to say you don't agree with the fundamental difference can only mean that you are unable to grasp the point being made, or you are simply unwilling to fairly discuss it. It is like saying that you can't see that 15 is bigger than 8 just because 23 is bigger than either. Or, IMO, it is like saying because a burger is a little overdone, pouring arsenic on it won't make it any worse. There are huge differences.

* - Yes, I would still play with good friends. But I'd know better options were out there. The point is purely about comparing systems.

I'm pretty sure I get the point you're trying to make, and I feel I've tried to discuss it fairly. The thing is, though, it just isn't a fundamental difference to me. It is to you, I get that. You like HP as wounds and 3e works for you in that light and 4e does not. But I do not like HP as wounds, nor does either game work for me if I were try and use it that way(meanwhile, both work fine for me if I use HP abstractly). The distinction is not fundamental to me, because the outcome is not changed. If i use either system with HP as wounds, it doesn't work for me. If I use either system with HP as abstract, it does work for me. Surges make no difference in these equations and therefore I do not see them as fundamental, but rather, superficial. I am not saying arsenic doesn't make an overcooked burger worse, I am saying a little more arsenic sauce does not make a burger made entirely of arsenic any more fatal.

 

[SteveC]

I'm pretty sure I get the point you're trying to make, and I feel I've tried to discuss it fairly. The thing is, though, it just isn't a fundamental difference to me. It is to you, I get that. You like HP as wounds and 3e works for you in that light and 4e does not. But I do not like HP as wounds, nor does either game work for me if I were try and use it that way(meanwhile, both work fine for me if I use HP abstractly). The distinction is not fundamental to me, because the outcome is not changed. If i use either system with HP as wounds, it doesn't work for me. If I use either system with HP as abstract, it does work for me. Surges make no difference in these equations and therefore I do not see them as fundamental, but rather, superficial. I am not saying arsenic doesn't make an overcooked burger worse, I am saying a little more arsenic sauce does not make a burger made entirely of arsenic any more fatal.

I really have to agree with you here: no matter the edition, hit points effectively measure the same thing: how much of a fight you have left in you. What seems to change in the game is the resource mechanic you have to use to get over a battle, and ready to go with the next one. Each edition is really only dealing with different ways to get to the same thing.

With 0E to 2E you have cure spells and clerics, the limit is how many healing spells your caster can prepare. So your resource to track is "spell slots." You also have healing potions, so I suppose you measure "magic items," as well.

With 3X, the limit is either cure spells or the cost of wands, which you can purchase, and that has the effect of adding "gold" as the resource you have to track.

With 4E, you largely remove magic items from the healing curve but you add a hard cap of "healing surges." So that's the resource you end up tracking.

The thing is: hit points end up being the same thing in each edition, it's just a question of what you have to manage to deal with them. Each edition it's gotten easier to do more, and you've had more resources available to heal yourselves... but the hit points have been the same.

Thinking that there's some realism factor over injuries in earlier edition is ... odd. The only thing that really has changed from a "realism" factor is how long it takes to recover, with each edition taking less time to replenish back to full. Are healing times from earlier editions "more realistic?" I sure don't think so, but then I'd argue that there's nothing in hit points that model real physical trauma or realism ... from 0E onward.

 

[D'karr]

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).

Not trying to attack anyone's playstyle. My post only applies to why I DON'T have an issue with any particular mechanic of any game. I don't look at the game as a metaphor for real life. If I want to inject realism that the game doesn't provide, I do so. If I feel like going in a different direction, I do so. I don't feel a slavish devotion to the rules that somehow hampers my enjoyment of the game. If a rule sucks, I change it. But before I change it I try to understand the intent of the rule. Most rules are there for a reason, even the stupid ones. I've alway liked what Tom Moldvay said in the Basic Set he was responsible for, "The D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions." With that in mind I've always met the game as a challenge to be molded to what me and my group want. Sometimes the designers got a good one in and sometimes they gave is a turd.

What I did try to say is that some of the arguments, and I'm talking in general terms not your argument in particular, are disingenuous. They are so because they ascribe to the rules or the games something that they've never possessed.

Play what makes you happy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not trying to attack anyone's playstyle...

What I did try to say is that some of the arguments, and I'm talking in general terms not your argument in particular, are disingenuous. They are so because they ascribe to the rules or the games something that they've never possessed.

Play what makes you happy.

Didn't mean to imply your post was attacking anyone's playstyle, just commenting on this line if discussion in general.

Maybe it is just that people have legitimately different opinions about what the rules on healing and HP have meant over the course of editions. As i said before it was pretty well argued On the thread and personally I can see people going either way. While hp is treated as an abstraction the rule books also havent shied away from describing hp loss as physical wounds. I think it has always been rather flexible, allowing for both approaches. It was very easy to treat hp loss in earlier editions as damage so lots of people did.

In terms of rule changes I am all for house rules but h surges are just one aspect of the problem 4e presents for me. Just find I am much happier playing previous editions or other games entirely.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What I did try to say is that some of the arguments, and I'm talking in general terms not your argument in particular, are disingenuous. They are so because they ascribe to the rules or the games something that they've never possessed.

Can you be a little more specific here in regards to the discussion thus far on this thread? I fear that you might be making some generalisations here that don't quite match with the specifics that have been discussed - which if true is a shame because you do seem to have a deep interest in this topic.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[BryonD]

I'm pretty sure I get the point you're trying to make, and I feel I've tried to discuss it fairly. The thing is, though, it just isn't a fundamental difference to me. It is to you, I get that.

So why are you arguing?
I've readily agreed that not caring is a perfectly valid opinion.
Can't you just allow the same?

You like HP as wounds and 3e works for you in that light and 4e does not. But I do not like HP as wounds, nor does either game work for me if I were try and use it that way(meanwhile, both work fine for me if I use HP abstractly).

No, you have made a fundamental mistake here.
I don't "like HP as wounds". And if I did 3E would completely fail for me just as it, apparently, does for you.

I like HP as a combination of BOTH wounds and other abstract elements.

4E says: "Nope, all abstraction"

Some system out there with HP as pure wounds = fail (I'm unaware of this actual system existing, at least anything close enough to the D&D type to be relevant)

Some system out there with HP as pure Abstract = fail (4E)

Some system out there with the freedom to work both abstract and wounds from the same HP pool = win (3E/PF)

The distinction is not fundamental to me, because the outcome is not changed. If i use either system with HP as wounds, it doesn't work for me. If I use either system with HP as abstract, it does work for me. Surges make no difference in these equations and therefore I do not see them as fundamental, but rather, superficial. I am not saying arsenic doesn't make an overcooked burger worse, I am saying a little more arsenic sauce does not make a burger made entirely of arsenic any more fatal.

Again, there is a fundamental mistake.

You are saying the "outcome" is everything and because the outcome defines "made entirely" the difference is meaningless to you.

You don't have steps (2) and (3) in your game. But you absolutely have steps (1) and (4, aka "the outcome").
If someone tried to produce a TV show or write a novel in which characters just jumped from (1) to (4) it would be considered completely absurd.

And you are STRONGLY reinforcing the "board game" stereotype so often placed on 4E. When you say that "outcome" is everything and reject my embracing of narrative continuity you are discarding the VERY THING that makes RPGs such an awesome hobby to me. The story is EVERYTHING to me. And narrative continuity throughout is mandatory for that.

I enjoy Descent and I enjoy Wrath of A, etc... But those game tend to sit on my shelf and gather dust between playings. I actively play D&D about once every two weeks. But I spend time developing stuff for D&D almost most every day. And the creative immersion in the story, being inside the world and the characters, is what it is all about.

When I do play Descent, abstract disconnect are fine. There is a pale aura of "roleplaying" on the character I select and I certainly get into a different mindset when I'm playing and arcane type character vs a melee smash type character. But it is just a shadow of what I get from real RPGs. And it is fine because when I do play those games, that is what I want. I'm in a "board game" mindset, with a little RPG dressing.

And when you say that only the outcome matters and the continuity between the start and end doesn't, then you are exactly describing what it and always has been, to me, the difference between an RPG and a board game. And it is cool that you don't care. A lot of people have zero interest in either, a lot of people love board games and don't care for RPGs. My goal is not REMOTELY to claim I'm doing anything better than you are. Have fun. That is everything.

But the point is, what you are talking about doesn't even address what I am talking about.

 

[Hussar]

Herreman, what specifics? In 8 pages, despite all the protestations to the contrary that there is this HUGE narrative space, you're the only one so far who's even tried to do anything other than toss out hypotheticals.

Kudos to you for actually bringing something concrete to the discussion.

But, I think your point about generalizations applies a fair bit wider than just D'karr. So far there's at least three people in this thread who are telling me what 4e can't do. Unfortunately, other than you, no one else has given any sort of evidence of what 3e CAN do.

Ladies and gentlemen. I don't need to know what 4e can't do. That's not the point of the thread. The issue at hand is that there is this huge narrative gulf where you can describe potentially fatal wounds that can believably be healed without magic in two weeks or less.

So far we've had one decent hit. But, since we're now on page 8, I'm pretty sure that most of you are just blowing smoke until I can actually see some fire.