Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[JamesonCourage]

Now let's talk apples to apples. The "narrative" is in the control of the DM and players. If we are going to "house rule" one thing in one game, then we can't really call shenanigans when someone demonstrates how to "house rule" the same in the other.

If I want to make 3.x a world with low magic, with the purpose of making healing a slow process. I'm engaging in "house ruling." Removing magical healing, or making it more rare than is actually supported by the rules, is "house ruling." That is not the base assumption of the game.

I understand that these are all personal preferences. I've explained why neither affects MY games. But blaming the "rules" for one, and in the same breath lauding the "rules" for another, when we are "house ruling" both, is just a little silly.

I think that this quote hits the crux of it:

You see in 3.5 and 4e it is possible for a Wizard to be ambushed and caught off-guard without accessible magical healing or a fighter to fall in battle and be dragged off from their party members, it is also possible for the Rogue or Ranger to go scouting and end up hurt, cut off from the rest of their party and magical healing. I have seen these and more happen in actual games and they didn't require a single houserule.

This is very viable without any house rules. What about if the party wants to play an all-thief party (with nothing akin to Use Magic Device)? At best they'll have healing potions, but those can run out easier than healing magic. Same for an all-Fighter party. What if the healer in the party gets dropped into the negatives?

All of the situations Imaro mentioned (ambush, capture, caught) have happened in my games, and it's not a corner case. The players have chosen to be all one theme before (all arcane casters, all thiefs, all warriors, all clerics, etc.), which means sometimes there's very little in the ways of healing. The party has had it's healer dropped into the negatives or even killed before, leaving the rest of the party wounded and left to tend to things mundanely.

I don't count these as house rules. Do you? As always, play what you like

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As shown above the assumptions of the world don't have to be changed... but even if they were I'm not convinced that's houseruling... am I houseruling anything when I play 4e in Eberron as opposed to the presumed PoL? You on the other hand are changing the actual rules of 4e... that my friend is houseruling.

This is a fair point in the contrary. The wealth by level table was specifically referred to as a set of guidelines (not rules to be slavishly followed) for the DM to maintain control of the power level of their game. Further the emphasis was on making sure PCs were not too powerful rather than not powerful enough. I think this is certainly more in the vein of a campaign style (that would seemingly be agreed to by all the players and the DM) rather than a house rule that is inconsistent with the RAW.

No, I disagree... the mechanics (not just the players and DM) have some effect on the narrative as well.

And they do have an effect in both 3e and 4e although at different points on the spectrum. The difference is quite noticeable when shifting back and forth from one edition to the other.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think it is also very fair to say that all editions have had significant issues with damage and healing and the complete lack of clarity the mechanics provide. I think what would be interesting is getting all the obviously intelligent and imaginative people on this thread together to create a damage/healing system that uses hit points (that is one D&D sacred cow that should never be killed) and makes sense to all of us here. It would be nice to see that such a thing is possible. Now there's a new challenge.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I'm still all for two HP pools, one for "physical" (taking the punishment and heroically continuing) and one for "other" (such as dodging, deflecting, armor absorbing the blow, luck saving the individual, divine guidance or force saving the individual, fate saving the individual, determination, fatigue, etc.). The "other" pool would always get absorbed first, though attached effects don't work if they only damage "other" HP (for example, if a power dealt damage + prone, it wouldn't knock the target prone if it only damaged "other" HP).

I think it would address a lot of things. I use this in my RPG, and my group likes it. The "other" pool recharges extremely quickly naturally, while the "physical" pool recovers slowly naturally. You can use magic to heal the "physical" pool but not the "other" pool, and you can use something like the 4e Warlord to heal the "other" pool. You can even create a type of "Fatebender" or "God-blooded" class that heals the "other" pool as well, attach it to Epic Destiny (some sort of demigod destiny) that allows divine protection (which might let a Cleric with that destiny heal both types), and so on. (By now it's probably obvious I'm only slightly knowledgeable with 4e.)

I think breaking it down would help people see the narration as it happens.

GM: "Well, that's 15 damage."
PC: "That's only "other" HP."
GM: "The troll swings at you, but you deflect the blow at the last moment, and the force leaves a nasty crack in the ground. You're panting now, and you're not sure how much of more of this you can take."

OR

GM: "Well, that's 15 damage."
PC: "That's the rest of my "other" HP, and 9 of my "physical" HP..."
GM: "The troll swings at you, and though you're able to deflect a blow that surely would have killed you, the blow slams into you, knocking you to the ground (prone power). Your right arm and body ache, and you're pushing yourself through the pain, but you know you don't want to take another hit."

Just my thoughts on it. I think it could really help guide the narrative in a coherent way. I also think that certain effects should bypass "other" HP, though, such as falling damage, being on fire, or the like. In the other healing surge thread, there was some concern that certain effects that bypass "other" HP would become the new standard attack. For example, everyone would always try to push other people off of a cliff or use a torch on them, because it's bypasses "other" HP. I think between nonproficiency (lower attack roll), low damage, and the save to negate being on fire, the torch is suboptimal unless you're facing fire-vulnerable foes (which is then fine, in my book), but I think pushing an enemy off of a cliff seems more like a fun feature and tactical attack than a bug.

Again, though, that's just me. Obviously some people have voiced disagreement, and that's fine. It's preference. No one system will work for everyone. I could see a "physical"/"other" divide that doesn't discriminate based on damage type (maybe when you fall you get lucky and land in some moss, fall through a cloth overhang, or something). I like the divide more with certain attacks bypasses the "other" HP, but that's just me. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

OK, then here's my response: It's impossible.

Why is it impossible? Because you're using mechanics unique to 4e so of course it's impossible to narrate anything to that sequence of events in any other edition of D&D.

I might ask you how do you narrate a wizard with a penchant for fire spells lobbing 3 fireballs in a single fight in 4e. I can do it in multiple editions prior to 4e, but I can't in 4e.

Thank you for getting the point.

BryonD claimed, as I mentioned in the post, that there is nothing you can do in 4e that you can't do in 3e.

This is false and I've nicely proven it.

Thank you.

 

[Hussar]

Actually sorry, you seem to not want to appreciate the narrative difference between going into the negatives in 3e and going into the negatives in 4e. It seems a little unfair that you have been provided with two almost identical narratives to the situation you provided (and that IS what you asked for), but then claim that because the mechanics utilized are different (they are different editions you know) that it does not pass muster. I call you out good sir for foul play in this regard.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I would agree with you if Jameson's example actually went into negative hit points. How can there be a narrative difference for going into negatives in 3e and 4e when JC's example doesn't actually go into negatives?

So, no, no foul play. It's JC playing silly buggers and ignoring the actual challenge.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I would agree with you if Jameson's example actually went into negative hit points. How can there be a narrative difference for going into negatives in 3e and 4e when JC's example doesn't actually go into negatives?

So, no, no foul play. It's JC playing silly buggers and ignoring the actual challenge.

If you were an observer watching the action at the table, the two situations would appear practically identical. Narratively, the same things have happened (despite the use of different mechanics specific to each edition to get there). Putting the shoe on the other foot, if JC's example (or my own) was one that you had to narratively produce using 4e mechanics and you came up with your example, I would have no choice to concede that you produced the same narrative using 4e mechanics and say challenge met.

As such I think you are being unfair. It is like challenging someone to meet you at the friendly local game store at midday with your usual order of McDonalds, and then when at the store at Midday, he greets you with your exact required order of McDonalds but you complain because he went through "drive-thru" rather than walking into the restaurant!

As such, yes I still call foul play upon you.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I would agree with you if Jameson's example actually went into negative hit points. How can there be a narrative difference for going into negatives in 3e and 4e when JC's example doesn't actually go into negatives?

And just to clarify on this, narratively speaking going into the negatives in 3e represents a different narrative situation than going into the negatives in 4e. In 3e, if a PC is thrust into the negatives, mechanically they are not likely to get up on their own any time soon. In 4e, providing they have the surges left to do it, they have a fair chance of getting up on their own. As such, the mechanics of each represent different situations narratively and so 3e to imitate the 4e narrative, it will use different mechanics to do so. And so if ever I have the fortune to meet you in person and enjoy a game together, there is NO way I am buying you McDonalds!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[JamesonCourage]

I would agree with you if Jameson's example actually went into negative hit points. How can there be a narrative difference for going into negatives in 3e and 4e when JC's example doesn't actually go into negatives?

So, no, no foul play. It's JC playing silly buggers and ignoring the actual challenge.

Well, you challenged people to match the narrative scenario that you presented using 3.X. Narrative is defined as:

narrative
1. A narrated account; a story.
2. The art, technique, or process of narrating.

Within the actual narrative, it's exactly the same. The mechanics don't line up, but the warrior getting hit and knocked prone, blacking out for a moment, his friends fighting the troll back but still getting attacked, and then the warrior rising to his feat and rushing (hitting it with a sword and then a shield) is exactly the same. The narrative is identical.

Saying, "no, it's not identical because the mechanics are different" is missing the point of what narrative means in this discussion. Yes, the mechanics are different. No, 3.X can't -by RAW- copy 4e's healing surge mechanics. However, the narrative provided by you can definitely be achieved in 3.X -that is, the story is the same either way.

This is where I was originally saying 3.X has more narrative space when it comes to wounds. They have a major story path that 4e does not: wounds that take a while to heal. This can drastically alter the path of the story. You can have your cleric captured, dropped, or killed. You can be a rogue that's scouting ahead that gets dropped low on HP and is separated from the party's healer. The mechanic of slow healing makes a large impact on the narrative of the game, and having that as a possible narrative path that might unfold has been the point all along.

I think you've mixed narrative with "description":

description
1. The act, process, or technique of describing.
2. A statement or an account describing something

describe
1. To give an account of in speech or writing.
2. To convey an idea or impression of; characterize

I think Herremann and I have mostly been addressing the story paths available through the mechanics, not the description of such, though you keep bringing it back to that. I try to avoid throwing definitions around in these discussions, because people tend to think I'm arguing semantics, even if I just intend to clear up the dialogue.

Narrative does not mean description. You use description in your narrative, but they are not the same thing in the context they have been used. I'm talking about different story paths that the mechanics aid you in, and you're talking about descriptions of wounds. They're not the same. So, yes, you're asking about description in your thread, and that's fine, but it's still not addressing what we were discussing, which is story.

I still hold that the narrative of your example and mine were the same, and no amounts of "nuh-uh" is really going to change my mind on that one. The story was the same. The mechanics were different. If you're looking to see if 3.X and 4e can have the same narrative evolve based on your description of the fight, it most certainly can. If you're asking if the mechanics are the same, then, well, of course they aren't. But how does that really matter in the discussion?

As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

And just to clarify on this, narratively speaking going into the negatives in 3e represents a different narrative situation than going into the negatives in 4e. In 3e, if a PC is thrust into the negatives, mechanically they are not likely to get up on their own any time soon. In 4e, providing they have the surges left to do it, they have a fair chance of getting up on their own. As such, the mechanics of each represent different situations narratively and so 3e to imitate the 4e narrative, it will use different mechanics to do so. And so if ever I have the fortune to meet you in person and enjoy a game together, there is NO way I am buying you McDonalds!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Thus the WHOLE point. BryonD claimed that there is nothing that 4e can do that 3e can't.

I just showed that this is false. Nothing more. While we might lose the ability to show wounds, we gain the ability to have the "grand comeback".

At no point does JC's example have a "grand comeback". At the table, they would be completely different. For one, in JC's example, the fighter is not wounded in any way, shape or form. Nor is the character at any point actually threatened with death.

But they play out the same? Ballocks. In my example, the character is potentially going to die. In JC's example, he takes minor damage, gets knocked prone and gets up and attacks.

And this is the same? This is narratively indistinguishable?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

At no point does JC's example have a "grand comeback". At the table, they would be completely different. For one, in JC's example, the fighter is not wounded in any way, shape or form.

Look at my stunned example then and slot it into JC's overall narrative for it to match up more precisely (I thought my example was OK as it was. The character is wounded, stunned and forced prone. They are both effectively out of the combat at this stage waiting to be finished off by the troll.

Nor is the character at any point actually threatened with death.

Both characters are narratively threatened with death; they're facing a troll who could have ripped their heads off. In terms of the eventual narrative though, both were down and knocked about. Both got up to heroically finish off the troll.

But they play out the same? Ballocks. In my example, the character is potentially going to die.

But he doesn't, that's the point of the eventual narrative. The eventual narrative describes what happened, only alluding to what could have happened.

In JC's example, he takes minor damage, gets knocked prone and gets up and attacks.

And this is the same? This is narratively indistinguishable?

The narrative story of each of the grand comeback when all looked lost is the same. The narrative is that the troll attack wasn't fatal and our hero got up and was counted. As such I still call foul on you good sir. Put the shoe on the other foot (swap the narratives around) and it would still pass muster.

Best Regards
Herremann