Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[JamesonCourage]

Heh, so "Sir Billingsley" is now a barbarian? LOL. Wearing a helmet? Since I actually described him as wearing armor, his pounce abilty doesn't work does it?

Or maybe he's wearing a helmet and a loincloth. That's more believable.

... barbarians get medium armor.

After all, my Sir Billingsley could be ANY class in 4e. In your example, he can only be a single class, and a variant one at that. So, again, the narrative space in 4e, in this case is much larger.

Yep. You're right. Which is why I've the following multiple times:

I want to make it very clear that I'm only speaking in terms of natural healing when I speak of narrative paths.

I've said that 4e exceeds 3.X narratively in other aspects a few times, even within my last few posts. I was only commenting on 4e shutting down the narrative path (story path) of a long recovery. That's it.

But, then again, maybe in your version of D&D, barbarians wear armor and don't lose their abilities.

Dude, barbarians get medium armor in 3.X.

Again, it would be nice if your examples ACTUALLY followed the rules. Adding in serious wounds to 4e is a 15 minute job. The disease track allows you to add it in very easily. Heck, my current Dark Sun game in which I play (4e) USES this to narrate serious wounds. There, done. But, I'm not allowed to do that because, *gasp* it's not in the rules.

The core rules don't inherently support it, and that's my problem. It's the oberoni fallacy.

Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

That's my problem. Yeah, it can be house ruled. My problem is that it has to be.

But, whenever we talk about the limitations of 3e, suddenly it's all freedom and light and you can do whatever the heck you want to.

I've specifically stated that when I'm speaking of narrative limitations, it's specifically about long term healing. I've stated that 4e is more open in a narrative sense in other ways:

This is the point. The narratives (the stories) are the same in what you've presented. 4e falls behind in this area (but exceeds 3.X in others, in my opinion). It's fine, because it's preference. But I think it's basically undeniably true. But, as always, play what you like

I said that about two and a half hours ago. I've said it before in the thread. Please, don't misinterpret me, 3.X has problems (which is why I made my own system). It's definitely more limited than 4e in other areas. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Why exactly are you wasting our time with a trivial point? Of course there are things 3e can't do, mechanically, and that's engage in uniquely 4e mechanics.

And I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding BryonD's point that nothing in 3e prevents you from playing like you do in 4e. Note that the antecedent discussion is about abstract nature of hit points and BryonD, in his statement, is agreeing with Pentius's interpretation that you could treat hit points as completely abstract in 3e, just like you can in 4e. There's nothing inherent in 3e that prevents you from playing [with completely abstract hit points] like you do in 4e. BryonD's point is that the same can't be said going the other direction. There are things in 4e (healing surges) that do prevent you from playing 4e (with mixed abstract/substantive wounds) the way you can play 3e.

None of that has anything to do with some competitive narrating of mechanics that are in one game but not the other.

But, didn't I just prove that there are things in 3e that prevent me from playing 3e in the manner that 4e would be played? In 3e I cannot have the "heroic return". You agree with me that I can't do that. Thus, there are things in 3e which prevent me from playing 3e the way I would play 4e.

Now, which of those things are more important will certainly vary by different people. Fair enough. But BryonD's point was that there was nothing I could do in 4e that 3e won't also do, but the reverse isn't true.

That's what I've just proven to be false. Like you said, of course there are things that we can do in one edition that we can't in another.

I hope you don't think that's what "corner case" really means, because I've been finding your use of the term dubious in this thread. Is knocking a PC into negatives and seeing them healed partially back outside the normal parameters of operation in D&D? I don't think so.

I've been pretty clear on how I mean corner case. The only time that the "serious wound" issue will ever come up in play is if the following are true:

1. A character is knocked into the negatives and not killed.
2. There is no magical healing available.
3. The wound is described in specific terms which clearly define what the wound is.

So, yes, I do think it's a fairly rare corner case and I do think it's one that the DM is painting himself into the corner with. For one, most of the time it isn't going to come up because you have magical healing readily available. For another, any wound which is described in less specific terms, such as the Sir Billingsley example above where his wound is described as a face full of blood, can easily go either way.

Now, where I am really having an issue is that people's suspension of disbelief seems to be so selective. It's perfectly believable, apparently, that a "deep gash" to the arm could be entirely recovered from in a matter of days, without any actual mechanical effect to the character, but, somehow, you cannot receive a "deep gash to the arm" if you have healing surges.

This is where I can't really wrap my head around things. If you have no problems buying the idea that a potentially crippling wound can be hand waved away in a few days, why does having two separate hit point pools, suddenly tip you over? (BTW, I'm using the general you here, not you, Bill91, just to be clear)

To me it seems like people have no problems believing six impossible things before breakfast, but that seventh? Not a chance.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me it seems like people have no problems believing six impossible things before breakfast, but that seventh? Not a chance.

As much as we might want to continue the fight... we probably should just give up the ghost on this one, Hussar... because what you state is true across many things, not just D&D combat. We humans are not ruled by logical absolutes like machines are.

(And yes, I know how my statement could be taken and how it begins to dangle in front of ENWorld's CoC posting policy... so I'm not going any further.)

 

[D'karr]

(And yes, I know how my statement could be taken and how it begins to dangle in front of ENWorld's CoC posting policy... so I'm not going any further.)

I didn't know ENWorld had a Call of Cthulhu posting policy... That would be non-euclidean.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hussar, i actually agree with you that the heroic comeback is easier to simulate in 4e. There are things 4e does very well and I have never suggested it was poorly designed (to me looks like it hit all of its design goals). I believe you mentioned The Princess Bride is one of your favorite films in another thread (if this is incorrect I appologize). 4e works great for that sort of action in my opinion (any high adventure game where "coolness" is a priority). The powers and the surges are great tools for establishing cinematic or heroic moments in the game. But this isn't the kind of game I am after. The trade off for those moments (which in my experience creates a lack of consistency and believability) isn't worth it for me. In my book there is a major difference between insta heal during or right after a fight and healing over the course of days or more (yes it isn't realistic but it is more believable to me and doesn't create the need to muffle my descriptions of wounds or backtrack). These are also not corner cases for me. Perhaps in your games they, but I honestly, try have a hard time with this when I play 4e.

 

[Pentius]

I didn't know ENWorld had a Call of Cthulhu posting policy... That would be non-euclidean.

Yes, the Call of Cthulhu posting policy requires that should any thread pass ten pages, reading and/or posting in it will begin to cause SAN loss.

 

[Mallus]

There are cases in which people have acted without any regard for the injuries they have sustained without any obvious impairment.

I think the salient point here is a D&D character can never be impaired. We're not talking about certain cases where an individual has performed without noticeable impairment even though they've sustained serious injuries. We're talking about being immune to impairment, because the system doesn't model it, which, in turn says something about the system's intent w/r/t modeling reality.

If time. But how do you operationalize that in a game? Particularly when players seem to have plenty of fun without a death spiral built in?

Oh, I'm not arguing for specific injury rules for D&D, or death spiral mechanics. I'm, to quote hong, arguing for not thinking too much about fantasy. Because if you've OK with D&D's traditional hit point system, you're already accustomed to not thinking too much about fantasy.

You're moving along, body aching. Your shield arm is mostly numb, your breath is ragged, you can barely see straight, there's a buzzing in your ears from when the last giant's elbow glanced off your helmet. You're able to keep moving largely through grit and effort of will. You feel the need to get help, serious help, and a lot of rest.

Suddenly, a figure darts out of a dark hole low to the ground. Your reactions slowed by your injuries and unable to avoid the creature's lunge, you feel a sharp pain in the ankle. As you topple to the ground, finally succumbing to the many injuries you've sustained, one thought crosses your mind, "Of course. That's how it would happen..." as all fades to black.

I'd give it C+... maybe a B-.

As DM narration, it's fine. As comedy, it's gold, rather Pythonesque, since it's a description of a man who's 1) survived a melee with giants, 2) still able to walk around, run, and fight, presumably in heavy armor 3) not bleeding, in shock, or getting any worse, until 4) a small animal bites him on the ankle and he drops.

It only makes sense if you're familiar with, and have at least partially internalized, an ablative hit point system like D&Ds. Try picturing that scene in a film... WTF! How did that drop him??!!

Too true.
As he rests against a wall, beaten bloody, sweating and with his heart palpitating, a rat sensing a fine meal bites deep into his ankle, the extreme pain instantly rips throughout his body causing his heart to rapidly spasm before finally arresting. His allies would never know that it was a hungry long-scurried-off rat that actually killed him.

I give this one a solid B. Cardiac arrest is a smart angle to take.

However, it's still open to the criticism that no other form of strenuous activity will cause the inured fighter to arrest; riding 10 leagues, running in plate mail while carrying a sack of electrum pieces, bending bars/lifting gates, etc. There's just something special about the rat bite (or cat scratch)...

It's a good way to describe it, but it still points to a system that's (willfully) terrible at modeling reality.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Some snipping below:

As DM narration, it's fine. As comedy, it's gold, rather Pythonesque, since it's a description of a man who's 1) survived a melee with giants, 2) still able to walk around, run, and fight, presumably in heavy armor 3) not bleeding, in shock, or getting any worse, until 4) a small animal bites him on the ankle and he drops.

I recently (regrettably) watched Kindergarten Cop (with my son...that part was fun).


In the end [SPOILER ALERT...stop reading now if plot from KC would ruin your life]...





In the end, the kindergarden class ferret attacks the bad guy at just the right moment, freeing the kid, and, I believe, allowing the hero (wounded to likely 0 hp in D&D rules...0 exactly) to shoot him.

It's not perfect, of course. I agree with how it can be/usually is Pythonesque...but at the same time it can be treated with a degree of seriousness.


Who was it who survived dozens of wars, and conquering multiple nations, who was shot by a kid from a rooftop with a bow, in real life, no less? (I'm sorry, I honestly can't remember).

 

[BryonD]

So, no, 3e does not do everything that 4e does. Now, if you don't want to have this sort of scene in D&D, fair enough. 3e will do that for you. However, if you want this scene in your game, then the cost is lasting wounds.

I just don't see that as a meaningful counter example.

I'm certain that if we sat down and thought about it we could come up with a long list of things the 4E system does that 3E doesn't.

The question is: who cares?

I've never felt a lack of an ability for unconscious characters to spring back up as something I was missing. To the contrary, I'd put this in the same category (albeit much less problematic) as fighters shouldn't be able to make wounds disappear. If you are unconscious, then you are *unconscious*. I get that this goes back to avoiding "being out of the game". But I'm going to presume you've heard enough of my take on save or die, surges, relative character powers at specific tasks, etc... to know where I come down on being worried about getting a specific character back into the action as quickly as possible. To me it gets the very idea of "unconscious" wrong in the name of gamist expediency. I have no interest in that whatsoever.

So, yes, when (at least in this case) we talk about something I very specifically want to NOT have done, 4E does it and 3E does not. Thank you for adding another bullet point to my reasons to NOT play 4e....

But, now that I've conceded that 4E does something 3E does not, do you concede my point that 3E does the thing I have been talking about and 4E does not?

 

[BryonD]

The gash was just an example. Your broken ribs example works fine for me, too. I'm gonna take a shot at explaining why, and I'll use the ribs for the whole thing.

Things in this section are edition neutral unless otherwise specified.

By the rules, If your Fighter takes 70% of his HP damage from the giant, and has 30% left, he requires no medical aid. He is fine. He can keep fighting for now, he can keep adventuring, bedrest will restore those HP even if no one so much as glances at the wound. Even if they poke at it with their little fingers. Even if the Fighter wants to spend the next hour doing cartwheels.

The broken ribs and collapsed lung are narrative constructs that the rules themselves neither create nor support. Does this mean don't make them? No. But it does mean that if you make this sort of narrative construct, it is your responsibility to make it work. You can require the character to get medical aid. You can restrict him from his nightly practice session where the Monk punches him in the chest 50 times. You can do pretty much whatever you want, your group just has to be okay with it.

But the rules are not responsible for your broken ribs. If the rules provide that you can be at max HP(full fightin' capacity) without medical attention, and they do, it's up to you to make that narrative work. You get the medical attention anyway, or you narrate bravely pressing on with broken ribs, or resting for a week and having them knit together or whatever. Really, just whatever you are fine with. But the rules aren't telling you you have to think them broken ribs back together because the game never told you had broken ribs. The game, not being a thing with the capacity to react to situations outside itself, will trudge on. It's up to you to figure out how you want to narrate the situation, whether you do it within the rules or by going outside them, or just flat ignoring them. If you are willing to go as far as making the broken ribs and requiring the character to get medical treatment, not beat on his chest all night screaming like King Kong, or what have you, but you balk at the end and say he healed his ribs by thinking real hard, and you just don't like this narration, the system really has nothing to do with it. In this hypothetical, you have dropped the ball.

4e does not require you to limit narration to gashes on the arm any more than previous editions did. It does not require you to let your Fighters think their wounds closed any more than previous editions did. It requires you to handle your own narrative, even when you take it outside the rules, just like previous editions did.

You are equating multiple days of bedrest to the instantaneous effects of surges.

There is no remotely reasonable equivalence here. You are again trying to force the anti-surge position to be compared to reality instead of the fiction standard that it actually intends to and does so well match.

Heroic fiction routinely allows character to be seriously wounded and not "beat on his chest all night screaming like King Kong, or what have you".
Heroic fiction DOES NOT allow character to think wounds closed.

The standard of difference on these two point is beyond obvious.

The second you try to compare to reality, you may as well just stop. Either address the point I've actually made or agree that it can't be done. (BTW, it can't be done.)