I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Mort]

Do you consider it at all a concern that the current edition of the D&D brand doesn't support that style of play?

Do you ever read any fiction and expect the characters to be responsible for "shaping the fiction" in the way you expect 4E players to? I mean, my players "shape" the fiction all the time by choosing to attack the giant or parlay, or something as simple as going left or right. But, correct me if I'm wrong, that really has nothing to do with what you mean by that. You mean in the sense that players all share some measure of authorship control which completely transcends being in the shoes of a single character within the plot.

A D&D game is not a novel. The characters are not (and should not be) merely pawns to be molded by an all-knowing writer. IMO any DM that thinks he and only he should have any control over the shape and direction of the game world is depriving both himself and his players.

I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.

The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him. Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it)?

I think option b can be a great way for the players to influence the game world – yet too many DMs would look at their map, not see a route, and dismiss this out of hand because it doesn’t fit their (and only their) story.

Note the above is completely the same in 3e or 4e btw (and only tangential to the thread, but I thought I'd answer the question).

 

[BryonD]

No. It obviously is a concern for others, but for me, it's the reason I'm playing D&D at all. If I wanted to GM an actor-stance driven game, I'd be GMing HARP (or perhaps, despite my resolution never to GM it again, Rolemaster).

And that is certainly fair enough.

If I speak purely for my own interest the fact that 4E had turned away from that style is no skin off my nose. I still have awesome games.

But I do feel that there would be some merit to the idea that the benchmark brand name both stay more true to its roots and also do a better job of casting a wider net for its fan base.

If 4E was a different game and you and I both completely loathed it for completely different reasons, but (1) we both still had games that offered what we each wanted and (2) D&D had a maximum possible appeal to the market as a whole, then that would be "better".

Generally not, although there are exceptions of the "Purple Rose of Cairo"/"Singing Detective" variety.

Agreed, there are certainly "third wall" plays on fiction out there. If someone wanted to play in that style the debate would be a whole new thing.

But playing an RPG isn't reading fiction. Nor is GMing it writing fiction. It has a participant/audience dimension. I expect my players to build the gameworld that surrounds their PCs (dwarvish customs, drow cults, fallen human cities, religious observances, etc) and am happy for them to take responsibility (where appropriate) for more immediate aspects of the fiction as well.

eh, I often and readily incorporate ideas like these from my players. But never in a way that is any different than what you would accept, and expect in reading a novel.

You could be 400 pages into a novel and have a protagonist use an old dwarven greeting that has never been previously established in the narrative, and then proceed to have a conversation with a dwarf about a fallen human city that has also never been mentioned before. As long as these new elements don't *contradict* existing elements, then they are awesome.

But this has nothing to do with the point I made. "Shaping the fiction" as you describe here is completely compatible with being in the story. Shaping the fiction by actually changing the world around you by whim is a completely different matter. And whether that comes from explaining why an unintelligent plant responds to Come And Get It or why no fighter may EVER be wounded in a way that requires medical care, these are elements that create the break down in the narrative merit.

I remember being a little kid, maybe 9 or 10, and first hearing of D&D. It was like lightbulbs going on in my head. I already enjoyed various board games in which your pawn might be a "wizard", and I also enjoyed kids make believe. And I knew that this new thing had elements of each but fully transcended either one. And, truly, the only difference now is the level of sophistication.

Yes, but I think it is important not to over-emphasise the degree of transcendence. The players are still expected to advocate for their PCs - they are not expected to suspend that advocacy in order to consider the broader interests of the story. It's just that, in so advocating, they have entry points into the fiction other than those that come from declaring actions on the part of their PCs. It can be as simple as metagaming a convenient rendezvous, or spontaneously inventing a secret hand signal to try and identify fellow cult members among NPCs (the player was hoping for the captain, I gave him a lieutenant). It can be as complex as positing a reason why two gods would conspire to return a PC back to life rather than let him pass into death (which has turned out to be one of the major foci of the campaign - one PC's quest to restore the empire of Nerath by reconstructing the Sceptre of Erathis, aka the Rod of Seven Parts). Sometimes it is inherent in the mechanics - using Come and Get It (unerrated at my table) or choosing to be a Questing Knight (and therefore dictating that the Raven Queen - a divine NPC - has bestowed a quest upon the PC).

Again, most of this gets back to substituting things that DO fit into novels. So it really doesn't help make the "fighters NEVER need medical care" and other disconnect problems that the 4E rule set does generate.

Every player in my games constantly advocates for their character. Have I ever suggested that they would do any less? But they accept and embrace that there are limits on what they can do in pursuit of that advocacy.

You are turning the fact that your players have a lot more power into an incorrect suggestion that my players have both no power and no intent.

They have all the desire, but they also have all the power they want and we agree that more would actually make the game LESS satisfying.

 

[BryonD]

A D&D game is not a novel.

As with Perm, you are dodging the complaints that I have offered and substituting non-issues.

Critically importantly, the scenario you described would work perfectly in a novel. So how does that support your statement that "A D&D game is not a novel." Things that make sense in a novel makes sense in games that strive to be like a novel. This works.

Never being wounded in a way that requires medical care doesn't meet that standard.

I've stated many times before that the thing that makes *playing* so awesome is having the players do things I never expected and seeing the story go in directions I never imagined. I have no desire to be "all-knowing" and, to the contrary, that the DM is not is just as important to the quality of the experience. But everything they do fits within the boundaries of things that could also happen in a novel. There is a VAST collection of potentials that meet that standard. In practical terms the options are effectively uncountable. But there are still things that don't qualify.

If it fits in a novel, it is not going to be a valid example.

 

[Matt James]

D&D is a shared storytelling experience. For a few hours each week, participants can forget the office, school, or other laborious and mundane tasks. You get to be a shining knight or cunning thief, a powerful wizard or rampaging barbarian. The point of the game is to hang out with friends and play out epic stories that we can't otherwise accomplish in real life.

I loathe pretty much anyone that tries to detract from that point. The rules are a tool, and a means to an end. Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.

 

[BryonD]

Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.

I'm not assuming you are speaking to me, or any other specific person, here.

But if it has been AT ALL unclear, I don't expect anyone else to have the same goals as me. I know I have made a point to say that several times, but in a lot of posts that go back and forth it is still easy to get lost.

 

[Mort]

As with Perm, you are dodging the complaints that I have offered and substituting non-issues.

Critically importantly, the scenario you described would work perfectly in a novel. So how does that support your statement that "A D&D game is not a novel." Things that make sense in a novel makes sense in games that strive to be like a novel. This works.

Never being wounded in a way that requires medical care doesn't meet that standard.

You keep saying that.

Yet in 3 of my last 4 sessions (for my 4e game) someone in the party has required some form of medical care (be it the ministrations of a healer/shaman or the attempted heal check of another party member). As a matter of fact this comes up significantly more in my current 4e game than my last 3e/3.5 game as all too often that came down to "wave of the hand or the magic wand" as opposed to care of any kind.

Healing surges divorce the game from magical healing (and can limit magical healing as well) - this can easily make more room for dramatic life saving requirements be it through rescue of a dying PC (my last game had the PCs scrambling to rescue one of the party who was drowing as he had a lousy endurance check and no healing surges left - which led to a save the PC or run after the bad guy choice) or having to stop mid adventure to cure the disease after mucking through a filthy sewer.

I suppose I just disagree with your base assertion here:

1) D&D has never been good at dealing with wounds so saying a prior eddition is better in that regard is suspect.

2) I actually find 4e quite good at this aspect - I've been able to challenge my players with wounds (or as close as it makes no difference) and lasting conditions quite nicely using existing mechanics - so just don't see the problem.

 

[UniversalMonster]

"Retracted" section removed by moderator.

But lets put that aside. I retract it (I know this will get moderated to pieces, but I do retracxt it),
because, as I said, it's an unfair argument., and it's not good manners to just keep on about your own inability to get what other people get.

Mod Edit: You retracted it, but didn't bother to actually remove it. I have done so for you, so it is *actually* retracted. Next time, try not to make your arguments personal in the first place, and it won't be necessary. And, if you know it's gong to be moderated, don't say it in the first place, please. ~Umbran

At some point you should accept that people have different tastes, and other peoples tastes are completely legitimate, and move on. I don't hang out here anymore because the sociopaths rule this place.

Mod Note: Yeah, so calling folks "sociopaths" for arguing on the internet isn't exactly making us think you're really retracting anything. Please take the pseudo-psychological hyperbole elsewhere next time. ~Umbran

They don't let it go. They have to show up and keep telling me why my awesome gaming experiences are somehow discounted.

It all comes down to - as Matt says.. playing your own game in your own circles (we don't play these games alone), loving it, advancing the culture and community of the game and otherwise, shutting the flumph up about stuff you obviously lack experience with, because this isn't about editions, this is about how people are treating people. If a person - any person-- can't see that... it's sociopathy. Sociopathy thrives in our aspergers-infested world, it even gets a sort of half-waiver.. because yeah, we know how people are. But man, there has to be an end to patience at some point.

 

[Mort]

Here's the thing though: if Bryon is the one that can't achieve immersion under 4e .. he's the stunted one. He's the one who simply can't arrive at that "level", he's the blind man debating Monet.


If that sounds like an unfair argument, it is. It's the exact same argument, though that he's using, (and it's at least twice as true). Also, I have to wonder exactly how often Bryon finds himself playing 4e and suffering so haplessly. It must be quite a lot because I haven't seen him shut up about not enjoying playing it in 3.5 years (pun intended?)

But lets put that aside. I retract it (I know this will get moderated to pieces, but I do retracxt it), because, as I said, it's an unfair argument., and it's not good manners to just keep on about your own inability to get what other people get. At some point you should accept that people have different tastes, and other peoples tastes are completely legitimate, and move on. I don't hang out here anymore because the sociopaths rule this place. They don't let it go. They have to show up and keep telling me why my awesome gaming experiences are somehow discounted.

It all comes down to - as Matt says.. playing your own game in your own circles (we don't play these games alone), loving it, advancing the culture and community of the game and otherwise, shutting the flumph up about stuff you obviously lack experience with, because this isn't about editions, this is about how people are treating people. If a person - any person-- can't see that... it's sociopathy. Sociopathy thrives in our aspergers-infested world, it even gets a sort of half-waiver.. because yeah, we know how people are. But man, there has to be an end to patience at some point.

To be fair - If you're having fun playing your game it's not too hard to ignore the people telling you otherwise over an anonymous message board. It's sometimes just fun to see opposing points of view and I have more than a thick enough skin to take criticism (or even admit that, sometimes *gasp* I'm wrong)

On a more constructive note. Love the link in you're sig (makes me realise I need to devote more time to my wiki it's so out of date as to be near useless and that's terrible). You are absolutely right btw - I think I need to fit a beholder in to make my 6th level party panic!

 

[Nagol]

D&D is a shared storytelling experience. For a few hours each week, participants can forget the office, school, or other laborious and mundane tasks. You get to be a shining knight or cunning thief, a powerful wizard or rampaging barbarian. The point of the game is to hang out with friends and play out epic stories that we can't otherwise accomplish in real life.

I loathe pretty much anyone that tries to detract from that point. The rules are a tool, and a means to an end. Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.

If someone asks me "Why don't you like X?" and I reply, I am telling them why X isn't good enough and you know what? I'm OK with that.

I am not "spitting in their face and diminishing their experience". I am having a civil discussion regarding personal preferences and how they differ.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think people need to take step back and breath here. I don't like the edition that Hussar or Defcon do; that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. At the same time if Bryon finds 4e constrictive narratively that doesn't mean he is doing it wrong either. But lets remember the OP was askingcwhy people don't like healing surges. Most posters are just trying to give their honest opinion about tge mechanic, not accuse others of badwrongfun.