I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[JamesonCourage]

I assume if I take damage and am still standing in 4e, it's a superficial wound, and that I'm heroically pushing past it (it does nothing to affect my performance, other than making me take less blows before I go down). Here's why:
(1) The Cleric can "heal" it by attempting to close wounds.
(2) The Warlord can "heal" it by boosting my morale.
(3) I can "heal" it by pushing through it with a second wind.
(4) As of 6 hours of rest, the missing HP is "healed", and the HP isn't even making it so that I take less blows anymore (I'm just pushing past wounds in a flavor sense, at best).

What this brings up to me is this:
(1) If I see an ally hit in combat, as a Cleric, I want to go inspect his wounds after combat. Are they bad? No, they aren't, he'll be fine. He might be a little wounded, and he's pushing through it. I could heal him to help with that. That makes sense.
(2) If I see an ally hit in combat, as a Warlord, I want to go inspect his wounds after combat. Are they bad? No, they aren't, he'll be fine. He might be a little wounded, and he's pushing through it. I could help him to deal with that. That makes sense.

It all makes sense so far. But, it only makes sense as long as every wound is superficial enough to shake off after 6 hours of rest, is an actual wound that the Cleric can heal, and is light enough that the Warlord can help push you through it.

The following is just my preference: I prefer a system that allows for this type of wound, but I don't want it to stop there. Maybe a wound that only the Warlord can heal, or only the Cleric can heal. I just want more possibilities. Overall, this is very minor, as it doesn't really force the overall story to branch one way or another. This is separate from long term wounds (where it eliminates the story branching certain ways).

In 3e, it was called healing wands. Same effect.

My group never used them in the years we played. However, healing overnight in 4e is a base, core rule. We "escaped" healing wands with no house rules. We couldn't do that to healing overnight.

The problem here is, you're presuming that the mechanics dictate the description. They don't. That's how 3e works. In 3e, the creature has dropped you into negative HP's, you ARE GOING TO DIE! The mechanics tell you exactly what's happening, as it happens.

4e doesn't do that. 4e allows a small amount of player authorial control over the situation. Making a Heal check, for example, could be stabilizing someone, or it could just be to determine how wounded the person is. However, that's going to be very situational.

Again, I addressed this in the post you quoted. I have two problems with this:

(1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
(2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes.

I want my players to stay in actor stance. They want to stay in actor stance most of the time. To us, this is a problem.

After all, how many people could actually tell you that someone has a ruptured spleen by looking at them while the injured person is wearing full plate armor?

Like I've said multiple times, people are willing to believe six impossible things, but apparently that seventh is just a step too far.

Apparently you draw it at assessing a ruptured spleen while someone is in full plate.

Also, as far as I can tell from people talking about 4e in the past, levels 1-10 are barely within the realms of human capabilities (but maybe not 6+), but 11-20 is superhuman, and 21-30 is Epic (with a capital "E"). So, I'd say that as of level 11 or higher, I could probably expect someone to assess that ruptured spleen.

Me, I want a game where the players influence the story, rather than the game dictating the story. Apparently, some are very content with having the mechanics dictate the story.

Yes, exactly. That's exactly it, and exactly my point. You've worded it badly, in my opinion, but there it is (in essence). As long as decisions are meaningful, the players will influence the story (and greatly!), so this would apply to any edition of D&D that's not a railroad.

However, you like when the players have some narrative control over the story and when the rules facilitate that. I like when the players have are able to immerse in the game, and the rules facilitate that. You like when things get abstracted to a point where you can say "you find out that the blow wasn't as bad as it looked" instead of saying, "you patched up his wound." That's fine. But it's my point.

As always, play what you like

For one, you're talking about a level of immersion that, IMO, is impossible in D&D. I mean, after the first round of combat, most groups sound like a rather complicated version of Bingo. Character's in stories don't crack wise at the table. They don't make Monte Python (or pick your geek cultural reference of choice) jokes. On and on and on.

Players in D&D are players first. The game is FAR too mechanical to ever be anything else. The idea that D&D is as immersive as you're claiming, to me, is so far beyond anything I've seen or heard anywhere that it's not even close to reality.

It's like you've had one set of experiences, and we've had another. Imagine that!

I'd say our mileage has varied so very greatly that it's no wonder we want different things out of the game. I have a group that collectively wants to commit to the character, remain in-character, and see what story unfolds (this is fun for us). You have a different group, with different goals (I assume with fun being the end goal). I would prefer a game that reflects help achieve our version of fun, and you'd like your version. This seems like a taste issue, which is something I've said for a while now. As always, play what you like

And, I'll give you a perfect example of why I don't think this is a consideration. Take JamesonCourage for a moment. Earlier, he talked about how serious wounds had an impact on his campaign some 8-10 times. Sounds like a lot right?

But, IIRC, his last campaign was 5 years and some 2-3000 hours of gameplay long. That means that serious wounds came into play once ever 200 hours of game play. I don't know about you, but, I run entire campaigns in less play time than that.

About 2,000 hours of game play, and that was over 2½ years. And, I said that those 8-10 instances were over the last year (which none of that campaign has been in). Over the last year, I've probably gamed a lot (we play once per weeks, but it lasts about 8-10 hours). So, 52 weeks at 9 hours per session comes to 468 hours, which is once every 46.8 hours of game play, which means that it comes up about once every 5 sessions (5 weeks).

Having a significant impact on the story once a month is something I don't want to lose.

This is why I characterize it as, not so much a large narrative space, but a narrative puddle. If this is something that comes up once a campaign, at best, who cares? Do we really want to have mechanics for that?

Um, it was about 6-8 times in my last campaign, and twice in this campaign (which has lasted two months). This is something that my group cares about. We want mechanics for it.

It's not a deal breaker for a system, but the rule wouldn't have survived (it would've been house ruled). I'd prefer a system that I don't have to house rule, which is why I moved away from 3.X. I can have fun with 3.X, and I could probably have fun with 4e (though it embraces more things that I dislike than 3.X did), but that's not the point. It comes back to preference.

So, back to BryonD's question about supporting a playstyle, in light of JamesonCourage's post, this is why I couldn't really care less that this has been excised from 4e. It's such a tiny corner case that why should I care?

One, my players and I played an incredible amount in that campaign, so I'm not sure it's fair to base it off of. Two, you didn't do the math right (assumed the 8-10 incidents came from that campaign, assumed it was all in one year). Three, we don't know what the other people's statistics are (if they average once every 5 sessions as well, it might be closer to 20 hours of play, rather than my 46 hours).

For me, it's not a corner case. It significantly alters the story a little under once a month. That's important to my group. It's not to you or your group. And here we are.

As always, play what you like

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.

Honestly, I'm more worried about this happening in a narrative style game than in a highly immersive experience. That is, in a game where story is the focus (and not the character), I'd be more worried that the GM would be pushing the story a certain direction, or even "taking control over the shape and direction of the game world".

I'd prefer that the rules let the game unfold in such a way that it could be a novel, all while giving a highly immersive experience to the players. That's not saying to write a story that the players will assuredly walk down. It's saying I want mechanical devices set in place that help the game naturally feel like it's being in a novel, but in a way where the story isn't fudged by the mechanics themselves.

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).

See, this is putting story ahead of setting, which is where I object, because it runs the risk of immersion being lost. Now, you can definitely keep players immersed while doing it, but I think it's akin to what certain posters have labeled "illusionism", which there's an objection to. I mean, you like that style of play, and a lot of other people do, too.

However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.

Again, it's just preference. As always, play what you like

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.

Onetruewayism?

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.

Irony?

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.

Totally agree. In a thread about "why don't you like healing surges?", I find it very odd that people are arguing so much over it. People answered the question, but were told they were completely wrong. Um, no, they aren't wrong in at least one way: they dislike healing surges, and for the reason they've stated. I guess people have been debating the reasoning, and that's understandable to some degree, but when people make points like, "I dislike it because it takes away from the immersive gaming experience my group enjoys" and they get back "nobody can ever achieve the type of immersion your group enjoys" then I just get confused.

Why is there nothing you can do? I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day. I do the same with Daily powers. One interesting revelation of this thread is that people immediately stop the buck at 4e in regards to regulation of the rules. Somewhere along the line, RAW became a sacred cow.

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.

Most people prefer to work with the rules, not fight them. Most people are okay with house ruling on some level. As always, play what you like

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks for the reply!

I can't say I would use these words. You are not a million miles off, but the spin here seems to be stuck in a mechanics first perspective.

My point of view: The game has rules which give value to different choices. Those values should be balanced so that there's often a decision to be made; that is, there are often multiple choices that all appear to be sound*. The kinds of choices that we want to make should be supported by the rules by balancing the values given. If not, the game isn't going to be satisfying.

* - That's what I mean when I say "balanced", by the way. There can be an optimal choice to be made, but if that choice is hidden because it relies on perfect information, then it's still a valid option.​

The mechanics PURELY come later as a reliable, consistent model for backing up that narrative definition.

The way I read this is that you want mechanics that give the right values to choices made; that is, given that your character is a bad-ass fighter, it's a sound decision to charge the hill giant who can easily take out 25 commoners. You wouldn't want it to be a sound decision for your "just got my first sword" character to do the same, and if the mechanics made that a valid choice (for example, if the monster's stats always scale to party level, so "hill giant" is just a skin slapped on the same stats anything else will have), it wouldn't work for you.

Question: assuming that is correct, is that because it means that you don't have to consider the mechanics when you make your decisions? You can stay in the role of your character and make decisions from his point of view. You can rely on the mechanics to produce acceptable outcomes - because they are "a reliable, consistent model" for determining what happens to the characters in the game world.

Again, I'm not really feeling the whole "mechanics require" me to "step out of my role". I can do whatever the hell I want. The mechanics can not EVER REQUIRE anything. GOOD mechanics may prohibit things.

I think it can be said simply.

Anything that would make me declare a novel completely stupid and stop reading needs to be avoided.

I think there's another way to approach RPGs. For example, in Prime-Time Adventures, when there's a conflict you draw a number of cards. The number of cards you draw depends on a metagame resource (fan mail, or the "budget" if you're the DM) and some character resources (personal set, relationships). If you have more red cards than the DM, you win the conflict. Whoever draws the highest card gets to narrate what happens.

It's possible to build a narrative that you'd have no problem with, if you read a transcript of the RPG session after the fact. But I'd guess that you wouldn't like those mechanics that much, because when you narrate (for example) you're not doing so from a point of view of your character. That's what I mean by the mechanics requiring you to step out of your role.

*

Anyway. I think that the way we think about RPGs is different, and hopefully there's something to be gained from looking at things in a different way. I hope I didn't misrepresent your position in an attempt to understand it; if so, let me know where I went wrong.

 

[Nagol]

Question: assuming that is correct, is that because it means that you don't have to consider the mechanics when you make your decisions? You can stay in the role of your character and make decisions from his point of view. You can rely on the mechanics to produce acceptable outcomes - because they are "a reliable, consistent model" for determining what happens to the characters in the game world.

This is true for me. I run all sorts of game systems; in fact I choose the system for each game once I've determined what genre, power level, tone, and other expectations I want met from a game. I choose a system that seems to best emulate the world as I see it as a setting. That way, I and the players can make choices that are reasonable from the viewpoint of the in-game characters and expect reasonable in-genre results.

I think there's another way to approach RPGs. For example, in Prime-Time Adventures, when there's a conflict you draw a number of cards. The number of cards you draw depends on a metagame resource (fan mail, or the "budget" if you're the DM) and some character resources (personal set, relationships). If you have more red cards than the DM, you win the conflict. Whoever draws the highest card gets to narrate what happens.

It's possible to build a narrative that you'd have no problem with, if you read a transcript of the RPG session after the fact. But I'd guess that you wouldn't like those mechanics that much, because when you narrate (for example) you're not doing so from a point of view of your character. That's what I mean by the mechanics requiring you to step out of your role.

*

Anyway. I think that the way we think about RPGs is different, and hopefully there's something to be gained from looking at things in a different way. I hope I didn't misrepresent your position in an attempt to understand it; if so, let me know where I went wrong.

One of our nods to that form of metagame action is the use of Whimsy Cards. Most campaigns in our group add the use the old Lion Rampart product with varying constraints on redraws/usage. This allows limited direct narrative control occasionally if the player wishes to use it.

Another time such activity seems more used by me is during long-term (days-weeks-months) activity as a way to determine incremental growth/overall result quality and the like.

 

[Oryan77]

I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day.

I can get away with regulating or not using certain magic items. I don't like Healing Surges at all, so I'd rather not use them then simply regulate them. I seriously doubt any 4e players would be ok if I got rid of Healing Surges.

I love the Healing Surge system and how it prevents the infinite healing day.

This is what I don't understand.

4e players complain about Healing Wands cause they prevented the 15 minute adventuring days. Then 4e players praise Healing Surges cause they prevent the 15 minute adventuring days.

I also don't see how there is any difference between the amount of healing you do in 4e compared to other editions using tons of wands. It's as "infinite" as anything else people got away with. If they had wands, then they might go several extra encounters before running out of other spells and needing to rest. In 4e, Healing Surges are made to purposely allow you to go several more encounters before you run out of powers and need to rest.

The only difference I see is that Healing Surges don't cost anything, you're guaranteed to have them every day, everyone has them, and you don't need to rely on anyone else to use them. So why complain about wands as if they made the game too easy? Healing Surges are worse about making the game easier than wands could ever be.

Besides, anyone complaining about wands brought that problem on themselves. In my 12 years of running a Planescape campaign, I've never had that issue.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that in a game limited to actor stance for players (which I assume includes your game) undermines player power or constrains advocacy. My point was the opposite, namely, that certain forms of expanded player authorial power (of the sort that 4e involves) have the potential to undermine the player advocacy role, and I was trying to indicate that in my own game the goal is to avoid that undermining.

I made this point about my game in order to indicate that "transcending the actor role" (which is a notion you introduced) is not so transcendent as to transcend the advocacy role. (One might say that, in the same way that the threat that an actor stance game has to try and avoid is "mother may I" or railroading, so the threat that a player-authorship has to avoid is "conch passing" or a game that becomes incoherent when players both set the threats/surprises and are meant to advocate for their PCs in resolving them. I assume you regard your game as avoiding the "mother may I" problem. I regard my game as avoiding the "conch passing" problem. For a discussion of this issue for narrativist RPGing, which was brought to my attention by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and has influenced my thinking quite a bit, see here.)

 

[pemerton]

As others have pointed out, the game is designed around healing surges, so you can remove them but it will impact play.

I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day.

Unless I've misunderstood, Matt James has implemented what upthread I described as a trivial house rule - namely, slowing down the recovery of expended healing surges.

LostSoul does the same in his 4e hack.

It all makes sense so far. But, it only makes sense as long as every wound is superficial enough to shake off after 6 hours of rest, is an actual wound that the Cleric can heal, and is light enough that the Warlord can help push you through it.

The following is just my preference: I prefer a system that allows for this type of wound, but I don't want it to stop there.

Anything that would make me declare a novel completely stupid and stop reading needs to be avoided.


Conan never receiving any wound that he couldn't make never require any further attention just by wishing it so would be on a list of things that would make me move on to something better to read.

I don't particularly share JC's preference - or, rather, I'm quite happy with a game (like 4e) that doesn't go further. And I don't follow BryonD's suggestion that the story not going further than this is stupid. Aragorn never suffers an injury that requires further attention. Nor does Boromir, except when he dies. Nor do Gimli or Legolas, despite fighting in several serious battles. I think the outcomes of either (more-or-less) fine, or dead, fit a certain fantasy genre quite well. And I'm quite happy to play a game that falls within those limits.

As for Conan wishing things - of course it is not Conan who makes himself survive by wishing. It is the author who wishes Conan to survive, and so writes the story that way. Likewise in a game with surge-style mechanics. It is not the PC who expends metagame resources. It is the player. Of course you'll get absurdities if you don't maintain this distinction, and assume that it is the PC who is exercising the privileges of author stance - I mean, the very idea is incoherent!

I'm more worried about this happening in a narrative style game than in a highly immersive experience. That is, in a game where story is the focus (and not the character), I'd be more worried that the GM would be pushing the story a certain direction

In my game the focus is the characters, and the situation that they are engaged in. "Plot" is emergent from that - no one is playing the game with the intention of generating a plot. I, as GM, am focused on setting up situations that engage the players by putting pressure on their PCs. My players are focused on getting their PCs through those situations (and draw upon metagame as well as PC resources to do so).

(This is the main point of the blog I linked to in my earlier reply to BryonD - a good RPG of the sort I like should generate an engaging plot without any participant having that be his/her job description. For me, that's the essence of good narrativist RPG design.)

<snip quote of example of GM adjudicating a shortcut by changing the map>

if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them

Whereas my players would, I think, see it as applying conflict resolution mechanics in a fair way. That is - until the enemy has actually won the challenge, it would be cheating for me to deem that s/he takes the best route regardless of what the players (and their PCs) do. Just as in a combat I can't narrate the NPC's deadly aim and trajectory until after the dice are rolled, so likewise in a chase.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't particularly share JC's preference - or, rather, I'm quite happy with a game (like 4e) that doesn't go further.

Yay for preference.

And I don't follow BryonD's suggestion that the story not going further than this is stupid. Aragorn never suffers an injury that requires further attention. Nor does Boromir, except when he dies. Nor do Gimli or Legolas, despite fighting in several serious battles. I think the outcomes of either (more-or-less) fine, or dead, fit a certain fantasy genre quite well. And I'm quite happy to play a game that falls within those limits.

Well, Boromir was certainly very injured in the movie before he was killed, or even on the ground dying. And, in the move, Strider does fall off of that cliff in the second movie, and is pretty badly wounded. I'd say both movies cover serious wounds. But, there will certainly be wounds that fit what you're describing, and it's cool with me if that's what you prefer and are comfortable with.

In my game the focus is the characters, and the situation that they are engaged in. "Plot" is emergent from that - no one is playing the game with the intention of generating a plot. I, as GM, am focused on setting up situations that engage the players by putting pressure on their PCs. My players are focused on getting their PCs through those situations (and draw upon metagame as well as PC resources to do so).

(This is the main point of the blog I linked to in my earlier reply to BryonD - a good RPG of the sort I like should generate an engaging plot without any participant having that be his/her job description. For me, that's the essence of good narrativist RPG design.)

Oh, I wasn't saying that a narrative-first style game would produce a railraod. I was saying that I think it's more likely there than in other games. I'm certainly not accusing you of doing such to your players.

Whereas my players would, I think, see it as applying conflict resolution mechanics in a fair way. That is - until the enemy has actually won the challenge, it would be cheating for me to deem that s/he takes the best route regardless of what the players (and their PCs) do. Just as in a combat I can't narrate the NPC's deadly aim and trajectory until after the dice are rolled, so likewise in a chase.

This seems to be a matter of tactics, not of luck.
Player: "I run the most direct route I know of to get there."
GM: *Looks at map, sees that it's following the NPC* "Okay, you're following the guy still, but it looks like he's taking the same route."

It's not luck, it's decision. It's not about aim, it's about decision. He took Route A, which is faster than Route B or Route C (indeed, it's the fastest route). That doesn't mean that he reaches the destination first, but it should mean that no other route should be faster (according to the map). If I then proceeded to fudge the results, my players would feel I cheated to help them.

Now, this could conceivably be different if the map wasn't set in stone, or if the NPC was only taking "a direct route" but not "the most direct route" to the destination, or if you rolled for NPC tactics. But, barring that, my players would probably feel I cheated to help them if they found out.

I don't think your comparison to attack rolls is equal unless you roll to see what route they're taking (which is possible), but with the example given, the route had been decided on a concrete map already. In such a case, my players would feel cheated.

It's just preference, though. Others players wouldn't like that style, and would prefer yours, obviously. My way isn't always right for everyone. I was just pointing out the problem with that style for my group (much like you did in reply to me). As always, play what you like

 

[Pentius]

However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.

There's a nuance here that seems rather important to me. In pemerton's example, the player specifically asks if he knows an alternate route due to his intimate knowledge of the city. If your players don't want an additional route to exist that was previously unmapped, they probably aren't going to ask for it. If the DM initiated the possibility of the shortcut, it would be different, but the entire point of the example is that the player initiates the possibility.

It's the Oberoni fallacy:

Most people prefer to work with the rules, not fight them. Most people are okay with house ruling on some level. As always, play what you like

You've mentioned the Oberoni fallacy more than once in this discussion, iirc(or one of the other surge threads? They all seem to run together). I think you are misusing it here, though. The Oberoni fallacy is for flaws in game design or balance, and I don't think catering to a differing preference qualifies as such. Slowing the rate of surge recovery is a taste issue. You can house rule it all you want. It doesn't necessarily mean that surges as presented in RAW were badly balanced or designed, just that they get in the way of something you were going for.

Perhaps you see them as a problem for you. Fair enough. Being able to fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem. But at the same time, it doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the problem. I know that you, personally, don't like to house rule things. But you also made your own game. Most of us haven't, though, and we tend to take a game that's pretty close to what we want and tweak it to taste.

 

[JamesonCourage]

There's a nuance here that seems rather important to me. In pemerton's example, the player specifically asks if he knows an alternate route due to his intimate knowledge of the city. If your players don't want an additional route to exist that was previously unmapped, they probably aren't going to ask for it. If the DM initiated the possibility of the shortcut, it would be different, but the entire point of the example is that the player initiates the possibility.

He can initiate it because he doesn't know the answer yet. You can say, "no, there's not a faster route." That's valid. Yes, the player is hoping for one. Yes, my players would still feel cheated if I made one up because they asked for it.

You've mentioned the Oberoni fallacy more than once in this discussion, iirc(or one of the other surge threads? They all seem to run together).

That they do.

I think you are misusing it here, though. The Oberoni fallacy is for flaws in game design or balance, and I don't think catering to a differing preference qualifies as such.

I disagree. Many games are designed specifically with a style in mind. Saying, "yes, you can still play the way you want, as long as you change the game" seems to be the essence of the Oberoni fallacy, in my opinion.

Slowing the rate of surge recovery is a taste issue. You can house rule it all you want. It doesn't necessarily mean that surges as presented in RAW were badly balanced or designed, just that they get in the way of something you were going for.

Right. And using the reasoning that you can just change the mechanics of the game to address of problem someone has is the essence of the Oberoni fallacy.

Perhaps you see them as a problem for you. Fair enough. Being able to fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem. But at the same time, it doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the problem. I know that you, personally, don't like to house rule things.

The only game I've never house ruled is M&M 2e. I've house ruled everything else. I love tinkering with mechanics and house ruling things.

However, in the course of a discussion, I find the reasoning, "well, change the mechanics" to be rather meaningless. If I say, "I have a problem with the game because of the way healing surges are implemented mechanically," saying "well, then, change the way healing surges work," isn't really going to help me. It's missing the point. The question in the thread was "why don't you like healing surges?" When that question is answered, I shouldn't get back "well, change the mechanics." Ideally (as in, my personal ideals in a game, not for everyone), the game should be in such a state where that isn't an issue. When discussing game theory, I should be able to state my ideals, my preferences, without getting back, "well, change the mechanics." No, that doesn't address my point: I dislike the current mechanical implementation of healing surges in any game, including 4e.

But you also made your own game. Most of us haven't, though, and we tend to take a game that's pretty close to what we want and tweak it to taste.

That's what I did for years, too. I'm all for house rules. In a discussion on overall game theory, though, I think they have little place. In a discussion on how to tweak a game to fit a certain theme, style, or feel, they're great. I just don't think they're appropriate in the discussion I'm trying to have. Feel free to have it with others, as I'd never try to deny you that. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I've been debating with you for years and now you flat out state that the topic is imperceptible to you. It is like we have been debating the merits of Picasso vs. Monet and now you throw out that you are blind.

Do you REALLY mean what you said, or were you simply wildly over-stating in order to make a point? I truly hope it is the later.

Yes, BryonD, the level of immersion you seem to be positing has never occurred at any table I've participated in. The idea that the game should "play like we're in a novel" where the players never break immersion, where every decision is 100% in-character with no meta-game concerns is a mythical beast as far as I'm concerned.

I've played with way too many people to believe that I'm the outlier here. Doesn't matter how old or where or in what circumstance. At no point have I ever seen a group for any real length of time, achieve the immersion that you're talking about.

I think people need to take step back and breath here. I don't like the edition that Hussar or Defcon do; /snip

What's wrong with 3e? I LIKE 3e. I really, really do. I played it for ten years. Played the HELL out of it. However, liking a game does not preclude me for recognizing its short comings. 4e has all sorts of issues as well.

It just doesn't really have THIS issue.