Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I don't think it is simply visceral or arbitrary. It is a matter of taste but i've gamed long enough to know what kinds of approaches to design and what kinds of mechanics I like. 4e, particularly healing surges place a serious strain for me in terms of not only believability but playability too. I actually don't like how they alter gameplay (lots of people enjoy tgem because tgey enable you to get back into the adventure quickly, but that isn't what I am after). For what it is worth I don't think my assumptions here are flawed. Others have offered alternative explanations for how healing surges could work and I just find the arguments unconvincing.

You are explaining a visceral complaint. So yes, it is completely visceral. You don't like how the mechanics alter gameplay. So what is gameplay if it is *not the feelings (enjoyment, satisfaction, frustration etc etc) we get when we interact with the game?

You can state what you think and how under-whelming our explanations are but if you don't like the feel of healing surges because they don't match the feeling of satisfaction you get from healing magics then no amount of explanation is going to be adequate for you is it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are explaining a visceral complaint. So yes, it is completely visceral. You don't like how the mechanics alter gameplay. So what is gameplay if it is the feelings (enjoyment, satisfaction, frustration etc etc) we get when we interact with the game?

You can state what you think and how under-whelming our explanations are but if you don't like the feel of healing surges because they don't match the feeling of satisfaction you get from healing magics then no amount of explanation is going to be adequate for you is it?

That describes any reaction or opinion of game systems.

I've said from the beginning of the thread people can explain all tgey want, it won't change how people react to the game. 4e has been out nearly three years. I've had time to play and hear different reasons why I should like healing surges, but they haven't improved my experience of 4e. At the same time I do have clear reasons for not liking healing surges. So I don't think its an entirely visceral reaction. You may reject my reasoning as explanation after the fact, but I don't.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I was unaware that power sources had any relevance in narrative space. If a warlord is barred from divine ability then is a wizard barred from martial ability because they are from an arcane power source?

Anyone can swing a sword or try to fire a crossbow but the way we play it, only a "martialist" can perform an exploit (barring multi-classing feats etc.).

So how much of it, honestly, is spent narrating healing? I understand exactly what you're saying but that description seems very light on healing narrative and more on planning/teamwork narrative.

During a short rest, the warlord for example gets two goes of his inspiring word. Anything else is just the PCs ministering to themselves, all while of course the planning/teamwork narrative is going on. How much healing obviously depends upon the circumstances. Sometimes, it would be all-encompassing, other times only requiring a single surge if that.

You lost me. It wasn't a comment on my playstyle but yours. The literature you enjoy is loose and fluid with narrative.

It is also rich with ideas, plots, motives and characters with which to base interesting stories and adventures around.

However, I thought you were referring to your own playstyle in conjunction with the other examples you are giving to support your interpretation of healing surges. Sorry for misunderstanding. So how would you describe your playstyle in relation to this thread?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

That describes any reaction or opinion of game systems.

I've said from the beginning of the thread people can explain all tgey want, it won't change how people react to the game. 4e has been out nearly three years. I've had time to play and hear different reasons why I should like healing surges, but they haven't improved my experience of 4e. At the same time I do have clear reasons for not liking healing surges. So I don't think its an entirely visceral reaction. You may reject my reasoning as explanation after the fact, but I don't.

So we agree, it's a visceral thing? I'm confused by your first sentence and your last sentence.

Maybe that is true for you but if I was to believe that everybody who might read this forum is equally habitual then it'd be a pretty depressing revelation.

You have clear reasons which relate to feelings, that's completely visceral.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So we agree, it's a visceral thing? I'm confused by your first sentence and your last sentence.

Maybe that is true for you but if I was to believe that everybody who might read this forum is equally habitual then it'd be a pretty depressing revelation.

You have clear reasons which relate to feelings, that's completely visceral.

My understanding visceral is it is a gut reaction uninformed by reason. In this case because the opinion of healing surges is derived from a clear set of expectations and reasons, I don't perceive it as entireky viscerak. But I think we are getting side tracked here. If it is visceral, what does that matter? Do you consider your enjoyment of heaking surges as something other than visceral.

 

[Hussar]

Most certainly yes. I just checked my Rules Compendium rather than PHB and they changed you to Adventurer:

Well, I just checked the DDI, which is the most up to date version of the rules:

Knocking Creatures Unconscious

When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it. Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious. If the creature doesn’t receive any healing, it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious after a short rest.

Published in Player's Handbook, page(s) 295.

I also just checked the most recent errata and found nothing there either. So, I'm thinking that this is a possible grey area since the Rules Compendium is included in the DDI. Hrm. Not quite sure what that means. The DDI is meant to be the final word here, so I'd tend to go with that.

The reason it says "you" is because this rule is in the PHB. I'm thinking that it's not a terribly long stretch to apply it to a monster's attacks.

Otherwise, a monster could never, ever take a PC prisoner.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Anyone can swing a sword or try to fire a crossbow but the way we play it, only a "martialist" can perform an exploit (barring multi-classing feats etc.).

For the sake of simplicity, lets extend narrative space outside of combat. A wizard can not advise a war council because that's apart of the martial power source. A paladin can not be a notable warrior because they are a divine power source. A bard can not be a swashbuckler because they are arcane power source. etc?

During a short rest, the warlord for example gets two goes of his inspiring word. Anything else is just the PCs ministering to themselves, all while of course the planning/teamwork narrative is going on. How much healing obviously depends upon the circumstances. Sometimes, it would be all-encompassing, other times only requiring a single surge if that.

Yeah, mechanically but narratively healing is pretty sparse right?

[/QUOTE]It is also rich with ideas, plots, motives and characters with which to base interesting stories and adventures around.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, so why limit your own characters, plots, motives and ideas to this regimented perception?

So how would you describe your playstyle in relation to this thread?

Much the same way you do, I suspect. I connect narrative with mechanical events. However, I don't see the limitations you have put on said mechanics in subject.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

My understanding visceral is it is a gut reaction uninformed by reason. In this case because the opinion of healing surges is derived from a clear set of expectations and reasons, I don't perceive it as entireky viscerak. But I think we are getting side tracked here. If it is visceral, what does that matter? Do you consider your enjoyment of heaking surges as something other than visceral.

It's feeling not reaction. It doesn't matter if it's visceral, I already said that but it that won't stop me from pointing where your assumptions are ill-informing your criticisms.

And no.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Not quite sure what that means. The DDI is meant to be the final word here, so I'd tend to go with that.

I checked the DDI at the time too but then when I was flicking through the rules compendium at home, there it was. Perhaps as much as we would like to think that WotC stay on top of updating the compendium, it would not be unrealistic to assume that a couple of things go through to the keeper, this change from the PHB to the Rules Compendium would seem a candidate for one.

The reason it says "you" is because this rule is in the PHB. I'm thinking that it's not a terribly long stretch to apply it to a monster's attacks.

Within the context of the rules, I have to disagree. Within the realms of what should be a note in the DMG (which I also looked for just in case), I agree with you. I think it would add a good dimension to the ruleset.

Otherwise, a monster could never, ever take a PC prisoner.

A new challenge?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

For the sake of simplicity, lets extend narrative space outside of combat. A wizard can not advise a war council because that's apart of the martial power source.

I would have picked it as more down to roleplaying and intelligence rather than from the martial power source.

A paladin can not be a notable warrior because they are a divine power source.

The powers of a Paladin make them a notable warrior despite (and perhaps particularly because they are) coming from a divine source.

A bard can not be a swashbuckler because they are arcane power source. etc?

What exactly is a swashbuckler here?

The thing is 4e is quite specific in regards to powers (it does take up the largest chunk of the PHB). While it encourages, playing around with the fluff, there are still mechanical foundations for all the powers. For out of combat situations, I feel all editions of Dungeons and Dragons have tried to emphasize the freedom of roleplaying the PCs as the players see fit (and likely in accord with one another).

Yeah, mechanically but narratively healing is pretty sparse right?

Again it depends. If there are a lot of injuries or someone went deep into the negatives or failed a couple of death saves, then the narrative of the PCs condition is obviously significant, dramatic (hopefully) and dominant after combat. I do however feel that the rules as written restrict me here when describing such things as I have mentioned across the entirety of this thread (and really, that was the initial premise of the thread and my disagreeing with it).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise