D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Vaalingrade]

What "stuff" exists in a narrative space and shouldn't be diagetic?

Let's start with Inspiration. It can come from either an in-universe or meta source, but when Inspiration is used is entirely player-side with the option for the player to flavor it as being in-universe.

Or Action Surge; if we're making real life comparisons, you can't turn your adrenaline on or off; action surges are the player deciding when it kicks in or narratively, decides this is the moment the theme music kicks in and their character gets to act extra badass.

Like I said before: the game isn't trying to simulate reality, it's trying to simulate a fantasy story and filling in author fiat with handles for the players to push and pull to control elements of the narrative.

As this pertains to healing, well, I'd be lying if I said I'd hate to say it, but hit points are a narrative element. They're a measure of how long a character can last in a dangerous situation. That's why a dagger that would straight merc a real person only do a d4 impossible to kill a PC damage and why instant kill powers ignore them.

There is a community-created justification for them--which was never in the actual game, but we've moved past that--in the form of meat points, but ultimately nothing keeps someone from justifying them differently for their character concept.

For example, unless he's played by Lazenby or Craig , James Bond can by put through the ringer, but never bleeds, only has to straighten his cufflinks right up until he loses and gets knocked out. Contrarywise, John Mclean visibly degrades throughout the adventure, bleeding from places that never even got touched.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let's start with Inspiration. It can come from either an in-universe or meta source, but when Inspiration is used is entirely player-side with the option for the player to flavor it as being in-universe.

Or Action Surge; if we're making real life comparisons, you can't turn your adrenaline on or off; action surges are the player deciding when it kicks in or narratively, decides this is the moment the theme music kicks in and their character gets to act extra badass.

Like I said before: the game isn't trying to simulate reality, it's trying to simulate a fantasy story and filling in author fiat with handles for the players to push and pull to control elements of the narrative.

As this pertains to healing, well, I'd be lying if I said I'd hate to say it, but hit points are a narrative element. They're a measure of how long a character can last in a dangerous situation. That's why a dagger that would straight merc a real person only do a d4 impossible to kill a PC damage and why instant kill powers ignore them.

There is a community-created justification for them--which was never in the actual game, but we've moved past that--in the form of meat points, but ultimately nothing keeps someone from justifying them differently for their character concept.

For example, unless he's played by Lazenby or Craig , James Bond can by put through the ringer, but never bleeds, only has to straighten his cufflinks right up until he loses and gets knocked out. Contrarywise, John Mclean visibly degrades throughout the adventure, bleeding from places that never even got touched.

That is a perfectly acceptable preference. It is simply not the way I prefer to play. The areas you have called out as narrative are things I wish weren't present and try to minimize for the most part in my play.

 

[Chaosmancer]

When referring to how PCs are designed, what version of D&D (and its relatives) are you referring to? Just D&D 5e and 5.5?

Since the thread is presumably about 5e and the 2024 rules, and I'm pretty sure the same tiers of play appeared in 3.5 and 4e, AND I'm fairly certain that 2e had "name level" right around level 9... I'm not sure how this makes a difference or there is any confusion?

Also, wasn't asking you to clarify what you meant. You were not who I quoted.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That is a perfectly acceptable preference. It is simply not the way I prefer to play. The areas you have called out as narrative are things I wish weren't present and try to minimize for the most part in my play.

I'm not talking about your preference or mine. I'm talking about how the game is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not talking about your preference or mine. I'm talking about how the game is.

That version of the game, and to some degree from your perspective. Even the earlier books in the same edition (yes I will keep bringing that up) don't go as all in on your preference as you are doing, or as much as the new core are.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That version of the game, and to some degree from your perspective. Even the earlier books in the same edition (yes I will keep bringing that up) don't go as all in on your preference as you are doing, or as much as the new core are.

My examples were Inspiration, Action Surge and Hit Points. They're in both versions of 5e and one has been around and explained in the same way since the beginning.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To me, games and stories are quite different things, with different priorities.

Well, you see Micah, I was responding to people who kept making claims about the fiction, the narrative, the story, ect. So, the fact that you see those things differently and were not who I was responding to, kind of means how you see them doesn't matter at all to the discussion I was having.

For my part I see a very clear separation between stories (which I love) and the kinds of role-playing games I prefer to play. For me, RPGs are about exploring and interacting with a living world that exists independent of my character by taking actions through the lens of my PCs perspective. Stories are not about that, and I don't really want to play a game that pushes to be both, especially if it does so mechanically.

This is a rather meaningless point to the point I am making. The PC's perspective can include these elements. So... then you have no issue, because they are part of the PC's perspective.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Magic isn't a thing in real life either. But it is in D&D. So making mechanics for it that are diagetic in that world makes sense to me.

So, what if I told you that, just like Magic, Luck is a thing that has Goddesses, point to spend, and seems to actually exist in the world of DnD. In fact, why don't you tell me. WHat is the difference between a Halfling with the Lucky Feat, and a human Sorcerer? Does the sorcerer have something real in the DnD world (magic), but the Halfling has a fake thing that doesn't really exist (Luck), even as they pray to the Goddess of Luck while holding a magical item that increases their luck?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My examples were Inspiration, Action Surge and Hit Points. They're in both versions of 5e and one has been around and explained in the same way since the beginning.

It's been explained in a number of different ways, actually. None of them are some kind of objective truth.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, what if I told you that, just like Magic, Luck is a thing that has Goddesses, point to spend, and seems to actually exist in the world of DnD. In fact, why don't you tell me. WHat is the difference between a Halfling with the Lucky Feat, and a human Sorcerer? Does the sorcerer have something real in the DnD world (magic), but the Halfling has a fake thing that doesn't really exist (Luck), even as they pray to the Goddess of Luck while holding a magical item that increases their luck?

So luck can be thing that exists, and I think halfling's luck represents it well, as it just works and the player doesn't need to decide anything (technically you could decide to not reroll, I guess, but no one does this.) Lucky feat IIRC (I banned it, though not for meta reasons) is a resource that is spent, and it is pretty hard to imagine that it is the character who decides to use it.