April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Andor]

I'd wager that even amongst it's strongest oppoenents, the number of people who have NEVER EVER EVER NEVER played 4e are small.

*holds up hand* I've never, ever played 4e. Not due to being unwilling to give it a go I might add. I simply don't know anyone playing it. I'm at Embry-Riddle right now, an engineering university, long a bastion of the hardcore geek set. And at the school I know of at least 2 3.X games, several of the various 40k universe games and a Battlelords game for crying out loud, but no one that I'm aware of is playing 4e and I am a member of the gamers guild there.

I'd actually quite like to give it a try, but have never had the opportunity.

Now, that having been said, the problem being discussed in this thread is NOT the mechanics of healing in 4e. As has been pointed out, healing surges are a limit to healing, not a source.

The problem with healing in 4e is the FLUFF. 4e incorporates the somewhat odd notion that all 'power sources' need equal access to and effectiveness in all roles. And therefore we have the Warlord who can yell you back on your feet after you somehow survive swimming a river of lava with -2 hp.

If that healing was fluffed as magic spells, divine grace, healing herbs, alchemical potions or the tears of unicorns then no one would have a problem with it.

However we are all pretty certain that a pep-talk does not outweigh 3rd degree burns. And if you swam a river of lava and got reduced from 145 to -2 hp it was not luck, it was not morale, you got roasted alive and are a hideous husk of burnt flesh clinging to life by sheer determination.

Yes, in reality healing from that would take months in the intensive care unit, and your odds would not be good. But a month of bed rest is less offensive to that violation of veracity than a quick atta-boy and a good nights sleep.

And magical healing? Why wouldn't it work? It's magic after all.

 

[BryonD]

I disagree, and I'm not sure how you got this our of my post. The "vast majority" play multiple systems, within and without the D&D brand. I'd wager that even amongst it's strongest oppoenents, the number of people who have NEVER EVER EVER NEVER played 4e are small.

I wasn't presuming to count only those people who "NEVER EVER EVER NEVER" play and I'm fairly confident that WotC goal is not looking for making a game that a handful of people play consistently and most everyone else plays as well, but only once in a blue moon. I presumed that we were talking about an actual effort to make a *really* successful game. In that context I stand by my response. If the context is just "NEVER EVER EVER NEVER", then I don't think your comment really means anything worthwhile.

That choice is not always available. There are a finite number of people willing to run games, sometimes you have to suck it up and play an edition you aren't the biggest fan of if you want to play at all. And the "quality" of a game is less dependent upon the system and much more dependent upon the players and the DM. I'll play almost anything with my friends, because I want to play a game with my friends, which is why I'm in a 3e game right now even though 4e is my preference.

And if 4E was more popular, your odds of finding a group would be higher. That isn't to say they can't be found.

But if 75% prefer blue groups and 25% prefer red groups then fans of blue who can only find red groups will be vastly less common than fans of red who can only find blue groups.

And, I'll repeat a comment I've made several times lately. The whole "I play with my friends and that is more important than system" comment is completely lacking in substance. OF COURSE YOU DO!! So do I.
I play with my friends. I always have. I always will. Ten years from now I'm going to be playing RPGs with my friends. And we will be playing the best system available. And I expect that pretty much everyone else out there will be also playing with their friends. WotC can't change that. WotC doesn't have any reason to even think about how or why they would. What WotC CAN do is make 5E the best game they can possibly make it so that groups of friends will choose THAT game over other options. Comments about how to make 5E be a better game are good. Comments about how it doesn't matter if 5E is better than other options because you play with friends are just so much empty smoke.

There are a lot of factors that go in to what someone is willing to play. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who would outrightly turn down playing with their friends/family over a specific edition are few.

You're right at the end though. People will ignore perceived "quality" if there are other more powerful personal preferences.

I didn't say they will ignore their idea of quality. My point is, they won't.

As a group those friends will pick game they, collectively, find to be the best.

 

[BryonD]

4e hp do work very well in play, as long as you don´t think too hard about them.

4E hp work *perfectly* fine.

It is the surge mechanic for restoring them that fails spectacularly *IF* you have my personal taste and requirement for strong narrative continuity.

I'd also say that "think to hard" is a very loaded phrase.
I don't at all get hung up on "reality". But I do want a system that is capable of enduring the pressure of being thought about if called upon. Even you agree that 4E doesn't meet my standard there.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I disagree, and I'm not sure how you got this our of my post. The "vast majority" play multiple systems, within and without the D&D brand. I'd wager that even amongst it's strongest oppoenents, the number of people who have NEVER EVER EVER NEVER played 4e are small.

Not one of the dozen or so people that play in my various groups have bothered playing. We read the books and previews and that was enought.

That choice is not always available. There are a finite number of people willing to run games, sometimes you have to suck it up and play an edition you aren't the biggest fan of if you want to play at all. And the "quality" of a game is less dependent upon the system and much more dependent upon the players and the DM. I'll play almost anything with my friends, because I want to play a game with my friends, which is why I'm in a 3e game right now even though 4e is my preference.

There are a lot of factors that go in to what someone is willing to play. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who would outrightly turn down playing with their friends/family over a specific edition are few.

You're right at the end though. People will ignore perceived "quality" if there are other more powerful personal preferences.

I would personally turn down a game if it was a system I don't like. I can almost always find a game, or run one. As such, playing a system I don't find fun isn't worth it. Heck, we've turned down systems we like, because the campaign wasn't fun. Why would I play a system I don't find fun to begin with?

I see my friends in other capacities, no need to flounder through a RIFTS game (as an example) just to hang out.

 

[pemerton]

One camp wants non-magical people to be normal human beings subject to the limits that normal humans are subject to and vulnerable to the threats of physical injury (or something resembling them) that we can dream up in our mind.

I think this is my camp - ie saying that whatever a person can recover from pretty quickly is not a serious wound.

The other throws realism to the wind and desires fantasy action heroes who may not cast spells like a wizard might but are still fueled by some nondescript magical power or narrative device that elevates them above mere mortals into something more resembling a super hero.[/qupte]I think this must be the camp who say that you can recover from a deep wound or a ruptured lung in a week.

These two character types cannot coexist in the same game.

Agreed, but it's up for grabs whether or not both sorts of games can be supported by the same mechanics. AD&D and Basic D&D more-or-less did so, I think. 3E did not (in my view - as I understand it, it supports the second sort of game). Nor does 4e (in my view - as I understand it, it supports the first sort of game).

We want to be able to do what we and probably over half he gaming community does, assume hp damage indicates actual damage to the body that takes time to heal. Some want to describe actual blows, including things like deep wounds and even critical injuries, without a mundane healing creating an inconsistency. None of us are applying granular level realism to this (if we were our characters would being walking around with fistulas, infections and weakened muscles). We just want more than: 1) walking away from battles with only bruises and muscle cramps or 2) recovering from serious blows in a matter of moments. For us your interpretation (2) doesn't work, and number 1 absolutely don't work. And we only ever had this issue with 4E.

What do you mean "my interpretation (2)"? You may have not undestood me. I am not saying that serious blows are recovered from in a matter of moments. I'm saying that, because they are recovered from in a matter of moments (or overnight, in fact, per the 4e rules) they are not serious blows.

Again you are applying high levels of realism here most peopoe are willing to gloss over. No one has said they want 100% medically factual modeling of wounds.

Sorry, I have some trouble with levels of realism that (i) exclude anyone pushing on through a fight by drawing on inner reserves, morale etc (ie preculdes martial healing) but (ii) permits recovery from ruptured lungs and deep wounds in a week or two (and sees no impairment from those injuries in the meantime).

I don't understand the criterion of "realism" here.

there should be some wound systems that allows hp only to be recovered over time or via magical healing. I believe the 4e system has the potential built in. Bloodied, dying and failed death saves could leave you with lasting wounds.

Sure, it could be done. Personally I'm not looking for too much of this in D&D (as I've mentioned upthread, there are already many good systems out there that do gritty healing and recovery). But if others want to use it I've got no objection!

But this would be adding something into D&D that has not been present in the basic combat and healing rules of any edition. (I know there was that funny crit stuff in Combat & Tactics, but I don't have any experience with it. And there was Blackmoor, but I don't even think I've read it's crit system.)

 

[Guest 85555]

Pemerton, never meant you said number two was the case, but you offered 1 and 2 as our available options.

Fair enough, you find my approach unrealistic. It looks like we have covered this same ground multiple times in the thread. I find your approach equally unrealistic. Our expectations of realism and pacing appear to be very different.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Agreed, but it's up for grabs whether or not both sorts of games can be supported by the same mechanics. AD&D and Basic D&D more-or-less did so, I think. 3E did not (in my view - as I understand it, it supports the second sort of game).

This is true if you assume that hits are ruptured lungs. The game supports it no better than 4e. However, if you assume a bad flesh wound that is mostly bruised or deeply scratched (as it wont to happen in fantasy), 3.X comes out ahead of 4e, modeling the wound taking a week or two to heal.

Sorry, I have some trouble with levels of realism that (i) exclude anyone pushing on through a fight by drawing on inner reserves, morale etc (ie preculdes martial healing) but (ii) permits recovery from ruptured lungs and deep wounds in a week or two (and sees no impairment from those injuries in the meantime).

I don't understand the criterion of "realism" here.

You'd think that it'd be clear after these posts by the poster you're replying to:

Again you are applying high levels of realism here most peopoe are willing to gloss over. No one has said they want 100% medically factual modeling of wounds. I haven't said that, at least.

up to a week or more may not accurately model all physical wounds--though it spdoes model many--but it certainoy doesn't model being winded or tired from battle

Your arguments keep addressing my points as if i am arguing for gritty realism, and that is simply not what i am calling for. Nor am i calling for a wounding system. If that was my argument, i could see your points, but given that i am saying i would rather have D&D be more realistic than te quick heals of 4E....You keep setting up my statements against standards of gritty reaism, which strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Is a week enough time to realistically heal from a sword slash? No, but it is realistic enough for me and greatly more realistic than shrugging it off after a battle. Ike I have said before, it provides a nod to realism, whereas the 4E approach (to me) handwaves it completely.

Did I treat every ten hp of damage as a lung impalement? No. But if a guy lost half his HP i certainly would describe it as a deep wound. As has been offered, this is far fom perfect realism.

But i prefer that to a complex wound system. As i stated before, realistic enough...week-long mundane heals are more of a nod to realism than second or day long mundane heals. The first is vaguely believable, if medically immposible/unikely in many situations (though having had six surgeries this year, i can say for many deep wounds, one to two weeks is spot on for getting back to normal if you are properly bound---still have a cut, but you are physically back to your old self---depends on the surgery of course). The second is just so jarring, it can only be used to explain hp as mojo and light bruising.

You'd think that after these replies over the past two pages, it'd be a little clearer by now.

Sure, it could be done. Personally I'm not looking for too much of this in D&D (as I've mentioned upthread, there are already many good systems out there that do gritty healing and recovery). But if others want to use it I've got no objection!

But this would be adding something into D&D that has not been present in the basic combat and healing rules of any edition.

Like healing surges? Pushing people around the battlefield? The AEDU power scheme? That's kind of why I don't find the "it's never been done before in D&D!" argument compelling at all. When 3e came it, it was full of new things that changed how things were done (Fort, Ref, and Will saves, etc.). When 4e came out, it was full of new things that changed how things were done. When 5e comes out, I expect it to be full of new things that change how things are done.

Honestly, I'm not advocating for gritty rules in the assumed core rules. Then again, neither is Bedrockgames, from the sounds of it. He just wants slower recovery time, which would allow for exactly the same narrative wounds you use now to be given (bruises, shallow cuts, etc.). And, if you have a healer -be he mundane or otherwise- you can recover faster, too, just as you can now, by pushing through it, healing up wounds, or whatever else makes sense to you and your group. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

You'd think that it'd be clear after these posts by the poster you're replying to

<snip quotes>

You'd think that after these replies over the past two pages, it'd be a little clearer by now.

I'm not having any trouble identifying the relevant quotes. I'm having trouble identifying the relevant criterion of "realistic".

If by "realistic" we mean "a certain sort of handwaved action-heroic flavour" - in which deep cuts never impair performance, and heal over a week or so - then that's fine. But if that's what "realism" means, then I find it more irritiating to put up with the repeated comments that 4e is unrealistic, because in 4e lesser injuries can be pushed through on the battlefield, and cease to be a burden on the PC after an overnight rest.

There are different aesthetic preferences in play here, undoubtedly. But I'm not seeing the difference of realism.

That's kind of why I don't find the "it's never been done before in D&D!" argument compelling at all.

I didn't make an argument. I made an observation.

I do think the observation is relevant, however, because I think the number of innovations in D&Dnext, as far as gritty healing is concerned, are likely to be few. Its mechanical innovations, in my view, are likely to be aimed at enabling it to support (to some extent, at least) multiple existing D&D options, rather than supporting new ones.

 

[Guest 85555]

I'm not having any trouble identifying the relevant quotes. I'm having trouble identifying the relevant criterion of "realistic".

If by "realistic" we mean "a certain sort of handwaved action-heroic flavour" - in which deep cuts never impair performance, and heal over a week or so - then that's fine. But if that's what "realism" means, then I find it more irritiating to put up with the repeated comments that 4e is unrealistic, because in 4e lesser injuries can be pushed through on the battlefield, and cease to be a burden on the PC after an overnight rest.

s.

Then i dont know what i can say to clarify my position for you. This is something I have been pretty consistent about here on enworld and many posters have no trouble seeing where I am coming from. I have explained I don't want full blown realism, but i do want a level of believability that 4e doesnt supply given my playstyle. For me two to three weeks to recover from a heavy wound is realistic enough, so i can schieve it in any edition prior to 4e. Now if you dont treat hp as anything but mojo or bruises, i can see where you may be coming from. That isn't how i treat hp. And it isn't just surges, it is stuff mundane daily and encounter powers that disrupt believability for me.

 

[Guest 85555]

There are different aesthetic preferences in play here, undoubtedly. But I'm not seeing the difference of realism.

I .

because the realism issue only arises if you envision hp as significant physical damage. Once you describe hp loss as things like getting cut by a sword, the 4e approach runs up egregiously against soft expectations of realism. It is striking that characters heal that fast. A week or more to heal it may be a bit hand waved but is real enough that it doesn't create a believability issue for me. We just come from very different core assumptions