April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Hussar]

Well, it aids in the passage of time. The passage of time allows for more evolution of the setting. The evolution of the setting allows for more interesting scenarios to naturally unfold. Armies may move, kings may die, bandits may get wiped out or raid a town. NPCs will fall in love and get married, PCs will have kids, and so on. Personally, it's why I'm against teleportation magic being used constantly, too (3.X was terrible about this). Not that I'm expecting D&D to change that.

No, it really doesn't. For most groups, there will be no passage of time because they'll just use magical healing to bring people back up to full. I'm going to stand by the idea that a group with no magical healing in D&D is very, very much an outlier. I'll stand by that because virtually every single published group of adventurers, whether pregens for modules or whatever, includes a healer.

Going all the way back to tournament modules in AD&D. There's a reason CLERIC was one of the first three classes. This is a standard thing in pretty much any edition of D&D.

So, no, I don't buy the "passage of time" arguement. For one, you're only talking a few days difference most of the time. It's not like 1 week of healing is the standard, it's the maximum (or near enough). Most of the time, you're only healing a couple of dozen HP, so, we're talking a few of days vs 1 day at most. It's not enough time to make any significant difference in the grand scheme of things.

This greatly amused me. Even if you don't change the rules whatsoever, you're close to freeforming the game? That's actually very funny to me. I know that you and Dannager both strongly believed that D&D was a game about combat, but you lost that poll about about two to one, I think. Most people disagreed. (Is D&D "about" combat?)

Two things. First off, that poll is a bit... less than scientific. Secondly, it's not about the game being all about combat. But, if you have a game that is 90% out of combat, what rules are you actually engaging? Or, to put it another way, in a game that has virtually no combat, 90% of the game rules are not being used. Thus, my comment about free-forming. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've done it and its fun. But, if I'm not using most of the rules of a game, I'm pretty close to free-forming, or at least a lot closer to freeforming than in a game where I actually use 90% of the rules.

The difference here is, JC, I differentiate between the game and what I play. I don't pretend that my personal, idiosyncratic approach to D&D is any sort of universal or the way it's meant to be played. When I talk about D&D, OTOH, I'm talking about what's found between the covers of the books.

Some people find that distinction very, very hard to make.

 

[pemerton]

I hope you can accept that letting go of that narrative option for actual wounds is not acceptable to me.

Well, I can believe it, insofar as you assert it and I've got no reason to think you're lying or confused about your own preferences.

I have played a lot of a game in which wounding figures prominently - namely, Rolemaster, which has no hp mechanic in the D&D sense (RM concussion hits are a very different thing from D&D hit points; they somewhat resemble RQ's "total hit points" ie damage that has not been allocated as a wound to any particular part of the target's body). In that system, given that PCs fight fairly frequently, magical healing becomes a must for PCs to be able to go on.

At present, I'm enjoying a system which plays quite differently - and, I think, better overall. Much as I love RM, it is a somewhat unstable mix of grittiness and gonzo. 4e unequivocally opts for the gonzo.

I also won't hesitate to call a hit a "real" wound if the nature of the event fits. Obviously I won't cut off an arm in a D&D game. (excepting extremes not completely unlike those you describe)

I've got not objections to "real wounds", even to PCs. But in my view, the default 4e combat resolution mechanics can't generate them on a PC (unless the PC is killed).

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] takes a different approach - for example, I think on one occasion a PC who was hanging down the side of a bridge, just clinging to the edge, was hit, and he narrated this as a severing of the fingers leading to a fall. Whereas, by default, I would narrate this sort of "hit" as the blow coming so close that the PC involuntarily let go and fell.

In my own game the question of what magic, if any, can heal wounds has come up, when the PCs rescued a group of NPCs who had been beaten up by hobgoblins (and in this sort of freely narrated combat - just me as GM setting up some backstory - wounds are of course fair game). We decided that abilities that can do nothing but restore hit points can't do anything like cure blindness or maimed limbs, let alone regrow severed limbs. The Remove Affliction ritual can, however. (Which produces the unusual result that the best literal healer in the party is the wizard. But what he can't do is restore morale/mojo - that's what the ranger-cleric excels at, but no amount of mojo will let you see once your eyes have been poked out.)

 

[pemerton]

Im not sure about this whole "you have to play it" to judge it thing.

I think that, once you have familiarity with a range of systems, it is possible to make a reasonable judgement of how a game will play from reading its rules.

On the other hand, if you've only ever played one game, or one sort of game, it can be hard to work out what is going on with a very different game. To give a pertinent example - I think if the only RPGs I had known were prior editions of D&D, then I would not have been able to work out, just from reading the 4e rules, how it was meant to play and what the rationale was for some of the key mechanics. (And the designers do know favours by not spelling this sort of stuff out.)

 

[pemerton]

it aids in the passage of time. The passage of time allows for more evolution of the setting.

I don't buy the "passage of time" arguement. For one, you're only talking a few days difference most of the time. It's not like 1 week of healing is the standard, it's the maximum (or near enough). Most of the time, you're only healing a couple of dozen HP, so, we're talking a few of days vs 1 day at most. It's not enough time to make any significant difference in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with Hussar on this point, and it's part of why I find D&D an odd choice of system for those who want this sort of thing in their games.

In RQ, hp heal at 1d3 per week, and a character who is healing from unconscious to full health is likely to be healing between 10 and 20 hp. Making for healing times of a month or two.

In BW, healing times for wounds any heavier than light are likewise typically a month or more, sometimes up to 6 months, or even close to two years to fully recover from a mortal wound.

In Rolemaster, even magical healing still imposes healing times, which for a bad injury or a series of injuries may well be more than a week, and in some serious cases multiple months. Natural healing is similarly drawn out.

These are the sorts of recovery times that in my view allow for evolution in the setting. (In BW, this is explicitly called out as one function of the recovery rules; another is to oblige players who don't want the setting to evolve to get into the action while carrying wound penalties, which changes the dynamics of play both at the ingame and the metagame level.)

But, if you have a game that is 90% out of combat, what rules are you actually engaging? Or, to put it another way, in a game that has virtually no combat, 90% of the game rules are not being used.

I agree with this. I recently reread the Moldvay Basic Rules - which is often held up as a counterexample to most D&D rules being about combat.

Moldvay has detailed action resolution mechanics for combat (surprise rules, initiative rules, a turn sequence, hit and damage rules, morale rules). It has less detailed action resolution rules for dungeon exploration: for listening at doors, for opening stuck doors, for finding secret doors (but not for opening them, which is left to player ingenuity, at least according to the description of play), for finding and disarming traps, and the like. (Some of these resolution mechanics are also hidden in the spell lists: mystical runes and sigils are a staple of dungeon exploration, for example, but Basic has no "read runes" ability, and instead you have to use the spells Read Magic and/or Read Languages - though Expert also introduces a relevant thief ability.)

It has very simple action resolution mechanics for social conflict - there is a reaction chart, which according to the rules is to be used primarily in framing the scene (are the encountered NCPs/monsters hostile or friendly?), but according to the example of play may also be used to resolve it - in that example, after the PCs make an offer the GM rolls on the chart again to see how that offer is received. There is nothing comparable in these social conflict resolution mechanics to the detail of the combat resolution mechanics, and only one stat pertains to them - CHA - whereas 4 stats pertain to combat resolution - STR, DEX, CON and WIS (for saving throws).

There are basically no resolution mechanics for movement (beyond movement rates - but no rules for chases, for example, nor for climbing if one is not a thief, nor for swimming, nor for riding). The expert rules beef these up a little bit, but there are still no rules for (for example) resolving a race.

If I wanted to play a scenario in which the PCs didn't have to find, listen at or open doors (eg they are in an ordinary building in which the doors are obvious and not especially soundproof), and in which the main mode of action resolution was by talking to people, Moldvay Basic would have little to offer. The only relevant stat is CHA. There are no relevant class abilities. And the only mechanical technique the books gives me is the reaction roll table, which is pretty sparse stuff.

If I was clever at such things I might try to adapt the morale rules to make them (i) integrate better with the reaction rules, and (ii) have applicability outside combat. I haven't tried that myself, and so can't comment on how easy or hard it would be. But as published, I think these rules back up Hussar's assertion. Once you go beyond combat and simple dungeon exploration, you're very close to being on your own.

 

[Lanefan]

Additionally, and this, to me, is the most important question, how is the game made more interesting by slower healing times?

Easy - it gives the plot a chance to move forward while the PCs lick their wounds.

If a party can wade through a particular adventure or dungeon all in one go without having to stop for any great period of time to rest, that dungeon is going to be pretty static except for immediate defensive moves by the occupants. This makes the DM's job easier but I'm not sure it's enough of a trade-off benefit. (4e's Keep on the Shadowfell pretty much expects this as written, that you'll plow through the whole dungeon with maybe only one (or two if you're unlucky) extended rests and get to Kalarel right away.)

But if a party is forced to take some significant time off and rest* the whole adventure can change on the fly. Reinforcements can arrive, or everyone can leave, or the enemy can proactively come after the party, or whatever - in any case, things become much less static; or at least the DM has the opportunity to make it so.

* - or train, or go back to town for supplies, or whatever.

Lan-"extended rest sounds good to me right now"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Going to a movie, going clubbing, that's the same as playing a system. What you're doing is reading the menu and telling me the food is terrible.

That's how I judge any restaurant I've never been to - I read the menu, and if all the food is listed as having gype in it I don't like e.g. garlic and-or isn't something I'd want to eat in the first place e.g. sushi then I'm not going to eat there, because as far as I'm concerned it's terrible.

Same goes for game systems. Sure, reading the books might not give you the minutae, but it'll give a pretty good overview of what to expect assuming you've played a few games and know what to look for; and thus a good idea as to whether it's a system you want to play.

Lan-"putting garlic on game books does nothing to improve the flavour"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

At present, I'm enjoying a system which plays quite differently - and, I think, better overall. Much as I love RM, it is a somewhat unstable mix of grittiness and gonzo. 4e unequivocally opts for the gonzo.

I've called 4e various things but 'gonzo' has never been one of them; in that to me gonzo means a style of outside-the-box rules-be-damned let's-just-do-it-for-the-laughs gaming that rules-light systems can handle far better than rules-heavy. I've yet to hear anybody accuse 4e of being rules-light.

I've got not objections to "real wounds", even to PCs. But in my view, the default 4e combat resolution mechanics can't generate them on a PC (unless the PC is killed).

This is unfortunate, and supports my lobbying for a BP-FP hit point system.

The Remove Affliction ritual can [regrow limbs etc.], however. (Which produces the unusual result that the best literal healer in the party is the wizard. But what he can't do is restore morale/mojo - that's what the ranger-cleric excels at, but no amount of mojo will let you see once your eyes have been poked out.)

4e Clerics don't get Regeneration or Heal? That makes no sense...

If Wizards can heal along with everything else they can do then no wonder people are saying they're overpowered.

Lanefan

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, it really doesn't. For most groups, there will be no passage of time because they'll just use magical healing to bring people back up to full. I'm going to stand by the idea that a group with no magical healing in D&D is very, very much an outlier.

(This is a reply to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as well.) Of course it is. I didn't say it wasn't. But, as I said, I have seen people heal naturally dozens of times in D&D (not my RPG), as well as groups with no healers. Just because you haven't (or rarely have) doesn't mean that it holds true for all groups. But, again, I do think it's an outlier; it's just one that does apply to certain groups from time to time, and something that those groups appreciate.

So, no, I don't buy the "passage of time" arguement. For one, you're only talking a few days difference most of the time. It's not like 1 week of healing is the standard, it's the maximum (or near enough).

It really depends on the party makeup, edition, etc. About 6-10 days seemed to be the average in my personal experience, or half that with a lot of bed rest.

Most of the time, you're only healing a couple of dozen HP, so, we're talking a few of days vs 1 day at most. It's not enough time to make any significant difference in the grand scheme of things.

I totally, completely, and utterly disagree with a few days not making a difference in the grand scheme of things. Especially not if they add up over time. I think that alone might highlight just how different our playstyles in this respect are.

Two things. First off, that poll is a bit... less than scientific.

Better than saying "most groups" or "many people" though, right? At least there was a poll on it, with nearly 400 votes.

Secondly, it's not about the game being all about combat. But, if you have a game that is 90% out of combat, what rules are you actually engaging? Or, to put it another way, in a game that has virtually no combat, 90% of the game rules are not being used. Thus, my comment about free-forming.

I regularly engaged in the skill rules from 3.X. While they were flawed in a few ways (in my opinion), they were very useful at dealing with out of combat scenarios. Additionally, you can use rules of weather, magic items, exploration, carrying capacity, etc. There are many rules you can still use, and I wouldn't call using those rules "freeforming" any more than I'd call saying "I swing my axe down at him" a type of "freeforming" because you can't model different types of swings. The rules don't cover a "downward axe swing" any differently from any other swing with a weapon, but it's not "freeforming" when say that. When my group rolled Spots, Listens, Crafts, Diplomacy, etc. in 3.5, we did so by engaging the rules.

This did, of course, eventually lead me to making my own RPG rules (originally a set of house rules). I only made these rules because the system's rules weren't covering what I wanted, and I only knew that by engaging them. Your take on "freeforming D&D" by not heavily engaging in combat doesn't resonate with me at all.

The difference here is, JC, I differentiate between the game and what I play. I don't pretend that my personal, idiosyncratic approach to D&D is any sort of universal or the way it's meant to be played. When I talk about D&D, OTOH, I'm talking about what's found between the covers of the books.

Some people find that distinction very, very hard to make.

You made this same claim in the "Is D&D 'about' Combat?" thread that I linked. I don't think it holds any more water in this discussion then it did there. As always, play what you like

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, but, you're talkng about surgery in a modern day hospital with all the wonders of 21st century medicine. Do you really think that you would be back on your feet in a week in 1300 AD having undergone the exact same procedure?

Ok, say we accept 1 week. Why one week though? Can it be 6 days? How about 3 days? Does it absolutely need to be a week?

And, as a side note, achieving this is a relatively easy process. In my games, PC's recover 100% of their HP after an extended rest. For you, they recover, say, 10%. There, done. A sliding scale dial would satisfy both of us no?

As far as "plenty of people" go, I'm not going to play that game. I don't try to speak for the masses anymore because I have absolutely no idea what "plenty of people" do in their games. It's disingenuous to pretend that you do. You prefer a 1 week healing time. That's groovy. As I say, it's a relatively easy thing to resolve. I don't prefer that. I prefer a faster healing time because I find down time to be a somewhat rare experience and IMO, forces groups to have someone fall on the cleric grenade to have a healbot in the group.

But, in any case, wouldn't a sliding healing scale, instead of a one size fits all method, resolve all the issues?

hey hussar, i am all for optional methods to make everyone happy. Use standard healing at the default and make stuff like surges optional ad ons. I just dont want 4e healing as the core. So long as faster healing isn't in my game, i am fine with it being supplied as an option.

I just dont buy te other part of the argument where you incrementally try tp equate a week OR MORE to one day or a moment. A week is beoievable enough for me, but just barely. Also it depends on the damage, someimes you heal in less time.

But like I said you can accept whatever rate you like. If you find an hour, a day or two days believable that is fine. I would rathder see them go back to the ad&d rate of natural healing. 3E i can tolerate (though i have issues with it at times) and 4e just drives me nuts.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, but, you're talkng about surgery in a modern day hospital with all the wonders of 21st century medicine. Do you really think that you would be back on your feet in a week in 1300 AD having undergone the exact same procedure?

?

I dont want to go into the specific details of my surgeries so bear with my vagaries. I had six, and for several of them the chief difference modern medicine offered was sterile envirnment, equipment and antibiotics. Infection is the chief divider for that one, and i agree if we were going for gritty realism many characters would die of blood infections after taking a small amount of damage. But just in terms of getting up and feeing normal after having a deep wound in your body: i was back to normal in about two weeks. In a couple of instances that was without antibiotics. There was still a wound, but in game terms i was back up to full hp. Now, i was just using this because pemerton had been so dismissive of two weeks for deep wounds. Obviously there are surgeries with much longer recovery times (but this was big surgery). So my point was simply that two weeks wasn't crazy.