April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Guest 85555]

I

As for why all (actually, most) games use HPs; not all do. Mostly I think it's laziness and relying on a known and accepted trope. I'm actually convinced that there's room out there for a simplified "wound" system - like HârnMaster, but without hit locations. Like the HM 'quickstarter' rules, in fact...

non HP sysems are quite common. Savage worlds has wounds, WOD has wounds and so do my own games. None of these get into stuff like hit location (which is usually a hard sell to most plaers in my experience). But i dont think hp areva product of laziness. They continue in use and spread to other games because they are simple and allow for a certain style of play (and i am not talking about believability or realism at the moment).

 

[Andor]

CJ - I cannot posrep you again, but, you deserve LOTS for that idea.

This is the module I hope I see in 5e.

Didn't I propose much the same system about 10 pages ago?

 

[Balesir]

non HP sysems are quite common. Savage worlds has wounds, WOD has wounds and so do my own games. None of these get into stuff like hit location (which is usually a hard sell to most plaers in my experience). But i dont think hp areva product of laziness. They continue in use and spread to other games because they are simple and allow for a certain style of play (and i am not talking about believability or realism at the moment).

I don't know "new" WoD, but "old" WoD had a "health track" that isn't what I mean at all - it's coarse-grained hit points by a different name. Savage worlds I don't know, either, though I'd like to get time to try it!

In general, though, there are systems that use non-HP wounding out there, sure. And if I'm seeking a Sim focussed game, I'll use one of them.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't know "new" WoD, but "old" WoD had a "health track" that isn't what I mean at all - it's coarse-grained hit points by a different name. Savage worlds I don't know, either, though I'd like to get time to try it!

In general, though, there are systems that use non-HP wounding out there, sure. And if I'm seeking a Sim focussed game, I'll use one of them.

It has been ages since I played OWOD but I am pretty sure the health tracker was different levels of physical damage with accompanying penalties (though it is possible I am thinking of NWOD). Savage worlds pretty much functions on similar premise. Our games have three stages of wounding (-2, -1, and incapacitated). Now those aren't granular wounding systems (though savage worlds has a chart you roll on that can cause real lasting wounds), but they are death spiral wound systems in my book.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Didn't I propose much the same system about 10 pages ago?

Link or post number? I went back and read all your posts between replies 151 and 195, which for me is 9-11 pages back from here. I didn't see anything that seems to fit. But if there is something, I'd like to read it. I tend to glaze over at times during "how to fix hit point" discussions, from long exposure, and might have missed something I'd like to read more closely.

 

[BryonD]

My point wasn't to say 3e bad, 4e good. Not in the slightest.

My point is that HP are about as internally consistent as the average bowl of lukewarm jello.

Now, exactly where the inconsistencies lie depends on the edition.

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with you or not.
It depends.

Not all inconsistencies are created equal.

Pre-4E HP were ambiguous. They might be meat on second and mojo the next. And a 100 hp fighter might take 90 points of "meat" damage on day and 90 points of "mojo" damage the next. Though I'd hasten to add that for me personally I found it valuable to avoid the idea that anyone ever took a great deal of meat damage. One sword through the heart kills a 19th level fighter just as dead as a shopkeeper. But the point is that the mechanics didn't require my taste there and could be changed case by case and second by second.

You could certainly label that ambiguity an "inconsistency". But that inconsistency is *reliable* in serving the needs of the narrative.

And HP in 4E really are no different whatsoever. Again, HP are the same across editions, it is SURGES that are the issue.

Once you add surges you can keep the ambiguity, but if you do that you are forced to accept that any meat damage can be blinked away by a fighter. Or you can solve that by the all damage is mojo option. Both of these options are problematic for quality narrative.

So, yes, there are inconsistencies both pre and post 4E. But the pre-4E issues are a narrative feature and the 4E issues are a narrative bug.

And this I can see as a sticking point. I'm not sure how to reconcile that.

I think having surges provide temporary HP that go away in 5 min, thus getting through the scene but still leaving wounds that demand cause and effect "healing" would be a good start.

 

[BryonD]

Hit points are primarily a metagame mechanic, after all, and so the question is "Under what conditions can my PC access his/her hp and therefore keep going?" 4e's answer - that unless the PC gets a brief respite (second wind or short rest), inspiration (ie using a healing power) is required - proudces an interesting game, I think. It is interesting in its mechanical/tactical play -

I absolutely agree there.

the way incombat healing becomes part of the action economy - and in its story/fictional play - heroes are stronger in teams, for example, where they help one another push on.

This I don't really buy.
I'd agree that these mechanics do PUSH the players into the mold. But pre-4E you could do that OR you could do other things.

It certainly has not offered anything that was previously lacking as an option.

4e has a different theory of mojo from earlier editions. You can't draw on your mojo without a brief respite, or inspiration.

In your assessment, what is the difference between using a surge and regaining your surges?

 

[Andor]

Link or post number? I went back and read all your posts between replies 151 and 195, which for me is 9-11 pages back from here. I didn't see anything that seems to fit. But if there is something, I'd like to read it. I tend to glaze over at times during "how to fix hit point" discussions, from long exposure, and might have missed something I'd like to read more closely.

My bad, it must have been in another thread. And I don't have search so God only knows where.

At any rate it was a discussion about how to balance character with self healing against characters without.

I pointed out that a character with 100hp and another with 70 hp but 50 points of self-healing a day were roughly balanced.

Plus given that 5e seems like it might be balanced around level based damage you could also through DR into the mix as a balancing agent. So a third character with 70 hp and dr 3 might be equivalent as well. That depend on how well the system maths hangs.

For myself the balance between these three balance doesn't need to be perfect, merely "close enough." In fact given the random nature of hits and damage in D&D which of those character will survive longer in a campaign is entirely up the dice.

 

[Hussar]

Once you add surges you can keep the ambiguity, but if you do that you are forced to accept that any meat damage can be blinked away by a fighter. Or you can solve that by the all damage is mojo option. Both of these options are problematic for quality narrative.

Why do you keep insisting this?

Character has lost HP and burns a healing surge. He's now down a healing surge, thus his HP are not at maximum. Healing surges do not remove damage, they simply shift it from one set of resources to another. But, your total are still reduced.

So, why do you insist that using a healing surge removes damage?

 

[BryonD]

Why do you keep insisting this?

Character has lost HP and burns a healing surge. He's now down a healing surge, thus his HP are not at maximum. Healing surges do not remove damage, they simply shift it from one set of resources to another. But, your total are still reduced.

So, why do you insist that using a healing surge removes damage?

Why are they called "healing" surges?


It is clear to me that this moving of goal posts demonstrates the inability to defend the surge mechanic from a narrative perspective.

By the model you are describing there is no reason to have these two different resources because they represent the exact same thing. And you have just moved the flash healing to when the surges come back.

So you have changed a narrative disfunction into a needlessly convoluted narrative disfunction.

When 4E came along surge were advertised and praised for letting the fighter heal himself, thus removing the need for clerics. After all, a cleric healing spell is "just another resource", so I could say that healing spells don't heal either, they just move the damage to a different set of resources.

If you look at playing as a mechanical exercise of moving chits from one bucket to another then this works for both cure spells and surges.
If you look at playing as a narrative exercise, then you are just shuffling the issue around.