[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule

[FireLance]

If the Gamma World game includes healing surges to recover force shield devices, I will call that cool. If the Gamma World game includes healing surges to recover hit points, I will call that lame

I dunno - "battery operated regeneration" sound like a decent mutation to me.

 

[Nifft]

Once again, this is very easy to ignore when playing 3E since it's not in a core book.

True. Also, it came late in the edition's published lifespan. Unlike the 3e Bard or the 4e Warlord, who gained non-Divine healing right out of the PHB.

But I think my point stands anyway: 4e isn't the first edition to include fast, "martial" healing. There was plenty of discussion about the nature of healing & HP back when Bo9S hit the shelves, and there's still plenty of that same discussion around 4e.

... and actually, I think it's just a continuation of the general discussion of the absurdity of HP dating back to 1e, where it was about "high level" characters who could walk away from a 100 ft. fall off a cliff, or who could laugh at ten guardsmen with crossbows leveled at their chests.

HP have always been rather absurd if you thought about them too hard.

"Fearing the topic veering", -- N

 

[tyrlaan]

This was a much better read when it was actually on topic.

I respectfully request folks do some thread forking and get this train back on the rails.

 

[AllisterH]

But he did not argue those two are the same. He gave completely different examples which you choose to ignore and replace with your own example.

.

Perhaps I didn't explain my point.

His "SPECIFIC" example were Duke Nuke'm and Doom as to what he saw as analogue to healing in 4e.

My point was that the type of healing in those early FPS is considered TOTALLY different to the regenerative health system in latter era FPS like HALO. 4e's healing system is MUCH closer to the regenerative method than the Duke Nukem/Doom method which basically use the classic model cribbed from the first nethack videogames, that of health/potion packs.

Indeed, there is many a discussion on hardcore videogame sites (aka the videogame equivalent to enworld) about which is better, what people prefer and what effect they have on the finished product as both a game and a world design ("roll vs role" so to speak).

Simply equating the two as being the same WOULD get you strange looks on videogame websites akin to arguing that BD&D is the exact same game as AD&D. (You should see the discussion about the nature of hitpoints on those boards...especially since 95% of the participants know only of D&D at best as having played it once or twice)

As an aside, HALO is "NOT" an exception. Most modern day FPS use this method, indeed, part of the reltaively new IP of Left 4 Dead's appeal was that it harkened back to the older days of FPS when games required Healthpacks and managing them..

 

[Piratecat]

Back on topic, please!

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm pretty sure videogames got their concept of health and healing from D&D's hit points in the first place. So we can't go blaming videogames for that.

Hit points have never been realistic. But they weren't derived from fiction either, they're just supposed to be a playable, highly abstract way of representing injury. Dave Arneson actually got the idea (and armor class) from a civil war period naval ironclads game I believe.

So it's not videogamey. It's naval wargame-y.

In fact a lot of D&D's rules are wargame-y, as they derive largely from Chainmail.

 

[Rechan]

This was a much better read when it was actually on topic.

I respectfully request folks do some thread forking and get this train back on the rails.

I've come to the conclusion that we're so far off topic from the OP that there's no going back. At this point half the thread has been taken up with this discussion, and even if it stopped, I don't think the houserule discussion would be salvaged.

 

[Nifft]

My favorite not-quite-HP system is the one in Star Wars Saga Edition.

I've been wondering for a LONG time now how that could be house-ruled into 3.5e or 4e.

3.5e had a few generally useless conditions (like Dazzled), so those could be lumped into a general condition track pretty easily.

4e's conditions are pared down to the point that I don't think many candidates for consolidation remain... on the other hand, it has a boatload of "-2 to you, save ends" not-quite-conditions which could easily become boxes in a generic condition track.

Actually, maybe a bunch of 3.5e de-buffs could be handled similarly.

"Drag, drag, drag", -- N

 

[BryonD]

Simply equating the two as being the same WOULD get you strange looks on videogame websites akin to arguing that BD&D is the exact same game as AD&D.

And again, he did not simply equate them. You are still trying to turn this into a straw man.

As an aside, HALO is "NOT" an exception. Most modern day FPS use this method, indeed, part of the reltaively new IP of Left 4 Dead's appeal was that it harkened back to the older days of FPS when games required Healthpacks and managing them..

I don't know that I'd concede this claim. But regardless, there is plenty of examples of the other side, not to mention by your own admission plenty of historic precedent, that the basis of the term is reasonable.

Not to mention that you ignored the main part of my post: The distinction between sci-fi / technology simulation and sword and sorcery simulation

 

[Votan]

1. Training. This requires house rules post 1e.

I like training and think it was a good idea. The cost factor in 1E made it hard to implement but it had a lot of nice features to it. Self training made it possible to get to the higher levels -- it just took more resources.

The issue with the 1E training system was cost was too linear: at low levels it was impossible to save up for it and at high levels it was trivial as an expense.

But the idea that it froze XP until you did the training made the sudden rush to high level no longer a major gameplay issue.