D&D 4E Bridging the cognitive gap between how the game rules work and what they tell us about the setting

[Neonchameleon]

Or perhaps merely literal interpretation, focused through the lens of how a particular person sees the game. You're assuming malice, when my belief is that @Alzrius was merely trying to explain his opinion as to why so many people didn't and don't care for 4e.

People know that some people don't like 4e because of basic misinformation about how healing surges work that leads to nonsense about "shouting hands back on". Which is literally not how 4e (or indeed Cure Light Wounds in any edition) works. I suppose I should possibly be assuming incompetence rather than malice is at the root of warming over edition warrior misinformation here. But if it's incompetence it's still warmed over edition warrior misinformation combined with an unwillingness or inability to reassess his position when presented with what actually happens.

 

[Alzrius]

People know that some people don't like 4e because of basic misinformation about how healing surges work that leads to nonsense about "shouting hands back on". Which is literally not how 4e (or indeed Cure Light Wounds in any edition) works. I suppose I should possibly be assuming incompetence rather than malice is at the root of warming over edition warrior misinformation here. But if it's incompetence it's still warmed over edition warrior misinformation combined with an unwillingness or inability to reassess his position when presented with what actually happens.

And this is an excellent example of how a small cadre (less than a dozen or so posters) keep threadcrapping any critique of 4E that doesn't paint it in a flattering light. Seriously, just look back over this person's "contributions" to this thread, which can be accurately summarized as:

• "That's a strawman!"
• "You don't know what you're talking about!"
• "You're wrong, and unwilling to learn!"
• "You didn't play the game enough to criticize it!"
• "You're edition warring!"
• "4E wasn't any different than previous editions!"

And numerous other instances of personal attacks, malicious assumptions, and outright trolling. It's been like this for fifteen years now, with every single attempt to dissect 4E in a way that finds any result other than "it was perfect; people didn't reject it on legitimate grounds."

That's the Principal Skinner take on things, saying "no, it's the children who're wrong."

 

[Voadam]

To bring this back to the original concept of a gap, I think hp have always and inherently been more than one thing once humans advance a level and have more hp.

Which brings us back to the two powers cited above. Both have the same mechanic, which is that the target gets to spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points. But the in-character representation for this, the same operation, is two very different things: one involves healing physical injury, whereas the other involves "courage and determination" rather than closing wounds (with a reference to healing that's also hard to contextualize with the rest of the sentence).

One game mechanic, i.e. hit point restoration, is now being contextualized as two different things. Faced with two different explanations, the question of what that mechanic represents from an in-game standpoint becomes murky, with different explanations being offered, meaning that they have to be reconciled if the different interpretations come to clash in the course of play. (For example, if you only have 2 hit points left after being dealt an injury, recover 7 hit points of "courage and resilience," and then take 5 hit points of injury, you have 4 hit points left, but you've lost all of the hit points that were previously tagged as being contextualized as wounds, so how are you still alive?)

To bring an example I used from the other thread Sir Lancelot and his man at arms and a friendly giant get ambushed and are each hit for 4 damage from arrows that hit them. Even if you assume counter to the poison example that all hits do at least a scratch, hp do different things.

Lancelot is higher level and has lots of hp and so is only scratched by the hit, he is either mostly missed by the arrow and just scratched, or he is skilled enough to mostly dodge or deflect it.

The man at arms has 3 hp and dies from the same hit that does the same hp damage.

The friendly giant has as many hp as Lancelot, he gets hit full on like the man at arms but his mass means the arrow only inflicts a minor wound on his giant body, it did not enter his eye and kill him right away.

HP here is meat that gets injured by wounds. But hp is also skill at turning a blow from a deadly one to a minor injury at the cost of fatigue that can eventually wear down the skill at avoidance or confidence that can be shaken, or it can be luck that mostly protects him but can also run out.

The same mechanic, 4 hp damage from a hit with an arrow, kills one man and barely scratches another.

HP as one game mechanic being narratively contextualized into multiple different things. From the beginning and in all editions of D&D.

Unless you go the route that higher level characters are supernaturally tougher and so all hits are meat injuries that would kill normal mortals but not Thor the PC fighter who laughs at getting shot by an arrow.

The only thing 4e does differently here cognitively is have explicitly rallying based narrative restoration of hp.

 

[Alzrius]

HP here is meat that gets injured by wounds. But hp is also skill at turning a blow from a deadly one to a minor injury at the cost of fatigue that can eventually wear down the skill at avoidance or confidence that can be shaken, or it can be luck that mostly protects him but can also run out.

The same mechanic, four hp damage from a hit with an arrow, kills one man and barely scratches another.

HP as one game mechanic being narratively contextualized into multiple different things. From the beginning and in all editions of D&D.

Except they're "different" in terms of how you characterize a single underlying principle, which is that "physical harm is being received." I noted elsewhere that this was akin to an order of operations, where the game rules takes you "down" to a certain level in that order, and then you have to take up the work yourself until you reach the level of contextualization you want:

1. Hit points have been restored, indicating damage has been healed.
2. Characterize the restoration in terms of the amount of hit points recovered versus the total hit points remaining and/or their maximum hit points.

Contrast this with what happens when you don't grant the premise that there's even any damage happening:

1. Hit points have been restored.
2. Determine if this is a healed injury or a replenishment of stamina.
3. Characterize the healing in the context of A) hit points recovered versus total hit points remaining and/or their maximum hit points, or B) in terms of why they've regained stamina.

So essentially, you've taken a two-step process and turned it into three steps; three-and-a-half if you look at the third have an A and B option that need to be parsed. That's a larger gap that you, the player, have to then bridge, because there's more than needs to be determined.

So yes, hit points have always required some contextualization; I never said otherwise. But the degree to which it walks you through the process before leaving the work to you is different in 4E than it was in earlier editions.

 

[Umbran]

Seriously, just look back over this person's "contributions" to this thread...

Mod Note:
Using "this person" instead of using a name doesn't mean you aren't making it personal. As if you didn't know that wasn't going to be a problem?

If this is how the discussion will go, it will end quickly with lots of red text, threadbans, and warning points will follow. And you, unfortunately, get to be the first example.

For everyone else - keep it civil. Don't make it personal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To bring this back to the original concept of a gap, I think hp have always and inherently been more than one thing once humans advance a level and have more hp.



To bring an example I used from the other thread Sir Lancelot and his man at arms and a friendly giant get ambushed and are each hit for 4 damage from arrows that hit them. Even if you assume counter to the poison example that all hits do at least a scratch, hp do different things.

Lancelot is higher level and has lots of hp and so is only scratched by the hit, he is either mostly missed by the arrow and just scratched, or he is skilled enough to mostly dodge or deflect it.

The man at arms has 3 hp and dies from the same hit that does the same hp damage.

The friendly giant has as many hp as Lancelot, he gets hit full on like the man at arms but his mass means the arrow only inflicts a minor wound on his giant body, it did not enter his eye and kill him right away.

HP here is meat that gets injured by wounds. But hp is also skill at turning a blow from a deadly one to a minor injury at the cost of fatigue that can eventually wear down the skill at avoidance or confidence that can be shaken, or it can be luck that mostly protects him but can also run out.

The same mechanic, 4 hp damage from a hit with an arrow, kills one man and barely scratches another.

HP as one game mechanic being narratively contextualized into multiple different things. From the beginning and in all editions of D&D.

Unless you go the route that higher level characters are supernaturally tougher and so all hits are meat injuries that would kill normal mortals but not Thor the PC fighter who laughs at getting shot by an arrow.

The only thing 4e does differently here cognitively is have explicitly rallying based narrative restoration of hp.

That one thing does make a big difference to a fair number of people though.

 

[Voadam]

Except they're "different" in terms of how you characterize a single underlying principle, which is that "physical harm is being received." I noted elsewhere that this was akin to an order of operations, where the game rules takes you "down" to a certain level in that order, and then you have to take up the work yourself until you reach the level of contextualization you want:

1. Hit points have been restored, indicating damage has been healed.
2. Characterize the restoration in terms of the amount of hit points recovered versus the total hit points remaining and/or their maximum hit points.

Contrast this with what happens when you don't grant the premise that there's even any damage happening:

1. Hit points have been restored.
2. Determine if this is a healed injury or a replenishment of stamina.
3. Characterize the healing in the context of A) hit points recovered versus total hit points remaining and/or their maximum hit points, or B) in terms of why they've regained stamina.

So essentially, you've taken a two-step process and turned it into three steps; three-and-a-half if you look at the third have an A and B option that need to be parsed. That's a larger gap that you, the player, have to then bridge, because there's more than needs to be determined.

So yes, hit points have always required some contextualization; I never said otherwise. But the degree to which it walks you through the process before leaving the work to you is different in 4E than it was in earlier editions.

If there is no physical injury from hp loss it seems there does not need to be a step two there of determining if there is a healed injury or not.

So 1 determine hp have been restored, 2 characterize the restoration.

This all seems to come down to whether you want the mechanics to say what happened definitively one way, or be open to different descriptions that work narratively.

A healing potion magically closes wounds.

Versus this healing potion physically allows you to ignore the fatigue, or this potion restores your stamina and you can dodge more, or this potion magically closes wounds, or this potion peps you up, or this potion is liquid luck, or this potion fills you with courage or confidence or this potion is filled with a divine blessing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If there is no physical injury from hp loss it seems there does not need to be a step two there of determining if there is a healed injury or not.

So 1 determine hp have been restored, 2 characterize the restoration.

This all seems to come down to whether you want the mechanics to say what happened definitively one way, or be open to different descriptions that work narratively.

A healing potion magically closes wounds.

Versus this healing potion physically allows you to ignore the fatigue, or this potion restores your stamina and you can dodge more, or this potion magically closes wounds, or this potion peps you up, or this potion is liquid luck, or this potion fills you with courage or confidence or this potion is filled with a divine blessing.

It does come down to that, and if you want the rules to provide an explanation, you're never going to be happy being told to make up whatever works for you in the moment.

 

[Voadam]

That one thing does make a big difference to a fair number of people though.

Yes. But it is also a different issue from hit points doing multiple things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. But it is also a different issue from hit points doing multiple things.

True. I just bypass the whole issue and have the possibility of lasting injury be a consequence of being brought to zero. I'm also bringing back proportional healing.