Disappointed in 4e

[Raven Crowking]

A realistic system would not require any more math or charts than the current system. A detailed system would.

Very nice distinction.


RC

 

[Arnwyn]

As an aside, I've always wondered why those people played traditional RPGs (like D&D). At their core, these games are a series of negotiations being the players and DM/GM, a series of "Mother May I's" in which the players states desired actions and the DM/GM describes the results. Sometimes these negotiations are mediated --to varying degrees-- by explicit, stated rules. Other times they aren't.

Because everyone will have their own line in the sand as to what level of "Mother May I?" is acceptable to them. (Some ENWorlders seem to have a hard time with the concept of degrees.)

I'm not sure why you'd think that people who don't like a particular level of "Mother May I" would steer entirely clear of traditional RPGs. Weird.

 

[justanobody]

Agreed. But it looks to me like D&D isn't one of them.

I just checked through 5 editions of D&D (Basic, 1e, 3e, 3.5 and 4e. I don't own 2e.) and only Basic referenced Hit Points as purely physical damage.

And that is where it all went wrong.

 

[Mallus]

Because everyone will have their own line in the sand as to what level of "Mother May I?" is acceptable to them.

Oh, of course. But what you wrote was unclear. It read like a general objection to "Mother May I"... which is odd since it's the core transaction in a traditional RPG.

I'm not sure why you'd think that people who don't like a particular level of "Mother May I" would steer entirely clear of traditional RPGs.

Now we're talking about a particular level of "MMI"? That's a different story.

 

[mmadsen]

Once more, Gygaxian hit points -- the hit points of all previous editions -- allow a hit to always represent damage. Hit point loss is always damage. However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit. Thus, 8 hp of damage might be a 1st level character run through with a sword, but is only a nick to a 10th level character.

Let me reiterate: hit points are not consistent. Your explanation of Gygaxian hit points is one we all more-or-less agree on, I suspect, but it still doesn't make perfect sense. At the very least, it's not linear.

For instance, is an 8-hp sword wound just a nick to a 10th-level fighter? Well, maybe the first such 8-hp wound is, but the last one definitely isn't. The one that drops his hit points below zero is a crippling blow.

So the first attack is much less damaging than the Nth? Hmm...

So, if his hit point are 90 percent intangible and 10 percent tangible, but that last hit was close to 100 percent tangible in its effect, how tangible or intangible was the first hit?

And how long should it take to heal from that first nick?

 

[mmadsen]

In an odd way, the Damage Save mechanic in M&M --which is meant to model 4-color superheroes-- is more realistic than the ablative HP mechanic found in D&D.

It's an odd little irony that the more realistic Damage Save was introduced for four-color superheroes.

 

[rjdafoe]

Because there is some number of people who don't like to play "Mother May I?". And that's legitimate for those people. (Not making any edition distinction here, so take a hike, evangelists.)

But my question to this is, when has this notion began that the DM is not in control of the game? I understand this stuff for tournement, RPGA, Cons, etc. But at a table of people who know each other? It is not a question of Mother May I, it is a I am starting up this campaign. X does not fit in this, so X is not allowed. Isn't the point of an RPG to customize it to your group? Yes, this makes it hard to talk about on an internet forum, but this is what brought me into the game. The creativitly and molding the game to our groups tastes, wether it is fluff, rules, or anything else.

 

[Shazman]

So, the Warlord only grants temporary hit points, in your game?


RC

Well, I think it should work that way. I don't play 4E anymore, so it really doesn't matter. 4E just doesn't feel like the fantasy RPG it's supposed to be. It works okay as a miniatures skirmish game, but is completely lacking as an RPG.

 

[Imban]

It is revisionist history to claim that hit points do not now, and have not always, meant, at least in part, "the number of pink elephants owned by the character". This is true in 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.

If you can show me a passage that specifies this is incorrect, I'd like to see it.


RC

While I'm too lazy to go dig out a link to the post, RPG.net's Old Geezer - someone who is notable for having been in the late Gary Gygax's gaming group - once related that hit points were originally just a measure of how long people could stay in the fight. They'd tried a few other things and found none of them to be as fun as hit points, and since D&D at that point was mostly, to quote Old Geezer, them "making up that they thought would be fun", well...!

Since then, it's quite possible people - including people developing D&D - have attached a deeper meaning to hit points than was originally present. It's not like copious designers' notes were available in those days, after all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me reiterate: hit points are not consistent. Your explanation of Gygaxian hit points is one we all more-or-less agree on, I suspect, but it still doesn't make perfect sense. At the very least, it's not linear.

"However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit."

The first 8-hp wound to a 10th level fighter has a different correspondance to his hit point total than does the last.

So the first attack is much less damaging than the Nth. That is exactly what the system was meant to do.

So, if his hit point are 90 percent intangible and 10 percent tangible, but that last hit was close to 100 percent tangible in its effect, how tangible or intangible was the first hit?

Both are 100% tangible. A nick and a sword through the guts are both 100% tangible.

And how long should it take to heal from that first nick?

The healing rules in 1e do a good job, but not the best possible job, of defining how damage is healed. I would recommend house ruling 1 hp per day per level, so that that first nick is healed after a night's rest.

Of course, if that first nick were simply morale, it would go away instantly as soon as the fighter rallied. And, were the 10th level fighter facing 2 goblins, say, it is difficult to envision how he could suffer any morale loss at all.


RC