Disappointed in 4e

[Raven Crowking]

I think he would have agreed about that.

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

Can you give me an example where one must ret-con a description of a wound?

You did get a reply earlier.

Of course, the word "must" is loaded. So far as I know, no one holds a rifle to your head to force you to do so. If you are comfortable with absurd results, and enjoy Monty Python & the Holy Grail as a game experience, I suppose that retconning the results wouldn't be desireable.

Me, I can only take so many scenes of

LAUNCELOT: Concorde! Brave, Concorde ... you shall not have died in vain!

CONCORDE: I'm not quite dead, sir ...

LAUNCELOT (a little deflated): Oh, well ... er brave Concorde! You shall not have been fatally wounded in vain!

CONCORDE: I think I could pull through, sir.

LAUNCELOT: Good Concorde ... stay here and rest awhile.

He makes to leap off dramatically.

CONCORDE: I think I'll be all right to come with you, sir.

LAUNCELOT: I will send help, brave friend, as soon as I have accomplished this most daring, desperate adventure in this genre.

CONCORDE: Really, I feel fine, sir.

LAUNCELOT: Farewell, Concorde!

CONCORDE: It just seems silly ... me lying here.

SIR LAUNCELOT plunges off into the forest.​

before the game turns me off completely. YMMV.

In the thread where this was first brought up, many examples were given where, in order to gain non-absurd results, one had to either (1) avoid all narrative description of the results of combat, (2) retcon the narrative description of the results of combat, or (3) re-write the 4e rules pertaining to damage and healing.

Go back and read that thread again if you want examples; they are still there.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

In the thread where this was first brought up, many examples were given where, in order to gain non-absurd results, one had to either (1) avoid all narrative description of the results of combat, (2) retcon the narrative description of the results of combat, or (3) re-write the 4e rules pertaining to damage and healing.

Go back and read that thread again if you want examples; they are still there.

Okay. I will! I'll find the examples in that thread and see if I can't explain them in a way that makes sense.

 

[justanobody]

Can you give me an example where one must ret-con a description of a wound?

What exactly is that asking?

 

[LostSoul]

What exactly is that asking?

Raven Crowking claims that you can't describe hit point loss at the time it happens.

I think you can.

I am asking for an example that will prove his point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What exactly is that asking?

In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.

If you attempt to do this in 4e, you have the sudden problem of "mundane" healing closing gaping wounds, in any case where (say) a character is dropped to 0 then "talked back to full". Even without this, if you say that any given hit point loss represents a wound, but it is then "talked away", you either need to retcon it to a non-wound, disjoin hit points to health completely, or live with the fact that your characters are in a world where someone saying nice things to you can provide actual healing. Conversely, if you say something is just a morale problem, then it begs the question why magical healing helps.....or why a 10th level fighter is having a morale problem facing a single goblin in the first place.

If wounds are healed magically, they must have been wounds. If wounds are healed by "talking them away" they must not have been wounds. You only know whether or not you have taken a wound after you determine how it is healed. I termed this "Schrödinger's Wounding", after the famous thought experiment with the cat (Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

While the problem becomes very obvious given extreme examples (such as "dying to full through a pep rally"), it is there all of the time, every time damage is taken.

There are those who, in order to defend this "Schrödinger's Wounding", have now begun to claim that it was, in essense, always a feature of the system. Pre-4e hit point loss, however, always represented actual wounding. 4e hit points do not. While Fifth Element downplays this in his description of the passage he is quoting, he at least admitted that this is included in the passage Gary wrote. Not everyone is so honest -- especially not on the InterWeb.

A Gygaxian hit point, individually, does not have a concrete value, and represents both physical damage and the factors that make that damage either minor or major. Every hit point loss, however, represents some amount of damage. There is no such thing in the Gygaxian system as a hit point lost that does not track to some measurable physical damage, no matter how insignificant.

The "in-game logic" of healing, rest, etc., depend upon this interpretation of hit points. Altering this interpretation, as was done in 4e, without understanding it (IMHO, of course) has lead us to Schrödinger's Wounding in a Monty Python & the Quest for the Holy Grail world.

This is one of the biggest problems 4e has, though it is certainly not the only one. Which is sad, because, as the previous thread uncovered, it would have been relatively simple for the designers to rewrite passages in the rules to eliminate it altogether. Of course, the GSL prevents 3pp from doing so now.

Still, it is hardly surprising that only one person would say that he seriously thinks that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised. I'd have enjoyed reading Gary's response had someone tried to float this as his idea while he was still alive.


RC

 

[justanobody]

Raven Crowking claims that you can't describe hit point loss at the time it happens.

I think you can.

I am asking for an example that will prove his point.

Because your jaw was broke with the warhammer, and you must wait until it is healed to say what damages were caused?

That darn cat!

I understand that when observing the experiment you risk becoming a part of it, and that 4th edition seems to have a funny way with healing, that I don't like.

I think actual damage may need to be ret-conned with 4th because the funny healing in it.

But since 4th doesn't really have physical wounding, then it seems silly to even try to describe wounds in the first place since a fighter at 0 HP is just sitting in a corner crying with no visible damage, waiting for the cleric to yell "GO! Fighto" to encourage him to get up.

I just don't like he healing system in 4th so don't really want to get into it other than my previous statement that HP should be physical wounds, and something else needs to exist for the psychiatrist of the party to heal.

Cleric to fighter: Tell me about your mother.... <Healing Word>

 

[mmadsen]

In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.

That's simply not true though, because hit points are not consistent. What kind of injury does a 50-hp fighter take from a 5-hp sword stroke? Presumably a minor flesh wound. How long does it take to heal? A long time. Or a potion or spell capable of curing "light" wounds.

What does that 50-hp fighter look like when he's down to 6 hp? Presumably tattered and torn, although with no serious injuries. What kind of injury does he then take from a 5-hp sword stroke? Presumably something worse than a minor flesh wound. How long does it take to heal? The same long time. Or a potion or spell capable of curing "light" wounds.

That might not bother you, but it is inconsistent. Fighters are modeled as tree trunks of varying girths. Some take more chopping than others to fell.

 

[LostSoul]

Because your jaw was broke with the warhammer, and you must wait until it is healed to say what damages were caused?

Yeah, that's what he's saying.

I say that it's okay to say your jaw is broken. When the Warlord inspires your PC, you say, "Damn it... Even though I want to collapse from the pain, I grit myself and push on." At the end of the encounter, you bind your jaw, taking care of the wound, even if you don't need to spend another Healing Surge to bring you up to full HP.

I also think that you will want to avoid descriptions like: "The hammer breaks your jaw!" "The dagger thunks into your belly!" "The sword cuts deep into your gut!" But that's more of a question about what your group finds cool.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.

That's simply not true though, because hit points are not consistent.

Pre-4e, any damage can be described given the circumstances under which it occurs, the amount of damage taken, and the number of hit points remaining. No subsequent events in the game will force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).

In 4e, subsequent events force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).....or force you to not describe (and hence reduce immersion). Constantly.

Of course, for some, this isn't a big change in paradigm.

I suspect that they simply failed to "get" Gygaxian hit points/damage in the first place, if they were getting Schrödinger's Wounding/were unable to describe damage consistently with that system.

From personal experience, I can say that hundred of players and dozens of DMs of my aquaintance were able to describe wounds consistently within the framework of Gygaxian hit points.


RC

 

[La Bete]

In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.

Arroooo?

If you describe any combat result as a specific result ("gut wound, slashed arm", etc.), you open yourself up to absurd results.

For example, if a 50hp fighter is brought down to 1hp, you could describe the blow as a "brutal slash across your chest, opening a bloody gash".

Said fighter could then eliminate his foe. With no penalty to his abilities.
Charging straight on with no rest, said fighter could then lift a portcullis (if he made his check). With no penalty to his abilities.
Said fighter (to paraphrase Hypersmurf) could wander the Underdark for days, evading or fighting monstrous foes. With no penalty to his abilities.


Hmmm.


I'll certainly concede (and I think most would) that the 4e approach is more abstract that previous editions, but would disagree that it is a completely new paradigm. If you view wounds as being in a quanum state, that is you choosing to do so -certainly not the rules forcing you.

And on semi-related point, what's with the "What would Gary say?". It's more than a little creepy... I don't know about you, but I play with my friends, not Gygax (not, obviously that I could).