Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Dinkeldog]

If they revise the hit point paradigm, I just don't want them to move to the Death Spiral where whomever hits first will win because the first one hit starts taking penalties that will keep them from being as effective as the undamaged attacker. Does it strain believability that the PCs don't have to go to a medical facility after a combat (or at least a combat where they are wounded badly)? Sure. But an abundance of medical facilities with modern efficacy in a fantasy world strains credulity as much as the Magical WalMart in every hamlet.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Hmmm. And here I thought the thread had gotten noticably more civil over the last two days. Whatever.

MR, thanks for the reply, later.

Delta--

1. If you have a question about moderation, go to the Meta Forum and send an e-mail.

2. We don't get to read every thread every day. This one just got reported, so I came in and reviewed posts over the past couple pages, where things were unpleasant. "More civil" than the slapfight earlier, does not mean maintaining an appropriate tone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If they revise the hit point paradigm, I just don't want them to move to the Death Spiral where whomever hits first will win because the first one hit starts taking penalties that will keep them from being as effective as the undamaged attacker.

I agree, and as I am working on a free OGC version of the game for my own use (and any who might want the same sort of game I do), this part of the thread has given me a lot to think about.

I do think that decoupling hp during an encounter from overall hp is an idea with a lot of merit. At first, I considered using a VP/WP system ala UA and SW, but I've been convinced that this isn't the way to go.

What I am considering is a system whereby, based on class & level, a certain amount of damage can be automatically "shaken off" after a rest. I.e., when a hit is taken, you still know whether or not it is something that will stick around in the long run, so that you can describe it now, because you know how much damage you can "shake off" after each combat. However, there is still always a real potential that you have damage going forward from any given combat that won't (necessarily) simply disappear overnight.

I've yet to come up with the exact numbers, as this just occurred to me last night as a good compromise.

(I am currently working on the skill system so that the DC to notice a stealthy ambush predator, say, can be "set" by the GM, and doesn't have to vary by monster CR.)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You might be right, but one thing I find notably - it really seems only to be a problem if you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. And in most games, I just don't.

Exactly so. The more interest you have in a particular part of the game, the more problems with that part will be dissatisfying. Whereas, if you never (or rarely) think about part of the game, then even large problems can be glossed over without any major loss of satisfaction.

It all depends upon what you are looking for from a game, and how well the game achieves its design goals. As I said much earlier.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

Not quite. In order to understand what I am saying, you have to disentangle the game from the game world for a moment. "Hit points" have no objective meanining in the game world (they do in the game).

Okay, with you so far...

Hit points, in previous editions of D&D, represent something that has objective meaning in the game world in real time.

Still with you.

Conversely, in 4e, when I take hit point damage, I don't know what it represents at the time I take it. If I declare it is an actual wound, and I use a healing surge later, I am potentially stuck with either (a) my wound having disappeared without having actually been healed, or (b) claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning. (c) If, on the other hand, I declare that it represents no wound, and I have magical healing later, I am potentially stuck with the healing of a wound that doesn't exist.

This is where I lose you. I don't see why you can't describe the wound in whatever way you want, even at the moment you take it.

I'm thinking of something like Lancelot's wound. He gets hit in his fight to defend Guinevere's honour. He describes it as a bad wound at the time.

He takes an extended rest - on the character sheet, the character is back to full effectiveness. But the player wants to address a specific theme, so he describes Lancelot as never quite healing.

In later fights, when he gets hit, he describes that old injury acting up again, instead of describing new wounds. This all works with the constraints the mechanics give us.

Maybe our difference is that doing so is acceptable to me. Would I be wrong if I said that you need to have that wound represented in the game mechanics as long as the wound exists or else it does not "feel real"?

Maybe what would help is an example of play that shows what you're talking about. A hypothetical example is cool.

That just doesn't work for me.

That's cool. I know you're not saying it's wrong to like 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly so. The more interest you have in a particular part of the game, the more problems with that part will be dissatisfying. Whereas, if you never (or rarely) think about part of the game, then even large problems can be glossed over without any major loss of satisfaction.

My "working theory" is that it is an "off-the-table" problem. During the game, you'll never bother about this, because you are too busy figuring out the monster tactics, plot twists and PC/NPC motivations.
It is not the kind of "in-the-face" problem recalculating several combat statistics can be, or the fact that you are "sitting out" because your character is useless in the current encounter. Or that you just can't figure out how a mechanic is applied correctly, despite having done it several times.

I tend to think that has been the guiding principle of 4E - all problems in "using" the game have to be addressed. Problems on a more "philosophical" level are irrelevant if they get in the way of the other aspects.

Of course, maybe another year of polishing could have also fixed the rest. Or maybe not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is where I lose you. I don't see why you can't describe the wound in whatever way you want, even at the moment you take it.

If you don't understand what I am getting at, I can think of no further way to describe it.

Would I be wrong if I said that you need to have that wound represented in the game mechanics as long as the wound exists or else it does not "feel real"?

Possibly. I'm fine with descriptive elements, such as scarring (for example) not having a mechanical effect. I'm fine with broken bones occurring in-world, even if there are no mechanical means to break them. I am fine with a player claiming his character is bothered by an old wound, and role-playing it rather than having a mechanical equivilence.

What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away. I prefer a game in which action has consequences. It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.

Again, compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out. And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound. Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie. He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again.

However, I'll grant that Schrödinger's Wounding is certainly consistent with mechanics that allow you to kill your foes when you miss.

That's cool. I know you're not saying it's wrong to like 4e.

My "working theory" is that it is an "off-the-table" problem. During the game, you'll never bother about this, because you are too busy figuring out the monster tactics, plot twists and PC/NPC motivations.

Trust me. This sort of thing bothers me quite a bit at the table.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

By the way, I'm not saying that it's wrong to dislike 4e. I just don't understand why I can't describe the effect of the wound as it happens, or that hit point loss doesn't have consequences.

What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away. I prefer a game in which action has consequences. It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.

The wound only "goes away" if the player (well, DM in 4e) describes it going away. He doesn't have to. All we know is that his staying power is reduced. Any colour that we describe must stay true to that, but that's our only constraint.

Can you tell me - or give me a hypothetical example - where in play I'd be forced to describe a wound going away? Or any quantum wounding situation?

There are consequences to the action - he got hit, he lost hit points, he used a healing surge. Granted, those consequences go away after an extended rest, but this is D&D we're talking about.

How does this not count as a consequence?

What's most interesting for me is to take those mechanical consequences and turn it into something colourful and flavourful. That's what Lancelot's player is doing. Take away his ability to describe hit points how he likes - make them objective in the game world - and you lose that ability to give the loss of a few hit points/healing surge into a dramatic wound with thematic meaning.

 

[Scribble]

What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away. I prefer a game in which action has consequences. It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.

I think it comes down to choice really. If you've chosen to make an unbelievable situation, then well, it's probably not going to be believable to you.

To me, Lance takes the hit, looks down and sees the blood. maybe he's even forced to his knees, a moment of shock... Then he glances over and sees his friends. They need him- he has to fight on. With a mighty groan, Lance struggles to his feet, cracks his joints, and grips his weapon. The blood is still there, the wound just isn't as bad as he thought. (Maybe he even does that wound tie off thing with his teeth action movie guys do all the time...)

Now granted had I already chosen to view the above situation as unbelievabe, it would be unbelievable. Since I didn't I can find a way to make it work.

I'm also firmly (and always have been) in the camp of hit points representing the amount of actual damage you can take is silly. The only hit that really "matters" game wise / damage wise is the last one. The one that kills you. Everything else can be described however we please.

 

[apoptosis]

I'm also firmly (and always have been) in the camp of hit points representing the amount of actual damage you can take is silly. The only hit that really "matters" game wise / damage wise is the last one. The one that kills you. Everything else can be described however we please.

Though this begs the question why you cant you second wind after you are "dead". Using both gamist and narrativist thinking, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to and I dont think it is particularly a bad idea either.

Of course not being able to allows you to ratchet up the tension a bit (gamist perspective) so that deciding when to use it could be a critical tactical choice.