Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Herremann the Wise]

No, I'm arguing that since someone in 3E could adventure on 1 hit point out of 80 for three weeks in the Underdark, with little chance to rest and no access to healing, and be just as effective in every way as someone on 80 out of 80 for as long as they don't lose that last hit point, the cinematic depiction of wounds is a flavour conceit, not a mechanical one.

I've bolded the pertinent part here. The question as to are they really as effective is the interesting one though? The stipulation given that they not lose that last hit point is interesting but under the context given improbable.

Is the underdark full of flowers, petals, sugar, spice and all things nice or is it full of things that are going to try to take away that last hit point (and have a good chance of doing it)? Is the chance of the 1 hit point guy surviving the same as the 80 hit point guy under these circumstances? In terms of the context you have presented is the 1 hp guy as effective in surviving for 3 weeks as the 80hp guy? Chances are the 1hp guy (heavily injured) is going to skulk around trying to find a way out or if confronted is going to make a heroic (and likely expedient) last stand. The 80hp uninjured guy under the same context perhaps has a few more options - I mean hey, he's uninjured. So while mechanically, they are just as technically able to begin an encounter, how they finish that encounter (and thus their effectiveness) is most likely going to be different. The mechanics have had an effect on how the player is most likely going to play the character (if of course they wish the character to try and survive).

In 3E and 4E, someone falls over when their hit points drop below a threshold... and until that threshold is reached, the number doesn't need to correlate exactly to the cinematic description, because the cinematic description has no in-game effect.

True. It is the context of healing or restoring this damage/vitality etc. where the two editions have diverged. The first has a basketful of anomalies whilst the latter muddies the situation as I have previously described to the point where as you say, the cinematic description can be what you want it to be, as long as it makes sense that you could recover from it rapidly.

I was hoping with 4E and then Pathfinder that they would find a mechanic for damage and it's recovery that was elegant, streamlined, provide verisimilitude and would work well in a game. A tall order I suppose. While I'm enjoying what both of the previous are presenting, I'm still left waiting on this gaming nirvana I have in my head. I suppose it's impossible otherwise surely someone would have come up with it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I'm arguing that since someone in 3E could adventure on 1 hit point out of 80 for three weeks in the Underdark, with little chance to rest and no access to healing, and be just as effective in every way as someone on 80 out of 80 for as long as they don't lose that last hit point, the cinematic depiction of wounds is a flavour conceit, not a mechanical one.

And I would argue that the difference effects how those players play their characters. In actual gameplay, they are not equally effective, because the mechanics reward the 1 hp character to play his character as though he were not eager to take more punishment.

EDIT: As has already been pointed out.


RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I would argue that the difference effects how those players play their characters. In actual gameplay, they are not equally effective, because the mechanics reward the 1 hp character to play his character as though he were not eager to take more punishment.

But that's another flavour issue.

The character who is played cautiously because he is low on hit points could do so because he is injured, or because he is tired, or because he is demoralised, or because it's in his nature.

The character who is played aggressively since he still has a lot of hit points could do so despite being injured because it is necessary, or regardless of being tired because he never gives up.

And similarly, the player might choose to have the low-hit-point PC act aggressively despite being injured because it is necessary... and until he actually takes some damage, he'll be exactly as effective as the high-hit-point character played the same way, because the lack of hit points has no mechanical effect except for determining "Has he fallen over yet?"

Low hit points doesn't have to mean "Look, I can see the bone!"

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But that's another flavour issue.

I don't think so. Or, at least, not if you intend to imply that it is just or even just largely a flavour issue. The mechanics of a game directly inform the "win conditions" of the game, as has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently through games theory. In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).


RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).

But does whether or not we can see bone drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win"?

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Low hit points doesn't have to mean "Look, I can see the bone!"

Of course not, but then that doesn't answer the problem I am describing, either. Schrödinger's Wounding occurs because, should you happen to describe low hit points in any given case as "Look, I can see the bone!" you are only one healing surge away from having to retcon your description, unless you are willing to accept absurd "in world" events.

What hit point damage in 4e ultimately means cannot be described until how it is 'healed' is determined. Magical healing? Musta been a wound. Second wind? Guess it wasn't a wound. Or maybe magical healing doesn't actually heal wounds, and characters never actually get injured, no matter how often they are struck by blunt or pointy objects. Again, an absurd result.

The solution you suggest above amounts to saying that there need be no correspondance between hit point damage and events in the game world (a point I made long ago, except I said there is no correspondance), therefore describe them however you like.

This certainly removes Schrödinger's Wounding, but it doesn't remove the problem of no reasonable mapping between game table and in-world events. Which is not to say that this is a problem if you don't care. I, for one, am not impressed with Wound Particle Duality either. I am not looking for a game that simulates quantum mechanics.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't really know. As I'm sure you know, Ron Edwards has expressed the view that one obstacle to the mainstreaming of RPGs is "simulationist-by-habit" rules and play.

I prefer "simulationist-by-preference" rules and play.

As I am sure you know, mainstreaming something is very often good for increasing profits, but very seldom makes something actually better.


RC

 

[Herremann the Wise]

While somewhat related to the thread please excuse this if it is on too much of a tangent.

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 about the VP/WP system do you think is flawed? Are the flaws something that can be fixed or are they too intertwined with the mechanic/flavour itself?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course not, but then that doesn't answer the problem I am describing, either. Schrödinger's Wounding occurs because, should you happen to describe low hit points in any given case as "Look, I can see the bone!" you are only one healing surge away from having to retcon your description, unless you are willing to accept absurd "in world" events.

What's absurd, though?

I don't understand why it's absurd that if someone has just been described as having a rapier open up a wicked gash along their ribs, they can recover a quarter of their hit points with a healing surge while still having an open gash along their ribs.

I watch a Van Damme movie. In the final fight, he's getting beaten down, his eyes are blackened, his nose is bloodied, he's on the floor... and then the bad guy picks the wrong thing to say. Van Damme's head snaps up, his eyes flash, and he leaps up and pummels the guy to a pulp. Does his bloodied nose miraculously clean up? Do his eyes unblacken? No - he's still showing those effects, but he's back in the fight.

I watch Desperado. Cristos is annihilating Right-Hand's cousin, including breaking his shin. The cousin is down... and then he jumps up and breaks Cristos' neck with a spinning kick. He gets a cast put on the leg, and the next day he's fine - walking with a limp and a 'clink', but otherwise unimpeded. Same movie, the mariachi gets shot, get stuck with assorted knives, he's bleeding... he gets the bullet holes sewn up, he ties rags around the stab wounds, he's good to go.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy gets shot in the arm. Blood splashes; the German sergeant punches him in the arm, he screams. He gets dragged behind a truck for a bit... climbs back up, knocks the guy out of the truck, carries on driving. That night, he's complaining that everything hurts... but it didn't slow him down, and it doesn't slow him down for the rest of the film.

Van Damme is still cut and bruised. The mariachi has stab wounds. Indy has a bullet hole. But that doesn't mean they can't be back up to full hit points after a rest - even though those wounds can still be seen. Recovering the hit points doesn't have to mean the evidence of the wounds disappears. It's just that they don't have a mechanical effect on the subsequent action.

So in 4E, I get hit with an axe, and I lose 15 hit points, taking me down to 5. "The blade bites deep into your leg," the DM states. On my turn, I spend a healing surge to recover 10 hit points, and then an action point to take a standard action of my own. "Regdar screams as the axe strikes home," I say. "But he blocks out the pain through force of will, and smashes the orc backwards with his shield, limping relentlessly after him."

After the combat, during the short rest, I spend another two healing surges to bring Regdar back up to full hit points. "Regdar pulls the bandage tight, and gingerly sets his weight onto his injured leg. He hisses - the pain of the fresh wound is still sharp. But his companions will need him in the upcoming assault; there's no time for self-pity. Clenching his teeth, he tries again... it hurts, but it's manageable. 'I'll be fine,' he bites out. 'Let's keep moving.'"

Regdar's at full hit points, but he's three healing surges down. Why should "At full hit points" invalidate the description of him toughing his way through an injured leg?

The solution you suggest above amounts to saying that there need be no correspondance between hit point damage and events in the game world...

I've got no problem with hit point damage corresponding to in-game events. In the above example, the in-game event (Regdar's leg is cut) occurred at the same time as he took 15 damage.

The mechanical event "Regdar regains 10 hit points", however, doesn't have to be accompanied by the in-game event "The wound in Regdar's leg magically heals itself". What it tells us is that if he gets hit for 6 damage, he isn't going to fall unconscious, whereas before the healing surge, he would have.

-Hyp.

 

[Imp]

In movies where big sharp weapons are wielded you don't usually see somebody just get up after taking a substantial blow, usually it's one shot and down he goes, hero or otherwise, with some room for dying counter-strikes – sort of The Law Of The Size Of The Thing That Hits You. Inigo Montoya? Hit by a dagger. In D&D, adventurers are constantly being belted with spiky, flaming, poisoned metal things as big as they are, at least once they get to a certain level, and the "grit through the pain" rationale just turns it into high camp.