Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

Now, personally, I haven't found that it's an issue, because we haven't had enough people recovering from negative via healing surges for the "It wasn't as bad as it looked" scenario to be problematic in the way you describe. But if it came up, and asking those questions looked set to spoil my fun, action-packed, exciting play experience, I'd pick option 2 - don't ask the questions!

So far as I know, this sideline began because I pointed out that healing surges -- and the whole 4e take on damage -- were more gamist/less simulationist than those of previous editions.

If you can now see that examining what the mechanics mean in world (asking the questions) leads to an issue, do you agree with the original point? Or do we continue to play Schrödinger's Argument?

PL1: "Mechanic A causes problems. It can be viewed in-world as X or Y. If X, it causes problem Z. If Y, it causes problem B."

PL2: "Well, if you view it as Y it won't cause problem Z."

PL1: "I know. It causes problem B."

PL2: "Then view it as X."

PL1: "That causes problem Z."

(This exchange is repeated over and over again, with variations on wording, and different people jumping in repeating the same thing with variations on wording, none of which answers the original point, until PL1 is ready to pull out his hair. Culminating in: )

PL2: "Just don't view it at all."





RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I hope that you can, in turn, see why "if you stop worrying about it, it's not a worry" is a perfectly good answer for those of us that do like the system and are happy with it.

Obviously.

If you can ignore a problem, within this context, it is not a problem for you. That doesn't change the fact that the basis for the complaint, for those it does bother, is objective.

The basis of the complaint is objective; whether or not it bothers you is subjective.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who talked about fully healed?

Regaining all hit points isn't fully healed?

There are a bunch of questions upthread, asked by several people, about this line of reasoning.

Healing surge doesn't actually heal? Again, see upthread for unanswered questions pointing out problems with this approach.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Regaining all hit points isn't fully healed?

No.

There are a bunch of questions upthread, asked by several people, about this line of reasoning.

Healing surge doesn't actually heal? Again, see upthread for unanswered questions pointing out problems with this approach.

And see the above posts why this doesn't have to be the problem.
And the counter-arguments for that.
And the counter-arguments for that.
And...

You get it.

 

[Fenes]

The 3E system manages to do this only to a very limited extent - hit points after combat where no problem thanks to Cure Light Wound Wands, but this creates a high dependency on magic items or pm (divine) spellcasters - and since a lot of spells are needed in challenging encounters (as you say - going nova), you can't do it often.

I never had a wand of cure light wounds in any game. With just one fight per day or session, most of the "healing damage problems" go away because I do not expect my players to be ready for another fight after the fight. I don't need clerics in the party at all, some potions are enough for emergencies, the rest of the damage can be cured "at home" by NPCs or rest. I can have PCs collapse after a battle, with their wounds needing treatment even though they might not have dipped below 0. I also can describe damage as wounds as I please, since the damage won't be healed without healing magic or extended rest.

The only remaining thing I have to say is that I doubt that you would have such big problems with the system in practice.
1) You are already using Book of Nine Swords. So you are perfectly fine with "martial" characters using supernatural powers. All problems with Schrödingers hit points and ret-conning are gone if you just assume that it's sword magic.

2) The major instance where these problems come into play are during combat and assuming that some character drops to 0 hit points and is also increased beyond 0 hp. The party just has to avoid that ever happening.

But of course, there is no need for a change if you're happy with what you've got.

4E has too much powers that require me to either be too vague, or use convulted explanations for them and their restrictions. Bo9S has not that many "Move the enemy somehow... it's magic!" powers, and its martial powers can be easily recharged, even in fight, and don't require me to explain why the fighter can't whirlwind twice in a fight. And 4E powers just feel bland and weak to me, unlike Bo9S moves.

In short, 4E requires me far too often to say "It's magic/plot" to explain stuff to be comfortable. Far easier to pick mechanics I like from it and implement them in my 3E game than trying to make it work for me - the type of game experience it was made for doesn't appeal to me anyway, and the 4e fluff so far doesn't appeal to me either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never had a wand of cure light wounds in any game. With just one fight per day or session, most of the "healing damage problems" go away because I do not expect my players to be ready for another fight after the fight.

Yes. I know, I understand. That's why you don't need a different healing or resource management system at all.

 

[Fenes]

Hey Fenes;
After the fight, X still has a big gash on his head; if he has any healing surges left, he can describe binding the wound (while the Warlord claps him on the back for some extra motivation), and a quick word or two: "How you feeling, X?" "Well, my head feels like Bane's been using it as target practice, but not as bad as after you make your Hellfell Shadowspawn chili!". Or if he doesn't have any healing surges left, and there's no other healing available, he might describe binding the wound and struggling on, weak and exhausted but ready to fight.

My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him. If he was in danger of dieing, and needed immediate first aid, then it strains my suspension of disbelief that he'll be up and fighting after he got his healing surge.

(You could even describe the wound in the same way in both cases, even if he's just down 4 healing surges and at full hp: dazed, weak, exhausted, but willing to carry on.)

Either way, the wound doesn't disappear, which might be important later on in the game (NPC: <points at the soiled bandage> "You look like you've been through hell. I told you not to engage the enemy!").

The fatal wound disappeared, or it would have been fatal.

* - The Unconcious condition means a few things, but going deaf isn't one of them, so we're cool there. I could describe the PC going down and out, but I probably wouldn't do that often if there was a Warlord in the party; and even if I did, I'd say something like "Somewhere, deep in the blackness, a part of X hears your words. His vision clears, your voice guiding him back to conciousness."

** - Warlords are a new addition to the D&D world/genre, so you have to make allowances. Words are important in 4e and can sap the fight out of someone (psychic damage) and they can give someone the will to fight on (Inspiring Word, etc). This might not be to everyone's taste, but it's a part of the 4e world.

Which is a big reason I am not part of the 4E world - too much is not to my taste, including warlords, both fluff and mechanics wise.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And see the above posts why this doesn't have to be the problem.
And the counter-arguments for that.
And the counter-arguments for that.
And...

You get it.

Oh, you mean

PL1: "Mechanic A causes problems. It can be viewed in-world as X or Y. If X, it causes problem Z. If Y, it causes problem B."

PL2: "Well, if you view it as Y it won't cause problem Z."

PL1: "I know. It causes problem B."

PL2: "Then view it as X."

PL1: "That causes problem Z."

(This exchange is repeated over and over again, with variations on wording, and different people jumping in repeating the same thing with variations on wording, none of which answers the original point, until PL1 is ready to pull out his hair. Culminating in: )

PL2: "Just don't view it at all."

 

[Mallus]

My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him.

Of out curiosity, how is this different from 3e (or 2e or 1e)?

A 3e character with 50 HP is critically hit with an axe for 40 points of damage . He has 10 HP remaining. Fortunately for him, the fight ends.

Is the wound he took serious? Is he in any danger of dying? He's not bleeding, even though it's logical he should be after being hit by a single blow from a presumably sharp, bladed weapon for more than %75 of his HP.

According to the rules, there is no need to bandage him. He can't bleed --unless he was hit by certain types of magic weapon. Neither can the wound get infected, neither is he impaired, etc.

So was that wound serious?

BTW, I'm not arguing that you or anyone else should enjoy 4e's modification to ye olde HP mechanics. My point is only that whether one does is strictly a matter of taste.

 

[LostSoul]

My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him. If he was in danger of dieing, and needed immediate first aid, then it strains my suspension of disbelief that he'll be up and fighting after he got his healing surge.

Ah. In 4e - and this is a genre convention, probably new to this edition - the would would have been fatal because he lacked the will to carry on. Given the will to fight by his Warlord's Inspiring Words, he gets up and deals with it.

You can also describe popping back up from a Death Save in the same way; somewhere, deep down, he found the will to go on. He won the fight with that part of himself that was saying, "Just let go, let it be, rest and be at peace."

I see it's not to your taste, and that's cool.