Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[MichaelSomething]

When I first saw this topic, I thought to myself "this is gonna be one of topics that blow up into a 10 page plus topic."

I had no idea that half of it would turn into another HP war.

Hey Fenes, how about allowing a character to spend a healing surge to prevent the healing surge's value in damage the next time they get hit? It would go like this.

Fighter spends a healing surge.
Fighter gets hit for 14 damage from monster.
Since fighter spent a healing surge he prevents 10 of the damage (with a healing surge value of 10) so he only take 4.

As for the flavor/mechanics issue, ask yourself this; would you rather hear people complain that the rules suck or that the game makes no sense?

 

[MichaelSomething]

double post.... sorry about that

 

[Herremann the Wise]

When I first saw this topic, I thought to myself "this is gonna be one of topics that blow up into a 10 page plus topic."

I had no idea that half of it would turn into another HP war.

I would not label it a war. It has been a debate which has been on the whole pretty civil. I don't think anyone has disrespected anyone else on either side of the fence here. If anything, I think respect has been garnered for those with opposing views - with the general concensus being to agree to disagree; some interesting points having been shared.

Hey Fenes, how about allowing a character to spend a healing surge to prevent the healing surge's value in damage the next time they get hit? It would go like this.

Fighter spends a healing surge.
Fighter gets hit for 14 damage from monster.
Since fighter spent a healing surge he prevents 10 of the damage (with a healing surge value of 10) so he only take 4.

This would make an interesting power - representing a fighter's ability to just "suck it up" while they do something suitably heroic (such as dash through some flames, or try to get through a hail of arrows). However, it fits in firmly with the 4E Black Box ethos and so does not really help groups who don't play that way.

As for the flavor/mechanics issue, ask yourself this; would you rather hear people complain that the rules suck or that the game makes no sense?

To be honest neither or more specifically, somewhere in the middle. All editions have had rules that suck or that make no sense, and get suitably house-ruled or ignored as suits. However, 4E as a whole has extracted a lot of simulation out of the game. It has been a deliberate attempt to err on the side of "that doesn't make sense" rather than "that kinda sucks" gameplay-wise. That does not jive with a lot of people who like their gameworld to make sense though. I think that's pretty much the lay of the land at present.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[MerricB]

My favorite is the Damage Save mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds (does True20 use it too?). The great thing about it --and this ties back to the original topic-- is that it's a sound mechanic that can impart almost diametrically opposite 'flavors' depending on how it's used.

Just as a counterpoint, I really, really detested that mechanic from M&M when I played it. Mind you, I found the "balance" of M&M extremely problematic.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

Other narrative actions further uncouple hp from physical injury.

The IM moment permanently cures the damage. Which is not that same as soldiering on (which is continuing while still having the damage). You go to sleep at night and the next day you are undamaged.

The narrative resolutions you came up with (which I think are absolutely fine when I play) still do not get by one of these objections if you want a tighther coupling of hp and physical damage.

Once again, maybe i am missing something from what you are saying and will gladly give up my argument if it becomes evidently faulty.

I think that it is helpful to decouple hit points from physical damage, as this frees up the narration.

I also think that it is unhelpful to describe any non-fatal injury as a gaping chest wound, as that it absurd narration.

But I think a non-fatal but large dose of hit point loss could be described as a serious slash to the chest, and/or the breaking of ribs - the second wind would then be soldiering on which didn't cure the wound, but relieved the PC of the burden of the wound (ie s/he can act as if unwounded).

This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written. Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.

In LotR, in the fight in Balin's Tomb, Frodo is injured and knocked unconscious. He finds the will to move on, but is noted to be injured later, and then rests in Lothlorien for an extended period of time.

If a healing surge lasted through (in effect) a scene, or even (in effect) a story, that would probably be fine.....although it would still need some descriptive changes to avoid Schroedinger's Wounding. It is the day-in, day-out, permanent nature of the mechanic that makes it absurd.

This suggests to me that the problem is the gonzo issue that I diagnosed.

As to the "day in, day out", as I've said multiple times upthread, just make sure there is a large passage of time between episodes, and narrate this as the time in which broken bones knit etc. As long as everyone at the table agrees that this is the most sensible path for the narrative to take, there is no need for the mechanics to deal with it.

 

[pemerton]

I think this is where the system lends itself to the most possible absurdity; you can describe wounds all you want and deal with it, but you end up with a PC covered in banadges, sword gashes, arrows sticking out of him, etc.

Oh well. I suggest a Skill Challenge to deal with this if it's important to you. Healing up at night. Failures mean you lose Healing Surges, total failure means you don't refresh any Healing Surges. If you don't have any left to spend and you should lose one, I guess you die. Gritty.

As I've been saying, another solution is just to have everyone agree that sufficient time passes between episodes. Extended rests within episodes can then just be narrated in the same fashion as a short rest.

 

[pemerton]

But i think the issue is the "fighting on" vs the "not injured"

The IM moment does not depict no injury it depicts "fighting on"

I think the second wind is a gamist device which allows the players to determine how they want the narrative to explain the mechanical effect which is why this uncoupling issue arises.

It gives more power to the player (or narrator) at the expense of less in-game world consistency.

I'd agree with this except for the suggestion of inconsistency. Why is the gameworld inconsistent because some hp loss representes physical injury and some hp restoration represents renewed resolve? There is no simulationism in such mechanics, but there is no inconsistency in the gameworld that I can see.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As I've been saying, another solution is just to have everyone agree that sufficient time passes between episodes. Extended rests within episodes can then just be narrated in the same fashion as a short rest.

If your players are cool with having you dictate when they can take the initiative and investigate that creepy old house on the hill, then this could potentially work to a degree. In a game where players are allowed to make those choices, this would not, unless by some miracle the players all decided to have their characters rest months between doing things. Not something that happens without both solid game-rules and in-world reasons, IME.

And, again, although this limits the gonzoness of "1-20 in 2 game years" and limits the gonzoness of "incredible healing all the time, anytime", that limitation is only as solid as the "episodes" are short.

I guess what I enjoy during actual play is "Player decisions and in-world events drives action; narration is the result of those decisions". Narration as a sort of commercial break where the DM tells the players their characters rest for X time seems, to me, to be the DM taking decisions upon himself that are not his to make.

IMHO, the game itself should present "win conditions" where the desired action occurs as a natural part of playing the game, rather than something forced upon the players by an external agency. The game should make the players want to rest when they are injured.

I think that 4e was designed to present "win conditions" where the desired action occurs as a natural part of playing the game BTW; I just think that the designers had radically different ideas than I do about what the "desired action" is.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

(And, Raven, I didn't mean you, you were just explaining why you have a problem, not why other should or shouldn't have a problem, or why everyone should play like you do.)

No worries. It was just my pathetic attempt at humour.

 

[Raven Crowking]

how about allowing a character to spend a healing surge to prevent the healing surge's value in damage the next time they get hit? It would go like this.

Fighter spends a healing surge.
Fighter gets hit for 14 damage from monster.
Since fighter spent a healing surge he prevents 10 of the damage (with a healing surge value of 10) so he only take 4.

Actually, that isn't a bad idea. At the very least, this would remove the problem of Schrödinger's Wounding, because how much damage was "not real" could be known at the time of the injury. In this case, rename the mechanic "adrenelin surge". Even the pep talk now makes sense, and injuries don't magically disappear because Joe Bob said some inspiring words.

Upthread, it was asked that, if hit points were decoupled from injury, why couldn't you take a healing surge when you were at full. The lack of replies was deafening. I should have realized then that silence meant that there was something interesting in the question.

Of course, the damage prevention would have to be used during the same encounter as the surge, or it is lost.

That's the best fix, IMHO, anyone in this thread has come up with yet.

Kudos.

Now can you solve 4e's other problems and rewrite the books so that the flavour doesn't bite?