Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4468765" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think this is correct. Given the number of ways 3E came at healing mechanics over its lifetime (spells of various sorts, auras, temporary hit points, wands of CLW, reserve hit points, not to mention various d20/OGL mechanics) I think it's fair to say this area of the game has been very thoroughly explored.I think the choice to adopt a healing surge mechanics was utterly considered and deliberate.As as to the issue of taste vs fact: whether or not someone likes 4e is a matter of taste. But whether or not the retconning issue arises at the table - that is, whether or not narration has to be undone and re-narrated after the event - is a matter of fact. Is there any 4e player in this thread for whom the retconning issue arises? Lost Soul and Hypersmurf have both said that it does not arise for them - they don't narrate away the wound but rather allow the PC to narrate fighting on in spite of it.It seems to me the real objection to healing surges isn't retconning/Schrodinger, but rather is an objection to narration of PCs fighting on in spite of injury. And I share Mallus's incredulity at this - for it has been a part of D&D since the beginning, being intrinsic to an ablative hit point mechanic.Admittedly it is more common in 4e, because the existence of second wind and related mechanics means that it is more likely for a PC to be close to collapse, and then to recover, than is the case in earlier editions, in which fighters with 5 hp left and who fought on regardless still had only 5 hp left.But if this feature is objectionable, then once again the objection is not to retconning/Schrodinger - it is to a certain sort of gonzo consequence of the mechanics, of an Inigo Montoya moment in every encounter. It's fine to object to that, but let's be clear what the target of the objection is.And by the way, the obvious way of eliminating the gonzoism is to make every encounter so important to the PCs - and so involving to the players - that an Inigo Montoya moment seems appropriate rather than gonzo. That is what Lost Soul seems to me to be talking about when he explains how a Boromir healing surge could be handled. Achieving this sort of play requires effort from both players and DMs. That 4e is set up to support it is why I describe it as a system with narrativist as well as gamist potential.Right. And in a narrativist RPG the win conditions include the production, during play, of a thematically engaging story. And in an even halfway challenging narrativist game the action resolution mechanics will affect the player actions. For example, when they narrate a wound, and then their PC is healed as per the action resolution mechanics, they will produce a thematically engaging narrative to explain how their PC is able to keep going. Their will be no retconning, no quantaum mechanics, no gonzoism, no problems. As Lost Soul has indicated in his posts.</blockquote>

Verification