Healing Surges innate Blessed band aids

[kennew142]

Some players and GMs want to put a fairly broad concept such as hit points into a very small and tightly constrained box. This isn't very useful for the purposes of gaming, but it's very convenient if you want to spend time arguing about much a game sucks.

Hit points in D&D have never represented merely physical trauma. Some GMs will claim, but in my game I've always described hit point loss as gaping chest wounds. Nevertheless, this contitutes a house rules those GMs have been using. Just because the concept of healing surges doesn't work with your own particular house rules, doesn't mean that it doesn't work with D&D's definition of hit points.

I'm aware that the mechanics of earlier editions haven't been very good at reflecting the in game definition of hit points. I'm just relieved that 4e edition will finally have mechanics that reflect that definition.

Even so, there have been many very good explanations in this thread for how to explain healing surges in the context of actual physical wounds. It won't work if you're insistent that every hit that drops a character to negative hit points represents a wound that requires either magical healing or several days of bed rest, but it works just fine if you describe every hit as causing tissue damage.

Healing surges only equal regeneration if that's the definition you choose to assign them. The rules so far haven't defined them in that way. Numerous other explanations have been provided by several clever posters in this thread. IMO continuing to argue that healing surges must be a form of regeneration reflects either a lack of imagination - or simple intransigence in pursuit of argumentation.

 

[kennew142]

Wait, are you saying that 4e will actually allow me, as a player, to have some kind of say as to what happens at the table? I won't be forced to attack a dragon until my PC dies? The Cleric won't be casting healing spells on me without my permission? Could it be that I might, possibly, also be able to carry on conversations with NPCs or other players at the table?

Joy!

Apparently you don't understand the definition of narrative control. Chris never implied that previous editions didn't allow you to control your own character. This is a bugaboo you've constructed in your own imagination. Narrative control is about having input into what happens to your character, such as determining what sort of wound you've suffered or what skill your character can use to influence the outcome of a situation.

It's true that you could do these things in earlier editions of D&D, if your GM was willing to step outside the rules as presented and think outside the box. So, while not actually a change in the rules, 4e does seem to call out this style of play, provide mechanics for it and encourage it as the default style.

Nor does allowing the players some narrative control undermine the GM. It's all about sharing the control when it comes to a character's actions or to the consequences he suffers. The GM still has final say, but the default assumption in 4e seems to be that the players should have some input in these instances. This isn't a bad thing, and a lot of excellent GMs have been running things this way for a long time. D&D is afterall a shared interactive experience, not one player (the GM) dictating everything to the other players. Anything that moves the game further in this direction is good thing IMO.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Apparently you don't understand the definition of narrative control. Chris never implied that previous editions didn't allow you to control your own character. This is a bugaboo you've constructed in your own imagination. Narrative control is about having input into what happens to your character, such as determining what sort of wound you've suffered or what skill your character can use to influence the outcome of a situation.

What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all? Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?

It's true that you could do these things in earlier editions of D&D, if your GM was willing to step outside the rules as presented and think outside the box. So, while not actually a change in the rules, 4e does seem to call out this style of play, provide mechanics for it and encourage it as the default style.

So, these rules will help prevent bad DMing?

Nor does allowing the players some narrative control undermine the GM. It's all about sharing the control when it comes to a character's actions or to the consequences he suffers. The GM still has final say, but the default assumption in 4e seems to be that the players should have some input in these instances.

Or, maybe they won't.

I am sure you have a follow up showing how previous rules actively prevented players from having input via 'narrative control'.

This isn't a bad thing, and a lot of excellent GMs have been running things this way for a long time. D&D is afterall a shared interactive experience, not one player (the GM) dictating everything to the other players. Anything that moves the game further in this direction is good thing IMO.

So, this will weed out non-excellent DMs? Or do you have an argument that shows a qualitative difference between the DM describing a sword hit and a player describing a sword hit?

 

[Lacyon]

What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?

You're inching towards insight.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?

Then he didn't. Still lost some hit points, off course.

Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?

Well, pretending for a moment that this useless abonimation of a skill is still in 4E, if you can make a good explaination for it yes. More likely, no, you can't.

So, these rules will help prevent bad DMing?


Or, maybe they won't.

I am sure you have a follow up showing how previous rules actively prevented players from having input via 'narrative control'.


So, this will weed out non-excellent DMs? Or do you have an argument that shows a qualitative difference between the DM describing a sword hit and a player describing a sword hit?

The rules won't prevent bad DMing per se. But if the DMG actually contains guidelines and reminders that you can do this stuff - and how you can do this stuff - can turn mediocre (like me) or inexperienced DMs into better ones. DM skills can be learned (or so I hope), a good book can help you with there. Off course, a DM on a power-trip that wants to tell "his" story (instead of writing a novel) might not be persuaded by this. But once he got the boot, a DMG with such rules/guidelines/advice might help one of the players in the remaining group becoming a DM, and possibly even passable, and over time even a great one.

 

[Primal]

Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.

Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?

Narrative control? What have 'Healing Surges' to do with it? Nothing, in my opinion. However, if we were talking about the 'Skill Challenge System', it would, in my opinion, qualify as an example of how players may have limited 'narrative control/rights' over the story.

 

[Warbringer]

You're inching towards insight.

One of the best decisions I've ever made in playing this wonderful game for 20 years was the concept of active story. Simply, every action that impeeds on a character is determined by a plyers roll of the dice....

A monster strikes to hit (10+attack) vs the players d20+AC bonus... the player describes the consequence of the action...

Regarding the specific post, the issue in DnD has always been the healing rate of hit point damage. It's always meant to have been stamina, luck, dtermintaion, and eventually blood and guts, but the healing rate has always treated that damage as if it was all physical... healing 1 die per day, or god forbid 1 hit point per day (earlier eds) or requiring clerics that 'cure, heal, regenerate, restore..."

Congrats to 4ed where hit point damage is mirrored with hit point healing, where at least some of that damage is recovered by a short rest.

 

[Fifth Element]

What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all? Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?

Please note that kennew142 discussed players having some narrative control as input into what happens to your character, not absolute control over what happens to your character. Your argument is absurd.

 

[kennew142]

What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all? Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?

As long as you lose hit points, it's not necessary that you suffered a wound. That's the point. Each player has some narrative control over his character.

So, these rules will help prevent bad DMing?

You think so? I don't. If you'd actually read the post you are responding to, you will note that I said that the rules will provide mechanics for allowing the players some narrative control, encourage that type of GMing and assume it as the default. Bad GMs will always be bad GMs, but providing the tools for good GMing and calling attention to a (IMO) superior style of GMing for those good GMs who hadn't even thought of it are all good things.

Even good GMs have to start somewhere. It would've been nice if this sort of useful GMing advice had been in earlier DMGs.

Or, maybe they won't.

I am sure you have a follow up showing how previous rules actively prevented players from having input via 'narrative control'.

Wow, talk about a failure of logic. What are you arguing against here? I specifically pointed out that it was possible in earlier editions. I even called out that good GMs had been doing it all along.

Purposefully miscontruing what I said in order to try and make a cheap point is misleading at best, but lying would be a better definition. I would suggest that you take the time to read a post before responding. It might save you some humiliation.

So, this will weed out non-excellent DMs? Or do you have an argument that shows a qualitative difference between the DM describing a sword hit and a player describing a sword hit?

No one said that this would weed out non-excellent GMs. It may improve the skills of weaker GMs.

I would argue that there is a qualitiative difference between a GM dictating all game effects to the players and the players having some control over the narrative. IMO the latter provides a better and more satisfying gaming experience. YMMV. It's hard to argue that the latter example isn't a more shared interactive experience.

 

[kennew142]

Please note that kennew142 discussed players having some narrative control as input into what happens to your character, not absolute control over what happens to your character. Your argument is absurd.

Absurdity is the last refuge of those without a valid point to make.