Healing Surges innate Blessed band aids

[Khur]

What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are choosing that interpretation of the action, rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise.

Now, that choice of interpretation might be somewhat valid, since the D&D game is an individualized one. I say “somewhat,” because as I said, the rules don’t support the "sword through the gut and get back up" interpretation. But it seems really strange for someone who doesn’t actually like "sword through the gut and get back up" action to stick to that interpretation despite the fact that this interpretation ruins his or her sense of immersion.

Really, anyone who’s doing that is creating his or her own problem. Since plenty of other interpretations exist and are actually supported by the D&D rules, it’s hardly fair to say the problem is with the D&D rules (or any other rules that are similar). It’s not.

And I’m not saying that the "sword through the gut and get back up" interpretation is bad if it’s fun for you and your group. Then it’s fine. I have played with a guy who loved that interpretation, and that interpretation can be valid for certain settings with weird world conceits. But hating it and actively choosing it anyway, especially for a campaign setting that doesn't support it, seems really weird, like an addiction or something.

My players and I endeavor to actually create immersion rather than actively hindering it. No ruleset we’ve used, and we’ve used a lot, has fully supported direct interpretation from mechanical interaction to world action. Sure, the results of the D&D game’s mechanical interactions aren’t always easy to interpret within the scope of what’s happening in the world. Some games make that easier, but those same games are often bad at the epic fantasy fun the D&D game portrays—at least without some tinkering. That has always been true about D&D play.

Sometimes we ignore the difficulty of in-world explanations and get on with the game. Other times we come up with cool interpretations on the fly. And sometimes we even analyze the situation after the game session is over and come up with what must have happened, extending the fun of the game into nongame time.

The thing is, gamist elements have never truly hindered our simulation. We always choose the good story. That is, we always choose the fun.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The thing is some people like a game where weapons do real damage and people are injured. I for one am not interested in a game that is all about combat where all the action is described as almost hitting things and people and monsters just getting tired. I want a game where blood and guts are spilled, not were people get winded.

 

[Goreg Skullcrusher]

What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are choosing that interpretation of the action, rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise.

Right, the problem occurs precisely when there is no desicription that fits the mechanics. This is the case with the Picador harpooning ability. 4E hitpoints seem to represent no physical injury whatsoever, which if kept consistent works. You need to use strained and tenuous logic however to explain how a creature half your size is pulling you around with a sharpened stick using the no-injury model. It forces cognitive dissonance upon the player.

Sometimes we ignore the difficulty of in-world explanations and get on with the game. Other times we come up with cool interpretations on the fly. And sometimes we even analyze the situation after the game session is over and come up with what must have happened, extending the fun of the game into nongame time.

The thing is, gamist elements have never truly hindered our simulation. We always choose the good story. That is, we always choose the fun.

One curious thing I've seen posted on these forums and the Wizards one is that gamism is synonymous with fun, and simulationism synonymous with not fun. The common mantra being that it is always preferential to give up simulation for fun elements.

Is it really such a stretch that simulation, granted at the level of traditional D&D, is what some gamers find fun?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are choosing that interpretation of the action, rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise.

This is in regards to prior editions not 4e. In previous editions the description of HP has said they were abstract, but the mechanics themselves have never supported it. In fact the mechanics have generally supported the opposite interpretation. The problem has always been with a group of people who could not admit that there was a dissonance between fluff and rules in previous editions. The game is for those who play it either interpretation works fine in play. The conflict is because one side argues that the rules don't match the fluff and the disconnect should be fixed while the other says the fluff is good so just ignore the implications of the mechanics without realizing nobody is raining on their parade.

Now one of the few things I don't mind about 4e is the abstraction of hit points. Because previously the abstraction was in fluff only and instigated the drama. The new version is abstract enough that it can represent both extremes without raising issues of the mechanical disconnect. The fluff text of the book is meaningless as the mechanics have reached a point where they can support both sides of the issue equally well.

 

[Cadfan]

Is it really such a stretch that simulation, granted at the level of traditional D&D, is what some gamers find fun?

Simulationism doesn't exactly have the best salespeople around here.

 

[Lacyon]

Right, the problem occurs precisely when there is no desicription that fits the mechanics. This is the case with the Picador harpooning ability. 4E hitpoints seem to represent no physical injury whatsoever, which if kept consistent works. You need to use strained and tenuous logic however to explain how a creature half your size is pulling you around with a sharpened stick using the no-injury model. It forces cognitive dissonance upon the player.

Nothing strained nor tenuous about "That harpoon caught in your leg and you're going where you're pulled because you'd lose a chunk of your leg otherwise." Likewise "The harpoon's only caused a flesh wound, but it caught in your clothing/armor and now you're being dragged around." Likewise "That harpoon caught in your chest and you're being dragged around, but five minutes after this fight you're going to be fine because you're just that tough/regenerating/the cleric's tending your wounds."

The game mechanics model a wide variety of possibly interpretations. The exact same mechanics (or very nearly the same) could be used for a psionic character getting a "mental grip" on your body and dragging you around.

The flexibility of the HP system from a wide variety of simulationist and narrative frameworks while conforming to the gamist desires of balance and fun are precisely the strength of that system, because all three of the situations above can happen in the same game, without having to have separate, balanced mechanics to model each.

One curious thing I've seen posted on these forums and the Wizards one is that gamism is synonymous with fun, and simulationism synonymous with not fun. The common mantra being that it is always preferential to give up simulation for fun elements.

Is it really such a stretch that simulation, granted at the level of traditional D&D, is what some gamers find fun?

The whole point of the paragraph you're responding to is that they choose the fun simulationist descriptions that meshes with the gamist mechanics that are also fun. That is more difficult for some people than others, but when people are responding that your lack of fun is self-inflicted, this is what they mean.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Right, the problem occurs precisely when there is no desicription that fits the mechanics. This is the case with the Picador harpooning ability. 4E hitpoints seem to represent no physical injury whatsoever, which if kept consistent works. You need to use strained and tenuous logic however to explain how a creature half your size is pulling you around with a sharpened stick using the no-injury model. It forces cognitive dissonance upon the player.

There is no "no-injury" model. There is a model where HP damage "does not necessarilly represent injuries which have a measureable affect" upon other aspects of the game mechanics. Except when it does (this being exception based design). The Picador ability is one such case - it is an exception.

 

[Xyl]

There is no "no-injury" model. There is a model where HP damage "does not necessarilly represent injuries which have a measureable affect" upon other aspects of the game mechanics. Except when it does (this being exception based design). The Picador ability is one such case - it is an exception.

Actually, the picador ability makes more sense in a simulationist interpretation if you assume it's getting caught in your clothes, rather than actually stuck in your flesh. One of the effects of the harpoon is that you can remove it as a standard action. If the harpoon was caught in your flesh, pulling it out quickly would definitely cause more injury - after all, harpoons are barbed. Since it doesn't cause extra damage when you remove it, a simulationist should conclude that it's not embedded in your flesh.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One curious thing I've seen posted on these forums and the Wizards one is that gamism is synonymous with fun, and simulationism synonymous with not fun. The common mantra being that it is always preferential to give up simulation for fun elements.

Well, it is a Roleplaying Game. The game part is important. A game should give me fun.

So, that's the ultimate arbiter of a game's quality - Do I have fun with it.

Why can "gamismn" be more fun then "simulation"?
Gamismn is all about the game parts. And as we said, a good game means fun.

Simulation isn't about the game parts. It's about simulating/modelling a (fictional) world. A fictional world probably contains a lot of elements that aren't really fun, since even fictional worlds usually have a lot of unfun stuff, just like the real world.

Off course, Roleplaying games are a special kind of game. You need to have game elements that... well.. "simulate" the role you play. That's stuff like having characters with different abilities, game rules adjudicating how you interact with the world you play in. That is simulation. But the goal of this simulation is not to simulate the fictional world. It just models the characters interaction with this world. And, being a game, it should do so in an entertaining, "fun" matter. But you risk no longer doing this if you simulate too much, or to precise, or if your simulation cares more about the reality then the fun aspect of the game world.
D&D is a lot about combat. So, the game rules should enable you to run combats. If you want to have fun in combat, getting brutally killed in your first combat round with no hope of recovery is little fun in the long run. If you end up crippled and are out of the "interesting" action with the world for a few game-world months, you're not really playing the game, or having real fun. If the game provides a lot of options for you to do while you are roleplaying yourself adjusting to the hook replacing your left hand, everything is fine. But if the game expects you to go back into combat very soon (like, 5 minutes after the last orc fell), the rules better should provide you with the ability to recover fast enough. Even if this has nothing to do with what we see as a "realistically" simulated outcome.

 

[Lizard]

Actually, the picador ability makes more sense in a simulationist interpretation if you assume it's getting caught in your clothes, rather than actually stuck in your flesh. One of the effects of the harpoon is that you can remove it as a standard action. If the harpoon was caught in your flesh, pulling it out quickly would definitely cause more injury - after all, harpoons are barbed. Since it doesn't cause extra damage when you remove it, a simulationist should conclude that it's not embedded in your flesh.

Well, in 3e, the Kuo-Toa harpoon DOES cause 1d10 point of damage when you remove it, unless you have someone make a DC 15 Heal check.

The comparison of the harpooner (MMV) and the Picador mechanics is, I think, instructive. In my opinion, it shows how 4e has 'shed' rules which added to the flavor and feel of the game, simplifying things to the point where the flavor text has no mechanical impact -- the Picador could just as easily be using a 'telekinetic snare' for his ability *feels* like a harpoon. In other people's opinions, it shows how 4e just "gets on with it". Me, I like the fact there's stats for the harpoon, that there's a full write up so that someone can take EWP:Kuo Toa Harpoon and pull the same stunts, that there's two special feats for Kuo Toa monks which a PC Kuo Toa monk could learn, and so on. To others, this is needless bloat and if wasn't there, there'd have been room for two more monsters. So it goes.