Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5718041" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Why healing surges? Because that's what the thread was about. It wasn't "how does 4e narratively fail you?" If it was, my list would be much longer. And, if it was, "how does 3.X narratively fail you?" I'd have a long list as well (or else I wouldn't have made my own game).On a side note, I still don't like the "easily houes-ruled to taste" reasoning. Again, it's the Oberoni fallacy:In other words, just because you can house rule it, it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. If you have to house rule it, the rules are a problem for you.I do not play 4e. Then again, I don't play 3.X. Or any edition of D&D. I play the RPG I created when those RPGs failed in what I wanted out of a game. They're fun games, but they're too narratively limiting for what I want. So, when someone asks "what's wrong with healing surges?", I'll answer them. And, when they follow that up with, "what would you do to fix them?", I'll answer that, too.I think that healing surges have a place in the game and genre conceptually. I don't like the implementation. I addressed both of these questions very early on in this thread (the first few pages, I believe). I'm not trying to broaden this to other areas of where 4e or 3.X have narratively failed me, but needless to say that though my game is based on the SRD, basically nothing survived untouched (including completely ripping out the magic system and implementing completely new rules of my own).No system will be perfect for me unless I make it (and probably not even then). However, when asked why I don't prefer something in a game I don't play, it doesn't mean I can't speak very accurately on the subject from a game theory standpoint. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In terms of HP always mechanically healing overnight, there is no new narratives opened up over 3.X's implementation. That is, in 3.X, HP can heal overnight (if the damage light), giving you the same narrative as what's consistently achieved in 4e.However, yes, there are definitely new narratives that have been opened up in 4e over older editions, and I feel as if I've said that a dozen times now in these two healing surge threads (this one and the Narrative "Challenge" thread). There are certainly ways in which 4e opened up the narrative. I don't believe that's the case when it comes to naturally recovering HP in 4e.Healing surges attempt to open up new narratives. And, I think they do. I just don't like the implementation (but I've gone into that before). Natural healing though? No, I don't think that's the case, as nobody has pointed to something yet to make me believe so. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think the problem comes when people investigate it in-game. As I mentioned a couple weeks ago to you, my players will do this in-game. If someone is injured, the guy with the Heal skill will stop in combat to assess someone's wounds before he makes a decision on continuing to fight or trying to heal them. If that happens, as far as I can tell, you have to say, "well, you don't know, it could go either way" (no matter how epicly trained they are), or you have to commit and possibly retcon. This is an impediment on the healer if he's trying to "roleplay" (that is, immerse, or achieve "actor stance", or whatever you want to call it).You can end up changing the rules to be, "stabilizing someone is now changed to 'if you assess someone, and you succeed on the check, then you find that they're stabilized.'" That's a house rule (which I dislike as a "fix" in an established rule set; I love house rules, I just want a system that addresses most of my wants out of the gate, naturally), and it also might not fit with player wants. "I was looking to see if anyone was alive, but I was going to ask the party if I should stabilize them or not. We may just want to mercy kill them, and we haven't discussed it yet." If this is the case, you can ask your player beforehand, "do you want him to be stabilized if you succeed in assessing him?", but this brings the game out of a state of deep immersion (you might call it actor stance), which is a problem for some people (even if you quite enjoy it).I think there can certainly be something to the Schrodinger's Wound problem, I just think it depends on the group. Which was the point, really. "Why don't you like healing surges?" "Schrodinger's Wound." "That's not too much of a problem." "It is for us." "We like it." "We don't." And etc.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It's been touched on, but not really in-depth. It's about the investigation in-game, I think. Like the healer in my above example who inspects the wound (but doesn't try to treat it). He can't get a reliable in-game answer other than "it might be bad", even if he's Epic and unmatched in the Heal skill. At least, that's one way in which I think it's denying you a choice.If you knew the wound was serious and potentially lethal, you can make the choice to stop in-game and affect that creature somehow (say, asking the party if you should stablize that creature). For example, the PC that's checking creatures might even be going around saying, "I assess the bodies of the enemies, looking for any survivors." In such a case, the PC certainly isn't rushing up to the first fallen body bandaging his wound. No, he's calmly checking to see if someone is alive or not. Then, he'll make a decision with the party on whether or not they should just coup de grace them, or try to revive them and take them as a prisoner/let them go/etc. However, that's a hard decision to make when you get back "you don't know, it might be bad" (no matter how skilled you are) or an answer that may not be true ("yes, it's bad" followed by stabilization and healing overnight; "no, it's not bad" followed by 3 failed saves and a dead NPC).That's my take on it. I don't see how this isn't a legitimate Schrodinger's Wound problem that does take in-game choices away from the character while keeping a state of immersion. As I said, you can work around it, but you're basically forced out of "actor stance" to do so. Not a problem to some people, but it is a problem to others. Just depends on taste. Which, of course, leads us back to play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification