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: 5718796" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I assume if I take damage and am still standing in 4e, it's a superficial wound, and that I'm heroically pushing past it (it does nothing to affect my performance, other than making me take less blows before I go down). Here's why:(1) The Cleric can "heal" it by attempting to close wounds.(2) The Warlord can "heal" it by boosting my morale.(3) I can "heal" it by pushing through it with a second wind.(4) As of 6 hours of rest, the missing HP is "healed", and the HP isn't even making it so that I take less blows anymore (I'm just pushing past wounds in a flavor sense, at best).What this brings up to me is this:(1) If I see an ally hit in combat, as a Cleric, I want to go inspect his wounds after combat. Are they bad? No, they aren't, he'll be fine. He might be a little wounded, and he's pushing through it. I could heal him to help with that. That makes sense.(2) If I see an ally hit in combat, as a Warlord, I want to go inspect his wounds after combat. Are they bad? No, they aren't, he'll be fine. He might be a little wounded, and he's pushing through it. I could help him to deal with that. That makes sense.It all makes sense so far. But, it only makes sense as long as every wound is superficial enough to shake off after 6 hours of rest, is an actual wound that the Cleric can heal, and is light enough that the Warlord can help push you through it.The following is just my preference: I prefer a system that allows for this type of wound, but I don't want it to stop there. Maybe a wound that only the Warlord can heal, or only the Cleric can heal. I just want more possibilities. Overall, this is very minor, as it doesn't really force the overall story to branch one way or another. This is separate from long term wounds (where it eliminates the story branching certain ways).My group never used them in the years we played. However, healing overnight in 4e is a base, core rule. We "escaped" healing wands with no house rules. We couldn't do that to healing overnight.Again, I addressed this in the post you quoted. I have two problems with this:I want my players to stay in actor stance. They want to stay in actor stance most of the time. To us, this is a problem.Apparently you draw it at assessing a ruptured spleen while someone is in full plate.Also, as far as I can tell from people talking about 4e in the past, levels 1-10 are barely within the realms of human capabilities (but maybe not 6+), but 11-20 is superhuman, and 21-30 is Epic (with a capital "E"). So, I'd say that as of level 11 or higher, I could probably expect someone to assess that ruptured spleen.Yes, exactly. That's exactly it, and exactly my point. You've worded it badly, in my opinion, but there it is (in essence). As long as decisions are meaningful, the players will influence the story (and greatly!), so this would apply to any edition of D&D that's not a railroad.However, you like when the players have some narrative control over the story and when the rules facilitate that. I like when the players have are able to immerse in the game, and the rules facilitate that. You like when things get abstracted to a point where you can say "you find out that the blow wasn't as bad as it looked" instead of saying, "you patched up his wound." That's fine. But it's my point.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 like you've had one set of experiences, and we've had another. Imagine that! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'd say our mileage has varied so very greatly that it's no wonder we want different things out of the game. I have a group that collectively wants to commit to the character, remain in-character, and see what story unfolds (this is fun for us). You have a different group, with different goals (I assume with fun being the end goal). I would prefer a game that reflects help achieve our version of fun, and you'd like your version. This seems like a taste issue, which is something I've said for a while now. 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=":)" />About 2,000 hours of game play, and that was over 2½ years. And, I said that those 8-10 instances were over the last year (which none of that campaign has been in). Over the last year, I've probably gamed a lot (we play once per weeks, but it lasts about 8-10 hours). So, 52 weeks at 9 hours per session comes to 468 hours, which is once every 46.8 hours of game play, which means that it comes up about once every 5 sessions (5 weeks).Having a significant impact on the story once a month is something I don't want to lose.Um, it was about 6-8 times in my last campaign, and twice in this campaign (which has lasted two months). This is something that my group cares about. We want mechanics for it.It's not a deal breaker for a system, but the rule wouldn't have survived (it would've been house ruled). I'd prefer a system that I don't have to house rule, which is why I moved away from 3.X. I can have fun with 3.X, and I could probably have fun with 4e (though it embraces more things that I dislike than 3.X did), but that's not the point. It comes back to preference.One, my players and I played an incredible amount in that campaign, so I'm not sure it's fair to base it off of. Two, you didn't do the math right (assumed the 8-10 incidents came from that campaign, assumed it was all in one year). Three, we don't know what the other people's statistics are (if they average once every 5 sessions as well, it might be closer to 20 hours of play, rather than my 46 hours).For me, it's not a corner case. It significantly alters the story a little under once a month. That's important to my group. It's not to you or your group. And here we are.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=":)" />Honestly, I'm more worried about this happening in a narrative style game than in a highly immersive experience. That is, in a game where story is the focus (and not the character), I'd be more worried that the GM would be pushing the story a certain direction, or even "taking control over the shape and direction of the game world".I'd prefer that the rules let the game unfold in such a way that it could be a novel, all while giving a highly immersive experience to the players. That's not saying to write a story that the players will assuredly walk down. It's saying I want mechanical devices set in place that help the game naturally feel like it's being in a novel, but in a way where the story isn't fudged by the mechanics themselves.See, this is putting story ahead of setting, which is where I object, because it runs the risk of immersion being lost. Now, you can definitely keep players immersed while doing it, but I think it's akin to what certain posters have labeled "illusionism", which there's an objection to. I mean, you like that style of play, and a lot of other people do, too.However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.Again, it's just preference. 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=":)" />Onetruewayism?Irony?Totally agree. In a thread about "why don't you like healing surges?", I find it very odd that people are arguing so much over it. People answered the question, but were told they were completely wrong. Um, no, they aren't wrong in at least one way: they dislike healing surges, and for the reason they've stated. I guess people have been debating the reasoning, and that's understandable to some degree, but when people make points like, "I dislike it because it takes away from the immersive gaming experience my group enjoys" and they get back "nobody can ever achieve the type of immersion your group enjoys" then I just get confused.It's the Oberoni fallacy:Most people prefer to work with the rules, not fight them. Most people are okay with house ruling on some level. 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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification