Long-Term Injury Fun?

[Jeff Wilder]

Ultimately, I suppose my point is: if 4E is glitched, so was 3E, preferring one over the other doesn't make one a dumb butt.

I agree. I'll say it again, I really like the 4E HP mechanics, with the single exception of it not providing any way to be "injured." And the really nice thing about the way they did 4E HP is that it's possible to model injury ancillary to HPs. (Such as by the ablation of healing surges.) I fear that "injured but not dead" was completely unimportant to the designers, and that's what I don't like; aside from that, it's a really nice system.

 

[Imp]

Look, I'm on the side that believes that there's nothing wrong with the 4E version of HP, and I agree that every edition has suggested this model as a possible interpretation of HP.

However, it doesn't change the fact that KarensDad & Jeff Wilder are right that previous editons suggested the possibility of long term injury as evidenced by how long it bloody took to get your HP back. You were "Healing" just like the word used to describe "a gain in HP".

FWIW while I'm in camp 2 at least in terms of narrative possibilities, the prospect of having another hit point fight is giving me the howling fantods at this point, and at least this thread has come up with some really good suggestions for making the possibility of wounds part of the game in a way that can be fun. So some good has come out of all this. Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Pretending to be, playing at being, and fantasizing about being a hero who is merely good at killing things and not moreover morally heroic is about the saddest, vainest, and least productive pursuit I can imagine. It is a certain amount of onanistic behavior.

There is nothing wrong with trying to explore what an "immoral" hero does, in my view. I still prefer playing the good guy, normally.
In real world, heroes tend to die ugly deaths, or might be crippled. But when people think of "I want to be a hero", that's absolutely not what they aim for. It's the fighting evil part. And that's what the rules must support primarily. Crippling or Death can be a looming threat, but it's "actualization" should rarely happen.

BUT what defines heroismn or what defines interesting/valid themes for D&D is not the topic.

Not so long as some folks keep trying to mount it and have it carry them somewhere.

I understand this desire, but, please, can we still try to stay on topic? The topic here is not whether 4E change our mental hit point model, what earlier editions did. It's not even about whether it is bad or good to not have rules on long-term injury, and if the designers are stupid or smart about creating or not creating rules for it.

It is about creating rules for handling long-term injuries for this in the likely possibility that there are no such rules in 4E.

 

[Kobu]

I like the idea of handing out injury cards à la Arkham Horror. Here's how I might do it.

1) Each time a character dips below zero or is injured while below zero represents an actual injury. The DM hands the player a random injury card.

2) The cards have various negative effects with about ten types in all. For example:

-1 to attack rolls and damage rolls

-1 move

-1 to Perception and Thievery checks

-1 to Reflex Defense

-1 to saving throws

3) A character can receive up to three of each card. A second card increases the penalty to -3. A third card increases it to -5 and adds an additional penalty. Three crushed leg cards for example gives a -5 to move and the character is prone and must crawl.

4) A healing surge can be immediately expended to avoid drawing a card. This can be done once per encounter.

5) One injury can be healed during each long rest. Increase the number of rests required to heal if you want longer term injuries.

 

[shilsen]

Sometimes I forget that the definition of hero is contriversial.

It's always a good idea to remember that the words in your head don't mean the same thing to everyone.

Well, as far as that goes, I'm going to go with the Alex Ross/old school take that being a hero is more about being morally heroic than it is about being good at beating people up and capable of avenging insults against you.

That's hardly old school. If you want old school, check out the Iliad. Much of which is about being good at beating people up and capable of avenging insults against you.

Pretending to be, playing at being, and fantasizing about being a hero who is merely good at killing things and not moreover morally heroic is about the saddest, vainest, and least productive pursuit I can imagine. It is a certain amount of onanistic behavior. The phrase stroking ones ego comes to mind. If that is all we are doing, then we really are the pathetic losers popular culture makes us out to be. If we aren't actually tackling serious questions, creating worthwhile stories, learning history, math, cartography and anything else we can, improving social skills otherwise latent in typical nerds, and otherwise being productive, then we are greatly overindulging a childish pasttime and need to find something else to do with ourselves. Knitting. Jogging. Board games. Anything.

I'm reminded of the X-Files episode where they say they 'didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage'. That's either pathetic or wise, I've never been certain which. Maybe it's both. Sometimes irony can work on several levels. Let's just say that I would certainly hope that you couldn't play Dungeons and Dragons and not know what a hero was, even if you manifestly weren't one.

I'm not normally one to come down on the side of 'narrativism', but sheesh, if you are above the age of 15, either do something interesting with your game or go play something like Chess or Counterstrike. Spend your skill points on something for crying out loud.

Personally, I figure that if one is above the age of 15, one should quit telling other people how to spend their time, should be able to realize that what is something interesting for oneself may not be for others (and vice versa), and that attempting to claim some sort of intellectual superiority based on how one pretends to be an elf is more than a little ludicrous. I frankly don't give a damn how the rest of the world plays the game, and I'm smart enough to realize that how I play it isn't how everyone does. And it shouldn't be. As long as I'm enjoying the game and getting what I want out of it, and other people are enjoying their games and getting what they want out of it, we're all doing just fine, thank you.

 

[Celebrim]

I realized as I typed my reply that I was probably unnecessarily taking offense and that we did agree. But I'd typed it, so oh well.

Ultimately, I suppose my point is: if 4E is glitched, so was 3E, preferring one over the other doesn't make one a dumb butt.

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding.

The way I see it, if 4e is glitched, "so was 3E" is not a particular argument for adopting 4e.

In any event, no one is claiming that one is a "dumb butt" for adopting 4e. There are perfectly valid reasons for adopting 4e.

What I would really like to be talking about is a thoughtful discussion of game mechanics for achieving certain within game goals. If we can agree to stop making claims like 'One can't be a hero if one is a cripple' and 'The game isn't fun unless I can play the sexy [insert secondary description here] god of death', then I'll stop with the 'If you think one can't be a hero and a cripple, then you don't know what a hero is' and 'Grow up, loser'. I'm sure people are tired of me, but I'm sick and tired of being told that the game can't be played in a way that I've played it and simultaneously how great it is that you won't be able to play it the way I've always played it anymore.

That out of the way maybe we can actually discuss why you might want long term injury, what such mechanics incentivize, and how we might design them to incentivize the sort of behavior that we want to see in the sort of games each of us want to run or participate in. At least for me, that's going to be far more interesting than having another thread were we repeatedly insult each other backhandedly and openly over our various game preferences.

 

[Celebrim]

There is nothing wrong with trying to explore what an "immoral" hero does, in my view.

I'm not sure I said that there was anything wrong with playing an immoral character. I'm just equally unsure that exploration is really what is going on. I approve of exploration. It fits my high simulationist schtick. What I disapprove of is playing a character immorally and not exploring that, or really playing the game and not exploring the mental space of the game at all.

In real world, heroes tend to die ugly deaths, or might be crippled. But when people think of "I want to be a hero", that's absolutely not what they aim for.

I'm inclined to think that if people aim at a target like, "I want to be a hero.", that they ought to learn something about what it means - including the risk of ugly deaths, crippling, and various other things.

It's the fighting evil part. And that's what the rules must support primarily.

No, the rules primarily support fighting. What you do with those rules may or may not be fighting evil, and heavily relies on you having some sort of conception of what evil is and how you might go about fighting it.

Crippling or Death can be a looming threat, but it's "actualization" should rarely happen.

Granted. But ever since 4e came out the boards have been swarmed by people who offer variations on, "I'm so glad that the risk of defeat has been mitigated or removed in 4e. I've always wanted to be the sexy shoeless god of war, and now I can be."

BUT what defines heroismn or what defines interesting/valid themes for D&D is not the topic.

Interestingly, it tends to become the topic, because questions like, "Is long-term injury fun?", quickly become proxy arguments for advancing claims like, "The game is more fun if I as a player always get my way." That is to say, there is a faction that believes that its really all about player empowerment, and that is what makes an RPG fun, and that anyone that thinks otherwise is somewhat sinisterly trying to ruin thier fun.

I understand this desire, but, please, can we still try to stay on topic? The topic here is not whether 4E change our mental hit point model, what earlier editions did.

I tried to stay on topic. However before I even got involved, the topic had become, "We shouldn't discuss this because D&D is not a game were thier should be long term injury." And its just got worse from there. I was complaining about topic drift long before you where.

 

[hong]

So hong, what would you do? What do you think about those design goals I proposed?

Hmm. You mean this post?

Draw a little box on your character sheet. Write the words "Long-Term Injury" beside it. Draw a little skull beside it if you're into that sort of thing.

At any time, if you think you've got the guts, draw a circle around the box. This means you're risking a long-term injury. Gain an action point.

If you're dropped to 0 hit points or less, and the circle is around the box, check that box. It can't be checked twice. Describe the injury.

When you check the box, you are considered Dazed, Enervated, or Slowed. The condition lasts until you uncheck the box.

The type of injury you suffer depends on how you describe it. Head wounds daze, arm wounds enervate, and leg wounds slow. The DM selects the injury based on your description. If you don't describe your injury, the DM will describe it for you. Not a good thing.

I like the idea. Not sure if I'd use it myself, because I'm quite happy with the 4E setup as it stands, but I could see a place for it if you wanted long-term wounds. However, daze doesn't really work. If you're dazed, you basically can't do anything, which means you can't even go on the quest assigned to you (bar funky stuff like adventuring in the subconscious or something).

Another thing is that it puts the onus on the DM to find a suitable quest/adventure for you to heal yourself. I guess that most DMs who want long-term wounds are coming at it from a s*mul*tionist perspective, whereby it would make no sense that going adventuring would help you heal a broken leg. Similarly, the other players are likely to be the ones doing most of the grunt work on the quest, which might strike them as unfair.

 

[smathis]

I like the idea of handing out injury cards à la Arkham Horror. Here's how I might do it.

That sounds interesting. The cards would make a great visual cue, as well as allow the Players to tailor the injury to their circumstances.

Are you concerned that players may start taking multiple -1s? What about the effect of the penalties? If a character has a +9 to attack then a -3 move is far more debilitating than a -3 attack.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That sounds interesting. The cards would make a great visual cue, as well as allow the Players to tailor the injury to their circumstances.

Are you concerned that players may start taking multiple -1s? What about the effect of the penalties? If a character has a +9 to attack then a -3 move is far more debilitating than a -3 attack.

Remember that attacks and defenses scale. it doesn't matter if you have a +15 attack or a +5 attack - against comparable foes a -3 will always hurt. It's still a good idea to limit the penalty. I think the outmost should be -5, but even that will make a character so ineffectual that's probably not really "fun" to have such a penalty for long...