Long-Term Injury Fun?

Celebrim said:
I don't think you can be a hero if you aren't willing to risk being a cripple.
Depends on your definition of "hero". ;)

See also: the difference between pretending to be/playing at being/fantasizing about being a hero and actually being a hero.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FireLance said:
Depends on your definition of "hero". ;)

Sometimes I forget that the definition of hero is contriversial.

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.

See also: the difference between pretending to be/playing at being/fantasizing about being a hero and actually being a hero.

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.
 

Celebrim said:
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.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

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.

Masturbation?
 


Celebrim said:
I don't think you can be a hero if you aren't willing to risk being a cripple.
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.
So does that mean that all of us who have been playing D&D for 20-odd years haven't been interested in RPing true heroes?

Repeat in case it wasn't made obvious after dozens of pages on this topic: D&D has never had a core model for long-term or crippling injury. Never. (Unless of course you count the random "screw you"-type limb-lopping trap effects sprinkled throughout modules prior to 3e.) In all likelihood, the reason this sort of topic didn't come up on messageboards all the time for 3e is that, given the built-in requirement for a cleric/healer in PC parties, no one actually had his/her PC sit around healing hp non-magically, and "magic" was a sufficient explanation for why PCs never had any debilitating injuries. However, the issue was muddled.

4e is offering a more explicit definition of hp as the weird melange of short-term injury (cuts and bruises), weariness, loss of mojo, dude factor, et cetera that it's always been, so now interest in a long-term injury mechanic has been introduced. Me, I'm fine with it, although if your PC party has a cleric, it's likely that the long-term injury thing becomes irrelevant anyway from a "simulationist" perspective. OTOH, it's nice to separate out "hp damage" from "long-term injury," because it eliminates the "realism" concern that people get beat up in ways that should require months of physical therapy and potentially lead to a permanent loss of fighting ability, yet recover in only a week. So an optional injury mechanic seems like the right way to go here.
 

phloog said:
My own opinion might be summarized in this way:

There is no need for a RULE to adjudicate long-term damage, but there is a need for an EXCEPTION to adjudicate long-term damage.
Oh, and this. In fact, this is an infinitely-better summation of my thoughts than I ever could have written. Kudos!
 

ruleslawyer said:
So does that mean that all of us who have been playing D&D for 20-odd years haven't been interested in RPing true heroes?

I can't speak for you. I haven't sat in on your game. Why don't you tell me what you are interested in?

Repeat in case it wasn't made obvious after dozens of pages on this topic: D&D has never had a core model for long-term or crippling injury. Never. (Unless of course you count the random "screw you"-type limb-lopping trap effects sprinkled throughout modules prior to 3e.)

Or, for example, energy drain. Or any number of other long term hazards we could name, from the vargouille's horrific uncurable wounds, to silly ones like undesired gender reassignment.

However, the statement that you couldn't be a hero without risking being crippled wasn't specifically targeted at the nature of D&D, but at the nature of being a hero.
 

ruleslawyer said:
Repeat in case it wasn't made obvious after dozens of pages on this topic: D&D has never had a core model for long-term or crippling injury. Never.
The part of this assertion that is bolded is untrue. D&D has had long-term injury in 1E, 2E, and -- if "days" is long-term enough -- 3E and 3.5. "Injury" is what was healing in the weeks or days needed to recover HP in the absence of magical healing. If it isn't injury that is "healing" (which is what that days or week-long recovery is called in the rules), then what is it?

I really don't understand why folks are so invested in continuing to incorrectly state the HP rules from earlier editions of D&D, but it really doesn't matter how often you incorrectly state them, or why you insist on ignoring the verbatim passages from the rules that KarinsDad has posted ... you remain incorrect.
 

Jeff Wilder said:
The part of this assertion that is bolded is untrue. D&D has had long-term injury in 1E, 2E, and -- if "days" is long-term enough -- 3E and 3.5. "Injury" is what was healing in the weeks or days needed to recover HP in the absence of magical healing. If it isn't injury that is "healing" (which is what that days or week-long recovery is called in the rules), then what is it?

Actually, I'm not sure why you didn't bold 'crippling' too. Not only did 1st edition D&D assume the possibility of being maimed in any number of ways from traps, to specific monster abilities (Slicer Beetle for example), to swords of sharpness, it also featured things like energy drain in what must be called its 'core rules', and 3E had permenent ability point loss as part of its core rules. What is energy drain and permenent ability point loss if not crippling?
 

Now that I really think about it, I only have one reason for long-term injuring. Removing limbs and eyes so that we can have those cool magical prostheses. (Hand of Kwill, Eye of Ryn, Benedict's Arm)
 

Remove ads

Top