My HP Fix

[Kavon]

It's extremely different. You are talking about two pools, demarcated. I am talking about one pool, which can be narrated as fate, meat or lemon curry depending on whim and context when the action is actually resolved at the gaming table. That is the point of [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]'s food analogy - your way locks everyone in in advance, whereas my core allows those who want to lock in to do so, but equally allows those who want to maintain what KM calls "narrative amibguity", and what I call "narrative flexibility", to do so.

And I'm saying that if you use one extreme of the dial, you have exactly that. You have your one pool, which can be narrated as whatever you please.
That's the point I was trying to get across when I was trying to (unsuccesfully, it seems) throw away previous terminology.
The only thing that matters is what speed that pool recovers and how easily.
I can understand why I didn't grog what Crazy Jerome was getting at, since that's just not how my example works. You're not 'locking' anything, you're just saying "this is how HP works in my game", which can be as vague, ambiguous and flexible as you want. The 'two pools' only come up if you mix the two ways of handling it (which you are free not to).

I may have said "second" meaning "third". Anyway, the important point is that 4e does have two rates of healing. Whereas you presented it as having two pools - your commander can help you, but only so much - there is in fact no limit in 4e on how much your commander can help you (eg if you're swooned and in the mechanical dying state - you're losing your will to live - s/he can inspire you to get back on your feet and press on to victory).

Yet you still misunderstand my post. I'm asuming it's my fault, since I should've placed certain things elsewhere in that post.
The thing you are refering to "your commander can help you, but only so much" is NOT what I was talking about in regards to 4th edition. Did you read my reply where I was trying to clarify this misunderstanding?
That part was talking about the way it would work if you decide to go inbetween the 'harsh' and 'gentle' method.

But 4e does have two rates of healing. It's very quick (on a short rest cycle) until you've done a certain number of them, and then it slows down (extended rest cycle).

In the larger scope of thing, both ways are very fast compared to how it used to work, where only magic could quickly get you up on your feet.
You have self healing between fights to top you off, until this reserve (which is what healing surges are) is depleted, and you sleep to restore all of it. Sure, the second one is slower than the first, but neither are exactly slow compared to getting back only a few HP per day.

Basically, the choice between 'harsh' and 'gentle' HP is the choice whether this sort of healing works in your game.
You want to have HP and healing work like this, with one pool of HP, narrated whichever way you want on the spot? Pick the 'gentle' method (1).

You want HP to slowly recover over weeks if you have no access to divine healing, with one pool of HP, narrated whichever way you want on the spot? Take the 'harsh' method (2).

You want to be able to have this sort of healing in your game, but also want to have there be times when recovery time is needed to restore lost hit points? Mix the two methods (3).

Now, I'm trying it again. The first one works like 4e, the second like pre-4e.
The third one is where your commander can help you, but only up to a point.

This example doesn't care how you handle death/dying, how much HP you get each level, if your Con score is added in or not, or whatever other thing you wish to add to it. It gives you the freedom of choosing chicken or pork without having to phone in the day before, unless you want to.

IMO, the 'gentle' way isn't punishing enough, since you only need one day to fully recover, and the 'harsh' way is too punishing, since it would take days/weeks to fully recover (or deplete several uses of the cleric's healing).
I'd prefer a middle way where you can fully recover a part of your HP after a long rest, so you can keep going, but also have it be that you can't fully recover to 100% if you've taking a severe beating (and I don't care how the narrative played out, that's totally open).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The difference in labelling causes a problem because it is not just cosmetic. As you yourself state, it makes on-the-fly ambiguity impossible ie it invalidates some mechanics. It imposes process simulation. That is not cosmetic. That is a substantive game design choice that departs from (some) D&D tradition.

If it is flexible, it doesn't invalidate any mechanics. Only if everyone is locked in to using one system does it invalidate anything. Since the proposal explicitly says "there's at least two different systems that are possible, depending on where you set the dial," that isn't a legitimate concern.

You thin4k on-the-fly ambiguity is a problem. I don't. Some others don't either - we think that fortune-in-the-middle is a virtue in some mechanics.

This is a bigger issue than just HP, but at any rate the proposal simply allows you to specify what HP means in your game. If what HP means in your game is crazy ambiguous, that's not something the proposal necessarily takes away ("All Fate Mode").

And having a single pool as core doesn't force anyone to embrace ambiguity. It is open to them to impose clarity if they want (eg all hp are meat, or all a fate, or all are meat but the last, or whatever - and the rulebooks could talk about this without any problems).

It does, since the assumed presence of inspirational healing and daily recovery rates necessarily mean that HP can't be all meat.

But having a single hit point pool with a uniform recovery rate and only two states - up or down - is the only way I can see to avoid imposing process simulation as the core.

It IS a single pool. It just has the meaning of the injury telegraphed more clearly to avoid the break that happens when people don't know what the hell a given hit or damage actually means. If you want to get rid of that, nothing in the proposal forces you to accept it, since it is a dial you can set.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Anyway, with regards to determining how you want to have "you have HP" work in your game, it would be covered. Determining the 'non-HP related' bits of your game's inner workings is a different matter not covered by this discussion. I'm still not sure what your point is with that analogy, though.

Apparently I'm missing something that is very obvious to you.

Well, part of the point of that silly chicken and pork thing is that the "Friend" is missing something that is very obvious to "You" in the conversation, but still hasn't gotten it by the end of the conversation. So you aren't alone, here.

It's kind of hard to talk about how to make what you want work, when the other side denies that what you want even exists--or alternately, asserts that they are providing it, when they demonstrate at the same time that they don't understand it.

In any case, I appreciate your effort to get it. I wish I could explain it better. Or maybe I can, indirectly, but this topic is not the one to attempt it, because it drags in so many other issues. Suffice it to say here that my contention is that KM's proposal is not bad as far it goes, but suffers from the key presentation flaw that it doesn't cover nearly as much ground as he thinks it does. So I'll bow out of this one now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it is flexible, it doesn't invalidate any mechanics. Only if everyone is locked in to using one system does it invalidate anything. Since the proposal explicitly says "there's at least two different systems that are possible, depending on where you set the dial," that isn't a legitimate concern.

But it already requires a choice right out of the gate.

That doesn't seem to fit the idea of the core rules - you have one rule that you can use by default, and then you use modules and dials to change stuff.

If you set your system up already to half meat and half fate by default, you already forced choices upon people. If you leave the question whether a hit point is meat open or fate by default, you allow this to be handled on a case by case basis. And with case by case I mean each individual instance hit points are reduced or increased by any given effect, not gaming group case by case. The dials and modules can later be used to move from a case by case basis to a defined system on whether meat or fate was involved - if you want to do so.

 

[Kavon]

Well, part of the point of that silly chicken and pork thing is that the "Friend" is missing something that is very obvious to "You" in the conversation, but still hasn't gotten it by the end of the conversation. So you aren't alone, here.

Alright, so the "You" here is pemerton and the issues he has with Kamikaze Midget's proposal, and I am the "Friend" who continues on talking to him about it like there is no issue? Something in that direction?

It's kind of hard to talk about how to make what you want work, when the other side denies that what you want even exists--or alternately, asserts that they are providing it, when they demonstrate at the same time that they don't understand it.

I'll accept that I'm probably missing something that pemerton is saying that makes him so against this. On the other hand, I'm not exactly talking about Kamikaze Midget's proposal anymore. It seems some of the problem is that pemerton is still talking to me about Kamikaze's chicken and pork, while I moved on to giving the choice of using a spoon, a fork or a spork to eat our HP dinner.
To all effects and purposes, to me it seems that using the spoon is what he wants. I would like to know what the spoon is missing from his desired cutlery. Anything beyond the basic shape of the spoon is merely embossing and not what I'm talking about.

In any case, I appreciate your effort to get it. I wish I could explain it better. Or maybe I can, indirectly, but this topic is not the one to attempt it, because it drags in so many other issues. Suffice it to say here that my contention is that KM's proposal is not bad as far it goes, but suffers from the key presentation flaw that it doesn't cover nearly as much ground as he thinks it does. So I'll bow out of this one now.

Alright, I hope pemerton reads this post so I can hope to understand what the spoon is missing.
bow


Edit:

If you set your system up already to half meat and half fate by default, you already forced choices upon people. If you leave the question whether a hit point is meat open or fate by default, you allow this to be handled on a case by case basis. And with case by case I mean each individual instance hit points are reduced or increased by any given effect, not gaming group case by case. The dials and modules can later be used to move from a case by case basis to a defined system on whether meat or fate was involved - if you want to do so.

To continue with my earlier spoon, fork, spork analogy:
What if the default is "Let's eat HP"?
After which you are given the choice of using either a spoon, a fork, or a spork to consume it?
It's all a matter of playstyle, after all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not sure if I get your meaning and I think I missed your original analogy. It seems "let's eat hp" is what D&D Next playtest is doing. It's not deciding whether we use the spoon, fork or spork, that's still open. But if you really thing that hit points should be eaten only with a spoon, we've got a module for that, or if you think that part of the hit points must be eaten with a spoon and some with a fork, then we've got another one for you.

I think for pemerton and me it boils down to this. The "simplistic" but possibly inconsistent or undefined nature of hit points works well as a default, because it can serve as a spring board in any direction. It serves well for starters. And if anyone is bothered by the details or feels to constrained in some manner, there is a module for that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But it already requires a choice right out of the gate.

That doesn't seem to fit the idea of the core rules - you have one rule that you can use by default, and then you use modules and dials to change stuff.

1/2 Meat 1/2 Fate is the default. It only requires change if you really don't like that original division, and if you don't like that original division, it's easy to change.

If you set your system up already to half meat and half fate by default, you already forced choices upon people.

I haven't forced them to make a choice, though. I've described what the mechanics basically represent. They can then make a choice about whether that is right for them or not, and change the proportion until it is.

If you leave the question whether a hit point is meat open or fate by default, you allow this to be handled on a case by case basis. And with case by case I mean each individual instance hit points are reduced or increased by any given effect, not gaming group case by case. The dials and modules can later be used to move from a case by case basis to a defined system on whether meat or fate was involved - if you want to do so.

And the proposal can easily accommodate a method of play in which the question is open without being dramatically changed. Instead of a half-and-half, you have "everything is everything," and run with it.

The default should be explicit, since that explicitness helps set people's expectations of the mechanics and ability to narrate an event as it happens, rather than in some quantum superposition.

 

[Kavon]

Not sure if I get your meaning and I think I missed your original analogy. It seems "let's eat hp" is what D&D Next playtest is doing. It's not deciding whether we use the spoon, fork or spork, that's still open. But if you really thing that hit points should be eaten only with a spoon, we've got a module for that, or if you think that part of the hit points must be eaten with a spoon and some with a fork, then we've got another one for you.

Ah yeah, sorry about that, kinda jumped you into my analogy there ^^
Yeah, in my opinion (and I think, seeing Kamikaze Midget's post just now, I diverge from the thread), first and foremost, there should simply be HP (we are going to eat HP). It goes down once you take damage (narrated in whichever way you want), goes up when you're healed (from whatever source - spell, shout, potion, etc), and once it's gone, you're down (dead, dying, unconscious, doesn't matter - you decide).
After this, you decide how you want to eat it. Take it as is, and use your hands (the simple default), use a spoon (with easy recovery - full HP after each rest), a fork (for hard recovery - few HP per rest), or a spork (for a mix of the two - Kamikaze's idea)

I think for pemerton and me it boils down to this. The "simplistic" but possibly inconsistent or undefined nature of hit points works well as a default, because it can serve as a spring board in any direction. It serves well for starters. And if anyone is bothered by the details or feels to constrained in some manner, there is a module for that.

I can agree with this. I think the discussion was tainted by wanting to have a certain thing be the default.
I'm not really sure we need to dress up the default HP with anything at all. I just think it's flexible enough to hold the entire set of cutlery.
Not sure where the knives went, though

Edit:
Ahh, wait a minute.

So beside the three ways I mentioned earlier on in this thread, you'd have another one that doesn't restore your HP fully each day (like the spoon), but also doesn't restrict healing to magic only (like the fork), and also isn't putting half of one with half of the other (like the spork).

Something like that?

 

[pemerton]

And I'm saying that if you use one extreme of the dial, you have exactly that. You have your one pool, which can be narrated as whatever you please.

OK, then I think we may be saying the same thing. Though I don't think I'd talk about it being "one end of the dial". I think this should be the default, and the very idea of a dial here (between "fate" and "meat") should itself be a module.

The only thing that matters is what speed that pool recovers and how easily.

I think recovery should be on a dial - 1/4 hp per week or month would be the gritty option, per day or two would be the 3E-ish option, per minute or so would be the gonzo/heroic option.

The reason for putting this on a dial from start is that (i) recovery seems to be the most contentious thing in the playtest, and (ii) it has varied widely across editions, and (iii) it is completely trivial to put it on a dial.

In the larger scope of thing, both ways are very fast compared to how it used to work, where only magic could quickly get you up on your feet.

<snip>

You want to be able to have this sort of healing in your game, but also want to have there be times when recovery time is needed to restore lost hit points? Mix the two methods (3).

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but this is not 4e. (If by "the two methods" you mean a bit of fate, a bit of meat.) 4e has non-uniform recovery rates, but they're not linked in any fashion to a fate vs meat contrast. They're a pacing device, not a simulation device - whereas fate vs meat is a simulation device.

Now if your "two methods" aren't fate vs meat, you'll have to re-explain them (sorry).

It does, since the assumed presence of inspirational healing and daily recovery rates necessarily mean that HP can't be all meat.

Who is assuming this? I've stated upthread in (by now) half-a-dozen or so posts that recovery should be on a dial. But that doesn't require two pools.

I've likewise stated that inspirational healing should be noted as not fitting nicely with certain conceptions of hp. So that those groups who want hp as meat can choose not to use those classes/themes/feats/spells.

 

[Kavon]

OK, then I think we may be saying the same thing. Though I don't think I'd talk about it being "one end of the dial". I think this should be the default, and the very idea of a dial here (between "fate" and "meat") should itself be a module.

I agree. To me the whole point of the "dial" was to have it be modular. You could change the dial/module depending on your preference.

I think recovery should be on a dial - 1/4 hp per week or month would be the gritty option, per day or two would be the 3E-ish option, per minute or so would be the gonzo/heroic option.

The reason for putting this on a dial from start is that (i) recovery seems to be the most contentious thing in the playtest, and (ii) it has varied widely across editions, and (iii) it is completely trivial to put it on a dial.

Again, agreed. I was talking about this after reevaluating it for myself, I think (just wasn't really putting it in words very well). The whole gentle/harsh stuff, etc..

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but this is not 4e. (If by "the two methods" you mean a bit of fate, a bit of meat.) 4e has non-uniform recovery rates, but they're not linked in any fashion to a fate vs meat contrast. They're a pacing device, not a simulation device - whereas fate vs meat is a simulation device.

Now if your "two methods" aren't fate vs meat, you'll have to re-explain them (sorry).

Yes, the mixing of "the two methods" wasn't meant to represent 4e - one of the two methods was (in a very general sense). The "two methods" was something else (one of the modular dial options).
And yes, what I was talking about wasn't really fate vs meat, anymore - it was more of a reimagining to make the idea work for me (and as far as I could see, you as well - which I think I was trying to explain).

I'm hope we're basically on the same page now? ^^


To me it doesn't really matter much what the default assumption is (though I would think it should be the most basic, simple representation of HP it can be), as long as it's adaptable enough with modules to make it do what I want.