My take.

[PeterWeller]

And to do that, I expect the rules to serve the adventures and the setting, and not the adventures and the setting to serve the rules.

The more "realistic" and inclusive the rules are, the more beholden to them the adventure and the setting must be. See Derren's problems with magic-less dragons for a good example of this. They don't work in 3E's interrelated "simulationist" world because the rules won't allow them to survive. When you stop requiring your rulebooks to model a complete and "realistic" world, you don't have to deal with this sort of nonsense that gets in the way of roleplaying, designing adventures, and having fun.

 

[BryonD]

In case of the wizard, I like the idea of "flavouring" his physical skill checks differently then that of a martial character. The wizard is actually using magic to help him climb - the effects are subtle, but noticeable.

And you can do that with a particular character in 3E now if you want to build him that way. But the idea that it is assumed for all wizards rubs completely contrary to the kind of fantasy I enjoy.

 

[BryonD]

The more "realistic" and inclusive the rules are, the more beholden to them the adventure and the setting must be. See Derren's problems with magic-less dragons for a good example of this. They don't work in 3E's interrelated "simulationist" world because the rules won't allow them to survive. When you stop requiring your rulebooks to model a complete and "realistic" world, you don't have to deal with this sort of nonsense that gets in the way of roleplaying, designing adventures, and having fun.

I've used Green Ronin Feral Dragons with no trouble at all.

And I of course reject the idea that simulationism gets in the way of roleplaying, designing adventures and having fun. To the contrary, I'd say that jarring disconnects with sensibility are the detractors to the kind of immersion based fun that I am looking for. I'm not saying that getting on with killing the orc in a DDM or Descent style game is some kind of "not fun". But I am saying that there is a kind of roleplaying experience that is connected to simulation.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'd say that jarring disconnects with sensibility are the detractors to the kind of immersion based fun that I am looking for.

Exactly. And, seriously, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief at the drop of a hat. (I'm one of those people that go into an objectively crap flick like AVP-R and ignore the goofiness and gaping plot holes if they make the slightest token effort. And enjoy it.) But they have to drop the hat.

Completely healed from "1 HP from dead" to "100 percent" in 6 hours? Okay, I completely understand the "why" of it, and I'm even onboard with it, at least mostly. But you have to tell me how. Is it something as goofy as "all PCs are infused with the spirits of ancient heroes, to the extent that they recover from wounds supernatually fast"? Okay, good enough for me!

I'm the obverse-Mulder ... I want to suspend my disbelief. But the game system, or movie, or comic book, or whatever needs to give me a reason -- damned near any reason -- to do it. And from what we've seen of 4E so far, the game designers just don't care about people like me.

That's what so many 4E critics are talking about when they say it feels like a boardgame. There's no attempt in chess to explain why bishops can move diagonally rather than orthagonally. It's a boardgame ... no suspension of disbelief required. There's no attempt to explain what exactly Parcheesi is even modelling. But it's a boardgame ... no suspension of disbelief required.

D&D is an RPG. There are lots of us out here that want to be able to suspend our disbelief, because that's exactly what RPGs, like movies and comic books and Stephen King novels, are for.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I also don't agree that any game system is inherently 'better' for role-playing than other. I've heard many WoD fanboys state that the Storyteller system is, by default, more RP-oriented than D&D, etc. Many of those fanboys then go on to create their characters with 4 Dex, 4-5 in Firearms, and whatever good combat merits they can afford.

4e is indeed very 'gamist', but all versions of D&D (and all class-based level-based abstract-HP systems) are very 'gamist'. Being 'gamist' doesn't inherently detract from role-play, any more than 'realistic' systems (such as GURPS) or 'RP-focused' systems (such as, supposedly, Storyteller) inherently add to it. Its all in the people playing, 100%.

Here, here!!

 

[Psion]

And to do that, I expect the rules to serve the adventures and the setting, and not the adventures and the setting to serve the rules.

Now where have I heard that before?

 

[Darkthorne]

So far I have seen the arguments for HP/healing as 3.5 more realistic (being actual physical damage in some cases) while 4 is more abstract (being bruises, tended on the fly wounds and mental fatigue). I would say look at what both are setting out to be (from certain people's veiwpoints).
3.5 I believe is much less accurate in the goal of being a "realistic" measure of damage taken. A fully healed level 1 wizard no con bonus has 4 hp takes 5 hp of damage is dying with his spleen on the floor exposed for all the world to see. However to save our wizard and lack of modesty regarding his spleen 5 level 0 orisons will bring him back to full fighting trim and vigor (damn that's a powerful spell). Now a 16th level fighter with at this point a 17 con say 152 hp takes 16 hp (that's 4 dead wizards!!!) has a scratch ("It's only a flesh wound!!") will not heal fully from that scratch with 5 of the same exact spell that brought our original spleenless wizard back to full fighting form does not seem "realistic" to me. Mind you I think 3.5 is pretty damn cool and is number crunchy and I like number crunchy (I play with excel for fun, I know I'm sick like that).
4th ed however is stating from the get go that hp is more abstract and not actually physical wounds, that it's a combo from above. And wouldn't a spell cast 5 times at level 1 to bring someone back to full health should be able to do the same when cast by someone that is 19 more levels more experienced be able to do the same thing? They also state they have done this so you don't HAVE to have a cleric in the group (Big freaking plus here IMHO, as I don't feel that someone is forced to play something they don't want in order for the group to survive)
As for the ticking clock scenarios, they give the game a sense of urgency when required. But if the group has to leave because they have been chewed into under 20 hps at higher levels, they are not going to camp right outside the dungeon and only spend a day there. They will move considerably farther away (more time spent traveling and not as far due to being wounded or PCs at 0) because Leeroy the bugbear has a friend you didn't kill and Leeroy has lots of friends and family that would be more than happy to scout about the surrounding area and then some to go after the extremely wounded PC's as that is easier to deal with than if they are at full health. Even with only using the one day amount of delay (not enough time for the pc's to fully heal) I would believe that is sufficient time to bring alot of the enemy's strength to bear (think of what the PC's can accomplish in this time). I would expect at that point the dungeon being tougher than the 1st time around. Also if your cleric gets dropped this time is substantially longer, let alone if there is no cleric (The dm doesn't have to make things easier because you have no cleric).
3.5 partially forces your hand in what you HAVE to be good in for skills, as you are the one that fills THIS niche (The gods help the group if your dead) and all those years before becoming an adventurer you didn't learn anything? I also honestly think it partially forces your group's hand who play what as you REALLY should a healer type and a trapsmith type. *I* know our group should have a cleric or a rogue but everyone is playing what they like, however that by no means the bad guys should become stupid or less optimal than normal because the PC group design wasn't optimal. I seriously like the fact that about 4th ed you don't have to have either in order for the mission to succeed (or more accurately having a decent chance to succeed).
I think the designers looked at it and went "The POV of hp = physical damage at at 40%/60% doesn't work". I think this (the definition of hp) is just a sacred cow they brought out back and shot for something more accurate. But this is my POV

 

[Derren]

Personally my problem is not so much with the 6 hours rest but with the spontaneous self healing and especially with the "being cut down by an enemy but then standing up again with 25% health".

 

[helium3]

I've always thought the "stay in bed until fully healed, no matter how much time it takes" and the dreaded "15-minutes workday" are not rules problems, but adventure designing problems. If your concept of "adventure" is "a dungeon with completely isolated rooms where everybody just stands waiting for somebody to come, kill them and take heir stuff", you will surely face these "problems".

I've also noticed that a lot of players sort of seem to behave as if each and every minute of game-time must be filled with adventuring. If I were to say, "you all take a month to relax and recuperate from your wounds. Let's take ten minutes to role-play anything interesting that people want to do that doesn't involve adventuring." I hunch some of them would act as if I were stealing levels from them or something.

In reality, all I'm doing is making a statement, consuming ten minutes of out-of-game time and then waving my hands and making a month of in-game time pass.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

3.5 I believe is much less accurate in the goal of being a "realistic" measure of damage taken. A fully healed level 1 wizard no con bonus has 4 hp takes 5 hp of damage is dying with his spleen on the floor exposed for all the world to see. However to save our wizard and lack of modesty regarding his spleen 5 level 0 orisons will bring him back to full fighting trim and vigor (damn that's a powerful spell). Now a 16th level fighter with at this point a 17 con say 152 hp takes 16 hp (that's 4 dead wizards!!!) has a scratch ("It's only a flesh wound!!") will not heal fully from that scratch with 5 of the same exact spell that brought our original spleenless wizard back to full fighting form does not seem "realistic" to me.

I think the "realism" thing is you primary problem, the issue has been the system never really fully matched it's description of HP as abstract before creating a system disconnect. But it appears to me that the core of your "realism" issue is the assumption that if HP=physical damage the ability of PCs to survive injury remains at a normal RW human level even as their HP continue to go up. If the lvl16 fighter with 152 hp took 16 damage it wasn't just a scratch, he did take enough damage to kill 4 1st level wizards, and can eat it like cake. A 16th lvl fighter is so f*ing metal he gets pincushioned with a half dozen spears, rips them from his body and rams one up the enemy's bum before using him as a screaming bloody mace to beat the rest to death.