Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[Raven Crowking]

Why? If the DM is not insisting that the PCs must go to the Mountain of Death, can they not take time where they feel it is necessary?

-Hyp.

Cut & Paste from the post you are quoting:

(1) In a sandbox, there is always more to do than can ever be done. The world is larger than the characters. Players can only be offered meaningful choices between X and Y if, in some sense, choosing X excludes Y. In a sandbox, the most precious commodity is time.​

If you don't mind, I am not planning on answering questions with answers that can be cut & pasted from upthread anymore -- let alone from within the same post.


RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why is "We are wounded, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a bad thing, but "We are wounded and suffering a mechanical penalty due to the long-term healing rules, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a good thing?

If the players find that going to the Mountain of Death the day after suffering a wound is jarring, then why is it necessary for the rules to penalise them for it in order for them to choose to rest?

If I, as DM, say "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary", versus "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary, taking a -5 penalty to speed and a -2 penalty to all attack rolls"... shouldn't the party who is concerned about 'realistic' healing times for injuries make the same decision in either case... whether it be 'press on' or 'rest'?

The party who is only concerned with mechanics, naturally, might make a different decision in each situation... but they aren't the people who are bothered by 'realistic' healing times!

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(1) In a sandbox, there is always more to do than can ever be done. The world is larger than the characters. Players can only be offered meaningful choices between X and Y if, in some sense, choosing X excludes Y. In a sandbox, the most precious commodity is time.

But if there's more to do than can ever be done, there will still be something to do after you take two weeks to recover from your injuries...

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But if there's more to do than can ever be done, there will still be something to do after you take two weeks to recover from your injuries...

-Hyp.

Sure. But.....

(1) The world continues to move while you recover.

(2) In the best sandboxes, there are other player groups, and those groups may also be moving on the same goal. Heck, there might even be NPCs that the players are aware of, moving on the same goal.

(3) A well-run sandbox contains a tension between the desire to move and the desire to wait until you are at your best. This makes the decision to rest or go meaningful.

(4) Remember all of those threads about the 15-minute adventuring day, and the reasons why players might not want to just rest whenever they get low on resources? They still apply.


RC

 

[Scribble]

If I, as DM, say "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary", versus "The stab wound in your thigh still pains you, and it will take a week of rest for it to heal, but you could press on if absolutely necessary, taking a -5 penalty to speed and a -2 penalty to all attack rolls"... shouldn't the party who is concerned about 'realistic' healing times for injuries make the same decision in either case... whether it be 'press on' or 'rest'?

Thats the crux of it to me... Anytime I've ever been in immersive mode, and everyone is on the same page, the rules seem to matter less. If something seems invalid, even if allowed by the rules, players tend to just go with what would be more realistic. IE we rest until our wounds heal. Or we don't jump off a cliff even though we know it will never kill us, etc...

It's only when players and Dm aren't on the same page that problems arise.

Immersive DM: "Your wounds pain you, and you feel it will take a week to heal..."

Mechanics Player: "I'm at full HP, so who cares. I'm pressing on."

Immersive DM: "But your wounds aren't healed."

Mechanics Player: "Whatever..."

Imposing a mechanical penalty gives the immersive Dm some measure of control over that. To sort of force everyone, mechanical player or immersive, into his sandbox. (Whether you agree with it or not is another topic.)

Immersive DM: "Well then you take a -5 on your attacks until you heal."

Mechanics Player: "Damn... I guess I wait a week to heal up."


Raven, I still don't understand what the issue with the healing surge representing overall health is?

So it doesn't say thats the case in the book... 4e like all D&D versions leaves a lot open to interpretation. Which is the best part in my opinion. None of the versions have said anything about lasting wounds.

Using Healing Surges to track overall health is a way to allow both martial and magic healing without the weird how did his words close up my wounds issue.

I'd still admit you'd have trouble with it in your sandbox though because of the speed of their recovery. That's an easy fix though by just slowing the rate down. Yep, it's a house rule, but D&D has a long history of modifying to suit whatever page the players are on...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why is "We are wounded, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a bad thing, but "We are wounded and suffering a mechanical penalty due to the long-term healing rules, and cannot go to the Mountain of Death until we are rested!" a good thing?

If the players find that going to the Mountain of Death the day after suffering a wound is jarring, then why is it necessary for the rules to penalise them for it in order for them to choose to rest?

Another cut & paste from the same post:

Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.​

And that is, absolutely, the last cut & paste answer I am doing on this thread. If you can't be bothered to read the post you are replying to, I am certainly not going to be bothered to reply further & give you more things to not read.



RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure. But.....

(1) The world continues to move while you recover.

Of course it does. And you might miss an opportunity...

... but if there are healing rules that necessitate downtime, you'll miss that opportunity anyway.

(3) A well-run sandbox contains a tension between the desire to move and the desire to wait until you are at your best. This makes the decision to rest or go meaningful.

Then why is it necessary for there to be mechanical punishment for not waiting until you are at your best? If the meaningful decision is enjoyable in and of itself, the players can still decide to rest to heal their wounds somewhat, creating that tension. If the meaningful decision is not enjoyable in and of itself, then how does mechanical punishment make it so?

(4) Remember all of those threads about the 15-minute adventuring day, and the reasons why players might not want to just rest whenever they get low on resources? They still apply.

But mechanical punishment imposes the fifteen minute adventuring day. Removing the mechanical punishment means that if the story is better served by the PCs moving on instead of resting, they can do so.

-Hyp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Another cut & paste from the same post:

Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.​

And that is, absolutely, the last cut & paste answer I am doing on this thread. If you can't be bothered to read the post you are replying to, I am certainly not going to be bothered to reply further & give you more things to not read.



RC

Given that this is an extremely obtuse block of text, and does not seem to relate directly to Hypersmurf's rather clear question on the subject, I think that this stock response of yours--that you already answered the question--is perhaps ill-advised. If you're not interested in replying to questions, then we can just let this thread die (and that might be the humane thing to do). But we're not combing through 10 pages to see if you made some kind of point that might have something to do with something someone said, especially when the ones you actually copy-paste are less than clear.

Perhaps you have not answered these questions to the satisfaction of those asking them, despite thinking that you have--which is why they keep asking them. Hypersmurf is the biggest stickler for detail I've seen on these boards. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Smart play includes pressing on, because the most precious commodity in the sandbox is time. The sandbox also, perforce, includes reasons to make the decision to slow down, rest, heal, etc. IOW, in order to allow for satisfying play that is also smart play, both game and DM must include elements that allow the players to be “smart” for making decisions that lead to more satisfying play. Although this sounds odd, increasing the complications of decision making within the sandbox also increases the satisfaction of making those decisions.

But if 'smart' play is not satisfying, then it's not especially smart!

If you're not gaining satisfaction from your game, then you're doing it wrong... for yourself, if not necessarily for everyone else out there. Surely 'smart' play is play that achieves one's objectives, and satisfaction is among those objectives!

What you're calling 'smart' play sounds like what others might define as 'mechanical optimisation' or 'powergaming'. And while Pun-Pun makes for an amusing intellectual exercise, it's not fun in play... and so 'optimised' isn't what I'd call 'smart', because it diminishes the enjoyment of the game.

Which sounds like what you're protesting - that taking the mechanically-optimal route of pressing on despite wounds is less enjoyable than the less-optimised route of resting first. If players are finding that their powergaming is decreasing their enjoyment, the simple solution is for them to rein in those tendencies.

Any game can be broken; just because it's possible doesn't mean it's advisable, or 'smart'.

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Given that this is an extremely obtuse block of text, and does not seem to relate directly to Hypersmurf's rather clear question on the subject, I think that this stock response of yours--that you already answered the question--is perhaps ill-advised. If you're not interested in replying to questions, then we can just let this thread die (and that might be the humane thing to do). But we're not combing through 10 pages to see if you made some kind of point that might have something to do with something someone said, especially when the ones you actually copy-paste are less than clear.

Perhaps you have not answered these questions to the satisfaction of those asking them, despite thinking that you have--which is why they keep asking them. Hypersmurf is the biggest stickler for detail I've seen on these boards. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hyp wants to know why it matters that there are reasons within the context of the game (as opposed to within the context of the narrative) to rest.

Of course it does. And you might miss an opportunity...

... but if there are healing rules that necessitate downtime, you'll miss that opportunity anyway.​

The rules of the game determine what is smart play. It is one thing to miss an opportunity because, within the rules of the game, you gain a benefit, and another wherein you miss an opportunity without gaining any benefit. Even if that benefit is, essentially, avoiding a penalty.

In the begining of a Monopoly game, getting out of jail as soon as possible is smart play. Later on, sitting in jail to avoid having to pay rents might be smart play, even though the benefit you gain is avoiding a penalty.

Players should always be able to choose smart play, and have that result in satisfying play. A game that does not allow you to do that is poorly designed. In the event of 4e, I am saying that it is poorly designed for sandbox play.

So, why is it different missing an opportunity when there is a mechanical reason to do so, as opposed to when there isn't, if the net end is the same? The answer is that the net end isn't the same. In one case, the players are making a meaningful decision about what is smart, and gaining satisfying play as a result, while in the other the players are making a meaningful decision about what is satisfying, and losing the advantage of smart play.

Consider smart play as being worth 1 and satisfying play being worth 2.

A situation which leads to smart and satisfying play is (1 + 2 = 3) more valuable than a situation which leads to satisfying play but not smart play (2 + 0 = 2).


RC