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

[Raven Crowking]

Of course there are... they just aren't so clearly marked as such and are primarily player-initiated rather than DM initiated.

"If X doesn't work in playstyle Y, we will just argue the definition of playstyle Y until we are talking about playstyle Z, in which case X will work."



Not remotely convincing.


RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Raven Crowking:

I think you are blowing the importance of sandbox play in regards to D&D way out of proportion. The amount and nature of magical healing in 3E(especially the stupid wands) and what you could do with it emphatically did not serve sandbox play well. While we may argue about the relative success of 4E, I think that we can all agree that 3E D&D was a tremendous success in its day. After eight years of a game that ignored sandbox play, they put out a new edition that again is clearly not designed to foster sandbox play. This leads to the conclusions:

1. Not serving sandbox style play didn't hurt the success of 3E at all.
2. 4E chose to continue ignoring sandbox play, while changing things in regards to a LOT of other issues with 3E.
3. As we have had two editions now that haven't fostered sandbox play, and since this lack has not seemed to hurt the success of the game at all(it certainly didn't hurt 3E), I think it is safe to say that sandbox is a fringe playstyle with little importance to modern D&D.


Now, I can see you really like sandbox play, and I'm not going to take that away from you. I would just like to say that trying to portray 4E's lack of support for sandbox play as some sort of flaw is fallacious. 4E certainly does not serve your interests, but that doesn't mean that the game is flawed by design. It was just designed to serve different interests.

 

[Mallus]

"If X doesn't work in playstyle Y, we will just argue the definition of playstyle Y until we are talking about playstyle Z, in which case X will work."

Stop using algebra!

Not remotely convincing.

All I'm trying to say is that, in practical terms, D&D play is made up of a series of episodes/encounters. Even the kind of sandbox play you advocate. Play can be broken down into the events that are played out in detail (episodes) and everything else (downtime, off-camera time, etc.), which are not.

 

[catsclaw227]

(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.

So you are basically implying that since my sandbox doesn't have other player groups, then it couldn't be considered with the best.

You have basically invalidated any argument that you have made this post. Clearly, us "one PC party" DMs aren't up to snuff for your games, so why even discuss esoteric gaming nuances with you?

 

[Scribble]

I don't like "You're causing this problem by ignoring the rules" when I am not at all convinced that your interpretation is the rules, or what the designers intended.

I'm not entirely sure that matters. Who cares what the intention of the designers was when they did it, so long as it works? They don't say one way or the other really, so do whatever works best for you.

When I said "ignoring the rules" I just meant that if you're critiquing 4e's HP system you have to take the whole thing into account, and not just parts of a whole.

I could argue that the rims on a car are a horrible design because when they travel down the road they spark and bend up... But that completely ignores the tires being a part of the system.

OTOH, I think it is probably the best single "fix" in terms of cost for benefit ratio that I have seen, and if I didn't have other problems with 4e's design philosophy, I would very, very probably adopt it, and then slow down healing surge recovery as you suggest.

Well, that's something, glad I could help... kind of?

Thank you.

And I'll admit you can completely avoid that problem in episodic play without even trying.


RC

Yep, my guess is 4e is designed with the idea that the majority of players want to emulate things like TV shows and movies.

But something else occured to me on the train last night heading home from work...

You mention smart play indicates the player should ignore the wounds his character has narratively, in favor of pressing on since he's at full HP.

Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?

If you're assuming the character is still wounded despite what his HP tally says, isn't the player then acting on information that the character does not have? The player knows he's at full HP, but the character knows he/she is a mess of wounds.

Similar to a player knowing a silvered weapon works best against a lycanthrope yet his character has never encountered one. Isn't it meta-gaming to act on that knowledge?

Or are you froma school of thought that there is no meta-gaming?

 

[catsclaw227]

There are no discrete "episodes" within a sandbox.

There are in my sandbox games.

 

[firesnakearies]

There are in my sandbox games.

Well, sure. You have room for "episodes" in your sandbox, because you're running one of those inferior sandboxes with only one PC party. If you had multiple PC groups, like any halfway decent sandbox has, then you'd have to push those pesky "episodes" out of the way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you are basically implying that since my sandbox doesn't have other player groups, then it couldn't be considered with the best.

:rollseyes:

Please. I've run multi-group and single-group, and both are fun. But multi-group has a depth that single-group doesn't have, IME.

"Best", though, is always a matter of opinion. If you want to be insulted, though, I guess you will be. I wonder why you might want to consider that some form of insult?

You have basically invalidated any argument that you have made this post.

And the very next line answers my question.

If you want to feel X is invalid because something involved with X hurt your feelings (however spurious the reasons), then that is what you are going to feel and and nothing is going to change your mind.

I won't lose any sleep over that, though. And I suggest that you don't, either.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not entirely sure that matters. Who cares what the intention of the designers was when they did it, so long as it works? They don't say one way or the other really, so do whatever works best for you.

When I said "ignoring the rules" I just meant that if you're critiquing 4e's HP system you have to take the whole thing into account, and not just parts of a whole.

I could argue that the rims on a car are a horrible design because when they travel down the road they spark and bend up... But that completely ignores the tires being a part of the system.



Well, that's something, glad I could help... kind of?




Yep, my guess is 4e is designed with the idea that the majority of players want to emulate things like TV shows and movies.

But something else occured to me on the train last night heading home from work...

You mention smart play indicates the player should ignore the wounds his character has narratively, in favor of pressing on since he's at full HP.

Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?

If you're assuming the character is still wounded despite what his HP tally says, isn't the player then acting on information that the character does not have? The player knows he's at full HP, but the character knows he/she is a mess of wounds.

Similar to a player knowing a silvered weapon works best against a lycanthrope yet his character has never encountered one. Isn't it meta-gaming to act on that knowledge?

Or are you froma school of thought that there is no meta-gaming?

RC is from the school of thought that if the rules say I am at full hit points and has no mechanic indicating that my character might be tired or wounded, then the charcter is not tired or wounded.

And pretending to be tired or wounded is not "smart play", because you are not using your characters full capacities. Satisfying play would expect me to rest, smart play says I absolutely shouldn't do that because my character is fine and I am just wasting my characters time (which is a resource inside the game world.)

---
Using the 4E hit point / healing surge system, the easiest way to avoid any "narrative" inconsistencies is to never narrate any hit point damage as real, physical damage, until the damage actually kills someone. You still need some ambiguity in your narration when your a 0 hit points and rolling death saves (that's where "Schrödingers Wounding" might be unavoidable - until observed by either death or survival, you don't know what the state of the character is).

I can live with that. I can also live with the idea that I don't really know if my character still looks a little injured or scarred when at full hit points and full healing surges. But not everyone can. And it's jarring for sandbox play, because you can't determine which is actually true using the mechanics and thus smart play means you never have to rest, while satisfying play would demand it occassionally.

---

Here is yet another idea for sandbox play.
Every encounter a character is bloodied or reduced to 0 hit points, the character gains one "injury token". For every two injury token acquired, a character regains one healing surge less on an extended rest, or loses his still available highest level daily power (players choice). (Wizards can't concentrate well enough, Fighters muscles are too sore and injuries keep bothering them).
Each extended rest, you lose one injury token. If you spend an entire day (24 hours) only with light activity, you regain two injury tokens.
A character with a number of injury tokens equal to twice his number of healing surges cannot regain any hit points beyond his bloodied value, and dies on his second failed death saving throw.

Optionally: As a first level Healing Ritual (1 hour, 25 gp) removes one injury token.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You mention smart play indicates the player should ignore the wounds his character has narratively, in favor of pressing on since he's at full HP.

Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?

I am of the school of thought that says

"Smart play is based upon the game rules, satisfying play is based upon the players' expectations. When these work together, the game is fun. When these do not work together, the game is not fun.

There is no such thing as a game that can be played without metagaming. Therefore, the metagaming -- playing the game's rules intelligently -- must be taken into account in game design."


RC