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

[Charwoman Gene]

Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is. Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play. Requiring constant redefinition of such makes the game a "playing of the system" instead of a playing of the role. It removes the exploration / education a player has within that role and leaves absent that portion of the system the game element was designed to simulate in the first place.

Why don't you just say narrativist play is badwrongfun? Its much more concise.

Roleplaying does not require precise world-physics/game-rule correspondence. I find that games with such an occurrence to be hijacked by players who want to set themselves up as kings in a faraway desertl and because the found a decanter of endless water. Give me an interpreted game and I can come up with some awesome stuff.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Edit: And let me expand on that. This very much reminds me of 2E sensibilities, for example: constructing magic items. They took a fairly concrete system in the prior edition, snipped it out, and said, "you can do anything you want, it's up to your imagination!". Quote from 2E DMG:

2E only adds the Fantastical Method as an alternative or something to be mixed with the Practical Method.

1E had the Practical Method as its approach. The DM still has to come up with a list of ingredients and a recipe to create each item.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

For a role-playing game specifically, it is the confinement of the player to actions real people are capable of when actually in the roles.

This is where I think you are utterly wrong and narrow-minded in what constitutes role-playing. A role-playing game does not require you to play out actions of real people. At least not as it relates to real world people. The game defines what a "real person" is in the simulated world. Wizards are people that can hurl fire, Superhero games define real people as having extraordinary abilities, and the action-adventure genre defines real people as being able to take incredible amounts of punishment but keep going (see Die Hard, Rambo, etc.)

4E is definitely encamped in the action adventure/fantasy camp. Martial character can take massive amounts of punishment and keep going. They ARE real people as defined by the genre.

If you do not like roleplaying the action adventure genre, then you won't like 4E. To each his own.

But to claim that 4E is not "as much" rpging as other games is ludicrous at best. It smacks of claims of badwrongfun.

 

[howandwhy99]

Why don't you just say narrativist play is badwrongfun? Its much more concise.

That's not what I said at all, please don't attribute such an attitude with me. I'm saying narratively playing a role-playing game is awkward unless you use the second definition of the term (theatre acting). Trying to tell a story while in an Army role-playing scenario in the woods or when role-playing a conflict mediation for divorce court judges is as much a misunderstanding of the term role-play as would be to play Poker as if the object of the game was to lose money.

Roleplaying does not require precise world-physics/game-rule correspondence. I find that games with such an occurrence to be hijacked by players who want to set themselves up as kings in a faraway desertl and because the found a decanter of endless water. Give me an interpreted game and I can come up with some awesome stuff.

Actually, role-playing under it's original definition is the testing of one's abilities in a role one isn't. The idea is not for the Referee to tell a story, but for the Players to excel strategically and thereby learn the role. In most cases this was to prepare for real life assumption of the role. Running a role-playing game with any intent other than to unbiasedly present the world as it is confounds designers' intent. Essentially, it is an honest telling of riddles and wondering why players are responding by continuing with a story rather than an attempted solutions. The players are misunderstanding the riddle to be a story they are collaboratively telling. (That is not just a metaphor, it's identical to what is happening when RPGs are misread as narratives. You could just as easily redefine all riddles as narratives where players are expected to guess what the teller wants them to do.)

This is where I think you are utterly wrong and narrow-minded in what constitutes role-playing. A role-playing game does not require you to play out actions of real people. At least not as it relates to real world people. The game defines what a "real person" is in the simulated world. Wizards are people that can hurl fire, Superhero games define real people as having extraordinary abilities, and the action-adventure genre defines real people as being able to take incredible amounts of punishment but keep going (see Die Hard, Rambo, etc.)

4E is definitely encamped in the action adventure/fantasy camp. Martial character can take massive amounts of punishment and keep going. They ARE real people as defined by the genre.

If you do not like roleplaying the action adventure genre, then you won't like 4E. To each his own.

But to claim that 4E is not "as much" rpging as other games is ludicrous at best. It smacks of claims of badwrongfun.

Narrow-minded, huh? I think I may not be posting clearly enough. You are right about the healing and hit point system. It simulates the cinematic hero like John McClane in Die Hard and Rambo in Rambo II. I'm talking about other elements of the game world that are not well modeled by the rules. I should have made that clear. Encounter power mechanics are one example. I'm not looking for a dispute. I think most folks recognize these aren't meant to be simulations.

And yes, I do like action adventure games, but prefer more realism when knowing what is going on in the game world matters. For instance, I find mysteries require mechanical similarity that is knowable and assumable by the Players to a unrealism they must guess at. Otherwise it becomes difficult to determine what's going on beyond what you're told. Essentially you need Knowledge Checks to be told what is happening at certain points.

 

[Zustiur]

Actually, the more I read these threads, the more I think the issue comes back to this:
What level of fantasy do you want in your game?
Do you play gritty, low fantasy games with long healing times?
or
Do you play action packed, high fantasy games with healing times hand waved to be more like Bruce Willis/Bond characters?

I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Narrow-minded, huh? I think I may not be posting clearly enough.

I apologize if I am just misreading you. Even so, I want to be clear that my comment was only directed towards my understanding of your views on the hp system, not a general statement of your mind-set.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I prefer the low fantasy style where people don't miraculously heal, unless magic is involved in the healing.

It is comments like these that add feul to the fire are are unnecessary.

One could more politely say:

I prefer low fantasy...where healing takes longer...etc.

Its not a matter or miracles that PCs heal in 4E, its just faster than your preference.

 

[howandwhy99]

I apologize if I am just misreading you. Even so, I want to be clear that my comment was only directed towards my understanding of your views on the hp system, not a general statement of your mind-set.

Hey, no problem. I'm not trying to incite other folks here either (as dull and pedantic as my posts may read )

 

[GlaziusF]

Nice analogy. It's a solvable problem for most groups.

I suppose one question is, do the benefits gained make it worth the trouble of solving or avoiding the problem?

Another question is, could the system have been designed to give the benefits without creating a possible problem?

The problem only arises if you care about narrating the damage. The mechanical effects of damage are defined - you're fine until 0, but at half hit points you become obviously wounded, or "bloodied", and certain things will affect you differently. Gnolls will turn into tiny furry landsharks and attempt to rip your flesh, et cetera.

How you narrate these mechanical effects is something you're left without guidance for. I would argue deliberately, because it can be rather an open-ended question, and studies have shown that presenting even sketchy examples of a creative solution is enough to pretty much determine the thought process.

Keep in mind, the problem explicitly arises from:

1. Caring enough to narrate damage
2. Being specific enough to paint yourself into a corner when it comes to the effects of healing
3. Not being able to see any way to avoid painting yourself into said corner

I don't quite agree with the analogy, because it's not a problem to be solved so we can get on with the game - rather, narrating events in the gameworld that fit with what the mechanics tell us is part of the point of playing the game, part of what counts as getting on with the game.

Yes, and coming up with a model that sees Schroedinger's Wounding coming and turns down the other street is a problem to be solved ahead of time so you can get on with narration.

Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is.

What's this "during play", kemosabe? You can come up with a damage model for your character completely independent of the game table.

I mean, unless you use some avant-garde definition of "play" that encompasses all moments you are aware of a system's existence.

 

[Filcher]

I prefer the more realistic hit point style of 4E because it is a more simlationist depiction of the effect of shock (and the recovery from the same). People don't die in static, predictable ways.