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

[thecasualoblivion]

Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).


RC

Which is only a problem if YOU make it one. 4E D&D chooses to treat this as unimportant. If it is important to you, then 4E D&D has chosen to be different than what you want. This isn't an accident, it was a design decision.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

But almost-dead-to-perfect-tomorrow is still a problem.

Only if you make an assumption, as a group, that full hit points + all healing surges = no physical marks of the previous days fighting.

If you choose to say that the group is battered & beat up, with minor cuts, bruises & other injuries, yet also accept that for the purposes of the game the party are able to continue because they are at full hp & max healing surges, then the issue goes away.

You can then choose to narrate, at a more convenient time for the story, how the characters recovered from their exertions in the Tomb of Fatal Death over a few weeks, whilst also making magic items, training, talking to other NPCs, etc, allowing the characters to start the next segment of the story at full hp, full healing surges, and no visible physical damage to themselves or their equipment.

As I said, Quantum Wounding is a problem caused by the way in which groups choose to narrate damage and healing whilst playing 4e. It is not something that is in the rules, as the rules do not specify how to narrate damage and healing (which are mechanical parts of the game, seperate from the way in which they are narrated).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which is only a problem if YOU make it one.

Resolving everything by flipping a coin is only a problem if YOU make it one. That still doesn't make it a good mechanic for rpg combats.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You can then choose to narrate, at a more convenient time for the story, how the characters recovered from their exertions in the Tomb of Fatal Death over a few weeks, whilst also making magic items, training, talking to other NPCs, etc, allowing the characters to start the next segment of the story at full hp, full healing surges, and no visible physical damage to themselves or their equipment.

Have you read through this thread?

I have already stated, many times, as a given that Schroedinger's Wounding can be resolved by disjoining mechanics from narrative, without causing further problems, provided you are engaged in episodic play.

The above quoted assumes episodic play.


RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Resolving everything by flipping a coin is only a problem if YOU make it one. That still doesn't make it a good mechanic for rpg combats.

RC

Not being a good mechanic is your opinion. Don't speak for the rest of us.

 

[Lacyon]

Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).

Except that you decided in one of the other threads that this "problem" of wounds that exist narratively but not mechanically also happens when you try to explain natural healing in prior editions of D&D.

This is what I mean when I say the numbers have changed, but the paradigm hasn't. It happens more frequently in 4E. You sometimes have to acknowledge that it happens in 4E, where you could ignore it more easily in prior editions (e.g., by letting the cleric use magic instead of watching one character's minor scratch heal as fast as another's deep cut). But it's fundamentally the same issue that any hp system has to have.

Moreover, it's fundamentally the point of having an hp system instead of a detailed wound-tracking system - to remind people that it's ok to gloss over the specifics for the sake of making gameplay easier.

 

[vagabundo]

Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).


RC

DND characters are at full power until they die, in all editions. HPs have no effect on combat power - or non combat - only how long, on average, they can stay in the fight.

In 4e there is a slight change in power when the bloodied condition kicks in, but the effect differs depending on race, class and monster being fought.

Having full HPs after one days of rest or several does not make a bit of difference, it only indicates sprains, bruises and minor cuts/abrasions. Any deep wound is going to require weeks of downtime or you'll end up dead, DND doesnt do that.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

My biggest issue with this is around the natural 20 'auto heal' you get when rolling death saves.
Bob gets knocked down to -8 HP, and fails two death saves. Fred examines him to determine how close to death he is, and sees that in moments Bob will slip away. Then Bob's player rolls a 20, and Bob stands up and fights on as if he'd never been close to death.
Either you're about to die (but might stabilize (slip into a coma but stop dying)), or you're not about to die.
Yes, previous editions were unrealistic. I never said they were realistic. I just feel that they're more realistic than 4E when it comes to wounds and dying.
I can handle "he's stabilized" but I can't handle "oh, actually he's okay now, and ready to kick ass".

Bold text mine.

How can Fred determine exactly whether Bob is going to pass or fail his next (and possibly final) death check? By what game mechanic does he do this? You've made an assumption that isn't based on any rules.

Fred can only determine that the character is dying, by the rules. He can't determine mechanical aspects of the rules. Out of character the players may share information, but again, that's irrelevant to the RAW or RAI. If Bob does roll a 20, he may be ready to kick ass, but he's a glass cannon - one good hit will see him straight back down again - and with only one chance at making a death check or he's dead. I'm not sure why you can't handle this idea - it seems fine to me for the purposes of a game.

The idea that "either you're about to die, or you're not about to die" is false. In 4e, at negative hit points, you roll death checks - thus making your chances of dying in any particular round a matter of luck. IMO, this makes for an exciting game.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).

I do not understand why you say this is a problem. I would appreciate it if you could explain.

When you say "need never worry about wounds..." I would say that again, this is down to the DM and the players to decide. They can decide that after an adventure (the Tomb of Fatal Death in my example) they want to narrate how they all spent days feeling ill, or taking bed rest whilst healing and nursing injuries, or, they can choose to ignore the slow healing of those wounds in narration if they want. Neither is badwrongfun IMO, but also mechanically speaking it is also irrelevant which they choose.

Which is more important to you, if I may ask - that the rules define the world in the same way that 'real-world' science describes the world, or that the rules describe the world in terms of stories? If it's the former, then you're dealing with some problems. If it's the latter, like me, I'm very happy that my game assumes that each new day sees the group mechanically at full strength, even if I can narrate them to still be carrying injuries. It supports the style of game that I wish to run, and play in.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Resolving everything by flipping a coin is only a problem if YOU make it one. That still doesn't make it a good mechanic for rpg combats.

No, it doesn't.

But the problems you are bringing up are not caused by the rules. They are caused by the way in which players & GMs may narrate injuries and healing.