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

[Mathew_Freeman]

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.

Yes, I have read through the whole thread. Some of my fellow posters in the Hivemind thread in Off-topic called me a masochist for even coming in here.

I've seen you talking about 'sandbox play' and 'episodic play' but I'm not clear as to why Quantum Wounding is only an issue in episodic play. I would appreciate it if you could explain exactly what the differences are between sandbox and episodic play, and how Quantum Wounding is or isn't a problem in each one.

Also - given that you're happy to admit that Quantum Wounding isn't a problem if you seperate mechanics from narrative - why are you continuing to argue that it's a problem? What is forcing you to push mechanics and narrative together in a way that causes you a problem? Is it the rules, or is it just that's what you've always done, or what?

 

[Fifth Element]

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).

You're still conflating these two issues? At least with this one we know it's only the rate of healing that's a problem. As you said in another thread, if you were only able to regain 1/4 of your hp overnight then it would be better.

So this really is just a "dial turned up" issue. I can't see how that's a "worse" problem than something you claim has to do with an entirely new paradigm.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, I have read through the whole thread. Some of my fellow posters in the Hivemind thread in Off-topic called me a masochist for even coming in here.

You are. We all are.

I've seen you talking about 'sandbox play' and 'episodic play' but I'm not clear as to why Quantum Wounding is only an issue in episodic play.

Other way around. Schroedinger can safely stay with his cat in episodic play.

I'm at work right now, but I'll try to come up with a detailed and long-winded answer later.


RC

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Other way around. Schroedinger can safely stay with his cat in episodic play.

I'm at work right now, but I'll try to come up with a detailed and long-winded answer later.

I'm only at work for another hour, so I guess I'll enjoy responding to that tomorrow.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed, but then I am not opening these threads. If there was a thread for folks to discuss "Longswords deal 2d20. I don't like it." without folks coming in to tell them that (a) longswords don't deal 2d20, (b) longswords always dealt 2d20, (c) they are fooling themselves; longswords should deal 2d20, and even (d) they really like longswords dealing 2d20; they just don't know it yet, I suppose there would be less of a problem.

Of course, I have noted that, with Schroedinger's Wounding, a number of threads have opened with no apparent purpose but to say that those who believe it is a feature of 4e are kinda stupid.

Overall, I guess what I am saying is that (1) there is a thread ignore tool on EN World, and (2) if you don't enjoy discussing moonpies, don't discuss moonpies. Again, have you seen me disrupting any pro-4e discussions since the game came out? Any? There is a reason for that.

I will also note that there are some great pro-4e folks who are, apparently, not at all threatened that some don't like their game of choice, and don't go around disrupting anti-4e discussions. Or maybe they are just really smart, and know that the fastest way to make anti-anything threads go away is to not post pro-same thing in them.

I suppose the problem is no side is willing to stop "educating" the other. I am not sure I want to put the blame on a particular side, because it doesn't help anyway, and I can only speak for myself.

Oh, also you missed my point: "X has always had problem Y, Z just makes it worse" is not a very convincing pro-Z argument. Making Y worse isn't good game design, and if you had problem Y when it was less of a problem, Z is unlikely to fix it for you.

My point is - Y is a problem for you, and they made that problem worse with Z, but their real goal is A, and A is more important to me then Y or Z.

So yeah, you're right. Z won't help you, only me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suppose the problem is no side is willing to stop "educating" the other. I am not sure I want to put the blame on a particular side, because it doesn't help anyway, and I can only speak for myself.

You might see ant-4e folks in pro-4e threads trying to "educate" the other side. I'm not sure; I don't participate in those threads. I have nothing useful to add.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My preemptive "strike" on episodic vs. operation play is this:

Is it crucial for operational play that the motivation for rest comes entirely from the rules of the game?

The entire motivation for entering the game of operation play doesn't come from the rules, either. There is no rule forcing me to even go adventuring and exploring a dungeon or traveling the wilderness. There are no rules telling me that I have to save the princess, that I have to hunt down the six-fingered murderer of my father, that I have to aim for greater glory, that I have to flirt with the barmaid.

We do all this without rule incentives to do so. What is so special about extended rests in operation or sandbox play that we need rules to enforce them? And why should these rules be healing in the first place? AD&D and 3E had lots of magical healing that brought people back to full hit points in rarely more then a day. So, even if theoretically you didn't have a Cleric or a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, lasting injuries might be reason to rest for some time. But won't you, in practice, have that Cleric and maybe even those Wands to recover the party? Isn't relying on the wound system for enforcing rests questionable?

The way I see it, and probably the 4E designers saw it - whatever hit points are supposed to represent in the game world. For actual gameplay, they are not the tool used to determine long bedtimes. There is to much magic in the game to make that impossible. So no longer try to pretend otherwise, instead go full in and make it all recover automatically. That's the way the game will probably be played anyway.

This is exactly one of the things that I find so refreshing and so laudable about the entire 4E design. Thinking things through to the point when the game is played and thinking about what will _really_ happen. And then consequently design the way in the way so that the RAW and RAI match how the game is played.

I can see how this is also disconcerting or feels wrong. Just because most people "cheat" with magic doesn't mean that we should make this "cheat" official part of the rules and make it available to everyone.

But I see this just as the kind of brutal honesty I wish more games and designers would employ. "We figured most of you play the game this way anyway, so we said - screw it - make the game work exactly like you play it anyway". Yeah, maybe they missed a few people. Maybe there are groups that don't use Wands of Cure Light Wounds in 3E, maybe there are people that don't rely on Clerics to recover the party in a day of rest. But the truth is, they are not using the system to its full "potential". So, if they could do that in AD&D or 3E, they can do it in 4E. If they don't want healing overnight, they pretend it won't exist, just as they pretended that buying or creating Wands of Cure Light Wounds wouldn't be a good strategy.

Maybe the designers were wrong in this assumption. Maybe the people that "pretended" instant healing over night didn't exist because the rules allowed them to get into situation were it actually didn't, even if it was not "smart play" or "power-gaming". And now that the rules don't even offer this "illusion" anymore, it's just too much. But maybe even that is a good thing. Now these people can say what they really want, and figure out their goals, likes and dislikes. And maybe they will find a system that suites their needs, or get heard by someone else that will make a system fitting for them.

 

[Derren]

Linking together "hit point damage" and "physical injury" as an automatic assumption is something that I can understand. It's fairly obvious and consistent with D&D throughout the editions.

However, linking together "regaining hit points" and "injuries disappearing" is an assumption that D&D players in this thread are making - it is not something that is in the rules. It doesn't matter if this assumption is referred to over and over again - it is not in the RAW, nor the RAI.

Therefore - when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word, all they are doing is the mechanical "regaining hit points" effect, not the "making injuries disappear" effect that is being added on. And as such, when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word they are helping a character continue with the fight, not fixing physical injuries.

As such, Schrodinger's Wounding disappears in a puff of logic.

And is replaced by Shroedingers Death saves.

Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.
In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.

But somehow the character is able to stand up again and be rather fine off without outside help, or after a warlord shouts at him (Are you unconscious at negative HP?). And despite that those things can't heal any physical injury which would lead to this persons death they do.
So you at least have a Schroedingers Death Save effect where you can't say for certain if a PC sustained a mortal wound or not. That can only be determined after the PC self heals/is shouted back up or after he dies or is healed by magic.
And as such death saves are caused by wounds we are right back at Schroedingers Wounding

 

[Scribble]

And is replaced by Shroedingers Death saves.

Fact is, the PC is about to die and that was a result of HP loss.
In turn that means that at least some part of the HP loss must have been a physical, potentially mortal, wound.

But somehow the character is able to stand up again and be rather fine off without outside help, or after a warlord shouts at him (Are you unconscious at negative HP?). And despite that those things can't heal any physical injury which would lead to this persons death they do.
So you at least have a Schroedingers Death Save effect where you can't say for certain if a PC sustained a mortal wound or not. That can only be determined after the PC self heals/is shouted back up or after he dies or is healed by magic.
And as such death saves are caused by wounds we are right back at Schroedingers Wounding

And what about the lost Healing Surge?

 

[LostSoul]

In a sandbox game, if you completely disjoin hit points from physical injury, as you suggest, and everyone is always in perfect (game mechanics) health the next day, the problem is worse, not better.

My gut tells me that I agree with you, but I am not too sure why that is. Can you expand on this?