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

[Scribble]

No. (Not only no, but this is almost exactly the opposite of what I said).

Then maybe we're misunderstanding eachother in some way?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because it's fun?

But it would be even more fun if it was also a good idea to play the unarmed non-warrior type guy. That's the thing.

Maybe that's what simulation or genre emulation is all about.

If you want to may a "silly horror" game, you would want a game that rewards you for not checking on the supposed corpse of the serial killer. Maybe it doesn't give you points for not doing so, but maybe you first have to make a willpower check to dare looking. So if you don't look, you know "hey, that's trope #3 in horror games. And it just happened, right here while I was playing!"

A different example: Imagine you wanted to play a high action game, where the characters go in guns blazing and kill enemies by the dozen. And then the game rules tell you that you have have between 8-12 hit points and a 50 % chance to avoid a typical attack dealing 2d6 points of damage. On the other hand, if you roll a Charisma Check, you have a 85% chance to bring your enemies to accept a "reasonable" bluff (like wearing the right disguise - no check required - and claiming to be someone with the right to be in the area. This game clearly fails at being a high action game, but it might be great for an investigative game or a "heist" game.

For similar reasons, I love the "Come and Get It" power in 4E - it facilitates a common scene in stories and movies - the warrior getting the enemies to all approach him and get whacked up for it...

 

[Lacyon]

Then maybe we're misunderstanding eachother in some way?

If you want me to play a character with limited, vague, and potentially unreliable information, I can do that.

One way to do this is to detail specifically what limited, vague, and potentially unreliable information my character has. I'll, of course, treat the information as potentially unreliable. He'll act in accordance with this limited, vague, and potentially unreliable information until he comes across other information which contradicts it (from direct experience, old tomes, or whatever).

Another way to do this is to allow my own personal recollection of such information to substitute for the vague and unreliable information my character possesses. In which case, it's up to the DM to make sure that this information is, in fact, incomplete and occasionally unreliable.

RC and I both seem to prefer the second alternative. I prefer it for the same reason I prefer abstract hit points - detailing all the specifics of what every character "knows" about every monster is a lot of extra work for (what I find to be) an insufficient reward, compared with the DM occasionally changing up a vulnerability or resistance.

As always, of course, tastes will differ.

 

[GlaziusF]

Failing to explain that wounding is being disjointed from mechanics, though, is a flaw. If that is what was intended.

I thought that there being absolutely no mechanic supporting hit point loss having any effect that won't go away when you rest and/or sleep was enough explanation that, y'know, hit point loss doesn't have any mechanical effect that won't go away when you rest and/or sleep.

There are two things that don't just go away: anything on a disease track, which can include any persistent wound you'd care to name with a minimum of creativity, and any effect you suffer from during a multi-day skill challenge, such as losing healing surges from exhaustion in the jungle.

So if you want to introduce challenges that persist longer than just a day, you have to use mechanics that persist longer than just a day. I didn't think that was too much of a stretch.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Now you make the obvious point here that narratively, the abstract definition of hit points opens up a plethora of suitable, interesting and imaginative interpretations. However, how many of these narrative interpretations could conceivably kill a heroic character? Is it not easier to work on the premise that in most cases in combat, that if a character is dropped into unconsciousness and is forced to start making death saves that it was a physical injury that caused it?

It may or may not be easier to work on that premise, but I've been arguing about it because it was suggested (and no, I can't find a quote to support that directly) that 4e was causing this problem by something in the rules.

I maintain that there is nothing in the rules about "hp loss = physical damage" or "regaining hp = curing of physical damage", and therefore Quantum Wounding is a non-issue.

Sorry to belabour the point but I think it has been generally accepted in previous editions that if a character gets "hit" into the negatives, it has been a physical injury that has done it. 4E clouds the definition of hit points but examples given in the 4E book use physical damage (otyugh slam) and continually express characters taking damage. As I said, it is fair enough conclusion still that it is physical damage that has forced a character into the negatives the majority of the time. As such is it just a problem of narration?

Therefore any Quantum Wounding problems are happening because the players & DM are choosing to have them at the table, not because of the rules.

I disagree. The rules guide you down the physical injury path as I showed above, but as you say, it is up to the player's and DM to narrate around this to avoid quantum wounding.

I don't deny that the problem CAN exist, nor do I wish to tell people how to play their game. I do, however, object to the idea that it's something in the 4e rules that is causing this problem.

From how I'm reading my 4E rules, the problem is caused by how the rules are explicitly and implicitly presented mixed with how groups have typically played in previous editions. You can either tepidly narrate against it or you can just use the neutral "you take x points of damage" and leave it at that; or you can describe the wound that has knocked a character unconscious and describe the character getting back up to unhindered health the next day (which bothers some) and introduces the Schroedinger's wounding conundrum.

In the great scheme of things as Hypersmurf points out, it's most probably not that bigger issue. However for me, hit points and healing are most likely the biggest issue I have with 4E. I've never been satisfied with any treatment of hit points yet in D&D, but it certainly has not stopped me from enjoying D&D either - 4E included.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Lacyon]

Sorry to belabour the point but I think it has been generally accepted in previous editions that if a character gets "hit" into the negatives, it has been a physical injury that has done it.

I can think of at least one counterexample:

Phantasmal Killer

 

[Scribble]

Another way to do this is to allow my own personal recollection of such information to substitute for the vague and unreliable information my character possesses. In which case, it's up to the DM to make sure that this information is, in fact, incomplete and occasionally unreliable.

And if you're playing a very dumb character that should in all rights have a hard time remembering his own name let alone as much as you might remember about the MM?

Aside from that, the real issue is it seems to disqualify the idea of "Smart Play."

Smart play according to Raven indicates you should attack with a silvered weapon, because it says so in the MM. To not attack with a silvered weapon would be unsmart.

But you also know the DM might have changed it so that silvered weapons heal the lycantrhope... So now the "Smart" action becomes the unsmart action.

So really there's no smart play at all because every action is equally valid depending upon the DM's mood.

The same would be true with HPs. The smart action is to continue on because you're at full HPs depsite narration being difefrent. But the DM might have changed it, so maybe the smart option is now to rest up and heal your wounds.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And if you're playing a very dumb character that should in all rights have a hard time remembering his own name let alone as much as you might remember about the MM?

If the rules contain no mechanic that specifies a character with a low Intelligence score should forget his own name, and if there is advantage to remembering it, then it is 'smart' play to remember the name, and it is not 'smart' play to forget the name. To give up advantage where the rules do not require it is not 'smart' play.

It may be satisfying to have a dumb character forget his name, even if it gets him in trouble... but then there's a conflict between 'smart' and satisfying play.

-Hyp.

 

[Lacyon]

And if you're playing a very dumb character that should in all rights have a hard time remembering his own name let alone as much as you might remember about the MM?

Typically, I'm not playing such a character. Particularly not in D&D, and even moreso in 4E where standard generation has a minimum Int of 8. But if I were, it might make more sense to use the first option for that character.

Aside from that, the real issue is it seems to disqualify the idea of "Smart Play."

Dubious.

Smart play according to Raven indicates you should attack with a silvered weapon, because it says so in the MM. To not attack with a silvered weapon would be unsmart.

But you also know the DM might have changed it so that silvered weapons heal the lycantrhope... So now the "Smart" action becomes the unsmart action.

It still is "smart play" in option 2, for the same reason that attacking a small creature's Fort instead of Reflex defense is smart play. The fact that information is potentially unreliable does not make it completely unreliable.

So really there's no smart play at all because every action is equally valid depending upon the DM's mood.

If it's mood-dependent, I may be needing to find a new DM.

The same would be true with HPs. The smart action is to continue on because you're at full HPs depsite narration being difefrent. But the DM might have changed it, so maybe the smart option is now to rest up and heal your wounds.

I'm generally fine with the statistics of creatures that my character does not have reliable information on being changed to reflect the fact that my information in the game is sometimes unreliable. Once my character has reliable information on such creatures, I generally expect that to stop.

Likewise with healing.

 

[Scribble]

Typically, I'm not playing such a character. Particularly not in D&D, and even moreso in 4E where standard generation has a minimum Int of 8. But if I were, it might make more sense to use the first option for that character.

At which point you're at odds with "smart play."

It still is "smart play" in option 2, for the same reason that attacking a small creature's Fort instead of Reflex defense is smart play. The fact that information is potentially unreliable does not make it completely unreliable.

Sure but it still leaves room for option #2 to be just as "smart" as option number 1 since the end result is you have to attack it and find out.

Talk about Shroedinger.... A lycanthrope is both vulnerable to silver and immune to silver.

I guess the DM could make the determination based ona die roll weighted in favor of the MM option being the one that is actually true so that the original "smart" option stays true to being the smartest choice.

I'm generally fine with the statistics of creatures that my character does not have reliable information on being changed to reflect the fact that my information in the game is sometimes unreliable. Once my character has reliable information on such creatures, I generally expect that to stop.

Likewise with healing.

Cool. So once you realize that despite being at full HPs your narrative wounds still hurt you, things should remain that way, and now resting to heal your narrative wounds should be the smart option...