"Stumbling Around in My Head" - The Feeling of Dissociation as a Player

[pemerton]

One of my particular strengths as a GM is describing combat in visceral and exciting detail. But 4E completely disrupted my ability to do that because the system doesn't actually tell you what type of wound a person suffered until after they've healed it.

I don't see any huge difference here from 3E, as far as the rules structure goes: a PC at negative hp in 3E has a 10% chance per round, and then per hour, of stabilising.

Not to mention, any trained nurse (+5 heal check and a roll of 10+) can stabilise a dying character, who will then recover all his/her hit points in a few days to a week of healing. What sort of injury is near-fatal yet can be so easily treated and recovered from? Not disembowelling, maiming etc. Perhaps some head wounds?

Of course, 3E has a practical difference from 4e - almost every dying PC is going to be treated with magical healing, which means - provided we ignore the phrase "Cure Light Wounds" - one can narrate away to one's heart's content, knowing that divine healing will cover up any gaps between narative and mechanic.

To achieve the same result in 4e, ban warlords, and house rule that a Heal check can't trigger second wind on an unconscious PC.

You want to claim that this is the only way to interpret pre-4E hit points?

The only claim I made about pre-4e hit points is that they are "dissociated", because they permit the player to make decisions on the basis of information that the PC does not and cannot possess - namely, that a particular arrow shot cannot be fatal.

I'm actually surprised that such a claim is controversial, given that it is the whole point of hit points to achieve this result. And the point of crit-based games like Runequest and Rolemaster to get rid of this feature of D&D, thereby putting the player in the same epistemic situation as the PC.

In point of fact, the 1E DMG is explicit in stating that any attack which inflicts hit point damage is a physical wound.

I suppose that's one way of reading the phrase "not substantially physical" (as quoted by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]).

Also, your math is wrong

I don't think so. Arrows in B/X D&D do 1d6 damage. The only damage adjustment possible to a bow shot, in Moldvay Basic, is +1 for +1 arrows. As for the hit point total of a 3rd level fighter, it is 3d8 plus 3 times any CON bonus. Twenty hit points would be on the high side, but well within the realms of possibility. And a PC at 20 hit points cannot be killed by a single bowshot with a maximum damage of 7. There would always be at least 13 hit points left.

and you're mistaking abstraction for dissociation.

I hear this said quite often.

But I've never been told what it is that is being abstracted by a system that gives the player access to information that the PC cannot have - namely, that a bow shot cannot be fatal.

 

[GreyICE]

Why is everyone trying to apply real world logic to D&D? That never works.

D&D runs on heroic logic. John McClane gets the loving beat out of him, yet staggers on, and never seems all that affected. Malcolm Reynolds gets shot, is freezing to death, and still manages to try his hand at starship repairs.

Of course someone who is down is dying. He's bleeding heavily and woozy. And the Warlord tells him "bandage that up and get up. you've got promises to fill before you let yourself die."

It's action movie logic, not real-world logic. D&D has always operated there. The world where no wounds inflict lingering injuries, the world where jumping off a cliff seems reasonable, a world where an exploding ball of flame can go off next to you for... No effect. Because you're that good.

 

[S'mon]

I don't see any huge difference here from 3E, as far as the rules structure goes: a PC at negative hp in 3E has a 10% chance per round, and then per hour, of stabilising.

Not to mention, any trained nurse (+5 heal check and a roll of 10+) can stabilise a dying character, who will then recover all his/her hit points in a few days to a week of healing. What sort of injury is near-fatal yet can be so easily treated and recovered from? Not disembowelling, maiming etc. Perhaps some head wounds?

Blood loss, maybe? It doesn't need to be likely; it just needs to be conceivable enough for fantasy. In any case it then becomes a Suspension of Disbelief, rather than a Dissociation (between mechanics and world-fiction) issue.

BTW my Pathfinder game has now had three PCs 'bleed out', with the first two of them only being at a few negative hp to start with, and an untrained healer repeatedly trying and failing to save them (the last one was already 1 pt off death before the grey ooze gripping him died). It was very "fantasy effin Vietnam".

In 3e or PF it doesn't seem to matter that it's very possible for the trained medic to quickly stabilise the dying PC, what seems to matter for SoD is that it's possible for the untrained medic to fail miserably. But in either case this does not resemble the 4e DC 10 heal check to Activate Second Wind on the dying PC, which can't really map to anything in-world (unless you rewind the narrative) and is thus a Dissociation issue.

 

[S'mon]

But I've never been told what it is that is being abstracted by a system that gives the player access to information that the PC cannot have - namely, that a bow shot cannot be fatal.

A bow shot certainly can be fatal if the PC lets it. Say a 1d4+1 AD&D crossbow vs a Fighter with 50 hp, the crossbowman can fire before the Fighter closes to melee. If the PC really just stands there and doesn't try to dodge, he is choosing not to use the combat rules, he takes the full force of the bolt and dies or is critically injured. The 50 hp Fighter can choose to use his abilities to not get killed by the mook with the bow, unless sleeping or helpless - sleeping allows 1e assassination % roll or 3e Coup de Gras, truly helpless is usually auto-dead in 1 round. Deliberately choose to make yourself helpless, you can get shot in the gut* and bleed out just like anyone else.

I really can't see what the issue is with this. Even in IRL there are lots of people who would be very very unlikely to be killed by the lone mook with the x-bow. There are plenty of people IRL I am confident could kill me, even should I be pointing a crossbow or gun at them from 20' away across an open field. In fantasy literature and movies they're ubiquitous. If those people do get killed, it can easily be modelled by the crossbowman actually being a 1e Assassin, or 3e high level Rogue with loads of Sneak Attack, etc.

*In 4e though your PC actually can get shot in the gut, by a Highwayman with Shot to Gut (Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale) - and be fine!

 

[S'mon]

I'm actually surprised that such a claim is controversial, given that it is the whole point of hit points to achieve this result. And the point of crit-based games like Runequest and Rolemaster to get rid of this feature of D&D, thereby putting the player in the same epistemic situation as the PC.

In Runequest/BRP it's equally impossible for the unarmoured man to be hit several times yet keep fighting. Something which IRL happens frequently. Runequest merely designs around modeling the average man being hit by the average blow, and excludes outliers. That can assist immersion, if the PC is supposed to be an average man. But Runequest is no more realistic than D&D. At least in D&D it is possible to model the full range of possible outcomes from death-in-one-shot to repeated minor wounds, depending on the hit points of the man. Can't do that in Runequest per RAW.

 

[mmadsen]

In Runequest/BRP it's equally impossible for the unarmoured man to be hit several times yet keep fighting. Something which IRL happens frequently.

Yes, that the nature of hit points. Either they're low, and characters can't survive multiple deadly attacks, or they're high, and characters can't die from a single deadly attack. They're either predictably lethal or predictably non-lethal.

Saving throws, on the other hand, model the unpredictability of real-life injuries -- but don't offer up plot-protection by default.

 

[JustinAlexander]

I don't see any huge difference here from 3E, as far as the rules structure goes: a PC at negative hp in 3E has a 10% chance per round, and then per hour, of stabilising.

In 3E, all damage taken was physical damage. Period. No exceptions.

In 4E, some damage is actually just being winded or low on morale. This is evidenced by the healing abilities that, for example, restore your hit points by boosting your morale. But here's the catch: There's no way to know whether a wound was physical or just a morale bummer until after you've healed it. (Because the nature of the wound is determined by the nature of the ability used to heal it.)

Thus it's impossible to describe the nature of a wound at the moment it's inflicted. (Unless you just don't care about a rules-mandated retcon a few minutes later.)

I'm not sure why you think the stabilization mechanics are relevant to any of this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But this is a stunned boxer who without help will die in an average of about 40 seconds! So there's this huge shift from hp as 'stun track' to negative hp = 'dying!' to 'whoops, it was just stun track!" when the PC gets healing.

This is a boxer who's gone down bleeding. That is what you know. You don't know why without a detailed medical examination. That it's something serious is a risk, and you need to account for that risk - but the rules don't zoom in that far. Indeed, they can't.

In 3e or PF it doesn't seem to matter that it's very possible for the trained medic to quickly stabilise the dying PC, what seems to matter for SoD is that it's possible for the untrained medic to fail miserably. But in either case this does not resemble the 4e DC 10 heal check to Activate Second Wind on the dying PC, which can't really map to anything in-world (unless you rewind the narrative) and is thus a Dissociation issue.

That "Activate second wind" was IMO a mistake. But it's not the real world you map 4e to - it's holywood physics. And that's pulling someone back into the fight. Too easy, definitely (and I keep forgetting that it's the second wind that's DC 10 and stabilise at DC15 as this makes no sense to me).

I really can't see what the issue is with this. Even in IRL there are lots of people who would be very very unlikely to be killed by the lone mook with the x-bow. There are plenty of people IRL I am confident could kill me, even should I be pointing a crossbow or gun at them from 20' away across an open field. In fantasy literature and movies they're ubiquitous.

Likewise. But this assumes that the crossbow bolt misses. Not that it gets a good hit.

In 3E, all damage taken was physical damage. Period. No exceptions.

And this runs into huge realism problems in a lot of places. The first is that it makes falling weird. The second is that it makes PCs tougher than the armour they wear. And the third is that it means that critical hits simply aren't. If the PC was skilled enough to "turn a serious blow into a less serious one" (as stated by the 3.5 SRD) then the hit wasn't a critical hit in the first place. There is no one in the world who, unarmoured, should survive a full on hit from an orc with an axe.

In 4E, some damage is actually just being winded or low on morale. This is evidenced by the healing abilities that, for example, restore your hit points by boosting your morale. But here's the catch: There's no way to know whether a wound was physical or just a morale bummer until after you've healed it. (Because the nature of the wound is determined by the nature of the ability used to heal it.)

This is a very common misapprehension. There is very little in 4e that restores hit points out of nothing. In order to do that you need surgeless healing (the Cleric has quite a bit including Cure Light Wounds, the Shaman has some, and I don't think the Warlord has any). There are, however, a lot of ways that allow someone to dig deep into their own reserves and overcome the immediate impact of the wound and bring themselves back onto their feet.

A wound is not healed by Inspiring Word. While the healing surge is lost, the wound is still there. It has just, through grit, determination, or endurance, been overcome. (Modulo however many bonus d6 the Healing Word/Inspiring Word provided - which may be actual healing in the Healing Word's case but is morale and determination in Inspiring Word).

Yes, this is cinematic. The whole of 4e is cinematic.

 

[pemerton]

Blood loss, maybe?

Good suggestion. But that still puts an upper limit on the amount of blood-and-gore that can be narrated. No disembowelments or loppings off of limbs, for example.

In 3e or PF it doesn't seem to matter that it's very possible for the trained medic to quickly stabilise the dying PC, what seems to matter for SoD is that it's possible for the untrained medic to fail miserably.

This is also possible in 4e - just as an untrained person can miss a 15+ check, they can (less often, obviously) miss a 10+ check.

But in either case this does not resemble the 4e DC 10 heal check to Activate Second Wind on the dying PC, which can't really map to anything in-world

Why not? Isn't it the healer cradling the head of the "dying PC" and urging them not to go yet into that good night? Or, for a more Pulp Fiction feel, giving them an adreline shot?

A bow shot certainly can be fatal if the PC lets it.

<snip>

If the PC really just stands there and doesn't try to dodge, he is choosing not to use the combat rules, he takes the full force of the bolt and dies or is critically injured.

This implies that hit point loss equals dodging. Which seems at odds with hit points equals meat.

I really can't see what the issue is with this. Even in IRL there are lots of people who would be very very unlikely to be killed by the lone mook with the x-bow.

Again, this seems to imply that hit points equals dodging. Whereas in my example the archer can achieve the best possible hit (no crit rules in Moldvay Basic, so a role of 6 on the d6 represents best possible) and the fighter keep going.

(I'm really just reiterating [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s point here.)

In 3E, all damage taken was physical damage. Period. No exceptions.

I'm looking at the 3E Psionics handbook (the original one, not the XPH), p 81. 2nd level Telepathy power Inflict Pain:

You telepathically stabe the mind of your foe, causing horrible agony. The telepathic strike deals 3d6 points of damage.​

In what way is that physical?

Phantasmal Killer is more of a borderline case: a successful Fort save leads to 3d6 points of damage. What's that? Maybe the shock of a heart attack that the person survives. But in that case, 4e psychic damage can be analysed the same way - the physical shock (on the heart, the brain) of strong emotions like fear or shock.

And as Neonchameleon has explained (and [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] too, in some other threads earlier this year), there is no reason why damage in 4e can't all be physical. Hit point recovery is just pressing on despite the injury.

Thus it's impossible to describe the nature of a wound at the moment it's inflicted.

<snip>

I'm not sure why you think the stabilization mechanics are relevant to any of this.

The relevance is this: in 3E, the rules constrain the narration of wounds in a certain way: you must be able to explain how they stabilised and a person recovered from them on his/her own in a week or so. That is, no disembowelments, maimings etc.

And in 4e, the rules constrain the narration of wounds in a certain way: you must be able to explain how, perhaps with some urging from his/her friends, a person pushes on despite the injury and keeps going without noticeable impariment. That is, no disembowelments, maimings etc.

What injury might one narrate in 3E, consistent with it being recovered from in accordance with those stabilisation rules, that you couldn't narrate in 4e, consistent with its "recovery by inspiration" rules?

S'mon and I have talked about head wounds and blood loss. To me, these seem no more problematic for 4e than 3E.

In Runequest/BRP it's equally impossible for the unarmoured man to be hit several times yet keep fighting.

This is true if all the wounds are to the same location, especially because of RQs weird weapon die expressions: sword 1d8+1, dagger 1d4+2. If you changed some of those to get onto single dice - say, sword 1d10, dagger 1d6 or 1d8 - then it would be possible, as typical abdomen hit points are 4, and 3 min-damage hits would still leave 1 hp in the abdomen.

If the wounds are to different locations then it is certainly possible to sustain multiple wounds in RQ and keep going.

 

[rounser]

There's a lot of lipstick application to the proverbial pig going on in this thread, IMO. A surfeit of mechanics for D&D which are unenvisionable or difficult to map to anything going on in the fantasy world are IMO just plain old bad game design, not narrativist, dramatist, cinematic, or any kind of self-important sounding game design theory jargon word. But again this obvious flaw gets the runaround.