Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Sepulchrave II]

I've been crazy enough to read every post in this thread over the past few days, and watch the argument rage back and forth without surcease. Fundamentally, two separate paradigms - actually more than two - are being articulated. This thread has been especially interesting to me, as I've been playing a lot of Pendragon recently, where characters can be incapacitated for months after receiving serious wounds, and, in fact, may never recover fully from them.

D&D, in all of its incarnations, is remarkably forgiving of injury.

I think what would be interesting is getting all the obviously intelligent and imaginative people on this thread together to create a damage/healing system that uses hit points (that is one D&D sacred cow that should never be killed) and makes sense to all of us here. It would be nice to see that such a thing is possible. Now there's a new challenge.

This is a noble (if perhaps forlorn) hope. I actually believe that hit points as we understand them must die - I have a vain hope that 6e will come to this realization.

Fundamentally, it means shifting player expectations: real wounds need to be as undesirable as real wounds; almost as unacceptable as death to a character, with the understanding that a real wound is a whole lot of hassle which needs to be seriously addressed taking time, resources and halting progress through the "adventure." Just like death is now.

Consider a dead character. What do you do with them? Leave them to rot? Take them to a temple or have the party healer use powerful magic to have them raised/resurrected? If a real wound were as infrequent as death is currently, it would present as much of a challenge or obstacle.

Characters might still be stunned, knocked out, exhausted, winded, battered and bruised. They can run out of luck, divine protection, chutzpah, mojo or "it." But if they're really wounded, they're in trouble.

I'm still all for two HP pools, one for "physical" (taking the punishment and heroically continuing) and one for "other" (such as dodging, deflecting, armor absorbing the blow, luck saving the individual, divine guidance or force saving the individual, fate saving the individual, determination, fatigue, etc.). The "other" pool would always get absorbed first, though attached effects don't work if they only damage "other" HP (for example, if a power dealt damage + prone, it wouldn't knock the target prone if it only damaged "other" HP).

I'm in partial agreement with this; various WP/VP systems have tried to implement it with varying degrees of success.

Ideally, I'd like the "other" pool that you speak of absorb mana/spellcasting power and action points as well. A universal resource which scales with level. I don't know what I'd call it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

At no point does JC's example have a "grand comeback". At the table, they would be completely different. For one, in JC's example, the fighter is not wounded in any way, shape or form. Nor is the character at any point actually threatened with death.

But they play out the same? Ballocks. In my example, the character is potentially going to die.

This is mechanics, it's not narrative. In the actual story, the warrior was not close to dying, other than the wound he received. In this respect, the narrative is the same.

In JC's example, he takes minor damage, gets knocked prone and gets up and attacks.

The wound he takes is probably worse than in 4e, honestly, though it doesn't need to be. That is, his wound will probably take longer to heal if left to heal naturally (though it's not the case if he only takes a minor wound that heals overnight, just like in 4e). Then he gets up, charges, and attacks, first with his sword, then with his shield.

In the actual story, the events unfolded in exactly the same manner. The narrative is the same.

And this is the same? This is narratively indistinguishable?

Yes. If you were told just the events, they'd be identical.

(1) Troll knocks warrior down with an obvious wound (bad or light, your call, but it can be the same either way).
(2) Warrior blacks out, but only for a moment.
(3) The party drives the troll back while the troll continues to attack the party.
(4) The warrior gets up and charges the troll, hitting it with a sword, than with a shield.

The narrative is indistinguishable. If what gets you is, "the warrior was in danger of dying" than what you have in another potential narrative path (but not another narrative [or story])-that is, that the warrior could have died from the attack. And, like 4e (where you can die from an attack), 3.X could also support a narrative where the warrior is killed from the attack (either in one hit, or bleeding out). In this case, the narrative of the warrior getting hit and bleeding out would be the same.

The narrative is the story. In the situation you described, the 3.X narrative can follow the 4e narrative to several different ends:
(1) The warrior is never injured.
(2) The warrior takes a light injury (it heals overnight).
(3) The warrior is knocked unconscious momentarily, but wakes up.
(4) The warrior is knocked unconscious, but is stabilized (through aid or alone).
(5) The warrior is knocked unconscious, but bleeds out.
(6) The warrior is killed outright.

However, 4e falls behind in at least one narrative area:
(1) The warrior is badly injured, which will take a few days of bed rest to fully recover from if left to heal naturally.

This is the point. The narratives (the stories) are the same in what you've presented. 4e falls behind in this area (but exceeds 3.X in others, in my opinion). It's fine, because it's preference. But I think it's basically undeniably true. But, as always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've been crazy enough to read every post in this thread over the past few days, and watch the argument rage back and forth without surcease.

Well, at least it was interesting to someone!

I'm in partial agreement with this; various WP/VP systems have tried to implement it with varying degrees of success.

Ideally, I'd like the "other" pool that you speak of absorb mana/spellcasting power and action points as well. A universal resource which scales with level. I don't know what I'd call it.

Yeah, the "other" pool is just a placeholder anyways. I wouldn't be against what you're proposing, necessarily. I think it could really be expanded upon. I'd fork it to a new thread if I didn't think it'd get drowned out in people fighting over HP, and we have this thread for that, it seems. Interesting proposition, though. I'm curious where that idea could lead. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Sigh, it looks like I have to do this point by point.

The troll rolls an attack roll using the Awesome Blow feat. Sir Billingsley fails his Reflex save, flies 10 feet, and lands prone.

Foul! The original narrative did not move Sir Billingsley.

The fight continues without Sir Billingsley standing, including a successful bull rush to push it back.

Narration to Sir Billingsley's player as it hits his turn.

Description to Sir Billingsley's player as he takes the situation into account (the troll continued to attack the party after hitting Sir Billingsley, which is represented in him continuing to attack after Sir Billingsley is knocked prone and out of reach).

Foul! Why did Sir Billingsley not stand up on his turn?

Sir Billingsley stands as a move action (using the Heroic Surge feat), and makes a charge at the troll, hitting it.

Using the Pounce alternate class feature, Sir Billingsley makes a shield slam with his second attack, tacking on the Shield Slam feat to daze the troll.

I'm not even sure where this one comes from to be honest. Pounce alternate class feature? Pounce is a monster ability, not a class feature, AFAIK. So, he's stood up, moved and made multiple attacks. Foul!

Takes jumping through some hoops, but I think the end result is similar. It's not core, I'll give you that. But it is doable.

Sorry, no. At not point was the PC actually threatened with death. Where is the "face awash in blood" part? That's probably the most important part of the scene, yet it's completely absent from the narrative.

So, we have two completely different scenes as JC describes it.

But, let's add on a "stunning" condition. That does make it a bit closer, but, still not the same since the PC is still never threatened with death. He's had his bell rung, but, he's not going to die.

In the 4e example, there is a reasonable chance that he will die. It's a heck of a lot more threatening than an overly complicated trip attack. Which is basically what Herreman and JC are describing here.

Yeah, I'm done here. The goalposts are on roller skates and as soon as people want to start playing dueling dictionaries, it's just not going to get any better from there. Funny how the definition of "narrative" only comes up what ten, eleven pages into the thread. No one seemed to question that narrative=description of events before.

Yeah, this is going nowhere fast.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Whenever I narrate what happens to a character, foe, monster or in game, I focus on the main points.

in 4e "the Wizard Jim Darkmagic throws yet another fireball, blasting away at the hamburger Minotaur zombies"

in pre-4e "the Wizard Jim Darkmagic throws his last remaining fireball, obliterating the hamburger Minotaur zombies"

I think in pre4e it gives off a sense of "I'm low on spells guys!" dread, something I think is amazingly realistic (IMO at least) meanwhile in 4e, you can go as long as you have healing surges and action points for.

Personally, the narration of a battle shouldn't really matter on the edition, wounds I can understand (with healing surges and all) are tricky


As for the challenge, I feel like I am the last one doing this....


The dragon lands infront of the party, as the rogue and the wizard turn and flee, the cleric chases after to calm them with his magics. The fighter stands with a smile. The dragon had already used his fiery breath to scare the party to where they are now, the swordsman had time. The claws of the great beast swung at the tongue-less warrior, to which the soldier bobbed under and with his sword in hand struck hard into the dragon's chest, the large gash continue to bleed, muscle and bone tore and shattered from the magical blade, runes of ice and power surged. The dragon reared back and let out a roar which shook the cavern, but the man was not afraid, he struck once more with a lucky blow, landing his blade into the left arm, a hard hit which seemed to nearly sever the claw. The dragon attacked no more, turn and fled from the magic-fueled slayer, finding a small cave high above the chamber to hide. He licked his wounds and hoped they healed soon, how long before the adventurers found his hidden hoard?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

No one seemed to question that narrative=description of events before.

I actually highlighted this in an earlier post in that there are two type of narratives that go on and I actually thought this was the tacit understanding throughout the thread. The immediate narrative (call it the in the moment description) and the overall or eventual narrative. Let's take the troll case as an example where Sir Bill is hurt, knocked down and "out of it".

In terms of the immediate narrative, in 4e he is in danger of dying as the three strike situation is undetermined. In 3e you could mirror this by keeping it in the positives but the blow was a critical one and thus forced a massive damage roll (again potentially being lethal). In both cases, he is in immediate peril of losing his life. However, he does gets up. Mechanically, he makes his save in 4e and his fort save in 3e and recovers from the stunning. He then goes on to whomp the troll's arse in both versions.

In terms of the eventual narrative, we know that the blow was not fatal and so all that is required is to have Sir Bill out of it for a bit which both JC's and yours replicate.

And so with a slight tweak, (the massive damage save) the immediate narrative (or description) is in alignment while the eventual narrative was already the same anyway. Of interest, when people are referring to "narrative", I think they are normally talking about the eventual narrative, and when they say description, I am thinking the immediate narrative. Don't burn JC for getting out the dictionary on this one, as the motive seemed only to clarify a confusion and certainly not to attack anyone. I think the tension between "narrative" and "description" is part of the reason why reasonable people on this thread have not been able to reasonably agree on something quite reasonable. Kind of like when that that that that that is referring to is different to the that that some people though that that that actually was [if you can follow... five thats in a row that make grammatical sense... that must be a record or something].

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sigh, it looks like I have to do this point by point.

I'm down.

Foul! The original narrative did not move Sir Billingsley.

The narrative remains the same either way. Troll knocks Sir Billingsley down.

Foul! Why did Sir Billingsley not stand up on his turn?

He did. It went:
(1) Troll's turn, Sir Billingsley is knocked prone.
(2) Party's turn, they attack troll, pushing it back.
(3) Sir Billingsley's turn, when he stands up and rushes.

I'm not even sure where this one comes from to be honest. Pounce alternate class feature? Pounce is a monster ability, not a class feature, AFAIK. So, he's stood up, moved and made multiple attacks. Foul!

Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian class feature (they lose fast movement to get it):

Alternative Class Feature Name
This section provides a general description of the alternative class feature, including some roleplaying suggestions for each variant of the standard class.
level: You can select the alternative class feature only at the indicated level.
Replaces: This line identifies the ability you must sacrifice to gain the alternative class feature.
Benefit: This section describes the mechanical effects of the alternative class feature.

Level: 1st.
Replaces: This benefit replaces the fast movement class feature.
Benefit: You gain one of the abilities described below, depending on the chosen totem. Each of these effects is a supernatural ability.
Lion Totem: Regal and intimidating, the powerful lion is a symbol of nobility among the races of the wild. By selecting him as your spiritual totem, you gain the pounce ability (MM 313).

No foul here.

Sorry, no. At not point was the PC actually threatened with death. Where is the "face awash in blood" part? That's probably the most important part of the scene, yet it's completely absent from the narrative.

Um, you just add that in when the troll smacks him. "The troll hits you, sending you flying back and knocking you down, your "face awash in blood" from the force of its blow." I didn't feel like I had to keep track of the description for you, since that's easily added. The mechanics keeping up is the hard part.

So, we have two completely different scenes as JC describes it.

No, we don't.

But, let's add on a "stunning" condition. That does make it a bit closer, but, still not the same since the PC is still never threatened with death. He's had his bell rung, but, he's not going to die.

He's not in the 4e narrative either (that is, he surged and got up, thus his wounds aren't going to kill him).

In the 4e example, there is a reasonable chance that he will die. It's a heck of a lot more threatening than an overly complicated trip attack. Which is basically what Herreman and JC are describing here.

This is mechanics, not narrative. Narratively, they're the same.

Yeah, I'm done here. The goalposts are on roller skates and as soon as people want to start playing dueling dictionaries, it's just not going to get any better from there. Funny how the definition of "narrative" only comes up what ten, eleven pages into the thread. No one seemed to question that narrative=description of events before.

... I've described exactly what I've meant multiple times in this thread and the Healing Surge thread that this spawned off of. The last time I posted definitions of a word, you told me to "man up" and use the words you liked instead. Your definitions didn't fit with me then, and the English language usage I've been using this entire time (that is, the definition of narrative) doesn't fit what you've been using from the start.

Two days into this thread, I said:

(As a side note, I want to make it very clear that I'm only speaking in terms of natural healing when I speak of narrative paths. I'm making no claim that there aren't as many total narrative options total in 4e as there is in 3.X.)

And, in the same day, in this thread, I said:

And the reason why is because you're making the issue about descriptions of wounds, and not narrative paths from the wounds received.

[SNIP]

Yeah, you can have these descriptions in 4e, but you can't have the long term effects, which is what I've been saying in the thread that spawned this one. Go ahead and replace the "infection" I used in my example with nearly any other serious-sounding wound. It's not whether or not the description can be used in 4e that's in question, it's whether or not the wound can change the story like it could in 3.X.

That long term wound changed the story, and that's where I'm saying 3.X has more narrative opportunities than 4e when it comes to wounds taken. If the wound would have healed overnight, the party picks it back up the next day and continues, in 3.X or in 4e. If he dies, they leave either way. If he's injured for a few days, they pack up, take off for a town, and come back when he's healed, and that's not possible with natural healing rules by RAW in 4e. Thus, 3.X offers more narrative paths than 4e when it comes to natural healing.

You're hunting for the wrong thing. You're saying, "there should be more narrative space, you said so!" I've clarified, saying that it's not about description, it's about how the long term wound can change the story. And, once again, it's "then why aren't I hearing tons of examples of descriptions available in 3.X that aren't in 4e?" Well, because that's not where I said 3.X had more narrative paths, that's why.

Name me as many different wound descriptions as you can that sound like they could be serious. You seem to think there are a lot that would work in 3.X or in 4e, so it shouldn't be hard. Plug the serious injury ones into my example, strip out the infection stuff, and track the story. If it differs from what 4e is able to offer by RAW on natural healing because it opens up a new path for the story to take, then I think 3.X offers more narrative paths in that context.

It keeps coming back to specifics of the wound, and that's sidestepping what we were talking about in the other thread (which, according to you, is what caused this spin-off). If you want to keep the topic the same, it's only fair that you don't sidestep what we were talking about, then somehow try to prove us wrong by pointing at stuff we never said as some sort of "gotcha".

I've mentioned it's not about realism, and it's not about specific wounds. It's about the effects the wounds (purely HP damage) have on the story. In this regard, I think 3.X has more narrative paths (healed overnight, dead, and healed in a couple days to a couple weeks) than 4e (healed overnight, dead). That's all I'm trying to say.

[SNIP]

Do you at least understand what I'm trying to communicate? I'm trying to civilly discuss what caused this entire thing. I'm trying to let you know -with clarity and civility- what I've been trying to say. I just feel like you're ignoring that to "win" something in this thread, and that's not something I'm very interested in. You're trying to "win" in regards to description, which isn't something I even commented on in the first place. As of yet, you haven't really acknowledged that you even know what I think myself or Herremann are trying to point out. I hope I'm not muddling it up somehow. As always, play what you like

I've got other quotes that are similar within the first five pages alone if you want them. But, look at that last paragraph, after I've clearly explained what I'm talking about. I wanted to know if you would even acknowledge what I'm trying to talk about. Do you know what your very next post in the thread is? Here it is:

Still not seeing more examples.

I said this two days after you started this thread (we're now about nine days in). You completely ignored it when I stated it extremely clearly. And you never commented on my above quote later on, either.

Yeah, this is going nowhere fast.

I wonder why. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Heh, so "Sir Billingsley" is now a barbarian? LOL. Wearing a helmet? Since I actually described him as wearing armor, his pounce abilty doesn't work does it?

Or maybe he's wearing a helmet and a loincloth. That's more believable.

Sure, we can make up crap all day long. Add in stuff about "infection" which is completely unsupported by the rules and then claim that it's all the same all you like. To me, you've pretty much ignored any part of the actual challenge and gone so far off the ranch, you're not even in the same time zone.

I've said that I buy the idea that long term wounds are difficult to narrate in 4e. I've said it more than a few times. However, my issue is that the idea of long term wounds is actually a pretty narrow corner case that's generally caused by the DM narrating himself into a corner. OTOH, removing the need for magical healing allows for characters to have the "heroic comeback", all without having to resort to making things up and ignoring the examples given.

After all, my Sir Billingsley could be ANY class in 4e. In your example, he can only be a single class, and a variant one at that. So, again, the narrative space in 4e, in this case is much larger.

But, then again, maybe in your version of D&D, barbarians wear armor and don't lose their abilities.

Again, it would be nice if your examples ACTUALLY followed the rules. Adding in serious wounds to 4e is a 15 minute job. The disease track allows you to add it in very easily. Heck, my current Dark Sun game in which I play (4e) USES this to narrate serious wounds. There, done. But, I'm not allowed to do that because, *gasp* it's not in the rules.

But, whenever we talk about the limitations of 3e, suddenly it's all freedom and light and you can do whatever the heck you want to.

 

[billd91]

Thank you for getting the point.

BryonD claimed, as I mentioned in the post, that there is nothing you can do in 4e that you can't do in 3e.

This is false and I've nicely proven it.

Thank you.

Why exactly are you wasting our time with a trivial point? Of course there are things 3e can't do, mechanically, and that's engage in uniquely 4e mechanics.

And I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding BryonD's point that nothing in 3e prevents you from playing like you do in 4e. Note that the antecedent discussion is about abstract nature of hit points and BryonD, in his statement, is agreeing with Pentius's interpretation that you could treat hit points as completely abstract in 3e, just like you can in 4e. There's nothing inherent in 3e that prevents you from playing [with completely abstract hit points] like you do in 4e. BryonD's point is that the same can't be said going the other direction. There are things in 4e (healing surges) that do prevent you from playing 4e (with mixed abstract/substantive wounds) the way you can play 3e.

None of that has anything to do with some competitive narrating of mechanics that are in one game but not the other.

 

[billd91]

However, my issue is that the idea of long term wounds is actually a pretty narrow corner case that's generally caused by the DM narrating himself into a corner.

I hope you don't think that's what "corner case" really means, because I've been finding your use of the term dubious in this thread. Is knocking a PC into negatives and seeing them healed partially back outside the normal parameters of operation in D&D? I don't think so.