Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[TwoSix]

A few points.

1) 4e combat is easier to narrate "realistically" if you follow this course of action:
-Roll monster damage -> Check PC's HP total -> Narrate the attack
as opposed to:
-Roll monster damage -> narrate attack -> Check PC's HP total.
Prior to 4e, I used the latter path, and pretty quickly switched to the former when I learned 4e. The 3.5 table I play at still uses the latter method.

2) I think the system assumptions of 3.5 (that magical healing is always available and cheap) allow DMs to play fast and loose with narration, because there's no incentive to maintain any sort of realistic feel to injury. You can describe blows cleaving through armor and breaking ribs, or blood pouring out of multiple axe cuts because that damage is going to disappear in the next 6 sec to 2 min, thanks to the cleric and wands.

In 4e, it's dangerous to describe someone taking a dagger to the gut because it's very likely that they'll use second wind to "heal." It's a D&D genre assumption that an adventurer can still fight with multiple stab wounds, but not that stab wounds will instantly close up with an exertion of true grit. As 4e DMs, we know that full HP but -1 healing surge is a damaged state that can be narrated as a dagger wound. But for many players, full HP = no injuries, full stop. This slaughtering of a sacred cow causes a cognitive dissonance even for people who like other aspects of 4e.

 

[Mark CMG]

A few points.

1) 4e combat is easier to narrate "realistically" if you follow this course of action:
-Roll monster damage -> Check PC's HP total -> Narrate the attack
as opposed to:
-Roll monster damage -> narrate attack -> Check PC's HP total.
Prior to 4e, I used the latter path, and pretty quickly switched to the former when I learned 4e. The 3.5 table I play at still uses the latter method.

2) I think the system assumptions of 3.5 (that magical healing is always available and cheap) allow DMs to play fast and loose with narration, because there's no incentive to maintain any sort of realistic feel to injury. You can describe blows cleaving through armor and breaking ribs, or blood pouring out of multiple axe cuts because that damage is going to disappear in the next 6 sec to 2 min, thanks to the cleric and wands.

In 4e, it's dangerous to describe someone taking a dagger to the gut because it's very likely that they'll use second wind to "heal." It's a D&D genre assumption that an adventurer can still fight with multiple stab wounds, but not that stab wounds will instantly close up with an exertion of true grit. As 4e DMs, we know that full HP but -1 healing surge is a damaged state that can be narrated as a dagger wound. But for many players, full HP = no injuries, full stop. This slaughtering of a sacred cow causes a cognitive dissonance even for people who like other aspects of 4e.

Won't damage also "disappear in the next 6 sec to 2 min" in 4E for someone with immediate self-healing but access to healing from other PCs and items?

 

[TwoSix]

Won't damage also "disappear in the next 6 sec to 2 min" in 4E for someone with immediate self-healing but access to healing from other PCs and items?

Of course. It's not a problem for 3e because it always disappears due to magic, which is much easier to rationalize than "It disappeared because I'm awesome." or "It disappeared because it was never actually there in the first place", which can be tough to avoid in 4e.

 

[Mark CMG]

Of course. It's not a problem for 3e because it always disappears due to magic, which is much easier to rationalize than "It disappeared because I'm awesome." or "It disappeared because it was never actually there in the first place", which can be tough to avoid in 4e.

I think I see what you are saying. Essentially, the same narrative difficulties exist in 4E that existed in 3.XE but now there is an additional narrative hurdle (which you have found a way to avoid as described above)?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Easy peasy.

"The troll rears back and whallops the fighter... who falls to the ground stunned and in pain... staring up into the roof of the cavern unable to take any action as the fight continues around him.

Eighteen seconds later, the fighter gets trod upon by the troll and dies from the killing blow."

Many would not appreciate as you later explain the troll treading upon the PC (particularly if the troll is not near the PC). However, you could come up with several narratives that could alternatively explain the mechanical third fail (you go to get up rupturing your vitals and instantly die or if "assisted" by a fellow PC, you could describe them moving you or "healing" you such that what was left of your life unfortunately evaporates). But this is not the problem (you could equally describe a similar narrative under 3.x rules as the PC hits -10 or negative con score in Pathfinder).

There ya go. Fighter stunned... unable to act for less than thirty seconds as he's tired, worn out, perhaps a bit loopy. But after a few minutes he'll regain his bearings and gets back up to continue the adventure... except that the troll killed him.

The negative hp situation in 4e as you have described it is somewhat analogous to having the stunned condition in 3.x. It is something that if the PC recovers from, that they'll be back in the action acting at capacity. However, what situation in 4e rules is analogous to hitting the negatives in 3.x? How do you sustain a "serious" wound in 4e and how is it mechanically supported? RAW there isn't one.

The "killing blow"? Failed third save and the PC's dead... but HOW it's narrated doesn't matter. So during the fight the troll found a way to deliver a killing blow to the fighter.

As I described above, you don't even need the action of the troll to do this (although if the troll is adjacent to the PC then obviously you can legitimately narrate it that way). In 4e there is no problem in describing a stunning blow that the PC recovers from, nor is their narrative difficulty in turning that into a fatality. Where there is difficulty is in describing a wound that a PC could not reasonably insta-recover from but that does not kill them. Do you agree?

And since D&D combat is not representational of everything that happens in combat but merely highlighted actions (which is why things like facing and such are not used in the game and its assumed the everyone is constantly moving around)... there's no complaining that the troll didn't use an "action" to deliver the killing blow. The killing blow is assumed to have been done somehow upon the failed third save.

Some players really don't dig this style of play though. If an action is significant enough to kill a PC, it is most likely one that should be highlighted by a specific action (even if only a minor one). Others don't mind the DM playing around with the narrative in this way. To each their own.

The thing is, it is really easy to modify the 4e system to incorporate serious wounds. You could have two styles of serious wound:
- [Serious]The PC can spend healing surges as per usual, but they don't get any back until they have either made a number of daily constitution checks or an ally has made a number of daily heal checks. {The number here perhaps being 3 and the DC being difficult} This leads to a situation where the PC could be up and about but in a bad way (minimal surges left).
- [Mortal (Really Serious)]The PC cannot use their healing surges. They must make a number of very difficult daily constitution checks (or allies daily heal checks) with any fail resulting in the loss of a healing surge and a "failed" save. {Again the number here is perhaps 3 daily checks} Upon success, their mortal wound is instead miraculously recovered from and becomes a serious wound. This leads to a situation where the PC does not regain normal consciousness for a number of days and could easily die in this time, and when they are finally up and about, they are not at full capacity for a further period of time.

With such a change, the narrative space for 4e opens up, the spectrum of potential damage narratives is unbroken and you have an overall narrative space broader than that of 3.x RAW.

The central issue here perhaps is that the a large section of players don't want to have to deal with serious wounding that takes a PC potentially out of the action for a period of time greater than a day.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[DEFCON 1]

How do you sustain a "serious" wound in 4e and how is it mechanically supported? RAW there isn't one.

Well, as I mentioned in the other thread... I find 'serious wounds' in roleplaying games to be narrative dead-ends regardless, and don't use them at all anyway. So I don't have to find reasons to mechanically support them.

That's why my answer to the question works. If the only actual serious injury you sustain is upon that third failed death save... you never have to worry about trying to recover (either by the day or by the week... both of which are narratively kind of ridiculous.)

 

[NewJeffCT]

Of course. It's not a problem for 3e because it always disappears due to magic, which is much easier to rationalize than "It disappeared because I'm awesome." or "It disappeared because it was never actually there in the first place", which can be tough to avoid in 4e.

Is the damage never happened like a 3E cleric casting Close Wounds as an immediate action to interrupt damage? Or, a 3E psion manifesting Empty Mind that allows him to make a save he normally would not have made? I mean, Empty Mind is basically a "never fail my will save" power since you can use it as an interrupt and can put enough power points into it as you have levels to keep upping to save bonus.

 

[Hussar]

1. The troll's claws scrape across your wrist, opening up an artery. 15' spurts of blood jet out from the arm with each pump of your heart. You go down.

2. The troll pummels your head. Things go black, along with a trickle of blood coming out of your nose and eyes. There may be internal bleeding. It could be mitigated, perhaps by some repositioning, stuffing gauze into your nose, or some other factor.

Well, in the first case, the character is going to die. End of story. There's no recovery from that, certainly not on your own, so, it fails the criteria I set in the OP. Remember, this has to be a survivable wound. Opening an artery with blood fountaining out - quite a feat for a wrist wound - is a lethal wound.

In the second one, well, we've already had that. A bleeding head wound. Might be fatal, might not.

Now, my question would be, how does anyone know that there is internal bleeding? The dying character doesn't know, he's dying and drooling on the floor. The other characters, without a pretty careful examination, can't know (and, honestly, unless they've got one HELL of a healing skill, they probably still wouldn't know). So, what's with the Omniscient Narrator?

Oh, and where does one get gauze in D&D?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How do you sustain a "serious" wound in 4e and how is it mechanically supported? RAW there isn't one.

Well, as I mentioned in the other thread... I find 'serious wounds' in roleplaying games to be narrative dead-ends regardless, and don't use them at all anyway. So I don't have to find reasons to mechanically support them.

That's fine for your space of the D&D multiverse where serious wounds don't occur but what about for those of us where serious wounds are a narratively expected part of adventuring. Where if they do not occur here and there, there is a disconnect between what we expect should occasionally happen but mechanically never does?

For myself serious wounds are a way of introducing narrative failure and repercussions, that don't involve the far more serious ramifications of PC death. As such, I think they become an important part of the narrative and are most certainly NOT a dead end for my group. Personally I would find a world without the capacity for serious injuries to be one rather limited - and obviously I'm rather curious on how you deal with this? For example I imagine as a result of this difference between our perspectives, I expect my view on resurrections is more than likely more restrictive than yours, even in 4e play. If not, this would be a further curiosity worth exploring.

That's why my answer to the question works. If the only actual serious injury you sustain is upon that third failed death save... you never have to worry about trying to recover (either by the day or by the week... both of which are narratively kind of ridiculous.)

And thus there is a gaping hole in the spectrum of possible narratives, Hussar's original premise is disproved, you don't mind because it does not affect your style of play, but for everyone else, this still remains a mechanical issue that needs to be plugged (and most likely should have been plugged, and if it had have been plugged might have seen far less dissent from many who did not grok this crucial element of play in 4e that could have been pretty cool for EVERYONE but simply stated is not).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Oh, and where does one get gauze in D&D?

Bandages I suppose must suffice. And how does one apply it through a heal check as a standard action? Again a huge fail for 3e healing (but successfully incorporated into 4e through warlord style "healing"). We commonly joke that the successful standard action healing event is akin to the "prod the not moving PC with the foot" while saying "he'll be OK in a minute".

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise