Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Hussar]

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.

Can you give an example of how the narrative of a serious wound, that is not fatal, has been used in your game?

See, in my experience, the game presumes that the group has access to healing magic of some sort. So, in all the years I've played, serious wound has never really played much of an issue. Probably because we never worried too much about the healing times in 1e (heh ). But, even beyond 1e, since you almost always had a cleric in the group, "serious, potentially fatal wound" was never a narrative element.

See, I think your "gaping hole" is a very, very small corner case that almost never comes up in games. So far, we've seen exactly one example of narrative that is diffiucult to do in 4e - a bleeding head wound. If it was a "gaping hole" why aren't I getting buried in narratives?

Then again, "4e prevents me from using a small, corner case example of narrative" just doesn't have the same ring does it? Doesn't quite roll off the tongue. (and yes, that was meant as tongue in cheek, not snark)

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Can you give an example of how the narrative of a serious wound, that is not fatal, has been used in your game?

Several examples the first two being the most interesting but also most atypical:

- Primary one is my Kingmaker campaign where there is no PC cleric, with the only source of healing a Druid that will not choose all healing spells (and usually chooses none by playing his character in a "particular" way - that annoys one my players to no end because they think this character should be playing the healer when such a thing is just NOT what this PC does). There have been various situations where the primary fighter in the group went into the negatives or close to it without immediate magical healing available. Due to the expansive non-rushed nature of this sandbox campaign (and the fact that no one is that great at healing), the group has on several occasions chosen to "spend a week or so recuperating" before heading back out to the frontier. At low levels, those DC 15 heal checks are not that easy. Funnily enough, the narrative in this campaign has a real "wild west" feel to it with the lack of magical healing combined with low level really adding something special.

- I remember in a previous 3e campaign where the cleric died leaving a big gaping healing hole in an adventure where the group had to stop a very nasty ritual within a day. With several characters seriously injured, the rather significant decision to not continue and effectively "fail" was a crucial narrative tipping point and decision. While it made stopping the "bad guys" and their plans much more difficult, I think that particular one was actually really rewarding because of the struggle to eventually gain victory after a significant defeat. Certainly a case of a victory earned rather than a victory given.

- There is then of course the large number of times when a PC goes into the negatives and a very serious wound is described (that is usually quickly dealt with via magical healing). Despite the fact that magic is typically used and thus the "effect" of a serious wound is not felt; the description of a serious wound is still given (and would have been felt if no magical healing was available).

In practice though, I get your point that having a group stay on hold due to injury is far less likely than due to researching something or crafting MIs or general downtime. The fact that in 4e you can't go to that "serious wound" description however is significant (at least for some groups).

See, in my experience, the game presumes that the group has access to healing magic of some sort. So, in all the years I've played, serious wound has never really played much of an issue. Probably because we never worried too much about the healing times in 1e (heh ). But, even beyond 1e, since you almost always had a cleric in the group, "serious, potentially fatal wound" was never a narrative element.

Back in the day playing AD&D when I was a teenager at school, I think it fair to say that we too only used an "approximation" of the rules as written; and that our descriptions of such things were usually bizarre, impossible, psychotic or a mix of all three.

See, I think your "gaping hole" is a very, very small corner case that almost never comes up in games.

Playing 3e/Pathfinder, our group regularly describes serious wounding whenever a PC goes into the negatives. Going into the negatives equates to the "serious wound situation". I also think this is true for a lot of groups based on various posts on these boards over the years. Even if such narratives are quickly undone by magical healing, the descriptive "threat factor" is still there where as when playing 4e, we are generally more cautious just sticking to the numbers and the excitement they can generate (rolling that healing save on 2 strikes is always thrilling). Going into the negatives in 4e is not the cue required. Going into the negatives with "save strikes" and no surges left is. As you say though, in 4e this situation rarely occurs (mainly because it is usually easy to not get yourself into a low surge/low hp situation). Where as in 3.x/Pathfinder, going into the negatives (and thus describing a serious wound) is much more common.

So far, we've seen exactly one example of narrative that is diffiucult to do in 4e - a bleeding head wound. If it was a "gaping hole" why aren't I getting buried in narratives?

Because I don't think people care that much (except for imbeciles like me who have an axe to grind regarding damage and healing in D&D and who really want to see it fixed in 5e ). In addition, I would say for those that agree with my view, I have provided an un-countered specific example and an un-countered general situation explaining why the difference occurs (and perhaps because I play 3e/Pathfinder/4e and find fault with all of them in regards to damage and healing as well as mentioning incredibly easy fixes for it, my analysis is viewed as fair). As such, it is kind of like premise disproved, case closed, let's move on. Specific examples while interesting are never going to match the debating power of analysing the general situation and why the specifics occur rather than examination of just a handful of particulars.

Then again, "4e prevents me from using a small, corner case example of narrative" just doesn't have the same ring does it? Doesn't quite roll off the tongue. (and yes, that was meant as tongue in cheek, not snark)

Obviously no snark taken.
As I have shown, for groups with a similar style to mine, 4e forces you to pull back/change how we do things in terms of damage description producing a slightly unpalatable overall narrative lacking in a certain verisimilitude.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

Playing 3e/Pathfinder, our group regularly describes serious wounding whenever a PC goes into the negatives. Going into the negatives equates to the "serious wound situation". I also think this is true for a lot of groups based on various posts on these boards over the years. Even if such narratives are quickly undone by magical healing, the descriptive "threat factor" is still there where as when playing 4e, we are generally more cautious just sticking to the numbers and the excitement they can generate (rolling that healing save on 2 strikes is always thrilling). Going into the negatives in 4e is not the cue required. Going into the negatives with "save strikes" and no surges left is. As you say though, in 4e this situation rarely occurs (mainly because it is usually easy to not get yourself into a low surge/low hp situation). Where as in 3.x/Pathfinder, going into the negatives (and thus describing a serious wound) is much more common.

See, the problem I have here is that the serious wound description was rarely consistent with the rules. People just describe whatever wound knowing that it will be healed anyway.

I'm kinda looking at the big picture here. The narrative set we're talking about excludes any wound which doesn't actually drop the character - which is the majority of attacks and also does not outright kill the characters as well - since that's pretty easy to narrate too.

So, right off the bat, we're talking about some pretty specific corner cases. Add to that, the fact that "serious wounds" only matter in a game without access to healing magic and the narrative space gets even smaller. Add to that the fact that many of the descriptions of "serious wounds" are actually pretty vague and work in any edition and the space gets smaller still.

After all, "bleeding head wound" can be serious and fatal or it can also be a relatively minor scratch.

I guess, at the end of the day, it's the whole "It's such a radical change" bit that gets me. For most groups, I don't think they'd even notice the difference. It's not something that comes up all that often and, when it does, you can still use many of the same descriptions.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So, right off the bat, we're talking about some pretty specific corner cases.

I thought I pretty clearly showed that the "into the hp negatives" in 3e was common enough not to be unfairly titled a corner case, particular also because of the significance of such a situation when it happened. If left untended, such injuries were serious enough to be practically fatal (or even at best long terms affairs). As such, they are not the type of injuries that one could insta-heal from and thus the DM was encouraged to treat negative-hp-causing wounds in such a way. This is of course using 3e mechanics and the narrative it generally provided.

There are no similar mechanics in 4e and thus most likely why for many 4e players this does not come up and is simply not an issue and has never even been an issue when playing previous editions because their style of play didn't worry about such things anyway: DEFCON 1 as a prime example here. For others, it is an issue. Essentially thus it comes down to playstyle. You don't think it is an issue because it has zero effect on your gamestyle. Some do think it is an issue because it does impact their playstyle forcing them to change how they (not you) play the game (I look forward to hearing a multitude of complaints from you regarding Monte's 5e and the effect such rules may or may not have on your game). It is not a case of them (or possibly you in the future) playing the game wrong. It is a case of 4e not fully supporting how they play the game (and possibly 5e for you in the future).

This facet is obviously a crucial one of several that caused a large portion of players to feel that the new edition of D&D did not support their playstyle, while perhaps for an equal portion of players, they felt that finally D&D was actively supporting how they played the game (I'm thinking of you Pemerton). Hussar, you too are obviously on the latter side of the fence while I'm getting splinters sitting on the fence by playing and supporting both editions. I'd also like to think that I'm equally critical of all editions, despite the focus on this one particular issue. My motives in discussing such things are mainly to try and bash whichever D&D ruleset I'm discussing into some semblance of form that most keenly supports the way I play.

In truth, I think the majority of realisations in regards to this topic have been unearthed with hopefully some greater degree of clarity than what some might have had before entering the thread. Whatever the case, I think I've adequately explained my thoughts and thank you Hussar for the interesting discussion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

I thought I pretty clearly showed that the "into the hp negatives" in 3e was common enough not to be unfairly titled a corner case, particular also because of the significance of such a situation when it happened. If left untended, such injuries were serious enough to be practically fatal (or even at best long terms affairs). As such, they are not the type of injuries that one could insta-heal from and thus the DM was encouraged to treat negative-hp-causing wounds in such a way. This is of course using 3e mechanics and the narrative it generally provided.

I don't think it's unfair to call it a corner case. How often is this going to come up? Every combat? Every three combats? Every ten?

I doubt it's every combat, because PC's don't get knocked into negatives every combat (or at least IME).

Every session? I might buy that. Once a session someone goes down without being outright killed? I'd probably buy that, particularly in a combat heavy game. But, even if it's every session, and I think that's probably a pretty high level, there's still a fair selection of "serious" wounds that can be narrated vaguely enough that they could be fatal or not - again, the bleeding head wound example is pretty fair. It can go either way.

So, again, we're talking about a fairly small selection of events that are going to occur at a given table. It's not every narrative, of course, that cannot be used in either edition. It's only when you give some pretty specific narratives of fairly specific events.

As I said, I don't think it's unfair to call this a corner case. A group with no healer is a corner case right off the bat. It's certainly not presumed by the game and never has been. A group with no healer that gets into combat where a character is dropped to negatives but not killed is a smaller selection. It has to be. A group with no healer that gets into combat where a character is dropped to negatives but not killed and the wounding is narrated in such a way that days of rest can believably cure it is an even smaller selection.

How small is that selection? IMO, it's pretty small. IMO, it's small enough to be ignored when designing a game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dropping to negatives is a common enough event that i would like the rules to help me narrate it without interfering with my ability to do so. This may never be an issue for you, but plenty of posters here have stated it is for them. Healing surges are something people often complain about, so I don't think this is the corner case you think it is. Also we are talking about one aspect of the problem: seroius wounds. I think most healing surge critics find self healing or healing when the warlord shouts a battle cry inherently disruptive to their experience of the game. Obviously not everyone feels this way. Plenty of folk prefer healing surges, but I would absolutely regard the mechanic as controvertial.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I don't think it's unfair to call it a corner case. How often is this going to come up? Every combat? Every three combats? Every ten?

I doubt it's every combat, because PC's don't get knocked into negatives every combat (or at least IME).

In 3E, I felt that when I was DMing a game, if I didn't knock at least a few PCs into negatives and/or kill them each combat, I wasn't doing my job in challenging them enough. At lower levels, they had access to Close Wounds (immediate action to cast and insta-heal up even killing damage) and at mid levels, they had Revivify and psionic Revivify to cast/manifest. Not to mention Contingency spells/items. Edited to add: I should qualify that by saying I had a big group of 8 players and 2-3 NPC companions/followers. Added again: in the penultimate combat of the campaign, the party's dwarf fighter died 3 times in that single combat. He was able to get a Revivify and a Psionic Revivify, and then later a Resurrection once the combat was finished after his third death.

In 4E, it normally is not once per combat because 4E is designed more for several waves of combat. However, it is pretty common in my games to see one or two PCs go below zero each session.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?

I don't deal with 'serious injuries'... because the GAME CONVENTIONS that are put into place to make the game actually work as a game... result in the avatars taking TOO MANY 'serious injuries' to make ANY narrative sense.

A D&D character on its journey from levels 1 to 30 will probably drop below 0 hit points dozens (if not multiple dozens) of times on its way. And to think that anyone could sustain THAT MANY agonizing, painful, and potentially deadly injuries (even if they get magically healed away) without suffering at the very least severe psychological issues is completely ridiculous. Game conventions ask us to just handwave away the pain and suffering a PC endures when they get mauled by a bear or engulfed in a dragon's fiery breath.

And whereas most people's narratives would be "Hey, I just fell into a pit of acid and felt the undescribeable agony of almost my entire body melting away... now that this nice priest has healed my physical wounds, I still have extreme mental wounds of that experience and I think I'm just going to go home and get a job at the stables so I NEVER have to feel something like that again."... any GAME avatar's narrative is "Eh... so ten minutes ago I got to watch as my entrails fell out of my abdomen and landed in a pile on the floor due to that orc slicing me open with a greatsword. So what? I took a HEALING POTION! I've completely FORGOT about all that, cause I FEEL GREAT! So let's move onto the next room with the giant swinging scythe pendulums! No big deal at all!" And that happens OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER ad nauseum through all 30 levels. What kind of NARRATIVE is that?!?

THAT'S why I find trying to make "narrative sense" out of ANY PART of game combat is a futile effort. I don't find it at all possible without handwaving parts of it away. And at that point... if I'm suspending my disbelief on one part and handwaving it away... what right do I have to get mad AT THE GAME because I refuse to suspend my disbelief at another part?

Obviously there are plenty of you out there who do. But I just fail to sympathize with you because I find the whole argument kind of silly. D&D's narrative (and indeed almost any game's narrative) for combat is extremely light. And to try and make it any more than that is to close your eyes to it.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I don't think it's particularly the same, other than that the timing issues share some similarity. To my perception, reordering combat due to interrupts seems different than taking an action on your turn that negates the validity of a previously described action.

The 4e conundrum (such as it is) goes like this:

DM: The orc's attack gashes you across the abdomen for 27 damage!
Player1: Ahh, I'm down to -7! I'm bleeding out! I need help!
DM: Mwahaahaa! The axe blow is making your guts out onto the stony ground!
Player2 (a warlord): No, you will not die! I use my Valorous Cry (or some other warlord power) to allow Player1 to spend a healing surge.
DM: Ok, Player1, you're back at 22 HP.
Player1: So are my guts still hanging out?
DM: Yes, but you're so bad-ass you just don't care. The warlord has inspired you to press on.
Player1: Bwuh? (Player1 immediately uses smartphone to make a post about lack of realism in 4e).

The problem is, many players believe that negative HPs are debilitating injuries, and no amount of inspiration is going to make you get up from that. So the 4e healing that is based on "action movie physics" simply doesn't work for them. Ergo, you can't narrate attacks in 4e as being debilitating, which leads to a narrowing of the narrative space.

Having all healing be magical healing allows gruesome injuries to occur with frequency because you can maintain a feeling of "reality" (without magic, injuries don't heal for a few days) without the actual drawbacks of not having healing (wait, we have to wait 2 weeks before we can adventure).

 

[NewJeffCT]

The problem is, many players believe that negative HPs are debilitating injuries, and no amount of inspiration is going to make you get up from that. So the 4e healing that is based on "action movie physics" simply doesn't work for them. Ergo, you can't narrate attacks in 4e as being debilitating, which leads to a narrowing of the narrative space.

Having all healing be magical healing allows gruesome injuries to occur with frequency because you can maintain a feeling of "reality" (without magic, injuries don't heal for a few days) without the actual drawbacks of not having healing (wait, we have to wait 2 weeks before we can adventure).

So, insta-healing via divine magic or psionics is okay, but healing via primal magic (like a shaman) or martial magic (like a warlord) is not.

The description of Martial power source in the 4E PHB says it is not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. (my emphases)